Traditional marriage is discriminatory, DOMA opponents charge

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 19

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

Washington D.C., Sep 16, 2009 / 03:34 am (CNA).- Charging that the traditional definition of marriage is “discriminatory,” U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has announced that he will reintroduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One critic of the measure is warning that it will lead to discrimation against those who support marriage between a man and a woman.

DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes and protects states that do not recognize same-sex “marriage” from being forced to do so. The Act was passed in 1996 by a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives of 342-67 and in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85-14.

A September 15 statement from Rep. Nadler’s office characterized the legislation as one of the United States’ “most discriminatory laws,” accusing DOMA of singling out “legally married” same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment and denying them “critical” federal responsibilities and rights such as Social Security.

In its place, Rep. Nadler and 91 co-sponsors have proposed a “Respect for Marriage Act.” Rep. Nadler’s office said the act would repeal DOMA “in its entirety” but would only pertain to the recognition of marriage for the purposes of federal law.

It claims that marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state. However, it also claims to restore a historical approach of states determining whether to recognize a marriage under the principles of “comity” and “Full Faith and Credit.”

DOMA was passed in part because of concerns the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution would force states to recognize homosexual “marriages” contracted in states which recognize the unions.

“In support of families throughout the nation, our legislation will extend to same-sex, legally married couples the same federal rights and recognition now offered to heterosexual married couples, nothing more, nothing less,” argued Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Co-Chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.

She said the repeal of DOMA was “a necessary step toward full equality for LGBT Americans.”

Rep. Nadler’s office said the legislation had been written with the cooperation of LGBT and civil rights “stakeholders and legislators.” The statement also noted that President Barack Obama has endorsed the repeal of DOMA on the grounds it is discriminatory and interferes with states’ rights.

However, a statement from the National Organization of Women criticized the Obama administration, saying the administration “strongly denounced and defended” DOMA.

“Rep. Nadler is doing what the Obama administration has failed to do: take a hard line on DOMA and say discrimination and bigotry do not belong in the law,” said NOW Executive Vice President Bonnie Grabenhofer.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), criticized the effort to repeal DOMA.

“The citizens of 39 states have worked hard to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman,” she said. “DOMA ensures the integrity of our constitutional system and the will of Americans. DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.”

Wright remarked that the Defense of Marriage Act anticipated the “assault” that “homosexual activists” would inflict upon marriage, saying that the legislation honored “the will of the people.”

Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Public Policy at CWA, charged that homosexual activists and their congressional allies are making the “outrageous claim” that protecting marriage is a form of discrimination.

Rendall asserted that overturning marriage laws will result in “reverse discrimination” against those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Comments: 19

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Matt K
Baltimore, MD 09/30/2009 07:10 AM EST

Louis, You contend that homosexuality is not an immutable trait and therefore are not deserving of rights afforded to other catagories of people, such as religion, which if you didn't know is not an immutable trait. You are not an expert on psychiatric science, because if you were, you'd know the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation an immutable trait.

Published by: Gnosis Merci
Portland, Oregon, USA 09/17/2009 06:54 PM EST

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Having lost the divorce battle the next frontal attack to protect marriage is to stand against the ability for people who really want to be married from being able to do so? Wow! Now, read this again and repeat.

Published by: William James, PhD
Sacramento/CA/USA 09/17/2009 06:25 PM EST

All definitions discriminate between what a word means and does not mean. Would Rep. Nadler have us outlaw all definitions, or just the ones he does not like?

Published by: Louis
Singpore 09/17/2009 06:08 PM EST

Matt, You believe DOMA is discriminatory because its application is applied on a circumstance which is immutable. However, I strongly disagree with your contention that the circumstance is immutable, as there is nothing that has been discovered within the human genome which would indicate that homosexuality is indeed immutable. Further, all laws discriminate, but it depends to what degree. There are laws which discriminate based on age, life style choices, etc. and these are done to benefit the society as a whole. In regard to your comments about the nature of the family, it seems that you have gone into a rave on population control. Nevertheless, homosexual marriage would not be answer to the numbers of unwanted or abused children. The answer to that lies in education and economic progression. As far as the requisite of couples being able to produce children, almost every heterosexual marriage has the potential to produce offspring; hence, be life giving and advance the population to a new generation. The same cannot be said for homosexual marriage. It would be in itself self-serving. There is never a possibility within that marriage to produce offspring and would always require external factors for this to ever occur. Further, there is no proof that a homosexual environment would be any more stable than a heterosexual environment; rather the opposite seems to exist. Just remember as you observe heterosexual that we are a larger sample set so mistakes are easier to see

Published by: andrew
OR 09/17/2009 12:41 PM EST

Iveanyi: no-one's lack of religious or cultist beliefs should be imposed on anyone, but we are currently in a position where millions of gay Americans ARE being discriminated against, with the most commonly cited reason being God, the Bible and other such fantasies. This is why we keep the church and state separate. Allowing gays to marry doesn't stop you from hating them, but it does stop you from using your religion to deny them their civil rights. At present, gays suffer proportionally FAR more by not being allowed to marry than you would if they were allowed to marry. albert marek: please think for a moment (and, while you're at it, use a dictionary to check your spelling): if allowing gay people to marry might lead to two brothers getting married, why hasn't straight marriage resulted in a brother marrying his sister? And until the moment an animal can formally consent to matrimony, I suggest you stop debasing your already-weak argument with references to dogs. You insult our intelligence.

Published by: matt jones
london 09/17/2009 01:06 AM EST

DOMA is discrminatory because it implies that the determination of immutable circumstances that are superficial in regards to the act at hand. essentially, this is not hippie philosophy that one can do what one wants as long as no one gets hurt. this is realizing that the arguments against homosexual marriage are specious because they adhere to biased requirements on the bases of reproductive capability- if this were the case than it should be a requirement for all couples, not a fast and loose rule, second based on the notion of marriage relitivity despite the fact faithfulness has been observed as the key to marriage not sex, and also that as the needs of society demand couples stable and well off enough to raise children, not produce them, that is there is an excess of children without parents, which should be an indicator that stable relationships not choice types should be the ultimate goal. furthermore, legalization of practices besides homosexual marriage do not condone the nature of discrimination or it's legality.

Published by: James Liberatore
Tampa, FL, United States 09/16/2009 05:39 PM EST

What is with the title to this pathetic story? One can read the title and presume that the DOMA is discriminatory. This is poor reporting! From an organization that has Catholic in the title CNA, the reporting should be more clearly depicting the insanity proposed by this ludicrous bill to repeal the DOMA.

Published by: DLL
scituate Mass. USA 09/16/2009 03:40 PM EST

This is just all impractical hippie philosophy,from the 60's,that is becoming law,to replace any conventional idea,law or practice. "Do what ever you want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody." All of this is straight across the board on everything,not just homosexasusual rights. The strength of a society is measured by it's moral fortitude,if you lose that to vague undefinable laws,than society falls,as everything is debatable,depending upon ones own viewpoint. Marriage is a legal bond between a Man and a Woman,for the purpose of procreation and the protection of children,while they are being brought up by very own their birth parents.

Published by: Radomysl Twardowski
Bismark, ND, USA 09/16/2009 01:51 PM EST

Another example of why "the Catholic mindset" and "the Democrat party mindset" are complete opposites which cannot be reconciled.

Published by: Iveanyi
Lagos/Nigeria 09/16/2009 01:27 PM EST

While discussing a similar topic, someone once commented that people should not allow their "religiousity" determine how others lived. My response was that people should also not allow their lack of religiosity determine how others lived. So where does this leave us? We have come to a point where it should be obvious that calling people conservative or bigoted rather than addressing the fundamental issue will lead us nowhere. The fundamental issue here is homosexuality, which should be noted is not a person, but an act. I am sometimes confused people say they have no problem with homosexuality but that equating a union of two homosexuals to marriage is wrong. I believe that the latter should naturally flow from the former. If one is good so should everything which it brings forth. We all know deep down that this isn't the case here and yet we pretend for the sake of 'political correctness'. This is what saddens me. Imagine a drug dealer claiming that the prohibition of hard drugs is discriminatory and so should be repealed. It may sound absurd now, but so did legalised homosexual unions 40 years ago and legalised abortion a few decades earlier. Who knows what next; maybe incest. I mean as long as it's "2 consenting adults". This could lead to marriage of siblings, parent and offspring, first cousins etc. How about increased agitation for legalization of group marriages. Please don't be scared of being called a bigot. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Published by: Jason Miller
Santa Paula, CA USA 09/16/2009 01:16 PM EST

DOMA is no more discriminatory than laws which forbid close relatives to be married, children to be married, polygamy, etc. It is to protect marriage and protect people. If DOMA is believed to be "discriminatory" then there is no legal basis for striking down laws forbidding child marriage, close relatives, etc. "Fairness" is not the issue here. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. You aren't just trying to change the law, but the whole definition that civilization has been built on for centuries. You tear down marriage, you tear down civilization - it will crumble (as we are seeing in Europe). I think the people who come here to post opinions to the contrary are just trying to foster division in our Church. Give it up!!!

Published by: Biology101
U.S.A. 09/16/2009 12:10 PM EST

So, is it discriminatory that two men together or two women together cannot produce a child through intercourse, also? A man and a man or a woman and a woman "marrying" is as much against the laws of nature. Trying to "legalize" what is against nature and then call opponents "discriminatory" is sheer lunacy.

Published by: B. F.
Omaha 09/16/2009 12:08 PM EST

Plain and simple, marriage is a creation by God (not man) to be between one man and one woman. Anything else is licentious and is subject to eternal damnation, if not repented. I did not originate this thought, God did (Lev 18:1-30). DOMA is saying "YES" to God as a nation. Repealing it is saying "NO". If our nation keeps spiraling down into the pit of immorality, it will not be long until it is destroyed. It's nothing new. Nations have been destroyed before for persistent insubordination to God.

Published by: Gerardo Fernando
Vancouver,BC 09/16/2009 11:58 AM EST

Could the the union of same sex individual be called plain and simple "UNION" in stead of Marriage with the same privilege of Married Couple. Marriage is the union of Man and woman and the co habitation of same sex individuals could be called a "Union" hence the definition of marriage is not changed, if they are only after availing of the rights and privileges of married couples.

Published by: albert marek
dallas tx.. 09/16/2009 11:29 AM EST

There is no discrimation in DONA. The issue is the definition of marriage which is one man and one wommen. If we change the definition of marriage, would it be OK for brothers to get married? sisters to get married? where would this stop? Hey, I love my dog and my dog loves me. Could we get married? Sounds rediculous but the whole idea of changeing the definition of marriage is rediculous.

Published by: Lois Emsweller
Columbus, Ohio, USA 09/16/2009 10:09 AM EST

Marriage is a bond between, one man and one women, until death do us part''''' Yes, I'm conservativejlim

Published by: Ronald Morrow
Valrico, Fl 09/16/2009 09:14 AM EST

Another example why our country is becoming morally bankrupt. Political correctness has become the cornerstone in which our society is now governed, manipulated, coerced and judged. We venture to change the world to serve the needs of one person and discard the needs and will of the majority. I have no problem of granting rights to those who desire to live in a civil relationship, but not to equate their realtionship in the same light as to how the bible defines marriage.

Published by: Kev
New York, NY USA 09/16/2009 08:09 AM EST

Rate: Good

Cheers for Representative Nadler and his sense of fairness, love and acceptance.

Published by: Jason
Steubenville, Ohio 09/16/2009 05:51 AM EST

Rate: Regular

DOMA is discriminatory, plain and simple. Conservatives don't want the Federal government interfering in State law (which marriage is based on). That is what DOMA has done, plainly saying that the Federal government will not recognize state's rights. We are talking about civil marriage and its rights and responsibilities, not marriage by a church. DOMA needs to be repealed, and any non-bigoted conservative should reach this conclusion.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com