US Attorney General's Brief to dismiss the challenge to DOMA in the Supreme Court.

[Pure]

This document, presumably reflecting the official administration position and that of Obama, is often referred to and is the object of much controversy and comment in other threads. [[Added: Its immediate object is to have the federal District Court refuse to consider the plaintiff's issues with DOMA.]] Its ultimate object, would appear to be to have the federal courts and finally the Supreme Court, should matters go that far, leave the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted under Clinton, unaltered and in place. For those interested: it's 50 odd pages.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

[front page]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[front page]

In US District Ct
Central Dist of CA
Southern Div.
A Smelt and C Hammer v.
US of A
and Does 1-1000


Case No SACV 09-00286 Doc (MLGx)
Defendant US of A,
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss,
Date Aug 3, 2009

 

[Safe_Bet]

Pure: Help me make sure that I understand all of this crap...

The governments case is twofold -

a. You can't sue us unless we SAY you can sue us, and we haven't... so you can't! (insert petulant frown and stomping foot here ---> ...")

and

b. Even though the lynch mob has put a noose around our necks, thrown the rope over the nearest tree and hauled our asses up on a stool, we can't call it a lynching until they actually kick the stool out from under us... so stop your bitching, until you are actually dead!

Have I got that right???

 

[Pure]

a main point of the brief. note to safe.

safe, yes, the gist is somewhat as you suggest:

the brief argues that the plaintiffs have not been injured in a way that would entitle them to relief by the federal courts. the brief argues that, since gay couples may marry in some states [other states being free to enact similar legislation] and nothing happens if they move elsewhere, that they are NOT in the same boat as the Loving couple, whose "injury" moved the Supreme Court to act:

in that case, a Virginian couple (Virginia being a state that banned interracial marriages), a black woman and a white man, travelled to the District of Columbia, which did not ban interracial marriages, were married, then returned to Virginia. They were arrested in their home, tried, and sent to prison on grounds that the Virginia law forbidding interracial marriages, further prohibited such couples from marrying outside Virginia and returning (in the expectation that the marriage would be recognized as valid).

 

[Boxlicker101]

This document, presumably reflecting the official administration position and that of Obama, is often referred to and is the object of much controversy and comment in other threads. Its object is to have the Supreme Court leave the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted under Clinton, in place. For those interested: it's 50 odd pages.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

So, why are you acting surprised? Obama has never said anything good about gay marriage and he hasn't done anything to eliminate DADT. As CIC, he could do the latter on his own and he could do it any time he wanted to.

In fairness, I must say that McCain wouldn't be doing anything different. People just wouldn't act surprised about it.

 

[Pure]

box,

i'm simply posting a link and some information.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

Oh! McCain woulda been an embarrassment walking around in a tux and kneepads.

 

[3113]

So, why are you acting surprised? Obama has never said anything good about gay marriage and he hasn't done anything to eliminate DADT.

Granted. Though I'd like to note that DOMA brief was written by:

From here:

W Scott Simpson, a Bush administration holdover....The harsh rhetoric, the gratuitous attacks...were written by someone who was given an award by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

Now, of course, the point of the brief was to "defend" DOMA and there's no way to do that without being offensive, but certainly this homophobic hold over is going to be more absurdly offensive on that score than most. Nevertheless, the government is being challenged on this law, and it had only two choices: Either not defend DOMA in court, or defend it and present an offensive (has to be right?) argument because an offensive argument is the only defense. They went for the second.

It's possible Obama (or those he put in charge of the Department of Justice) went for the second because while it is a crappy law, it is yet the law of the land and he promised that he wouldn't do what George Bush did (and was roundly criticized for): using politics to pick and choose which laws the U.S. will enforce and, if challenged on them, defend.

I'm not certain if this was why the brief was filed in all it's offensive glory, or if it was filed because Obama actually supports it, or if it was a major faux pas on someone's part (i.e., Obama didn't want them to defend it but it happened anyway). While I think filing any brief in favor of DOMA was a mistake, and while I think that any kind of sorry or explanation is going to be little more than a band-aid on this wound (and that includes the courts throwing out DOMA because the brief is so absurd), I'd still like a little more information on why it happened from the horse's mouth before I pass judgement.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113

Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Your ox is gored and you dont like it. Perfectly understandable.

But youre not Queen of the Universe who gets to sort shit out. The vote was taken and you lost.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Believe it or not, I still trust Obama. I have not forgotten the fiasco that george clinton made out of healthcare reform-- the fallout from that brought him crashing down.

Obama wants these changes to come through Congressional legislation, so that they are genuinely the 'voice of the people' not presidential fiat which could be construed as dictatorship.
And I think he's very well aware of the ugly and inaccurate opinions expressed in that brief, which have galvanised people like Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin back into action.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not giving up either.

 

[Pure]

Info on the document

[front page]

In US District Ct
Central Dist of CA
Southern Div.
A Smelt and C Hammer v.
US of A
and Does 1-1000


Case No SACV 09-00286 Doc (MLGx)
Defendant US of A,
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss,
Date Aug 3, 2009

 

[Stella_Omega]

A 'motion to dismiss' can be declined by the court, right?

 

[Pure]

yes,

the motion to dismiss can be denied, which means the Supreme Ct [correction: District Ct] would hear the matter. [[added: which then might end up before the Supreme Ct.]] (note the Bush appointees on the SC, however).

however the brief says, besides 'you should dismiss', 'you should decline to reject DOMA, taking that position based on the merits'.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If the government cant define marriage, it cant define anything. The 14th Amendment doesnt mandate anarchy in the name of equality.

Was it the 26th Amendment that lowered the legal age to vote? Before 1970 some states let you vote younger than 21, but not many. And just because you could vote at 18 in Georgia didnt mean you could vote in the adjacent states at 18.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

While I favor most of what Obama is doing over what I would have expected McCain to do (and definitely over what Palin might have done if McCain died in office) on the issue of gay rights, I'm not optimistic. The entirety of the African-American Equal Rights movement in the 60's and afterwards was securely anchored in the Black Christian churches. And it is within the Black Christian churches that some of the most fervent anti-gay marriage voters exist. If African-Americans, including several of my friends, had not come out in strength to help elect Obama, Prop 8 would have been defeated. Obama cannot come out strongly in favor of equity for GLBT rights without being labeled as an 'Oreo', a white man with dark skin by those who most enthusiastically supported him. It will be up to the various federal courts to whittle away at DOMA, district by district, until enough conflicting opinions arise to force the USSC to act. Then look for a 5-4 decision, one way or another.

The chances of Pelosi and Reid showing enough backbone to reverse DOMA through legislation range from slim to none.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Gays conveniently forget that America is in a serious economic depression. No one gives a fuck about their druthers right now. Plus, in 2010 gays will vote for Democrats, just like they will in 2012. You guys arent fleeing the plantation, theres plenty of time to pacify you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If the government cant define marriage, it cant define anything. The 14th Amendment doesnt mandate anarchy in the name of equality.

Was it the 26th Amendment that lowered the legal age to vote? Before 1970 some states let you vote younger than 21, but not many. And just because you could vote at 18 in Georgia didnt mean you could vote in the adjacent states at 18.

As I recall, back then the 18 year old voters could vote in state elections but not federal. That kept GA and the other state, which was also in the south, from having influence out of proportion to the population.

 

[Boxlicker101]

While I favor most of what Obama is doing over what I would have expected McCain to do (and definitely over what Palin might have done if McCain died in office) on the issue of gay rights, I'm not optimistic. The entirety of the African-American Equal Rights movement in the 60's and afterwards was securely anchored in the Black Christian churches. And it is within the Black Christian churches that some of the most fervent anti-gay marriage voters exist. If African-Americans, including several of my friends, had not come out in strength to help elect Obama, Prop 8 would have been defeated. Obama cannot come out strongly in favor of equity for GLBT rights without being labeled as an 'Oreo', a white man with dark skin by those who most enthusiastically supported him. It will be up to the various federal courts to whittle away at DOMA, district by district, until enough conflicting opinions arise to force the USSC to act. Then look for a 5-4 decision, one way or another.

The chances of Pelosi and Reid showing enough backbone to reverse DOMA through legislation range from slim to none.

Being from San Francisco, a large part of Pelosi's constituency is gay. That might give her a little more backbone.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Being from San Francisco, a large part of Pelosi's constituency is gay. That might give her a little more backbone.

No, Pelosi is from the peninsula north of San Francisco, a community of limousine liberals who are appalled by the antics of The City. Besides, she'd originally from Maryland or Delaware or something and she's Catholic. The only thing she knows about backbone is how to swing it when there's spite to be paid off.

 

[TE999]

Anyone remember the ERA? That was promoted heavily and the rhetoric was thunderous, yet it died a dogs death. That had all the feminists behind it and supposedly 'Americas' Women' and it wasn't enough.

The GLBT folks aren't enough of a voting bloc to make an impression on Congress or the White House, therefore nothing will happen to derail DOMA. The GLBT votes were assiduously courted with appropriate rhetoric...then duly forgotten once they were tallied.

Maybe something will be done later when the Prez and Congress aren't so darn busy remaking America...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Anyone remember the ERA? That was promoted heavily and the rhetoric was thunderous, yet it died a dogs death. That had all the feminists behind it and supposedly 'Americas' Women' and it wasn't enough.

The GLBT folks aren't enough of a voting bloc to make an impression on Congress or the White House, therefore nothing will happen to derail DOMA. The GLBT votes were assiduously courted with appropriate rhetoric...then duly forgotten once they were tallied.

Maybe something will be done later when the Prez and Congress aren't so darn busy remaking America...

But in the end, just about everything the ERA was supposed to make happen happened without it. I don't see the same thing happening here. I fear it will be a slow, relentless fight through the courts in some states and the legislatures in others until whatever the Beltwegians finally decide will be a rubberstamp on what the country has already done. Remember the 19th Amendment? It started in Wyoming but took years to finally pass Washington. I hope it goes quicker this time.

 

[TE999]

But in the end, just about everything the ERA was supposed to make happen happened without it. I don't see the same thing happening here. I fear it will be a slow, relentless fight through the courts in some states and the legislatures in others until whatever the Beltwegians finally decide will be a rubberstamp on what the country has already done. Remember the 19th Amendment? It started in Wyoming but took years to finally pass Washington. I hope it goes quicker this time.

Roger that. IMO each state should pass it's own laws allowing civil Gay marriages
so partners can be legally entitled to benefits as a het married couple would. Most states would most likely agree to honoring a gay marriage from another state at the very least...then the camels' nose would be in the tent...

 

[Safe_Bet]

But in the end, just about everything the ERA was supposed to make happen happened without it. I don't see the same thing happening here. I fear it will be a slow, relentless fight through the courts in some states and the legislatures in others until whatever the Beltwegians finally decide will be a rubberstamp on what the country has already done. Remember the 19th Amendment? It started in Wyoming but took years to finally pass Washington. I hope it goes quicker this time.

Roger that. IMO each state should pass it's own laws allowing civil Gay marriages
so partners can be legally entitled to benefits as a het married couple would. Most states would most likely agree to honoring a gay marriage from another state at the very least...then the camels' nose would be in the tent...

I personally find it encouraging when I see two old, straight guys arguing FOR gay rights.

Thank you both!

 

[TE999]

I personally find it encouraging when I see two old, straight guys arguing FOR gay rights.

Thank you both!

Just who you callin' old, sister?

Hehehe...equality has always been a hot button on my control panel...first blacks...then womyn...now it's Gays...we all need to stand up and be counted, sweetie.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Just who you callin' old, sister?

Hehehe...equality has always been a hot button on my control panel...first blacks...then womyn...now it's Gays...we all need to stand up and be counted, sweetie.

Whoever guards my left is my comrade. Whatever the color, creed, preference or diet, I will stand by those who stand by me. What else can I do?

 

[john-the-author]

Whoever guards my left is my comrade. Whatever the color, creed, preference or diet, I will stand by those who stand by me. What else can I do?

Hear, hear! I was for the rights for gays to marry years ago because I've got lots of gay friends and this is just flatly the right thing to do for them. (And the fact that it'll stick a finger up the nose of the Christian fascists is just icing on the cake! )

But now I've got a stepdaughter who's been living with her partner for years and they're ready to get married and have a baby even and the state they're in doesn't recognize gay marriage yet and it probably won't for some time given their choice in legislators. My stepdaughter's partner is the finest daughter-in-law a stepfather could want and I'd love for them to be able to get legal recognition and rights because I love them and want them to be happy. So now it's personal as well as the right thing to do.