Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  new round

Predictably, DoJ Appeals Federal Ruling Branding DOMA’s Sec. 3 Unconstitutional

On the last possible day, the Department of Justice filed notice of appeal in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS, the two cases that had federal judge Joseph Tauro in July rule unconstitutional Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. That portion of the act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages approved by individual states, “violates … equal protection principles,” Tauro ruled. DoJ, which the White House continues saying must defend all laws on the books, will argue the opposite moving forward, despite President Obama personally declaring the law is discriminatory.

RELATED:
Why Did the Gays Who Beat Down DOMA Agree With DoJ to Stay the Judge’s Ruling?


  • 47 Comments
    • Ian
      Ian

      If it had been a law discriminating against ANY other group, black, female, jewish, etc., I’d like to have seen the WH follow through and up-hold it. GetEQUAL NOW.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      Fuck you, Obama. Fuck you, Democrats.

      Obama’s lawyers simply don’t have to show up and let the ruling stand. They are actively against us. Pieces of shit.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @Andy If they let this ruling stand without appeal, only people in Massachusetts would be affected by the change. It wouldn’t make sense. Not that I want to give the DOJ or Obama any credit, but this was basically a must-do appeal.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul in Canada
      Paul in Canada

      From where I’m sittig, the Obama admiistration is gutless – time to stop considering them your ‘friend’ in all this – GETEqual Now indeed!!!

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Fraud-bama and the Demo-frauds have no intention of repealing DADT. I’ve said it all along: you’re being played. You’re being played like strings in a harp. You’re being promised things they have no intention of delivering on.

      You’re voting for the Demo-frauds but all you’re getting in return is a “fuck you”.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason Dancin'
      Jason Dancin'

      Remember that Obama campaign slogan: HOPE?

      NOPE.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pucifer
      Pucifer

      Wonder if the Justice Dept. will compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality again, or will they come up with some brand new, original slurs?

      Shouldn’t second-class citizens be exempt from paying taxes?

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Pucifer: I agree. I thought there was no taxation without representation and due process and all that shit. They don’t mind taking our money, but they sure the hell don’t want to give us equal rights.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Owen
      Owen

      @Bruno: Very true. Heck, the GLAD lawyers (arguing for our side) wanted the Obama administration to appeal the ruling.

      Sad to see all of these reactionary comments on here. I guess it’s easier to jump into hysterics rather than understand the issue at hand.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Benjamin
      Benjamin

      Seriously? What the hell are we going to do? These are are friends? These are the people that are supposed to have our backs? The United States functions as a two party system. The Republicans, CLEARLY, hate us on principal. That leaves us with the Democrats, who have made it abundantly clear that they only care about us on the first Tuesday in November. The rest of the year they either can’t be bothered dealing with us, or are only thinly disguising their own disdain for homosexuality. We are a super small minority; not nearly big enough to form our own party. Besides, niche parties are doomed to failure. So what is to be done? We can’t get anywhere without the cooperation of Government, and the Government obviously has no intention of cooperating with us. So that’s it then I guess.

      The thing that angers me the most about this is the sometimes subtle, and sometimes not so subtle implication from the Democratic leadership that we are some how “ungrateful”. That we are, in Joe Biden’s words, “Whining”. I for one am exhausted with feeling pesky.

      Today, for example, the federal appeals court ruled that the military must suspend enforcement of DADT. The Obama justice department will almost surely appeal. Once again, our friends will be kicking us squarely in our collective nuts for no particular reason other than that it would be too costly politically for them to stop denying an entire minority group it’s rights. It’s just lazy. That’s what it is. Craven, lazy-ass cowardice.

      I’m totally out of ideas. There is no fixing this. We don’t have the kind of numbers that the supporters of the civil rights movement had. We can’t muster enough of a political counterbalance to become sufficiently dangerous as a political entity. The loss of our support will never be meaningful enough to force those in power to support our agenda. We come very close, but not close enough. We fall inside the statistical margin of error, and can therefore be safely ignored. Plus really, we have nowhere else to go. The Democrats know that we aren’t going to vote Republican, and they also know that the loss of our vote entirely, while damaging, won’t constitute the entirety of our community, and therefore isn’t threatening enough to damage their coalition beyond repair. I’ve got nothing. There is no answer here. How frustrating.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @Owen And what amazes me is none of those who post those reactionary comments bother to read the other comments. But I can’t say I totally blame anybody…that DOMA case brief last year was horrendous, and the overall performance of the administration on LGBT rights has been dismal. Still, I’m happy this gets a chance to be ruled on by a higher court, even if the Obama administration looks bad in appealing it.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @Owen: And what amazes me is none of those who post those reactionary comments bother to read the other comments. But I can’t say I totally blame anybody…that DOMA case brief last year was horrendous, and the overall performance of the administration on LGBT rights has been dismal. Still, I’m happy this gets a chance to be ruled on by a higher court, even if the Obama administration looks bad in appealing it.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      The Justice Department is responsible for defending the laws of this nation, no matter how repugnant. They are not Obama’s personal team of lawyers. Shame on those who want the president to have the DoJ dancing on the end of puppet strings.

      A day will come under a Republican president when his/her DoJ will have to defend some law that his base doesn’t like. Should that president personally order the DoJ to stand down, we wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

      It’s not up to the president of the United States to decide what laws he does or doesn’t like. You people want a dictator. We have a system of checks and balances to prevent dictators from taking over our government and you’re seeing it in action.

      Keep voting for presidents who will appoint fair, empathetic and progressive thinking judges to the federal bench and Supreme Court and we won’t have to worry about DoJ appeals no matter which side we’re on. We’ll take appeal after appeal until the highest court of the land strikes it down or enshrines it for good. And that’s how you win the game, you whiny short sighted babies. We’re in this for the long haul.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 9:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      Although I agree that defending this law (by Obama’s Justice Department) seems terribly bad (against the LGBT community), I agree that an appeal MUST occur in order for this to be nationwide.

      From what I understand, this federal judge didn’t shut down DOMA. A higher court will need to take that action. Unfortunately, however, sometimes the courts narrowly define a ruling. Thus, they might find SOME parts of DOMA still constitutional. That would be terrible.

      I really think that Proposition 8 is a better case to take to SCOTUS. But, I could be wrong.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 9:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      I’m done. I have never voted for a Republican in my life. And I will no longer vote for ANY Democrat. I’m voting Green where I can and not voting when I can’t vote Green. You all may do as you please. I think you are being made fools of by the Democrats.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 9:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      An appeal does not say anything about the administration’s policy preferences.

      Bringing this up to the circuit level helps increase the chance that SCOTUS will address the issue, possibly in a consolidated opinion.

      The DOJ is defending a law that was passed by a veto-proof majority of Congress. How many laws have recently passed by that wide of a margin? It’s a pretty strong statement from the legislature, which is, after all, the central repository of authority in our democratic republic. I believe that this law demonstrates tyranny of the majority and deserves to be struck down. But I also believe that proper rule of law and democratic governance require that the sitting administration, of whatever party, defend the constitutionality of duly enacted laws. It would be dangerous to our entire system of governance if it were easy for a dissatisfied minority and a sympathetic administration to collude with a single favorable district court judge to overturn laws enacted by the majority. I realize that this is our pet issue, and we are rightfully pissed off that this law ever existed. But I refuse to achieve my personal goals by attacking fundamental underpinnings of the republic.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 9:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lance Rockland
      Lance Rockland

      Why does OBAMA hate gays?

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @Lance Rockland: Obama hates gays because he is a bigot.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @Brutus: Your arguments are specious.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @Brutus: The fundamental underpinning of the Republic is the Constitution. The only person who is attaching the fundamental underpinning of the Republic is the bigot who is defending an unconstitutional law.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SpiffyShindigs
      SpiffyShindigs

      The Obama administration may be exceedingly faulty, but they’re better than the alternative.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @Markie-Mark: No. The fundamental underpinning of the Republic is the People. The People created the Constitution, and the People can amend it. We have the power to remove freedom of speech, for example. Or to make homosexuality punishable by lynching.

      We haven’t done that, so mere legislative actions must be judged against the existing scheme. The harder it is to change the status quo, however, the more secure our victory. And we will win this battle, because we are right. Therefore, not only is it unnecessary for us to try to lower to goalposts for us to win, it is counter to our long-term interests.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yellow Bone
      Yellow Bone

      @Benjamin: Agreed. Right now it’s either: get kicked in the nuts or get slapped in the face.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Owen
      Owen

      @Bruno: Wasn’t the Smelt brief the product of the Bush admin.? I thought I read that somewhere, but maybe Holder’s team had a say in the matter.

      Either way, you’re right. Even with people presenting the clear case in favor of appeal, people are still having fits of rage.

      I guess it has to do with expectations. The Obama admin. has been somewhat of a disappointment on gay rights, so people see “Obama appeals case overturning DOMA” and assume the worst. I just wish people would refer to the facts before acting out.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 12:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Markie-Mark: The judges ruling in our favor are democrats. When you don’t vote for democrats you are hurting us. If Al Gore got into office the Supreme Court would be a very different place, and the chances of getting our rights would have been secured. The party also makes lower level appointments, and some judges are elected. Fundamentally it is the Executives job to uphold the law as the executer. If a law is unconstitutional it is on the backs of the legislative branch, and it is the judicial branches job to correct it if the law is challenged. The legislative branch is hopeless in all of this, and things will be worse come January. The justice department is also not the presidents lap dog, matter of fact, Holder and Obama have apparently been in some very heated arguments. Unlike Gonzales, Holder takes his job seriously even if it means hurting the party that put him there.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Brutus said:

      >>An appeal does not say anything about the administration’s policy preferences.

      Wrong. The appeal proves the administration’s policy statements are bullshit.

      >>Bringing this up to the circuit level helps increase the chance that SCOTUS will address the issue, possibly in a consolidated opinion.

      Wrong. SCOTUS has no obligation to hear this or any case, deigns to hear only a tiny, tiny percentage of the cases offered, and typically avoids socially controversial cases.

      >>The DOJ is defending a law that was passed by a veto-proof majority of Congress…which is, after all, the central repository of authority in our democratic republic.

      Wrong. Congress is merely one of three co-equal branches.

      >>…proper rule of law and democratic governance require that the sitting administration, of whatever party, defend the constitutionality of duly enacted laws.

      Wrong. Legislatures can and do enact profoundly unconstitutional laws, and the POTUS is sworn to defend the Constitution — not to defend just any law on the presumption it’s Constitutional. By that oath, he also cannot defend any law he believes offends the Constitution. Likewise, he certainly has no obligation to defend a law ALREADY HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL in a federal court.

      >>It would be dangerous to our entire system of governance if it were easy for a dissatisfied minority and a sympathetic administration to collude with a single favorable district court judge to overturn laws enacted by the majority.

      Wrong. It should be easy for unconstitutional laws to be disposed of, regardless of how popular such unconstitutional laws are.

      >>I realize that this is our pet issue, and we are rightfully pissed off that this law ever existed. But I refuse to achieve my personal goals by attacking fundamental underpinnings of the republic.

      Oh good christ. You’re not undermining the nation. You’re just poorly educated.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 12:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Michael W.:

      >>The Justice Department is responsible for defending the laws of this nation, no matter how repugnant.

      Wrong. Like any other executive agency, the DOJ’s mission is defined by its enabling act, which doesn’t require any such thing.

      >>They are not Obama’s personal team of lawyers.

      Wrong. They are almost PRECISELY that. The DOJ is an executive agency, under the direction of the US attorney general, who is himself a cabinet-level presidential appointee, serving at the pleasure of, and under the direction of, the POTUS.

      >>..It’s not up to the president of the United States to decide what laws he does or doesn’t like.

      Wrong. As one of the safeguards of the Constitution, it is up to the POTUS to decide whether a law he’s required to execute is Constitutional, as part of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

      >>You people want a dictator.

      Wrong. We want a president who comprehends that a law that singles out one group for disparate treatment (on the sole basis that they’re members of that group and therefore deserving of disparate treatment) violates each member’s Constitutional and fundamental rights.

      That’s an easy concept for a Constitutional scholar to grasp, but it’s a real hard thing for a bigot to hold.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @Owen: I think the person who wrote it was leftover from the Bush years (and a Mormon to boot), but it did happen under Holder’s “watch.”

      Oct 13, 2010 at 1:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      An appeal is the route to getting the statute declared unconstitutional as binding precedent. Until it is appealed, and ultimately decided by the SC, other courts may reach different decisions.

      I want to read the brief before I make any judgment about the merits of the appeal, or the motives of the administration that filed it.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      Of course Obama is appealing, he “promised to upheld and defend the laws of the United States.”

      I thought everyone wanted him to keep his “promises.”

      He will appeal the DADT case, too. Only the Supreme Court or the US Congress can end these laws. We have no chance in the Congress and it’s about to get much worse.

      The courts will have to do it because the Democrats are getting pummeled right now and WE are actually leading the effort to throw them out. (SEE GetEQUAL)

      Smart us.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @AndrewW wrote: “Of course Obama is appealing, he “promised to upheld and defend the laws of the United States.”

      Hm. Is it really that difficult to look up what the oath of office actually says?

      >>“Only the Supreme Court or the US Congress can end these laws”

      You deserve a 100% refund on your education. Demand it.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 3:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      There is no guarantee that Obama-appointed judges will strike down DADT. Judges are not appointed on the basis of their attitudes to DADT or single issues in general.

      To hold us in the GLBT community to ransom by saying “oh, the Republicans are much worse, so vote for us Democrats” proves just how contemptuous of us the Democrats have become. The Democrats will ensure our demise if we continue to vote for them.

      Think battered wives who stick with their violent husbands – that’s what we’ve become. Just as a violent husband blackmails his battered wife, that’s exactly how the Democrats treat us.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 8:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      CNN, the most timid news network out there had on two people, both of whom tore to shreds the argument that the White House just has to go along with this.

      IF, the DOJ and the White House was bound to defend all laws, then why was Janet Napalitano able to stop enforcement of the law stating that spouses had to be married for a certain lenght of time before death to prevent deportations of their non-citizen spouses? Why did the Clinton and the Bush White Houses both selectively not defend severla cases?

      Attorney General Jerry Brown in CA. and Gov. Shwartzeneger REFUSED to defend Prop 8 in Court.

      I am now of the opinion that Obama may be a bigot where gays are concerned.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 8:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @AndrewW: said..

      “Of course Obama is appealing, he “promised to upheld and defend the laws of the United States.”
      ___________________________

      That would mean that no new president had any right to change any laws. I get that you like to play the agitator, but I have never seen anybody who revels so much in their second class status.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      I’m sure HRC will have a press release that states.

      White House shows continued support for Gay Americans by hiring gay waiters to work at White house cocktail party next week!

      And will contain no mention of DOMA.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 8:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Legal Eagle
      Legal Eagle

      @the crustybastard: The President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That can only be waived during war or rebellion.

      Look up Article Two, Section Three “Presidential Responsibilities.”

      AndrewW was correct. You need to request a refund for your education.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 11:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      Couple of issues to address:

      1. Many of the Judges ruling favorably in high-profile GLBT cases are REPUBLICAN appointees. I know that makes some of your skins crawl to admit it, but Tauro and Walker are both republican-nominated judges. It’s not just the democrats getting us good judges, thank you.

      2. Obama does have the authority to not appeal this, just like Bush 1 and 2, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton all stepped back where they didn’t feel it was appropriate to appeal.

      3. I realize that some of you hope that the USSCt will take this issue up, but there is no guarantee it will, nor is there a guarantee that the holding will be in any way go beyond what has been declared here, which means we *still* need state-by-state battles which Gay, Inc isn’t doing (this holding only declares DOMA unconstitutional as far as it applies to wtates which have legalized SSM, remember?).

      There ought to be 43 battles in court right this second, and there aren’t; as a matter of fact certain members of our community are actively discouraging them in the hopes that Prop 8 will magically erase any and all laws against SSM when it’s just as likely the USSCt will say that only Prop 8 was illegal, using similar reasoning as Romer did.

      We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. At best, a ruling in this case makes what 7 jurisdictions eligible for federal benefits? What about the other 43 or so which won’t be?

      Oct 13, 2010 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenluv1322
      greenluv1322

      USAM 3-2.110 United States Attorney, AUSAs, Special Assistants,and the AGAC

      History
      The Office of the United States Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided for the appointment “in each district of a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States … whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, recognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned …” 1 Stat. 92. Initially, United States Attorneys were not supervised by the Attorney General (1 Op.Att’y Gen. 608) but Congress, in the Act of August 2, 1861, (Ch. 37, 12 Stat. 185) charged the Attorney General with the “general superintendence and direction duties …” While the precise nature of the superintendence and direction was not defined, the Department of Justice Act of June 22, 1870 (Ch. 150, 16 Stat. 164) and the Act of June 30, 1906 (Ch. 39, 35, 34 Stat. 816) clearly established the power of the Attorney General to supervise criminal and civil proceedings in any district. See 22 Op. Att’y Gen. 491; 23 Op. Att’y Gen. 507. Today, as in 1789, the United States Attorney retains, among other responsibilities, the duty to “prosecute for all offenses against the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1). This duty is to be discharged under the supervision of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 519.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt S
      Matt S

      Guys, the administration HAS to defend the laws, even if they don’t agree with them. You can’t allow an administration to pick and choose what it defends.

      Imagine if Bush was still in office and some judge said anti-discrimination laws against gays are unconstitutional because of freedom of religion. I bet you’d be very mad if Bush’s administration decided not to appeal the ruling.

      That cuts both ways. The admnistration is just doing it’s job. Hopefully the Judiciary will do its job and keep DOMA overturned.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Legal Eagle insisted, “AndrewW was correct. You need to request a refund for your education.

      Um no, he wasn’t correct. And neither are you.

      AndrewW wrote that Obama “promised to upheld and defend the laws of the United States.”

      The oath of office is, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      Not “the laws.” The Constitution.

      If any law is in conflict with the Constitution, according to this oath, the president may not execute that law. That is what it means to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

      Faithfully executed. Not mindlessly executed.

      Nice try, though.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @Matt S: Agreed. I am not angry with the Obama administration for defending the law as passed. I would hate for a future McPalinbee administration to be able to pick and choose which laws to defend and which laws to ignore. Imagine if we actually get ENDA passed, some wingnuts challenge it and President Palin says “oh well, not gonna defend.” We’d be (rightfully) pissed as hell!

      That said, I AM angry with Obama because he hasn’t lifted a goddamned finger since getting elected to repeal DADT & DOMA or pass ENDA. So, yes, I agree that we can’t hate them for THIS, but there’s PLENTY else to hate them for…

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Matt S insisted, “Guys, the administration HAS to defend the laws, even if they don’t agree with them. You can’t allow an administration to pick and choose what it defends.

      Nonsense.

      Suppose hypothetically Congress overrode Obama’s veto and passed a law that re-enslaved all black people. This law that violates the Equal Protection Clause so definitively that even Barack Obama can see it.

      According to you and Sam, he would bear some obligation to execute that law? Really?

      Oct 13, 2010 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @the crustybastard: Well said. And thank you.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rainfish
      Rainfish

      “The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans,” the White House said Wednesday night after the ruling and tried to clarify its position the following day. “The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples…” Aug. 2010

      http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/tag/same-sex-marriage/

      “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama said in an answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

      “Obama Warren”
      Political Cartoon contribution/BuffyTheFundieSlayer[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jCT9n9hItmA/TLbTP1sMC_I/AAAAAAAAAdE/HD4ieFLvFMU/s1600/obamagetit.jpg[/img]

      Oct 14, 2010 at 9:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @the crustybastard: Your comments are well reasoned and well written. Unfortunately, it’s a waste of time to discuss anything with these trolls. They will wait a week and come back with the same specious and disproven arguments over and over again. Nothing can deter them from their agenda. Well, they can vote however they please. But they have no influence over me. I am voting Green from now on. Obama has proven himself to be a bigot. And the Democratic and Republican Parties are parties of bigots.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      It appears Obama’s decision had nothing to with gays and was instead about Federal powers.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/why-the-white-house-will-_n_761290.html

      I really wish Queerty would be more responsible. Or least call a lawyer.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @AJ:

      Bull. The rationale of the holding is sound. Obama is appealing because he finds gay marriage offensive, and he’s a sore loser.

      As a constitutional law scholar, Obama knows that the feds can’t make a law that creates a classification of persons for the purpose of discriminating against them. That’s what DOMA is, and what it does.

      Obama also knows that matrimonial law is an area of law controlled by the several states.

      Obama also knows that Congress can’t just create laws that purport to place asterisks on the Constitution like “(* Privileges and Immunities Clause not applicable to married gay people.)”

      At least he SHOULD know all this. If he doesn’t, and he’s that ignorant…well damn. That’s somehow even more depressing than thinking he’s just a sonofabitch.

      Oct 15, 2010 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.