Obama Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
Yesterday the Obama administration announced that it would no longer appeal DOMA, Section 3 challenges in court. DOMA Section 3 is the part of the law that defines marriage as valid only between a man and a woman.
“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
“The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder said. “Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in a briefing on Wednesday afternoon that they’d “will no longer defend DOMA going forward.”
“We will continue to enforce it and allow those cases to continue and be resolved so that Congress and members of Congress can pursue the defense if they so desire,” Carney said. “The President is obligated to defend the law.”
Obama is late to the party on this issue, but better late than never. This announcement could have a profound affect on cases already in the courts. So far, Massachusetts has asked the court to drop the appeal working its way through the courts (first ruling was in favor of marriage equality) and the challengers of Prop 8 have asked the California Appeals Court to drop the stay on the Prop 8 ruling.
As we’ve come to expect, Chris Coons has a perfect response on this issue:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) today praised the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
“The Defense of Marriage Act enshrined the discriminatory treatment of American citizens based on sexual orientation, which simply should not be a factor in a person’s access to equality in this country. Rather than defend an unconstitutional statue, the President today demonstrated his commitment to defending the Constitution and its prohibition on arbitrary discrimination.
“Whether or not the New York court ultimately agrees with the Administration’s position, the time for such discrimination is at an end. It is time to repeal DOMA and make clear that it is not the policy of the government of the United States of America to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation.
“I look forward to working with Senator Feinstein and my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal DOMA.”
John Boehner had an interesting response:
“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”
Wait, he’s concerned about jobs now? Greg Sargent notices something missing from Boehner’s statement – any mention of the culture wars. No talk of God or Jesus or the Bible at all.
It’s another sign that while the culture wars have reasserted themselves with a vengeance in the GOP’s anti-abortion push, gay rights issues have lost virtually all their potency and bite. As many have observed already, the generational divide within the GOP is asserting itself on gay rights in a way that it simply hasn’t on abortion. It’ll be very interesting to see if any real support emerges from GOP leaders for the scattered calls we’ll be hearing among conservatives to defund the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell. My bet is there won’t be any to speak of — another sign that on this issue at least, things are moving in the right direction.
I’d like to believe that this particular part of the culture war is losing steam but I see the fight over CPAC and don’t think we’re even close to the end. I’d love to be wrong.
Tags: DOMA, Marriage Equality, Same Sex Marriage
on wsj.com (the online Wall Street Journal website), an online poll asked whether it was time to legalize same-sex marriage. At the time that I voted (YES, or H*#! YES) yesterday evening, there were over 1,000 votes, and something like 53% favored same-sex marriage.
Oh yeah, WSJ is a News Corporation paper/site.
What branch of government does Obama belong to now ? I always thought the court decided on the constitutionality of such matters.
Just waiting now for irony-challenged teabaggers to check in, complaining it is inappropriate to pronounce something unconstitutional unless you are the Supreme Court.
Update: FBH FTW!
Shall we then see our esteemed President telling us that laws which declare that only couples may be married to each other, not three-or-moresomes, are unconstitutional?
After all, if the state has no right to declare a particular arrangement — in this case, heterosexual couples — to be the only one for which legal marriage can be contracted, why would the state have a right to declare that legal marriage rights may be restricted by the number of participants?
Dana – Obama is picking out two guys for you right now.
I guess the legalization of threesome marriage is a conservative movement. I’ve never heard of it, but I’m interested. Dana, do you have contact info you could pass along?
Yea, me too Jason.
There’s this sweet Russian ballerina I’ve been trying to convince my wife we should sponsor and allow to live in our basement until she gets a job.
I met her on FB.
She’s fluent in English and open to French and Greek.
Whatever that means.
This would solve her “Green Card” problem.
Oh, I see: you respond with mockery — which was expected — but which also indicates that you have no answers. If the Constitution requires that homosexual couples not be discriminated against by legislative decision that marriage is limited only to heterosexual couples, why wouldn’t the same logic and law apply to threesomes, or consanguinous couples?
Of course, polygamy has a much longer and more extensive history than same sex marriage, would be something of which you’d pretty much have to approve.
why wouldn’t the same logic and law apply to threesomes
Who says it doesn’t? What are you trying to prove?
or consanguinous couples?
Public health interest.
all you’d have to do is define state marriage as a business contract between 2 adults. game over. close the thread. discussion solved forever.
Ummm…polygamists are still allowed to marry the woman of their choice, unlike same sex couples. People who want to have government recognition of multiple partners need to come up with their own rationale.
“polygamy has a much longer and more extensive history than same sex marriage, would be something of which you’d pretty much have to approve.”
Why wouldn’t I? Why don’t you? Oh, that’s right, whatever you do by cultural practice must be imposed on others by force of law. Got it.
“Ummm…polygamists are still allowed to marry the woman of their choice, unlike same sex couples.”
No they’re not. Not in the U.S. anyway.
FBH: The first wife they can, and do.
They aren’t allowed to marry the women of their choice.
I guess the question is if a state like Utah, which actually has a history of polygamy, were to legalize a spousal relationship, I would be in favor of other states legally recognizing them. But since no states are considering polygamy, it doesn’t really mean much.
Utah ain’t NEVER gonna sponsor approval of polygamy. They dumped it the first time, despite it being a holy obligation, because it was politically expedient. There are 16 Mormons now serving in Congress, and other prominent politicians, including, of course, Mr-I’ll-say-anything-to-get-elected himself, Mittens Romney. To make an issue of something that draws attention to the weird habits of their bizarre American revelation? PLEASE hold your breath for that, FBH.
Yeah, I think that’s the point. If some state thinks it’s cool to legalize polygamy, let ’em do it. The other 49 should have to honor that relationship. Right now, I don’t see any state that would consider that form of marriage (although Arizona might do it just to screw with us).
Polygamists are allowed to marry multiple women religiously. I’ve read that many who practice polygamy marry then divorce the women. That way they are legally bound, the children are recognized by the state as well. This is not true of same sex couples.
If President Obama can take an executive decision to have the Justice Department argue that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, doesn’t that also mean that the next President can instruct the Justice Department to argue before the Supreme Court that ObaminableCare is unconstitutional? 🙂
The least stable of isotopes wrote:
Which same-sex couples can do now, if they can find a minister who will do so.
Errr, perhaps you need a biology lesson there; last I heard, same-sex couples couldn’t have children! 🙂
Now, one of them can have a child with the assistance of someone of the opposite sex, and that child is recognized as having two biological parents. Most states allow the other half of the same-sex couple to adopt the child, as well.
Dana, you apparently know zip about adoption. I suppose we’ll have to add that to the list. 😉
Adopted children have falsified birth certificates. In law, in this country, there is no certain identity of “two” or even “any” biological parents.
So, if the next president decides Obamacare is unconstitutional, then I guess it is, right?
No, but if the next president wants to do something within his powers to hinder Obamacare, because he thinks it is unconstitutional or for any other reason, he can do that.
If there are pending lawsuits and the next President decides to weigh in on the lawsuit, fine. These DOMA suits can continue without White House support, no?
I doubt the next Republican will not be able to undo Obamacare by surrendering in court. But good luck.
the next president will get rid of HCR just like this one got rid of Gitmo