US asks court to dismiss challenge to marriage law

[sabra]

Source: AP

BOSTON — The Justice Department has asked a Boston judge to dismiss a lawsuit that claims a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit claims the act wrongly denies gay couples access to federal benefits given to other married couples.

In court documents filed Friday, the Justice Department makes it clear the Obama administration thinks the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. But the department said it was defending the statute because the law is "constitutionally permissible."

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health insurance and other government benefits.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9APRPHG0

[aquart]

1. So not impressed with that excuse.

[tekisui]

2. I think the DoJ is wrong. I do not see the law as constitutional.

And, I would like to see it challenged.

[No Elephants]

37. Scalia will use the WWTPD? Analysis to find the law unconstitutional.

What would the Pilgrims Do?

Scalia claims that anything that was ok in 1789 is also fine in 2009. Well, unless it's something Scalia disagrees with. Then, he's not such an originalist purist.

[Jansen]

3. Confused.

"In court documents filed Friday, the Justice Department makes it clear the Obama administration thinks the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. But the department said it was defending the statute because the law is "constitutionally permissible.""

So, the DOJ says that the administration thinks the law should be repealed but.. the DOJ thinks the law is "constitutionally permissible" and will defend it. I thought the DOJ worked for the executive?

[Ian David]

6. No. The DOJ is supposed to be independent of The Executive.

Something many have forgotten during eight years of Bush Fascism.

[FBaggins]

11. That's incorrect.

Which branch of government would they belong to if not the Executive?

[Ian David]

13. They're supposed to be independent of Executive authority.

So, in theory, they can investigate The President.

[FBaggins]

16. Sez who?

They "should" be independent of the Executive when they're investigating the Executive... but there is no Constitutional requirement for that.

They weren't created to investigate the President.

[Ian David]

20. Saturday Night Massacre From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saturday Night Massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

[FBaggins]

30. You didn't answer the question.

You gave an example of why it isn't a good idea for the executive to investigate itself. You didn't give evidence that the DOJ is supposed to be independent.

It isn't. It was created (and remains) a part of the executive branch.

[SpartanDem]

14. It's a complicated relationship between the two

because of the sensitivity of what they do, you don't want too much political influence over legal decisions. Historically, the DoJ has more independence than other departments, because you don't want things like the Bush US Attorney firing's happening.

[FBaggins]

9. me too... but not on that point.

Things can be constitutional and still be wrong. Congress can declare war on Canada next Tuesday and the President can attack. It would be wrong... but not unconstitutional.

It's reasonable to say that you want a law repealed, but that the courts can't do it. Congress needs to act.

What I don't understand is how long the President thinks he can talk out of both sides of his mouth on the issue and get away with it. There are certainly plenty of people who think that it is unconstitutional and are upset that the President doesn't agree.

[TrogL]

35. Remember what happened last time you invaded Canada?

[closeupready]

4. Would be nice if just for once this administration could be 'too busy" or whatever the federal parla

parlance is, to defend this statute. But they never pass up an opportunity to keep teh gheys down. :mad:

[truebrit71]

5. Yup..they're busy NOT investigating the previous administration..and raiding pot dispensers..

...on the left coast...

Ah yes, I love all of that "change" we're getting... :sarcasm:

[closeupready]

7. YES. Exactly. Why is the CA attorney general investigating the credit agencies,

and not these busybodies who are out there defending laws dictating who I can and can not marry?! :mad:

[Metta]

8. So, legislating morality is constitutional?

How's that been working?

[FBaggins]

12. Of course

I've always gotten a kick out of that statement "you can't legislate morality".

It's true in the sense that passing a law doesn't change the morality of the people it impacts... but just about the only laws we ever pass are "legislating morality".

[Ozymanithrax]

10. The 14th Amendment says...

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By law, you must get a marriage license to marry, so the US government has defined marriage through law. Though I am not a Constitutional lawyer, how can we continue to set up government and law as the arbiter of who can marry and claim that we maintain equal protection of the laws.

The rights and privaledges granted to spouses are defined by law, so it would seem that the 14th Amendment should apply.

It appears to me that defining marriage as a union between a man and a women may violate the 14th Amendment.

[gmpierce]

29. Hold it!

Dream on! The rights and privileges clause of the 14th amendment was interpreted into nothingness by the Supreme Court in the early 1870's in a set of decisions called the Slaughterhouse cases.

That rights and privileges stuff sounded really good. The Supremes made a list of your rights and privileges. They included stuff like the right to use the navigable waters of the US and other non-dangerous stuff and declared that these were our inalienable rights.

Since that time, even these inalienable rights have been alienated but it really doesn't matter - the Supreme Court at the time was simply too terrified to stand up for anyone's rights. For seventy years, until the advent of the Warren Court we had no rights.

They did find some uses for the Fourteenth Amendment - in support of Southern Pacific railroad about the same time they "decided" that corporations were people.

[4lbs]

15. You do realize that the Justice Department is obligated to defend the laws in court

even if the USAG Holder and POTUS Obama are against them.

They can't just say "well, we don't like that law, so we'll just not show up in court to defend it."

It's up to Congress to make a new law repealing the old, and that's what that one bill that is working it's way up the ladder will do.

[closeupready]

19. Is the WI attorney general obligated to defend WI laws?

What if he decides not to because he disagrees with the laws?

[4lbs]

23. I would think so. If someone in Wisconsin challenges a Wisconsin State law, the state AG would

defend it in court regardless of his or her personal opinion on the matter.

They are mandated to defend the laws. It's in their oath. It's their job. To defend and enforce the laws of the State of Wisconsin in this case.

Otherwise, you would be allowing an AG to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if there was a state law that prevented discrimination against GLBT but the state AG decided not to enforce and defend it because he/she didn't agree with it? Would you be ok with that?

They must enforce and defend the laws in all circumstances, otherwise it won't work.

[Unvanguard]

27. Yes, and he's being extremely unprincipled by not doing so.

I've never understood the "other people break the rules, so why don't you?" argument...

[GinaMaria]

17. so, the Obama administration believes

the law is discriminatory and constitutional? Is there anything else that would fall into this description? The two don't seem to go together. I'm not a lawyer or constitutional expert but this sounds counter-intuitive.

[robo50]

18. It sounds not too far removed from religious right wing doubletalk, in my

opinion, and yes,

it's totally political, aimed at NOT PISSING off "moderates" who might be anti-gay marriage.

I think it stinks, but, hey, he's the President, and what does it matter to gay folks out there?

By the way, wasn't this Martha Coakley's lawsuit? (Mass Atty Gen now running for Kennedy's seat).

[Unvanguard]

28. It is a hard line to walk, for an equal protection case.

In this particular circumstance, looking for principled reasoning is beside the point. The brief's language is politically-motivated, driven by recollection of the angry reaction to the first brief by Obama's DOJ defending DOMA. The effective contradiction you note is the conflict between those political motives and the DOJ's legal obligation to defend federal law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Why can't the admin just NOT argue

Just not even show up. Tell the people your alarm clock didn't go off or that your dog ate your amicus brief.

Nothing is better than this.

[4lbs]

24. Then they would not be living up to their oaths of office.

Part of the oath that Holder and Obama took involved "upholding and defending the laws of the United States of America."

If they don't show up in court to defend the laws, then they wouldn't be upholding them.

[FBaggins]

31. Yes and no

They don't have to uphold unconstitutional laws. The problem is that the president needs to believe that it is unconstitutional .

I'm not sure whether he does or not, but he seems to feel that he needs to look like he doesn't.

[Vidar]

22. Holder is useless!

[4lbs]

25. Why? Because he's doing what's he's required to do under the oath he took when he was sworn in?

[IndianaGreen]

26. Obama's DOJ is tough when it comes to doing a BOHICA on LGBTs

and totally useless when it comes to prosecuting the law breakers of the Bush Administration.

What did we vote for this past November? Was it change or more of the same?

[Menemsha]

32. AG Martha Coakley should be our next Senator

This was Martha Coakley's suit against the government- She has been a solid and vocal advocate for civil rights during her 23 year history in public service working on child abuse, organized crime, suing big pharm, keeping energy companies honest etc. etc. She can to fill Ted Kennedy's seat- It is obscene that the federal government is fighting against those who voted him and them in- What is happening in our Congress and administration is criminal- we need a real crime fighter to go in and uncover the facts and prosecute them as only a Senator can.

[Menemsha]

33. Martha for Senate- We need a fighter like her

I totally agree- Martha has been serving the public in MA for 23 years- little pay and lots of gut wrenching hard work- The people of Massachusetts deserve someone with her integrity, work ethic and commitment- Wouldn't be a bad thing to have another woman- 17% is just plain unacceptable in representation - MA has NEVER in 221 years had a woman Senator- about time!

[Godhumor]

34. You totally agree with yourself? Take it we forgot to switch accounts...

But still, it's nice to know you're in agreement with your own thinking.

[QC]

36. Chess, people! Chess!