Attorney General says the Defense of Marriage Act is the result of vehement enmity, hatred and ill will … so he won’t defend it in court.

The decision by Attorney General Holder not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act raises very grave questions.

Justifying his position, he says that in the congressional debate there were “numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate family relationships.”  He went on to describe this as “animus” (defined by Webster as vehement enmity, hatred, ill will)-violating the Equal Protection Clause.

“Animus” to defend a moral position based on 2,000 years of classical and Christian teaching rooted in reason and scripture?

Holder has embraced the position of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker in California that opposing so-called gay marriage can be “harmful to gays and lesbians.”  But this is like claiming that opposition to polygamy is harmful to polygamists or that laws defining marriage as the union of two people harm those who prefer to live in what are called sexual “triads” or “quadrads.”  Our historic marriage laws harm nobody–they serve husbands, wives, children, and the common good of society.

If the expression of our deepest convictions is treated as animus, our religious liberty is in peril.  We cannot fail to speak the truth even if it is labeled hate speech.

Read more at ManhattanDeclaration.org

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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