Gay-rights Groups Blast Admin. Brief

[FreeState]

Source: From NBC's Mark Murray

Gay-rights groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign, are criticizing the Obama administration for filing a brief in California court that defends the Defense of Marriage Act -- which Barack Obama promised to repeal while running for president.

“The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The president has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action, and end discrimination against LGBT people and our families,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We call on the President to send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress,” he added.

This is the latest administration move that has irked gay-rights groups, which also have questioned Obama's commitment to overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and complained when he picked Rev. Rick Warren to deliver to deliver the prayer at Obama's inauguration.

A Justice Department spokesman said that administrations typically defend, in court, the laws on the books -- even ones they disagree with. "The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system." (Hat tip: Ben Smith.)

Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/12/1963661.aspx

[SacredCow]

1. Fan Fucking Tastic....

The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

So, what we have here is pretty much the same thing as the Fundies saying, "Oh, don't blame ME because I hate you. God TOLD me to hate you, so I pretty much have to until told otherwise."


"Fierce Advocate" my lily-white ASS!!!!


:mad:

[youngharry]

36. DOMA--Bush leave behinds

Please don't overlook that Bush left a lot in the Justice Dept to create havoc for Obama. This may well be the result of one of them and it needs to be looked into who actually wrote this opinion.

[MNBrewer]

44. Are you saying Obama isn't in control of his administration?

[QC]

77. He is only responsible for the good things that happen.

Bad things are the doing of treacherous underlings who work for him but over whom he has no control.

[jody]

2. Be quiet and keep chanting "Hope, Change", the Blue Wizard will make dreams come true.

[glitch]

And until the legislature changes the law let's all just equate gay with incest and pedophila. nt

:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

85. For the record: Obama DID NOT compare Gay marriage to Incest

First off, Obama didn't write the briefing, and it's extremely unlikely he was aware of it. If he is aware of it, it's only probably becausel the gay community has become outraged by it, so in that sense, it's good the community has expresse their opinion. However...

The briefing does not compare gay marriage to incest and it's not an invokation of incest. It's a citing of case law, which lawyers do, to show examples of precedence. Here, the precedence is that states are allowed to ignore or undo marriages legal in another state. This is something gays should be very aware of. If they are legally married in one state, they should not expect their rights to be honored in another state.

Here is the text that has caused the firestorm:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Anyone using this to say Obama hates gays or is comparing gay marriage to incest is being deceitful and they know it.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8468339&mesg_id=8468339

[glitch]

91. Deceitful, and very ugly indeed. You should not try to obfuscate and defend this brief.

Bad Karma.

[TankLV]

93. Anybody who trys to defend this crap is INEXCUSABLE

and a fucking asshole...

just saying...

but it's YOU so it's like clockwork...

[Neecy]

3. yep, blame everything on Congress

That's real leadership.

[Deep13]

4. Some of the comments under the article are pretty unfortunate.

There's certainly no danger that the RW psychopaths of this country will put a sock in it any time soon.

[Mari333]

15. Until the Obama admin steps up to the plate, homophobes will continue

to have a field day. Obama admin,. continues to legitimize hatred of GLBT people with this bullshit.

[howmad1]

52. Like I keep saying:

This Obama guy should have been a used car salesman. Meets all of the qualifications: Slick and smooth as silk - and full of shit.

[jhrobbins]

66. Yeah, because with friends like ours, we've obviously got a long row to hoe

until we can turn everyone's mind. I find it hard to believe some of the comments from 'liberals'. Thanks guys for all the support. :sarcasm: (That's one of the very rare times I have used sarcasm in a discussion - I don't find it to be a genuine element of debate-I think it's facile)

[Merryweather]

5. What a kick in the teeth

for all the gays who voted for change...and are getting none. That crap about administrations 'typically' defending legislation on the books is not an excuse to defend prejudice.

[Strong Atheist]

73. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Merryweather]

79. Thanks! Your sig line is indeed true n/t

[Strong Atheist]

86. I am trying. I luck out when I find someone to welcome; this is a big place...

enjoy!

:toast:

[humbled_opinion]

6. Well People really...

Need to give Obama a break. If you hadn't noticed he is being kept extremely busy fixing what the idiots in charge did to the country these last 30 years or so. It takes time to unbrainwash the masses that were fed this crap for so long. So if he doesn't just jump on what is considered divisive issues right away, cut him some slack or else....

We will be right back in the Bushes.

[mvd]

7. This is one of the issues I where I believe Obama is lacking

The frustration is understandable. By all means, GLBTs should keep the pressure on, as it is human rights we are talking about. There has been some change in people's attitudes towards GLBTs, and let Obama be a driving force. I'm not afraid of the Repukes here.

[jhrobbins]

67. I'm not afraid of the Repukes here. No, because it's not the repukes to be afraid of

here - it is much closer to home than them. With the repukes, you can understand where they are coming from and pretty much what is gonna come out of their mouths. It's the, 'I really love you and I truly understand, BUT....... that is 'the unkindest cut of all'.

[Deep13]

8. I'm hoping that is the case...

...that he's just waiting until the economy is no longer in the toilet and substantial health care reform becomes reality before taking on this or war crime prosecution other hot-button issues.

[mvd]

11. My optimism is still high, but I'm like that by nature

I'm more positive that there will be progress eventually on gay rights (which I prefer be started now) than prosecutions (which I also support but am willing to wait on if there's a real effort,) but we'll see - it's early. :hi:

[WillParkinson]

9. Wow...

Let's just give the administration free rein to ride roughshod over gays and lesbians. It's OK, because he's busy and we should just relax and give him a break.

Not happening.

[humbled_opinion]

42. thats not what I said...

You sound like you think the shrubs would do more justice in this regard? Get a grip, welcome to reality.

[TommyO]

49. No, you effectively told gay people to shut the hell up

because our rights aren't important enough for the President to live up to his campaign promises.

We're not going to sit still for what the administration did, and we're not going to put up with your garbage either.

[LostinVA]

81. Well, you did say that -- it's your opinion, so own it

[TommyO]

10. That's right, we have to get to the back of the bus

and behave like good "house queers"

Fuck that.

[Mari333]

13. I was just going to post the back of the line statement

but you beat me to it.

[Rockholm]

14. Obama is NOT getting a fucking BREAK on this one.

His administration went way too far, TONY PERKINS & PAT ROBERTSON too far, in filing this brief.
Sorry, but he has lost me on this one. It's gonna take quite a bit to get me back.

[damonm]

41. That's a bit much,

though I certainly understand the sentiment. He hasn't lost me - yet. But it's a HUGE disappointment, to be sure.
I gotta wonder, though - the wording is SO non-Obama, it does raise a flag.

[Rockholm]

45. Try seeing this from my perspective.

I am gay and this is an insult. If you read the summary, it is rather insulting and degrading.

[damonm]

58. You're damn right it is...

..which makes me wonder about its actual authorship - the verbiage is so NON-Obama as to plant a seed of doubt, in my mind at least.
But I don't doubt (or invalidate) your feelings for a moment. Just bear in mind the alternative before he loses you totally. Now, if a more GLBT-friendly candidate comes along, that advice goes straight out the window.

BTW, did you see the Tribe article? He's glad this was defended by the DoJ, as the GLAAD suit is in his opinion MUCH stronger grounds to overturn DOMA, and isn't hamstrung by having this as precedent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8467442

But I DO understand how angry I'd be if I were in your shoes - I was pretty close to that myself before I read what Tribe had to say.

[lindisfarne]

17. I agree to a point, but this brief is making it more difficult for the Obama admin to undo DOMA

I am a very strong Obama supporter - but am disappointed he doesn't see how unjust laws against homosexual marriage are. I don't really agree with people who propose that the term "marriage" should be reserved for religion while whatever government does should be called "civil union" as a way to avoid the "marriage" issue - but I do know Obama has said he thinks "marriage" has a specific definition. I guess if it was politically expedient to says that governments approve "civil unions" which can be between 2 people of any sex (and which grant all the rights and responsibilities that "marriage" currently does), I'd concede it may need to be a necessary evil.

[EFerrari]

19. No.

[dropkickpa]

23. ...aren't you comfortable under that bus?

GLBT issues have been his weak point all along. He mouthed all the right shit to our faces and some fell for it while all along he's been pretty fucking shitty on on our issues and been blatant about it all along.

Let's just "hope" he'll "change" on them.

[MNBrewer]

28. I think he has people to help him with that. They're called a STAFF.

It's not like he's sitting in the White House West Wing all by his lonesome.

[donco6]

34. Did you forget a sarcasm icon?

Because otherwise, your post is silly. He had enough time to prepare a bullshit brief, so don't talk about how "busy" he was.

[jhrobbins]

65. I don't think it works like that-like he is in sixth grade doing his homework

first he does the math, finishes that, moves on to English, finishes that and then on to science, etc, etc. He is able to multi-task and he has many, many aides to do the heavy lifting - so it isn't like he has to finish one project before he is able to turn his attention to the next.

[Strong Atheist]

74. Now is the time:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Strong%20Atheist/13

[lindisfarne]

12. This site has a good, section by section analysis of what it really says (it's not kind to the Obama

admin, but they were the ones who chose to write what they did)

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

[Politicub]

16. Can't think of a better way to spit in the gay community's face

Obama is hiding behind the coattails of "the legislature."

Screw this.

[ronnykmarshall]

31. And on the eve of the bulk of the pride celebrations.

Repulsive.

[Mari333]

18. k

[JBear]

20. Sad indeed...

I have spent MANY hours defending this man on his economic issues, his foreign policy issues and many of his social issues. This one really does slap me in the face.

In the 60's churches used their dogma to justify legal denial of mixed race marriage. Loving v. Virginia finally did away with all that nonsense. If "civil unions" were equal, don't you think we would have used them then? Loving V. Virginia is now case law that was put in place by the highest court in the land. It requires all states grant full faith and credit to marriages performed in other states in addition to striking down Virginia's mixed race marriage law.

What about that case do we not understand? That court decision is the precedent that Obama should be arguing to overturn DOMA. Which law trumps which? I would think that the previous court decision should nullify DOMA. What part of "must give full faith and credit" don't they understand?

It is going to be hard for me to defend this man from now on...He is really going to be losing a chunk of his base on this one.

:bounce:

[MasonJar]

21. That does not explain why the administration defends Bush court

appeals which break laws like FISA.

[NorthCarolina]

22. We no longer need to scratch our heads in wonder over why

he has remained so silent on gay issues since taking office.

Video from the campaign trail...The good old days, when Obama was a fierce advocate for the gay community: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001841/

My my, how time can change things. Personally, I supported Kucinich in the primaries, and only voted for Obama as a *lesser of two evils* thing (as it always seems to boil down to for me), so I guess I can't really say I feel "betrayed", as I never expected much from him. In politics, talk is cheap.

[ClarkUSA]

24. "... in the absence of a new law, the government is duty-bound to enforce the laws of the land..."

The Department of Justice insists that Pres. Obama wants Congress to change DOMA... but in the absence of a new law, the government is duty-bound to enforce the laws of the land unless they are clearly unconstitutional... The response from Obama aides has generally been... Trust us. We're doing what we can. We'll get this stuff done. But it will take some time. We've got a lot on our plate.

"Note that the standard for defending a statute, once enacted, is lower than whether, in our judgment, it is constitutional," a senior administration official said. "It is whether there are arguments that can be made. The DOMA statute has been found constitutional by at least 6 courts and has never been struck down. Whatever we think, it would be pretty hard to say that there are not 'reasonable arguments' with that context."

Link: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/obama_admin_hearts_doma_do_gays_still_heart_obama.php

[Jakes Progress]

27. Here's the telling quote from the article you cite.

It is the one that says activists believe that:

Obama thinks the best way to fully integrate gays in the political and social fabric of the country is to do so by building consensus, rather than by setting an example that would expose the president to political risk

[ronnykmarshall]

30. SNAP!

Thanks for pointing that out.

[ClarkUSA]

37. Telling? Not really.

Those "activists" are entitled to their rather predictable opinions. However, they don't change the factual content of what I posted.

[Jakes Progress]

38. Yeah, we don't want any activists out there

pushing for rights. You must really hate people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi and all those misguided souls who fought and died for constitutional rights for all. Them and all their predictable opinions.

[ClarkUSA]

39. lol! You're pasting this strawman argument again? It's as ridiculous now as it was the first time.

Excuse me while I :boring:

[ronnykmarshall]

43. Oh goody .. the famous straw man cop-out

I'm sure you'll pull the "moving goal post" excuse next.

I'm 100% behind the President in his efforts with the economy and I have faith he'll get us out of the wars.

BUT, I am sick and god-damn tired of being "expendable" to the fucking party .... "Oh the gay will vote for us. They just need to back off, when the time is right ..... blah, blah, blah".

It's same shit. Bill Clinton fucked us over with DOMA and DADT and Obama is just pulling the same shit. I try to have faith that Obama will make good, but I'm sick and fucking tired of the same empty lip service when it comes to MY RIGHTS.

Of course WE don't matter, just as long as we write the checks and show up and play nice. But god forbid we express out anger about getting fucked over AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!

[Rockholm]

46. Getting my popcorn out for this one.

Thank you Ronny for making sense where "others" refuse to understand.

[ronnykmarshall]

50. Well *others* don't give a shit and won't admit it.

I just got an email from a group of us 18,000 that got married in California while it was still legal. That was the happiest day of my life. My mom, my step dad, my step mom and one of our best friends were there. It was wonderful. When I was just a little twerp, I didn't really care and just brushed off DOMA and DADT because I was a "good democrat". No more. It's personal now. My rights are just shit per "the party" and the apologist in DU. It's ironic that the fucker in question bitches and moans 24/7 about the evil Clinton's and can't see past his own hate and ignorance to see the Obama is doing just the same as Bill Clinton did when it came to gay rights. But I guess "those people" (the gays) are not part of this so called "progressive" priority list. Fucking asshole.

[HillbillyBob]

70. I agree totally

IM sick and tired of being less than. I am old enough that I got the harassment by th pigs in Montgomery AL for having friends of color, followed day and night, being pulled over, dragged in to the police station being handcuffed to a desk and being told where I wash on such and such a night and who i was seen with.
I dont think I ll be voting for the dimicrats again. I have been loyal for almost 30 years except clintons second run, DOMA and dadt really burned my ass. It still does.
I was one of those thrown out of the Navy, mainly because someone put my name on 'the list' of suspected homos.
I have had guns pointed at me, my home and car vandalized, my person assaulted and had some attempt to kill me on more than one occasion, rocks thrown at me and my home, even an attempted cross burning which would have burned my house.
I have had hospital employees have me escorted out by armed guard because 'we don't serve you aids ridden peepul', I have had my partner kept away from me in hospital because we are not equally human.

[ClarkUSA]

82. It's a fact not "a cop-out". Logical fallacies are easy to spot in baseless rhetoric.

Your attempt to equate Clinton's obvious fuck-ups with President Obama is apples and oranges as well as misguided. Talk to me again in eight years.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

83. No, I am stating facts. If that's bothering you, then you must be against the rule of law, too.

[ooglymoogly]

55. It appears you have been snoozing over just about every

train wreck shredding the constitution O has presided over.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Really? Enlighten me then. What's your proof? I want sourced linked fact not dime a dozen op-eds.

[Jakes Progress]

61. My goodness, clark

it appears many here have your number. Tagged. You let us know when an issue actually means anything to you. We know not to expect you to answer questions about any position you have other than prostrate at the altar.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

87. We all are glad he won.

We just don't feel the need to surrender all of our convictions or principles so that we can prove worthy. We feel like we hired a good guy who needs some guidance in his new job. You feel like you joined a cult. OMMMMMMM.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Ooooh. im's gots a big ol' lizard. Im's so tough now.

I didn't say I joined a cult. I said you thought your had. Obama is our president, not our deity. He screws up. Most of us like having a human for president. Most of us like having this human for president. You seem to need a super-hero to fill your fantasies. It does him no good. You seek to prove your worth to him, but attacking anyone who asks a question or questions an act. Your actions do him and his success more harm than a room full of republicans. But you don't care. You seem to need him to see you as his bestest friend. To do that you vilify almost every Democrat you can. You seek to prove your worth by denigrating those of us who want him to succeed. You seek to find a way to heaven by enumerating the supposed flaws of others. How about actually making some substantive posts about policy and suggesting what direction you think would be best instead of always waiting until Obama does something and automatically naming that the perfect action.

[Swede Atlanta]

25. Obama gets a ZERO rating

He is only marginally better than Bush. I tear up or delete every request for money now. They took my money last year when it was convenient and O could say he supported the rights of gay and lesbian Americans. It is clear he is nothing but Bush in a somewhat darker hide. No difference here. My money, sweat and tears stay with me, not with the Democrats. I will only begin to support them when they do something they promised to do during the campaign. If not I support their challenger next time around. I would prefer honesty than lies.

[Liberalboy]

32. RIght behind you!

[Merryweather]

26. You know what really pisses me off?

That Dick fucking Cheney, Darth Vader himself, has come out in support of gay marriage. And Obama hasn't even done that much. Cheney has been more supportive of gay marriage than Obama at this point, which shows how pathetic our President's been on this issue so far.

But I still have faith that our President will eventually do the right thing, and hopefully sooner rather than later.

[stevietheman]

29. Don't they have to defend federal law?

I say this as a gay man who wants the law repealed.

But it still is the law, and aren't we supposed to live by the rule of law?

[Tesha]

33. No, they don't. (NT)

[NorthernSpy]

35. Yes, they do. The executive branch are not a law unto themselves.

That was the problem of the previous eight years.

[MNBrewer]

51. OBEY is one thing, DEFEND in court, is another

[DissedByBush]

59. He has to

One of his sworn duties is to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

He swore "I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States"

A duty of that office is in Art. II, Sect. 3 "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

Let him work to change it. Until then he is bound by the law. We don't want another Bush who thinks he isn't bound by law.

[mvd]

60. It's not a case of "just following the law"

See my post below. And a Justice Department will always have SOME connection to a President's agenda.

[Political Heretic]

63. You're so cluelessly wrong.

:(

[DissedByBush]

72. Very good evidence and argument behind your assertion

Or, rather, absolutely none.

[Swede Atlanta]

78. Not in agreement with you there....

As an initial matter I would agree with you that the President has a Constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the land. DADT is currently the law of the land. As such he should enforce it. But it is also an historical fact that Presidents often vary in their enforcement of various laws. This can manifest itself in many many ways. It can be in the way they seek funding for a department charged with enforcement, e.g. they can gut funding for the enforcement division of a department and effectively stop enforcing the law of the land. They can also do it in more subtle ways. He could take broad action under the need to restore the U.S. military to:

- Direct the Joint Chiefs to review the policy and impact if the policy were either changed or eliminated as well as outlining a timetable and process for doing so
- Engage with leaders of Congress on both sides to begin discussion on the topic. I think both he and Congress can work on more than one issue at a time. This should at least be set on some type of legislative timetable even if that is this Fall. At least getting it on the calendar would be a signal that there was movement on the issue
- Issue an executive order suspending enforcement of the law given its serious negative affect on the U.S. military's ability to perform its duty. This should be crafted in such a way that it is clear the suspension is part of a larger framework to review and possibly revise or eliminate the policy. Temporarily ceasing enforcement while the matter is under review by Congress is a pragmatic way to proceed.

[QC]

57. Does the law require him to liken us to uncles who fuck their nieces?

I don't recall that part.

[Political Heretic]

62. No. Actually they DO NOT have to do ANYTING in court.

They do NOT have to file briefs defending themselves. If they don't like a law, they can simply say we don't have anything to offer, AND LET THE JUDGE DECIDE.

[mvd]

76. Despite what some say..

the administration had the option to refuse to argue the constitutionality of the law. They didn't take that option. Now I don't agree with sending Obama a flip flop card (there are more constructive ways of getting the point across,) but here's the argument:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/obama-dont-defend-doma_b_205615.html

[Starry Messenger]

96. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

God I'm glad you're gone.

[sarcasmo]

40. Blast away.

[TankLV]

47. Good - keep the PRESSURE ON!!!

Just because it's Obama - there's NO EXCUSES!!!

He pulled this crap during the primaries, and we just KNEW he'd be no friend to GBLT - and it all started with the fucking mcgurkin or whatever the fucking asshole's name was - and I don't care enough about that asshole to care what his name really is...

[Clintonista2]

53. Hate to say I told you so

[Infinite Hope]

54. It's his duty to execute the laws on the books. I don't have an issue as long as he upholds his

campaign promise.

[mvd]

56. See this post - there's more to it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5835553&mesg_id=5836037

Now maybe he will make statements of his own and use the bully pulpit. But right now, I can see the disappointment.

[Political Heretic]

64. This has ZERO to do with executing the law. The DOJ is not bound by anything to make arguments

..in court.

Arguments in court are not about "executing the law."

If the Administration wanted to, the DOJ could file NOTHING and simply LET THE JUDGE DECIDE!


God, people can't afford to be this stupid.

[Zhade]

68. FUCK YOU, Obama, you fucking BIGOT

NT!

[TankLV]

95. My words exactly...

[Vidar]

69. Good, Obama deserves the heat.

[mvd]

75. I hope to hear something from Obama, as he and the DOJ..

were not required to do this. This defense might sometimes be valid, but not in this one.

[ClarkUSA]

71. Um, Obama is NOT defending DOMA. By law, the DoJ does NOT communicate w/Pres. Obama on cases.

Despite all the hoopla, the assertion that "Obama defends DOMA" simply is NOT true.

You see, the Department of Justice has a legal obligation to defend the United States when it is a party to a criminal or civil action. This has already been pointed out by some people and promptly dismissed by those determined to lay all the blame on Obama, however, try to deny that truth as one might, it is the truth.

This is laid out under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

•the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
•the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
•the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/index.html

But....but....but it's still Obama's fault! It had to be cleared with Obama! Obama had to have OKed the brief! Obama's hand is all over this! Obama hates the gays........

WRONG!

You see, under The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys Manual, TITLE 1; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/title1.htm), there is a section titled "Department of Justice Communications with the White House" (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/doj00032.htm).

It reads, under Section 32:

It is imperative that there be public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an impartial manner. To that end, all components of the Department of Justice, including United States Attorneys' Offices, shall abide by the following procedures governing communication between the Department of Justice and the White House.

<...>

Pending Civil Investigations and Cases

The Department shall provide the White House with information about pending civil investigations or cases only when doing so is important for the performance of the President's duties and appropriate from a law enforcement or litigation perspective. Except with respect to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern a pending civil investigation or a case pending at the trial level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and either the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or the Office of the Associate Attorney General, all initial communications that concern or may concern a civil case pending at the appellate level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, or the Office of the Solicitor General. If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel to the President and the senior Justice Department official with whom the White House is dealing will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between the White House and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter.

What does that mean? Well, it means pretty much what it says. In order to keep politics out of the process, the Department of Justice does NOT consult with the President, nor does it asks for the President's permission, nor does it brief the President in legal matters in which the United States is a party unless it "is important for the performance of the President's duties" or deals with "national security matters."

There is absolutely no concerted effort by President Obama or the Obama Administration to deny gay people anything, or to defend DOMA.

Simply put, it's just governmental business as usual, meaning the Department of Justice is simply doing what it is required BY LAW to do.

[readmoreoften]

89. I look forward to him standing up and criticizing this outrage.

:rofl:

Apologist.

[Jakes Progress]

92. There is nothing - nothing -

that Obama can do to disappoint his chief apologists.

You wonder how much good these guys think they are doing for Obama. I voted for him. I want him to get it right. He told me he would want to hear from me when I disagreed with him, but some here think our president is too delicate, too fragile to be argued with. They give him nothing he can do anything with.

I too would welcome his communicating on this issue. This is a screw-up that can become an opportunity. If Rahm lets Obama just sit this out, they are not only showing that they are wrong-headed or weak, but they are missing a golden opportunity to display moral courage and strength.

[IndianaGreen]

94. Obama fails to uphold the law by not prosecuting the torturers and Bush war criminals

yet he oozes homophobia by defending DOMA.

I want my money back!