Connect with us

The GOP’s Sanctimonious Defense Of The Sanctity Of DOMA

Published

on

President Obama yesterday declared “unconstitutional” the Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA, and said he and the DOJ would no longer defend the fifteen-year old law. It was a stunning day, as Senator Dianne Feinstein subsequently announced her intention to introduce a bill in the senate to repeal DOMA, and sanctimonious Republicans, GOP presidential hopefuls, and right wing hate groups wasted no time weighing in on the news.

Though strangely absent from the national conversation on DOMA — so far — were Republican presidential hopefuls and possibles, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie, you can imagine the reactions from the rest. Here’s a sampling.

Speaker of the House John Boehner — who not three months ago was fixated on getting a video that contained an image of a crucifix with ants crawling on it kicked out of the Smithsonian, and closing the museum to boot — has been fast and furiously working (when he actually is working, that is,) on denying America the constitutional right to abortion, while claiming to be working on “creating jobs and cutting spending.”

Yesterday, on the news Obama and Holder would not defend DOMA, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.” Evidently, denying the constitutional right to abortion, (or censoring a national, public, tax-payer funded museum,) does not qualify as a “controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

Former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who, in 2008, infamously said, “America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known,” couldn’t wait to weigh in yesterday.

Saying, “Moral truth exists and it does not change and all things are not equal,” Buchanan claimed Obama is “not a strong leader,” and capitulated to members of the “militant gay rights community.”

Hardly.

And for the record, this from then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2004:

“For the record, I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted … .

“When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. …”

Moving on, but hold onto that for a while.

Another former Republican presidential candidate and 2012 GOP hopeful, Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister and former governor, who evidently believes strongly in the power of forgiveness, having pardoned “twice as many sentences as his three predecessors combined,” said Obama’s DOMA decision “may destroy him, may destroy his credibility, may destroy his campaign and candidacy and ultimately his term in office.”

Huckabee, himself weighing another run at the presidency, and rather adept at killing several birds with one stone, falsely claimed Obama “didn’t take this position when he ran for president. I think if he had, he wouldn’t be president,” and added, “I think he owes the people of America an explanation – was he being disingenuous and dishonest then, is he being dishonest now, or did he change his view and if he did, when and why?”

The President is not being dishonest. Huckabee is. See above.

Speaking of being dishonest, we have yet another possible Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. You of course remember Santorum’s rather nasty comments about the Catholic Church’s pedophile priests rape and molestation scandal? Like saying, “We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.” In other words, Santorum blames thousands of victims for being raped and molested by priests all over the world.

But wait, there’s more from Santorum, the former GOP Senator from Pennsylvania who set the record for “the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.”

Back in 2003, Santorum set off fireworks by saying, “Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.”

Santorum was roundly excoriated.

But it should come as no surprise that the former Senator and 2012 presidential hopeful yesterday had this to say:

“President Obama’s refusal to defend a law that was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by a president of his own party is an affront to the will of the people. This is yet another example of our president’s effort to erode the very traditions that have made our country the greatest nation on earth, and it begs the question what language changed in the constitution since 2008 to reverse his position?”

Again, see above.

Still another GOP 2012 presidential hopeful, Tea Party and Republican Party supported Michele Bachmann, who came to fame on “The Chris Matthews Show” for saying, “What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look…I wish they would…I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America, or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that.”

Former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell said Bachmann (whose integrity is often called into question,) was the reason he voted for Obama.

In 2009, Bachmann, who has received well-over $250,000 in federal farm price supports, got even more bad press, saying she wanted Minnesotans “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”

Politico reports, “Just hours after the president’s reversal on a Defense of Marriage Act provision, Bachmann, who is considering a White House run next year, blasted an e-mail to supporters. “I’m sending you this urgent message because if we don’t join together and take action today, it could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement,” she writes.

“Bachmann urges them to sign her “Support Traditional Marriage” petition, setting a goal of collecting 50,000 names in 48 hours. And then she asks supporters to “consider making a generous donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more” so she can circulate the petition to other activists around the country.”

Another conservative making money off Obama and Holder’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court is, of course, Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM.)

NOM President Brian Brown sent a hilarious email out yesterday, less than seven hours after the President made his announcement, saying dramatically, (and summoning the ghost of American patriot John Paul Jones,) “We have not yet begun to fight for marriage.” (No, seriously, he actually said this.)

Writing, “This may be the most important email I’ve ever sent to you,” Brown blathered on, saying something about “one man and one woman,” then Maggie, NOM’s Chair (and reader of The New Civil Rights Movement, who likes to leave comments,) adds something about, “truly shocking,” “extra-constitutional power grab,” “defection of duty,” and ended with, “powerful political special interests,” which, I assume, she knows could include NOM, right?

Of course, there was a big ol’ “CONTRIBUTE NOW” button in the email. (Don’t worry. I didn’t.)

Tony Perkins, head of the certified hate group, the Family Research Council wants Congress to override the President. Yesterday Perkins said, “the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. 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.”

Perkins then said Obama was “pandering to his liberal political base.”

As a proud member of Obama’s “liberal base,” I can only say I wish he would.

The American Family Association (AFA,) a certified hate group, weighed in yesterday. Calling Obama “a clear and present danger to his own country,” and classifying Obama’s actions yesterday as “impeachable,” Bryan Fischer, AFA’s Director of Issues Analysis, falsely claims “Obama is violating his oath of office by refusing to defend DOMA,” and adds,

“The entire argument based on marriage “equality” is just gas. Homosexuals already have full marriage equality: they can get married, same as everybody else, to an adult, non-relative member of the opposite sex. Don’t let them fool you with all this “equality” bloviation. They already have full equality under the law; they have exactly the same rights as everybody else. What they want are special rights based solely on sexually deviant behavior. No sane society should ever commit such folly.”

Be prepared for the people of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden, Mexico City, at the very least, to be filing protests for being called “insane.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, a modern Christian non-profit whose roots run deep with hate group founders, are the folks who represented the “Yes On Prop 8” organization, ProtectMarriage.com. Today the front of their website says, “Obama administration says it will no longer defend key component of DOMA,” and has a big “DONATE NOW” button right below it.

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks falsely states,  “The Department of Justice has a constitutional duty to defend the laws duly enacted by Congress … and the refusal of the attorney general to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act just because they don’t like it politically is really inexcusable.”

What “is really inexcusable” is how the GOP, Republican presidential hopefuls and has-beens, and hate groups gin up controversy over DOMA, DADT, ENDA, and the LGBT community, just to get some attention, and to pay their bills.

Note: An earlier version of this post inaccurately stated NOM, the National Organization for Marriage, was a certified hate group.

(image)

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Marjorie Taylor Greene Says She’s ‘Done Supporting’ The GOP: ‘Party Betrays Its Voters’

Published

on

Former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said on Monday that she is “done supporting” her former party—but don’t expect her to join the Democratic party anytime soon.

Greene announced her disillusionment with the GOP on Monday afternoon in a tweet.

“Tucker is not the only one who is done supporting the Republican Party. There is A LOT of us that are absolutely fed up and will not support a party that betrays its voters and country. That does not mean we are turning into Democrats either. But we are DONE with the America LAST Republican Party,” Greene wrote.

She referred to comments made last week by pundit Tucker Carlson. Carlson appeared on the Can’t Be Censored podcast Thursday, saying he would refrain from supporting either major party, and admitted “I’m not sure what I’m going to do.”

READ MORE: ‘Gaslight America’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts Trump Ahead of His Trip to Georgia

“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States. That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens. It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to,” Carlson said, according to Mediaite, referring to America’s long-time ally Israel.

Greene famously broke with President Donald Trump earlier this year when she called for the release of the FBI files relating to disgraced financier and sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. A former staunch ally of Trump, the two started trading barbs. Greene resigned from the House this January. Greene has long called for an isolationist foreign policy, criticizing America’s involvement in Ukraine as well as the current conflict with Iran.

Given that Greene said she has no plans on moving leftward in her politics, it’s unclear if she will refrain from voting or if she’ll throw her lot in with a third party. While American politics are primarily driven by the two major parties, a number of smaller parties also exist.

Greene may find a home in the Libertarian party, the third-largest party by voter registration. The Libertarian party has drifted rightward since its founding in 1971. While initially economically conservative but politically liberal, after 2022, the paleolibertarian Mises Caucus gained control of the party. Paleolibertarianism was developed by anarcho-capitalists, and embraces cultural conservatism. Some of the most widely known paleolibertarians include former Representative Ron Paul and the current president of Argentina, Javier Milei.

Third parties struggle to gain traction in the United States. The closest a third party has come to widespread support was the Reform Party, founded by H. Ross Perot during the 1996 presidential election after he won 18.9% of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election as an independent candidate. Reform won 8.4% of the popular vote in the 1996 election, but no third-party or independent candidate has been as successful as Perot since.

However, the electoral college makes it difficult for a third-party presidential candidate to be elected at all. Third-party presidential candidates are often seen as spoilers for the major candidates. Perot is often believed to have won votes away from President George H.W. Bush in 1992, giving the election to President Bill Clinton. In 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was similarly accused of acting as a spoiler for Vice President Al Gore, leading to the election of President George W. Bush.

Third parties, however, have a better track record in down-ballot races. For example, Kshama Sawant won election to the Seattle City Council in 2014 as a member of the Socialist Alternative party. She held office until 2024, when she declined to seek reelection. She is currently running for a seat in the House of Representatives as an independent.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump Says Iran ‘Will Agree to Major Weapons Inspections’ to Ensure ‘Nuclear Honesty’

Published

on

President Donald Trump announced on Monday that Iran “will agree” to allow weapon inspectors into the country in a slightly confusing social media post.

“Everybody is fully aware that Iran will agree to have Major Weapons Inspections in order to ensure ‘Nuclear Honesty’ long into the future,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

Vice President JD Vance has been handling the negotiations with Iran to end the military conflict started by the United States and Israel at the end of February. Vance said earlier today that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would be allowed to enter Iran. The inspectors could be in the country as soon as Monday, according to the Washington Post.

READ MORE: Large Majority of Americans Say Iran Conflict Should End, Hasn’t Met Any of Trump’s Goals

Trump’s wording, however, is somewhat hard to parse. When he says “everyone is fully aware,” is Trump referring to Vance’s Monday announcement that had been widely reported? Or is Trump attempting to cast doubt, suggesting Iran may somehow be pulling a fast one, allowing inspections to provide cover for a weapons program?

Either way, the allowing of weapons inspectors into Iran is similar to what former President Barack Obama’s administration negotiated for in 2015. The Obama-era deal called for IAEA inspectors to make sure Iran was complying with the deal, and was not developing nuclear weapons. But in 2018, after Trump ended the agreement, Iran started to block IAEA inspectors from parts of their nuclear program. Since then, IAEA inspectors do not know the status of Iran’s enriched uranium, according to the Washington Post.

One year ago from Monday, the U.S. struck Iranian sites believed to hold stockpiles of enriched uranium. Since then, Trump has claimed that the strike “completely and totally obliterated” the country’s nuclear enrichment facilities, however, this has never been verified. Even at the time, the Pentagon said that Iran’s nuclear program had only been “degraded…by two years.” Trump’s national intelligence director testified prior to the strike that there was no evidence that Iran’s existing nuclear program was meant to build weapons, according to the Military Times.

Iran has long promised not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. In 1970, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which deemed the country a non-nuclear state.

While Trump has warned that Iran could have a nuclear bomb “within six months,” the first report from the International Atomic Energy Agency since the Iran conflict started says that there has been no major change to the country’s nuclear program, according to Reuters.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Federal Judge Quashes ‘Retaliatory’ Subpoenas Against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz

Published

on

Six grand jury subpoenas were quashed by a federal judge Wednesday, when it was decided that the subpoenas were filed to retaliate against Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s administration and the city governments of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District of Minnesota made his ruling public on Monday, granting the motion requested by the Minnesota officials to quash grand jury subpoenas related to Minnesota declaring itself to be a “sanctuary” state.

Last December, the Department of Homeland Security deployed over 3,000 agents to Minnesota as part of the largest immigration-related operation in the department’s history, Operation Metro Surge. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by DHS agents, the state of Minnesota as well as the twin cities challenged Operation Metro Surge in court, prompting President Donald Trump to rail against the local officials on social media.

READ MORE: Trump Dangles Another Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota

Days after Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul filed suit, news reports revealed that the Department of Justice had begun to investigate Walz and Minnesota Mayor Jacob Frey. Trump administration officials said that by not supporting the actions of DHS, Walz and Frey were breaking the law.

The Minnesotan officials argued that the subpoenas were “issued as part of an unconstitutional effort to coerce” them into working with DHS and ICE.

Judge Schiltz found that though grand juries traditionally “have broad investigatory powers,” the subpoenas had exceeded those powers. Schiltz agreed that the subpoenas were in violation of the Tenth Amendment, allowing states some degree of autonomy from the federal government.

Schiltz wrote that he had “no doubt” the subpoenas were issued for the “forbidden purposes” of attempting to “harass” or “coerce” Walz and Frey “into taking official action…. a blatantly unlawful and unethical use the grand-jury process.”

“On the one hand, the evidence that the challenged subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming. On the other hand, the Department has struggled-without success-to identify a single plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas,” Schiltz wrote, pointing out that the “public record… is replete with direct evidence of the Trump administration—including the highest-ranking officials of the Department—threatening and attempting to punish states and localities that have adopted ‘sanctuary’ policies.”

“To be clear, the Court agrees with the Department that a grand-jury subpoena need not be supported by probable cause. At the same time, a grand-jury subpoena cannot be issued for an improper purpose. The fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate,” Schiltz added.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.