LGBT Legal And Advocacy Groups Decry Obama Administration's Defense of DOMA

This is an interesting trend: the ACLU and gay community are joining the ranks of those unhappy with Obama...not because of the promises he made, but for the promises he wont keep. It looks like our president can't keep anyone happy.

In an unexpected turn, the Obama administration is choosing not to repeal the Bush-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The ACLU released a statement on Thursday, June 12 chastising the president, stating, "When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA." Although I don't agree with their basic premise, nor the solution, it is impossible to look past the egregious fault on the president's part here. I'm afraid it only makes me like Obama less. Not standing by a promises only shows a weakness of character and should make all--whether one agrees with him at the current moment or not-- uneasy about what the Obama administration's agenda is really about.

The entire press release from the ACLU can be found here: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/39848prs20090612.html?s_src=RSS

Stompin' in my Air Force One

Just as a quick note, I can't even imagine what kind of an outcry we would have seen if the flyby over NYC of Air Force One had happened during our previous president's tenure. Of course 9/11 happened during Bush's presidency, so doing something that would remotely conjur thoughts of that awful day in history would never ever be tolerated by his administration. The incident Monday only demonstrates further the incompetency of those who Obama has chosen to surround himself with. I am not blaming Obama for the event, but just gawking in disbelief that this administration has done everything possible to distance themselves from the military ethos of Bush that this sort of event would happen. Thousands of the same people who had to experience first hand the tragic events of 9/11 were thrown into hysteria because of the insensitivity of someone trying to get a good PR shot. Bad job, boys. Simply outrageous.

Mary Ann Glendon Rejects ND Honor

Well written and thoughtful letter from Mary Ann Glendon to Fr. Jenkins taken from First Things:

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Response to "Partisan Hand"

Below are the contents of an e-mail I wrote in response to a Viewpoint article yesterday. I did not send it to the Observer, but rather directly to the person who would write such things about a student who is defending life and the unborn on national television. (As a note to my readers: Though I was never enrolled as a student at ND, I took more than a semester's worth of classes at Notre Dame while a student at Saint Mary's College and participated in almost all of my extra-curricular activities there, which is why I justify calling myself a "former student of Notre Dame".)

If you wish to see the original letter to the Observer to which I am responding you can find it here: http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2009/04/08/Viewpoint/Partisan.Hand-3701481.shtml

Dear Ms. Burns,

I write to you as a former student of Notre Dame and one who was offended by the contents of your article published in today's Observer. Your comment that "the death penalty is an even more egregious affront to life since it is the government taking an active role in snuffing out life" is simply untrue. Obama's actions and policies that he has created already within his first three months in office paint an ominous picture for pro-lifers indeed. I am sure you have read enough about his recent record of lifting a ban on funding abortions overseas, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and repealing, perhaps as I write, legislation protecting health care providers from doing procedures against their consciences, among other anti-life policies. The possibility of Obama passing FOCA, which he promised in a speech to Planned Parenthood to sign, is the largest threat to the pro-life cause at this time. Our government is taking an extremely "active role in snuffing out life" indeed; through sanctioning and funding countless abortions in this country every year.

Ms. Donahue spoke correctly in not equating abortion and the death penalty. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a 2004 memorandum to American Catholic bishops (the year before he became Pope) called "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion -- General principles," "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Simply put, what you said, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, is incorrect. Particularly as one preparing to defend our country's laws and legal system, I pray that you are able to come to a thoughtful conclusion about the relative gravity of the life issues, and are able to defend the pro-life cause accordingly. This is not to say that the issue of the legalization of the death penalty is unimportant or should not be a point of concern for Catholics, but that abortion is simply the greater issue at hand and needs to be addressed promply and with great ferverance.

Thank you for your time,

Sarah Galgano

Disgraceful

This is more than a disgrace. This may be a permanent rift between Notre Dame and faithful Catholics, even those of us who love thee Notre Dame. If you agree, please visit this site:

http://notredamescandal.com/SignthePetitiontoFrJenkins/tabid/454/Default.aspx

This is copy and pasted from an e-mail my boyfriend sent, which I think sums up the issue we have with it pretty well...

"Newsflash: Barack Obama will be the commencement speaker AND will receive an honorary award at Notre Dame!

Yes, you heard me right. The most prestigious US Catholic university will be hosting and awarding Barack Obama:

The same Obama who overturned the Mexico City policy, releasing millions in funding to abortion groups worldwide while our country suffers economically.
The same Obama who chose people like porn lawyer David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General and abortion champion Kathlene Sebellius as head of Health and Human Services.
The same Obama who is considering overturning protections on the physician's right of conscience to not perform abortions without being discriminated against in the workplace.
The same Obama who vowed to sign FOCA, the most extreme pro-abortion legislation ever presented which would overturn all state laws on the issue, in addition to many other awful things.
The same Obama who forced funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research and removed funding for the much more promising and less ethically objectionable adult stem cell research.
The same Obama who supported an unlimited right to abortion at the latest UN meeting.
The same Obama described by many as the most pro-abortion president in history.

In 2004, the United States of Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved a policy statement called "Catholics in Political Life," which says, with reference to pro-abortion politicians, "They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

Regardless if you voted for him, if you have been following closely, I'm sure you might be feeling some "buyer's remorse" after some of these decisions he made. Perhaps you believed him when he said that he would work to reduce the numbers of abortions. As you can see, so far he has done nothing of the sort. And even if you approve of his presidency in other decisions, do choices like those above warrant an honor from a Catholic university?

I feel sick to my stomach. Betrayed by my own Alma mater. I can't imagine how the Virgin Mary feels, as she often weeps for the plight of these little ones. The betrayal of hosting Obama under the shadow of Mary on the golden dome, at her own special university, must be more than she can bear.

If you are an alumni, I urge you to contact the university and voice your disgust."


Notre Dame, Our Mother, pray for us.

It only begs the question: Why??

Despite recent thought in the medical science world, Obama has gone ahead an reversed a Bush policy just to make a point.

Burnadine Healy, MD, a medical blogger for US News and World Report, just last week wrote a blog entry on "Why Embryonic Stems Cells are Obsolete." Interestingly, Dr. Healy pointed out on March 4 that "President Obama has been rightly taking his time in addressing a campaign promise to lift the ban on federal funding for research using new lines of stem cells to be taken from human embryos." These embyonic stem cells no longer have the steam they once did since the private research that is going on is yeilding no promise. In fact, notes Dr. Healy, president Obama was presented with information including "a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors." Yet, less than a week after Dr. Healy wrote this article, Obama has made the decision to, once again, overturn the Bush policy.

In the article, Dr. Healy goes on: "These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern." Somehow, this did not phase Obama in being sure to fulfill his promise to publically fund research in the embryonic stem cell field.

What's more is that adult stem cell research has been found to go far beyond the power that was originally expected of them. Within the past few months adult stem cell research has become increasingly promising for curing disease. In fact, there are many who argue that adult stem cells are better as you may use stem cells on the patient that are a 100% DNA match, rather than the random DNA of another human embryo.

So, why would Obama ignore the research and go for it anyway? Because he can. It's an in-your-face move that is worthy of the 3rd grade playground, not the US presidency. It is absolutely ludicrous, given the strides made in the past few years with adult stem cells, that our tax dollars should be going to these endeavors. Aside from the fact that these have proven to be volitile at best, there is an ethical issue that many Americans, inculding myself, would choose not to participate in the funding of harvesting of human embryos. It just doesn't seem to make sense that Obama would want to unfocus the efforts of stem cell research and diminish the bright spot of adult stem cell research to make his controversial move.

I can only attest this short-sightedness to the arrogance and power hungry nature of our new president. Something for which we all wish he will either grow out of, or grow unpopular.

Disapproval Shmrifapproval

Counter to the actual numbers in the polls, reputable news sources such as The New York Times, CBS, and msnbc.com noted that "President Obama is benefiting from remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence among Americans about his leadership, providing him with substantial political clout." Somehow, they forgot to note the fact that Obama's approval has fallen at an alarming rate. In just one month, the disapproval rates have DOUBLED from 12 points to 24. His approval was at 80% on his election day. One month later, he is looking at a rate of just 58%. But apparently that means nothing to the world's leading unbiased news sources.

shameful.