White House Backs DOMA Defense By Paul Clement And House GOP

WASHINGTON -- The White House is rejecting criticisms of a prominent conservative attorney's decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of House Republicans, and standing behind recent comments by Attorney General Eric Holder.

In Wednesday morning's briefing with reporters -- which was dominated by questions about President Obama's birth certificate -- Press Secretary Jay Carney said the White House had no problem with House Republicans' decision to hire former solicitor general Paul Clement to defend DOMA, which defines federal marriage as between one man and one woman.

The House took up the case after Holder announced in February that the administration would no longer argue in support of the law after concluding that it is unconstitutional.

"We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked ... about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it," said Carney. "And so I have nothing to add to the attorney general’s comments."

Carney was referring to Holder's comments made a day earlier, in which he defended Clement taking up the DOMA case. On Monday, Clement left the prestigious law firm King & Spalding, where he was a partner, after it said it was filing a motion to withdraw its representation on the case. His resignation came after significant pressure from LGBT rights groups.

"Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we're at our best," Holder said to reporters at the Justice Department, according to Politico. "That criticism, I think, was very misplaced."

Holder also compared the criticism of Clement to attacks received by Justice Department lawyers who had once represented Guantanamo detainees.

"It was something we dealt with here in the Department of Justice," Holder said, adding, "The people who criticized our people here at the Justice Department were wrong then, as are people who criticized Paul Clement for the representation that he's going to continue."

"We do share Eric Holder’s views on this," Carney reiterated in Wednesday's briefing.

Last month, a five-person House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted along party lines (3-2) to direct the House General Counsel to initiate a legal defense of DOMA.

Paul Clement, acting on behalf of House Republicans, recently filed a motion to intervene in the DOMA case in federal court. In the motion, they explained that the Justice Department informed them that "the United States does not oppose this motion to intervene for purposes of presenting arguments in support of the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, but will be filing a response to explain its position."

A Justice Department spokesman told The Huffington Post that there are no further details on the government's motion at this time.

Comments

[SteveDenver]

01:51 AM on 05/16/2011

Okay, Obama, WHAT IS IT? Are you trying to "recreate the magic" or is your message to gay and lesbian Americans eternally mixed and insulting?

[marshallwyattearp]

08:53 AM on 04/30/2011

Ain't this wonderful??? Just as we prepare for an election... Obama is starting to feel our pain?

The only thing he cares about gay people is their votes... You're being played again... What did he campaign on? Where has he been for the past three years?

I just heard it on NPR... I think the Log Cabin Republicans have a better idea.

Stop voting and standing upfor some BS Rhetorical Lines you're fed every 2 to 4 years... As you've seen, a country can't be run on emotions... facts are the key. The fact is this president and his party don't care about anyone until it's conveneint to get votes and publicity.

They won't do anything for you that you can't do yourself. More than likely if you do it yourself, it will be done better and at less cost.

Why can't we get the economy in order then deal with the social issues?

Marshall

[truth be told again]

01:23 PM on 05/13/2011

Getting the economy in order and calling a "truce" on social issues is the ONLY good thing about the ONLY good GOP candidate - Mitch Daniels. Sadlly NOT A SINGLE GOP candidate would treat bays as good as Obama and the Dems have historically.

Sure wouldn't want to see gay people, worried about "being played again" give their votes over to a blatantly ANTI-gay, ANTI-equality party.

If you actually DO believe the LCRs "have a better idea", you'd (and they would) do well to articulate it. They haven't so far.

[SteveDenver]

01:54 AM on 05/16/2011

Marshall: So you're suggesting the GOP can "get the economy in order" after a majority of the wreckage can be traced back to them?

You have been duped by the party who doesn't want you to marry, have a job, have health care, share any legal bonds with the person you love if you're gay, or exist.

[the crustybastard]

10:52 AM on 04/28/2011

Q: When did Republicans start defending crushing estate taxes?

A: When they discovered the taxpayer is gay.

Q: When did Republicans decided to take a stand against a veteran's surviving spouse receiving the pension benefits the veteran earned?

A: When they discovered the survivor is gay.

Q: When the the Republicans decide that people shouldn't be allowed to insure their families with private health insurance benefits offered through their employer?

A: When they discovered the policyholders are gay.

Behold the Republican party's "principled defense."

[apathyman]

02:08 AM on 04/28/2011

Will someone please explain to me what is this fascination that republicans have with what takes place in other people bedrooms? They seem so repressed that the though of someone having sex for any reason other than procreation makes their head want to explode. God forbid those people be the same sex. perhaps someone should point out that America did not fall into the pits of Gehenna when DODA was repealed, and have yet to see any gay people breaking int people homes and destroying their marriages. The fact is straight people seem to do that fine on their own. Just ask Newt, he's on his third so far.

[the crustybastard]

03:23 AM on 04/28/2011

DADT has not been repealed.

[truth be told again]

01:28 PM on 05/13/2011

Would you be okay with the wording: "is in the process of being repealed"??? Stickler.

[truth be told again]

01:26 PM on 05/13/2011

This "fascination" is actually nothing more than a 'diversion' away from the GOP's utter lack of a plan to recover the economy. Thjey're doing nothing other than the usual tactic of fear-mongering - "Watch out - those gays are out to get your children' kind of nonsense.

[citizen of the universe]

11:50 PM on 04/27/2011

Two questions my HuffPo peeps:

1. How will/does John Boehner justify using taxpayer dollars for a lawyer fighting a law that the Justice Department and the Obama Administration find indefensible?

2. Isn't this going against the wasteful spending mantra?

[SteveDenver]

01:55 AM on 05/16/2011

But just think of all the jobs it will create!

[Rick Watcher]

10:32 PM on 04/27/2011

Reply to My Friends,
Proclivity – A liking, an appetite, a taste, a penchant, an inclination.
Orientation –A compass reading, a direction, a course.
I believe the word used was the correct one. I know too many folks that decided, no, this is not the lifestyle that I should lead and others that have decided this is the lifestyle they would like to try. One cousin died of AIDS within 3 years of turning to this lifestyle. The lifestyle may have been introduced to an individual when they were very young by intent or criminal activity or a simple thought yet it is not a part of natural law. I am not condemning you for your choice, do what you want with your body, but I do condemn you’re trying to force it upon others, especially children. No this is not a part of you like skin color is for many and should not be treated or thought of as such. You can scream and fight about it all you want but it will not change the truth.
As for our laws, Congress passed a law called DOMA, which was passed by a vast majority of the then seated representatives, including our present Vice President, thereby making it the law of the land. Therefore our President and the Justice Department swore they would defend it. Due process is not being upheld and justice is supposed to be blind and activist judges need to be removed.
How is DOMA unconstitutional?

[Jason N]

11:44 AM on 04/28/2011

"You can scream and fight about it all you want but it will not change the truth."

Suggest you take your own advice. Gay marriage will be legal across the US in the next decade. Get used to it. And you can also scream and fight all you want about sexuality being a "choice" but you'll continue to be dead wrong. Biology and nature just do not agree with you. Repairitive therapies, the one's where they try to change your sexuality, have success rates that don't break 1%. 1%... That's pathetic. You think that's an indication sexuality can be changed or chosen? Try this, wake up tomorrow and try to be ATTRACTED to the same sex, not have sex with the someone of the same gender, be ATTRACTED to them physically and emotionally.

"Therefore our President and the Justice Department swore they would defend it."

No they did not. They swore to uphold and enforce all laws and defend the Constitution. They're doing just that.

"How is DOMA unconstitu­tional?"

See Judge Tauro's ruling.

[Rick Watcher]

10:29 PM on 04/28/2011

Why should I scream and shout? I speak the truth and facts in love. There is already too much screaming and hatred.
It’s mainly homosexuals and lesbians I see screaming and shouting. Intimidate and threaten long enough and loud enough and people will say they’re with you out of fear, not agreement. Some words spoken a long time ago as proof, “By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” The individual that said these words lead millions to their death.
Science and the president, see my reply to cable1977.
There are those who read this and know it’s true and there is help. Just speak one word, His Name, Sincerely from your heart and He will help.

[cable1977]

12:46 PM on 04/28/2011

"I am not condemning you for your choice"

Unfortunately, the majority of the scientific evidence disagrees with your opinion that sexual orientation is a choice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16143171
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15724806
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17888794

Given your comment above, I would question your ability to determine "natural law" (whatever that means). Do you perhaps have some specialized training in neuroendocrinology or biology that has allowed you to form such an opinion?

"Therefore our President and the Justice Department swore they would defend it. "

No, they swore to defend the Constitution. Here is the text of the Presidential oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So, if the President deems a law to be unconstitutional, it would be violation of his oath to continue to defend such a law, but not a violation to cease defending such a law.

"justice is supposed to be blind and activist judges need to be removed."

Can you define "activist judge"?

[Rick Watcher]

10:04 PM on 04/28/2011

Some scientific evidence from the government:
Center for Disease Control’s National Center for HIV/AIDS Prevention Brochure, released September 2010, statistics stated:
In 2006 men having sex with men, MSM, accounted for 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases.
In 2007 MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared to other men.
By the end of 2007, an estimated 282,542 MSM with an AIDS diagnoses had died in the United States.
According to the FDA if a man has had sex with even one man as far back as 1977 he cannot give blood.
The natural law I speak of is the same law that is written about in a document you may be familiar with. It says in part, “the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” My specialized training, although it’s a continuous process, is in the Word of Truth which is nature’s God and it says that man was created for woman and woman for man. As for seeing it in nature it is not natural there either, and personally I haven’t see it.
As for the President’s non-defense of DOMA the party’s not over and he’s failed his oath.
Activist judge is one who places his own personal politics, pocketbook, or social mores, over the rule of law, the law itself and/or the will of the people, i.e. California U.S. District Chief Judge Walker among others.

[PrometheusMing]

10:25 PM on 04/27/2011

Why does the White House not oppose Clement taking DOMA to court.
1.it can't be declared unconstitutional without going to court,
2.if it is to go to Court some one has to do it
3.it is now a legal issue, ballots and boycotts should not matter, the facts and the Constitution should.
4.both sides of any issue warrant competent representation if we are to have faith in our system.

[the crustybastard]

11:27 PM on 04/27/2011

1. The Obama administration already defended DOMA, but DOMA was held unconstitutional. The administration appealed that holding.
2. The issue already was decided in court. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

[bannorhill]

09:22 AM on 04/28/2011

DOMA has been found constitutional by the 8th & 9th Federal Courts of Appeal. Both are higher courts than this court.

So do we let a lower court ruling overrule a higher court ruling?

[PrometheusMing]

07:06 PM on 04/28/2011

I don't know the history of the law, but it sounds like it is still being challenged and the fat lady (Supreme Court) is yet to sing.

[PrometheusMing]

10:24 PM on 04/27/2011

I support civil partner ships now with ALL the rights associated with marriage. And when the time is right I will support calling it marriage. I'm personally fine with calling it marriage now, but the nation is not.

For people of faith and traditional values, marriage is a revered term, steeped in thousands of years of social and religious tradition and until recently there was no ambiguity about it's meaning. One man, one woman in a covalent to be a family.
Failure on the part of the LGBT community to acknowledge and deal with the emotional distress that the treat of altering the meaning of this term, imho, is a key factor why DOMA came to be in the first place.

Now, I agree DOMA is unconstitutional, but with our current court, I doubt it will be heard, let alone overturned.

However if it is declared unconstitutional, then I strongly suggest that the LGBT community adopt a new strategy of one step at a time instead of insisting on the name change along with the rights.

I live in the Bible belt and have spoken with many religious, Democrats and Republicans, most are at least OK with civil unions, but they draw the line at calling it marriage. Respect their emotions, at least acknowledge them, and then one step at a time.

And please, please, please, don't k the messenger or peck at his liver.

[the crustybastard]

11:35 PM on 04/27/2011

DOMA exists because of the gay community's failure to acknowledge straight people's emotional distress?

LOL. Wow.

[PrometheusMing]

02:55 AM on 04/28/2011

DOMA is a reaction to the demand for to use the work marriage in stead of simply rights and a civil union or partnership. I've watch the Right dig in and become more entrenched with each state that allowed marriage.

Unfortunately now, both sides had dug in, and it looks like the DOMA team has 76% of the vote on this issue, enough to protect it with a Constitutional Amendment. The Courts won't be able to help then. I don't think it will be very LOL then.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5094597-503544.html

To paraphrase...Listen to me if you want to win.

[Turtlenewz]

12:59 AM on 04/28/2011

what does a state civil marriage license have to do with religion??? This has nothing to do with Church. Church and State are supposed to be separate

[PrometheusMing]

02:42 AM on 04/28/2011

the word marriage.
make it civil union, they got no problem with many.not my position, just the way it is.
in a democracy even the religious have a vote.. a lot of them.

pragmatic politics, the law is for the time being what the major says it is. the harder and louder you fight them over one word, the more they will dig in and you get nothing, take the rights now, use the word and in time the law will catch up.

Keep pressing and you get more Drama and more DOMA.

Not saying settle, just suggesting a difference strategy.

[LeftLeanWing]

09:54 PM on 04/27/2011

Press Secretary Jay Carney said the White House had no problem with House Republican­s' decision to hire former solicitor general Paul Clement to defend DOMA,

DOES NOT EQUAL

White House Backs DOMA Defense By Paul Clement And House GOP

[the crustybastard]

11:38 PM on 04/27/2011

"In taking on the...DOMA [defense], I think [Paul Clement] is doing that which lawyers do when we're at our best."

DOES.

[Coloradem]

07:01 PM on 04/27/2011

Obama's Administration again kicking sand in the face of the LGBT community it purports to be a "fierce advocate" of.

[citizen of the universe]

11:41 PM on 04/27/2011

The White House saying they support Paul Clement does not translate to the White House supporting DOMA. Maybe you should read the story and not just the headline.

[apathyman]

02:09 AM on 04/28/2011

But it's so much easier to make an assumption from just the headlines.

[Coloradem]

10:37 AM on 04/28/2011

I did read the story (before I posted my previous comment) and I stand by my assessment.

This administration has tried to have it both ways on gay rights since before they were even elected....from having joint campaign appearances with anti-gay minister Donnie McClurkin to supporting congressional efforts (and the realted taxpayer expenditures) to defend DOMA. This administration has proven time and again they like gay money and gay votes...they just don't particularly care for gay people and our equality.

[John Melgar]

06:42 PM on 04/27/2011

i hope they defend doma

[Balancement]

06:33 PM on 04/27/2011

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson

[olephart]

06:32 PM on 04/27/2011

So the President supports a measure requesting funding to support a law denying equal justice for certain people. This is the same Administration that wouldn't investigate war crimes. This is the same Administration that wouldn't investigate the lies by the Bush Administration that led to a war of aggression as defined by the Nuremburg Protocols. This is the Administration that despite previously admonishing the violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments continued these violations. This is the same Administration that refused to investigate Wall Street firms after the biggest cumulative monetary crime in history. At least their collective refusal to abide by the Constitution and their oaths of office is consistent in the same way Bush's Administration was.

[bluguy8]

06:32 PM on 04/27/2011

Shameful . Aren't enough real issues to work on

[AveragePatriot]

06:15 PM on 04/27/2011

So, when is anybody going to question the fact that these GOP lawmakers took an oath to uphold the constitution, but now are not because of their religious beliefs? What a crock!

[the crustybastard]

11:39 PM on 04/27/2011

In fairness, it's not likely they've read the Constitution.

[apathyman]

02:11 AM on 04/28/2011

Well not all of it. Everyone know that only the second amendment is important. The NRA says so, so it has to be true.