Skip to content


This sub-page is about the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act”

– – – – – – – – – – – – –  – prints this article from

White House Drops Obama Opposition to Defense of Marriage Act from Website

May 18th, 2009 by Hilary White

The Obama White House has removed from its website all references to a pledge made by the president to scrap the Bush administration’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Under the heading of “civil rights” the White House website had originally proclaimed that “Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.” In addition, the site said that legislation should be enacted that would extend federal legal rights and benefits to same-sex partners “in civil unions or other legally recognized unions.” The site specified that this included all of “the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status.”

The passage about DOMA has now been completely removed, as has the specific reference to the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits. The site now says, “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.”

DOMA was passed into law by President Clinton in September, 1996. It says that no state is required to “treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.” It also prohibits the federal government from treating same-sex relationships “as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.”

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth asked, in regard to the changes on the White House website, “Is President Obama indicating that repealing a law that protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state ‘gay marriages’ … is now a low priority for his administration?

“We hope so, given that support for traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, remains strong throughout the country.”

Since its passage, DOMA has been under constant attack by homosexualist groups. In March this year, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a federal challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. At that time, Ethan Jacobs, writing for the New England homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, noted that the Obama administration had included calls for DOMA’s repeal in a description of the civil rights agenda posted on the White House website on Inauguration Day.

Although Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, declined at the time to say whether the government would move to defend the law, he reiterated Obama’s commitment to repealing the law. He told Bay Windows, “The Department of Justice is studying this lawsuit. The President believes this country must realize its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect. He has made clear previously that he supports the full legislative repeal of DOMA.”

However, it is unclear if the alterations on the White House website reflect a recent about-face in terms of the Obama Administration’s former commitment to repealing DOMA.


See related coverage:

Obama Administration Announces Radical Homosexualist Agenda on White House Website


Added 090819:

Monday August 17, 2009

Former President Clinton Calls for Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy

By Patrick B. Craine

PITTSBURGH, PA, August 14, 2009 ( – Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who has come under criticism by gay and left-wing activists for signing into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) Policy during his tenure as president, last Friday called for the laws to be repealed at a Pittsburgh ‘progressive’ politics conference.

DOMA, which Clinton signed into law in 1996, defines marriage at the federal level as exclusively between one man and one woman. Accordingly the homosexual ‘spouse’ of a homosexual federal employee cannot receive spousal benefits. Further, under DOMA no state is required to recognize the same-sex ‘marriage’ of a couple who was ‘married’ in a state where it is allowed.

The DADT policy, approved by Clinton in 1993, prohibits homosexuals from revealing their sexual orientation or discussing homosexual relationships, while also protecting them from undue investigation from superiors regarding their sexual preference.

Clinton’s comments were sparked when he was interrupted by an audience member while giving his keynote at the Netroots Nation conference. The man shouted, “Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell right now? Please.”

Clinton responded, “I’ll be glad to talk about that.”

Regarding DADT, he claimed that it was his hope and intention to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, but he blamed people such as those at the conference for not giving him the support he needed at the time. “I’ll tell you exactly what happened,” he said. “You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military, and the media supported them. … All most of you did was to attack me instead of getting me some support in the Congress. Now that’s the truth.”

“The public opinion now is more strongly in our favor than it was 16 years ago,” he continued. “This is a different world. That’s the point I’m trying to make.”

Clinton said that he did not think he had a choice at the time if progress in advancing the homosexualist cause was to be made. The way General Colin Powell presented the policy to the former president was much different than how it was implemented, he said. Clinton stated that Powell told him that under the DADT policy homosexuals would be free to be open in their private lives without fear of dismissal. However, “It all turned out to be a fraud because of the enormous reaction against it among the middle-level officers and down after it was promulgated and Colin was gone,” he said. “So nobody regrets how this was implemented any more than I do.”

Regarding DOMA, Clinton said that he was trying to keep Congress from banning same-sex ‘marriage’ outright. “I thought the question of whether gays should marry should be left up to states and to religious organizations, and if any church or other religious body wanted to recognize gay marriage, they ought to,” he said. “We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states.”

“I didn’t like signing DOMA,” he says, “and I certainly didn’t like the constraints that were put on benefits, and I’ve done everything I could — and I am proud to say that the State Department was the first federal department to restore benefits to gay partners in the Obama administration, and I think we are going forward in the right direction now for federal employees.”

Though perhaps not moving as quickly as some homosexual activists would like, current President Barack Obama has pushed the homosexualist agenda strongly since he took over at the White House. He has been clear about his intention to repeal DOMA as well as DADT.


Added 090820

Wednesday August 19, 2009

Obama’s Quixotic Justice Department Simultaneously Attacks, Defends “Discriminatory” DOMA

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 14, 2009 ( – The US Justice Department filed papers in federal court on Monday that argued a federal law protecting the traditional definition of marriage was “discriminatory” and ought to be repealed. However, at the same time, Justice Department attorneys argued that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Constitutional muster and that the court ought to throw out a challenge brought forward by two California homosexuals.

Attorney General Tony West filed the brief defending DOMA in the US District Court for the Central District of California, which stated that the Obama administration, “does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.”

Although the Justice Department argued they did not believe that Congress had “legitimate government interests” in creating legal structures promoting “the raising of children by both of their biological parents,” they nevertheless argued that Congress had good reasons at the time to protect the traditional definition of marriage by enacting DOMA, so that the states could “grapple with the emerging debate over same-sex marriage.”

Some pro-family advocates believe the Obama administration is inviting federal courts to settle the national debate over marriage through judicial review, and so relieve the President and the Democratic Congress of repealing DOMA and suffering political consequences.

“While the President defends marriage publicly, his administration is working behind the scenes to undermine the DOMA through legal action — filing court papers complaining that the bill discriminates against same-sex couples,” said Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, accusing the President and his Administration of once again “saying one thing while doing another.”

However, the brief seemed calibrated to mollify President Barack Obama’s discontented homosexual allies, a small constituency with massive political donor clout. At the same time, the Administration seems intent on preserving DOMA in order to prevent the alienation of a larger bloc of Obama’s voters not in favor of seeing same-sex “marriage” imposed on their home states.

Homosexuals erupted in outrage earlier in June when the Justice Department filed its first motion in the case. That motion asked the court to dismiss the legal challenge to DOMA, which was put forward by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a California homosexual couple who had received a marriage license in California before the state constitution was amended to ban same-sex “marriage.”

At the time US attorneys argued that federal laws like DOMA were constitutional and necessary to protect the marriage laws of states, offering the example of state marriage statutes that prohibit incestuous or consanguineous marriages, such as between cousins of the first degree.

Joe Solmonese, president of the homosexual lobby group, Human Rights Campaign, wrote an angry letter to the White House demanding that Obama fulfill his campaign promise and submit legislation to Congress repealing DOMA. The New York Times denounced Obama in strong terms accusing his Administration of striking “a blow for the other side” and that it “needs a new direction on gay rights.”

Almost immediately after the Times excoriated the Administration for its “disturbing brief,” the President announced that he was extending federal employee benefits to homosexual couples.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: