U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Obama, DOJ Say Part Of DOMA Is Unconstitutional, Will Not Defend It In Court (SCOTUS replaced by O'buma)
Source:
TPMMuckraker
URL Source: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme ... ill_not_defend_it_in_court.php
Published: Feb 23, 2011
Author: Ryan J. Reilly
Post Date: 2011-02-23 13:38:12 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: Obama Justice Department, will not defend the, Defense of Marriage Act
Views: 61670
Comments: 59
The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.
"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," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
"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," Holder said. "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."
Holder also announced that he sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and congressional leaders about his decision.
"While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision," Holder wrote to lawmakers.
"As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," he wrote (full letter here).
TPM's previous DOMA coverage is here.
Here's the full statement from Attorney General Holder.
WASHINGTON - 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.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.
Furthermore, pursuant to the President's instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.
The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because - as here - the Department does not consider every such argument to be a "reasonable" one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.
Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.
Poster Comment:
The Defense Of Marriage act has been declared unconstitutional by hObama. Didn't the Supreme Court used to make these decisions?
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" ~George W. Bush (1 image)
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: go65, A K A Stone (#19) (Edited)
But it wont produce a child. Marriage is an institution for bringing fourth the next generation and creating families.
Not all women and not all men are capable of producing children. Should they be banned from marrying? Or is your restriction based strictly on "theory" rather than reality?
#21. To: A K A Stone (#13)
They have the same rights as you and I or any other US citizen,There you have it. You should have stopped there. Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa.
Not even close. You can't marry your sister,for instance.
If you had stated "any man can get married" or "any woman can get married" you would have been correct. Who you marry is maybe THE most personal decision you will ever make,and the government has no business interfering in this VERY personal decision.
I have a hard time believing anybody that considers themselves to be a conservative would stand up and DEMAND the government step in and tell individual citizens who they can and who they can not marry. Other than minors,mental defectives,and close blood relatives,it is none of the freaking governments business who marries who.
If you think it is,you are NOT a conservative.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#22. To: war (#17)
Marriage could never occur between a black and white was once a prvailing belief and if you ask Rattberg he'd tell you that he still believes in that.
AND......,he has a RIGHT to believe that and to live that way.
He just doesn't have a right to demand it be made into law.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#23. To: sneakypete (#21)
Not even close. You can't marry your sister,for instance.
Playing devils advocate here. Why can't you marry your sister? Don't they have the same rights as normal people.
I'll add this also. A brother marrying a sister is less perverted then a man pretending to marry another man.
#24. To: sneakypete (#21)
Pete. Lets just say this. I'm not going to argue this with you. Your opinion is wrong. You are hypocrite in not supporting brother sister marriage. We will never agree because you have no moral sense on this issue.
I agree with you on other stuff but on this you are wrong, and no amount of twisting is going to make you right.
No sense talking about it anymore. We've had this discussion before. Look forward to agreeing with you on other issues.
#25. To: war (#20)
Not all women and not all men are capable of producing children. Should they be banned from marrying?
Of course not.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#18)
You can stick your penis up Freds butt all day long if you want. But it wont produce a child.
Neither will a marriage to a man shooting blanks or to a infertile woman.
Neither will a marriage between seniors.
Are you saying there should be laws against these people getting married?
Marriage is an institution for bringing fourth the next generation....
Do you think there should be a federal law DEMANDING married people have babies?
You are confusing your religious beliefs with conservative political beliefs. They are NOT the same thing by a VERY wide margin. The only freedom in religious cults is the freedom to live and belief what you are told to live and believe.
.....and creating families.
And the instant a homo couple gets married,they just created a new family.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#23) (Edited)
Playing devils advocate here. Why can't you marry your sister?
Because your children would be idiots that would vote for the next Bush.
I'll add this also. A brother marrying a sister is less perverted then a man pretending to marry another man.
Both are a perversion in MY mind.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24)
You are hypocrite in not supporting brother sister marriage. We will never agree because you have no moral sense on this issue.
ROFLMAO! YOU are the one that doesn't see anything wrong with marrying your sister,and YOU are the one that wants the government to punish people who are not related for wanting to marry,and *I* am the one with no moral sense?
Does the government also have the right to tell you how to live your life in other aspects?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#25) (Edited)
That union has no more chance of producing a child than that of two men or two women.
So, having children is really just a cover for your bias against homosexuals.
#30. To: war (#29)
I am biased against homos. So what. They are disease carriers and spreaders. They are the primary molesters of little boys. I am biassed against their behavior not any thing they were born with.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
To: war I am biased against homos. So what. They are disease carriers and spreaders. They are the primary molesters of little boys. I am biassed against their behavior not any thing they were born with.
Pedophilia is illegal in all states ....at least in the lower 48 and HI.... I'm not sure about anything concerning Alaska anymore. If you are aware of such actions it's your duty to let law enforcement know about it.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30)
I am biased against homos. So what.
You can have any bias you close minded little "Jesus Loves Me So I Hate Everyone Else" heart desires. Just keep it out of the law.
#33. To: war (#32)
Call me a hater again and I will remove you.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
You've said that you hate homos. Why would you "remove" me for repeating back to me what you've previously said?
And, as you've previously been told. I could care less about your threats. I don't take the internet seriously. Remove me. Don't. It's your dime and your acts here speak directly to you and not to me.
I could care less what you do or don't do and what I "say" here isn't going to be held hostage to those whims - espcially since posters like No Gnu Rattbergs has posted his bullshit here unabated for as long as he has.
#35. To: war, Aka Stone (#34)
Deleted By A K A Stone Off topic
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
#36. To: Rek (#35)
Deleted by A K A Stone off topic
#37. To: war (#34)
Please show me where I said that.
#38. To: All (#36) (Edited)
DELETED BY STONE OFF TOPIC
#39. To: war (#38)
DELETED OFF TOPIC
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#40. To: war (#38)
DELETED OFF TOPIC
#41. To: war (#38)
THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD DELETED
#42. To: war, Fred Mertz (#6)
That said, a POTUS takes an oath to uphold the USCON, in general, not specific legislation.
Now that I think about it that is correct. The POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer and I know the police have the ability to select which laws they enforce or not on a local level so it makes sense the POTUS also has this power. Also, Congress can defund a law without striking it down - sort of the same thing.
I actually support the law but it's no big deal. I think it should be up to each state to decide what is or is not a marriage. Some Libertarians want the govt to get out of the marriage business all together as was the case over 100 years ago,
Marriage licenses, etc were part of the eugenics movement of the late 1800s early 1900s - first designed to prevent mixed marriages and then designed to prevent the marriage of people with hereditary diseases. Which is why you see in old movies a blood test being taken to see if they couple were "compatible".
That ended I think in the 60s or 70s.
Interracial marriage was also made legal just recently and we have a case of the justice of the peace in Louisiana make headlines a couple of years ago because he refused to marry an mixed race couple.
So I am open to that libertarian view.
If not for the tax breaks married couples get this issue this would not be a point of discrimination.
One innovative way the GOP could have eliminated any discrimination claim is to eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
That I find kind of funny that the GOP's slavish devotion to low taxes made it easier to sell gay marriage to the courts.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#43. To: war, Murron (#38)
Your comment was not on the title of the thread. You people complain about that, then when I do something about it you whine about it. Just like the nasty note I got from Murron the other day. She quit too. There is no satisfying everyone.
#44. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#5)
I know you like homos and all.
Oh yeah! Sneaky just loves me. Right sneaky? :-)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)
#46. To: sneakypete (#10)
I most definitely don't socialize with them or personally approve of their life styles.
Oh no, how will I ever go on knowing you don't approve of "my lifestyle?"
You broke my heart today, sneaky! :-)
#47. To: A K A Stone (#30)
I am biased against homos.
And I'm biased against you. You're stupid! You spread lies about homosexuals.
#48. To: Fred Mertz (#45) (Edited)
Fred forging my way of deleting articles then adding retard to the end of it is out of line. You were trying to make it look like I called you a retard. I have suspended your account. I've warned you about that a ton of times. Bye Bye
#49. To: meguro (#44)
Hello meguro. Long time no see.
#50. To: meguro (#47)
Name one molester of little boys that wasn't a queer. 99.9 of them are. It is a perversion. You can live your life like you want to, but don't tell normal people to accept perversion as something righteous.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)
Name one molester of little boys that wasn't a queer. 99.9 of them are. It is a perversion. You can live your life like you want to, but don't tell normal people to accept perversion as something righteous.
Name one male rapist of a woman who wasn't straight. Does that mean straights are perverts too?
Your comment is asinine. Do you believe the converse? That 99.9% of gays are child molesters?
And what makes someone normal? Are you normal?
#52. To: meguro (#44)
Oh yeah! Sneaky just loves me. Right sneaky? :-)
I neither like nor hate you because of your sexual orientation. None of my business and it has no effect whatsoever on my life.
Other than it seems to be the foundation of your love for the Dim Party and leftism,that is. Regardless of what you do,your politics suck.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#53. To: meguro (#46)
Oh no, how will I ever go on knowing you don't approve of "my lifestyle?"
I dunno. I am hesitant to tell you to "man up" because you would probably take it wrong.
I guess you are on your own with this one.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#50)
Name one molester of little boys that wasn't a queer.
Every female school teacher that has been in the news the last few decades.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#55. To: meguro (#51)
Does that mean straights are perverts too?
Of course not. You are only perverted if you use the whole chicken,not just the feather.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#56. To: sneakypete (#55)
Of course not. You are only perverted if you use the whole chicken,not just the feather.
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
#57. To: sneakypete (#52)
Regardless of what you do,your politics suck.
I think deep down you're probably an ok guy, but re: politics, the feeling is mutual.
#58. To: sneakypete (#53)
I guess you are on your own with this one.
Yup, and I'm actually doing fine, thank you very much.
#59. To: sneakypete (#27)
Because your children would be idiots that would vote for the next Bush.
Yeah, I figure such in breeding gave us the likes of Boofer, gomer, the Klondike clowns, and packbot.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]