Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Orders Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:12 PM
Original message
Obama Orders Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act
Edited on Wed Feb-23-11 12:29 PM by cal04
Marc Ambinder
http://www.nationaljournal.com/obama-orders-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-20110223

President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.

"The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person briefed on the decision said.

The administration will formally notify Congress later today. The act sought to restrict single-sex unions.


Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
more at link

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

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.

Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow... this is huge news nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. no
it's "HUGH" :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I was tempted to type that also lol
:toast: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. good. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Bout time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wow indeed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. KNR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
9. Good news. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Good
I am glad for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wow.
Very good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. so he does have a choice after all
I could have sworn, when Obama took a less popular position, that he had no choice in the matter.

That said, K & R:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
13. good for the administration
K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. Boner and his fundie buddies can waste a few months defending this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jp11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
16. It was unconstitutional when it was passed, way overdue for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. discussing it right now
Edited on Wed Feb-23-11 01:13 PM by cal04
http://www.nationaljournal.com/n2kvideos
press conference

From ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/23/doj-doma-defend/

Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed that the two lawsuits filed in November of 2010 pushed the administration to reach its decision. Here is why:

Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people. That means that the administration, for the first time, may be required to take a clear stand on politically explosive questions like whether gay men and lesbians have been unfairly stigmatized, are politically powerful, and can choose to change their sexual orientation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/us/politics/29marriage.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeRogerMeyers Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-11 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. Defense of marriage act
I think President Obama should enforce the defense of marriage
act.  What would you think if some future conservative
President decides not to enforce Obama Care. No President has
that authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC