Obama Appointees Question the Value of Marriage
The Obama administration is looking for a fight over the definition of marriage. That means asking more than 100 Democratic members of the House and Senate to repudiate their votes for the Defense of Marriage Act within 12 months of next year's midterm election. That's political poison for members in swing districts and purple or red states.
Apparently, the administration doesn't much care about public opinion or electoral consequences. On Friday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. delivered a lecture at the University of Maine where he reiterated President Obama's intent to push for repeal of the law defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of federal laws. In August, Justice Department spokesman Tracy Schmaler said much the same thing, arguing the "act is discriminatory and should be repealed."
Featured Talent
On FOX News Channel
Follow Fox Nation
FOX Forum Posts
- We Shouldn't Fear Terror Trials In NYC
- 4 Reasons Holder Failed to Convince Me on Terror Trials
- Rudy Time, Again?
- MICHAEL GOODWIN: Terror Trials a Reckless Act
- Democrats' Health Care Sleight of Hand
- The Trouble With Harry's Health Care Bill
- Who’s On Trial --KSM or George W. Bush?
- Obama Has Accomplished Nothing On the World Stage
- Why Does Obama Fail to Imagine the Worst Case Scenario?
- What Could Holder Possibly Be Thinking?
Most Talked About
- Should Every Member of Congress Promise to Read the Health Care Bill?
- Are We Watching a Failed Presidency?
- Teen Responds to MSNBC Stunt
- Gallup: Obama Job Approval Down to 49%
- Obama to the Troops: 'You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op'
- Sarah Palin Makes Her 'Factor' Debut
- Jesse Jackson: 'You Can't Vote Against Health Care and Call Yourself a Black Man'
- Biblical Anti-Obama Slogan? Psalm 109:8
- Shoot-out: Geithner Asked to Resign, Slams GOP
- McCain Risks Losing Senate Seat
Real American Stories
FOX Fan
cajunmobster
who the HELL are they to value anything when they in MY opinion are of NO value......
Lourdes (I'm not PC)
Hey - let anyone get married to anyone; then everyone can be as miserable as the rest of us.
GlennBeckNation
Defend marriage at GlennBeckNation.com
Recon
HEY team, USA questions these Progressive Commies.
ThePurplePodium: Anita Dunn and Tim Phillips are in the Podium Media Hotbox. watch http://bit.ly/zGR58
firebird2009
Obummer dum down school - 2010 , 2012
Excalibur
...........one way to destabilize a society is to destroy the family................then total control is possible.............
Jim in JAX
@speakeasy: I'd like to know why Soros was a Nazi collaborator in WWII.
speakeasy
....The Center for American Progress is a powerful Washington, D.C.-based think-tank that has as its main benefactors George Soros and his allies and political soul-mates, Herbert and Marion Sandler, who are also major benefactors. The Center (CAP) has become a one-stop shop for staffing the Obama administration with key officials Van Jones being one.
.
One of their Senior Fellows is Eric Alterman. Who is he?
.
Well, he is a left-winger who writes for The Nation, but he also is someone who felt no compunction in "outing" journalists as being Jews....
.
I would like to know why Soros HATES being Jewish?
livingwill
What kind of idiocy does the Obama Administration NOT believe in?
NotsoSilent
I just question the value of Obama appointees.....Its amazing to assemble an entire group of people who have no spine and no common sense....But think they do
Independent in AZ
@Sonny
For someone who likes to throw around the "drink the kool aid" phrase (do you even know what it means?), you sure are gullible. I pointed out that the linked editorial does not support the claim of the headline. Your response was, "Marriage is just one issue". Yes, it is and the headline in this topic is wrong and you fell for it. Homosexuals are fighting for marriage equality because the recognize that marriage DOES have value, social and legal. If this story is misleading, what about the others you referred to?
Terry12
To me this sounds like he is questioning the value when he says that the "benefits are surprisingly low", plus "produce unnecessary polarization".
In a new edition of his book "Nudge," coauthored with Richard Thaler, the authors call marriage an "anachronism" and its benefits "surprisingly low." The book goes on to complain that marriage, "produce* unnecessary polarization. ... the most obvious difficulty is that religious organizations insist that they should be permitted to define marriage as they like, while same-sex couples insist that they should be able to make long-term commitments without having a second-class status."
Plus the use of the word anachronism leads to the possibility of having a question of value
anachronism
The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
Terry12
To me benefits and value can be simular depending on outlook. If it is of benefit to me it is of value. According to them benefits are suprisingly low and produces unnecessary polarization. Unnecessary if taken as not needed puts it as less valuable to some. This is just thought on my part.
Independent in AZ
@Terry12
Since I have not read the book "Nudge," I have only the quotes in the editorial to work with. First, the book has two authors, Cass Sunstein (regulatory czar) and Richard Thaler, and there is nothing to indicate which of the authors is responsible for the quoted portions of the book so it is not possible to difinitively associate the words to Cass Sunstein. Even if all the quotes are from Sunstein, to me they do not indicate questioning the value of marriage, just it's prevalence. In the context of the other quotes, the meaning of "anachronism" that most likely applies is: "a practice that belongs to an earlier time." This assessment is possibly based on the rate of divorce being greater than 50%. The other quotes also do not speak to the value of marriage, just the struggle for commonly acceptable definition. Even though the editorial is obviously slanted against Sunstein ("book goes on to complain"), there is still nothing presented to indicate that Sunstein is questioning the value of marriage.
Terry12
Actually this statement depending on which definetion you use could possibly tie the Heading into the article. Don't you think.
An Obama nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, claimed in 2005: "I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution."
normative definition norma·tive (nôr′mə tiv)
adjective
1.of or establishing a norm, or standard
2.having to do with usage norms normative grammar
Terry12
ok I give. One of the appointee's could possibly question the value of marriage. :)
Independent in AZ
@Terry12
Since we're being petty (sometimes that can be fun), it's not an article, it's an editorial. :)
Even if you take the Feldblum quote included in the editorial as questioning the value of marriage (which she does not say), her question cannot be applied to the other appointees so the headline is still inaccurate. (in my opinion, of course)
Terry12
For the sake of argument, and I know it's petty, Feldblum's other quote that marriage is a "framework for most people to aspire to." does not appear in this article. So though you and I know what else she has said, people who have not further researced her ideas would only base their opinion on this article which I believe leaves room for the heading being correct
Independent in AZ
@Terry12
Whether or not marriage is the norm is separate from whether or not it has value. Don't forget Feldblum's other quote that marriage is a "framework for most people to aspire to." That implies that it at least has social value to her. I do not think that the headline can be applied to her.
Recon
Human Instinct, gut feel, glaringly Alert AMERICANS, this is about Power!
Perseverance does win when you are right.
Using Van Jones’ (you know..Obams’s FORMER Green Jobs CZAR…oops sorry “special advisor”) words:
“don’t stop there…don’t stop there…
we aren’t going to put a new battery into a system that’s broke…
we want a new system….”
Take back America! Vote them out in 2010.
pistol
Oh no people! don't take your lessons and values in life from these people. You will certainly go down a bad road.
THE TOMB
Right, who needs marriage when you can afford "hookers" of any sexual orientation?
Independent in AZ
@doofuss
That the plan of the Republican politicians anyway.
NotsoSilent
Or a cigar and an intern in your office, thats the democrats plan anyway
rcaamo
Forgive...the program does not seem to want to take the enfire URL:
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2009/10/29/
got_monks__get_the_monks!
They are playing David and Goliath here.
rcaamo
They will question everything until they are stopped. The are even questioning why there is no contraception in the health insurance at a Catholic College run by monks. http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2009/10/29/got_monks__get_th...!
Sane Person
That what intelligent people do -- question everything. If no one ever questioned anything, we'd still be worshiping the sun and thinking that god was crying when it rained.
citrus
Well he is.
rcaamo
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2009/10/29/got_monks__get_th...!
The Constitutionalist
Lets get rid of all three. We'll give them a row boat in the middle of the Atlantic during hurrican season.
Jenney
Wonder if Holder is looking for a divorce, maybe he has found a boyfriend, or maybe he wants two women. When they want laws changed it's because they have a special interest in it.
Jack27
And we thought Bill Clinton picked out odd balls that looked like the bar scene from star wars for his staff and cabinet. Barry has him beat with these loons.
CRACK IS WHACK
if marriage is not between a man and a woman then i can marry my golf clubs and use them as dependants im sure mr prez wont mind
Lee in Pa
Judge me by the people I surround myself with.
I AM, and it's not pretty, it's DISGUSTING.
CRACK IS WHACK
thats cool im gonna marry my cat and when she has 8 kittens ill send for social security numbers and claim them all as dependants
john
Where does ALL THIS INSANITY come from?
TOO MUCH EDUCATION?
COMMON SENSE BLOWN OUT BY THE LIBERAL educators?
semper fi
Sonny
What do you expect from the far left liberal Obama Socialist Maoist Marxists that have infested the White House.
roguetea
rogue, True English America
I am glad that we do not have a national language because that would surely put the current whackos in Washington in charge of our speech. Freedom of speech would quickly turn on every election and every bill passed. Our tradition allows dictionaries to define our words and dictionaries are a collection of what a people use (gathered and editorialized by educated linguistic sorts, not politicians). Legalisms, in regards to terminology, increasingly encroach into our jargon and is a subtle, indirect means of the Elected Elite to control our speech. For centuries 'marriage' has been regarded as a religious institution since about... since about Adam and Eve. Perhaps, we, as a political nation wish to grant rights and privileges that are readily understood to be earned by marriage (traditional man and woman) to relationships that are not marriage (traditional). Fine, if that is what we wish to do, as a people. However, what motivates some to twist, demolish and pervert common understandings is nothing less than purest of evil. The invention of new words and term is as easy as NASA, kool-aid and boogeyman. Any lawyer or legislator ought to be able to come up with a new word thus preserve centuries of goodness while extending our new prerogatives. Failing to take the simple honest path is evil, an attempt to control our speech in one more way over one more issue.
tea party, Corruption 2009, 2010 SMEAR
Independent in AZ
There is no proof in the editorial to substantiate the claim made by the headline. The author includes a quote from Chai Feldblum, "I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution." That is not questioning the value of marriage, just whether or not it is normatively good. In the same article from 2005, she also said marriage is a "framework for most people to aspire to" which indicates to me that she thinks it has value. The intent of the move to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is to allow same-sex couples to marry. Since they are fighting for that equality, that means that marriage has value to them. Another misleading headline.
ash
You are correct in your assessment. Of course, a rational reading of the article and other materials that does not support a predetermined positon will quickly be put down as a Socialist Liberal rant with no value. Not to mention you may be damned to hell in the process.
Sonny
@independent.in.Az, you seem to drink alot of Liberal Kool Aid, which explains why you like to do alot of double talking in your comments.
Marriage is just one issue, it's their overal ideological stance and positions on everything they talk about and do.
Liberal Socialist Marxism is not an American quality and an directional guide, ie; as stated by Anita Dunn, quoting
Mao Tse-Tung as her most influential Philosopher she turns to most. Has she ever heard of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin. She probably did, but as a socialist maoist marxist, she rejects the founding fathers.
These are the type of people that have infested the White House, which actually belongs to the American people, not Obama.
kaneki
What do these freaks know about values?
babycakes
Again...are there no limits to the number of parasitic jackals this administration can produce! Has the White House somehow created a vortex attracting all the highly educated dumb asses in the country?
right4life
times change, get with it people!
Capitalism4Ever
why do we have to change? It's still a free country last I looked. I don't want to change.
Sane Person
One one's asking YOU to change. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. Its still a free country for EVERYONE, not just you.
Patriot in GA
What next from this corrupt Administration? They want to change everything that is right with this Country into to everything that is Wrong. The wrath of God will be upon them for their actions, but then again, they don't believe in God.
nipigon1
I will agree that marriage refers to a union between a man and woman if you will agree that the Second Ammendment refers to muskets.
Things change over time.
Terry12
Muskets were man made, men and women weren't.
Independent in AZ
@Terry12
Then were do babies come from?
(It was too good of a setup to ignore)