60 House Democrats refuse to sign federal court brief against DOMA

[IDemo]

Source: Raw Story

A group of House Democrats filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking a federal appeals court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, according to Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner.

However, 60 Democrats — including 15 who had co-sponsored a bill repealing the DOMA — chose not to sign on to Tuesday’s brief to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case hinges on DOMA’s ability to prevent same-sex spouses from receiving federal benefits, which was declared unconstitutional in February 2012 by a U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The brief, filed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 131 other Democrats, argues that the law was motivated by “the desire to disapprove of and disadvantage gay and lesbian couples.” Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have consistently opposed the law as part of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which, under Republican leadership, has been defending it in court since the Obama administration’s withdrawal of support for the law last year.

The Washington Blade reports that the brief also states that the law is unconstitutional because it was passed for political motives.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/11/60-house-democrats-refuse-to-sign-federal-court-brief-against-doma/

[jberryhill]

1. "including 15 who had co-sponsored a bill repealing the DOMA"

What does this suggest to you about their motivation?

[cstanleytech]

2. Well their motivation in not signing probably is based on them wanting to win re-election.

That doesnt mean they dont support throwing DOMA out though just that they dont feel secure enough in their district to support it and I dont blame them considering how so many of the districts got gerrymandered by the republicans recently.

[2pooped2pop]

3. I think I may have read earlier

(probably here) that they were doing it because of the elections and knew that it was an empty gesture because it would not change anything but one of those things they did in name only, kind of thing, to appease their constituents?

or something like that.

oops, that might have been the Obamacare daily vote instead of this one.

[leftyohiolib]

4. they're not puting their money where their mouth is

[bluestateguy]

5. How many Republicans signed that brief?

It does not say.

How many Republicans signed that brief. I am looking for a Republican who signed that brief.

Thanks.

[IDemo]

6. 132 Dems, no repubs it appears

Although a group of them did counter with their own brief in defense of DOMA.

[MissMillie]

7. Progess is slow, to be sure... but hope remains

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/11/156597630/episcopal-church-oks-same-sex-blessings-largest-u-s-denomination-to-do-so

"The times, they are a-changing"

[24601]

8. There are plenty of reasons that a law can be unconstitutional - but being passed for a political

motive is not one of them. If that were the case, the US Code would likely be reduced by at least 50%.

[demwing]

9. Persistence

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. I'm quite surprised to see Allyson Schwartz's name on that list

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza

are both on the list. Both Blue Dogs. Why am I not surprised. I don't care if it's re-election concerns or not. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Period. Spineless weasels.