Boehner: House likely to defend DOMA in court
CBS/ AP
The Republican-led House of Representatives is likely to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Calif.) said in a newly-published interview. The move would come in the wake of the decision by the Obama administration to no longer defend the law.
"I'd be very surprised if the House didn't decide that they were going to defend law," Boehner said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. (Watch below)
The Justice Department announced last week that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The decision prompted both those in favor and those opposed to the law to call on Congress to make the next move. Liberals are calling for Congress to fully repeal the law -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation to do so -- while conservatives want Congress to intervene in court and defend the law.
The early statements by many prominent Republicans following the administration's DOMA decision were muted, prompting questions over whether opposition to gay marriage had faded as an issue for the GOP base. However, Boehner told CBN that House members have been discussing their options and will make a decision on how to proceed by the end of the week.
"If the president won't lead, if the president won't defend DOMA, then you'll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly," he said. "There are a lot of options on the table."
The House could consider appointing counsel to represent it in court, Boehner said, an option floated by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), a potential 2012 presidential contender.
Last week, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty."
Meanwhile, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said that "Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law."
Popular in Politics
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 327 Comments
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 152 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 346 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 262 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 413 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 242 Comments
Modern western society has determined that sex between two consenting adults is acceptable, and sex without consent or sex involving a minor is not. Does that mean that two consenting adults having sex in public is accepted? No. So the idea that sex between two consenting adults is acceptable to society is false! Society only accepts sexual behavior between two consenting adults IF AND ONLY IF, that behavior is conducted in private. That is the basis for acceptance of homosexual behavior. Society has said, it will be allowed if conducted in private.
Now, if sexual behavior is conducted in private but described in vivid detail in public, with a video recording for instance, it is also considered UNACCEPTABLE. The reason being is that members of the public include minors and un-consenting adults and forcing them to witness sexual behavior is unacceptable.
If sexual behavior is conducted in private but described without detail to the public this is not acceptable for the same reason. This is proven and can be proven anytime for example, if one's parents were to explain them that they just had sex in the kitchen, or if a high-school principal were to explain to his female teaching staff that he likes to have sex with Asian women and did so just before the meeting. Most would find these statements offensive and probably request they not be subjected to it again. However, there are two exceptions where this is not only acceptable, but unavoidable and appropriate. The first is when a woman has become pregnant. Society demands that the man involved, be responsible for the welfare of that child, therefore the conception of that child must be made public only in the details of who participated. The next example is basically the same scenario but with foresight; knowing that a baby may possibly come in the future, a couple publicly states that they will be consenting participants in sexual behavior and subsequently all babies the woman may have are to be practically and legally, assumed the offspring of the designated man. This is what marriage is, in its most essential form.
Homosexual behavior, from time to time throughout history, has been viewed as fornication, objectionable behavior as well as forbidden. The modern western world has taken a new view. Homosexual behavior is now considered acceptable adult sexual behavior with a condition, the same one for heterosexual behavior, that it be conducted in private and the public is not subjected to it. The homosexual subculture has not complied with this condition. This subculture has encouraged those who engage in homosexual behavior to subject the public, through the state, which is the public domain, to their sexual behavior. First, by declaring that they will be engaging in homosexual behavior themselves (by self identifying as homosexual on applications, contracts and public media), and more recently, declaring that they are currently engaging in sexual behavior with a specific person ("gay marriage"). There is no reason for society to know these individuals are engaged in homosexual behavior as there is with a woman and a man. This is not for the well being of society or the public, and this information is not requested or welcomed by the public, but for the personal satisfaction of the individual engaged in homosexual behavior. Therefore, the public has been in effect, subjected to unacceptable sexual behavior without cause or reason. This is what differentiates marriage from what the homosexual subculture refers to as "gay marriage".
YAAAWN. Try shorter next time, you can seem just as bigoted without putting everyone to sleep.
They are, obviously. According to you, my grandfather should not have been allowed to marry his wife, since she was beyond menopause at the time. Nobody thought my grandfather and his wife were exposing their sex lives by getting married. The fact that they were getting married did not make everyone obsess about their sex lives, as it does with gay people.
Children are not the only purpose of marriage. They are not even the most important purpose of marriage.
I am a lesbian. I am also a virgin. I have never engaged in any kind of sexual conduct with anyone, ever. Identifying myself as a lesbian does not tell you anything about my sexual behavior. It only tells you who I am attracted to. Straight people talk about who they are attracted to very publicly, all the time, in much more detail than most gay people do in mixed company. Certainly, "HOLY CRAP Brad Pitt is so freakin' HOT, he leaves me panting," is a lot more explicit and vivid than the general information that I like girls.
The reduction of marriage to nothing more than that "a couple publicly states that they will be consenting participants in sexual behavior," is frankly rather crass. Most people think there is a lot more meaning to their marriages than just sex and babies. Some people even consider the relationship sacred in itself.
Personally I am glad the Republicans won the last election. The American people seem to have forgotten what they are really about and apparently needed a harsh reminder. I also find it odd that God's chosen party doesn't respect his planet but choose to honor the money instead. Bad choice on their part....