[youtube width=”560″ height=”349″][/youtube]

From Yahoo! News:

The case that changed Obama’s mind on DOMA

The Obama administration announced last week that it will no longer defend in court a part of the Defense of Marriage Act that forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

One widow’s story was one of two cases pending in federal courts cited in the announcement of President Obama’s decision, Bloomberg reports.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for more than 40 years when Spyer died in 2009. Not longer after her partner’s death, Windsor received a $363,053 federal tax bill–a liability that she would not have faced had the federal government recognized their union…

…Windsor is suing for the tax money back from the federal government, and the Obama administration has effectively decided she’s right by dropping its defense. The administration will continue to enforce the law unless it is struck down by the courts or Congress.

Of course — if you believe the Reverend Runion, the Reverend Phelps, Shirley Roper Phelps, Don Yelton, Mayor Bellamy and the North Carolina Republican Party — Thea Spyer is rotting in the pits of Hell right now for violating God’s law and Edith Windsor is entitled to nothing because the Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Because who are we to question the Word of the Lord?


  1. shadmarsh says:

    I’m starting to sense a theme with you Muller.

  2. Michael Muller says:

    It keeps me off the streets, Shad.

  3. Phil Burton says:

    “Abomination.” Such a wonderful word.

    Carl Sandburg was asked in a TV interview with Edward R Murrow, “What is the ugliest word in the English Language?” Without hesitation he said, “Exclusion.” To exclude is to keep people from getting the same rights and benefits as others.

    In 2011 I believe we can add the word “abomination.” A synonym of “abomination” is hatred. When one is accused of an abomination the next step is to exclude him.!/photo.php?fbid=1773103083885&set=p.1773103083885&theater

  4. Aaron Sarver says:

    Polling by PPP shows majority in NC supports some form of civil unions or gay marriage.

    Seems like Obama changing his tune (or hinting he will) on gay marriage might turn out to be a savvy political move in addition to being the right thing to do.

  5. Michael Muller says:

    Thanks for stopping by, Aaron — you’re always welcome here.

    For those of you who aren’t familiar with Aaron Sarver’s work, he’s one of North Carolina’s best political reporters. He contributes regularly to The American Independent and is a frequent guest of Blake & Lesley on 880: The Revolution.

    And for those of you into that sort of thing, you can follow Aaron on the Twitter @aaronsarver


  6. TJ says:

    “Seems like Obama changing his tune (or hinting he will) on gay marriage might turn out to be a savvy political move in addition to being the right thing to do.”

    Can’t say I’m impressed by smooth talkers in politics, but I AM impressed by anyone willing to take a stand, whether it’s popular or not. At least this one is facing the right direction(or not, I suppose, if one is afraid that will lead to hell).
    Either way, I’d rather err on the side of compassion and human dignity.

  7. earthtrekker says:

    Abolish the immoral estate (death) tax.

  8. TJ says:

    “Abolish the immoral estate (death) tax.”

    Oh, come on! Why take away their opportunity to tax us one last time before we pass the torch to the next generationuui?

  9. The intent of the estate tax has been, at least in part, to prevent the establishment of royalty and hereditary dominance of the economic system by a small plutocracy.

    It only affects a small handful of estates each year. Most rich people thoroughly protect their wealth with generation-skipping trusts and other tricks of the financial trade. But pushing them to perform such antics at least keeps money in investments where it helps build capital in our economy. Seems like one of the best taxes to me.

  10. AvlRepublican says:

    Marriage should not be a state or federal government issue. Seeking to define it within such parameters will always yield unfavorable results and only amount to some form of arbitrary classification or taxation for those who choose to marry.

    Proponents of same sex marriage–true Republicans and classical liberals–should seek to remove government from the equation altogether. We should seek to “lift the veil” of our institutionalized marriage system and show people that state-sanctioned marriage was nothing more than another means of segregation and taxation since its inception and hasn’t changed much today.

    Only when we promote a truly free society–in which consenting individuals can freely enter into contractual arrangements of their choosing–will we see true marriage equality.

  11. Michael Muller says:

    From Crooks & Liars:

    As Rachel noted, the actual small government, pro keep the government the hell out of your personal lives conservatives in Wyoming did something that would make most liberals proud. They rejected a bill that would have prevented same-sex marriages from being recognized that originated outside of their state…

    Read the whole story here. And thanks, Tom.