Obama: paving the way for same sex marriage?

Aside from the Big Deal that DOJ no longer will defend a federal law (which historically has hardly ever happened) there's perhaps an even Bigger Deal in today's announcement that President Obama has decided the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

In reaching that conclusion, the President and Justice Department have concluded that laws treating gays and straight people differently must get closer scrutiny from the courts--and should be upheld only if there is a very good reason for them. That's a tougher legal standard than the courts typically have used in evaluating discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians.

It also puts the Administration in front of the Supreme Court, which has yet to decide whether gays and lesbians should get the same kind of protection that women or, even, that minorities get. If the Court ultimately agrees with the Justice Department on using a tougher standard, in practice that means pretty much any law treating gays and lesbians differently than everyone else will almost always be unconstitutional.

Dale Carpenter, writing at Volokh, has some interesting perspective:

"The Obama administration has now formally put the weight and authority of the Executive Branch behind the proposition that government discrimination against gays and lesbians is unconstitutional under the equal protection principles of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Since marriage between two people of the same sex, whether unrecognized by the federal government under DOMA or barred by the states under their own marriage laws, discriminates against gays and lesbians and cannot survive heightened scrutiny, it follows that the laws of 45 states barring gay marriage are unconstitutional. While the DOJ won't formally be attacking state marriage laws in federal courts, its views do carry some persuasive heft."

[cccbbbsss]

The government has no business in supporting homosexual relationships. If there are any, marriage benefits serve the government's vested interest in supporting families, the building blocks of our society. Traditional marriages produce children, and the government's interest in the future generation is valid, if even only to produce further taxpayers. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, do not contribute to society but by their nature are selfish and the government and society do not benefit from their existence but in fact suffer as moral decay thrives. Homosexuals want to take marriage benefits from society without giving anything in return. I agree with the homosexuals: the government should stay out of their lives, but that includes giving them benefits and marriage status. On a side note, I wish people would be honest and use the term homosexual instead of gay. There is nothing gay about it. Gay used to mean jolly or happy and I don't think homosexuals should be able to malign that word. Nor should they be able to hijack the rainbow and claim it as their own. The rainbow is a beautiful thing and means something completely different. Finally, I do not hate homosexuals, I'm not homophobic. I just don't believe in giving a special right to those who don't deserve it just because they scream loudly for it. Thankfully, this is still the U.S.A. and expressing an opinion like this is not "hate speech" yet.

[shelleybear]

A gay couple can produce children just as well as a straight one can.
Sorry if this disturbs you.
We also pay taxes.
Don't forget fighting for the U.S. in the military.

"Finally, I do not hate homosexuals, I'm not homophobic."

Nope, you just don't think we should have the same rights as everyone else.

[magnumdr]

Same sex marrige is a sin and immoral. If it were ment to be, the world would end soon because we could not reproduce any children to carry on. The Federal Government does not have the right to get involved in this "morral" issue.

[bundye]

Yes, he is and he needs to stop!

[payasyougo]

It is a diversion tactic. Don't fall for it. Stay on point.

[nonpolitico]

The USA has a Constitution. I was under the impression that it could not be altered except via a Constitutional Convention?
Or is Pres. Obama extending a Presidents Executive powers??
The question of whether he is actually President or not will not be settled until the Supreme Court hear the "Birth Certificate" case!
Until then we should reflect on what we want the President to do, (and so should HE!!)

[CarloCaraluzzo]

And the Constitution guarantees Equal Protection Under the Law, something your blightwing nut jobs always seem to forget. You jump right into the fight to keep charging taxpayers to pay for and maintain your Christian monuments on public property, bringing it to court claiming equal protection, but then try to legislate against things that the rest of this country is trying to pass to STOP YOUR HATE and Intolerance for the first time in 1500 years.
The "Defense of Marraige Act" is not only a waste of taxpayers time and money (worrying about sex sex marraige when you are being bled dry) it is an offense to anyone who still believes in the Constitution. Or at least in those of us who still believe it is a document meant to protect all Amercians.

[documemts]

...paving way for same sex marriage? No just a freeway off ramp.

[thomasmc1957]

Not surprising that the Fascist Bigots would be upset that Obama chose to defend the Constitution of the United States against an unconstitutional law.

[RealWorldNow]

Isn't that a job the courts are supposed to do?

[thomasmc1957]

Sorry you are so dense, jehmans2000.
I was responding to someone who said gays should only be allowed CIVIL marriages, not religious ones. Neither you nor the government have any right to tell a church who they can and cannot marry.

[OranPF]

It puts a lot of conservatives in a tough situation. They say they have the utmost reverence for the Constitution, but at the same time they hate gay people. It's not usually a problem, but what will they do when those two positions conflict with each other? It will tell us what they really stand for -- and it should shatter any notion that their "reverence for the Constitution" is anything more than an excuse for the policies they want to impose.

[meboard]

They have never...never...never...let logic get in their way.

[kbuds2]

I just have to wonder, how many of you nay-sayers are divorced - not once, but twice, or even a third time?? Sanctity of marriage? It's divorcees, like that who are a joke to the word "marriage". If you all can get married, be miserable, and then divorce - why can't someone who prefers the same sex??

Equality for everyone!