# Sullivan on Dobson (Not literally though)
Andrew Sullivan has some good thoughts on his blog in response to the commentary James Dobson’s wrote for CNN.com regarding the proposed Federal Marriage Ammendment. Click here for Dobson’s column if you’re feeling frisky and check out Sullivan’s response here.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Sullivan wrote that Dobson is engaged in deliberate deception, but gave no support to back that claim. I’d like to know what he means, exactly.
Personally, I agree with Dobson on this one.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Actually, Sullivan does give support for his claim. He writes, “Moreover, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and all constitutional precedent prevent the imposition of one state’s civil marriages on any other state. These facts are not in dispute.”
If I may, I’ll summarize by saying that what Sullivan is alluding to is the fact that Dobson is claiming that without a FMA, one state would have to comply with the marriage laws of the other 49 states. But because of the Defense of Marraige Act, ironically passed during the Clinton administration, what Dobson is claiming is, in fact, not accurate. I would guess, as Sullivan has, that Dobson knows full well what the Defense of Marraige Act entails. Judging from his commentary on CNN, he is either grossly misinformed or he’s deliberately misleading his audience.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Thanks for sharing both of these articles. I’m struggling to figure out what I believe on this issue and really enjoy reading different perspectives. Part of the problem seems to be that each side is not listening to the opposing view and trying to understand different perspectives.