Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Pirate Smile

(27,617 posts)
Thu May 10, 2012, 12:07 AM May 2012

Please don't go to Gawker for your legal analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002667131


News Analysis: Obama's Marriage Equality Support Is Not the Half-Loaf Some Are Claiming
Posted by Chris Geidner |
May 9, 2012 7:05 PM | Permalink

-snip-
If the administration were still defending DOMA and had taken no position on the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications, then Obama's statement might mean that his view is that states have unfettered rights to legislate as they they wish on marriage.
But, that is not the circumstances in which he makes these comments. Instead, Obama's position now is three-fold: (1) he personally supports same-sex marriage; (2) he believes as a policy matter that state, and not federal, law should define marriages, as it always has been in this country; and (3) he believes that there are federal constitutional limitations on those state decisions.


-snip-
But, even in the absence of such a public declaration, lawyers working on and judges considering these cases already have acknowledged the importance of the DOJ position on DOMA in state-law cases. The day that the DOJ decision was announced in February 2011, lawyers for the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 told the judge that the DOJ's decision represented a "material," or significant, development.

As the lawyers then wrote, "The conclusion of the United States that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation is unquestionably correct. Proposition 8 cannot survive the requirements of heightened scrutiny because its invidious discrimination against gay men and lesbians could not conceivably further an important government interest."

As that brief -- filed by Ted Olson, David Boies and the other lawyers representing those plaintiffs -- makes clear, Obama's legal, policy and personal views are not in any way contradictory and present a clear path forward toward the advancement of marriage equality across the country.


http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/news-analysis-obamas-marriage-equality-support-is.html
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please don't go to Gawker for your legal analysis: (Original Post) Pirate Smile May 2012 OP
No kidding. Why would anyone post that crap?? Zoeisright May 2012 #1
It's a great question. And we all know the answer, but we're not allowed to post it. Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #2
Kick. DevonRex May 2012 #3
Excellent advice. Thanks and K&R. n/t lamp_shade May 2012 #4
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Please don't go to Gawker...