1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Obama administration will not defend gay marraige law

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by cml750, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. cml750

    cml750 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,025
    Likes Received:
    3,818
    link

    Is Obama setting a dangerous precedence by doing this?

    President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law "Unconstitutional"

    February 23, 2011 12:39 PM


    President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.

    The announcement was made in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders in relation to two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.

    President Obama believes that section – Section 3 -- “is unconstitutional” given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

    President Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

    DOMA was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. In application the law means same-sex couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples when it comes to Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and other rights.

    Following presidential precedent, the Obama administration has been defending the law even though President Obama has long opposed it.

    But now, “under heightened scrutiny" since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”

    That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

    Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation said that “After a series of steps that undermined the legal case for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration has apparently decided to drop its mask and publicly switch sides. This action raises the stakes in this litigation even higher, because both portions of DOMA – both the federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as well as the authority of Congress under Article 4 of the Constitution to interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause to allow states to protect similar definitions – are now at heightened risk.”

    Last month, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “we can’t declare the law unconstitutional…The President believes, as you said, that this is a law that should not exist and should be repealed. But we, at the same time, have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.” Gibbs said that “given the current makeup of the Congress,” having DOMA repealed would be :inordinately challenging,”

    President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 “consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”

    In Zanesville, OH, in June 2008, then-candidate Obama said DOMA “was a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.”

    “This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law. The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize. Instead Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws.”

    -Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

    UPDATE:

    A reminder that in June 2009, President Obama’s DOJ began its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act by invoking incest and adults marrying children.

    This did not go over particularly well among some of the president’s supporters.

    In July 2010, a judge ruled against the Obama administration.

    Also in June 2009, the president extended some benefits to same sex partners of federal employees.

    At a news conference in December of 2010, shortly after signing into law a repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy toward gay servicemembers, I asked the President if it was “intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?”

    Gay marriage, he said, is an issue with which he struggles.

    “My feelings about this are constantly evolving,” he said. “I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions, and they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”
     
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
  3. uolj

    uolj Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    60
  4. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,990
    Likes Received:
    29,346
    I understand why they doing this
    but
    I don't like it.

    I don't like selective enforcement of laws.
    If it is bad law. . . get rid of it.
    Why keep bad law on the books???? It is like painting over dirty
    Eventually it will reveal itself again.

    Plus. . . . seems more and more we 'workaround' things
    rather than fix them . . .

    Rocket River
     
  5. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,515
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Like Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation without passing a bill in Congress. Booooo Lincoln.
     
  6. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,317
    Likes Received:
    5,089
    If the President does it, it is not illegal

    But all executives direct the efforts of their staff, it doesn't change the law, it just abandons efforts to enforce it.
     
    #6 Dubious, Feb 26, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2011
  7. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,990
    Likes Received:
    29,346

    . . . . it is the least you can do.

    Rocket River
     
  8. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,515
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    What does that even mean in this context, mushmouth?
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,784
    Likes Received:
    3,499
    LOL! Rocket River is totally mushmouth hahahahahahaha
     
  10. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,990
    Likes Received:
    29,346

    You are what I think you are . . .
    So . . you do what I expect you to do . . ..
    which . . .of course. . . is the Least you can do . . .

    Rocket River
     
  11. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    30,149
    Likes Received:
    6,765
    indeed.
     
  12. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    55,188
    Likes Received:
    43,502
    Perhaps some of the posters here who know more about legal history than me can answer this but as a situation like this happened before where a DOJ stopped defending court challenges to an existing law?
     
  13. amaru

    amaru Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Hopefully this is more effective than the Emancipation Proclamation.

    It failed to free any slaves. It only applied to those in open revolt against the U.S. government (i.e in the CSA) and of course the leaders in those areas ignored it.
     
  14. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    3,172
    They did the same thing in 2005 over a fight over mar1juana ads.

    The DOJ has also refused to enforce laws other laws on mar1juana in the past as well. (For example they aren't prosecuting anyone who purchases mar1juana under medical mar1juana statutes even if it violates federal law)

    Also they did the same thing in the 1990s when refusing to defend the law in a Miranda case.

     
    #14 geeimsobored, Feb 26, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2011
  15. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    18,096
    Likes Received:
    12,645
    This is how common law works. If you don't like it, don't live in any of the former British colonies.
     
  16. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    yeah, move to countries conquered by Napoleon, that dastardly b*stard
     
  17. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,990
    Likes Received:
    29,346
    My point is this . . . I would not be COMFORTABLE with enslavement laws still being on the books. . . but not enforced.

    What that means is . . . This can be undone in 2012

    Rocket River
     
  18. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    55,188
    Likes Received:
    43,502
    Thanks for the info and shortly after I posted I remember the DOJ not enforcing federal laws on medical mar1juana in states that allowed it.
     
  19. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    55,188
    Likes Received:
    43,502
    At the time of issuance it didn't but once the Confederacy was militarily defeated it went into effect until superseded by the 13th Amendment.
     
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    55,188
    Likes Received:
    43,502
    This isn't selective enforcement just not defending it in regard to lawsuits.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now