DOMA Defense: Thank You Paul Clement
By Steven Osborne | Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 | PolicySeveral weeks ago, the White House announced that they would no longer be defending the Defense of Marriage Act. This was followed by an announcement from the House of Representatives that they would pay for the legal defense of DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman for all federal purposes, and allows the states to refuse to recognize a “marriage” that is created in a state that recognizes homosexual marriage.
Recently, the House hired the law firm of King and Spalding to provide the legal defense for the statute. It was subsequently announced that former Solicitor General Paul Clement, a partner in King and Spalding, would represent the statute in litigation. However, Paul Clement has now resigned his position at King and Spalding after they withdrew from the case over “vetting” reasons. In reality, it is no secret, that King and Spalding was pressured into dropping the case by the homosexual lobby. Paul Clement has now joined Bancroft PLLC, and will continue to represent DOMA in court.
Apparently, the homosexual lobby is so confident in their legal reasoning that they feel the need to force the opposition’s defense out of the equation. Obviously, the radical homosexual activists are not confident enough to let DOMA’s defenders make a legal case at all. This is not surprising, as the primary arguments by those who seek to create a new form of “marriage” is weak. The homosexual lobby has long tried to insist that they are the only reasonable people in the room, regardless of how unreasonable their position really is. To have a strong legal defense for the Defense of Marriage Act would undermine their claims that the pro-family movement is backwards and unintelligent.
While many are loathe talking about this issue, it is important to the future of the country. Conservatives must understand that the family is the most basic form of government, and is essential to limiting the power of the state. It is not an exaggeration to say that without the family, there can be no limited government.
Likewise, the family undergirds the free market. One need only look at the devastation that the breakdown of the family has wrought in many of America’s inner cities to know that the family is a bulwark against poverty. The father and mother each play unique roles in training children how to operate in a free society and within the market.
This natural dynamic of the family has never sat well with progressives or the homosexual lobby, both of whom hold to utopian ideals of a society with no family. Because marriage is the central element of the family, progressives have long targeted the institution. This has been done in many ways including penalties and punitive tax policies, as well as through attempts to redefine the nature of the institution itself by the granting of “rights” that do not exist. All of this is done to bring about a progressive utopia that is a nightmare for conservatives; where the family is not relevant to society.
In the attempt to bring about their utopia, the homosexual lobby has attempted to subvert justice and silence their opponents. I am not aware of Paul Clement’s personal views on marriage; however, he is to be commended for his commitment to the rule of law.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
29 Responses to "DOMA Defense: Thank You Paul Clement"
What is it, the rule of law or the Constitution?
One minute the Right is all up in arms about health care and this and that not being Constitutional, next thing you don’t give a damn about the Constitution, you care about the rule of law, even if it violates the Constitution.
First Amendment: Is marriage not one of the most basic forms of speech or expression? If campaign limits on political contributions constantly are rejected because it places limits on free speech then preventing someone from marrying who they choose is also a limit on speech.
Denying this right to these individuals is a violation of their rights as afforded to them by the Bill of Rights and therefore is Unconstitutional.
@ ToR
Using that logic, anything can be considered “speech.”
No, I personally do not believe that the family undermines the Constitution.
It’s not “logic,” Steven; it’s moonbat propaganda. According to the moonbats, words have no meaning, and therefore “marriage” means whatever they want it to mean. You are correct in your identification of its roots, as well.
ToR is correct that the right of free association is protected by the First Amendment. But homosexuals are no more entitled to declare their couplings — or triplings, etc. — to be “marriage” any more than business partners are entitled to legal recognition as a “corporation” if they fail to meet the basic legal requirements.
“Steven Osborne…is currently furthering his education at Liberty University.”
Really? More like reinforcing his wahhabi beliefs at a fundamentalist madrassa. The Christian Right is neither.
While I don’t usually agree with this blog, I’ve almost always understood and respected the differences in underlying assumptions that led to our policy differences. This is not the case today.
This post is nowhere near the usual quality of Bearing Drift posts, and it degrades the reputation of the blog that houses it.
“This natural dynamic of the family has never sat well with progressives or the homosexual lobby, both of whom hold to utopian ideals of a society with no family.”
For quotes such as the above to be used without any serious self-reflection on their accuracy is depressing. It reflects a divide so great that there can be no possible compromise between the left and right, and were it indeed true, the future of this nation would be in peril.
You make the argument that the homosexual lobby is trying to undermine family? How is that the case when they contiue to advocate and plead for the right to create their OWN families… however they chose to define them?
The real problem though… the real issue I have with those who trumpet their disgust of homosexuals is that it blinds them to the real issues. You want to do a service to your readers? Next time, write an article about our rising debt, growing deficit and economic threats overseas. Those are the real issues that are “important to the future of our country”.
And, as usual, the far Left responds to considered discussion dismissively. As recently observed by The Economist: “this sort of psychologising diagnosis of strong political conviction often serves as a cheap, supremely condescending trick for pathologising and thus dismissing those with whom we disagree. A good deal of work on the psychology of conservatism is like this. The motivating question, ‘What the hell is wrong with these people?’ takes it for granted that there is something wrong with ‘these people,’ and thus that disagreement with them is based not on a reasonable difference of opinions among intelligent people of good will, but rather on some sort of deep-seated defect of character or cognition in the ‘other’ insusceptible to correction through civilised discourse.”
The “problem,” for these people, is not that Steven’s post “is nowhere near the usual quality of Bearing Drift posts,” or that “it degrades the reputation of the blog that houses it,” or that it does not address “real issues that are ‘important to the future of our country’”
The problem, for these commenters, is that it is dead on accurate, and identifies the roots of the assault on the family by the far Left and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda (but I repeat myself) for what it they are. And identifying the source — “The Green tree has Red roots” — is the first step in successfully responding to it.
@ Ben
You will find that I have written about many of the very things that you have described in regards to national security and the economy.
As far as my assertion that progressives and the homosexual lobby want to undermine the family. You do not have to take my word for it, you can read their writings for yourself.
@ Joe Stanley
My statement concerning the utopian nature of progressivism is not inaccurate and deserves reflection. Many of them hold to the idea that man can shape his own molds of truth and reality in order to create a form of utopian society, this type of experiementation has been reflected in Europe. Read their writings.
Thank you for writing this article Steve O. It’s not just the Liberals that want to break down the traditional family unit, it is the idiotic libertarians that also have their own version of a utopia.
A majority of the states have already passed legislation that defines marriage between a man and a woman. That was accomplished by ballot initiatives. The voters in those states voted against gay marriage. The libertarians are the first ones to want the federal government out of social issues, and want those issues to be decided by the states. Now that the states voters have spoken, and the outcome isn’t the utopia the libertarians wanted, they are up in arms.
The Constitution recognizes “laws” passed by the Congress, and the state legislatures. If the states passed “laws” against gay marriage, they are constitutional.
Anybody doubt that GOProud has their hands all over this. I suspect that by next year it will be called LPAC rather than CPAC.
Personally, I am against homosexual marriage. This is not due to homophobia as I believe there are rational, reasonable and valid reasons for society to encourage monogamous, heterosexual relationships.
However I feel that in the not too distant future, homosexual marriage is going to become a reality. There is a generational gap in the opinions on this issue. The majority of my generation is against it, however the majority of my kids’ generation is in favor of it. As more youngsters reach voting age and more elders pass on, DOMA will end up being repealed through legislation.
We can delay things, however whether we (or at least I) like it or not, things are going to eventually end up changing.
JY- I don’t have any problem with the fact that people have strong, sincerely-held religious beliefs against homosexuality. I do have problems when they want to make those beliefs the basis for the law of the land. Part of what makes America work is the realization by all involved that religious beliefs pertain only to believers and can’t be imposed on those who espouse another faith or no faith.
You have the perfect right to seek to pesuade people to adopt your religous beliefs. You don’t have the right to use the authority of the government to force them on people.
That applies as much to the abortion debate as to gay rights.
Personally, I think “marriages” are what churches do and no one has suggested they would be forced to marry anyone. In the eyes of the state, civil partnerships — gay or straight — allow some tax and legal benefits. The state has no business regulated the gender — or for that matter, the number — of people who can enter into those partnerships.
Steve, it was the “law of the land” long before there was a “law of the land.” It’s not a matter of making it such; it’s an argument over doing what you want to do, which is destroy it.
And I’m also entertained by the “your religious beliefs” gambit. No, Steve, they’re not MY religious beliefs; they’re the considered wisdom of 5000 years of civilized societies, including ours. You simply wish to change that. Don’t try to pretend that your view has any basis in the Constitution, because it doesn’t. You cannot point to a single Framer of the Constitution or any of its amendments who hold your view, because what you and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda are trying to do, as usual, is amend the Constitution without troubling yourselves with the processes set forth in the document to do so. Kinda like the far Left did with abortion.
The Constitution does not protect sexual deviancy, nor demand that society accept it.
Steve Vaughn,
There are reasons for society to discourage male homosexuality just like there are reasons for society to discourage prostitution.
Prior to the advent of modern medicine, our society combated sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by encouraging monogamous, heterosexual relationships. While modern medicine briefly gave us an alternate method of combating STDs, more of these diseases are proving resistant to modern medicines.
It is my opinion we should stick to the old ways instead of embracing the new. It is my opinion that any valid examination of scientific data will back my opinion up.
“The Constitution does not protect sexual deviancy, nor demand that society accept it.”
JY-Okay, we’re clear that you’re a religious bigot and you think you can use the machinery of the state to enforce your bigotry.
I disagree. Oh, by the way, so did a fairly conservative Supreme Court in striking down anti-sodomay statutes.
I’d think any conservative worth the name would agree that some areas of life should be outside the purview of government — what people do in the bedroom being foremost among them.
But then you comments make it clear that you aren’t a conservative interested in limiting government. You’re a religious zealot interested in using the government as an inquisition to enforce your interpretation of Christianity on everyone else.
LD-Only male homosexuality should be discouraged? You think there might be a bias problem in basing the law on this?
And your, or JY’s, opinions about homosexuality are really beside the point. Other peoples’ sex lives — to the extent that they involve consenting adults — are none of your business. Or the government’s.
SY,
Nope, I am in favor of monogamous heterosexual relationships. While I can understand that any female might prefer another female as a partner, there needs to be enough women to go around.
Besides, I believe in evolution. Lesbian women who engage in artificial insemination also engage in selectivity. They can select the sperm donor but they do not have to live with him.
Steven,
By your own argument of the importance of family to the stability of the nation, we should be encouraging LGBT couples to marry and have families. I completely agree that it is the family unit which best forms the foundation of a society, the difference in our views isn’t about the importance of family, it’s that your definition of family/marriage includes the discrimination of men and women due to your dismissal of the reality that they are gay.
Society should encourage monogamy for all people, and monogamy should be a goal for all people, gay or straight. Marriage as an institution aids in the encouragement and accomplishment of that goal, as it is the joining of two people permanently (in theory).
I believe the backlash of both government and religion against LGBT people is very much to blame for many of the ills which are referred to when government officials and religions speak of LGBT people. They’ve created a self fulfilling prophecy caused largely by their forcing LGBT people into the darkness, the closet.
It’s only now that people are refusing to live in the closet, and demanding to be treated as equals regarding their relationships, that many are even exposed to real LGBT people (as opposed to the myth perpetuated by government officials and religions), and understanding that they are deserving of equal treatment under the law.
As a gay man, I have no desire to weaken marriage or break apart what has been traditionally defined as a family, but I have every desire to one day marry a man I love and perhaps have a family of my own, and I fail to see any contradiction in these two positions. The reality is that a gay couple living next door to a straight couple has no effect on the strength of the straight couple’s marriage, or the decisions they make for their family.
It is my opinion that the continued denial of equality to LGBT people in regard to their relationships harms society, and is even corrosive to families with LGBT sons, daughters, cousins, etc. We need to stop the discrimination, and we need to stop the misinformation. I know that we can do better than this.
Joel,
It is not a myth that homosexual men suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate when compared to society at large. We are not just talking AIDS here, we’re talking about the ordinary sexually transmitted diseases that are becoming increasingly drug resistant.
You can try to claim that homosexual men are just like the rest of us, and in your case, it might be true. But if it is true, you are extraordinary.
Steve,
Thanks for pointing out what this really is: bigotry.
Wow, articles like this make me think the Democrats are *actually* the conservative party (along with Bush’s expansionist war policy, pill bill, deficit spending, etc.) How is lusting over a federal ban on who can get married and do the nasty together compatible with conservatism? That seems like quite the heavy-handed government intervention into our personal lives. Wouldn’t this also be some serious federal tramping of states’ rights?
Guess not.
How about a Republican Party that smartly manages the budget, maintains an effective, but efficient, military, and then runs a government that stays the heck out of my way, whether I’m starting a new business or wanting to tie the knot with Joe the Plumber?
ps-based on nearly all of the arguments in this article (“the family is the bedrock…”), we should go ahead and ban divorce. and those nights when my wife is in some sort of foul mood. and hot secretaries who like to show some skin. and alcohol. and pink slips at work. and LOST. that’s the stuff that is killing families. not adam lambert.
Steve, you’re a fraud. You have no interest in keeping the government out of “what people do in the bedroom….” The Fourth Amendment protects against that quite nicely.
What you ARE interested in is having the government ENDORSE sexual deviancy. In fact, the biggest fraud of all in the radical homosexual agenda is that it’s about that “Other peoples’ sex lives — to the extent that they involve consenting adults — are none of your business. Or the government’s.” Oh, if only it were so! But there’s Joel McDonald, loudly announcing his deviancy.
Call me a “bigot” if you want; I’m quite used to having the far Left name-call when they have no reasonable responses. As you utterly ignored the real constitutional issues.
rinolove makes a very compelling point. I could get behind the DOMA if the law also included a provision to abolish divorce. I cannot for the life of me imagine how gay couples could do more damage to the institution of marriage than heterosexual couples have already done with their 50% divorce rate.
And to think that the Republican poster child of “family values” is Presidential Wannabe Gingrich. If I had been porking a junior subordinate while married and living with my wife when I was a military officer, I would have been ingloriously removed from active duty.
HisRoc,
I believe our society tolerates homosexuality at least as much as it does adultery amongst heterosexuals (above and beyond toleration of divorce).
However just because we tolerate it does not mean we should encourage it. Society gives special status to monogamous, heterosexual relationships and that is what I think should be encouraged.
LD,
I wasn’t addressing adultery directly, but divorce. The entire premise of DOMA is that it protects the involutable condition that marriage is an unbreakable union of a man and a woman who procreate. Same sex couples, on the other hand, cannot procreate and therefore are not bound to a union that created offspring. What bullshit. Make heterosexual marriage permanent under the law and I will support limiting the ritual to breeders.
HisRoc,
OK, let us take this a little further then. Society has not right to intrude on sexual relationships? Why then can society outlaw prostitution?
For the good of society, prostitution is outlawed. Why? Because prostitution spreads sexually transmitted disease (STD).
Even though prostitution is illegal, it still happens and it still spreads disease. Homosexuality is not illegal as long as no money changes hands. Homosexual males suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate then society at large even though society at large has to include the amount of STDs transmitted through illegal prostitution.
Is it wrong for our government to get involved in safeguarding the public health?
I think all citizens should be treated equally, and so does the nation’s constitution. There’s nothing superior about straight people, and therefore they should get special rights for their relationships. If the government is going to hand out marriage licenses, it should do so equally to straight couples and to gay couples.
LittleDavid,
I think we should go ahead and ban all non-married sex. And frat parties. Both contribute greatly to the spread of STDs.
I’m still interesting in knowing how laws such as DOMA, and similar state versions, vibes with conservatism?
Rinolove,
I am not a conservative, I am a moderate. I am not a Republican, I am a Blue Dog Democrat.
Even with all the frat parties and non-married sexual encounters amongst heterosexuals, homosexual males suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate then does the public at large.
My hypothesis for this is that this is because a male homosexual has the opportunity to find more willing partners. More opportunity leads to more sexual encounters and a greater spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.