Buddy Roemer Clarifies Position On Gay Marriage, Reaffirms Support For DOMA

WASHINGTON -- Buddy Roemer, a former Louisiana governor and likely Republican presidential candidate, clarified on Thursday night that while he champions state’s rights, even on marriage, he remains committed to and supportive of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In an email to The Huffington Post, Roemer took umbrage with the write-up of an earlier interview he had done with the website.

“The issue of gay marriage is one on which I am clear,” Roemer wrote. “As I said in the interview, I am a traditionalist on this issue as is my Methodist Church. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays will not be slandered by me or my church, but gay marriage is not an option.”

“The Defense of Marriage Act, with which I agree, prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing any marriage not between a man and a woman,” he went on. “Each state has the right to set these boundaries within its state, and I would stand with the traditionalists in my state and prohibit gay marriage.”

Roemer added that if he were to be elected president, he would instruct his Justice Department to defend DOMA -- something that the Obama administration has decided not to do, citing concerns over constitutionality.

While a bit more explicit and forthcoming in detail, such a position does not contradict what Roemer said in his initial interview with The Huffington Post. On Tuesday, the Louisiana Republican said that he would be fine with a state choosing to legalize gay marriage or some form of civil union, though if he were in that state he would certainly oppose it.

“[T]hat’s why we have 50 states,” Roemer stated. “They’re all a little bit different.”

Under DOMA, which is still the law of the land, different they still can be. States can and have legalized forms of gay marriage, but the federal government does not provide any benefits to gay couples. Nor are other states that prohibit gay marriage required to recognize out-of-state nuptials.

Roemer, in short, is being philosophically consistent with his socially conservative brethren; he’s just not as much of a political absolutist as some of them.

Comments

[Gabriel Haze]

12:41 AM on 03/18/2011

I am not challenging the beliefs of conservative groups on gay marriage on whether they personally feel it's right or wrong under "their" God's law, but rather questioning whether or not they actually appreciate the rights that are given to them by our supposedly equal and religiously free country.

What if Congress stated that any woman who loses their husband in death would have to bear the children of his brother. Would this be okay with you? Would you be willing to sacrifice your freedoms as an individual in order to know that all Americans were living under some of the laws of your religion, even if it meant practicing additional more strict standards that you did not agree with?

All this being said, I highly doubt you would want your interpretation of the Bible decided by government and personally I do not want Congress passing laws on how I decide to live mine. And though you might consider the argument that legalizing gay marriage will make it difficult to teach your children that it's wrong, I would like to know how you managed teaching your offspring to remain racist since the government ended slavery and allowed for the legalization of interracial marriage. The truth is, if you need the government to pass laws in order to give reasons to your children on how to behave, than I fear the problem is less about what others do and more about your inability to control others the way you wish.

[RockyMissouri]

03:19 PM on 03/14/2011

Thank you!!! Mods!! Like magic....there everything is....you are truly magnificent!

[Atwill]

09:19 AM on 03/14/2011

DOM is dead. You can not qnd should not stop people's civil rights, even if you do not like thier so called lifestyle. If that were the case i would say deny marraige and adoption to all drinkers and smokers. A disgusting lifestyle choice.

[oldgeek1]

12:04 PM on 03/13/2011

Unconventional and unlikely.

[ffa1234]

11:18 AM on 03/13/2011

"[The 50 state] are all a little different." Boy, WHAT an understatement.

[emrogers]

12:01 PM on 03/13/2011

f&f - my thoughts EXACTLY!

[Scotishpinkocommie]

03:10 PM on 03/13/2011

just like when Obama's parents got married in Hawaii was illegal in some states

[lrlrlr]

11:17 AM on 03/13/2011

Wonder if he wants to bring back slavery since the Bible is ok with it?

[Oneandoneandone]

04:04 PM on 03/17/2011

Only if we can stone adulterers to death and stop eating shellfish.

[CenaW]

10:47 AM on 03/13/2011

Actually the United Methodist Church membership is divided on this.
Some in favor of gay marriage, some opposed.
Some in favor of gay married ministers some opposed.

[Gennaphyr]

12:11 PM on 03/13/2011

This is why his comment about his Methodist Church confused me. I'm an atheist so obviously I don't go to church. However the Methodist Church in my neighborhood is very liberal and many gays attend, the pastor is a woman, they have a huge dinner every Wednesday for the homeless. From what I see their outreach is to "help others" and not proselytize like some of the other churches around here.

[CenaW]

01:43 PM on 03/13/2011

Before I was a religious free zone I was a member of United Methodists.
Yes, a lot of liberalism, and that was the general tone of the different churches I attended,
but we always had those old conservative haters.

[ramal]

09:14 AM on 03/13/2011

I call upon The United Methodist Church to publicly denounce Roemer and his bigotry.

[55BelAir]

04:43 AM on 03/13/2011

Notice how Buddy says nothing about jobs...

[Tony Sanchez]

04:31 AM on 03/13/2011

When Roemer mixes church and government He's in trouble.Using God as a shield for prejudice is cowardly.

[GeoNorth]

10:36 PM on 03/12/2011

Damn. Not another one.

[rbryanh]

09:24 PM on 03/12/2011

Yeah, yeah... I'm real clear Jesus told you to hate me, Buddy. The idea is about as original as "kills the Jews" and about as rational as "sodomy causes earthquakes."

The Fourteenth Amendment gives you the freedom to rub blue mud in your navel on alternate Thursdays and refuse to allow cats into your house, but the First forbids any attempt to establish your myth as law.

We've heard it all before, Anita, but since the U.S. Constitution says otherwise what I'd really like to know is how you reconcile being a proud American with being a religious bigot. 'Cause you know, the operant word in that phrase is "bigot," and no matter what tattered book of ignorant tribal superstitions you wave in the air, I'm still holding you and all your ilk personally responsible for the harm you do while frolicking in the blood of the lamb.

[RockyMissouri]

08:27 PM on 03/12/2011

Danger! Beware...this old dude may seem innocuous and all, but remember: He is a republican!
and he may seem all nice and feely and sentimental....but no way...! Put your republican alert on...NOW!

[AnarChrist]

09:30 PM on 03/12/2011

There hasn't been a decent republican since Ike.

[RockyMissouri]

12:13 AM on 03/13/2011

You are so right....!

[emrogers]

12:03 PM on 03/13/2011

There have been but they've all been chased out of the party.

[feetxxxl]

07:13 PM on 03/12/2011

i have a real problem with believers laying the responsibility of their belief on their church. does that mean that if tomorrow the methodist church said gay marriage was okay then he would agree. does he worship at the altar of methodism? is he saying i believe only what my church tells me to believe, like im only for the things my party tells me to be for?

where is there personnal integrity in that?

being a believer in christ, each person makes their own personnal witness thru the living spirit that lives in them, giving their own personnal account of what they witness as to what is of the spirit of christ in the lives of those who are being gay. 1john1 spells it out. it is us believers thru fellowship in the oneness of christ with all others that we witness what spirit is in the lives of each other, and own that in our hearts. this is his fellowship.

living thru living spirit in us, shows us where his spirit rests. scripture merely affirms our living life experiences. without these living life experiences scripture would be useless. does roemer actually have a relationship with a gay person that he can give witness to testifying what is in their hearts compared to what is in the hearts of those he knows who are heterosexual.
continued

[rbryanh]

09:26 PM on 03/12/2011

Belief that "there is no higher law than God's law" is inherently anti-democratic.

[CenaW]

10:59 AM on 03/13/2011

Yes. It seems to be impossible to get the believers on board with what a constitutional government, that clearly states no established religion means.

Religion is deliberately hierarchical. The sole pupose being a way to control and manipulate the masses.

A democratic republic is in conflict with that concept.

[RockyMissouri]

04:25 PM on 03/14/2011

The Southern branch is a very different church....believe me ....!

[feetxxxl]

07:12 PM on 03/12/2011

in addition it has never been for heterosexual believers to dictate to homosexual believers what is of christ. in christ all things are complementary as in liberalism in christ complements what is conservative in christ. there is no opposition. likewise what is gay complements what is heterosexual. it is for homosexuals and heterosexuals believers together in fellowship to see together, what needs to be seen..

in roemers church there should be only one invitation to homosexual believers, " come make this a home in the same way that we invite heterosexual believers to come make it a home."

[Contact1972]

09:27 PM on 03/12/2011

I would ask this question of Roemer or any religious person not in favor of equal marriage-what does your religion or any religion have to do with civil marriage and being treated equally under the law?

I have yet to get a credible answer from any of them.

[rbryanh]

09:36 PM on 03/12/2011

True, but it's much larger than that. Christians are required to proselytize, and the moment that proselytizing ceases to be personal and becomes institutional, it's nothing better than imperialism dressed in lamb's clothing. Ultimately, the notion of an entity whose laws are supreme is incompatible with democracy. You can't have it both ways. Christofascists are required to force others to live by the precepts of their myth, and the Constitution forbids that. Anyone who wraps him or herself in the flag while waving a cross is a hypocrite.

Religion is a nasty business, and "faith" is what people claim when supportable conclusions drawn from demonstrable facts by the use of reason won't support them to kick the people they dislike in the face.