Tuesday, March 3, 2009

GLAD Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government

Here’s another update from our friends at The Family Leader Network.

Handful of same-sex couples attack federal Defense of Marriage Act passed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans

A lawsuit was filed yesterday with the federal District Court in Boston that seeks to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

The suit addresses the use of DOMA Section 3, which makes clear that spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees' and retirees' benefits, and in the issuance of passports are reserved for married couples only.

The plaintiffs in the suit are eight homosexual couples who say they are "married" and three individuals whose homosexual partners have passed away.

The suit was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

"Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?"

  • 45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
  • All 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
  • DOMA passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.

"None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit," Raum explained. "They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?"

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins expressed concerns that the Obama administration's Department of Justice would not suitably defend DOMA against the lawsuit, given Obama's personal position in favor of repealing the law.

"We advise the Obama Administration to fulfill its constitutional duties and defend DOMA energetically and competently. We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions," said Perkins.

My question is why are these people filing a lawsuit now? Where were they in 1996 when this was signed into law? The majority of America feels that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s the way it needs to stay.


Anonymous said...

Great info. I hadn't heard these statistics before. It irritates me how homosexuals just keep ignoring the facts and statistics. I completely agree with you. Where were these people filing this suit 12 years ago? Maybe they think that they some how have more support now, although I don't think the have more support, I think that the gays are just being more "in our face" then they used to be, as they push forward with their plans to infiltrate America with their agenda to destroy marriages and families. Great post!

Heather said...

I definitely agree that the gays are more "in our face." I also wonder if being gay (or a gay activist) is the new fad. The media isn't helping any either, only showing pro-same sex stories. The stats are out there that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in marriage. It's time to stop being ignored!

Anonymous said...

The marriage defense act is unconstitutional. Let me explain. To get a marriage license, you have to ask permission from the state and pay a fee. Which is unconstitutional. You should not have to ask the state for a marriage license only to register your marriage. Pres. Washington did not have a marriage license. They were created from racism. To deny mixed marriage couples and blacks from getting married. It appears that your situation applies. I'm a constitutionalist. I don't care about your personal reasons because all social, economic issues are local. Don’t you think it would be much easier to change the local government? You can get in their faces.

Your challenge should be to get the federal government out of your life. The SSN card is unconstitutional. It gives you a tracking number which the feds use to confiscate your income. This in turn causes people to be a servant to the government. It’s a violation of 13th amendment. It also violates article one of the constitution. Congress is not allowed to apply a direct tax unless it’s apportioned. The income tax violates that limit on Congress.

If your concern is entitlements, then each state should decide how they collect and spend money. The constitution does not limit the power of the state except in some cases. The federal government has spent all of your social security money to fund wars, and influence foreign governments. The dollar is worth 5 cents because that’s how much it cost to print. It’s the feds that’s the problem states are the solution.



Anonymous said...

In our family we've decided that our voices can't be heard with just our votes. We're becoming more and more active in political arenas. More and more because the more I learn, the more I see needs to be done. How could we have been so blind for so long?

Chino Blanco said...

Matthew Holland, Mormon scion, has quit the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) board.