Defense of Marriage Act

The letter below from Senator Merkley is in reply to my  letter of opposition to him. Although he is incorrect and foolish on his stance, I respect that he had the fortitude to reply to me, even understanding that it was a form letter.

Dear Bruce,

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While we may disagree on this issue, please know that I respect your opinion and appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective.

Equal rights for every American is one of our most cherished constitutional principles, one that our nation is continually striving to meet  For this reason, I believe that committed same-sex couples should have the same basic rights that heterosexual couples do. This is where the Senator goes astray. What he believes is not what the law and the constitution says. If same sex couple wish to live together that is there decision. But, marriage and the benefits of such a relationship should not be granted to them. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is Gods design and has been excepted all of history. Should liberals promote such a watering down of the institution of marriage? Why should the definition be changed to benefit couples that are engaged in an immoral act? They are not in an equal relationship as, heterosexual couples, that is simply impossible, as defined in all of nature. It’s the male/female thing. Male animals and female animals may gather together and even segregate at times, but not for sex.     DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and permits states to refuse recognition of such marriages performed in other states. NO state should be legalizing same sex marriage. Gays can be treated as a person with an illness and extended compassion but no one has the right to legitimize their behavior. Where would this line of thought stop? What would be wrong with child sex? Rape? Murder? Stealing? Are we not denying people from doing what they wish, even what they believe they have the freedom to do? What about unmarried couples (straight or gay) living together, why are they discriminated against? Is all that’s standing in the way…a piece of paper? Why have marriage at all? Doesn’t that just discriminate against all unmarried couples? WHAT IS MARRIGE? I think that is the one question and one that needs to stay unchanged. Marriage is a legal union between and man and woman. Gays want something like that? Then let them call their union a…coupling.     In other words, the act strips couples legally married in five states of their marital rights, such as Social Security, health care, and even the right to visit each other in the hospital.  This form of discrimination undermines our constitutional values.  Every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is entitled to full equality under the law. Two men living together do not have the same responsibilities as a man/woman and never will. Do not compare apples to oranges. Do not patronize or insult me! Gay men have the same rights as unmarried straight men. Gay men do not have a female reproductive organ. They (gay men or gay women) can have sex all day long with each other but they will make no babies, no new human life. Their relationship is not the same as heterosexuals couples and should not have the same rights or share the definition!

 

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me.  Even when we reach opposite conclusions, I appreciate that we can communicate our views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.   Yep, count on it

 

Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

Tax payer money and quality news!

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) subsidized a study attempting to find out if a gay man’s penis size has any correlation with his sexual health. (Now, my tax money is being spent on measuring a bunch of gay guys penises?)

The research, titled “The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” began in 2006 and surveyed 1,065 gay men. Among its key findings: Those gay men who felt they had small or inadequate penis sizes were more likely to become “bottoms,” or anal receptive, while gay men with larger penises were more likely to identify themselves as “tops,” or anal insertive. (And I need to know this why? Will this be taught to little Johnny in school? Will your children measure up each other now to see who is the TOP dog?)

Another discovery from the research: men with smaller penises were more likely to be psychologically troubled than those with larger genitalia. The goal of the study was to understand the “real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society.” (There it is…only guys with big penises rise to the top!)

The researchers at Hunter College Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies Training (CHEST) got taxpayer money as part of an NIH grant that went to Public Health Solutions and the National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI).

(What happened to don’t ask don’t tell?) (or in the words of Monty Walsh, “you really don’t know how much I don’t care!”)

 Does this study give a new meaning to, bowing or bending over?

Surely not, right???

Impeach the Racist President Obama

Look at what Obama has done;

1.      Turned Arizona into the united nations for violating human rights because they try to protect their citizens. Who does that?

2.      Filed a law suit, suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect their borders and citizens. Who does that?

3.      Rams down a National health care bill without 1 Republican vote and does an end around the constitution to do it. Who does that?

4.      The result is that Judges rule his Health Care bill as unconstitutional and over half the states in the (United States) are forced to file a suit against the Federal government. The administration is trying to stop this from being heard by the Supreme court. Who does that?

5.      The administration does not comply with a Judge’s ruling concerning the stoppage of off shore drilling. Who does that? Price of fuel is sky rocketing.

6.      He (Obama) refuses to support the law of the land (to which he gave an oath) in Arizona, on our borders and now refuses to enforce the marriage act, that was signed into law by Bill Clinton, arbitrary calling the law unconstitutional. Who does that? "Marriage is in its origin a contract of natural law. It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic." --Justice Joseph Story)

Our president has time to write a new book while in office and being paid by the tax payers! (is the president moonlighting, or just plain money hungry and using his office for financial gain? Hear it happens all the time in Chicago) In his new book he calls the Tea Party Racist!
Hussein Obama's war fighting strategy in Afghanistan: "Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training." (Yes, you read that correctly.) Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world will receive this homosexual normalization indoctrination in the next few months. Well, there is time well spent for our fighting troops!
Obama's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, will not enforce the law. Actually, in Obamese, they will "enforce the law but not defend it in court." Referring specifically to Section 3 of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman," or genetically, "one male and one female," under federal law. FEDERAL LAW! AND OBAMA SAYS PIS>> ON IT!
DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton after it received overwhelming congressional support, 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House.  Holder has confused his post with that of a Supreme Court majority and has unilaterally declared DOMA unconstitutional. WHY?
Obama's endeavor to "fundamentally transform America" into a Socialist state is predicated on the success of his labors to destabilize the three pillars of Essential Liberty: Individual Liberty, Economic Liberty and Constitutional Liberty.
Obama knows the most effective method to erode Individual Liberty is to undermine the integrity of faith and family, and that is why he advocates overturning measures such as DADT and DOMA. WHO DOES THAT?
Last year, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) hinted at impeaching the president over the issue of immigration, saying that Obama was "awfully close" to violating his oath of office. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) followed up by threatening impeachment proceedings against Obama because of the phantom "birth certificate" issue.
Now, the administration's announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.
After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA - "I would support that in a moment," remarked Franks - he went on to say that he would "absolutely" favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move "could gain collective support": MA says it is about time!
Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. (is this hate speech? Why would a president even discuss such an issue, he was elected!) Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.(Who does that?)
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement-a racially biased one-that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it. The TEA Party and most Americans disagree with his policy’s, not the color of his skin. I think is was Jessie Jackson that said his was not black enough.

 The Senate majority leader and an Obama ally, Harry Ried said he was embarrassed because of some racially insensitive comments he had made to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the authors of a new book, Game Change, about the Obama campaign. It turned out that Reid had predicted in 2008 that Obama could succeed as an African-American presidential candidate partly because he was "light-skinned" and because he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect." So who is the racist?

Michael Steele is black and was the chairman of the National Republican Committee! Colonel West is an up and coming star in the republican party with the full support of the TEA party, Colonel West is a black man also! Looks to me that if skin color maters and if there is racism, it rest with Obama and his party. 

IMPEACH KING OBAMA

Obama circumvents the constitution with his Obama care health bill by bypassing the representative process. He sues the State of Arizona because they want to stop illegal immigration of which the Obama administration has done nothing to enforce, Barrack has used the office to interfere with the State of WI budget negotiations and is supporting an illegal state union strike.
Now, Barrack Obama has made a stand against laws he swore and oath to uphold as the president.
Enough already, IMPEACH HIM!
The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 
Barrack Obama is an elected official, not a dictator! Who gives him the right to pick and choose the laws he wants to defend or not defend?  As the American President, he is legally bound to enforce all the laws!
The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. (It is not a “policy, it is a LAW!) The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage. 
But after two new lawsuits were filed in New York and Connecticut, Obama ordered Attorney General Eric Holder not to defend the statute. 
Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner that Obama concluded the law fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination. Now Obama is making and ruling on laws all by himself!
Gay-rights groups applauded the administration. The Human Rights Campaign called the decision a "monumental" move against a law (Mad American says…IMPEACH HIM!) that "unfairly discriminates against Americans." 
"The Obama administration's decision is a victory for civil rights, fairness, and equality for the LGBT community and all Americans," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said. There you have it, Nancy has spoken, perhaps she will ask to be queen in the Obama court
"The department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because -- as here -- the department does not consider every such argument to be a 'reasonable' one," Holder said. "Moreover, the department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the president has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional." What??? What did I hear? KING OBAMA has declared the law unconstitutional? What next, the house of representatives is unconstitutional also because Barrack Obama doesn’t like them? Where are we? What country is this???
Obama, who supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, has said his views are "evolving" on same-sex marriage. Currently, he is only on record in support of civil unions.