Obama and DOMA: Will the President Do the Right Thing?

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Saturday, July 10, 2010 by The Nation

Obama and DOMA: Will the President Do the Right Thing?

by John Nichols

Political divisions of the United States Defense of Marriage Act was always a false construct.

Enacted in the midst of the 1996 election season -- when conservative forces were raising a ruckus about the "threat" posed by same-sex marriage -- it was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 in an attempt to turn the volumn down on the issue by formally, if coherently, defining marriage as enterprise that could only be entered into by a man and a woman.

The law was blatantly discriminatory, and as a candidate the presidency, Barack Obama described it as "abhorrent" and "an unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage."

Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does," said candidate Obama in a statement that succinctly summed up the reasons for overturning the law.

Now, in response to a lawsuit brought by the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders against the Obama administration's Office of Personnel Management on behalf of eight married gay couples and three surviving spouses who were denied federal spousal rights and benefits because of DOMA, a federal judge has recognized the logic of those arguments.

The question is whether the president and his Justice Department will operate along the lines voters presumed it would when they elected Obama as a supporter of LGBT rights.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/10-5

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[ProSense]

2. So this is the right thing:

Were the Justice Department to accept the Tauro's decision as constitutionally sound and appropriate, as federal and some state officials did when the courts began to strike down discriminatory laws during the segregation era, this could be a breakthrough moment in the struggle for marriage equality.

OK, let's say the administration repeats that they believe the law is discriminatory, it is still the federal law until Congress acts.

After the administration's statement, then what? The ruling applies to Massachusetts only, and then what? What is the "breakthrough moment"?

What happens next?

This is one of those instances where people are going to feign ignorance of process and law.

The fact is until Congress passed and LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, no amount of disagreeing with the status quo by LBJ and others meant anything. Action is what is needed, and it begins in Congress.

The only other alternative, until Congress Acts, is for the administration to appeal. They can do so stating their belief that the law is unconstitutional. This is a test case for the SCOTUS. That may or may not be appealing, but that is where an appeal would lead.

If not the courts, then Congress needs to act.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Brown v. Board of Education sunk the 'Separate But Equal' doctrine

and that's exactly what we got here: LGBT couples are denied the same rights as hetero couples.

[ProSense]

4. Right, it was a SCOTUS decision. n/t

[johnaries]

5. Exactly. And that's the best way to repeal DOMA. Get it before

SCOTUS. Unfortunately, SCOTUS is stacked to the right, but it will be difficult for the conservatives on the court to argue in favor of DOMA, and we only need one to join our side. Kagan is obviously against DOMA, if we can get her installed in time.

[polmaven]

6. That is absolutely correct.

The "right thing" in this case is an appeal of Judge Tauro's decision, and eventually getting this before the SCOTUS. I fail to understand why so many don't seem to grasp that. This is a limited decision, applying to MA only.

It will, of course, even when it is upheld at the SCOTUS, not automatically make gay marriage rights available in all 50 states. A lot of people don't seem to understand THAT either!. This is only to mandate that the Federal government recognize gay marriages in state where they are legal. It will continue or leave that legality up to individual states.