Mark Levin – and more – on the Defense of Marriage Act

Mark Levin sets President Obama and the liberal left straight in one minute. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does not do what President Obama wants you to think. The left wants you to think DOMA stops states from allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but that is completely false.

Levin can explain it much better than me.

[audio: https://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/20110225-levin-doma.mp3]

From Wikipedia, with my emphasis in bold.

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3). It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities.

Again, the president seems to think he’s the one sole individual who can determine what is Constitutional.

According to the President, the act signed by Bill Clinton is unconstitutional, and he’s ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to stop defending it in court cases.   Holder has agreed and will cease defense of the law, which states marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yes – this is a regime. Stop telling me I’m ratcheting up the rhetoric.

8 replies
  1. djt
    djt says:

    Actually, the problem the administration has is with section 3-marriage defined as between a man and woman. Eric Holder's letter to Boehner regarding this decision no to defend Doma makes no mention of states reciprocity (section 2). Perhaps there was commentary regarding section 2 this week, but it seems that Levin is actually commenting on something he didn't actually read. the text of the Holder letter here:
    http://conservativedispatch.org/justice/2011/02/2

  2. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    "Under heightened scrutiny", Obama might be found to lack a birth cert, he might be found to have a checkered past which would preclude him from being either a secret service agent or mall cop, and wouldn't you just love to read his college writings?   And of these legal gymnastics for gay marriage- why doesn't Obama do some gymnastics on cutting federal spending?  Oh, and the shared sacrifice unions held a rally at the state capital building yesterday; their mantra, "Tax the Rich!"

  3. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    This is arrogance and disrespect by both Obama and Holder !!   OMG !!

    To forgo the rule of law strikes at the core of what makes America what is is.

    And from the Supreme Court….. crickets … unless the media is shutting them out.

    Every unchallenged act of arrogance emboldens them more.

    It was reported that Gahdafi kept power by pitting the Libyan tribes against each other.

    Does not the US do the same by pitting party against party, white against black,, class warfare?

    State government and unions fighting while the Feds take more away.

    I see the price of red herrings going up.  This will not do.

  4. Don Lombardo
    Don Lombardo says:

    DOMA unconstitutional – oh – like Obamacare. We now have ONE branch of government – Obama has declared Congress and the Supreme Court unconstitutional. No wonder Hugo Chavez likes this guy.

  5. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    As shamed and convicted former federal judge Alcee Hastings once said about rules, "we just make 'em up as we go along".

     

    He'd know.

  6. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    Doesn't anybody here have a problem with the federal government defining marriage in the first place? Why is this not a point of outrage?

  7. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    @HamHocks: You totally miss the point. Many states – by referendum – rejected gay marriage by a 2 to 1 margin. Activists went to friendly courts to push the issue and in some cases won. Then the states demand other states "accept" it. That's when the federal govt. stepped in.

  8. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    No, I get what's being said here. I'm just staying with the belief that we shouldn't have the federal government involved in defining marriage (between adults) at all. If we want them out of our wallets and out of our business, we should absolutely want them out of our bedrooms. I understand that the DOMA doesn't prevent gays from marrying but, to me, it's a wolf in the hen house that we may regret letting in.

     

     

     

     

     

Comments are closed.