Constitutional Law, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Obama Administration Supports Gay Marriage . . . Sort Of

President_Barack_Obama200px-Rosa_Parks_BookingThe Obama administration appears to have celebrated the unveiling of the statue of Rosa Parks in the Capitol by arguing that same-sex couples should be allowed to move halfway up the marital bus. In its amicus brief filed his week in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The Administration spent much of its first term fighting to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and refusing to accept that same-sex couples are entitled to the same protection as other couples. Now, the Administration is advancing a highly nuanced argument that conspicuously falls short of calling for a constitutional right to marriage for all couples. Instead, it is arguing for a type of constitutional balkanization where gay and lesbian couples would be given equal treatment under an “eight-state” solution.

The Obama Administration actually pushes the Court to avoid recognizing a full equal protection for same-sex couples to marry: “The Court can resolve this case,” the new brief said, “by focusing on the particular circumstances presented by California law and the recognition it gives to committed same-sex relationships, rather than addressing the equal protection issue under circumstances not present here.”

What the Administration is pushing instead of full recognition is to focus only on those states which have already extended added right to same-sex couples. Thus, if a state already extends rights to same-sex marriage for civil unions, it should not be able to stop short of full recognition of marriage. The argument has a truly menacing message for the campaign for same-sex marriage. In new states, opponents will likely cite this argument to show that any compromise on civil union will force it to go all the way toward recognition — potentially slowing or even reversing the progress seen in recent years.

Despite his professions of support for gay rights, Obama has always been publicly timid in recognizing same-sex marriage. Indeed, Obama was openly upset when Biden forced his hand on the issue by going public with his own support.

The brief below reflects the continued struggle Obama has with gay rights. While it finally supports a heightened review, it does so with a highly restrictive application.

Here is the Amicus Brief.

39 thoughts on “Obama Administration Supports Gay Marriage . . . Sort Of”

  1. I have to say that I am surprised by President Obama’s stance. He won re-election by a landslide, and he is still playing middle of the road politics? He is not even attempting to shove his liberal agenda down the republicans throats (I am not saying that he should, but at least flex your muscles). or did he make an inside deal with the far right wing part of the GOP on this issue? Is he hoping that the States would resolve this issue? Notice: the GOP is silence on this court case and issue (barely mentioning it on FoxNews).

  2. LOL. Once again he LIES to his voter base and they fell for it again!
    Just like he did tot he civil liberty Liberals on The Patriot Act. Just like he did to the hippies about marijuana. Hes a liar people. How much more freakin evidence do you need that he cannot be trusted. He lies more than Bush did even.

    This traitor-in-chief is NOT a Liberal. Hes a pathological psychopath or at best a lying hypocrite. Either way he HAS TO GO. Impeach this turd.

  3. Obama signed the death warrant for Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships.
    Two federal courts have ruled CU/DP are not similarly-situated to marriage.
    Can see some existing States doing a repeal of CU/DP, no state in the future will offer them.

  4. bettykath is right … a position straight out of the 60’s.

    Lord, I am so very tired of Tories (Sullivan’s word for the perennially slow) and Obama’s fear of actually leading.

  5. SWM, would a analogous brief from the Justice Dept. to SCOTUS have been intellectually or morally valid in Loving v. Virginia?
    *

    Great link from Frankly, thanks for the repst AP, I missed it the first time.

  6. As an old gay guy, who remembers and lived thru the “bad old days” I want to say thank you AP for putting the story from opinionator blog on here. Most of you will never understand how stories like this affects guys like me who saw and were persecuted for who we were.

  8. Get off the feign train. Smugness or whining from you? I can’t tell. People change. Although, I don’t think Obama changed, really. Politics isn’t wholly virtuous. Had he stood up sooner, he might not now be President.

  9. So if I understand the story correctly, the Obama DOJ is suggesting that Rosa Parks should sit in the middle of the bus, instead of the front!

  11. Biden has always been more progressive on gay marriage than Obama. He’s pretty liberal for an old catholic guy. He even proclaimed that rights for transgenders are the new civil rights.

  12. In the end this brief does not matter. It all boils down to either Roberts or Kennedy siding with the democratic appointees and against Scalia. Scalia has made more blatantly homophobic statements than he has racist statements.

  13. What lottakatz said.

    This administartion wants to mete out gay rights in bits and pieces. It’s time it stopped wavering and giving mixed signals as to its position on the issue and stood up for those who are discriminated against!

  15. I would rather see a bold endorsement of gay marriage but I respect Sullivan’s view on this matter as he is an activist. I am hearing that young gay people are migrating out of states like Texas that have bans on gay marriage.

  17. Cowardly and unjust position. One is tempted to add ‘so what’s new?’ but that would be redundant.

  18. Seems to me he is also speciffically avoiding recognition of same sex marriage at the federal level and granting of federal benefits. Note the “rather than addressing the equal protection issue under circumstances not present here” bit. Ugly.

  19. So he is saying that Equal Protection clause is only for some, not all. Isn’t that an old argument that reared its ugly head in the ’60s? Another example of the Constitution being meaningless for the current administration. Civil rights for minority groups need the Equal Protection clause. Let’s hope the Supremes see it that way. DOMA is legislation that prevents a minority group from Equal Protection enjoyed by a majority.

Comments are closed.