“Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.”
Those living the homosexual lifestyle have been desiring to raise children for some time, without bothering to think about having children the way God has provided, or to recognize marriage for what it is, an institution created by God for one man, one woman, one lifetime (Genesis 3, Matthew 19). They are endeavoring to adopt children to teach them their view of sexuality, which is basically about their own selfish pleasure and refusal to acknowledge and/or follow God’s plan for man and woman (Romans 1:24-32). Quashing this law would make adopting children much easier, and this is a disturbing turn of events when the Chief Executive officer encourages the whole country to ignore the essence of a law enacted by Congress and supported by the majority of people in the United States.
In creating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Congress carefully constructed a constitutional document, which has stood the test of public support, courtroom victory and time. See the link for Paul Benjamin Linton’s letter containing the procedure for its construction and a candid assessment of the “heightened scrutiny” of which the President and Eric Holder have spoken, toward the end of this article.
When the building of any piece of legislation is considered in Congress, senators and representatives must first examine the legislation for which they are representing the people to determine at the outset its reasonableness and constitutionality; this is not something done after the fact, but before. When a President makes a statement regarding a law that he is signing, he may make a signing statement about his doubts concerning its constitutionality whether in whole or in part, and his willingness to defend it on that basis.
Ignoring a law is something no one has the right to do, let alone the President, who has sworn to uphold the laws of the land (unless it can be shown that a particular law would deprive a person of safety, food, shelter or life without due process); but you will hear this from pro-abortion politicians: they will tell you that even though they oppose abortion personally, they must uphold the laws of the land.
To prevent legislating from the bench and the Oval Office, checks and balances were placed in our system of government, employing legislative, executive and judicial branches, all with separate duties that do not (or have not been intended to) have the power to unilaterally legislate, but each observes legislation enacted either through voting directly (as in a proposition) or through duly elected representation in Congress.
Let’s continue to pray for our country and its leaders.
Obama and Biden expressed the belief when they were running that instead of the government, religious institutions should define marriage. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Joe_Biden_Civil_Rights.htm
Their statement seems to disregard the way our government actually functions. The mainstream view of religious institutions has already been voiced, many times, in propositions and laws made regarding marriage, in both state and federal lawbooks.
On the surface, their campaign statement seems to indicate that they believe the mainstream view of religious institutions should be the rule for allowing legal marriages by the government, but that would mean voting, in this country, and they seem also to forget that voting has already taken place.
Their statement can also be taken to mean they do not want the government, which, as Abraham Lincoln reminded us, is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” to reflect what the public has already defined marriage to be. Perhaps they might prefer a different system of government. Perhaps they are attempting to grab power, or make a group of people happy in order to get votes in an attempt to be reelected.
Further, Obama and Biden (reference above “www.ontheissues.org” link) said in 2008 that they supported the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only:
OBAMA: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.” — Saddleback Presidential Forum, August 17, 2008
while Biden had voted for DOMA in 1996 ; but Obama went from supporting DOMA in 2004 to calling it “abhorrent” in a letter to gay activists (http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018) and was fully supporting its repeal at that time.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment to the Constitution basically structures the government so that no established religion governs or controls it, and it does not control any established religion, allowing the people to still vote their conscience in regard to anything, including their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
The majority have spoken, but where there is no sense of fairness or objectivity, there is no satisfaction with it, and no willingness to submit to the laws of the land in spirit; simply a desire to pick apart the letter of the law, taking it out of its context, in order to satisfy personal whims and/or those who insist on foisting their minority paradigm upon the whole country.
It boils down to whether people think anyone is above the law, and/or individual or minority preferences should prevail in a democratic republic, where the majority rules. I guess that is why since Roe vs. Wade, the most notable example of the following, more judges have thought they have the right to legislate from their judging bench, instead of applying the law in the spirit in which it has been enacted. The following link is to a letter by Paul Benjamin Linton, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, in response to the President’s decision and the letter by Eric Holder from the Department of Justice:
Even though these statements have been issued by the White House and Department of Justice, the DOJ still defended the DOMA in court:
Also, a professing Christian would observe the laws of the land (as directed in Romans 13); Obama has called himself a Christian.
Any thoughts about this issue?