Obama: Defense of Marriage Issue Will Be Settled Soon

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said he thinks the courts will decide "fairly soon" whether to end the Defense of Marriage Act, hinting that he believes the courts will agree with his administration that the law is unconstitutional.

"The position that my administration has taken, I think, will have a significant influence on the court as it examines the constitutionality of this law," he said Wednesday at a roundtable with latino news outlets. "Once that law is put down -- and I don't know what the ruling would be -- addressing these bi-national issues could flow from that decision."

The president announced in February that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans gay marriage at a federal level, because he believes the law is unconstitutional.

HuffPost Latino Voices asked Obama at the roundtable how his administration would address bi-national couples, gay and lesbian men and women who want to petition for legal status for their foreign-born partners. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, these men and women are barred from doing so, even if they are legally allowed to marry in their state.

The law also bars gay and lesbian men and women from federal benefits for marriage and allows states to block them from getting married. Obama said he cannot comment on how the current cases against DOMA will be decided, but said he believes the law should be repealed.

"I can't comment on where the case is going to go, I can only say what I believe, and that is that DOMA doesn't make sense, it's unfair, I don't think it meets the demands of our constitution," he said.

Obama said he supports ending the Defense of Marriage Act through Congress, but thinks the likelihood of passing such a repeal is unlikely because of heavy opposition from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"The likelihood of us being able to get the votes in the House of Representatives for a DOMA repeal are very low at this point," he said. "Truthfully, the recourse through the courts is probably going to be the best approach."

Still, there is some possibility for reprieve for bi-national couples. The Obama administration announced in August it would close some deportation cases based on family ties to the United States, including whether the man or woman is in a long-term, committed partnership or marriage. Senior administration officials confirmed that gay and lesbian immigrants would be included in this policy.

Comments

[russeldeew]

06:09 PM on 10/26/2011

There is a God Thank You Jesus Christ,I will Stand.

[Contact1972]

04:06 PM on 10/07/2011

Still, there is some possibility for reprieve for bi-national couples. The Obama administration announced in August it would close some deportation cases based on family ties to the United States, including whether the man or woman is in a long-term, committed partnership or marriage. Senior administration officials confirmed that gay and lesbian immigrants would be included in this policy
********************************************************************

Clearly this doesn't mean much. They are deporting one half of a binational couple. His American husband watches unable to stop this while his husband is deported to Indonesia.

DISGRACEFUL!

http://stopthedeportations.blogspot.com/2011/10/ice-denies-brian-and-antons-request-for.html

[russeldeew]

01:37 AM on 10/06/2011

Mr. President Obama I understand that you want gays,and lesbians to have the same rights as,a marriage,between,a man,and a woman,God has said 'A marriage is between a man,and a woman'President Obama said he was 'absolutely certain'there would be a Latino candidate for Presient during his Lifetime'I say I can't belive that our Government,in my time has assisanted an American citizen with out due process of the the Law,an unconstitutional act!

[Contact1972]

04:03 PM on 10/07/2011

What does god, your religion or anyone's for the matter have to do with treating GLBT tax paying citizens equally under the law?

[russeldeew]

02:18 PM on 10/09/2011

I belive It's choice,and everyone has thier cross to bare.Just file your mate as a dependent.

[talkstocoyotes]

04:48 AM on 10/09/2011

** I can't belive that our Government­,in my time has assisanted an American citizen with out due process of the the Law,an unconstitu­tional act! **

You've blundered into the wrong discussion. This is about DOMA.

[the crustybastard]

11:55 AM on 10/01/2011

Once again, the sickening spectacle of a guy whose rights are guaranteed, acting so patronizing to people whose rights are being denied.

Mr. President, you had a legislative supermajority and you refused to make a legislative priority out of confronting an unconstitutional and harmful law. Furthermore, you spent the majority of your term arguing on behalf of its constitutionality.

We needed your help then, and you failed us. Spare me your well-wishing.

[AndrewNY2011]

09:56 AM on 09/30/2011

To the Evangelicals out there, if your believe in God, then you should believe that every one was created by God the way he wanted you to be. You would also believe that everyone is entitled to the same rights that you are. In NY, Gov. Cuomo, a Catholic, said that he had to do soul searching in order to pass Gay Marriage in NY. He said that even though it goes against his personal beliefs and teachings, he is in no position to deny the rights of others. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but no one is entitled to take equality away from anyone. Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with having the same rights of marriage recognized by the state. In the history of the US, any minority that has risen up for equality, was granted equality.

[Norcal2]

11:58 AM on 09/30/2011

Don't worry about them...they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[r henry]

02:13 PM on 09/30/2011

They've long been TOTALLY irrelevant to me!

[moby49]

08:59 AM on 09/30/2011

History has proven over and over that any law that attempts to take rights away from people always fails in the long run. Prohibition is the classic example. It is the only amendment to the Constitution that took rights away and it is the only one that was repealed.

Good laws by their very nature are rights affirming and prevent the majority from taking them away from the minority. DOMA and DADT are the most recent examples of laws that won't prevail because they limit minority rights. It took 13 years for prohibition to fall, it took about the same for DADT to fall and DOMA will suffer the same fate shortly.

[the crustybastard]

11:57 AM on 10/01/2011

Prohibition is alive and well. They renamed it "The Controlled Substances Act."

[Albert Ray DOrazio]

07:50 PM on 09/29/2011

This blatantly discriminatory law needs to be trashed. Obama 2012!!!

[Contact1972]

01:00 AM on 09/30/2011

Agreed x 1000000

[gaydood]

04:41 PM on 09/29/2011

OBAMA 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluntobject]

07:17 PM on 09/29/2011

Yes indeed. Obama 2012! These tea bagging bigots are utterly repulsive.

[gaydood]

07:56 PM on 09/29/2011

yup and refannn !

[Trekkiefandom]

04:29 PM on 09/29/2011

About time, but Obama can't you just come out and say I think its just plain wrong and un-fair on a personal level? But at least you go to the it un-constitutional part, because it is.

[WheelsOnFire]

01:13 AM on 09/30/2011

He has a chance to show true leadership here.

He may not believe in gay marriage, on a personal level. And he's entitled to his opinion.

But he also recognizes that to enshrine that belief in a law that contravenes our Constitution is wrong. So he will stand up for our Constitution and the rights of others, even though his personal views differ.

That's the sort of leadership this country needs. That's the sort of leadership that is completely missing from the entire Republican field.

[the crustybastard]

11:57 AM on 10/01/2011

He thinks Jesus won't let him.

[talkstocoyotes]

04:51 AM on 10/09/2011

Thinks the homophobic preachers won't let him would be more likely.

[TheEmptyMonty]

02:57 PM on 09/29/2011

How did my comment not get posted? It wasn't offensive. It just asked if any of the christians on this site can point me to the Bible passage that explains that God was just kidding about the shellfish, beard-cutting, money lending, etc, but clarifies that he's still against gays. Anyone?

[Doug Whitinger]

04:43 PM on 09/29/2011

The argument that I always hear is that those rules come from the OLD Testament, not the NEW Testament. But that doesn't seem to make sense to me either.

[Norcal2]

12:00 PM on 09/30/2011

So when did jesus talk about homosexuality in the bible?
That doesn't make sense.

[Albert Ray DOrazio]

07:53 PM on 09/29/2011

God does not want us squabbling over silly debates; over something innate.

[TBJ]

02:24 PM on 09/29/2011

http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Assault-Complaints-Filed-after-Incident-at-Church-130746713.html

This is pretty objectively terrible, no matter who you are.

[xenas mom]

02:44 PM on 09/29/2011

Thanks for posting this. I was unaware of the incident. And, yes, it is terrible.

[TXanimal]

03:22 PM on 09/29/2011

I'm just waiting for one of their ilk to get on here and justify this...

[mitchpeter]

02:17 PM on 09/29/2011

I have to believe it is illegal to discriminate against me, in this, my beloved country.
Together for over 19 years, raising a child since birth for over 8 years, and no cheating.
And yet, we are American citizens, without all the citizen rights.
That is mind boggling to me.
And to anyone who says I am a threat to society, I say outlaw divorce, put your money where you lying mouth is.
www.gaynycdad.com

[Trekkiefandom]

04:31 PM on 09/29/2011

I am sorry.

[NikitaAhn]

05:15 PM on 09/29/2011

Hopefully someday you and your partner will able to tell your grand kids all about the "dark ages" when we weren't allowed to marry the people we love, and your grand kids will find it just as mind-boggling and strange as the idea of segregation is to us today.

[truth be told again]

02:04 PM on 09/29/2011

The ONLY legal "purpose" of marriage is to establish legal kinship where none existed previously­. All other reasons are personal.

[midknightryder13]

08:28 PM on 09/29/2011

THANK YOU! I bring this point up as often as I can and never have I heard anyone come up with a counterargument that makes any kind of sense (legal or otherwise).

[QuakerJewish]

09:01 PM on 09/29/2011

So absolutely true.

[truth be told again]

01:37 PM on 09/29/2011

I wonder if "Justice" Clarence Thomas will recuse himself when the issue hits the SCOTUS. I mean, he is after all, in a "marriage" that would have been illegal less than 50 years ago. And yet he'll get to sit in judgement of others in the same predicament.

Any bets on whether integrity will rear its pretty head? (Personally, although I HOPE for this, I would not put money on it happening.)

[cenourinha]

06:47 PM on 09/29/2011

wait...did you just use the word "integrity" while speaking of Clarence Thomas? did your keyboard start to smoke?

[Alec Radecki]

03:32 AM on 10/01/2011

How even W could appoint such a man to the SCOTUS is beyond me... it seems too disastrous even for W.

[truth be told again]

12:59 PM on 09/29/2011

How come the 'promise' of the "inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" only applies to betterosexuals?