« Previous | Main | Next »

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 Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (31)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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

Manny said,

"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."

So, if I love my sister is that okay to marry her.

What if I love my mother and want to marry her?

What about may Cocker Spaniel?

Where do you draw the line on the right to marry whoever you want. Your argument is a slippery slope.

If you truly believe whoever you want like you say, then you agree that it's okay to marry my sister, mother, or dog.

By trying to be compassioniate, you haven't thought through your statement. It's foolish.

Posted by: CP | May 23, 2008 11:21:07 AM

Until you people walk in the shoes of a homosexual, you will never know the anguish of what it entails. I myself sometimes wish I were straight, just so I could kiss my lover and not be given evil glares, so I could hold their hand while walking the streets and not be scared some homophobic will shoot me.

It is true that there are more important issues at hand right now. But for centuries this country has been fighting for freedom, liberty and peace. Yet it is within our own country we still find unjust laws and treat our own people like outcasts.

Most of those that are against gay marraige are against it for 'religious' reasons, but you know what? There is a separation between church and state and EVERYONES life should not be run based on Christian views. Those that think homosexuality is 'wrong' may continue to have thier opinions, but that does not mean homosexuals should be denied the oppertunity to show the world who they love, and that they too can make a marraige work.

I have faith that someday the government will come to realize that homosexuals are PEOPLE, and we deserve the same rights as you straight PEOPLE. It is COMPLETELY unjust to deny someone marriage right (or at least equal rights through civil unions) because of sexual orientation. It is against everything the constitution and the United States stands for....equality...and freedom... which we, a homosexual people are denied.

If Obama is truly FOR homosexual marriage, or at least getting us equal rights...I am voting for him!!

Posted by: Lynn | Jun 11, 2008 10:22:27 AM

I wonder why we call all these unions "marriages." In my opinion, we ought to go ahead and really separate church and state by having civil unions for any couples, gay or straight, who want to commit to spending their lives together etc., and having marriage as a separate, religious institution. By making marriage a legal institution, one that couples can go to the courthouse and get, one that couples can hire some religious leader to act out when they may not have been to church in years and don't really appreciate what those vows and that bond mean, one that is so easy to dissolve in a divorce....we've made it into a joke. I'm not trying to single out gays or divorcees here, I think we all should have the right to commit ourselves to someone and share our lives, but I also believe in marriage as a religious institution and I think the government should guard it as such by making civil unions their territory and leaving marriage to the church.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 16, 2008 12:48:02 PM

Does a man who has four wives have equal rights for his employer to pay for health coverage for all of them? Can a man with 20 domestic partners demand equal coverage for all 20 of them? If you say "no", then you are imposing your morals and religion on others.
Apparently Obama promotes equality for same sex marriage. What will minority groups demand next?

Posted by: Ziesmer | Aug 1, 2008 6:53:14 PM

I believe the goverment is looking at this all the wrong way. If some one wants to be in the same gender marrige that is ones business. The gay and lesibein people are the same as the next one. They have to pay taxex and follow the laws the same as any other individual. so why can't the goverment reconize the fact these people love one another. Would like to get on with their lives together. So Iam asking the Goverment and the surprem courts to give us the equal rigths we deserve. We are all equal people in one country. Lets get on with the rights we have, and you hold them from us. Thank you to all who have control,now will let us have those shared riths.

Posted by: Jay | Oct 25, 2008 11:02:20 AM

I HATE NIGGERS!!!!!

Posted by: poopface | Oct 27, 2008 11:45:01 AM

i understand laguna trimoms view that we have bigger problems, but same sex marriage is still an issue in our country...we are supposed to be the most desireable and advanced country in terms of opportunities and freedom yet as humans our government denies us the freedom to marry someone we trully loveand therefore it is still a very important issue, reason being it affects the freedom of many americans to make a very important decision. i feel that i speak for manny members of the gay community when i say if two people love each other they desrve to be together and to be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation

Posted by: out and proud | Oct 28, 2008 4:05:56 PM

arsalan

Posted by: arsalan | Mar 17, 2009 3:01:48 PM

Post a comment