Obama Faces A Second Major Test On Defense Of Marriage Act
As you know, the Obama administration has infuriated gay rights activists by filing a legal brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, against a gay couple married under California law that is challenging the act in Federal court.
The Obama stance earned a scorching editorial in today’s New York Times that pilloried him for backing off his campaign promise to protect gay rights, and the controversy shows no signs of abating.
What’s lesser known, however, is that a second big test on DOMA is looming for Obama — and the next shoe could drop this month. This second case is being closely watched by gay rights activists to see if the Obama administration takes a similar tack, suggesting a pattern of reneging on his campaign promise.
The second case concerns a lawsuit that the gay-rights defending group GLAD filed in Federal court in Boston, on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses “who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses” under DOMA, as GLAD puts it.
The Obama Justice Department’s response on that case, according to GLAD spokesperson Carisa Cunningham, is due on June 29th, though it could be extended. “We view this brief as an important communication from the government on DOMA,” Cunningham tells me.
Making this even more interesting: Cunningham confirms that an Obama Justice Department lawyer who helped produce the hugely controversial brief on the first case, Scott Stimpson, is a lead lawyer on this case, too.
It’ll be interesting to see if Obama’s Justice Department modulates its approach on this case in response to the criticism it has taken — or whether it holds fast to its ongoing defense of DOMA.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Perhaps they’ll be nice enough to curtail the incest references but I otherwise see no reason why they would change their stance. The DoJ has already stated: “As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court,” said Tracy Schmaler. “Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”
.
I urge all to read http://www.americablog.com/ for scathing coverage.
Americablog has been great, sbj. I think there’s definitely room for the Justice Dept to moderate their stance.
people are learning the wisdom of the sign in my dad’s office
IN God we trust, all others pay cash.
I wrote to both the Democratic Party and to the Obama White House protesting the DOJ approach to DOMA and the Obama Administrations lack of action on DADT, ENDA, etc. Needless to say I haven’t even received the customary “thanks for your opinion” notes from either party. This is the thanks my partner and I get for collectively donating thousands to both of these entities – Obama and the Democratic Party.
@Greg: I’m really perplexed by what the admin is doing regarding the many issues of importance to the gay community. They seem to be deferring to congress on both DOMA and DADT; I anticipated more leadership. (Also, take a look at americablog and then COME BACK to The Plum Line!)
It’s unfortunate that the California case came first, because it’s a bad case. The GLAD case is the one that really matters, because it was crafted as carefully as could be (the California case is a sloppy mess).
If the Obamites go as nasty in the GLAD case as they did last week, that will say beyond a reasonable doubt that every gay-friendly word Obama spoke during the campaign was ten times a lie.
Even if the administration is obligated to defend a law on the books, the language comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and incest was gratuitously nasty. (And I’m a straight woman, but I have gay friends who don’t deserve the slurs.)
“IN God we trust, all others pay cash.”
And if you’re a non-believer, EVERYONE pays cash!!
Sigh. Four months is nowhere near enough time to undo Dubya’s eight-year-long infiltration of the DoJ.
.
Yeah, I get impatient, too, but I’m afraid it’s gonna be a long slog. There’s a huge number of moles from Liberty “University” to ferret out.
This is just another disappointment from the Obama administration, which has turned into some kind of conservative Quisling enterprise. I’m starting to regret my support for the first black spineless democrat president.
Only a man and a woman can be married according to GOD law not man.
I think that the negligence that we are seeing from the Obama administration is actually going to be a positive for the gay community. It seems to be giving the movement a voice that it has lost. I can remember three periods when we had a voice – 40 years ago at Stonewall, late 70’s with Harvey Milk, and late 80’s with AIDS. The 90’s got us TV and we’ve become a part of the culture in the new century, but we’ve had no voice, just a demographic to sell stuff to. Well, I think we’re finally going to see some force in our words and actions. I’d love to see Greg follow up on the DNC/Gay fundraiser. Seems a lot of people are pulling out.
Since “generally” suggests exceptions, the defense here is question begging. Such as, “so you think it’s constitutional to discriminate, and think the problem is just that DOMA is bad policy, huh?”
This is a clear case where the exception should be in place. Delaying mechanisms, like trying to avoid something on standing grounds, is one thing. But, denying federal benefits for those married in state x just because the couple is same *** is quite another.
The incest citations is red meat, but actually it is worse. In NY, first cousins can marry. I am not aware that such people are denied federal benefits. In point of fact, **** are treated as having less rights than first cousins or those who are underage (who are allowed to be married, with full fed benefits, in various cases).
This should be highlighted more.
test ***
this is inane — a certain word that rhymes with tex was censored. Like “same __ couples” come on!
This is very satisfying in a perverse sort of way. I didn’t believe anything he said on this issue. Clinton did the same thing. They are more than willing to take money from the gay community, but in the end they’re as bigoted as the fundamentalists they purport to oppose.
I am curious:
1. What made the gay community think that they were part of the Obamist cabal?
2. Alternatively, what made them think that the cabal would give them a “seat at the table” out of embarassment and/or gratitude?
Throughout the entire campaign Obama stated his position that legal marriage should be limited to one man-one woman.
It now appears to be the one thing he actually told the truth about.
Had enough yet? These Dems are insane if they think they’ll get one more of my gay dollars. I’m going to Washington D.C. on October 11th to let Obama know how I feel. Let’s show our strength!
http://www.nationalequalitymarch.com
That is about the first thing he’s got right.
hey, gayfolk – notice how happily Obama screws you? It’s OK, he’s ******** us all – but I didn’t vote for him. Sucks to be you.
Don’t get me wrong-I didn’t vote for him and I certainly didn’t donate money, but the fact is while he was talking about being against gay marriage his minions were giving my naive Democrat friends the wink and nod. To wit, don’t worry he’s just saying that. Again, Clinton redux
Soooooooo, Obama voters, how’s the old “hope and change” thing coming along these days?
Suits at the state level seem to be working that require the availability of civil unions that convey the same rights as marriage (e.g. kinship, inheritance, property ownership, tax status, etc). There is far less objection to this as it evades the religious ceremony issue entirely. Why is this not being pursued at the federal level?
Yummy crumbs from the table! Thanks Pres! I know better than to ask for full equality with my straight sisters and brothers and cousins and uncles and aunts, even though I pay my full share of taxes, have been with my partner for 22 years, and am active civically in my community, city, and state. Go ahead and debate my civil rights for a few more years, no rush.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss–won’t get fooled again?