• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Re: Government drops defense of anti gay marriage law

Why does Obama need to defend a law he doesn't like?

He doesn't. However the DOJ doesn't function like the White House. Obama can't just sack whomever he wants. Lawyers are sometimes holdovers from the previous administration. In the case that the Prof provided, a Republican mormon brought in by Bush wrote an argument against gay marriage which clearly reflected bad on Obama.
 
Who Wrote it - and Who's Responsible?

Many federal employees are civil servants who cannot be replaced because the new Administration disagrees with their politics. And because the gay couple in this case had previously challenged DOMA when George Bush was President, it is no surprise that the Justice Department had attorneys ready to defend the suit. In fact, one of the lawyers who wrote the brief - Scott Simpson - is a Mormon Republican, and a holdover from the Bush Administration. Alberto Gonzales even awarded the guy for his legal defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Arguably, the Obama Administration could not replace him with a new attorney.

But the first lawyer listed on the brief is Tony West, an Obama political appointee. West served as California finance chairman for Obama's campaign, where he raised at least $500,000. He is the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who strongly supports gay marriage and is running for California Attorney General. His wife, Maya Harris, was until recently Executive Director of the Northern California ACLU. The ACLU issued a joint statement this weekend with other groups condemning the legal arguments in the brief, saying they were "very surprised and deeply disappointed" with the Obama Administration.

Of course, there is no evidence that West wrote the legal brief - or even knew about it. His name was on the brief, because he heads the Justice Department's Civil Division (which handles all lawsuits filed against the federal government.) But that means he supervises the attorneys who wrote it, and he can be held accountable.

from the huffpo above
 
I wish Navy Pride were hanging around here more these days....it would be fun to watch him go into a frenzy over this...
 
Obama: I only bother with laws that I like...

Alright, so, I vaguely understand where you people are coming from when you make such fools of yourselves over issues like gun control, the economy, and perhaps even abortion (albeit a bit of a stretch). But I fundamentally don't understand the conservative opposition to gay marriage, for any other reason than being a crazed Christian fanatic. Conservatives are supposed to be all about personal freedoms, and not being told by the government what you can and can't do. It's stupid, in my eyes, but that's your belief.

Why, then, do you fight so hard to keep gay marriage illegal? If there weren't such a glaring double standard in your agendas, conservatives would be fighting FOR the legalisation of gay marriage as a personal freedom.

So what gives? You only want the freedom to do what you think is right, and everything else should be regulated? Come on.
 
This is a great move that is very positive for the indited states and just further leads us to rid ourselves of one more accepted discrimination and denial of equal rights, freedoms and liberties.

I applaud Obama for this move. Seems my guess of 10 years max for legalizing gay marriage will be shorter. While shocking it makes me very happy. With this step and getting rid of the dont ask dont tell discrimination equal gay rights are right around the corner.:applaud
 
I'm sorry, if you think a law is wrong, then why WOULD you keep on defending it?

If you think a law is wrong, you work toward changing it. By that logic, it's OK to torture prisoners.
 
Traditionally people stop enforcing laws that go out of the style. I think there are still towns where it is illegal to grow a beard, but nobody enforces those laws.

Same thing happened with Prohibition.

There's nothing wrong with it unless the legislature, the courts, or the people have enough of a problem with it to do something about it.
 
The only guy in the Justice Department that Obama could find who would defend DOMA in good conscience was a Mormon holdover from the Bush administration.
 
Since I believe the right of gay marriage should be a federal one because protecting civil rights and equality throughout all states is pretty much what I expect the feds to do. I believe withholding the rights of gays to marry and enjoy the same legal protections (and/or miseries, as the case may be) as straight people is unconstitutional. I expect that Obama does too. So I applaud this step.

I don't know what all the pouting is about. Obama specifically said that members of congress that passed the law were free to defend it if they wished. :)
 
DOMA is as good as dead, and once it is, it will be a great day for freedom.
 
What if a Governor said "We're no longer going to enforce speed limits".

I would say; This will be an interesting experiment.

Ahh good then I expect to see you supporting the Polygamy movement.

Why not? In addition, no self respecting male would want to torture himself that badly.
 
I would say; This will be an interesting experiment.



Why not? In addition, no self respecting male would want to torture himself that badly.

At least he didn't bring up the incest and bestiality fallacies. :p

Other than some rather convoluted legal issues with guardianship, wills, etc, I don't see a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. Polygamy gets much of its bad image because it's often practiced by loony cultists who really use polygamy as a way of subjugating women.

I mean really, let's say three well-adjusted adults want to enter a three-way marriage. One's a doctor, one's a teacher, and the other runs an auto repair shop.

Tell me: Why the **** should I care? What negative consequences are escaping me?
 
DOMA is as good as dead, and once it is, it will be a great day for freedom.

Not really, as all that getting rid of DOMA does is finally leave it up to the states...unless of course a court case can win on Constitutional grounds much like Loving v Virginia did. And states haven't really been very receptive to SSM I hate to say.
 
I do not care who gets married...so this law doesnt effect me. If they want to be miserable then so be it. Let them pay taxes and merge debts. I am all for people who love another even if its the same sex. Love is Love. I have many friends who are in GoProud.
 
Not really, as all that getting rid of DOMA does is finally leave it up to the states...unless of course a court case can win on Constitutional grounds much like Loving v Virginia did. And states haven't really been very receptive to SSM I hate to say.

Once DOMA is gone, then states will have to recognize SSM from other states. So if a couple gets married in Iowa, and moves to Georgia, then the state of Georgia will have to recognize that marriage. So it is a big stepping stone for SSM throughout the country.
 
Obama administration won't oppose same-sex marriage

Obama administration won't oppose same-sex marriage - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.

"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," Holder said.

The key provision in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."

"Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination."

It looks like DOMA will not longer be defended by the justice department. My major concern with this is that such decisions should be left to the courts. I am never happy with the idea of politicization of any court proceedings and this is one such case.
 
Moderator's Warning:
threads merged
 
Back
Top Bottom