Obama's DOJ defends DOMA, says banning gay marriage is good for the budget & more

This is the administration's official response.

"As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Dept is defending the law on the books in court. The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the DOMA because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

I am really confused about all this.

 

That almost sounds to me like saying "I will try, but I dont want to try all that hard."

 

>>>I am really confused about all this

I'm not at all confused by this. Or surprised.

Lex

 

It's saying that the Obama administration is going to follow their role in the government. That is, the presidency is the executive branch. They execute the laws set by the legislative branch (Congress). They are constitutionally obligated to enact the laws that are passed regardless of agreement with those laws. It's up to Congress to change the laws or the Supreme Court to rule them unconstitutional, not the Presidency.

It would be like a police officer saying that he will only enforce laws that he agrees with. Since he thinks recreational drug use is fine, he won't arrest drug users or drug dealers. If a police officer were to do that, there would be an uproar demanding he be fired.

Likewise, the executive branch's duties are to enact the laws, not make them, not interpret them, just execute them. So they are saying that they will defend and enforce DOMA since it is the law but would urge Congress to change the law. But until Congress acts, their hands are tied.

 

Not tied, necessarily, but I think you've got the right idea.

I've been reading a lot of history lately, and recently read a couple books about Lincoln. It's often tossed out there that "Lincoln freed the slaves", but it's actually a lot more complex than that. He had members of his cabinet insisting he do this from the second he was elected, but he didn't. He had his reasons - most involving the just-started Civil War and timing - but his basic attitude was this (my words): this is a move that needs to be made from the bottom UP, not the top DOWN. If Lincoln had attempted to FORCE the nation into freeing the slaves, more states would've seceded, and much of his support in the North would have eroded away. Instead, he worked on having the populace change their mind. When the slaves WERE freed, there were huge celebrations, some in places that would've rioted on hearing this news just four years previous.

One can read this message as "You want the law changed? YOU make us change it." Hopefully, enough of us will say "OK, we will."

Lex

 

I agree. I wasn't trying to imply that I think their hands are tied but that their statement was trying to convey that. In actual practice, the executive branch does wind up doing alot of legislating and law interpretation even if they weren't meant to. And there is definitly an argument to be made about why on certain topics they'll feel free to push an agenda but on this they're sitting on their hands. I was just trying to explain what their statement was trying to say.

 

President Obama isn't going to do much to encourage Congress to act on DOMA and DADT. It's unfortunate, but that's politics. The defining issue of his first term is healthcare; he can't afford to fail on that issue. An aggressive campaign to overturn DOMA/DADT would simply be far too politically costly for him.

 

This REALLY makes no sense. And I love it when the "sanctity of marriage" people go on and on try to use this as a point. I take it they don't realize what a joke it is to suggest that a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex. Sanctity indeed. :rolleyes:

 

Obama is a politician. This is a political move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QsgG_tuxsc

This video is my opinion on the whole thing. Obama is being two-faced. He says he is for LGBT equality, then he says marriage is between a man and a woman and that civil unions are fine. Its the answer he was told to given because its the "least offensive".

 

Unfortunatly I think you're right. Though I don't know if I'd go as far as to say he's being two-faced. I don't think he's actually ever expressed his personal beleif on the matter. I think he's treating it as a topic he doesn't want to be involved in and thus trying to tread the fine line between both camps. Personally I think that's fine. There are much larger issues at the moment that need to be dealt with that he could have a lot of problems with if congress decides to punish him for agreeing or disagreeing with gay marriage or don't ask don't tell.

It also doesn't really matter how he falls on those issues. Regardless, the issue is going to be settled in court, not in congress or the white house. No matter which position wins in either of those, the other side will take it to court. So it would be an even large waste of time to make the political cycle about it and detract from other things like the economy, health care, education, troops, foriegn trade, terrorism, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, iran, north korea. And as you said, this is politics. There would be seanator and congressmen who could and would hold up legislation because he's pushing LGBT rights, something that ultimatly he'll have no impact on anyway.