iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge

LINDA DEUTSCH and LISA LEFF   06/12/09 10:09 PM ET   AP

Obama

LOS ANGELES — Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the Obama administration Friday over its championing of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the president pledged to try to repeal while on the campaign trail.

The government filed a motion late Thursday to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 federal act. The law prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers argued that the act _ known informally as DOMA _ is constitutional and contended that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

"The president made very explicit and emphatic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would provide leadership calling on Congress to repeal it," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "This brief is not consistent with that promise."

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department is abiding by its standard practice of defending existing law and that the filing doesn't mean Obama has changed his mind about wanting to see gay couples win federal recognition.

"Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," Schmaler said.

More than four months into his first term, Obama has been under growing pressure from gay rights activists who supported his candidacy to move forward on repealing DOMA and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobbying group based in Washington, called on Obama to reassure his supporters by sending Congress a bill to lift the federal marriage law.

"The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The President has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action," Solmonese said in a statement.

In the papers, Justice Department lawyers said federal court was not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by Hammer and Smelt, who got married in California last year during the five-month window in which the state sanctioned same-sex unions.

Lambda Legal's Pizer said the government's stance in some ways marks an improvement from Justice Department positions taken on the Defense of Marriage Act when George W. Bush was president.

The brief acknowledges that gay couples who tie the knot in the six states where same-sex marriages are permitted are legally married and does not cite the oft-used argument that children fare better in households headed by a married man and woman, Pizer said.

At the same time, it repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage."

The Obama administration will have more opportunities in coming weeks to weigh in on the subject. Another challenge to DOMA brought on behalf of married couples in Massachusetts and a lawsuit seeking to overturn California's gay marriage ban under the U.S. Constitution are making their way through the courts.

___

Leff reported from San Francisco.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,750
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (33 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Sprinkel
03:31 PM on 06/17/2009
This is very simple. The DOJ's client is the U.S. federal Government. The DOJ has a duty to their client to defend it in adversarial proceedings. If the DOJ allowed their personal feelings to dictate whether they should oppose a suit, then a conflict of interest would arise, e.g. the interest of upholding federal law passed by the Congress, and the personal interests of the executive branch vis a vis the DOJ. Neither the DOJ, the President, nor any other executive agency has the Constitutional authority to usurp the will of the legislative branch by acquiescing to challenges of existing laws. So, if the DOJ opted not to defend against this suit, not only would the individual attorneys run afoul of their professional obligations, but the executive branch would be disregarding the Constitutional separate of powers.

In the end, the Full Faith and Credit Clause seems to be suspended by this DOMA. This could be a problem, obviously. There are numerous other Consitutional pitfalls to the DOMA as well, so the efficacy of the DOJ's brief may be a foregone conclusion. I personally do not agree with the DOMA, and would not have voted for it had I been in the Congress. But the complexities of our system of government do not provide for a quick and easy determination regarding the DOJ's culpability or ideology.
08:46 PM on 06/29/2009
You are simply wrong here. Every administration's DOJ since Reagan has at least once fought against existing federal law on moral, political or similar grounds. That's simply the truth. It can be done and has been. The legal precedents are already in place. In 1990, the Reagan/Bush DOJ used this ability to diminish Affirmative Action, which was federal law at the time. The Obama DOJ was under no obligation to proceed as they did.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
05:37 PM on 06/15/2009
Link to example of Clinton's refusal to defend

http://www.aegis.org/news/ct/1996/CT960204.html
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
05:36 PM on 06/15/2009
See the post by Emma Ruby-Sachs, a LAWYER

Obama, Don't Defend DOMA!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/obama-dont-defend-doma_b_205615.html

She makes the opposing legal case rather well.

See also example of Clinton Administration refusing to defend a law, and not only that but calling it "abhorrent and offensive."
08:43 AM on 06/14/2009
Meanwhile Attorney General Eric Holder is commemorating Stonewall at DOJ Pride. Rotten eggs and tomatoes anyone?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:42 PM on 06/13/2009
One thing that was argued in the brief that came to light yesterday was that the federal provision from page 14 of the brief lines 21-23 "It was therefore permitted to the unique privileges it has afforded to this one relationship (heterosexual marriage) without extending the same privilege, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that State have just recently begun to recognize".

This I feel is actually quite interesting because just like Michael Steele arguing against marriage-equality (because it was bad for small businesses,) the administration has actually argued against ALL recognition of marriage because government resources "are scarce."
08:06 PM on 06/13/2009
If I read this affidavit correct Lawrence vs Texas should be illegal according to the administration. After all being gay ought to be controlled just like pe dophilia or in cest
07:59 PM on 06/13/2009
here's an idea...gays can have marriage and heterosexuals can have civil unions...how's that???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:34 PM on 06/13/2009
I have a better one: everyone can have civil unions, without which a marriage is not legal and valid. Those who want to can have the religious ceremony of their choice which does not involve government sanction or involvement in any way. Thus we truly separate church and state and give all those who want it legal status in the eyes of the people. How's that?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:58 AM on 06/14/2009
I would completely go along with that. Unfortunately, you still have the same battle, heterocentrists won't go for it, especially those in Congress where it would have to come from. HeII I can't even get one of my local state senators (CA) to introduce this, and she's a lesbian.
12:54 PM on 06/14/2009
Marriage I believe will always be legal and valid. I AM heterosexul and don't get the whole Gay marriage uproar. I thought it was about equal rigts and civil unions would do that. Being Gay and being heteroseula mean two different things but marriage should be granted to both? That's just my position but I respect someone elses too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlwaysaLiberal
06:00 PM on 06/13/2009
"In the papers, Justice Department lawyers said federal court was not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by Hammer and Smelt, who got married in California last year during the five-month window in which the state sanctioned same-sex unions."

Is that true? What kind of court should they have taken it to? I don't know the specifics of this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:09 PM on 06/13/2009
This reasoning by the Obama Administration was that the plaintiffs lack standing. They didn't apply for any form of federal benefits - therefore they weren't denied those benefits. They had no desire to move to another state, therefore their claim to be recognized in a state that doesn't recognize marriage between same-sex couples. Neither suffered a debilitating injury that left the other incapacitated in another states - therefore they could claim that their union wasn't recognized in a hospital.

All three of these were based on speculation, therefore they were deemed to lack standing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
09:50 PM on 06/13/2009
Well, if that's the case, I'm afraid the DoJ is correct and plaintiffs are wrong. If they cannot show demonstrated harm has personally occured to them, then they lack standing to sue. That is elementary. Without standing they don't have a case.
05:23 PM on 06/13/2009
From all these comments, homosexuals seem like the most hateful and racist people on this planet. How can you continue to compare interracial marriage to homosexuality? Interracial marriage is STILL between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage is not. Marriage is the union between a husband and a wife NOT between a wife and a wife or a husband and a husband. You all talk about adoption. If everyone chose homosexual lifestyle as you do, from where would you get a child to adopt?

Homosexuality is a choice, not a natural occurrence. I have logical arguments for this.
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
11:00 AM on 06/16/2009
Sorry, but you have pseudo-logic based on ignorance. Do you really think the majority of people would choose to be homosexual if same sex marriage was available in all 50 states? No, of course you don't. The majority of marriages in Massachusetts are still between heterosexual couples.

There have always been a minority of people who love someone of the same gender, but for them it is totally natural. Science has documented homosexual members of many mammal and bird species, both in captivity and in the wild. Therefore homosexuality is natural.

So because homosexuals are a natural human minority, homosexuality ought to be considered a natural variation of human form, little different from skin or hair color. Therefore, it is no insult to racial minorities to compare the discrimination against homosexuals to the discrimination against racial minorities. Only if you regard homosexuality as immoral for religious reasons can you justify taking umbrage at such comparisons. And consider that the history of oppression of homosexuals is just as gruesome as the history of oppression of Africans in Europe and the Americas. At the same time that blacks were enslaved, sodomites were put to death or imprisoned. When blacks were occasionally lynched, occasionally homosexuals were murdered.

Ergo, you should reconsider your position. It is not rigorously logical.
04:43 PM on 06/13/2009
Seriously I am so glad that I voted for McCain and not Obama unlike my bleeding heart boyfriend. Being an immigrant and 2008 being the first time being able to vote as an American citizen you know there should be more than just hope and change to define a president. I am glad my experience as an immigrant gay man counted more than ordinary Americans to paraphrase Justice Sotomayor. We In Europe have plenty of experience being shortchanged by progressives for politics. The rules only changed when the population as a whole or courts allowed gay rights. Never expect anything from politicians especially if you are gay.
04:50 PM on 06/13/2009
You've resumed your job again today as a GOP plant, haven't you? Knock yourself out, KoolAid!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlwaysaLiberal
06:01 PM on 06/13/2009
You know that McCain is also a politician right?
06:21 PM on 06/13/2009
yes but i will have lower taxes as status quo there unlike hope and change for gay rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NewArtz
02:35 PM on 06/13/2009
In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people.

In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, 'Grant me justice against my opponent.'

For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, 'Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.

You don't respect Love,
You don't respect us,
But don't ever think you've heard the last of us.
We need the right to marry.
Give it to us.

Hey Pharisees, you don't realize who Our Savior is.

My God, My Marriage, My Right!

In the Name Above All Names, Yahshuah Ha Meschiah, be bound.

http://newartz.homestead.com/marriage.html
02:15 PM on 06/13/2009
The strangest thing in these comments are the people who claim that it takes years of being a "constitiutional scholar" to truly understand what is going on. I'll put the philosphoical issue of setting up a government and judical process so "complicated" that it the average person is not allowed to express concerns since they apparently don't have the "training" on the back burner. However, it only takes a plain text reading of the Constitution to realize that DOMA is unconstitutional. It interfers with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and since oppostion to gay marriage stems from religious belief, it could be argued it interfers with the First Amendment. (I would bet, due to the b.s. of our legal system, that such a challenge can only be offered on the grounds that a religious organization wanted to perform a gay marriage and couldn't because of DOMA or something like that.)

It only takes a highschool education to understand the issue. An undergrad in poli sci clarifies it, and a law degree confuses it back to the point before you even understood the issue.

Here is something for those who want to trust judges and lawyers, without the Fourteenth amendment, your state could take away your rights and you'd have no Federal recourse because the rights granted in the Constitution are granted to states through the Fourteenth. I say that's b.s. and a covoluted reading of the Constitution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
02:32 PM on 06/13/2009
For all those Obama apologists who say his Justice Department had to file a brief using the most vile and disgusting arguments possible, invoking incest and pedophilia but making no reference to the President's campaign promise that we should have the 1,138 legal benefits of marriage if not the name.

Proposition 8 is now the law of the land in California. However, Attorney General Jerry Brown is actually working up overturn it in Federal Court. He doesn't take the false attitude that his office is required to file vile and disgusting briefs to uphold it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlwaysaLiberal
06:02 PM on 06/13/2009
Thank you Obama hater. How does it feel to be called names? Watch it with your terms please...
01:10 PM on 06/14/2009
The Obama DoJ has already shown they are not obligated to fight all laws. All they have to do is send a memo to Congress saying they aren't going to defend a law in court:
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10903prs20050126.html
02:14 PM on 06/13/2009
we can do this nice, or we can do this rough....but we're gonna do this1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:39 PM on 06/13/2009
Absolutely. Just one thing: how do we get other (non-LGBTQ) people to take on this cause as their own? Everybody, gay or straight, needs health care. Everybody needs for the economy to recover. Everybody needs jobs, better regulation of banks, et cetera. Straight people already have marriage with all its attendant privileges. How does our community make our struggle part of everybody else's agenda?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
02:08 PM on 06/13/2009
The issue isn't that President Obama hasn't waved a magic want to repeal DADT or DOMA. Congress has to do that.

It's not even that he isn't a "fierce advocate" for gay equality. Merely not lifting a finger to help push these repeals through Congress is a breaking of his promise.

This is far more sinister and far more a betrayal. The Department of Justice, part of the Executive Branch, under the authority of the President, submitted a legal brief to uphold DOMA using the arguments of anti-gay bigots, invoking incest and pedophilia. That is a colossal betrayal.

I don't expect him to work miracles in 6 months. I did expect him to honor his promise to repeal DOMA by at least not actively promoting it.

If he didn't have the character to order his justice Department to argue for DOMA being struck down, then she should have ordered the Justice Department not to file any brief, for the DOJ is not reequired to file a brief about all cases. He could even have ordered them to file a brief which argues that the gay couple were entitled to the 1,138 federal rights and benefits, but not the use of the word marriage -- as per his campaign promise.
MyrtleJune
STOP negotiating! End the American hostage crisis!
04:02 PM on 06/13/2009
It's been .... what...... 4 months and some days. I guess I could see your outrage if there were year 4 but not now. I understand your imapatience but 4 months and some days? Really?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:35 PM on 06/13/2009
Yes it's only been 4 months and during that time Obama has discharged 260 gay men and women from the military and submitted a hateful legal defense for DOMA, a law he promised to help over turn.

It's been some four months. Obama's actions speak louder than his words.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Samalabear
07:26 PM on 06/13/2009
But that is the Obama way, it seems. He did with the bankruptcy reform, too. Dead silence, not lifting a finger -- suddenly there's no pretty speeches, just silence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Okieborn
Equal Rights For All !
01:09 PM on 06/13/2009
This straight baby boomer sees another broken promise that was made by President Obama while running for Prez.
I am beginning to feel I wasted my time volunteering for change !!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlwaysaLiberal
06:03 PM on 06/13/2009
Sorry, next time stay at home. This is the first president I voted for who has won and I'm not giving up on him just yet. Your generation voted for Reagan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:02 PM on 06/13/2009
I am a baby boomer who never voted for Ronald Reagan. I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I believed he intend to keep his promises. I never expected him to expose a closeted hatred of gay men and women by submitting a legal brief in support of DOMA, a law he promised to over turn. I never expected him to discharge 260 gay men and women from the service during his first four months in office when he promised to repeal Don't Ask. I also expected Obama to keep his promise to end the war in Iraq. He hasn't.

I understand that Obamatons don't care about the rights of gay Americans. You don't care about ending the war. You don't care about ending corporate welfare. You don't care about any meaningful health care reform. Everything is business as usual, only with Obama in charge of it all. Oh happy days, oh blessed change, I get it. I understand it all too well.

I also understand something else. Obama is just another very convincing liar. There is nothing unusual or great about the man. I was fooled by him once. He will not fool me again. The fight to repeal DOMA and Don't Ask goes on with or with out your support. I will work to defeat anyone who stands in the way of achieving equal protection under the law for gay Americans. If gay Americans don't stand up for ourselves, nobody else will.