• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

katrina

Well-known member
Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Published February 23, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (5966) Text Size The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

But after two new lawsuits were filed in New York and Connecticut, Obama ordered Attorney General Eric Holder not to defend the statute.

"I fully concur with the president's determination," Holder said in a statement, declaring the provision to be "unconstitutional."

Holder said members of Congress may step up to defend the statute, but the Justice Department "will cease defense."



Jan. 11:Attorney General Eric Holder delivers remarks at the Martin Luther King Jr. commemorative program, at the Justice Department in Washington.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
A Nice, Wholesome Hooters Girl for the Kids Wisconsin Reality: There's No Money Qaddafi's Hold on Libya Weakens in Protest Wave Is Salt Really that Bad for Us? Record-Crushing 327-Pound 'Dinosaur Fish' Caught He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "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 (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner that Obama concluded the law fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

Boehner's office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told Fox News.

Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, said that if somebody from the House steps in to defend the law, it could actually be "good news" for Defense of Marriage Act supporters.

"This fight is not over yet. It's really just begun," she told Fox News.

Gay-rights groups applauded the administration. The Human Rights Campaign called the decision a "monumental" move against a law that "unfairly discriminates against Americans."

"Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement.

"The Obama administration's decision is a victory for civil rights, fairness, and equality for the LGBT community and all Americans," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said.

The administration previously has defended laws with which the president disagrees, notably the "don't ask, don't tell" provision banning gays from serving openly in the military -- though that law was later repealed. Holder acknowledged this in his statement, but said there are exceptions.

"The department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because -- as here -- the department does not consider every such argument to be a 'reasonable' one," Holder said. "Moreover, the department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the president has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional."

Holder said the "legal landscape" has changed in the 15 years since the law was passed, citing the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and lower-court rulings against the law.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that the U.S. government will remain a party to Defense of Marriage Act cases so they can proceed in court. Though the administration says the key provision in the law is not constitutional, Carney said the administration will help others who want to defend it.

Obama, who supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, has said his views are "evolving" on same-sex marriage. Currently, he is only on record in support of civil unions.
 

Tam

Well-known member
This is to be expected he is facing an election and last time the Gay communities supported him. HE IS BUYING VOTES BY IGNORING US LAWS. No big surprise.
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Since when does the President get to declair what law is unconstitutional?
Guess it's no surprise since they are ignoring the courts on off shore drilling and Obama Care.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
cutterone said:
Since when does the President get to declair what law is unconstitutional?
Guess it's no surprise since they are ignoring the courts on off shore drilling and Obama Care.

There used to be a time, not so long ago, that Dems. used to have the utmost respect for the Rule of Law and disdain for ignoring the Constitution. Now you hardly ever hear any complaints.

At least GITMO is closed and the Patriot Act has been abolished.


CHANGE!
 

Tam

Well-known member
How many times is this Administration going to do the end run around the wishes of the House and Senate and VOTERS A majority of voters didn't want His Health Care reform/takeover but did he stop NO. He could not get Cap and Trade through so he basically did the end run by passing regulation through EPA. He couldn't get his radical appointees through so he appoints them during a recess. He sees his Union buddies in a fight for POWER and he uses his Offical campaign organization to organize protest rallies against the States. He doesn't want to deal with Illegal Immigants so he sues the State that wants to protect themself from his supporters. He can't get a repeal of the Marriage protection act so HE DECLARES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL and refuses to enforce it. What is next is he going to declare Presidentual term limits unconstitutional and become the first US Dictator. The guy is in way over his head and is going to DESTORY THE US if he is not stopped in his tracks. :mad:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
How many times is this Administration going to do the end run around the wishes of the House and Senate and VOTERS A majority of voters didn't want His Health Care reform/takeover but did he stop NO. He could not get Cap and Trade through so he basically did the end run by passing regulation through EPA. He couldn't get his radical appointees through so he appoints them during a recess. He sees his Union buddies in a fight for POWER and he uses his Offical campaign organization to organize protest rallies against the States. He doesn't want to deal with Illegal Immigants so he sues the State that wants to protect themself from his supporters. He can't get a repeal of the Marriage protection act so HE DECLARES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL and refuses to enforce it. What is next is he going to declare Presidentual term limits unconstitutional and become the first US Dictator. The guy is in way over his head and is going to DESTORY THE US if he is not stopped in his tracks. :mad:

It's called a soft tyranny, the dictatorship begins in 2012,, if he is re-elected.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
How many times is this Administration going to do the end run around the wishes of the House and Senate and VOTERS A majority of voters didn't want His Health Care reform/takeover but did he stop NO. He could not get Cap and Trade through so he basically did the end run by passing regulation through EPA. He couldn't get his radical appointees through so he appoints them during a recess. He sees his Union buddies in a fight for POWER and he uses his Offical campaign organization to organize protest rallies against the States. He doesn't want to deal with Illegal Immigants so he sues the State that wants to protect themself from his supporters. He can't get a repeal of the Marriage protection act so HE DECLARES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL and refuses to enforce it. What is next is he going to declare Presidentual term limits unconstitutional and become the first US Dictator. The guy is in way over his head and is going to DESTORY THE US if he is not stopped in his tracks. :mad:

It's called a soft tyranny, the dictatorship begins in 2012,, if he is re-elected.


Everybody better hope the Republicans take the Senate with a super majority and the House with a big enough majority to override a veto if Obama gets a second term. Or he will hold the government hostage until he gets his radical agenda a couple steps further down the road to no return.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Boehner's office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told Fox News.

it seems Boehner is looking at the why... but may not quite see it clearly..

Obama can't win the budget fight he is now in, so he will start another, hoping to get the conservatives to lose that one..
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Steve said:
Boehner's office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told Fox News.

it seems Boehner is looking at the why... but may not quite see it clearly..

Obama can't win the budget fight he is now in, so he will start another, hoping to get the conservatives to lose that one..


All the Weeper of the House will do is cry and sniffle about it........
 

Tam

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Steve said:
Boehner's office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told Fox News.

it seems Boehner is looking at the why... but may not quite see it clearly..

Obama can't win the budget fight he is now in, so he will start another, hoping to get the conservatives to lose that one..


All the Weeper of the House will do is cry and sniffle about it........

Again you add so much to the conservation it shocks me. NOT. Answer this is it the right of the President to decide what laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a former President are constitutional or unconstitutional or is that the job of the Supreme Court?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Repeal of DOMA appears unlikely with Republican majority in the House
Updated: Thursday, November 4th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

The 2010 election gave control of the U.S. House of Representatives to the Republican Party, lessening the chances of several Democratic proposals -- including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

During the campaign, President Barack Obama promised to support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, called DOMA. The act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, says that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and that the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage.

Obama has repeatedly called for repeal (see our previous updates below), and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in September 2009. It gained 120 co-sponsors, all Democrats, but never made it out of committee. Some Democrats felt their energy was better spent on gay rights legislation that had broader support, such as repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving in the military or protecting gays and lesbians from job discrimination.

There's little optimism among gay advocacy groups that such a bill will pass during during the next session of Congress, when Republicans will control the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The shift in the balance of power will be a very real challenge to advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights legislation in Congress," said Inga Sarda-Sorensen, communications director with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Despite that, we will continue to identify and work with fair-minded members of Congress who are willing to support and defend equality for LGBT people."

Obama called for the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be addressed later this year, during a lame duck session of Congress when Democrats retain control of the House.

But repealing the Defense of Marriage Act has more opposition, particularly from Republicans. Back in 2006, several members of the House Republican leadership voted in favor of a resolution supporting an amendment to the the U.S. Constitution to declare that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Supporters included Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who is expected to become Speaker of the House next year.

Gay rights advocates concede it's unlikely a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act will make it through a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. So we rate this promise Stalled.


SO the Dems knew a repeal would never pass the Congress so why bother going the legal route when you have Obama in the White House thinking he has the power to do what ever he likes. BIPARTISAN, YEA RIGHT This guy is a joke and he will do anything he has to to buy re-election support from his far left base. :mad:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Weeper of our house said:
Steve said:
Boehner's office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told Fox News.

it seems Boehner is looking at the why... but may not quite see it clearly..

Obama can't win the budget fight he is now in, so he will start another, hoping to get the conservatives to lose that one..




All the Weeper of the House will do is cry and sniffle about it........


Thanks for your take
 
Top