Obama in Court: Same-Sex Marriage Equal to Incest, Child Marriage

Posted by Jean Poole Views Friday, June 12th, 2009

In a court brief filed in Federal court today, the Obama administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act, equating homosexuality to incest and child marriage. Sounds like a change Fundamentalists can believe in!

In 2007 and during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Fundamentalists across this great nation were horrified by Barack Obama’s professed stance against the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex “marriage” from another state:

August 10, 2007: ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., succeeds in repealing the entire Defense of Marriage Act, the recognition of same-sex marriage is more likely to spread from state to state, according to a leading conservative constitutional law expert.
“Certainly, I think it would be fair to say that it would be more likely for a court decision to impose the recognition of same-sex marriage from Massachusetts on another state in the event of the repeal of D.O.M.A.,” Pepperdine Law Prof. Douglas Kmiec told ABC News.
Kmiec, a former constitutional legal counsel for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, offered his assessment after the Obama campaign confirmed for ABC News that the Democratic presidential hopeful supports the full repeal of the D.O.M.A. legislation which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1996.
“He supports the complete repeal of D.O.M.A. which is the same position he has held since early 2004,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News.

Well, finally Obama has brought some change Fundamentalist Christians can believe in!

Proponents of church-state separation all over the Internets are up in arms:

Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).
And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.”

As for the brief? Here are the cases cited to support the Defense of Marriage Act: Two marriages of underage children, and one incestuous marriage.

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

But that’s not all! Obama’s lawyers claim that denying gay marriage also saves money! Also from the brief:

If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.”

Let’s not forget what Fundamentalist Christians have said all along, now agreed to by the Obama administration. Gay people are entitled to all the benefits of marriage . . . all they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex!

Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.

You can read this Godly court brief in full here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

The folks at Irregular Times share our concerns:

Obama’s lawyers equate same-sex marriage with child marriage and incest between cousins. They say that the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t deny anyone’s right to equality under the law, because it gives the states the option of whether to respect those rights. They even argue that there’s no discrimination against same sex couples anyway, because homosexuals have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.
…
I also cannot conclude that Obama’s arguments in this case are an anomaly. I remember Obama’s embrace of anti-gay bigot Donnie McClurkin. I remember Rick Warren. Obama has a long history now of embracing those who hate gays and lesbians.

We remember, too! In fact, Rick Warren was featured a few months back when we asked if Fundamentalists should support Obama! (Our answer was “yes”.)

Fundamentalists worry that Obama may be a Marxist who is singlehandedly turning the United States into a socialist ghetto. They need to wake up and smell the coffee . . . he pays attention to what’s really important, preventing homosexuals from attaining equality! Glory!

What, isn’t that the most important thing for Fundamentalists?