Business & Lobbying

Video
THE HILL
 
comment
Print

Stop legislation to repeal DOMA (Rep. Paul Broun)

By Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) - 09/15/09 02:45 PM ET

Today, I was extremely disappointed to see my liberal colleagues introduce legislation to repeal the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA was signed into law 13 years ago by a Democratic President because lawmakers began to see the assault on traditional marriage.  Over a decade later, traditional marriage – a principle tenant in our Judeo-Christian values - is under assault more than ever before. 

 There have been consistent attempts by judges to overturn state law and thwart the will of the people.  This judicial power grab, seen most recently in Iowa, will be even more detrimental if DOMA is repealed and this power grab is expanded for federal recognition.


I urge the Speaker not to bring any legislation to the floor that will repeal DOMA and instead consider my Marriage Protection Amendment so that the American people and their elected officials determine the law of the land – not activist liberal judges.  


Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/58843-stop-legislation-to-repeal-doma-rep-paul-broun
The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.

Comments (18)

Are you serious? Marriage is a cultural institution. The fact that marriage is recognized by the law at all is more evidence of the true goal of the 'defense of marriage' act, that is, to legislate Christianity. I, and other true Americans will be damned before we let this nation fall into theocracy. Re-read the 2nd Amendment. Considering that, 'legal' marriage is technically unconstitutiona l, no matter the gender of the parties involved, nor what affiliation the celebrant. Why do legislators like you hate Freedom so much?BY Philo on 09/15/2009 at 16:37
I completely agree Philo. The oped piece is just another example of some overly zealous ignorant american trying to legislate the lives and choices of others. Judeo-christian my ass…this country was founded on SECULAR ENLIGHTENED VALUES. Further, the word god was onyl added to our money and pledge of alleigence during the 20TH CENTURY!!!. Why doesn't the author learn to live in a world with many different people and stop trying to legislate peoples personal lives. We have a right to equal protection, and the DOMA is a clear violation of that. I hope this guy gets voted out of office.BY tenaxproposit on 09/15/2009 at 17:52
Because of DoMA, married couples in several states are not recognized by the federal government. That means no access to some 1,200 benefits of marriage like Social Security survivors' benefits, filing joint federal tax returns, sponsoring your spouse for immigration, etc. This is blatantly unfair.I understand that social conservatives are concerned about ensuring that their states rights are preserved and do not want one state to "impose" anything on another, or "export" gay marriage. But that's just what they from Section 2 of DoMA, which says that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.The one part of DoMA that could be repealed without infringing on states rights or "exporting" gay marriage is Section 3, which prevents the federal government from recognizing and granting hundreds of federal rights to legally married same-sex couples in six states.I think that's a solid argument: if your state does not allow gay marriage, fine, but if my state has decided to give out marriage licenses to gay couples, then we deserve all rights conferred by marriage (and that includes state AND federal rights like survivor's benefits, joint federal tax filing, immigration sponsorship, etc). Repealing Section 3 should be the priority. I see no compelling social conservative argument against repealing Section 3 —other than the fear that, by granting them the same federal (and not just state) rights of marriage, gay Americans will be seen as perfectly normal by more and more of their fellow country men and women. But really, if you are against repealing Section 3 of DoMA because you are against increased social acceptance of loving gay and lesbian couples, are you just being homophobic?BY Al on 09/16/2009 at 01:26
Once again, an elected someone wants to shove their superstitions down my throat and use that to take away my constitutional rights. I am neither Judeo nor Christian and, in fact, I reject all religions. I have been an Athiest in a Foxhole, I pay my taxes, I obey the laws of our land, and I respect the principles that formed the foundation of this nation. Those principles did not include god or other superstitions. Credit to Wikipedia, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.Advocates of the separation of church and state claim[17 that this text constitutes evidence that the United States Government was not founded on the Christian religion. The Senate's ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 votes taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent."I think it's way past time that we get religion out of politics. In the US it's used for only one thing and that's to divide us.BY Mike on 09/16/2009 at 05:51
An "assault on marriage"? Can you be serious? I have been married for 20 years. I have four wonderful children. No one got in my way. I entered into that institution without any trouble and have never been threatened by any sense of an assault. I suppose if you want to protect marriage you should start with legislation that makes it illegal for elected members of Congress to engage in adultery. While I disagree with the very notion, I find it odd that the Congress seems to be doing more damage to marriage than those other groups that they seem to be afraid of.BY Mike on 09/16/2009 at 05:59
This is just another example of the "Party of No" trying to stop change. Every freedom we have, cherish, and value is due to progressive activists, who fought ignorance and religious extremism. Go back to Georgia, Mr. Brown. Your hatred is not welcome elsewhere.BY Eric on 09/16/2009 at 06:43
If Mr. Broun is truly concerned about "protecting" marriage, then perhaps he'd like to make divorce illegal and re-introduce the practice of stoning adulterers. With a struggling economy, health reform, and two wars, any legislator who spends time energy taking away the rights of others should have his pay reduced.Perhaps Mr. Broun's time might be spent on remedial vocabulary lessons, since he is unclear on the difference between tenants and tenets…BY Kelly Raskauskas on 09/16/2009 at 06:46
Is this a liberal paper? Because all these comments attached to this article are hate liberal comments.BY Metroid on 09/16/2009 at 09:35
Metroid: I was surprised to see so many comments opposed to Rep Broun's Blog as well. "Opposition" however, is not a synonym for "hate." True, some of the comments are spirited and a few start to cross the line, but if you actually read what tenaxproposit and Mike (particularly his second comment) write, you'll see some excellent points. Independent of the visceral issues this topic usually brings up, keeping the government out of people's personal lives has traditionally been a conservative position. So, "hate liberal" comments actually isn't what I see here at all. I see Americans who think DOMA was a misguided political action that is long overdue for repeal. And frankly, I agree.BY Sidwell on 09/16/2009 at 11:22
In most of the above comments, I hear the heterophobes, who jump in at any attempt to thwart their schemes to "game" the system by attacking any value system that favors traditional marriage over homosexual mating. Heterophobes aside, we ARE a secular Christian country, a fact dating back to our founding fathers, many of whom preached and instituted religious tolerance into our laws, and our Christian ethics are an integral what has made us a great and often altruistic nation. I have long proposed a Constitutional amendment declaring the USA to be just that, a secular Christian nation, to protect our traditions but also to protect us from the inroads of Sharia' law: it is coming to the USA, not through persuasion, but under imminent threats of terrorism with which America will be forced to compromise. After seeing what a relatively small number of vociferous homosexuals have done to our traditional values—their infiltration into media, entertainment and even the nation's schools, even K-12, we should not be surprised at what an even smaller number of dedicated terrorists can accomplish, especially in a nation whose citizens have lost their way and turned their backs on the kind of traditional values that make a nation strong. If we believe in nothing, teach our children no common ethics, how can we resist an assault on our nation. Obama has already declared that we are not a Christian nation, making it obilgatory for dedicated or true liberals to oppose Christianity, which seems borne out by the comments by others above. But the last time I observed, half the country is still conservative, dedicated to tradional American values, and most polls I have read support opposition to non-traditional marriage. Past time for that amendment!BY ctr on 09/16/2009 at 13:45

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion
View News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure

Most Popular Stories
Most Viewed
Obama accused of doing favors for allyJesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man'Sen. Wyden wins big healthcare concessionReid reaches 60 as Sen. Lincoln pledges vote to begin healthcare bill debateMcConnell: Dems have health bill votes, but Republicans won’t give up fight
Emailed
Obama accused of doing favors for allyJesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man'Report: ACORN got $200,000 in Justice Department fundsSen. Wyden wins big healthcare concessionEthics Committee chides Burris for misleading statements on appointment
Discussed
Obama accused of doing favors for allyJesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man'Reid reaches 60 as Sen. Lincoln pledges vote to begin healthcare bill debateMcConnell: Dems have health bill votes, but Republicans won’t give up fightSen. Reid: Opposition to health procedural vote is 'Orwellian'
Home/News » Most Viewed RSS Feed »
bloglogo

Briefing Room


More Briefing Room »

Congress Blog


More Congress Blog »

Pundits Blog


More Pundits Blog »

Twitter Room


More Twitter Room »

Hillicon Valley


More Hillicon Valley »

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.