The GOP’s Sanctimonious Defense Of The Sanctity Of DOMA
President Obama yesterday declared “unconstitutional” the Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA, and said he and the DOJ would no longer defend the fifteen-year old law. It was a stunning day, as Senator Dianne Feinstein subsequently announced her intention to introduce a bill in the senate to repeal DOMA, and sanctimonious Republicans, GOP presidential hopefuls, and right wing hate groups wasted no time weighing in on the news.
Though strangely absent from the national conversation on DOMA — so far — were Republican presidential hopefuls and possibles, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie, you can imagine the reactions from the rest. Here’s a sampling.
Speaker of the House John Boehner — who not three months ago was fixated on getting a video that contained an image of a crucifix with ants crawling on it kicked out of the Smithsonian, and closing the museum to boot — has been fast and furiously working (when he actually is working, that is,) on denying America the constitutional right to abortion, while claiming to be working on “creating jobs and cutting spending.”
Yesterday, on the news Obama and Holder would not defend DOMA, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.” Evidently, denying the constitutional right to abortion, (or censoring a national, public, tax-payer funded museum,) does not qualify as a “controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”
Former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who, in 2008, infamously said, “America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known,” couldn’t wait to weigh in yesterday.
Saying, “Moral truth exists and it does not change and all things are not equal,” Buchanan claimed Obama is “not a strong leader,” and capitulated to members of the “militant gay rights community.”
Hardly.
And for the record, this from then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2004:
“For the record, I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted … .
“When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. …”
Moving on, but hold onto that for a while.
Another former Republican presidential candidate and 2012 GOP hopeful, Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister and former governor, who evidently believes strongly in the power of forgiveness, having pardoned “twice as many sentences as his three predecessors combined,” said Obama’s DOMA decision “may destroy him, may destroy his credibility, may destroy his campaign and candidacy and ultimately his term in office.”
Huckabee, himself weighing another run at the presidency, and rather adept at killing several birds with one stone, falsely claimed Obama “didn’t take this position when he ran for president. I think if he had, he wouldn’t be president,” and added, “I think he owes the people of America an explanation – was he being disingenuous and dishonest then, is he being dishonest now, or did he change his view and if he did, when and why?”
The President is not being dishonest. Huckabee is. See above.
Speaking of being dishonest, we have yet another possible Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. You of course remember Santorum’s rather nasty comments about the Catholic Church’s pedophile priests rape and molestation scandal? Like saying, “We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.” In other words, Santorum blames thousands of victims for being raped and molested by priests all over the world.
But wait, there’s more from Santorum, the former GOP Senator from Pennsylvania who set the record for “the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.”
Back in 2003, Santorum set off fireworks by saying, “Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.”
Santorum was roundly excoriated.
But it should come as no surprise that the former Senator and 2012 presidential hopeful yesterday had this to say:
“President Obama’s refusal to defend a law that was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by a president of his own party is an affront to the will of the people. This is yet another example of our president’s effort to erode the very traditions that have made our country the greatest nation on earth, and it begs the question what language changed in the constitution since 2008 to reverse his position?”
Again, see above.
Still another GOP 2012 presidential hopeful, Tea Party and Republican Party supported Michele Bachmann, who came to fame on “The Chris Matthews Show” for saying, “What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look…I wish they would…I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America, or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that.”
Former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell said Bachmann (whose integrity is often called into question,) was the reason he voted for Obama.
In 2009, Bachmann, who has received well-over $250,000 in federal farm price supports, got even more bad press, saying she wanted Minnesotans “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”
Politico reports, “Just hours after the president’s reversal on a Defense of Marriage Act provision, Bachmann, who is considering a White House run next year, blasted an e-mail to supporters. “I’m sending you this urgent message because if we don’t join together and take action today, it could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement,” she writes.
“Bachmann urges them to sign her “Support Traditional Marriage” petition, setting a goal of collecting 50,000 names in 48 hours. And then she asks supporters to “consider making a generous donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more” so she can circulate the petition to other activists around the country.”
Another conservative making money off Obama and Holder’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court is, of course, Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM.)
NOM President Brian Brown sent a hilarious email out yesterday, less than seven hours after the President made his announcement, saying dramatically, (and summoning the ghost of American patriot John Paul Jones,) “We have not yet begun to fight for marriage.” (No, seriously, he actually said this.)
Writing, “This may be the most important email I’ve ever sent to you,” Brown blathered on, saying something about “one man and one woman,†then Maggie, NOM’s Chair (and reader of The New Civil Rights Movement, who likes to leave comments,) adds something about, “truly shocking,†“extra-constitutional power grab,†“defection of duty,†and ended with, “powerful political special interests,†which, I assume, she knows could include NOM, right?
Of course, there was a big ol’ “CONTRIBUTE NOW” button in the email. (Don’t worry. I didn’t.)
Tony Perkins, head of the certified hate group, the Family Research Council wants Congress to override the President. Yesterday Perkins said, “the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President’s neglect of duty.”
Perkins then said Obama was “pandering to his liberal political base.”
As a proud member of Obama’s “liberal base,” I can only say I wish he would.
The American Family Association (AFA,) a certified hate group, weighed in yesterday. Calling Obama “a clear and present danger to his own country,” and classifying Obama’s actions yesterday as “impeachable,” Bryan Fischer, AFA’s Director of Issues Analysis, falsely claims “Obama is violating his oath of office by refusing to defend DOMA,” and adds,
“The entire argument based on marriage “equality” is just gas. Homosexuals already have full marriage equality: they can get married, same as everybody else, to an adult, non-relative member of the opposite sex. Don’t let them fool you with all this “equality” bloviation. They already have full equality under the law; they have exactly the same rights as everybody else. What they want are special rights based solely on sexually deviant behavior. No sane society should ever commit such folly.”
Be prepared for the people of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden, Mexico City, at the very least, to be filing protests for being called “insane.”
The Alliance Defense Fund, a modern Christian non-profit whose roots run deep with hate group founders, are the folks who represented the “Yes On Prop 8” organization, ProtectMarriage.com. Today the front of their website says, “Obama administration says it will no longer defend key component of DOMA,” and has a big “DONATE NOW” button right below it.
ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks falsely states, Â “The Department of Justice has a constitutional duty to defend the laws duly enacted by Congress … and the refusal of the attorney general to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act just because they don’t like it politically is really inexcusable.”
What “is really inexcusable” is how the GOP, Republican presidential hopefuls and has-beens, and hate groups gin up controversy over DOMA, DADT, ENDA, and the LGBT community, just to get some attention, and to pay their bills.
Note: An earlier version of this post inaccurately stated NOM, the National Organization for Marriage, was a certified hate group.
(image)
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
|
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
