Defense of Marriage Act Going to Court?

Torrance · Feb 23, 2011

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.

Wow, who needs the courts? I wonder how it is that he can see this as unconstitutional while being blind to the fact that his health care plan doesn't pass muster.

Don · Feb 23, 2011

I'll give him serious credit for at least recognizing one unconstitutional act when it hits him in the face. Now, if in the interests of bipartisanship, he'd recognize all the rest of them, we could do some serious government-trimming.

I'm not holding my breath.

Zoombie · Feb 23, 2011

Kick. ASS.

DavidZahir · Feb 23, 2011

It kinda baffles me--how some folks simply cannot seem to imagine that anybody could possibly disagree about what is or is not constitutional.

For the record, I agree with President Obama on this issue.

regdog · Feb 23, 2011

Denying a person the same rights afforded to another based based on their sexual preference is unconstitutional because it is prejudicial.

MarkEsq · Feb 23, 2011

Torrance said:
Wow, who needs the courts? I wonder how it is that he can see this as unconstitutional while being blind to the fact that his health care plan doesn't pass muster.

Not sure of the connection between the two, can you explain? If DOMA is unconstitutional, how does that make Obamacare so?

rugcat · Feb 23, 2011

MarkEsq said:
Not sure of the connection between the two, can you explain? If DOMA is unconstitutional, how does that make Obamacare so?

Easy. If one opposes both, they must both therefore be unconstitutional.

Monkey · Feb 23, 2011

Way to go, Obama!

Very good news, IMO.

mscelina · Feb 23, 2011

rugcat said:
Easy. If one opposes both, they must both therefore be unconstitutional.

DING! And we have a winner!

Good for Obama, recognizing this at last. It's about damn time.

Torrance · Feb 23, 2011

MarkEsq said:
Not sure of the connection between the two, can you explain? If DOMA is unconstitutional, how does that make Obamacare so?

The connection is Obama and his willingness to accept a ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional (ruled thus by one court) while ignoring the fact that a couple of courts have also found his health care plan unconstitutional (specifically the mandate portion which some might argue is the linchpin of the law). He has abandoned DOMA, yet he persists with the implementation of health care despite the fact that his plan is likely to be crushed by the court.

Torrance · Feb 23, 2011

rugcat said:
Easy. If one opposes both, they must both therefore be unconstitutional.

*yawn*

Perks · Feb 23, 2011

Since my bathtub is dirty, I'd better not sweep the porch.

blacbird · Feb 23, 2011

Torrance said:
The connection is Obama and his willingness to accept a ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional (ruled thus by one court) while ignoring the fact that a couple of courts have also found his health care plan unconstitutional (specifically the mandate portion which some might argue is the linchpin of the law). He has abandoned DOMA, yet he persists with the implementation of health care despite the fact that his plan is likely to be crushed by the court.

Ultimately, only the U.S. Supreme Court can pass on what is and what is not unconstitutional. The lower courts are merely arguing grounds for temporary rulings. You give us your opinions on what is or is not unconstitutional, which have opinion value, but no legal status. Obama has done the same thing, nothing more. I fail to see anything wrong with his having done that, just as I fail to see anything wrong with you doing so.

So what's your gripe?

Torrance · Feb 23, 2011

blacbird said:
Obama has done the same thing, nothing more. I fail to see anything wrong with his having done that, just as I fail to see anything wrong with you doing so.

So what's your gripe?

No, Obama has ordered the Justice Dept to stop defending DOMA. That isn't the same as stating an opinion.

blacbird · Feb 23, 2011

Torrance said:
No, Obama has ordered the Justice Dept to stop defending DOMA. That isn't the same as stating an opinion.

Won't matter. I can guarantee that somebody will spend lots of time, effort and money to defend this when it gets before the Supremes, which it certainly will. It's the Administration's position now that it won't be them. That's all.

Every Administration supports some constitutional litigation and opposes others. You and I might disagree with those positions, but it's their right (and responsibility) to do so.

Celia Cyanide · Feb 23, 2011

DavidZahir said:
It kinda baffles me--how some folks simply cannot seem to imagine that anybody could possibly disagree about what is or is not constitutional.

Me too. If nobody ever disagreed on this, why would the Supreme Court be voting on it? Even they don't always agree on what is and is not constitutional.

Vince524 · Feb 23, 2011

blacbird said:
Won't matter. I can guarantee that somebody will spend lots of time, effort and money to defend this when it gets before the Supremes, which it certainly will. It's the Administration's position now that it won't be them. That's all.

So in other words, he won't fight for it one way or the other? If some group wants to spend their own money on defending it, and it sticks, then it's a ok with him? If that's correct, then it's a bit of a cop out, right? Or am I misunderstanding?

shadowwalker · Feb 23, 2011

Vince524 said:
So in other words, he won't fight for it one way or the other? If some group wants to spend their own money on defending it, and it sticks, then it's a ok with him? If that's correct, then it's a bit of a cop out, right? Or am I misunderstanding?

Not a cop out at all. He's saying the Justice Dept will not spend time or money defending it. Whatever else happens is up to the courts and whoever does get involved, which is what should happen.

Jessianodel · Feb 23, 2011

I couldn't believe this was even an issue because the only argument I've seen against gay marriage was religion-based.

Shadow Dragon · Feb 23, 2011

Jessianodel said:
I couldn't believe this was even an issue because the only argument I've seen against gay marriage was religion-based.

It's an issue because many voters in the US vote based on their religious beliefs. And many politicians appeal to religion as a way of getting votes, and then they vote based on a fundamentalist christain ideology.

MarkEsq · Feb 23, 2011

Vince524 said:
So in other words, he won't fight for it one way or the other? If some group wants to spend their own money on defending it, and it sticks, then it's a ok with him? If that's correct, then it's a bit of a cop out, right? Or am I misunderstanding?

I'm about to sit down to dinner, so I haven't thought much about this... but I think it'll depend on who the parties to the suit are. Only a party to the lawsuit can contest it (or choose not to). Some other party, no matter how much they may care, can't just pick up the.. mantel? Gauntlet?

Anyway, if the fed govt is the only named party on one side of the "V." then it's game over. Unless my shallow, pre-dinner consideration has missed something, which is entirely possible....

AncientEagle · Feb 23, 2011

MarkEsq said:
I'm about to sit down to dinner, so I haven't thought much about this... but I think it'll depend on who the parties to the suit are. Only a party to the lawsuit can contest it (or choose not to). Some other party, no matter how much they may care, can't just pick up the.. mantel? Gauntlet?

Anyway, if the fed govt is the only named party on one side of the "V." then it's game over. Unless my shallow, pre-dinner consideration has missed something, which is entirely possible....

I know what you mean. I, also, have a hard time figuring these things out when I'm hungry.

billythrilly7th · Feb 23, 2011

Obama is against gay marriage.

He is for not defending the DOMA because it is unconstitutional. Even though for the past two years he did.

But he will still enforce it because it is law and it's his job as President.

So his own opinion about gay marriage is unconstitutional.

And he will still go on enforcing it's unconstitutionality but not in court.

And he agrees with that because he's against gay marriage. So, he's on the same page with himself on half of it.

So, it all....

What?!

This guy is something else.

Deleted member 42 · Feb 23, 2011

MarkEsq said:
Anyway, if the fed govt is the only named party on one side of the "V." then it's game over.

Well, no. The Justice department may not be defending DOMA, but Congress may decide to defend DOMA, and hire an attorney(s).

BenPanced · Feb 23, 2011

Medievalist said:
Well, no. The Justice department may not be defending DOMA, but Congress may decide to defend DOMA, and hire an attorney(s).

And considering the current mood of Congress? It's gonna be a loooooooooooong, ugly fight.

Defense of Marriage Act Going to Court?

All Living is Local

Dragon of the Multiverse

Malkavian Primogen

The Scavengers

Clever title pending.

Lost in the Fog

Is me.

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Joker Groupie

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

empty-nester!

Blessed by the AW Gods

Clever title pending.

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

Deleted member 42

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)