Posted on 06/13/2009 12:26:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
DOMA is the federal statute that says state X, which prohibits gay marriage, can’t be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in state Y. As Tapper reminds us, candidate Obama opposed it in 2007. Two years later, Change has come to America. Question: Why does the president hate gay people?
Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,” she said. “However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”…
The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage), and re Mortenson’s Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).
“Holy cow,” wrote [Americablog's John] Aravosis. “Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.”
Consider this another one of those highly nuanced, “pragmatic” reversals that the media — sans Tapper, natch — will helpfully overlook. “But wait,” you say, “isn’t the president duty bound to enforce a federal statute until Congress gets around to repealing it?” Why, er, no. Back in 2000, a little-known law passed in 1968 that purported to override the Warren Court’s “Miranda warnings” was challenged before the Supreme Court. Clinton’s DOJ actually sided with the criminal in arguing that the Miranda case was based on the Fifth Amendment and therefore the statute was unconstitutional; the Supremes had to invite a law professor unconnected to the case to defend the statute at oral arguments. (The DOJ/criminal dynamic duo won.) The charitable view of this is that The One’s thinking strategically, knowing there’d be a backlash against gay marriage if states that prohibit it were suddenly forced to recognize gay unions performed in, say, Iowa. He’s only looking out for the best interests of gays, you see. The uncharitable view is that he’s worried that the backlash would cripple his reelection chances, no matter how much it might please his gay constituents, and therefore he’s better off defending DOMA. You don’t think our Barry would be that cynical, do you?
ping.
1."I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that”
2.“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 do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
1. Dick Cheney. 2. Barak Obama
We should be pounding the left with this.. they like to split our side up on issues, time to give it back to them.
Tackling gay marriage is asecond-term issue, not a first term issue. Since voters constantly shoot down gay marriage at the polls, Zero has to wait until he doesn’t have to worry about losing an election. So, for now, he’s pretending to reflect the will of the people. That, like everything else he ‘stands for’, will change soon.
LOL, right! As if they didn't get the word to throw the case...
Muslims don’t like gays... he has a real dilemna on his hands.
Even better explanation than mine. Thanks for clarifying
Ya, I want to see what kind of defense they mount. He would like this law repealed, so he wouldn’t want to see a strong defense of it would he? It would make his life and liberals lives so much easier if the courts just go all the way and declare marriage laws unconstitutional.
Means nothing, other than this half-breed is backpedaling...This is the type of disgraceful low-thinking that hobbles conservatives in general and FR in particular.
Featured prominantly at the top of the thread no less.
There is/was an old saying:”Beware of a Greek bearing a gift.”
I do not trust anything that obama or his desciples do.
Even less when it appears to be something good.
He’s been called far worse things on FR by better people than I, and as for the description, it is quite accurate.
As for your assumption that I might be a backwards hick, you’re the one with the prejudices. You have nary a clue who I am....
Half-breed is a racially disparaging term and has no place on FR.
Now it’s racially disparaging? You choose to believe it has to do with race. I never mentioned race, YOU did.
Since when did we start becoming so overly sensitive and politically correct around here?
If half-breed isn’t a racial term then what is it? I hate President Zero but I will insult him in ways that don’t involve his parentage. If you think that half-breed isn’t a racial insult then you are just dumb. Don’t let people get the idea that white supremacists are welcome here.
The Obama-Justice defense of DOMA could, in the end, NOT be what it appears to be right now.
It may in fact simply be a defense of federal legislative intervention in a matter that has historically been left to state law.
If that is what they are attempting to do - defend federal legislative intervention in the matter (as opposed to Const. amendment), and SCOTUS upholds that rationale, Obama and the Dims would have a judicial green light to proceed with federal legislation that would amount to the opposite of DOMA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.