« Obama Has Lobbyist Advising on Gay Issues | Main | Giuliani Says He is Equal to 9/11 Recovery Workers »

Would Obama Position Spread Same-Sex Marriage?

Share

August 10, 2007 12:31 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., succeeds in repealing the entire Defense of Marriage Act, the recognition of same-sex marriage is more likely to spread from state to state, according to a leading conservative constitutional law expert.

"Certainly, I think it would be fair to say that it would be more likely for a court decision to impose the recognition of same-sex marriage from Massachusetts on another state in the event of the repeal of D.O.M.A.," Pepperdine Law Prof. Douglas Kmiec told ABC News.

Kmiec, a former constitutional legal counsel for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, offered his assessment after the Obama campaign confirmed for ABC News that the Democratic presidential hopeful supports the full repeal of the D.O.M.A. legislation which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1996.

"He supports the complete repeal of D.O.M.A. which is the same position he has held since early 2004," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News.

D.O.M.A. has two key parts. One component stipulates that no state need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was recognized in another state. A second key D.O.M.A. component prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if recognized by one of the states.

Obama’s top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination -- New York Sen. Hillary Clinton -- wants to equalize benefits for gay couples in state-recognized marriages by repealing the portion of D.O.M.A. which pertains to federal benefits.

"I want to repeal Sec. 3 of D.O.M.A., which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed same-sex marriages, and, you know, I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president," Clinton said Thursday during a presidential candidates’ forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign in Los Angeles.

While Clinton supports equalizing the provision of federal benefits, she opposes full D.O.M.A. repeal.

"She believes marriage should be left up to the states," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

Obama, by contrast, views D.O.M.A. as "an abhorrent law" and he has accused those in Congress who passed D.O.M.A. as only having been interested in "perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue," according to a 2004 statement that he gave to the Windy City Times, a gay newspaper in Chicago. Believing that D.O.M.A. is not needed to protect states from having to recognize marriages that are contrary to their own public policy, Obama has broken with his top-tier rivals in taking the controversial step of calling for a complete D.O.M.A. repeal.

While the Illinois Democrat has been calling for D.O.M.A. repeal since 2004, this was not always his position.

When he began his campaign for U.S. Senate, he told a group called Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization that he supported D.O.M.A. He then switched to an anti-D.O.M.A. position on Feb. 11, 2004, as the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary drew near. According to Obama’s staff, the Illinois Democrat changed positions mid-campaign because he heard from gay friends how hurtful D.O.M.A. was.

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, rejects Kmiec’s argument about the potential consequences of full D.O.M.A. repeal.

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause [of the Constitution] does not prevent a state from refusing to recognize a marriage that is contrary to its own marriage laws," said Obama in October 2004, according to a Chicago Tribune clip provided by his campaign.

"If that’s really Sen. Obama’s position," Kmiec told ABC News, "it seems to be inherently at war with itself because the purpose of the Defense of Marriage Act was to reaffirm the states’ ability to assert its individual public policy against the external imposition of another state’s determination."

August 10, 2007 in Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (23)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/20725778

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Would Obama Position Spread Same-Sex Marriage? :

User Comments

We as a nation have much bigger problems than same sex marriage.

Posted by: LagunaTriMom | Aug 10, 2007 1:52:28 AM

Would Obama Position Spread Same-Sex Marriage?

My question is would Clinton and Edwards also spread same-sex marriage?

ABC and the rest of the media is turning out to be such a bunch of Lynch mob jerks!!!!

Posted by: Bettyl | Aug 10, 2007 2:22:40 AM

If Obama is for same sex marriage I won't vote for him.

Posted by: J Russell | Aug 10, 2007 6:57:29 AM

I'm sure this will be deleted, but has anyone else noticed that RADAR always has the hit pieces on all the candidates. The mysterious part is that there is no author for RADAR. How do we know credible if there's no journalist we can associate with these articles?

Posted by: Cat | Aug 10, 2007 8:23:18 AM

I believe the Spread of Same-Sex Marriage is the least of our problems.

I'm far more concerned about the spread of ignorance in this nation's politics in recent years.

Let's start addressing & solving the real issues we face at home & around the world ---like war, poverty, health care, the economoncy, Katrina ,etc, etc.

Besides with Obama in the White House
the constitution WILL finially be upheld & the basis this brilliant man uses in making decisions ---so equality,
rights will be addressed & problems solved.

He realizes "ALL of us our Gods children
& ALL on this earth together"--- the sign of a true leader & the voice for all Americans

Posted by: Carol-STL0MO | Aug 10, 2007 9:04:28 AM

People are dying in a sensless war.The average person is faced with not being able to afford health care. We are suffering from corrupt government, crimminally high gas prices, lies, lies, and global warming to list a few "real" problems. The D.O.M.A. seems so trivial it is hard to believe people make an issue of it. More than half of all marriages end in divorce... What are they defending?

Posted by: Genogin | Aug 10, 2007 10:07:05 AM


This has opened a whole can of worms for the democrats. Obama's raising this issue of repealing the defense of marriage act is going to hurt the democrats in the 2008 election, even if Obama isn't on the ticket.

Before this, repealing the defense of marriage act wasn't even considered a possibility by most voters. Now it is a very real possibility, and most voters aren't going to like it.

Another naive and wreckless statement by Obama.

Posted by: Jhopolong | Aug 10, 2007 2:31:12 PM

This country is always in a state where other heavy duty issues are so front and center that humanitarian issues have to be treated as irrelevent. I oppose the whole "bigger fish to fry" reasoning. Gays are and have been patiently and quietly waiting for enlightenment to kick in so that the quality of their lives could improve in the future, and no one cares. Somebody ought to care. And also, it's time to stop referring to it as an "imposition of marriage definition" on states. It ought to be viewed as an expansion of definition on behalf of a voiceless minority, which is the cornerstone of democracy -- protecting those who can't break through.

Posted by: Andre | Aug 10, 2007 5:03:26 PM

Why do things that don't seem to matter much get so much attention? The answer is simple. Nature always highlights a lie. Actually its for our protection. For instance, Actors are always being highlighted in the news. Why? Because they imitate the real thing.They are in fact living a lie.

Posted by: cliff jones | Aug 10, 2007 9:03:20 PM

Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Israel Aruba, Netherland Antilles, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Iceland, Luxemborg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland. These are countries recognizing same sex marriage, unions, or domestic partnerships. Massachusetts, New Jersey, are states recognizing same sex marriages. California, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, are states allowing same sex partnerships or unions. The earliest recognition took place in 1989. One question: If you're a resident of one of the above countries or states, has your world fallen apart since EQUAL RIGHTS have been extended to everyone, regardless of RACE or RELIGION?

Posted by: GC | Aug 11, 2007 7:04:31 PM

Studies have shown that countries that allow same sex marriage, make marriage and family irrelvant in the minds of the people. More children are born out of wedlock and have multiple moms and dads, which make them less likely to be able to have a successful, long-term relationship, which makes all of them more dependent on the government to step in to make up for the support lacking from a stable, man-woman relationship. A terrible consequence for a democracy. But, shhh. We don't want to go there do we. Lets cover this with a pretty bow and call it a civil right. Homesexuality is abnormal. It will always be abnormal. Creating hate laws, imprisoning people who disagree with the homosexual militant movement, and or killing ever single person on the planet who dares to say homosexual marriage should not be legal, will not change the fact that it is abnormal. The homosexual movement has been very successful and probably all these pro-homosexual laws will pass. But it will never make it right.

Posted by: K.D. | Aug 13, 2007 8:53:20 PM

On Aug. 13, 2007 the Arubian press announced that the first married gay couple were registered in the island's registry. The couple, an Arubian and a Dutchman, were married a few years ago in the Netherlands. The couple are now living on Aruba and are entitled to all the benefits and rights accorded by marriage under the law.

Posted by: M.M. | Aug 15, 2007 9:29:50 PM

In reaction to GC. To be abnormal it must be a far difference from the known norm. Keep in mind that for centuries homosexual acts were seen as common place. Such as Rome saw women as wives and child bearers and men as sexual objects to engage in casual sex with.

Granted we are past those times, there are medical findings that prove that it is a mental characteristic no different than a person's personality. The sexual portion of the brain differ between straight, bi, and gay people. Where each grouping falls with a certain range. That is to say that someone is not "made" gay or "chooses" to be gay, but is in fact "born" gay. So to say that homosexuality is an abnormality is saying anyone that has a different personality than your own is an abnormality.

Religion does not dictate an abnormality. Religion dictates who to hate based on the leader that chooses to change the writing for their own agenda. This country was not founded on a religion:

Article II from the Treaty of Tripoli. Read allowed and signed by Thomas Jefferson:
This country was in no way founded on the basis of a Christian religion.

Aren't facts fun?

Posted by: DCP | Aug 28, 2007 6:26:42 PM

In reaction to GC.
I would very much welcome your suppossed statistics thst show that countries which allow same sex marriage carry a socially devastating morality flaw whereas the definition of family is concerned.
Look around you. I mean "Really" take a good look at the staggering amount of single parents here in the U.S. The amount of children bearing children. Lets go one step further and add sexually transmitted diseases that stretch much further than aides that affect the young in this country.
The so called conventional family" has been nearing extinction since I was a child. This is truly disturbing and painful yet I can assure you that gay marriage isn't the reason.
How about the pure and simple fact that we as a society have failoed our children by not supporting, not judging , not condemning and turning a blind eye to abuse, alcoholism,drugs, molestation, infidelity atc. All of which directly effect the family institution.
Seriously. Are we to say that by not allowing same sex marriage we could be adversly affecting society here. To charge that by spreading hatred through negativity and bi partism. Putting yet another wedge in the path of peace and acceptance. Our founding fathers were capable of establishing that we are all equal and deserve the same basic rights as one another. Why is it so difficult for us to accept it and move on to bigger and better relationships with one another?
There are far too many other issues that could use the persistance, fight and determination of everyone that need to be addressed.
( If we keep our noses away from people's bedroom doors and allow ourselves the opportunity to know one another for the people we truly are then there would be no need for all of this uneeded drama)

Posted by: Tracy Zwijacz "Z" | Oct 14, 2007 2:18:18 PM

I don't understand people who get upset by gay marriage and civil unions. As someone who supports civil rights/liberties I strongly believe that the government has no right or need to sanction morality. How is heterosexual marriage harmed by gay marriage? I'll tell you it's not. For a country that prides itself on equality and justice we still have a long way to go to prove it. Only about 4 decades ago the courts repealed the ban on interracial marriage. Stop and think about this country's past of prejudice and discrimnation and the hurdles that had to be jumped to get us to see our errors. Think twice before you say the rights of the LGBT community is trivial. These are people's lives, freedoms, and rights you're talking about. How would you feel if it were you that were being excluded and discriminated against? We need to think long and hard if we want a country of prejudice and hate for our children or equality and love.

Posted by: Jess | Jan 3, 2008 12:16:40 AM

To the person who asked what are they defending in regard to supporters of gay marriage/civil unions I will tell you what they are trying to defend. They are defending the most fundamental important right-the right to choice who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, the person you want to marry and build a life with. In the U.S. unlike other countries a person can decide who is right for them and who they want to spend their life with while some countries continue arranged marriages. How would you feel if you found someone who loved you, who wanted to spend their life with you, and the government said no we don't approve of this marriage. If we as a country truly value commitment, families, liberty, and equality then we will see that the time to allow all people to marry has come. While people cite child bearing and religion as reasons against gay marriage there is a seperation between church and state and since procreation is not demanded of straight couples why is it a concern for gay couples. Many people do not see the movement for gay marriage as a civil rights issue. However they are taking for granted the many benefits and protections that come with marriage.

Posted by: Jess | Jan 3, 2008 12:30:10 AM

I agree, same-sex marriage should not be the main focus! People are dying everyday from war, hunger, violence and we are worried about stopping people who love each other from getting married! I dont think gays and lesbians are hurting anyone so leave them alone! What happened to equal rights and what happened to no more discrimination?

Posted by: Jasmine | Feb 10, 2008 10:07:33 AM

If Obama is for same-sex marriage then I can't vote for him. I like him on many other issues - but this one is very important to me. I'd have to put my vote elsewhere.

Posted by: Rebecca | Feb 18, 2008 11:56:47 AM

I think that Mr. Obama is a great candidate. And I had made up my mind to vote for him. However,I am having second thoughts if he is an advocate for same sex "marriage." A lot of my friends are also having second thoughts relative to his position on this issue.
Families in this country are already in shambles. And the society seems to be tilting more and more anti-family, at lease from the traditional family/values perspective. I will be pondering and praying about my final decision but I cannot in good faith support anyone for president who is for same-sex marriage and the promotion of the same.

Posted by: Jean Richard | Mar 3, 2008 11:54:36 AM

Gay marriage is pro-family, not anti-family. (Using YOUR concept of "family" is an excuse for your prejudice.) Also, the issue of civil rights is just as important as the economic crisis, the Iraq war and etc. All US Presidents should stand for equal civil rights for all US citizens. Civil unions are separate and unequal, as they do not provide all of the same benefits as the federal legal term of "marriage". (One example: a marriage is accepted in every state regardless of where the marriage is filed, where as a civil union is only recognized in the state it was filed.) Obama should be ashamed for using his religion as an excuse to support separate and unequal rights to gay US citizens.

Posted by: Lucy | Mar 24, 2008 1:04:24 PM

I know I'm a rare breed being a non-Christian Conservative and I think the DOMA is the most ridiculous violation of civil rights ever passed. The fact that some activist organization hasn't challenged it up to the Supreme Court yet is shocking.
They are consenting adults and wish to get married. Where is the violation there?
Ask youselves this Christians: If Islam became the dominant religion and deemed that taking communion was morally wrong. Or that eating pork was wrong. Would you sit and roll over like you expect the gays to go?
Both are violations of civil rights you simply chose not to acknowledge one of them.

Posted by: manny | Mar 26, 2008 5:02:01 AM

Americans should have the right to choose who they love and spend the rest of their lives with...and who buries them, who shares their medical benefits, who they have children with,as much as they can choose the town they live in or their profession.

Posted by: SHERI | Apr 12, 2008 3:32:25 PM

I agree with Manny completely.

Posted by: Vanessa | Apr 24, 2008 7:30:20 PM

Post a comment