Obama US Attorney expected to stand behind federal gay marriage ban, plaintiffs say

[nightrain]

White House declines comment;

Political implications could be enormous

The gay rights law group that convinced a federal district court judge Thursday to strike down a federal ban on gay marriage has told the New York Times they "fully expect" the Justice Department to appeal the decision -- a move that could shatter Obama's image in the gay community and cost his party millions of dollars in donations from gay donors.

"Lawyers on various sides of the issue said it was a certainty that the government will appeal and likely that the cases will reach the Supreme Court," Politico added Friday.

Such an appeal would be filed by the Obama-appointed US Attorney Carmen Milagros Ortiz, who was confirmed last November by the Senate.

In an email Friday, a White House spokesperson told Raw Story, "This is a question for the Justice Department."
------

source--

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0709/obama-attorney-expected-stand-federal-gay-marriage-ban-lawyers/

------

Wouldn't that just be a kick in the gut if the WH attempts to stand behind the ban?!

Such a very mixed bag, this Administration....

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but...

...one of the things I heard when the McDonald v Chicago ruling was handed down that the ruling allowed dems to stop playing for gun control votes because they could point to the ruling, shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, I wanted to but the courts tied our hands."

Well...

...WTH can't the administration say this court ruling leads them to endorse equal rights?

Why?

Someone explain this to me please.

If anyone tried to say Obama was a homophobe I'd laugh at them and if they tried to say Obama is trying to gain points with the right I'd laugh at Obama.

Can anyone make sense of this?

[Abq_Sarah]

5. This case is limited

Because it only applies to Massachusetts. The government has to appeal to get it through the circuit court and on to the Supreme court.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Even still...

...the ruling is the perfect opportunity for the administration to politically back equal rights.

[nightrain]

10. yes, if they will. This could be a watershed moment for a lot of Dems.

[jberryhill]

14. By keeping it confined to Massachusetts?

What do you have against equal rights in Iowa?

They don't deserve them, so this case should remain limited to Massachusetts? Is that what you want?

[polmaven]

15. The president has ALREADY "backed" equal rights.

Not appealing this decision would guarantee that UNequal rights continue in the rest of the country. I'm sure that is not what you would prefer.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Does that mean that Kagan will argue against the lifting of the ban of DOMA?

[dragonlady]

4. Kagan will be listening to the argument of the case

It wouldn't reach the Supreme Court for quite a while, and by then someone else would be solicitor general.

[jberryhill]

13. Do you want this ruling to apply in Iowa or not?

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Unless this decision goes to the SCOTUS it means nothing.

Even then, what it does is keep the definition of marriage in the hands of the states, that can outlaw gay marriage whenever a Republican administration takes over.

[Abq_Sarah]

7. This isn't a good case

To take to the supreme court.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. That may be true...it is mostly a states rights case. n/t

[jberryhill]

12. No, it doesn't

This case is about the requirement that the federal government recognize existing lawful marriages.

It was not about whom can marry in the first place.

I can't believe how many people don't grasp that.

The point is that the federal government MUST accept state determinations of who IS married, and that the federal government must apply equal protection to persons ALREADY married.

This case was in no way about the power of states to determine who cannot get married in the first place.

The plaintiffs in this case were already married. They were not being denied the right to marry. They were being denied federal recognition of their lawful state marriage.

[Smashcut]

11. Well what a surprise

:eyes: