President Obama Endorsed Respect for Marriage Act

by Joe Mirabella

There are more than 1,000 federal rights and responsibilities gays and lesbians do not have access to because of DOMA. Thousands of legally married gays and lesbians throughout the country are taxed differently, are denied social security survivor benefits, and same-sex spouses of military personal will not receive the same death benefits of straight spouses when their loved ones die in combat. Rick Jacobs, Chair of the Courage Campaign said in a statement, "We are delighted that today, on the eve of a historic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, President Obama endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act," Jacobs said. "It is rare that a White House endorses a bill that has yet to pass first in either the Senate or the House. President Obamas decision to do so underscores the urgency with which the Defense of Marriage Act must be repealed. His support makes clear to all Americans that the Defense of Marriage Act has no place in our society." The Human Rights Campaign campaign said in a statement, "We thank the President for his support of the Respect for Marriage Act. He has repeatedly expressed his desire to see the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his Justice Department has taken the historic step of ending its defense of that odious law in court. By supporting this legislation, the President continues to demonstrate his commitment to ending federal discrimination against tens of thousands of lawfully married same-sex couples." Tobias Wolf, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, told Change.org, "President Obama has been calling upon Congress to repeal DOMA since he first became President. He has done so at least three times in the last two and a half years, from the White House and in front of TV cameras (in both the Oval Office and the East Room)," he said. "Endorsing this repeal legislation, and doing so at this early point in its journey through Congress, is another major step for which the President deserves enthusiastic praise." On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary committee will hear testimony about the impact of DOMA on the lives of gays and lesbians for the first time ever. GLAD publicly released DOMA Stories: How Federal Marriage Discrimination Hurts American Families and will share these stories with the Judiciary committee. Dozens of petitions on Change.org call for the repeal of DOMA, and for laws giving gays and lesbians the right to marry in states throughout the country. CREDO's Change.org petition calls upon congress to pass the respect for marriage act. Currently CREDO's petition has more than 3,500 signatures. While the Respect for Marriage Act has 27 co-sponsors, not a single member of the Republican party has endorsed the bill. Last week former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN he thinks the Republican presidential candidates should, "get the heck out of people's bedrooms." "We'd be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots," Giuliani said. The lack of Republican support has not cooled enthusiasm from Diane Feinstein (D-CA), a lead cosponsor of the bill, and one of only 14 senators to vote against DOMA. Feinstein told reporters on Tuesday, "If we don't succeed this session, we will try again next session," she said. "Believe me, we will continue this effort until the battle is won."

The Argument Against Gay Marriages

By Eddie Thompson

(The burden of proof should fall to the homosexual lobby to change the historical and traditional idea of marriage. The author defends restricting gay marriages.) We are bombarded by questions pouring from television commentators, gay activists, politicians, and liberal-minded publications: Dont gay and lesbians deserve equal rights under the law? Why should we care what happens between consenting adults? If it doesnt take anything away from others, why not allow for gay marriages? For some reason we never hear answers from those who conclude that homosexual unions should not be given the sacred stamp of marriage. Many are ambivalent or fashionably tolerant for fear of being labeled ultra-conservative. Let me attempt to answer those questions. First, gay and lesbians already possess rights equally protected under the law. They have the exact rights that I have today. They can marry a member of the opposite sex if they so choose, just like I have done. I can't marry a member of my own sex, even if I wanted to. So, we have the exact same rights. What is being suggested by the gay agenda is not "equal rights" but "extra rights." They want to be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage without actually marrying in its traditional sense. There are many wonderful people who choose to remain single for myriad reasons, and these people are not clamoring for the rights granted to couples who marry. Why should those who refuse traditional marriage be granted such rights simply because they prefer sex with someone whose anatomy resembles their own? In fact, most of the so-called rights married couples have can be obtained through a lawyers legal maneuvers. What if they achieve this marital status? Does anyone really believe that it will stop there? Any heterosexual buddies could take the opportunity to garner for themselves incentives and privileges intended to support the traditional family structure by which our society survives. Make no mistake; there is a deeper agenda at work here, even if all gay and lesbians are not aware of it. Secondly, consenting adults can do many things, but there are some actions restricted even to consenting adults. Concerning marriage, we conclude as a society that incest is harmful and thus refuse to allow family members to intermarry. Also, we conclude that polygamy is harmful and restrict Mormons and Muslims from marrying more than one consenting adult at a time. We have age requirements on marriages as well. There are reasons we place restrictions on marriage. Homosexuals have never received marital status in the history of mankind until recently. There is a reason for that. It is not productive to continue to shred the fabric of our society. The burden of proof for changing historys traditional marriage should fall upon the supporters of the homosexual agenda. I have heard of no compelling reasons that suggest homosexual marriages are necessary to the well-being of our society. Finally, the agenda pushed by the gay lobby encourages behavior deemed unacceptable by every major religion, by the vast majority of our society, and by natures evolutionary track itself. They already have the right to participate in aberrant behavior, but that isnt enough. They want us to validate something we consider wicked. Where are the defenders of the law who claimed Alabamas Chief Justice Roy Moore must be fired for defying the law through civil disobedience when he placed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Where is the uproar for the firing of San Franciscos Mayor Gavin Newsom for defying the law by granting marriage certificates to homosexual couples? There wont be one. The double standard against Christianity in the public square will be ignored by most, but we should not succumb to those who mock our faith. If homosexuals win this issue politically, the victory will be hollow for them and harmful to our society. The truth of the matter is marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and nothing man does can ever really change that.

YES
Marriage is about love/commitment; gays qualify Marriage is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death. This is what is heard in all wedding vows. Civil marriage vows emphasize love and commitment. Reproduction and child-rearing are not mentioned, nor is the sexual orientation of individuals. And, wedding vows, being the essential element of a wedding ceremony, should be seen as the most authoritative expression of what defines marriage. Gays can clearly qualify for marriage according to these vows, and any definition of marriage deduced from these vows. Procreation is no prerequisite for marriage and excluding gays "Religion & Ethics - Same-Sex Marriage: Procreation." BBC. February 24th, 2007: "society does not insist that those who want to marry demonstrate that they can and will have children: 1. heterosexuals who cannot have children are allowed to marry. 2. heterosexuals who don't want to have children are allowed to marry. 3. heterosexuals who don't want to have sex are allowed to marry (although the partners must have agreed to this before marriage). 4. heterosexuals who can't have sex because one partner is in prison for life are allowed to marry. 5. heterosexuals can use technical assistance to have children. 6. same-sex couples can have children using the same methods." Vows are about love, not reproduction; gays qualify The Standard Civil Ceremony is as follows: "[Name], I take you to be my lawfully wedded [husband/wife]. Before these witnesses I vow to love you and care for you as long as we both shall live. I take you, with all of your faults and strengths, as I offer myself to you with my faults and strengths. I will help you when you need help, and will turn to you when I need help. I choose you as the person with whom I will spend my life." The emphasis is squarely on commitment and love, and has nothing to do with reproduction and starting a family. On this core, clearly gays qualify for marriage, because they can love and commit to each other. Argument: Marriage is a sign of affection and a symbol of further closeness and intimacy among two people. It shows love. As long as the two people have strong feelings for each other and wish to legitimize their relationship, why not? Sex and reproduction takes place in and out of marriages, just that only child born within a marriage is a legitimate child. However, who said marriage is for reproduction? Are you going to ban all couples from getting married if they don't want children? Already the world's population is increasing at very high rates. There is no need to reproduce like flowers as required in the 20th century when growth was the most important. Please, move on to the 21st century. Gay marriage discrimination lacks compelling state interest "Let them wed." Economist. January 4th, 1996: "Barring a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. [...] One objection is simply that both would-be spouses are of the same sex. That is no answer; it merely repeats the question. Perhaps, then, once homosexuals can marry, marital anarchy will follow? That might be true if homosexual unions were arbitrary configurations, mere parodies of real marriage. But the truth is that countless homosexual couples, especially lesbian ones, have shown that they are as capable of fidelity, responsibility and devotion as are heterosexual couplesand this despite having to keep their unions secret, at least until recently. Would gay marriage weaken the standard variety? There is little reason to think so. Indeed, the opposite seems at least as likely: permitting gay marriage could reaffirm society's hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions." Religious arguments are unacceptable on civil gay marriages "The case for gay marriage" The Economist. February 26th, 2007: "It is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends [that aim to ban gay marriage].". Gay marriage is a civil, not religious, issue Andrew Sullivan. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Time. June 22, 2003: "As for religious objections, it's important to remember that the issue here is not religious. It's civil. Various religious groups can choose to endorse same-sex marriage or not as they see fit. Their freedom of conscience is as vital as gays' freedom to be treated equally under the civil law. And there's no real reason that the two cannot coexist." Many faith groups welcome gay marriage. The Pagan religion Wicca, for example, has "hand-fasting" which is equivalent to a wedding, and which does not exclude homosexuals. There are other examples of religions that accept homosexual marriage. Therefore, we need to look at everyone and not just one religion. Bible does not explicitly define marriage b/w man and woman Lisa Miller. "Our Mutual Joy." Newsweek. December 6th, 2008: "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman."

NO
Marriage can evolve, but only in context of man and woman Margaret A. Somerville. "The case against "Same-sex marriage." Marriage Institute. April 29, 2003: "One argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that the culture of

marriage has changed over the years and that recognizing same-sex marriage is just another change. A common example given is the change in the status of the woman partner, in that marriage is now seen as a union of equals. But that change goes to a collateral feature of marriage, not its essential nature or essence as recognizing same-sex marriage would. In short, these two changes are not analogous; rather, they are fundamentally different in kind." Marriage is not about love, but starting family Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "Jonathan Rauch, in his recent book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, defines marriage as essentially a legally enforced, longterm relation of mutual aid and support between two sexual partners. Marriage, he says, "is putting one person ahead of all others." According to Rauch, "if marriage means anything at all," it is knowing "that there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line." We can here leave aside how odd this definition will sound to any married couple with young children, partners whose first responsibility is not obviously spousal." Gays have no right to marry; neither do incestuous Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing." Gays can have stable relationships w/o marriage Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today." Legalizing gay marriage will incite attacks on Churches If gay marriages are sanctioned, religious organizations that dont allow homosexual marriages and dont recognize gay marriage as legitimate will come under attack for their beliefs and when preaching the bible. It may even come that preaching the bible and the same religion the United States was built upon, will be unconstitutional, charged with hate crimes. The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage The Catholic Church is the most prominent of Christian institutions. The Vatican's opposition to gay marriage carries significant weight against the notion of gay marriage. Acceptance of gay marriage should not be imposed on citizens Susan Shell. "The liberal case against gay marriage." Public Interest. Summer, 2004: "That liberal sword cuts both ways [...] American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. [...] To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it."