Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to appeal federal judge’s ruling striking down Defense of Marriage Act (Who woulda thunk?)
Hotair ^ | 10/13/2010 | Allahpundit

Posted on 10/13/2010 1:47:40 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Why does the president hate gay marriage?

The Obama administration decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge’s rulings that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama’s traditional liberal base ahead of a key election.

The Obama administration filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, that barred gay marriages, even though Obama had previously opposed the law…

“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

Traditionally, but not always. Ever heard of the case Dickerson v. United States? Andy McCarthy mentioned it this morning at the Corner but I’d already thought of it myself in this context. In a nutshell, shortly after the Supreme Court’s famous ruling in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, Congress tried to eliminate the Miranda warnings on grounds that they weren’t really based on the Constitution and therefore could be overridden by federal legislation. The statute that Congress ended up passing was almost never enforced afterward, but finally it came before the Rehnquist Court in 2000. The defendant, an accused bank robber, argued that incriminating statements he had made to the cops should be tossed out of court because he wasn’t given his Miranda warnings. The DOJ — which should have argued that no warnings were required thanks to the federal statute that Congress had passed — sided with the defendant and argued that the statute was unconstitutional. The Rehnquist Court actually had to appoint a third-party lawyer to defend the law because the DOJ wouldn’t do it. (If this sounds vaguely familiar in the gay marriage context, there’s a very good reason.) Long story short, then — yes, it’s customary for the Justice Department to defend federal laws, but if they feel strongly that a particular statute is unconstitutional, they can pass on it. In which case, what’s The One’s excuse for appealing here?

My guess as to his strategy here is that he’s going to split the baby. He’ll appeal this ruling in order to placate indies and black voters who oppose gay marriage and/or are leery about judges “legislating from the bench,” and then he’ll announce that he won’t appeal yesterday’s DADT ruling in order to placate the lefties and young voters whom he needs to turn out next month. That makes good sense from a polling standpoint, actually: Gay marriage is increasingly a 50/50 issue whereas large majorities are already in favor of repealing DADT. If you have to take a chance politically on either one, the latter’s your best bet. Just one question: Isn’t “don’t ask, don’t tell” also a federal statute? As such, according to the DOJ’s own logic here, aren’t they duty bound to appeal yesterday’s decision now? I think the left’s going to want some answers. Make popcorn!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: barneyfrank; defenseofmarriage; gay; gaymarriage; massachusetts; obama; seanbielat

1 posted on 10/13/2010 1:47:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It will be very half hearted at best.


2 posted on 10/13/2010 1:49:43 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama never was in favor of gay marriage, so far as I know. Certianly I’ve heard him specifically repudiate it. You can assume it’s an artificial position, a ruse to cover his true feelings. But hey, he’s never backed down.

“Why does the president hate gay marriage?”

Doesn’t he claim to be a Christian?


3 posted on 10/13/2010 1:51:35 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Yeah for Obama!...no wait....what?

(Now I will go pull my hair out trying to figure what this move means.)

4 posted on 10/13/2010 1:52:26 PM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

I think so too.

With the current and much played in the MSM of the mis-steps of the current AG, Eric Holder, this Administration must seem to be upholding some federal laws.

It has sure trashed enough of them!


5 posted on 10/13/2010 1:54:09 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is what’s known as a SCAM!!!!


6 posted on 10/13/2010 2:00:02 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

“(Now I will go pull my hair out trying to figure what this move means.)”

It means he can play games with gays because they have no where else to go, and look somewhat presidential. Doubt he will stick to it, but for the next 3 weeks he will play the part.


7 posted on 10/13/2010 2:00:44 PM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

It’s come to a point where when he does something we agree with, we cannot help but ask ourselves : “Is there an ulterior motive behind this?”

TO those of you who suspect that he’s a closet Muslim, well, this act should not come as a surprise does it?


8 posted on 10/13/2010 2:01:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Yes, it is likely to be a blocking move in some way. Would it preempt other arguments in appeal against this bad ruling?


9 posted on 10/13/2010 2:02:01 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think Obama was never particularly a promoter of gay marriage, probably because he realized that this was an issue that might have gotten in his way during the campaign and even later might have prevented all the Dems in Congress from going along with him on other issues.

Curiously, the gays have never called him to account for it - I guess they understand it as a pragmatic issue.

IIRC, however, he was or implied that he was in favor of dropping DADT. But I think he realizes, again, that this is not the time to pursue it.


10 posted on 10/13/2010 2:04:14 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is a set up. They will appeal (poorly) and lose.


11 posted on 10/13/2010 2:06:09 PM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
My guess as to his strategy here is that he’s going to split the baby.

My guess as to his strategy is that the Obama administration is going to appeal this ruling to defend the current military policy about homosexuals in the military, and then RIGHTLY point out that they are defending the current policy against a lawsuit that was filed by Log Cabin REPUBLICANS seeking to overturn it.

12 posted on 10/13/2010 2:07:56 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I don't think he is a Muslim...I think he cares too much about himself to have faith in anything.

I do, however, see him as very effeminate, with a very strained, contrived deep voice that sounds learned or rehearsed.

Obama's audience always seems to be somewhere other than the US...he is probably still trying to avoid the appearance of being weak to middle-easterners. The buzz lately is that he is bisexual.

13 posted on 10/13/2010 2:12:44 PM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Look, he could simply be self dsetructing and doing what he can to throw his weight around while he still can. It’s not because he cares, but because he CAN. or that he is able. he’s been lashing out at the Chamber of Commerce now, demanding to see their list of donors. No ulterior motive, but a power play.


14 posted on 10/13/2010 2:26:19 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
It will be very half hearted at best.

My thoughts exactly.The lawyer in charge of any challenge that might be filed will be expected to,in effect,make it oh-so-easy for the court to reject it as "ludicrous".

15 posted on 10/13/2010 2:38:17 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“My guess as to his strategy here is that he’s going to split the baby. He’ll appeal this ruling in order to placate indies and black voters who oppose gay marriage and/or are leery about judges “legislating from the bench,” and then he’ll announce that he won’t appeal yesterday’s DADT ruling in order to placate the lefties and young voters whom he needs to turn out next month. “

This reasoning is too complicated. What about invoking “ocums razor”. He opposes gay marriage because he is a closet Muslim and he is simply invoking Sharia law. Remember, he also gave Muslims an exemption to 0bamacare, and he supports the GZ mosque despite public opposition.


16 posted on 10/13/2010 2:40:45 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
and then he’ll announce that he won’t appeal yesterday’s DADT ruling

This I find hard to believe could happen because I doubt that One believes that "Commander-in-Chief" is just an honorific.

17 posted on 10/13/2010 2:57:41 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

“This reasoning is too complicated. What about invoking “ocums razor”. He opposes gay marriage because he is a closet Muslim and he is simply invoking Sharia law. Remember, he also gave Muslims an exemption to 0bamacare, and he supports the GZ mosque despite public opposition.”

I think you are part right. Blacks also don’t care much for gays, and Obamao might be playing to them.

My favorite is that Obamao is trying to distance himself from his own bi-sexual past, and this is part of that effort. There are stories yet to come out about the gay bathhouse in Chicago he and Rahm frequented.


18 posted on 10/13/2010 3:25:17 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t think I like the idea of entrusting the defense of the hen house to the fox that seeks to eat the hens.

IE I don’t think I like the idea of Obama defending the Defense of marriage act.


19 posted on 10/13/2010 6:43:28 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge's rulings that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama's traditional liberal base ahead of a key election
Gosh, it's almost as if he has an ulterior motive -- or more than one.

Quibble -- Zero doesn't have a traditional anything, other than the traditional attachments of all left-wingers and Muzzie jihadists.

Thanks SeekAndFind.
20 posted on 10/13/2010 6:58:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

It might be that Michelle’s the one to whom he’s trying to prove something with this position?


21 posted on 10/13/2010 10:16:12 PM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pallis

It might be that Michelle’s the one to whom he’s trying to prove something with this position.


22 posted on 10/13/2010 10:16:50 PM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pallis

It might be that Michelle’s the one to whom he’s trying to prove something with this position.


23 posted on 10/13/2010 10:16:50 PM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He is void of morals....he is a Marxist who hates the traditional family—his own family abandoned him. His father was a polygamist. He if for homosexual marriage...anything to destroy all remnants of Christianity that dominated and shaped Western Civilization.

There is just a political motive here, nothing else. Someone told him to do it and the puppet is doing what he’s told. He is not making the decisions.


24 posted on 10/13/2010 11:29:55 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson