Ben Johnson

Obama places minority status, federal benefits at heart of anti-DOMA brief

Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 25, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Completing the turn against traditional marriage he began more than two years ago, President Barack Obama filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The administration has placed access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits and tax breaks – as well as its belief the homosexuals deserve a special place as an underprivileged minority group – at the heart of its legal argument.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed the amicus curiae brief urging the court to declare Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on multiple grounds, including an alleged violation of equal protection under the law.

The 54-page document also claims the justices must give greater deference to homosexuals, because “gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power.”

The decision acknowledges that voters in three states – Maine, Maryland, and Washington – democratically approved marriage redefinition and six additional states redefined the institution at the legislative level of through judicial fiat. However, it counts 36 additional states that have passed laws or state constitutional amendments preserving marriage as an institution between one man and one woman since 1996.

That lack of electoral success, the Obama administration argues, proves that the Supreme Court should short-circuit the popular will.

DOMA, the brief states, is “the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law,” decreed from the federal bench.

The administration also places access to federal subsidies and tax breaks at the heart of its case. “The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples,” the brief states.

The protagonist in the case United States v. Windsor, Edith Windsor, is a New Yorker who “married” her lesbian partner in Canada. She is suing because she must pay $363,000 in estate taxes that would not be owed by a married couple. President Obama has argued in favor of increasing the estate tax.

The same-sex “marriage” argument turns largely, not around equal process but giving homosexuals access to government welfare benefits and tax incentives originally designed for stay-at-home mothers. Some believe, like 20-year-old Tufts University junior Grianne Griffiths, believe that “turning the conversation to [federal] benefits is crucial in changing public consciousness.”

Others believe there is no discrimination in allowing states to set their own definition of marriage, and for the federal government to establish the definition of marriage for its own purposes.

The Justice Department brief states the law, passed before a single state legalized homosexual “marriage,” “targets” homosexual couples considered married under state law. This constitutes “a harsh form of discrimination that...does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest.”

The Family Research Council disagrees, citing a growing body of research from its own social scientists and other scholars showing that an intact traditional family may be the greatest means of reducing child poverty, dropout rates, physical abuse, mental illness, and unemployment.

“Redefining marriage would have massive economic implications,” an FRC spokesman stated. “Only an administration blinded by its extreme social agenda would fail to recognize that.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Obama’s radical policies will undermine marriage and morality and ultimately will harm children and society,” agreed Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel.

The Obama administration entered the legal brief on Friday, known to politicians as “the Friday news dump,” a time that produces little media exposure for an unpopular action.

Obama has not yet determined whether he will file an amicus brief in the companion case over California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage. He has until February 28 to file such a document.

"If they decide to enter the case, their brief will probably be the most important before the court," said Richard Socarides, Bill Clinton's liaison on homosexual affairs. "The position of the government on how it thinks we should treat our citizens - what could be more important?"

Obama may have signaled reticence over the weekend, saying, “I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much in this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case.”

However, he is certain to have a substantial impact on the outcome. He appointed two of the justices who will decide on the case – Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

In February 2011, Obama took the unusual step of announcing he would no longer defend DOMA in court. The Justice Department began lobbying for the law, signed by President Bill Clinton, to be overturned that June.

His appointees have been outspoken on Proposition 8, as well. Obama named defrocked Methodist minister Harry Knox to the Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in 2009. Knox called faithful Catholics who supported Proposition 8 “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.”

The president has also shown a penchant of enacting pro-homosexual policies by executive order. “Where government has historically denied things like same-sex partner benefits for federal workers or military personnel, the Obama administration has just ignored the law and awarded them anyway,” noted an FRC spokesman.

The brief seems to admit it is on shaky legal standing, stating the government's position would fall apart if the High Court uses the typical standard for evaluating laws.

“The government has concluded that heightened scrutiny governs classifications based on sexual orientation and that DOMA Section 3 cannot be sustained under that standard. If the Court disagrees and applies rational-basis review, the government has previously defended Section 3 under rational-basis review, and does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 under that highly deferential standard,” the brief states. 

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
President Obama speaks at Planned Parenthood's national conference in 2013.
Lisa Bourne

Obama to speak at Catholic Health Association’s annual meeting

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic alliance that defied the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in supporting Barack Obama’s controversial overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system is persisting in its close relationship with the president, giving him a venue to further endorse ObamaCare at its annual meeting.

Obama will “focus on the future of health care and the Affordable Care Act,” when he delivers the “Future of Healthcare Address” June 9, closing the Catholic Health Association’s (CHA) annual membership meeting and marking the organization’s 100th year, a CHA statement said.

“We are delighted and honored that President Obama will speak to Catholic health care leaders gathered for our 100th anniversary as an association,” CHA president and CEO Sister Carol Keehan stated. “As long-time supporters of a health care system that works for everyone and pays special attention to those who are poor and vulnerable, we are grateful for the president’s leadership on the ACA.”

Sister Keehan was a crucial ObamaCare proponent. She later received one of the 21 ceremonial pens Obama used to sign the measure into law. She was also a beneficiary of his public, personal gratitude for her assistance in getting the law passed.

Pro-abortion Catholic politicians cited Keehan and CHA's support for the law, despite ObamaCare’s compulsory taxpayer funding of contraception and abortifacients, in justifying their support for the law.

In 2010, the late Cardinal Francis George, then president of the USCCB, said that culpability for ObamaCare’s passage lies at the feet of Sister Keehan and other Catholic groups that split from the bishops to support the pro-abortion legislation.

"The Catholic Health Association and other so-called Catholic groups provided cover for those on the fence to support Obama and the administration," Cardinal George said at the time, adding that "Sister Carol and her colleagues are to blame" for the passage of the health care bill.

The cardinal and bishops had met personally with her numerous times to communicate about the law and continually came away frustrated.

"The bill which was passed is fundamentally flawed. The executive order is meaningless. Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation," the cardinal stated, also saying that the CHA and the groups have "weakened the moral voice of the bishops in the U.S." with their actions in regard to ObamaCare.

Sister Keehan, who was pressured off of the Knights of Malta’s Holy Family Hospital Foundation as a result of her ObamaCare support, continued in defending the embattled law in her statement announcing the president’s upcoming appearance to further tout it.

“This important law has provided meaningful health coverage to at least 16 million people who needed and deserved it, as well as improved both the benefits and finances of Medicare and Medicaid,” said Sister Keehan. “We look forward to the president's comments and insights at our assembly, and to being a continued partner in preserving and improving the ACA.”

One Catholic blogger criticized the CHA for having Obama come speak to its membership.

Kathy Schiffer of the Seasons of Grace blog pronounced herself “disgusted and horrified.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“What in the world, I wonder, could this president have to say to Catholics about health care?” Schiffer asked.

She then listed Obama’s policy offenses against Catholics, including seeking to penalize Catholic organizations that oppose funding contraception and abortifacients, and his refusal to acknowledge that Catholic organizations are religious employers for the purpose of religious liberty.

Schiffer’s examples illustrating the irreconcilable invitation for Obama to speak to Catholic healthcare professionals also included mention of the threat of Catholic hospitals closing because of his policies requiring contraception and sterilization. Statistics show that large numbers of Catholic doctors plan to retire early and leave healthcare because of the ACA.

Schiffer wrote that she believed it was her responsibility to share her concerns “and to encourage others to express their concerns as well–inviting the Catholic Health Association to abide by Church teaching, and to return to the faith passed on to us by the Apostles.”

Contact:

The Catholic Health Association of the United States

Sister Carol Keehan:
[email protected]

Board of Trustees Staff Contact Candice T. Hall:
[email protected]
1875 Eye Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
PH: (202) 296-3993
FX: (202) 296-3997 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Bruce Jenner wanted to abort his oldest daughter

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

HOLLYWOOD, CA, June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bruce Jenner has spared the public virtually nothing during his public transformation into “Caitlyn,” but one detail of his life emerged in the story that accompanies that much-shared Vanity Fair cover: The former Olympic medalist wanted his oldest daughter, Casey, aborted and refused to be at the hospital during her birth.

During the height of his fame, Bruce Jenner was married to Chrystie Crownover. Their nine-year marriage produced two children: Burt (Burton) and Casey (Cassandra).

But Bruce learned about Casey in the midst of a divorce battle and told Chrystie he wanted her to get rid of the child.

“When I found out I was pregnant Bruce raised the issue of an abortion, and I went along with him just as I always did. I had all the tests and had even paid for the operation,” Chrystie wrote in People magazine in 1981, the year they divorced. “But one night I was out to dinner and my friend asked me why I wanted an abortion.”

Her answer was simple: “I don't want the abortion,” she said. “Bruce wants it.”

Her friend responded, “You are having the abortion because the man that you are not going to be living with wants you to have it?"

“I thought, what an idiot I am,” Chrystie wrote. “I wanted the child very, very much.”

She gave birth to a baby girl in June 1980. Bruce chose not to be present at her birth, telling Vanity Fair his night consisted of crying in a hotel room.

However, his attitude changed. Chrystie wrote that after giving birth, “Bruce has been very loving and accepting of Casey.”

Although the articles were publicly available, Casey said she did not know about her father's initial reaction until she was 13 years old. She overheard a few cryptic remarks Bruce made to his ex-wife during a fight, telling Vanity Fair that she remembers at age 13 “asking my mom what he was talking about, until she confessed the history behind my birth.”

Casey has since reconciled with her father – and her mother has never questioned her decision to give birth, even in life apart from the decathlon winner.

“My fulfillment 10 years ago was totally through a man,” Chrystie wrote. “Today the important things in my life are my kids, my design work, my friends, and my running, and I feel fulfilled by those.” 

Like Chrystie almost did, many women abort under duress, feeling they have no choice but to follow the instructions of their husband, boyfriend, or parents.

Bruce Jenner went on to have six children with three wives.

Casey tells Vanity Fair that she supports her father's public and conspicuous transition into “Caitlyn.” But some of his other six children have reacted differently.

Seventeen-year-old Kylie Jenner, Bruce's youngest child with third wife, Kris, admitted last month, “I feel like I go through these times where I hate my life.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

She told her father she missed their bonding times, saying, “I wish you were out here to do crazy things with me.” She then told the television audience, "Me and my dad have so many things in common, [but] he's making all of these changes.”

Kylie has denied rumors that she has had an abortion.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

,

Gay atheist rips into Irish bishops’ weak response on gay ‘marriage’

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A leading British commentator who is both a homosexual and an atheist has come down hard on the leadership of the Catholic Church in Ireland for what he calls its complacent “willingness to bend to prevailing mood” on Ireland’s same-sex “marriage” referendum.

The Irish voted two-to-one for allowing homosexual “marriage.” This result met with the full approval of Matthew Parris, a former Conservative MP and current columnist for the Spectator and Times newspapers who has been in a civil partnership with his longtime homosexual partner Julian Glover since 2006. He nonetheless devoted a scathing column in the Spectator to condemning the Catholic episcopate for undercutting its own beliefs with its tepid response to the referendum result.

He cited Dublin’s Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who told Irish broadcaster RTE, “The Church needs a reality check right across the board, to look at the things we are doing well and look at the areas where we need to say, have we drifted away completely from young people?” Martin went on to question the effectiveness of the Church’s involvement in the school system, since polling indicated young people proved especially keen on legalizing same-sex “marriage.”

But Martin’s humble, apologetic self-examination was not what Parris wanted from the Church he disbelieves in, though his Wikipedia entry indicates he was never a member. What he wanted to see was something like “Moses’ (and God’s) furious reaction to the nude dancing and heretical worship of Moloch in the form of a golden calf: the Sin of the Calf in the Hebrew literature.”

Archbishop Martin went on the describe Ireland’s vote as a “social revolution” which must serve as a “reality check” for Church leaders about how bad a job they are doing as teachers and pastors.

What should Martin have said? According to Parris, “The conservative Catholic’s only proper response to [the referendum result] is that 62 per cent in a referendum does not cause a sin in the eyes of God to cease to be a sin.”

“Can’t these Christians see that the moral basis of their faith cannot be sought in the pollsters’ arithmetic? What has the Irish referendum shown us? It is that a majority of people in the Republic of Ireland in 2015 do not agree with their church’s centuries-old doctrine that sexual relationships between two people of the same gender are a sin.”

Parris went on to argue that Christians more than other religious believers ought to expect their teachings to be unpopular, given “the fate of their Messiah, and the persecution of adherents to the Early Church. ‘Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you,’ says Paul.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

Parris concludes with a question. He wonders if Martin’s response -- and Pope Francis’ too -- to the Irish loss, reveal that they never really believed their moral positions were from God after all –“that on some half-conscious level neither ever really believed that morality was absolute or objective anyway — or supposed we really thought they were serious? Have some of us, in short, made the mistake of taking the church at its word?”

Parris’s argument at this point rests on an atheist’s typically truncated understanding of Christian teaching—that it consists solely of repeating God’s word as distilled from the Bible. Clearly it has never occurred to him that the Church has developed a moral theology based on reason and the concept of natural law which it has passed down in the form of millennia-old Tradition (not “centuries-old” as Parris puts it).  That homosexuality is a sin not because God says so, but that God says so because He is the designer of humanity and ought to know best how we function.

But this does not necessarily make Parris wrong in his assessment of the Catholic hierarchy’s milquetoast response to the referendum. Raised in a time when the Church’s power was peaking, entering seminary with the expectation of preferment and perquisites, most current bishops never signed on to be reviled like Jesus Christ was, or, perhaps worse, ignored as an irrelevant anachronism.

So the answer to his question could be that the current Church leadership is indeed suffering from a crisis of doubt, but this need not be true of earlier generations, and is not even an accurate characterization of the Catholic faithful or bishops in the developing countries in Africa and Asia. There persecution is growing, and the Faith is strong.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook