Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA

[Dick Whitman]

The administration considers the act a violation of Constitutional Equal Protection, and will no longer defend it in lawsuits like one in Massachusetts earlier this yea (which the administration lost)r:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Crash]

Not sure why they did in the first place, unless it was under the same idea that Congress would overturn it (which we know it never would).

 

[Dick Whitman]

Not sure why they did in the first place, unless it was under the same idea that Congress would overturn it (which we know it never would).

I just figured that the DOJ was obligated, either legally or ethically, to defend federal laws. Which is kind of the same as what you're saying: That it was Congress's job to overturn it, not the federal courts.

 

[old_tony]

The lesson: Ignore the laws you don't like.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The lesson: Ignore the laws you don't like.

Like FISA?

 

[Bob Cook]

The lesson: Ignore the laws you don't like.

Technically, they're not ignoring it. They're arguing, too, that it's unconstitutional.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Yeah, this is one of the issues where I'm pretty liberal.

I cannot fathom why anyone would care who anyone else marries.

But, it is saying something that Obama wouldn't take this stance during the election. It wouldn't have mattered because he would have won anyway.

 

[Alma]

Obama's administration makes its strongest stands on precisely these matters.

 

[TigerVols]

Obama's administration makes its strongest stands on precisely these matters.

Every administration I can recall makes strong stands on issues that play to its base.

That's why elections have consequences.

 

[Azrael]

The lesson: Ignore the laws you don't like.

You mean like 'contempt of Congress?'

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bush_wont_enforce_contempt_of_congress_warrants/

 

[Alma]

Obama's administration makes its strongest stands on precisely these matters.

Every administration I can recall makes strong stands on issues that play to its base.

That's why elections have consequences.

I wouldn't disagree. But Obama makes his strongest stands on these kinds of issues.

 

[Crash]

Not sure why they did in the first place, unless it was under the same idea that Congress would overturn it (which we know it never would).

I just figured that the DOJ was obligated, either legally or ethically, to defend federal laws. Which is kind of the same as what you're saying: That it was Congress's job to overturn it, not the federal courts.

From what I know and have read, the only thing the DOJ has to do is inform Congress if it will not defend a federal law. In the instance of DADT, the administration defended the law because it wanted Congress to overturn it and thought it would create more havoc if it was suddenly overturned by the courts. This doesn't seem to be such a delicate issue, and I doubt Congress will be moving quickly to overturn it (though Feinstein just announced she'll file repeal legislation in the Senate).

Tony, as far as "ignoring laws you don't like goes," it's not that simple. Holder and the DOJ lawyers have clearly outlined their legal argument and their belief that there is a clear conflict with the equal protection clause in the Constitution. The DOJ isn't "ignoring" the law; it's just going to start arguing against it.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has happened.

I think it would have meant a lot more if he had this stance in 2008.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has happened.

I think it would have meant a lot more if he had this stance in 2008.

Just as a popular refrain (since last fall) has become "Elections have CONSEQUENCES!!!!!" Obama knew that stances taken during elections also have consequences. Which could lead to elections that have more consequences.

 

[Alma]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has happened.

I think it would have meant a lot more if he had this stance in 2008.

It would have been a distraction then. It could be now, I dunno. It's a pretty much a non-issue in 5-10 years.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

That's fine. I just think it's funny that some on here have suggested he's taking a stance on this. If that was the case, he would have been for this when he was trying to get elected.

Everybody knew he was for it, but he didn't have the stones to come out and say that he was for it.

I'm glad DADT is gone and I'm glad they're not arguing against this one.

Now if he wanted to take a real stance it would be sponsor a bill to make same-sex marriage legal. He won't do that though.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has happened.

I think it would have meant a lot more if he had this stance in 2008.

It would have been a distraction then. It could be now, I dunno. It's a pretty much a non-issue in 5-10 years.

I hate to say it, but it won't be a non-issue until the baby boomers die out. Most of my friends who are conservatives aren't bothered at all by same-sex marriages, but you can find liberals in their 60s who think it's the worst thing in the world.

I don't think this is a political party issue, I think it's more of an age issue.

 

[Alma]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has happened.

I think it would have meant a lot more if he had this stance in 2008.

It would have been a distraction then. It could be now, I dunno. It's a pretty much a non-issue in 5-10 years.

I hate to say it, but it won't be a non-issue until the baby boomers die out. Most of my friends who are conservatives aren't bothered at all by same-sex marriages, but you can find liberals in their 60s who think it's the worst thing in the world.

I don't think this is a political party issue, I think it's more of an age issue.

I believe the demographics (of those against it) skew most toward poor minorities. Could be wrong.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I remember my aunt, who is in her 70s, saying she's never met a gay person in her entire life, and my mom just laughs and tells me that the guy who does my aunt's hair is as obviously gay as one can be and talks about his "partner" all the time which goes right over her head and my aunt is a retired high school principal who hasn't voted for a republican since 1984.

I just think it's funny.

 

[deskslave]

Where, I wonder, are all the states-rightsers -- the ones who want the federal government to get out of the way and respect decisions made by states -- when things like medical marijuana and gay marriage come up?Why shouldn't federal law recognize a legal contract entered into in one of its 50 states? It runs thoroughly counter to everything the states-rightsers claim to hold dear.