"As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act 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."What do you think?
Friday, June 12, 2009
White House Reacts To LGBT Ire Over Doma Stance
According to TowleRoad, the Obama administration has released a statement in response to the widespread LGBT organization and blogosphere anger at the government's brief supporting DOMA:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
4 comments:
Really, Barack? You are obligated to defend existing federal law in court? Well the four presidents before you didn't seem to think so. In fact, two even argued against federal law.
Reagan -- Immigration and Nationalization Service v. Chadha -- Argued that federal law was unconstitutional
H. W. Bush -- Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission -- Declined to defend in court
Clinton -- Dickerson v. United States -- Argued that federal law was unconstitutional
W. Bush -- ACLU et al. v. Norman Y. Mineta -- Declined to defend law in court
(H/T John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay at Americablog)
Starts with a "B," and ends with "S." Hiding behind Congress is very convenient when he said he wanted to repeal it and he could do it if he wanted to... OR if he REALLY meant what he said, he could have put up a half-hearted defense, rather than the one they presented us with.
It's called a White House initiative, Mr. President, that thing you're not using because you don't really care a wit about the LGBT community. Where's the repeal of the military's discriminatory policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" you promised? You have lied and you have failed us.
I am proud to be a gay American whose support you no longer have, nor deserve.
Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
So, I understand that the president is therefore required to enforce the laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that compels him to defend the laws. He certainly is not required to defend the laws by using arguments that he, himself, considers "abhorent".
Post a Comment