OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
- HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION BOONDOGGLE & CONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB ATTEMPT
by Rowan Scarborough
09/21/2009
The House Democrats' huge health care bill bestows immense powers on one Washington bureaucrat who it authorizes to regulate every step of insurance buying and to collect any data on the American people the czar deems necessary to do the job.
The position is called the Health Choices Commissioner. The post will be filled by the president and confirmed by the Senate to oversee a brand new government agency whose health industry powers seem boundless under the bill. This person, and this person alone, will decide whether a health coverage plan is acceptable to Washington or not.
"He will rigidly and vigorously defined the choices that are available to you," said Robert E. Moffit, a health policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
It is a massive shift in state's rights, moving decisions made by legislatures, governors and local insurance commissioners from the people to one desk in Washington.
"The big story in the House bill is that what you're looking at is a massive transfer of regulatory authority from the states to the federal government over health insurance," Moffit said. "This basically will undermine state independence, innovation in the provision of health insurance, the writing of health insurance and regulation. States vary from state to state on the kind of rules governing health insurance. What this does, it federalizes the entire process."
The choices commissioner will create a single, national insurance exchange -- a place to shop for private insurance or the federal government option favored by liberals -- and decide which companies can participate.
Because of the way the bill is written, almost certainly all private insurers will want to join the exchange and compete with the feds. Regardless of whether a company joins, the commissioner will rule on the acceptability of its plan, too. And by 2013, all individuals seeking insurance must apply through the exchange.
The commissioner will create the standards for all plans, meaning an insurer must meet his dictates on benefits or get out of the business. He can decide where companies can put their profits and tell them how to write brochures and other marketing tools.
The bill's section on Medicaid, a health care program for the poor, reads, "The commissioner shall establish effective methods for communicating in plain language and a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner."
In other words, languages other than English.
The commissioner also has free rein to audit any health plan and charge the company for costs. Moreover, Democrats have given the commissioner control over provider networks, meaning in theory he can decree the number of doctors or nurses or beds in a particular region.
"By concentrating so much authority into this one agency governed by a health choice commissioner and allowing the commissioner to have such vast discretion over what qualifies as health insurance, you're vesting an unelected bureaucracy with a tremendous amount of power," said Greg Conko, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Certainly unprecedented. And then he has the authority to punish plans for breaching what he decides is the right way to provide insurance."
Perhaps the most disturbing power is an blank check to collect data -- a power that in the past has rankled liberals and the mainstream press. But in this case, with a Democrat bill backed by liberals, the prospect of unchecked "data mining" has stirred no leftist protest.
Under section 142, which details the commissioner's authority, the bill states:
"The Commissioner shall collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting quality and value, protecting consumers, and addressing disparities in health and health care and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services."
That's it. No qualifiers. No limits. Analysts told HUMAN EVENTS under such broad language the commissioner's bureaucrats can obtained people's tax records, credit reports, employment history. They could argue the data is needed to understand the region's demographics, patient requirements and income trends.
Another section specifically gives the commissioner authority to read tax returns.
"It gives him basically a blank check to go after all kinds of stuff," Moffit told HUMAN EVENTS. "Whatever he decides he needs. It's at his discretion. One of the things that is outstanding about the health choices commissioner is that as a public official he has enormous discretion in the exercise of his duties. Certainly I've never seen anything like this in my experience."
Then there is the section letting the commissioner oversee private insurance company finances.
"It's basically saying how much you can spend on benefits and how much you can retain for administrative costs or profits," Moffit said. "The health choices commissioner is an enforcer."
To Moffit and other conservatives, the ultimate purpose of the national health exchange is to put private insurers out of business. Afterall, when one government bureaucrat, the commissioner, is writing the rules for everyone, who is he going to favor: private industry or the government?
Afterall, one section allows the commissioner to automatically enroll individuals in a health care plan. "Such process may involve a random assignment," the bill says. To conservatives, "random" means the commissioner will shoe-horn them into the federal government plan.
Mr. Scarborough is a national security writer who has written books on Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, including the New York Times bestseller Rumsfeld's War.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Hillary's Honduras Obsession
OPINION: THE AMERICAS - Wall Street Journal
SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
The U.S. is trying to force the country to violate its constitution.
"The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings."
—Congressional Research Service, August 2009
Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis, that the incident amounts to a "coup d'état" and must be reversed. President Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust their president's proclamations.
Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.
Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary.
Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya's violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their "human rights."
But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?
The Americas in the News
Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.
It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.
Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.
Thousands of readers have written to me asking how all this can happen in the U.S., where democratic principles have been recognized since the nation's founding. Many readers have written that they are "ashamed" of the U.S. and have asked, in effect, "How can I help Honduras?" A more pertinent question may turn out to be, how can they help their own country?
In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy. Legal scholars are clear on this. "Judicial independence is a central component of any democracy and is crucial to separation of powers, the rule of law and human rights," writes Ahron Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and a prominent legal scholar, in his compelling 2006 book, "The Judge in a Democracy."
"The purpose of the separation of powers is to strengthen freedom and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one government actor in a manner likely to harm the freedom of the individual," Mr. Barak explains—almost as if he is writing about Honduras.
He also warns prophetically about the Chávez style of democracy that has destroyed Venezuela and that Hondurans say they were trying to avoid in their own country. "Democracy is entitled to defend itself from those who seek to use it in order to destroy its very existence," he writes. Americans ought to ask themselves why the Obama administration doesn't seem to agree.
Write to O'Grady@wsj.com
SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
The U.S. is trying to force the country to violate its constitution.
"The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings."
—Congressional Research Service, August 2009
Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis, that the incident amounts to a "coup d'état" and must be reversed. President Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust their president's proclamations.
Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.
Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary.
Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya's violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their "human rights."
But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?
The Americas in the News
Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.
It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.
Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.
Thousands of readers have written to me asking how all this can happen in the U.S., where democratic principles have been recognized since the nation's founding. Many readers have written that they are "ashamed" of the U.S. and have asked, in effect, "How can I help Honduras?" A more pertinent question may turn out to be, how can they help their own country?
In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy. Legal scholars are clear on this. "Judicial independence is a central component of any democracy and is crucial to separation of powers, the rule of law and human rights," writes Ahron Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and a prominent legal scholar, in his compelling 2006 book, "The Judge in a Democracy."
"The purpose of the separation of powers is to strengthen freedom and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one government actor in a manner likely to harm the freedom of the individual," Mr. Barak explains—almost as if he is writing about Honduras.
He also warns prophetically about the Chávez style of democracy that has destroyed Venezuela and that Hondurans say they were trying to avoid in their own country. "Democracy is entitled to defend itself from those who seek to use it in order to destroy its very existence," he writes. Americans ought to ask themselves why the Obama administration doesn't seem to agree.
Write to O'Grady@wsj.com
Congress, Obama team up to kill marriage protections
WND Exclusive QUEERLY BELOVED
'Respect' proposal has nearly 100 members of Congress endorsing homosexualityR
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Nearly 100 members of the U.S. House are working in lockstep with the Obama administration to try to eliminate protections for traditional marriage in the United States with the "Respect for Marriage Act" that has just been introduced in Congress.
H.R. 3567 was introduced just days ago by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, and more than 90 co-sponsors.
"This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples," Nadler said in a statement on his website.The proposal has been assigned to committee.
"The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families," his statement continued.
"The introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act responds directly to a call from President Obama for congressional action on the issue. As the president recently confirmed: 'I stand by my long-standing commitment to work
with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it," the statement said.
Obama's opposition to traditional marriage was made clear recently when his Justice Department filed a legal brief seeking the repeal of DOMA.
The Defense of Marriage Act provides that federal laws must be interpreted in accord with the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife.
But Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson filed a brief Aug 17 declaring: "With respects to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."
In a written statement, Obama declared:
[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.
The Justice Department said it "does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing" and evidence "that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."
According to an analysis by Alliance Defense Fund, a repeal of the primary federal law that protects marriage opens the door for litigation that would seek to force states to recognize "marriages" between same-sex duos.
"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians," said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.
"Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he continued.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. It was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, same-sex couples make up less than half of one percent of the total U.S. population. Repeatedly, polls have show general support in America for the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Gallup in May reported the lowest support for same-sex "marriage" in years, with nearly 60 percent opposed to the status.
The ADF also noted that in the 30 states where voters have been given the choice of defining marriage, 30 times they have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
However, DOMA detractors say their new "Respect" law would embrace "the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized."
The supporters say marriages in states still would be decided by each state, but the point raises questions among traditional marriage supporters: How would one be "married" under federal law but not "married" under state law in those states where marriage already is constitutionally defined as involving a man and a woman.
Nadler's announcement about his proposal takes that issue headon. "It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple's marriage for purposes of state law."
The Full Faith and Credit requirement essentially mandates that states recognize laws of other states.
Nadler said the plan has the support of those "harmed by DOMA," including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and others.
"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law," Nadler said.
The proposed law states: "For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has said if DOMA is gone, the door is open to an all-out assault on states' rights.
"Then the individual states are sort of sitting ducks," Staver explained. "What would happen is same-sex marriage would rush over the dam of the various borders of the states, so to speak, like a floodwater rushing over the top of a dam, and flood all the other states."
Staver told WND's Greg Corombos he believes the issue will ultimately go before the U.S. Supreme Court, though he claims the court has no constitutional authority to redefine marriage.
"The Supreme Court should not be in the business of redefining or even defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he said. "That transcends the Constitution. It is something that is part of our natural existence. It is something that transcends political parties and geographies and time. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of actually redefining it. If in fact they do redefine to something other than what it is, it clearly shows we have an activist court. I think we need to make sure we have justices on the bench that understand the role as an umpire, not activist legislators."
As WND reported earlier, the White House after the election scrubbed President Obama's central pledge to the homosexual community to repeal DOMA from its website.
The president unveiled his pro-homosexual agenda on the White House website on Inauguration Day. Under the "Civil Rights" section, he called for the repeal of the act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 after an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress (342-67 and 85-14).
The following is the original language posted on the White House website as Obama took office:
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. (emphasis added)
The White House later edited the statement, changing it to:
President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. ... (emphasis added)
In December 2008, Obama told the Advocate, "I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA."
In a Feb. 8, 2008, letter posted on his website, Obama promised "LGBT equality in America." It stated:
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
'Respect' proposal has nearly 100 members of Congress endorsing homosexualityR
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Nearly 100 members of the U.S. House are working in lockstep with the Obama administration to try to eliminate protections for traditional marriage in the United States with the "Respect for Marriage Act" that has just been introduced in Congress.
H.R. 3567 was introduced just days ago by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, and more than 90 co-sponsors.
"This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples," Nadler said in a statement on his website.The proposal has been assigned to committee.
"The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families," his statement continued.
"The introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act responds directly to a call from President Obama for congressional action on the issue. As the president recently confirmed: 'I stand by my long-standing commitment to work
with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it," the statement said.
Obama's opposition to traditional marriage was made clear recently when his Justice Department filed a legal brief seeking the repeal of DOMA.
The Defense of Marriage Act provides that federal laws must be interpreted in accord with the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife.
But Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson filed a brief Aug 17 declaring: "With respects to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."
In a written statement, Obama declared:
[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.
The Justice Department said it "does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing" and evidence "that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."
According to an analysis by Alliance Defense Fund, a repeal of the primary federal law that protects marriage opens the door for litigation that would seek to force states to recognize "marriages" between same-sex duos.
"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians," said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.
"Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he continued.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. It was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, same-sex couples make up less than half of one percent of the total U.S. population. Repeatedly, polls have show general support in America for the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Gallup in May reported the lowest support for same-sex "marriage" in years, with nearly 60 percent opposed to the status.
The ADF also noted that in the 30 states where voters have been given the choice of defining marriage, 30 times they have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
However, DOMA detractors say their new "Respect" law would embrace "the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized."
The supporters say marriages in states still would be decided by each state, but the point raises questions among traditional marriage supporters: How would one be "married" under federal law but not "married" under state law in those states where marriage already is constitutionally defined as involving a man and a woman.
Nadler's announcement about his proposal takes that issue headon. "It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple's marriage for purposes of state law."
The Full Faith and Credit requirement essentially mandates that states recognize laws of other states.
Nadler said the plan has the support of those "harmed by DOMA," including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and others.
"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law," Nadler said.
The proposed law states: "For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has said if DOMA is gone, the door is open to an all-out assault on states' rights.
"Then the individual states are sort of sitting ducks," Staver explained. "What would happen is same-sex marriage would rush over the dam of the various borders of the states, so to speak, like a floodwater rushing over the top of a dam, and flood all the other states."
Staver told WND's Greg Corombos he believes the issue will ultimately go before the U.S. Supreme Court, though he claims the court has no constitutional authority to redefine marriage.
"The Supreme Court should not be in the business of redefining or even defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he said. "That transcends the Constitution. It is something that is part of our natural existence. It is something that transcends political parties and geographies and time. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of actually redefining it. If in fact they do redefine to something other than what it is, it clearly shows we have an activist court. I think we need to make sure we have justices on the bench that understand the role as an umpire, not activist legislators."
As WND reported earlier, the White House after the election scrubbed President Obama's central pledge to the homosexual community to repeal DOMA from its website.
The president unveiled his pro-homosexual agenda on the White House website on Inauguration Day. Under the "Civil Rights" section, he called for the repeal of the act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 after an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress (342-67 and 85-14).
The following is the original language posted on the White House website as Obama took office:
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. (emphasis added)
The White House later edited the statement, changing it to:
President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. ... (emphasis added)
In December 2008, Obama told the Advocate, "I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA."
In a Feb. 8, 2008, letter posted on his website, Obama promised "LGBT equality in America." It stated:
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)