The Obama administration will appeal the Massachusetts ruling in favor of same sex marriage. The Justice Department will defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. This action will further alienate civil libertarians and liberals — particularly at a time when the Administration is trying to preserve the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in a California case. Now on both coasts, the Obama Administration is fighting to continue discrimination against gays and lesbians.
As with DADT, DOMA was the creation of President Bill Clinton and continues to deny basic rights to gay and lesbian citizens.
The Administration, which has the discretion not to appeal, has filed a notice of appeal to overturn the rulings of U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in Boston who declared that DOMA violated the equal protection clause and the 10th Amendment.
Source: Reuters
Six
Maybe, but maybe defending means appealing until you reach the highest court that chooses not to hear the case, then the lower court ruling stands. Which may be their strategy in this case.
If you stop appealing at a lower court (that renders the decision you want), it would seem you are only treading water until another suit is brought and the process starts all over eventually reaching a higher court than the one you stopped at before. This seems a waste of time when it could be settled sooner by going to the highest court.
I’m not a lawyer either, but it seem nothing is written in stone until it reaches the Supreme court and is heard or refused.
BDAman,
I’d oppose anyone getting married if they’re factoring in economic conditions to their decision.
Dear Obama,
The difference between a used car salesman and a statesman isn’t the amount of charisma involved. It’s what they sell. Let’s try selling the country equal rights, instead of a Ford Pinto.
Spot on, Six.
Pro Forma defense in the initial lawsuit is quite different than appealing every case in defense of the indefensible.
Pro forma… ad absurdum.
As a matter of form… to absurdity.
@Buckeye – I am not a lawyer and I have done zero research on the matter… however it has always been my understanding that they are obligated to defending laws passed. However they are NOT obligated to APPEALING them, which is what the Obama Administration has chosen to do here and all indications are that he will do with DADT. It’s the fact that he is appealing the ruling that is most disappointing.
Blouise
we elected a bunch of closet homophobes.
————————————————————
I sincerely doubt that since both the administration and Democrats in congress are trying to repeal DADT.
mespo,
Very well said….
Politics at its basest….they just can’t seem to do squat without victimizing somebody….
So basically this puts Obama to the right of Schwarzenegger, who declined to appeal on Prop 8.
mespo727272
1, October 13, 2010 at 7:59 am
I call it pinball politics – rushing in every direction after being flipped by the opposition and then banging into every conceivable obstacle and finally, in a loud and gaudy way, ending up right in the gutter.
==========================================================
classic mespoism …
Buckeye
1, October 13, 2010 at 8:34 am
….. I’m confused – and I’m no lawyer, which is why I’m confused, I guess.
===========================================================
I’m no lawyer but I’m no longer confused … we elected a bunch of closet homophobes.
I would discourage anyone getting married under the economic conditions of the country at the moment.
Pregnancy is currently down to historic lows because couples are uncertain of their future and one typically gets married to start a family.
Besides, why would anyone want to make one man angry when you could make hundreds happy. At least for a day
mespo,
I like your terminology and have filed it for later use.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about.
Sex definitely changes once marriage gets involved. Ever since I married my wife it hadn’t been the same since.
Used to be To the window to the Wall.
Again
[Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court]
Is it true that the administration must defend those laws congress has passed? Or is it true that the administration can pick and choose which laws congress passed will be defended? That second option sounds like a very unhealthy option to me.
I’m confused – and I’m no lawyer, which is why I’m confused, I guess.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people
I wonder what their 21st Century interpretation of “people” is – a specific section of “people” –
an exclusive group of “people” –
or mebbe just “people” who aint anything like you son.
Oh my.
What is next, missing George W. Bush?
The latter is more likely methinks.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/10/iraq-worlds-number-one-oil-producer-2.html
I call it pinball politics – rushing in every direction after being flipped by the opposition and then banging into every conceivable obstacle and finally, in a loud and gaudy way, ending up right in the gutter.
It’s the futility that pisses me off more than anything. Conservatives hate Obama. Caving in does absolutely jack-all to change that.
Has any President EVER taken so many intentional public actions exactly opposite of their campaign promises?
Oh stop whining. Just because Obama has decided that the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians are less important than a futile attempt to win over conservatives, ummm . . . What was I saying?