Comments on: Can Obama stop enforcing DOMA?

By: Brian Summers

Brian Summers — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:51:55 +0000

What gets me is the fact that Bush did the exact same thing with bills he didn’t approve of and the conservatives didn’t make anywhere near the level of fuss they’re making with Obama over this. Sorry, but I can’t help finding that just a tad ironic.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:50:06 +0000

Much like Dorothy always had the power to go back to Kansas, Obama has always had the power to stop enforcing DOMA.

By: James

James — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:07:41 +0000

The President took an oath to uphold the constitution and has rightly made it clear that he will continue to enforce DOMA until such time as the courts make a final decision on whether it is constitutional. While the Department of Justice approach raises some concerns there is validity to the DOJ not defending something they believe is unconstitutional. The question could be raised as to why the DOJ is not going to actively oppose DOMA since they believe it is unconstitutional.

By: Chuck Anziulewicz

Chuck Anziulewicz — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:06:10 +0000

The Obama Administration is getting a lot of criticism from social conservatives for ending its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, if part of President Obama’s job is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” he made the right call.

There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as DOMA. This law sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples, thus violating the 14th Amendment. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security.

Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become “UN-married” if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the “Full Faith & Credit” clause.

Heck, even a lawyer with the American Family Association has admitted that DOMA is “probably unconstitutional.” Details are here:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/01/AFAs_Lawyer_Says_DOMA_Is_Unconstitutional

By its own actions, the federal government has made marriage a federal issue. Most of the legal benefits of marriage are bestowed by the federal government. You can argue about religion and parenthood until the cows come home, and it will not negate the fact that there is simply no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

By: K in VA

K in VA — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:52:22 +0000

Get your damned facts straight: Obama’s still enforcing DOMA (don’t believe me? try filing jointly next month). What he’s stopped doing is arguing in court that the law’s constitutional.

There’s a big difference. But if our own press can’t even get facts right, I don’t see how we can possibly expect accurate reporting from the national press.

Jeez …

By: r spry

r spry — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:02:28 +0000

This is a really bad precedent. If he gets away with this, any executive can. Everyone knows, even a speeding ticket will get thrown out of court if the police don’t show up. All laws passed by the congress and signed by a president are challenged in court in attempts to overthrow. Roe V Wade? Obamacare? If this precedent stands and we get a conservative president next, he/she could decide not to defend? This is an impeachable offense…he took an oath to defend the law. He doesn’t decide the law.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:31:12 +0000

If the executive stops enforcing DOMA, then there can be no challenges in court, and no judge will have the opportunity to declare it unconstitutional. Individuals can only get standing to challenge the statute after they have been harmed by an enforcement action. The distinction is that they will not defend the statute. So, after an individual gets to court with a challenge, the executive will stand down, and the judge will be given the case to decide that DOMA is unconstitutional…. I know it’s a fine point, but the standing to challenge is important.