Big news on marriage

Here's the latest, Jack... (0.00 / 0)

The word on the street now is Obama US Attorney expected to stand behind federal gay marriage ban, plaintiffs say.

Raw Story reports:

The word on the street now is Obama US Attorney expected to stand behind federal gay marriage ban, plaintiffs say.

"The gay rights law group that convinced a federal district court judge Thursday to strike down a federal ban on gay marriage has told the New York Times they "fully expect" the Justice Department to appeal the decision -- a move that could shatter Obama's image in the gay community and cost his party millions of dollars in donations from gay donors."

I think Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend summed up Obama's situation best.

[Obama] has repeatedly said that DOMA is discriminatory, actually believes it is also Constitutional. This administration has been keeping its head in the sand on this one for quite some time, as if it didn't notice the handful of marriage cases winding their way to the Obama DOJ.

And now it doesn't really matter what he believes in theory; this President is going to have to make a choice -- have his DOJ defend DOMA in court (using the "I have to" defense), or decline to defend. Either way, there's no way to hide, no way to split the baby, pick your metaphor. He can expect a sh*tstorm from the LGBT community of epic proportions if appealed, and the right wing could have an issue to harp on if the DOJ declines.

Sigh....

---

by: Christian Avard @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 17:03:03 PM UTC

That would be very, very disappointing. (0.00 / 0)

And if he disappoints his base on this one, he might as well hang-up the "gone fishing" sign on the Oval Office door.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 17:20:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It wouldn't be disappointing (0.00 / 0)

it would be exactly as expected.  To disappoint, something else needs to be expected.

But to be clear: there's no way DOMA is going to make it through a legal challenge in the long run with this specific Supreme Court.  Though I personally believe it to be unconstitutional, from a strategic perspective, I think of the legal challenges as only a way to raise awareness of the issue.  The real repeal of Doma will come from legislative action.  

Obama didn't vote for Doma and he didn't sign it into law.  We just finished with a president who ignored standing law whenever he thought it convenient to do so, and while I can't say I like it if Obama's justice department defends Doma, I can't say it's necessarily a bad thing if we have a justice department that refuses to pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce, especially when those laws are enacted legally and through proper process.  

Don't get me wrong Doma is disgusting, but it is currently legal.  I'd love to see it overturned by the Supreme Court, but that's not about to happen (we should still try, and without the justice department appealing the ruling, we'd have more trouble getting it to the Supreme Court), but I'm much more interested in seeing us, as a nation, fix the really horrendous mistake that Clinton signed into law years ago.  

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 17:32:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is worse? (4.00 / 1)

Which is worse -- to leave this as a local ruling just affecting MA, or have the administration appeal with a chance to get a district ruling covering much of New England?    If it is just left as is, then MA married couples can get federal benefits, but VT couples don't.  What happens then? Does someone in VT or our attorney general go to court to try to get it struck down here?  Is that any better/worse than the current administration doing a lukewarm defense of DOMA (which by all accounts their defense in MA was)?  The tactical decisions to be made are definitely complicated. Sigh... I wish we just had enough votes to repeal.

It sounds like the judge did give a strong, well reasoned opinion, although I'd like to read more about what he did/did not say about the federal banning of polygamy, which is the major intrusion the feds have done versus the state rights to regulate marriage.   I'm hoping he came up with some good reasoning about why polygamy can be banned by the feds but gay marriage can't.  I haven't had a chance to read the actual opinion but I did see one news reference to him perhaps not mentioning it at all, which could be a problem on appeal.

[Note:  I believe the district level covers ME and NH, but not VT, so we would need a court of appeals decision, I believe, but I may very well be wrong]

---

by: vtleslie @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 21:27:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't Hold Your Breath (4.00 / 1)

VT Attorney General Bill Sorrell won't sue the fed govt over its discrimination against married Vermonters. Hell, he was the one who defended Vermont against the original Baker lawsuit (which he all but denied when he asked me to sign his nomination petition).

He's too busy pretending to be the state surgeon general, addressing childhood obesity. Talk about "mission creep." Isn't it time for him to sit down and tend to his own knitting?

NanuqFC
The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. ~ Hannah Arendt (On Revolution, 1963)

---

by: NanuqFC @ Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 01:30:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]