Ron Paul seldom gets it right, but on this issue, he did, and has spoken out in favor of the DOMA, which Obama refuses to defend:
““I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
“The people of Iowa overwhelmingly supported, both houses of the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law the Iowa Defense Of Marriage Act in 1998. Iowans then valiantly recalled three activist Judges who spurned the will of the people by over-turning the state’s law.
“Today’s announcement that the Obama Administration will abandon its obligation to enforce DOMA is truly disappointing and shows a profound lack of respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. President Obama has just unconstitutionally said that Iowa should have to allow San Francisco and New York City decide its marriage laws. That position is unacceptable.”
All credit to Rep. Paul. However, some his libertarian ex-fans who favor gay marriage have condemned him for that statement. They claim DOMA is totally unconstitutional and that its Section Three discriminates against gay couples legally married in one state because the Federal Government doesn’t recognizes their marriages as such.
They are lying. The DOMA is perfectly constitutional.
It is ludicrous to claim that Section Three is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. It merely recognizes a millennia-old truth which gays and their libertarian and liberal backers refuse to recognize to this day: that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, not a mere contract between any two individuals, and oriented towards the production and raising of children.
The Federal Government does not have the right to dictate the definition of marriage to states (and DOMA does not do so), but it does have the right to decide the definition of marriage for federal purposes (e.g. tax laws), i.e. to decide for itself what it recognizes as marriage. And the Federal Government has decided to recognize only true marriages, i.e. heterosexual ones. This is not a discriminatory provision, not anymore that states’ marriage laws are.
Of course, the libertarian loons as UnitedLiberty claim that the entire DOMA is unconstitutional and discriminatory, meaning that its Second Section is. This is also a ridiculous claim. Section 2, which says that no state has to recognize gay marriages registered/formed in another state, is perfectly constitutional and it’s not discriminatory. It merely says that every states decides the definition of marriage for itself, and does not have to recognize out-of-state gay marriages if it doesn’t want to (in line with the Founders’ intent that every state decide domestic issues for itself). In other words, DOMA’s Second Section merely says that even if one state legalizes gay marriage, other states don’t have to recognize that state’s gay marriages. That’s a just provision: it practically means that Vermont’s gay marriages don’t have to be recognized by other states.
By what moral or legal right should one unelected judge in Massachusetts, or even the legislation or electorate of that state, decide the definition of marriage for all other 49 states and the 294 mn Americans who don’t live in Massachusetts?
Yet, libertarians and liberals believe that yes, it’s okay for one unelected judge in MA or California to decide the definition of marriage for the other 49 states, and if one unelected judge in MA or California (e.g. Joseph Tauro or Vaughn Walker) says that gay marriage is a constitutional right, all other 49 states are legally-bound to obey him.
And by what moral or legal right should homosexuals, a tiny (2%) part of the American population, dictate the definition of marriage for the rest of Americans and be allowed to redefine, and thus dismantle, a millennia-old institution?
Why? For a simple reason: acting through the courts, or lobbying the Dem-dominated legislatures of liberal states like MA and VT, is gays’ and liberals’ only hope of enacting their social agenda. They know that the American people would reject it if asked for their verdict. So rather than allow the voters to decide, they work through the courts.