The federal law, Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes. DOMA passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming majorities (342 – 67 in the House of Representatives, and 85 – 14 in the Senate) and was signed by President Clinton in 1996. It went into effect in September 1996. Under DOMA, no U.S. state or political subdivision is obliged to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
Unremarkably, DOMA merely recognizes that states have the residual sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. Thus, it merely affirms the constitutional principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the individual states by the Constitution are reserved to the individual States or the people.
Of course, over the years, former President Clinton and other legislators changed their views, and many have urged DOMA’s repeal. At this time, the likelihood of repeal in the Congress is low, and so politicians have sought cover from the vocal homosexual lobby by relying upon the federal courts to overturn DOMA. Numerous plaintiffs have sought to invalidate DOMA, and in recent days, a federal appeals court in Manhattan has become the second in the nation to strike down DOMA as unconstitutional, finding it discriminates against homosexuals and “violates equal protection” under the law.
The case, Windsor v. U.S., deals with a surviving same-sex spouse’s inheritance from her deceased spouse that had been subject to federal taxation as if they were unmarried. The appellate court found homosexuals to be a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially among those who enter same-sex marriages. Further, the court of appeals found that, because homosexuals have historically endured persecution and discrimination in our society, and remain a politically weakened minority, DOMA is unconstitutional.
Of course, one can certainly argue with the assumptions and analysis of the appellate court, but writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter interestingly notes that the majority opinion was written by a George H. W. Bush appointee, and the dissenting opinion was written by a Clinton appointee. Given that different reasons have been cited for overturning DOMA, the Supreme Court will add this to a growing list of DOMA cases that will eventually be decided by them.
You will recall the Obama Regime announced in 2011 that it had determined DOMA was unconstitutional, and so would no longer defend DOMA in court. In response, the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives instructed the House General Counsel to defend DOMA in court in place of the Department of Justice. Of course, the 2011 decision by the Obama Regime not to defend DOMA in court goes against the President’s oath of office, but that is a minor detail under this Regime. We will see how the Supreme Court will view DOMA in the near term. After all, as has been noted by many, elections do have consequences.
This is one huge reason that Obama has lost credibility as a president. He has outright refused to do the very job he campaigned for and has even changed the office of the president. I have no problem with him disagreeing with DOMA, but he was not elected to dictatorially dismiss facets of his job and passionately spearhead what he likes. Hopefully, someone will get elected that will bring integrity to the office of president. Is that person even going to be on the ticket?
BCody, I guess until our Lord Himself is on the ballot, it will always be a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. But we still have a God-given obligation as citizens to choose those candidates whose views and life is in closest approximation to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1) The Obama administration is not a “regime” — Obama was elected. If you want your blog to be a blatant piece of political propaganda, that’s fine, but don’t try pass it off as a religious or Christian blog.
2) The president’s oath of office states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Obama administration’s decision not to enforce a law that it believes to be unconstitutional clearly falls under this oath.
What the Obama administration has done by refusing to enforce a *LAW* is unjust and disqualifies Obama from the office of the president. Here’s a simple example: If a police officer refuses to enforce laws, that is unjust and the police officer is held accountable for it. End of discussion. This is not a country where we just pick and choose what we want to enforce…like our laws are menu items at Burger King.
Margaret, you might not like Michael’s use of the term regime for Obama’s governance, but Michael’s use of the term is proper and correct. To educate you on the use of the term, the three pertinent definitions used by Merriam-Webster to define the word regime is as “a form of government,” or a “government in power,” or “a period of rule.” Each of those definitions certainly apply to these last four wretched years under Obama. The truth shall make you free, but first, it will make you very uncomfortable, Margaret!
“Regime” has strong emotional connotations. It is not merely a substitute for “administration”. To use it for a democratically elected president and his administration lacks both charity and understanding. It is very obviously and childishly intended to be tendentious, which detracts from this blog as a supposedly religious forum.
Should not Christians be speaking truth to power? To those like you, Margaret, who march lockstep with Obama, the truth will make you uncomfortable as noted above. The use of the term “Regime” is correct as many of us have great emotional aversion to this government, and feel great disgust for Obama and his Regime, whom we consider the worst president since Carter. At least Carter meant well, though was a fool. Few of us have confidence in the intentions of Obama.
Regime is an absurd term to use. It’s this sort of ridiculous rhetoric that has caused this blog to degenerate into partisan political propaganda. It has less and less to do with actual religion.
Miriam writes: “But we still have a God-given obligation as citizens to choose those candidates whose views and life is in closest approximation to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Luke 14:33 (Phi) “Only the man who says goodbye to all his possessions can be my disciple.”
Matthew 25:31-46 “The righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
James 1:27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Mark 10: 25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”"
Jer 5:27-29 (NIV) …”They have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek… they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?” declares the Lord.
Luke 16:19-31 ““There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’”
Harsh words for most of us, I think. Yet, if you were to listen to any candidate for the GOP, one might think that there was some inherent virtue in being rich and that poverty and/or misfortune was necessarily a sign of poor character.
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.” —Mitt Romney (January 2012)
James Michels, What do you think about tithing? Is tithing, in your view, normative for Christians or is it hortatory? Can a man be rich and not be greedy? Or can a person be poor and greedy?
If one of the candidates would make a gesture that at least seemed motivated by a genuine desire to personally do something about the injustice they claim is going on in our country, I would probably vote for that candidate without batting an eyelid.
Margaret, I just wonder whether you would make the same argument if a future president decides that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are unconstitutional, and refuses to enforce (and defend) challenges in court? Or that this hypothetical future regime or administration would determine that an unborn baby is alive and worthy of protection for her civil rights because they would be capable of suffering pain from the abortion. Thus, under the future hypothetical regime that was elected, the president decided that the punishment for abortion would be incarceration and fines for both the physician, operating room staff, and the parents. Would that be consistent with the presidential oath of office as you read it? Do you really think that allowing the president the leeway to pick and choose which laws he/she would enforce the best solution to these constitutional issues? Or whether this hypothetical future regime were to impeach and remove federal judges for decisions that they deemed outside of the norms of the constitution? Just asking.
Lisa, the president is bound to enforce the constitution — not an individual law. If a president and his administration believed any law to be unconstitutional, then he is bound to put the constitution first. This distinction highlights Avramovich’s ignorance of the oath of office.
The president is not above the law. This is elementary, Margaret. Your refusal to understand this is why your suggestions are wrong.
By the way, since when did the Obama regime care about the constitutionality of their agenda? (simply rhetorical…your input not needed)
Very Nixonian constitutional analysis. Margaret! Perhaps you studied Constitutional Law at U of Chicago law school with a mere lecturer??
Calling a fairly elected US administration a “regime”, as though its something like the Saddam regime in Iraq is definitely pretty stupid. Yes, I know the election is only weeks away and emotions are running high, but c’mon guys. Do you want to talk about Christianity or hold an anti-Obama hatefest?
Are you suggesting, Chris, that we cannot discuss whether Obama and his lackeys were appropriate in failng to defend DOMA? Remember, this was a law that passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. What if a future president decides that Justice
Roberts was wrong and will not enforce Obamacare as the future administration or even regime deems Obamacare unconstitutional. After all, Obamacare passed with far fewer votes and no bipartisan support. So, it has far weaker status and less authority than DOMA. What about that, Chris? And why this obsession with Avramovich using the term regime, which is, as noted above, perfectly appropriate, even if gets your stuff in a wad.
Thank you, Miranda. Excellent point about Obamacare and its constitutionality. Regarding “regime”: It seems that freedom of speech has taken a back seat to the offended person’s wrongly presumed right to not be offended. “Regime” is a perfectly appropriate and acceptable term.
Miranda and BCody, my issue is with the use of the term “regime”. By using this, the author shows himself to be a histrionic and irrational partisan, rather than a theologian of any kind. As someone else said, this blog is clearly an outlet for partisan propaganda rather than thoughtful Christianity, which is probably why so few people bother to comment here anymore.
Why aren’t people allowed to speak their minds in your opinion? I do think that you are the one overreacting to the term “regime.” Avramovich did not make any stated reference to Saddam. That was your assumption. And I am not saying all this to scare you away from honest discussion…
By the way, participating in elections and debating in the public square is a very Christian way of living in our culture.
Great Point, BCody! Chris and Margaret, if you don’t like what Avramovich writes, either contact the editor of Mere Comments, or simply change channel!