ADVERTISEMENT

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA, Holder said in his statement:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

I’m not sure I can say anything that I haven’t already said before.  It’s not a surprise.  President Barack Obama’s “personal belief” that marriage is between one man and one woman that he expressed during 2008 was a sham.  He thinks when life begins was above his pay grade, but evidently has no problem deciding on the definition of marriage.

Since he believes section 3 of DOMA applied to legally married same-sex couples, what does he think about a federal judge’s ruling that California’s constitution was unconstitutional?  Hmm….

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
2 comments
  1. Good to hear. Why shouldn’t duly-married couples be recognzied as such by the federal government?

    I have long thought Obama’s statement of his belief that marriage was only between a man and a woman was simply for the campaign, given that he claimed he supported same-sex marriage back in the 1990s.

    However, personal beliefs are not always good public policy. What would you think of a Jewish or Muslim legislator seeking to enact a ban on the sale of pork?

    I’m not sure where you are going with your last paragraph, Shane. Provisions of state constitutions can be found unconstitutional based on the US Constitution. Alabama has a constitutional requirement that schools be racially segregated, but it is unenforceable given Brown v. Board of Education.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

GOP Rift Occurs Over Ryan-Murray Budget Deal

Washington, DC – The budget deal crafted by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)…

Sequestration: Cuts We Can’t Afford

President Obama said in the last debate that sequestration will not happen which contradicts plans by the Administration to make numerous defense cuts.

Chris Matthews Setting New Lows For Journalists Everywhere

You can’t expect unbiased coverage on MSNBC of President Obama’s speech on…

If You Write It, You Should Put Your Name On It

Congressman David Young (R-IA): We need to create a culture of accountability and put a face on the regulations coming out of Washington.