AFA's Lawyer: DOMA Is Unconstitutional

PATRICK VAUGHN AFA X390 (GRAB) | ADVOCATE.COM

The American Family Association's in-house attorney says that while he and many members of his organization believe that marriage should be reserved only for heterosexual adults, the Defense of Marriage Act is "probably unconstitutional."

Pat Vaughn appeared on the Tuesday edition of the AFA Report to talk about President Barack Obama's recent directive to the Department of Justice to stop defending the 15-year-old law barring federal recognition of state-sanctioned marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples.

Cohost Ed Vitagliano asked Vaughn whether former House speaker Newt Gingrich is right to say Obama's actions were an "impeachable offense." Vaughn replied, "I think that Newt Gingrich is an astute politician and he is playing this for all it's worth. I think that marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman. However, the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional, particularly ... if you attempt to apply it so that to say that a marriage conducted in one state is not in effect in another. That clearly violates the Constitution."

‹‹Previous Article in Category | Next Article in Category››

Reader Comments

Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Oscar
Date posted: 3/3/2011 10:50:00 AM
Hometown: philadelphia

Comment:
MAYBE OBAMA HAS FINALLY DONE SOMETHING FOR THE GAY COMMUNITY WILL THE GOVERNMENT CHANGE ITS DEFINITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES? MAYBE YES. Please Help! We invite potential DOMA project participants to contact us if they are same-sex binational couples who are married (or planning to marry) and who want to join our campaign to end discrimination in immigration law. Visit us today www.equality4allnow.com
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Robert Goodman
Date posted: 3/2/2011 3:30:51 PM
Hometown: Los Angeles

Comment:
If you REALLY read the Bible, which is the source of God's wishes for most of these people, you will find that "traditional marriage" was NOT one man-one woman, marrying by choice and for love. It was: 1) women as property; 2) polygamy--one man, multiple wives (and NEVER, though the other way around!); 3) underage brides; 4) arranged by parents and/or elders; and 5) here's the real kicker: NO DIVORCE!!! One way to shut these people up is to ask them how many times they have been married!!!
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Davya
Date posted: 3/2/2011 11:26:32 AM
Hometown: Wynnewood, PA

Comment:
Fuck you and your theocracy. I don't care what these idiots have to say.
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Oscar
Date posted: 3/2/2011 10:30:03 AM
Hometown: Philadelphia

Comment:
MAYBE OBAMA HAS FINALLY DONE SOMETHING FOR THE GAY COMMUNITY WILL THE GOVERNMENT CHANGE ITS DEFINITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES? MAYBE YES. Please Help! We invite potential DOMA project participants to contact us if they are same-sex binational couples who are married (or planning to marry) and who want to join our campaign to end discrimination in immigration law. Visit us today www.equality4allnow.com
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Adam
Date posted: 3/2/2011 9:27:29 AM
Hometown: Portland ME

Comment:
He is correct on everything here except that marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman. First, he did not say WHICH God he is referring to (although I have a pretty good idea on the specific God he is talking about). Second, every culture have their own ideas on marriage. The God of Abraham evidently was fine with polygamy. In some ancient cultures, children married each other and sometimes were wed to adults. Still in other ones, sexual acts was a form of ritual with and between groups of men and women. I wish conservatives and right-wing Christians would get off of their "tradition" high horse. Why should current marriage laws in the USA conform to a misunderstanding, made by some, of the Holy Bible? I grow tired of the religious right having their way politically most of the time.
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: dave
Date posted: 3/2/2011 3:47:47 AM
Hometown: austin

Comment:
Well at least he's honest.
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Eric
Date posted: 3/1/2011 10:51:28 PM
Hometown: NY

Comment:
Roe v. Wade is not* unconstitutional. Sorry.
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Eric
Date posted: 3/1/2011 10:50:31 PM
Hometown: NY

Comment:
DOMA is unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade is. DOMA was not decided by the Supreme Court. RvW was. I don't see the comparison.
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Dustin
Date posted: 3/1/2011 9:19:11 PM
Hometown: DC

Comment:
Now if only we could rely on a majority of our Supreme Court Justices to be this reasoned in their determination.
Back to top Post a Comment Report Abuse
Name: Quinn
Date posted: 3/1/2011 6:52:27 PM
Hometown: Fosston

Comment:
I guess he'll be working in the Siberia branch office starting tomorrow!

PREVIOUS 1 2 NEXT