Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
-The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.
-The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law.
-If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Waiting to see how the Obama haters on the left here react to this. I'm sure it'll be something about how he was forced to this and is still a secret bigot at heart.
The difference between the youth vote and the GOP vote is the the GOP vote doesn't need their fucking hand held to do their job and vote as citizens.
"Repealing DOMA, getting ENDA [a bill to protect LGBT people from discrimination] done, those are things that should be done," Obama told The Advocate the night before signing Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal into law. "I think those are natural next steps legislatively. I'll be frank with you, I think that's not going to get done in two years. We're on a three- or four-year time frame unless there's a real transformation of attitudes within the Republican caucus."
So with 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I have such great confidence in the effective implementation of this law because it was repealed [legislatively]. We would have gotten to the same place if the court order had made it happen, but I think it would have engendered resistance," he added. "So I'm always looking for a way to get it done if possible through our elected representatives. That may not be possible in DOMA's case. That's something that I think we have to strategize on over the next several months."
"As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that. I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed."
President Obama has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which recognizes only opposite sex marriages for the purposes of federal law. The President has also stated clearly that he believes Section 3 is unconstitutional because the law does not pass heightened scrutiny. The Administration has previously defended DOMA under as rationally related to some legitimate government interest. As we have discussed before, that is the easiest standard to beat. But today, the President has stated that he does not believe such "rational basis review" is appropriate for laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Instead, DOMA merits some higher level of scrutiny, a hurdle DOMA cannot pass.
This is a welcome (and, admittedly, somewhat surprising) development. The President has long stated his opposition to DOMA, but this marks the first time that the Administration has come out in favor of heightened scrutiny and the first time the Administration has stated that it will decline to defend the statute in court. The President deserves our wholehearted support and gratitude. This is an important first step in what has already been (and will continue to be) a long legal drama.
But, does this mark the end of DOMA? Not exactly.
I would like to take this opportunity to briefly state how and why this happened seemingly out of the blue and what this development means for DOMA going forward. [continued ...]
Actually, it is. Its a problem. It sets precedent for other Presidents to say there is no need to enforce Miranda and to not defend it in court. It opens a door I don't want opened.
He could have lobbied for the change on Day One, when he and the Democrats were firmly running two branches of government and had the votes and ability to effectively oppose Republican opposition.
"...I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples - whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."[Source: open letter to the LGBT community]
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman...
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama Quotes opposing Same Sex Marriage: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." [ from the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire]
I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.
I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.
What most [Americans] -- including many of the president's fiercest supporters -- don't know, however, is that Bush doesn't go to church. Sure, when he weekends at Camp David, Bush spends Sunday morning with the compound's chaplain. And, every so often, he drops in on the little Episcopal church across Lafayette Park from the White House. But the president who has staked much of his domestic agenda on the argument that religious communities hold the key to solving social problems doesn't belong to a congregation.
This is an issue that I think helps to describe who we are...[Marriage] connotes to so many people a religious and not just civil element, and that includes me
« Older Online astroturfing is more advanced and more auto... | Tommy Douglas: Greatest Canadi... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt