Obama Administration supports DOMA

Enter at your own risk. There's bound to be some heated discussions in here about the elephant and the donkey.

Moderators: selective_soldier, drtom, edu999, devilnuts

Obama Administration supports DOMA

Postby Bramasole_iowa » Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:29 pm

The Obama Administration allowed a Mormon appointed to the DOJ under Bush to write a brief defending DOMA.
The brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obam ... riage-case

There are a bunch more, these are just a few.

Invoked incest and people marrying children.
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").


DOMA is good because it saves the feds money
"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."


DOMA is constitutional (thus screwing us on any future lawsuits):
The constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is further confirmed by the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which expressly empowers Congress to prescribe "the Effect" to be accorded to the laws of a sister State. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, cl. 2. Although the broad contours of this provision have not been conclusively established, the power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision....

Under this view, Congress obviously acted within its plenary effects power in enacting Section 2 of DOMA. If the Constitution itself does not declare "the effect" of the law of "one state in another state," McElmoyle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) at 325, but instead leaves that "power in congress," Mills, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 485, then Congress clearly had the authority in DOMA to declare that no State is "required to give effect" to the same-sex marriage laws of other States. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.


Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities get
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.

DOMA infringes on nobody's rights
In short, therefore, DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one's rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny.


DOMA doesn't discriminate against gays - all they have to do to get the benefits is get married... to someone of the opposite sex!
Plaintiffs also maintain that DOMA discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of their right to the equal protection of the law, see Complaint, ¶ 20, but DOMA is not subject to heightened scrutiny on that basis. As an initial matter, plaintiffs misperceive the nature of the line that Congress has drawn. DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order.... Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.
***************
Hanging out in the Pacific Northwest.
User avatar
Bramasole_iowa
Member
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:16 pm
Location: away

Postby nimby » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:12 pm

Bastard !
"Why do we have asteroids in the hemisphere and hemmorroids in the a$$ ? "
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby justice_nd » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:47 am

The Advocate has some info from Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor who believes DOMA is unconstitutional, on why the case in question isn't the right one to contest DOMA anyway: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid90000.asp
User avatar
justice_nd
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:11 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby foxeyes2 » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:48 am

well I am still waiting for President Obama to be the "fierce advocate" for gays and lesbians that he promised to be during the campaign.
We are all one tribe. We are all one people.
Reduce Reuse Recycle
foxeyes2
Moderator
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:51 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby chidiver » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:41 pm

Um, I'm not sure if you go the memo, but politicians lie. I never got the vibe that Obama was that homo-frendly; I think that Hilliary would have been more supportive.
Homosexuality is like duck hunting. Interesting only to those who practice it, and for those who want to stop it.
User avatar
chidiver
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:49 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Cajun » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:54 pm

chidiver wrote:Um, I'm not sure if you go the memo, but politicians lie. I never got the vibe that Obama was that homo-frendly; I think that Hilliary would have been more supportive.


Ditto.......
.
"The happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything;
they just make the best of everything they have."
User avatar
Cajun
Moderator
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:11 pm
Location: Spring, TX / Lafayette, LA

Postby Earl Butz » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:11 am

I remember people were positively orgasmic the day after the election but that was mostly a "Thank God Bush is gone" response. I even told a few "Get ready for a huge disappointment".
A hard man is good to find!
User avatar
Earl Butz
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Postby nimby » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:54 pm

Are you kidding? I nearly got tar and feathered around here for my views on Obama. Especially for posting arrticles like this one...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/ju ... president/

But I'm glad I was sooooooo wrong about him. :roll:
"Why do we have asteroids in the hemisphere and hemmorroids in the a$$ ? "
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby Earl Butz » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:18 am

I'm just saying people were expecting the second coming of Jesus. My hopes were never that high.

Time will tell. He's certainly a smart guy. But when you promise the world to people, there's bound to be a letdown.
A hard man is good to find!
User avatar
Earl Butz
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Postby DeckApe » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:03 pm

That's kind of where I was coming from, Earl... I was well aware that he was promising more than he could possibly deliver. But McCain wasn't promising anything, just slandering his opponent when he was coherent at all.
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Obama Administration supports DOMA

Postby olywaguy » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:22 pm

Well, you need to re-think this thread.

Sen. Dianne Fienstein (D-CA) is sponsoring a bill that would repeal DOMA. The bill just passed through committee this week.

The Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) does away with DOMA. Of course it will be a battle once it gets to the U.S. Senate floor for a vote.

There is a House bill that deals with the same issue sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (H.R. 1116) which has the exact language as S. 598.

There is no doubt, it will go along party lines.

Here are some articles about it:

Feinstein's Bill to Repeal DOMA Clears Committee
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1LT8L8.DTL

In Repealing DOMA, Progress is Great Victory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-coo ... 86067.html

Senate Judiciary Votes to Repeal DOMA
http://www.christianpost.com/news/senat ... oma-61355/

Sen. Cornyn: Dems' Move to Repeal DOMA Is 'Transparent Appeal to a Special Interest Group'
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-cor ... rest-group
Carlos

"I just want to suck his tongue out of his mouth !"--JPaul


http://www.askcarlos.com/
http://carlos-the-critic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
olywaguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests