Posted under Politics & Sovereignty and Secession
And I agree.
Here’s what he said:
President Barack Obama on Monday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gays and lesbians … “The Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged,” the president said in a written statement. “This brief makes clear, however, that my administration believes that the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress.”
I hope — and pray — that the Democratic majority repeals the act. Here’s why:
The law, passed by Congress in 1996, denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages, thereby banning federal spousal benefits to those in such unions. It also allows states that prohibit same-sex marriages to deny recognition of such unions granted in other states.
Catch that? The DOMA “allows states” to prohibit “same-sex marriages.” Just where in the Constitution do the sovereign States delegate regulation of marriage to the Federal government? That’s the problem with this act — it assumes that ultimate sovereignty resides in the District of Corruption, and thus implies that all the rights the people of the States enjoy can be snatched away at DC’s whim.
Let Obama and the liberals in both Big-Government parties repeal DOMA. With the popular mood still red hot from the health care protests, the backlash to DC’s de facto legalization of “same-sex marriage” in conservative States will be swift and decisive, with more “Sovereignty Resolutions” passed in response. This will ignite the afterburners of the incipient rebellion against DC’s New Reconstruction, and the New American Revolution will have begun.
Steve Ryker on 18 Aug 2009 at 5:43 am #
I don’t agree “philosophically” with your DOMA position, as “defending marriage” is fundamental to the literal life and well-being of human society. BUT, that said . . .
I DO agree with your position politically. I believe your analysis is right – it would do a wonderful job of “driving the wedge” even deeper between the competing CIVILIZATIONS we now have IN this thing (falsely) called ‘The United States’, and might well give good impetus to breaking-up this Totalitarian Monstrosity (that it has ALWAYS been, from the beginning).
I’ll have to grit my teeth, but OK – so be it. I want this System of Evil, By Evil and For Evil to collapse as soon as possible. The only, and truly frightening, question is, “Will we be ready?” I just don’t know. LOOK at what’s going on – our children (those UNDER 30), esp. young females (see links below), HATE US – HATE THE “WHITE RACE.” They want us DEAD. Can there be ANY hope for a future in such a situation?
See: http://www.vdare.com/yeagley/090210_white.htm
http://www.badeagle.com/2001/05/18/whats-up-with-white-women/
HarrisonBergeron2 on 18 Aug 2009 at 12:48 pm #
Steve Ryker,
Yes, the present system is sniggeringly evil, spreading chaos at home and abroad, murdering thousands to prop up dictators all around the world, while robbing the middle class for the benefit of the wealthy elite in the name of the poor.
Fortunately, it is self-imploding. If we can just give a little nudge here and there …
roho on 18 Aug 2009 at 1:57 pm #
My 20 year old second cousin, used the word “Holocaust” three times within a 10 minute conversation the other day. I asked her why? She said that she was researching the “Holocaust”? (Without a computer.)…………….In otherwords, she was researching on the phone with friends!……………I will be introducing her to “Historical Revisionism”. ;]
HarrisonBergeron2 on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:59 pm #
roho,
OhmyGod! I was like — whoa! Like these guys, you know, did this stuff? And it was like, wow! To all these people?
Stonewall on 19 Aug 2009 at 4:47 am #
Actually, DOMA is perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. When they passed DOMA, Congress was simply using its legislative authority under Article IV, Section 1, clause 2 which allows them to deal with the whole “full faith and credit” issue addressed in clause 1. If DOMA is repealed, then clause 1 immediately kicks in and therefore same-sex “marriage” is constitutionally *forced* upon every state in the Union.
Is that really what we want? I’m all for state sovereignty, but the states are also under a covenantal obligation to abide by the stipulations (i.e. the Constitution) of this federal compact. Like it or not, full faith and credit happens to be one of those stipulations. DOMA was crafted to be a compromise to allow for state sovereignty on this question, not to negate it.
Steve Ryker on 21 Aug 2009 at 4:51 am #
Stonewall:
I’m withya, man. However, there is a problem with DoMA.
First off, Art. IV, Sec.1, cl.2 states: “And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” I’m sorry to say, but this is ONLY procedural, not in any way SUBSTANTIAL. It does NOT give any power or authority to DETERMINE those “acts, records and proceedings,” only HOW they “shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Granted, the very last phrase is an open-ended cannon, that could be “interpreted” in the proverbial “million ways,” BUT ANY “interpretation” would have to include and involve ALL of the Article, ALL of the Section, and indeed ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION. And, it pertains to STATE LAWS, i.e. the “federal effect” of State laws, and in no way involves or refers to FEDERAL laws. And there’s the rub: WHERE, please show me, does the Constitution give the Central gov’t. ANY power or authority to prescribe the FUNDAMENTAL MORAL LAW, TO ANY STATE, LET ALONE ALL? I’m sorry to say that for our position, it simply doesn’t.
One of the greatest weaknesses – I believe a fatal weakness – is that there is absolutely NO REFERENCE to the underlying, fundamental bases and underpinnings of life, our civilizational foundations, or either upon what, or Whom, they both rest and depend. The Constitution is literally “lost in space” in regard to such things. Apparently, The Founders took such matters “for granted”, quite literally presuppositionally, and failed to make ANY reference to ultimate, fundamental “foundations,” including ANY for HOW to INTEPRET the Constitution, or (and this has proved to literally fatal to it) HOW and upon what guidelines the Constitution SHOULD BE INTERPRETED, ESP. BY THE COURTS. “Least dangerous branch” indeed.