Obama DOJ filed a brief yesterday in support of DOMA. you might expect that, as some feel that upholding DOMA was legally the right thing to do, even though I find DOMA itself completely abhorrent.
But the briefing went much, much further. Some of the stuff in here is a bit disturbing.
Here's a link:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obam ... -doma.htmlThere's really just too much here to quote. If you're interested in gay rights and such you should do yourself and make your own interpretation. But here are some quotes (straight from the brief) that really stand out to me on where this will be going in the future, and it's not good.
Quote:
"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
No civil rights for you, because it's expensive.
Quote:
Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
Quote:
DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.
This is the part where it seems to go beyond mere legal acceptance and "our hands are tied" acceptance of DOMA and more into an endorsement of it.
Quote:
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.
This is brutal. This seems to say that gays are not subject to the same protection as other groups.
All of this may be legally correct and perhaps I am overreacting. It's just eye opening and pretty much puts the mountain gays (and heterosexuals who support civil rights for everyone) have to climb to get where we need to be. What a crock of steaming horse shit.