Coalition of LGBT groups and ACLU issue statement condemning Obama administration re: DOMA

[Bluebear]

A coalition of LGBT groups have issued a joint statement condemning the Obama administration's motion to dismiss a challenge to the Defense Of Marriage Act. Via press release:

We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

We disagree with many of the administration's arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress's power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental. We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be "neutral" with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states.

There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government's discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of "neutrality" ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive. It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.

When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.

Signed:
American Civil Liberties Union
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Even happier to be marching with the ACLU at Pride tomorrow!

K&R

[bluestateguy]

2. Deleted (Wrong Thread)

[nichomachus]

3. And this is apropps of what?

I think it belongs in its own thread

[Bluebear]

9. .

[Bluebear]

4. What an odd response

[bluestateguy]

11. Oops

I had multiple threads open and was doing some cutting and pasting. That post was obviously misplaced.

[sabbat hunter]

5. I am against DOMA

but isn't the justice department legally obligated to defend existing federal laws, even if they are wrong?

[redqueen]

6. No. (nt)

[NavyDavy]

38. yes it is....you can't pick and choose what laws to enforce....saying

"no" to that is just ignorant..

[redqueen]

39. Yes, sorry.

I'd seen a post elsewhere in which it was pointed out that other presidents had done it for other cases... so I thought that in fact was the case. (I think it was in Avrosis's blog... not sure though)

Later on, I saw sandnsea explain the difference between those cases and this one.

Sorry for the confusion.


On edit, yes, it was in the blog.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5832231&mesg_id=5834350

[Bluebear]

7. What would your comment be if it were McCain's DOJ filing this?

Just curious!

[county worker]

15. That's saying that the duties of the DOJ change with who ever is in the White House.

[Bluebear]

18. My question is not "saying" anything, it asked a question, "firece advocate" of ours.

[county worker]

24. The question is a statement. You are begging the question.

[Bluebear]

25. You have so far called me a whiner & thinking that gays are the only ones that have it tough

We are through for today. Go peddle it somewhere else.

[struggle4progress]

28. Perhaps you could link to your comments on W. Scott Simpson's briefs during the Bush era?

Just curious!

[sabbat hunter]

50. I would be

pissed as hell, just as I am now. I want this law overturned either by court action or by congress. I think I would be more pissed because McCain supports DOMA and voted for it.

[county worker]

14. I think so

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is a Cabinet department in the United States government designed to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans (see 28 U.S.C. § 501). The DOJ is administered by the United States Attorney General (see 28 U.S.C. § 503), one of the original members of the cabinet

Duties
Responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of federal laws.
Represents the United States in all legal matters, including cases before the Supreme Court.
Enforces all immigration laws, provides information, and processes applications for citizenship
Maintains the federal prison system, halfway houses, and community programs

[Ms. Toad]

32. They did not have to file a motion to dismiss.

Or make such offensive arguments. If you read carefully, that is what the GLBT groups are saying.

[mvd]

40. Right

That is where I disagree with the DOJ's approach. I hope Obama didn't know about such language.

[Ms. Toad]

43. Unfortunately, absent malpractice,

one of his hand picked appointees did - Tony West was selected by Obama in March-ish. His name is on the brief.

[ClarkUSA]

51. For the record: the DoJ DID NOT compare Gay marriage to Incest

irst 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

[Ms. Toad]

55. Did I say it did? Anywhere? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

52. "... 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

[Ms. Toad]

53. Enforcing the law is not the same as

filing a motion to dismiss. (Besides which, this case is not an "enforcing the law" case - it is a defense of the law case) Misstatement of the posture of the government aside, in either case motions to dismiss are entirely optional, and even so I would not have objected to filing one to address defenses which are waived if not filed before the responsive pleading.

What I object to is the content of this particular motion, and addressing (in an offensive way) issues that are not even appropriate for dismissal, and may not be appropriate for summary judgment (the next pre-trial dispositive motions) in the first place because they require the Court to go beyond the pleadings, and require evaluation of factual evidence about which which there will be material disputes.

[Ms. Toad]

31. When an appeal brief is filed, the defendant

has a certain time period to file a response. If it does not, the Court may issue a default judgment for the other side. There are arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether the AAG's office should or should not file a responsive brief (I tend to lean toward them filing, and using their responsive brief to try to shape the order to minimize the impact of DOMA while fulfilling their legal obligation to defend the laws of the country).

This is a different matter, though. This is a motion to dismiss which affirmatively defend DOMA on ridiculous and offensive grounds. Motions to dismiss are ALWAYS optional - no need to file anything. In addition, if they had waited until the appeal brief was filed, they would be responding to arguments made (and could do so in a way that addressed the limited subset of arguments made by those opposing DOMA). With a motion to dismiss, they are creating the arguments - so the fact that they created these offensive arguments when they could have remained silent (or responded solely to arguments raised by the opponents of DOMA) is all the more abhorrent.

[glitch]

34. A lot of people aren't seeming to get this, perhaps you should post it as an OP. nt

[NavyDavy]

37. they are obligated to enforce laws that are on the books....its not

the law enforcement agencies to make the laws just enforce them

[Bluebear]

54. Are they enforcing war crimes and torture laws?

[LooseWilly]

8. I wonder how many have noted that it is essentially Michael Steele's argument being argued?

Michael Steele's version:

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

Hmm... that sounds an awful lot like the DoJ defense...

[Solly Mack]

10. K&R

[JeffreyWilliamson]

12. How much you want to bet next time an invite to the White House arrives...

All these groups show up and smile for the cameras. Especially the HRC. Reminds me that I need to change my avatar.

When are these groups going to stand up and loudly state with one voice: "No more. Fully equality now. Period."

I'd like to see that at this point. I'd like to see them follow up by slamming down the phone whenever anyone in Congress or the White House calls. I'd like to see a news conference where they clearly state that from now on they will spend whatever it takes to defeat anyone who goes against full equality in every election cycle--no compromises. And then I'd like them to follow that announcement up with a non-stop commercial ad blitz slamming the Obama administration on all of this--DADT, DOMA, Warren, all of it. They should hang these things around Obama's neck like an albatros and force him to publicly answer it for once. Let them know that until they do something it WILL NOT STOP.

And we should start protesting publicly around the clock as individuals. Sit-ins, marches, even just a few of us at random intersections with flags and signs, EVERY DAY, all of us calling local news stations, EVERY DAY, for coverage of it. Make EVERY DAY a Pride parade for our rights.

I have to go pick up a car from the mechanics so I'll leave the rant at that.

[Bluebear]

13. That's why my donations go to the ACLU now

[nichomachus]

16. O-M-F-G -- They put a Mormon in charge of writing the brief!!!!!

They put a fucking Mormon in charge of the DOMA case. The guy who they let write this brief is a goddamned Mormon.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Evagenealogy/about_me.htm

This is beyond contempt. Seriously, this is like letting a white supremacist handle a racial equality case.

[Bluebear]

17. GOOD GRAVY!! Pour a little more salt in our wounds

[nichomachus]

19. I'm sure whoever did that got a real laugh out of it

Ha ha ha -- we'll show those faggots not to mess with us.

[bicentennial_baby]

20. Holy crap...

:banghead:

[redqueen]

21. "They"? Didn't you mean to say "Obama put a Mormon in charge ..."?

[struggle4progress]

22. Scott Simpson is a common name. Are you sure this is "W. Scott Simpson"?

Accuracy matters in these fights

[bicentennial_baby]

29. Well, his page says he's a U.S. gov't attorney

[FreeState]

30. Here's his personal website - yes he is one and the same

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vagenealogy/about_me.htm

Thank you for visiting my site, "Scott Simpson's Virginia Genealogy"! I was born in Virginia, graduated from high school in Virginia, and attended the University of Virginia. (Notice a certain theme here?) While growing up, I often visited my grandparents and other relatives in and around Charlottesville and Waynesboro, Virginia.

I now live with my best friend -- who, thankfully, is also my wife -- and with our four delightful children (plus a dog, a cat, a bird, and some goldfish). Our youngest child was born in China. The story of her adoption, including our daily travel journal from May 2005, is here. At work, I'm an attorney with the United States government. Gustatorily, I'm absolutely crazy about Indian food; here's a list of most of the thirty or so Indian restaurants I've tried.

I still can not find out who appointed him though...

[struggle4progress]

35. Thanks. W. Scott Simpson has been handling such cases for DOJ since at least 2004

[roughsatori]

23. KICK NT

[Starry Messenger]

26. I have no words.

:grr:

[NavyDavy]

41. so now you guys are discriminating against a person just because hes Mormon?

sounds what you guys are doing is exactly what they are doing to you all...IMO.....Just because hes a Mormon doesn't mean he won't do a good job.....

[Bluebear]

44. The Mormon CHurch was largely behind funding Prop 8, if you're interested

[bluedawg12]

49. The Assist. Atty. Gen. Filed the motion and he was hand picked.

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/01/president-ap... /

President Appoints Tony West as Asst. Attorney General, Civil Division
Posted by keith on Friday, January 23, 2009 

President Barack Obama yesterday announced his nomination of Morrison & Foerster partner Tony West to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.

"I am grateful to have these distinguished individuals joining my administration, and I have the greatest confidence that their service will meet the highest standards of this department," said President Obama. "The American people deserve to have faith that their Justice Department will keep them safe and uphold our most basic rights. This group has the depth of experience and integrity necessary to accomplish these goals."

"Tony has been an outstanding leader in the firm," said Steven M. Kaufmann, the Chair of Morrison & Foerster's Litigation Department in a statement. "He is a tremendous trial lawyer, mentor, and colleague. We will miss Tony as our partner, but are proud that he will bring the skill, values, and dedication that he demonstrated at Morrison & Foerster to the service of the American people. The Justice Department gains a tireless public servant and talented lawyer."

Tony has been a longtime supporter of the Equal Justice Society. In 2006, he hosted at MoFo and emceed a packed gathering of summer law firm associates to introduce them to the Rollback Campaign. EJS organized and promoted the event.

All of us at EJS congratulate Tony on his appointment and wish him the best at DOJ.

Going against the EJS?

EJS:

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/grandalliance /

Marriage Equality
 Submitted an amicus brief in support of the California Supreme Court's decision to affirm the right to marry for same sex couples

[kevinbgoode]

46. Hmm...well, Mormon is a CHOSEN lifestyle which dictates

that they campaign against the constitutional rights of gay citizens. Seems to me the guy could make other choices, couldn't he?

[Starry Messenger]

48. Oh, yes.

I'm exactly as bigoted as all the church members who put Prop 8 on the ballot, vocally trash gay marriage, and funded a crappy theocratic law to amend the CA state legislature to the tune of several million. His rights are now in jeopardy now that I've expressed my pique at his presence in this on DU.

[Bluebear]

56. :)

[rockymountaindem]

27. Maybe the furor over this will be the moment when Obama realize he's got to get on board

We can hope...

[nichomachus]

36. Assuming Obama is in charge

People -- even in the party -- are beginning to think that someone else is calling the shots in the White House. I have a friend who is very active in Dem politics at the state committee and national level. Here's what he wrote me today:

It looks like to me that Obama is not in control of his own White House! I don't trust Emmanuel as far as I can throw him. With continuing in Afghanistan, 22,000 new troops, and now this, Obama is not running his administration.

This is from a guy who sleeps, eats, and breathes Democratic Party politics and serves, and has served, on numerous state committees, as well as national.

[NavyDavy]

42. that is so much B.S. President Obama is not shrub and just because

he isn't doing every little thing some Dems want doesn't mean someone else is controlling him....so many chicken littles on DU lately....

[Bluebear]

45. 'every little thing some Dems want' - DADT and DOMA are not "every little thing" to us, thank you.

[bluedawg12]

47. One person's civil rights is a privileged person's "every little thing."

Thanks for the laugh.

[Critters2]

33. Hmmm...this isn't what I would've thought a "fierce advocate"

would look like at all. :grr: