The Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a law President Obama has condemned in the past.
The 1996 law bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and enables states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle breaks down the differences between the Bush administration and Obama administration for defending the law.
Its court filing steered clear of the justification of the law it had offered under President George W. Bush: that it promotes a traditional form of marriage best suited for procreating and raising children.
Instead, the Obama administration argued that the law preserves long-standing state authority to define marriage while saving taxpayer dollars.
With societal attitudes in flux, the department said, the law adopted "a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage," allowing states to expand the traditional definition of wedlock but declining "to obligate federal taxpayers in other states to subsidize a form of marriage their own states do not recognize."
A spokesperson gave Ben Smith at Politico this statement:
As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey on June 15, 2009 5:17PM
Comments
A disappointment, at least on a superficial reading. The briefing reads as not even all that tacitly sexist and racist, looks to have been written by a calloused bigot with an agenda far beyond routinely defending an indefensible law, is apparently aimed at appeasing people who will never be appeased by anything except with a state of religious privilege very much like "white" privilege, uses words and phrases that are obsolete at best -- and now are considered impolite if not actually pejorative, was apparently prepared unseen and uncommented upon by mainstream sociologists/psychologists and actual GLBT people, and seems to be saying that the Loving v Virginia Supreme Court decision -- which invalidated state laws forbidding "mixed race" marriages -- was wrongly decided.
That's interesting, the two security words are the last names of two people I recognize. One is a contemporary, international in scope, photographer who explores the intersection of identity and toxic politics, Robin Graubard. The other is a master Japanese film director, Kon Ichikawa, who died last year. There is a bleak, but humane, connection, in my mind at least, that would tie them together. Wish I could read that essay. Wish I could write it.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at June 16, 2009
Meanwhile, here's the headline today: "Obama to grant benefits to fed workers' same-sex partners."
Posted by: Stan at June 17, 2009
And government sanctioned discrimination continues ... big surprise! When will Equal Rights mean Equal Rights for all citizens?
Posted by: Richard Morgan at June 17, 2009
Equal rights for all citizens? Sure. Here in California I wonder when will the heterosexuals have the same rights as homosexuals to have domestic partnership rights which the latter emjoy--18,000 of the latter couples having both marriage rights and patnership rights. Then again, when will refugees and immigrants from other cultures with polygamy will not have to disown their spouse #2 and up before allowed into the country by President Obama's immigration and naturalization service? I am waiting for the day when the supreme courts of MA & IA will extend equality and ACLU and Gay Liberationists march in support of equal rights for polygamists.
Posted by: Parel Mathai at June 17, 2009
Funny how the LGBT crowd always bring up discrimination and equal rights. As things stand, they HAVE equal rights. They can marry an opposite sex partner just like everyone else!
Posted by: Matt at June 18, 2009
Matt,
Your argument is facile. Would you (assuming you're straight) enjoy having the right only to marry a man (assuming your a man; hey it's the internet, you never know...)?
Run through that thought experiment and then tell me if gays having the right only to marry a person of the opposite sex seems fair.
Posted by: Todd at June 27, 2009
Post a comment