Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act

(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed "we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," which says states are not required to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a "valid exercise of Congress' power" that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state "shall be required" to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any "right or claim arising from such relationship."

Two married California men, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, sued the federal government to overturn DOMA. They claim that it violates their constitutionally-protected rights to travel, their rights to free speech, and their due process rights.

The U.S. Justice Department's brief doesn't address the morality of same-sex marriage. Instead, it makes the narrower legal argument that DOMA "merely permits each state to follow its own policy with respect to marriage" and the law "does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental." It also says that it saves money by not paying out marriage benefits under federal law, a move that "preserves scarce government resources."

Here's what the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and other groups said in a joint statement on Friday:

We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act... The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be "neutral" with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government's discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states.

It's true that the Justice Department is generally tasked with defending acts of Congress. Then again, Bill Clinton's DOJ refused to defend the abortion speech-related provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and a law mandating criminal penalties for giving paid Medicaid planning advice. Gay activist and Washington lawyer John Aravosis notes other examples of DOJ declining-to-defend.

If Mr. Obama felt strongly enough, or Attorney General Eric Holder believed DOMA was execrable enough, the DOJ could have taken a similar position in court here. At least the president could have coupled his administration's brief of DOMA with a speech calling on Congress to repeal it.

Neither, of course, happened. That led Aravosis to write:

It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice... Where in the law does it say that Obama was required to compare gay marriage to incest? And putting that little bit of religious right messaging aside, even if they "had" to file the brief against us, why didn't they just file a brief that argued the technicalities about why the case should have been thrown out (e.g., the plaintiffs had no standing)? No, what Obama did was throw the legal kitchen sink at us in a brief that could have been written by Antonin Scalia. They argued that DOMA is constitutional. Worse yet, they argue that it was a reasonable, rational, good law that actually saves the government money.

(Legally speaking, the DOJ didn't compare gay marriage to incest, and that word doesn't appear in the brief. What it did was make a lawyerly argument that "the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect," including not recognizing a marriage of an uncle to a niece that took place in Italy, "because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.")

This isn't the first time Obama has drawn criticism from gay rights groups. His campaign platform said "we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy."

But the president has been silent on the topic since. Last month, The Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote: "We are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more."

A recent opinion article in the Wall Street Journal written by a gay man who served as an Army Ranger said: "He promised a full repeal of the ban if he was elected. But President Obama seems to be backing down from this pledge."

In hindsight, perhaps, it should be no surprise that Mr. Obama is shying away from this front in the cultural wars. He broke faith with liberal supporters over warrantless wiretaps, the repetition of the Bush administration's arguments on "state secrets," and the continuation of the Bush administration's indefinite military detentions of terrorism suspects.

The surprise should be that some supporters seem to have confused a politician's campaign promises with his actual policies.

[gkgmd]

:) Good to hear slownewsday. It is so refreshing to hear a faint voice in the vast darkness of ignorance.

[gkgmd]

My personal belief is that based on what I see of your logic, rationale, and committment to tradition, you would have been right there with the scribes and pharisees--I believe in their shoes, you too would have crucified the Christ, thinking you were divinely inspired and doing the bidding of your god--dealing justice to a blashpemer. My opinion, is this is what Jesus was talking about when he talked about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit--a heart-heardened to the ideas of letting go of judgment and focusing on love and fairness. I do believe your heart is hardened to anything that contradicts what you were comforted by in childhood and tradition. In my opinion, this is the same process that put Galileo under House arrest, burned witches, tortured heretics, enslaved Africans, outlawed interracial marriage, and supported the Holocaust -- all the perpetrators of these atrocities believed themselves "divinely inspired."

[gkgmd]

I guess we both agree with Matthew 7:1-29. So I will not throw more pearls your way jankebenzone. You seem to prefer that America be a country where your supposed divine inspiration should be law. Fortunately we are no longer in the Dark Ages and have survived the Inquisition. As Jesus said about those crucified him, "God forgive them. They don't know what they do." jankebenzone your misguided dogma re-crucifies him daily I fear. Recall...the scribes and pharisees used your logic. That's why they crucified him. He disagreed with their laws and scriptures and said he was inspired by Beelzubub.

[jankebenzone]

by gkgmd June 15, 2009 7:10 PM PDT
So in essence you are saying that Jesus condoned or approved of homosexuality.That would prove that you know little of the scriptures and thus the recipient of the thrown pearls.

[jankebenzone]

I'm curious, jankebenzone, what is your level of education in scientific method and have you ever had a course in Formal Logic and Logical Fallacy? by gkgmd June 15, 2009 6:20 PM PDT

Education without fact or truth is not factual, just an extension of someones ideology. Atheists believe the ideology of other atheists, christians believe what is revealed by God.Human logic can't comprehend God, comprehension of God is by revealation. Who then is the wiser? Understand? Study the scriptures and it may be revealed to you by divine inspiration. I can explain till I.m blue in the face but without study on your part you won't/can't comprehend,my time is thus wasted.

[gkgmd]

You really ought to check this out jankebenzone. There are apparently 10 million Pastafarians who have also been divinely inspired.

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/sk_brochure.pdf

[gkgmd]

I hypothesize that "belief" that cannot question itself, that cannot change course with new evidence, is failed belief. It is mental and societal illness of the most malignant kind. It is like a thermometer whose spring mechanism has become too warped -- no longer can it perceive correctly because it is damaged and ill. It is the very societal process that caused the Holocaust.

[gkgmd]

You can't argue with delusion. It isn't logical. This is why religion is so frightening. You indoctrinate three children with three different religios faiths. You indoctrinate them that they are right, that nothing, no amount of proof nor rationality can bring it into question. You tell them that believing no matter what is divine and all the proof needed. Then you give these three children access to weapons of mass destruction as adults -- I think that is where we find ourselves.

[gkgmd]

I take it that the answer is no regarding your understanding of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles? What is your scientific background?

The argument "The Truth about the bible and God is abundantly evident, yet many will argue otherwise." This is an example of Petitio Principii, or arguing in a circle. It is a logical fallacy.

I'm curious, jankebenzone, what is your level of education in scientific method and have you ever had a course in Formal Logic and Logical Fallacy?

[gkgmd]

I always found the Pastafarian believers interesting. They believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Most of the logic they use is the same as Christian proofs. http://www.venganza.org/spread-the-word/

Would you support protecting marriage by enacting criminal punishments for adultery and laws disallowing divorce?

[jankebenzone]

Now here is the catch. This is a recognized religion having a Judeo-Christian calling. Most all in this denomination (primarily heterosexuals) would say they have been divinely inspired to know that same-sex partners should be allowed all the benefits of holy union legally and religiously. The would tell you this is their faith as inspired by the Creator of all Things.

I wonder if you had been born into this faith, instead of the one you are a part of, if that would have impacted you in anyway.

What do you thing?
Posted by gkgmd at 5:11 PM : Jun 15, 2009

A lot of questions. First of all if the so called divine inspiration does not line up with the bible ( the core of christianity) than the inspiration is'nt from above but of our own misguided thinking. The bible is abundantly clear on homosexuality yet many self proclaimed "christians" think they can dictate God.

Secondly as to ones up bringing, in brief , even a good number of muslims and islamists have converted to christianity when presented with the gospel dispite the indoctrination of their parents beliefs.

[gkgmd]

And indeed you may be right jankebenzone. But again here is my confusion. The Bible talks a lot more about adultery and divorce. But Christian society has allowed divorce and doesn't penalize adultery. How do you decide when you have two people claiming divine inspiration, each rejecting parts of the Bible, each having very logical demonstration of their logical process. How do you choose which one really is divinely inspired?

[jankebenzone]

And indeed you may be right jankebenzone. But again here is my confusion. by gkgmd June 15, 2009 5:54 PM PDT

How did you overcome your confusion about medicine before you became a doctor, you spent a lot of time studying and learning to gain knowledge.
The same applies to gaing knowledge of the bible, God, and his principles. Knowledge brings wisdom, and wisdom provides the right answers.

[gkgmd]

jankebenzone

Science would say the following. There is a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. Your hypothesis and the alternative are:

h0 = all **** sapiens require oxygen to stay alive
h1 = not all **** sapiens require oxygen to stay
alive

First off how will you test this? The only way you could test it with absolute 100% certainty is to deprive every human that ever exist or will exist of oxygen.

Now lets suppose you have 1000 people that died due to suffocation. Those people would support your null hypothesis h0. The larger the sample size the higher the certainty. But it would just take one human being with an aberrant gene that didn't require oxygen, in the past or future, to cause your hypothesis to be rejected.

That's why science can never "prove" anything.

Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Any reputable physicist will confirm this principle validates what I'm saying.

[jankebenzone]

Without oxygen, death is 100% certain, that fact has been in place since the begining of time. Untold billions have testified to the fact.
The truth is undeniable, yet some would argue otherwise.
The truth about the bible and God is abundantly evident, yet many will argue otherwise. Thats why the 100 % certainty thereof is by divine revealation.