Comments about ‘President Obama supports expected Senate, House bills seeking repeal of Defense of Marriage Act’

Thank goodness we have a Republican majority in the House. The repeal of DOMA is really about shoring up the Democrats' & Obama's base while he tries to be more centrist since loosing the House to Republicans.

"Winkler wrote, "if a President Palin points to Obama's decision...." Well then, there is nothing to be worried about.
In a more serious note, it will be interesting to watch and see what happens with DOMA. Of course, I hope it is repealed,However, our elected officials most time act for political gain than for doing what is right. On the other hand, 55% of people 30 and under support marriage equality. Perhaps, our politicians will like to invest in the future and repeal this discriminatory and repugnant law. Democrats should repeal it because is an equality issue and Republicans should repeal it because a repeal would produce less government in our private lives.

Love him or hate him, you really need to see Rush Limbaugh's take on this. He makes a very valid point.

["Don't be surprised," Winkler wrote, "if a President Palin points to Obama's decision when announcing her refusal to enforce and defend the landmark healthcare reform law because, in her view, the individual mandate is unconstitutional."]

I wouldn't be surprised because that total lack of knowledge is fitting for Palin. DOMA is still enforced, why is everyone saying otherwise?

Obama's previous support of DOMA was the one thing I respected about him.

Puny man tries to rise up against what God has long established as the only divinely recognized marital union. This nation was founded on divine laws and principles, and it will never fail because a few turn their hearts from God. History teaches that God has spoken before, and he will speak again to the unbelieving hearts.

I have no problem with DOMA disappearing and the issue of marriage being left to the states, because it will end up that many states will disagree. We're already there! The federal government will have to step in because it will become so messy with different laws in different states that once again it will have to be decided by the Supreme Court as to whether it is constitutional or not. Then it will be decided as a civil rights issue just like all the issues before it. It's just a matter of time before gay people will acheive equality. Feel it's a sin and an abomination to your God all you want, but when you get down to the nitty gritty.....they are basically just people wanting equal rights and privileges the same as heterosexuals....nothing more....nothing less!

DOMA is all about leaving marriage to the States. It simply says two things:

1-No State is forced to recognize as a valid marriage a same sex union granted a license in another State. If a State wants to recognize the union it may. It it doesn't want to recognize the union, they are free to refrain from doing so.

2-That for purposes of federal law, marriage is one man and one woman. This seems eminently sensible at this time. Some 40 States have Constitutionally defined marriage as one man and one woman. Several others have so defined marriage by statute. Only three States and one Indian Tribe grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. A couple of others recognize as marriages such unions licensed elsewhere. A few more grant some form of civil union. But the VAST MAJORITY of our States have spoken loudly and clearly: Marriage is a man and a woman. The federal government should reflect that overwhelming consensus.

No one should be mistreated for being homosexual or even being involved in a homosexual relationship among consenting adults.

But government is under no obligation to reward or recognize such relationships.

DOMA has already been found unconstitutional in federal cases. The lack of support for something that PREVENTS the recognition of marriage across state lines for gay marriage...

while ensuring legal recognition across all 50 states for straight marriage...

is truly what sets a bad precedent for America.

A 'state' issue would not have federal recognition. As such, marriage stopped being a religious issue the SECOND it started to get federal tax credits.

Oh, and FYI...

Maryland now allows gay marriage.

"Only three States "

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire.

Oh and in Maryland it passed a senate vote today, it's expected to pass soon and the governor will sign it.

The law should die.

I hate the application of the word "marriage" to these types of contracts. I think marriage should have remained a religious word rather than a secular one.

But as far as the government is concerned, "marriage" is merely a contract and it is the government's business to protect them, not forbid them. Man is free to contract as he sees fit. Any gov't interference is tyranny.

I do worry for insurance companies, however. One of government's favorite pass times is to bully insurance companies. I fear this step will lead to further gov't bullying as they force insurance companies to insure homosexual couples even if the insurance company would prefer not to.

I find it incongruous that those who want government out of the bedroom and not protecting certain relationships in the same breath want the government to claim a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual and, therefore, able to claim all the benefits granted by federal law to married couples. I also find it odd that some claim homosexual relationships are equal in all the capacities of a heterosexual one. Only a heterosexual union can reproduce our species. To say otherwise is biologically indefensible. Heterosexual relationships, especially those resulting in a committed marriage, deserve special treatment, as it is the natural, sustainable, and only way our species reproduces. Every human being has a biological father and mother and deserves the benefit of that relationship.

"Puny man tries to rise up against what God has long established as the only divinely recognized marital union."

Under the rights afforded tome in the Constitution, I refuse to believe in your "God". I am not bound by "His" rules.

DADT and DOMA are wrong. I will be glad to see them go.
It is time to end the denial of equal protection to gays.
Being gay and living gay is not inherently wrong.

re: OregonMan 9:55
Friend, wouldn't you agree that Federal and State law should provide all citizens with the same rights? You are making a distinction between Homosexual and Heterosexual couples, what is the difference in their contribution to society? you already gave us the answer:"Children". Well, many homosexual couples-and the number increases daily-are raising children, some, children of one of the partners and other couples raise adopted children.
Now, would be interesting to ask, where do the adopted children come from? Were they not born to heterosexual parents? the answer is Yes! What happened to their parents? answer: death, abuse, abandonment, drugs, etc. etc. It seems to me that the heterosexual community has shown it cannot protect and raise "all" children.
Your comment also begs the question: Why a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have children should enjoy "more" protection and benefits than a homosexual couple that is raising children?
But as we all know, children are only one part of the equation. The most important part should be equality and fairness under the law, that automatically will take care of the children. No special rights, just the same rights!

Sshwa
As before,those who are not obedient to his rules will not be given his protection in his day of visitation. Good luck!

The trickle down effect of any action can be seen with the willingness to simply look down the road ahead. Only those who doggedly endulge the selfish attitude of living for now and refusing that look down the road cannot see the potential for disaster the effort to force the govenment sanction of gay marriage can bring.

It is foohardy to say, "That will never happen", when reference to polyamory, brother sister and parent child relationship are made. It is also hypocritical to demand procecution of polygamous relationships while demanding legalization od marriage between other than between a man and a woman.

Even if you leave God and ""trendy morality out of the equation, setting precedent for the trickle down potential of legalization of "gay" marriage is a dangerous slope. Too many here say, "Give me what I want. It hurts no one else else." They are the ones with their heads in the sand, not those seeking to defend "straight" marriage.

They will scream and howl, but it the same as a child who rolls on the floor in a tantrum because his mommy won't let it have everything it craves.

The second sentence of the article reads, "his administration would no longer defend in court" DOMA. The last I checked the administrative branch of the government does NOT defend in court...that is the Judicial Branch's responsibility. And no other branch can tell another branch what and what not to do or how to run their branch.

"Every human being has a biological father and mother and deserves the benefit of that relationship." Such denial is risky at best.

Man must not mess with God's laws with out his wrath, plain and simple.

Oh, the days of Rome are visiting us with the moral decline and the laws being proposed to override what God hath spoken. HE means what he said.

There is an accountability that is being overlooked in all this hullabaloo.

The house should remove from the DOJ's budget any funds they need to spend in defense of DOMA.

Whether the DOJ agrees with DOMA or not, it is their DUTY to defend federal laws in court.