A lawsuit recently filed at the 9th Circuit’s US Federal District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles (where else?) challenged the DOMA. The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law filed the Arenas, et al. v. Napolitano, et al., (Case No. SACV12-1137-JVS(MLGx) case that is now seeking class action status in order to interdict and eschew the many malevolent dictates that the DOMA imposes on our Constitution.

This may just be the type of action that was needed in order for this abomination of a law to be shown for what it really is: a senseless discriminatory act justified only by the self-righteous moral convictions of certain groups. Discrimination is never a reasonable act in the application or abrogation of a group of people’s civil rights. It is quite simply abhorrent any way we look at it. Discrimination is anathema to our Constitution. That is why the sister States ratified the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, among other reasons. In the end, those who fight for the civil rights of all always prevail because it is just the right thing to do. There is no reason why some groups should have more rights than others in a country that unabashedly declares that “all men [includes women] are created equal.” Either you believe it or you don’t.

I for one would have preferred it if this law had never been enacted at all. I am all the more appalled that it was signed into law by a lawyer of all people! This is because a simple scan of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment would have revealed it to be unconstitutional; I don’t care any way you nuance it, it has been, is and shall always remain unconstitutional. President Clinton should never have signed this abomination no matter what deal he had to make to move his agenda forward in Congress. It was not only dumb, but also regressive in terms of all the gains in Civil Rights that had been acquired up to then.

The only saving grace here is that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) [comprised of lawyers], the guarantor of our Constitution will get to lay this beast to rest. It is SCOTUS’ rightful duty to administer the final blow to the DOMA. I don’t know if you have heard, but the SCOTUS is on its way to reclaiming its full credibility with Chief Justice Roberts at the helm. As a lawyer, I can only be proud with what I perceive as an attempt to return to impartiality by the SCOTUS with the Affordable Care Act decision.

It does not hurt either that another lawyer, here President Obama, militates for the gutting of this law. I guess lawyers can, as I always believed, affect this country for the good after all. It is time for the DOMA to go. It has to go. Period!

Aime M. Katambwe, Esq. 7/15/2012

Like us on


  1. The trickery never ends. Who dideced that an absent vote is a no vote. That is pretty biased. It should be, an absent vote is an absent vote on the referendum. I have no idea what is usually done, but this should never have been allowed. Just one of the million tricky ways people stack the deck in their favor.Come on, Minnesotans! Get out there, and bring a friend!Before you vote, please see the website MassResistance if you are wondering what happens in a state where same-sex marriage is legalized. Massachusetts is living it, and it’s not good for Christian parents. Gay activists, knowing they have the law behind them, are becoming more and more aggressive and obnoxious. At a recent Tea Party rally, they broke up the group by marching through the crowd, screaming obscenities, wearing terribly vulgar signs, and preventing the Tea Party speaker from being heard. Disruption is a strategy, and these folks don’t mind depriving others of their Constitutional rights if it suits them. The police in Massachusetts and Rhode Island typically stand by while things get dangerously ugly. They do not typically intervene no matter how threatening it becomes. They do not protect the right of assembly, nor prevent the agitators from disrupting speakers.There is a link on the right, entitled Massachusetts Since Same-Sex Marriage , or something similar, please check out this very concise list of actual repercussions in Massachusetts since the law has been changed. Schools are promoting same-sex relationships, giving out graphic materials, and Superintendents are coming out with their partners, to the students. If parents complain, they are dismissed as being inappropriate .It is critical that we all know how it really is in a state where same-sex marriage has been legalized, and PASS THE WORD. Please share the website as often as you can. The folks at MassResistance are brave people. They are on the front lines of a culture war, and they are doing their best to push back on this radical social experimentation.The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a fantastic organization that gets involved on the state level to help. They are hard workers, and Brian Brown, the Oxford trained Director, a devout Catholic, is a super terrific family man, and fearless to boot. NOM deserves great support.Please, Good Jesus, help us win this very crucial battle, state by state if we must.

  2. Dear Friends in Christ,I want to thank Fr. Z for lending his itpromant voice in support of marriage and our upcoming Minnesota Protection Amendment. I have been an admirer of his for many years. Thanks to all of you for supporting this worthy and itpromant cause. As all of you know, we at the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic Church in Minnesota, are working overtime to protect marriage and ensure the people of our state get out the vote on November 6th. Just to clarify: a non-vote is a no vote is policy for every proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution. The rationale for this is that whenever changing the constitution, government should err on the side of caution. The no vote policy only applies to those who will be voting in the upcoming election. Right or wrong, I want to make sure we understand the Marriage Protection Amendment is not being singled out.I would caution against making this a Left/Right issue, given that some prominent conservatives are backing marriage’s redefinition and others are arguing government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. As I travel across the state I’ve seen how the labeling of conservative and progressive has become increasingly irrelevant, specifically on this issue. Thankfully, the debate over the redefinition marriage gives the Catholic Church an opportunity to enter the public square and teach with Her majestic voice. The public debate over marriage is often framed around the question of who can marry. But before we can ask ourselves who can marry we must ask ourselves what marriage is. Marriage isn’t a distinguished title bestowed upon couples by the state nor is marriage the public affirmation of romantic relationships. Marriage isn’t about the happiness of adults or the public benefits derived thereof, benefits that can be easily acquired through private legal contract. Society has a keen interest in marriage because unlike other relationships marriage serves a public purpose. What purpose? Marriage is special because it unites one man and one woman and any children born from their union. It’s precisely because marriage is a child-centered institution that government is involved in the marriage business As I travel across Minnesota giving talks to parishes and KofC local councils, I ask the faithful to pray for us. Please consider keeping us in your intentions. Minnesotans or not, we are all Catholics and all eyes should be on Minnesota from now until November. In Domino,Richard Aleman[Thanks for chiming in! You are welcome here.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>