Skip to comments.Obama to appeal federal judge’s ruling striking down Defense of Marriage Act (Who woulda thunk?)
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“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.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!
It will be very half hearted at best.
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?
(Now I will go pull my hair out trying to figure what this move means.)
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!
This is what’s known as a SCAM!!!!
“(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.
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?
Yes, it is likely to be a blocking move in some way. Would it preempt other arguments in appeal against this bad ruling?
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.
It is a set up. They will appeal (poorly) and lose.
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.
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.
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.
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".
“My guess as to his strategy here is that hes going to split the baby. Hell 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 hell announce that he wont appeal yesterdays 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.
This I find hard to believe could happen because I doubt that One believes that "Commander-in-Chief" is just an honorific.
“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.
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.
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 electionGosh, it's almost as if he has an ulterior motive -- or more than one.
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.