Breaking: Obama to abandon DOMA defense

posted at 12:40 pm on February 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Hey, why not?   With the nation focusing on union influence in the public sector and a debate on public spending, what better time to reverse course on gay marriage?  Marc Ambinder reported it for National Journal:

President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.

“The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits,” a person briefed on the decision said.

Sooooooo …. when did the Constitutional Scholar in Chief come to this conclusion?   Barack Obama has been in office for two years (having run on the promise to repeal DOMA), and during his entire term, the DoJ defended DOMA’s constitutionality.  Now Obama is apparently saying he was wrong all along.

Maybe he should consider changing his mind on ObamaCare, too.  At least in the case of the PPACA, a couple of federal judges have already reached that conclusion.  Some district courts have reached the same conclusion about DOMA, too, although both the appellate courts and the Supreme Court have thus far declined to agree.

The issue of DOMA is complicated for conservatives.  Rep. Bob Barr introduced DOMA in response to state courts declaring a right to gay marriage in an attempt to block those states from forcing the rest to recognize the marriage through the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.  (Barr later switched to Libertarian and denounced DOMA.)  The act was intended to sequester such rulings to the state level, but originalists have long complained that DOMA was structurally flawed, and that only a constitutional amendment would suffice.  Efforts to move an amendment have mostly come to naught, and many conservatives believe that marriage is an issue best left to the states.

If the DoJ stops defending DOMA, it puts the ball in Congress’ court, or with outside groups, to continue its defense.  I’m not sure whether or how Congress would go about defending the act, and with Democrats in charge of the Senate, it would seem unlikely that the full Congress would authorize it.

Why abandon DOMA now, after two years of defending it?   Perhaps the President has finally realized that his allies are thinning, and he figures that he needs to start pandering to those still on his side.  It could certainly help distract from the budget fight, if Republicans take the bait.

Update: Gabriel Malor e-mailed me this clarification:

You might note in future posts that the AG’s DOMA decision applies only to DOMA sec. 3, which sets a federal definition of marriage. That’s the part that overrode state primacy in family issues like marriage. DOMA sec. 2, which holds that states do not have to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages from other states, is not at issue in any federal litigation and is not disturbed by the AG’s 530D notice.

A copy of the 530D letter can be found here (PDF)[.]

So noted — and that makes this issue perhaps a little less than advertised.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Its only politics.

Speakup on February 23, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Yep, moving to the middle.

WisRich on February 23, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Sooooooo …. when did the Constitutional Scholar in Chief come to this conclusion?

A lot of Obama’s conclusions come into question.

Kini on February 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM

I’m wondering what color the sky is in his world. And what sort of chemical inducement it takes to see it…

JamesLee on February 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Ask PBHO why he defended it for two years.

Bishop on February 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM

What part of the DOMA isn’t part of the ‘protect and defend’ oath?

Limerick on February 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Obama rules by decree now?

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM

It could certainly help distract from the budget fight, if Republicans take the bait.

It could be made part of the budget fight by defunding DOJ.

Between this and various other issues like the non-compliance with FOIA requests by certain groups and the total mess that is the department’s Civil Rights division, it’s easy to see why Holder needs to be brought under control.

teke184 on February 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM

The Obama administration has never really defended it… they’ve colluded to undermine it in the courts…

I see this as good news for keeping DOMA…

ninjapirate on February 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM

They just want to be left alone.

They just want to be accepted.

They just want to be in your face about their sexual preferences 24/7 and if you don’t like it you’re a bigot.

They just want the government to redefine marriage, that is to say, to redefine humanity.

“Have you been down to the DMV for your mandatory annual sodomization?”

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Perhaps the President has finally realized that his allies are thinning, and he figures that he needs to start pandering to those still on his side.

Action explained.

Cicero43 on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Too late, Barry. You lost the Hillbuzz boys during the campaign.

I say by all means let’s have a constitutional amendment that leaves the question to the states but specifies that it be settled by popular vote or legislative action as opposed to judicial fiat or executive order.

Kafir on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Wrecking Ball to-do list?

Traditional marriage recognized by mankind for thousands of years.

CHECK!

PappyD61 on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Well it did seem a little odd that marriage was the only institution he was willing to defend.

Lily on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Since when does the President decide what is unconstitutional???? Isn’t that the courts job? Seriously who the hell does this guy think he is??? The President, the Supreme Court, and everything in between. So he gets to just decide which laws he will prosecute? I guess we have been doing that with illegal aliens too, but this is getting out of control.

momof2 on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

So the DOJ can now, effectively, not uphold a LAW simply because they don’t like it? Then WTF do we have a DOJ for?!

Isn’t the proper process to either enforce the law or repeal it?

What kind of precedent is this?

catmman on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

As Libya burns, the Middle East crumbles, gas prices rise and I can’t afford to eat.

Yeah, this is real important/

Knucklehead on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I’m wondering what color the sky is in his world. And what sort of chemical inducement it takes to see it…

JamesLee on February 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM

The only colors in his world are red and green.

darwin-t on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I don’t really understand something, maybe a lawyer here can help me.

Slavery, though clearly a violation of our principles in the Declaration, was considered a social issue similar to marriage before the Civil War. Why would the faith and full credit not make slavery legal everywhere (I guess Dred Scot did), but it would make gay marriage legal everywhere?

cpaulus on February 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM

bfd

ted c on February 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM

BTW, the DOJ press release said something like…

“the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.”

So? It’s not your job to pass laws or to strike them down…

ninjapirate on February 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM

As Libya burns, the Middle East crumbles, gas prices rise and I can’t afford to eat.

Yeah, this is real important/

Knucklehead on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

It has never been at the top of my list.

darwin-t on February 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM

As the late Saul Alinsky admonished in his “Rules for Radicals,” “the community organizer … must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.”

faraway on February 23, 2011 at 12:48 PM

bfd

ted c on February 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM

In capital letters

darwin-t on February 23, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Anything to distract the populace huh? I’m sure we’re not the only ones who see through this…

CCRWM on February 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM

a presidential election is coming up folks. Obama needs to gather his lackeys for another “yes, we can” moment. Forget that the DOJ just refused to stand up for a law! We need VOTES.

katablog.com on February 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Doesn’t everyone enter the marriage marketplace eventually?

Even if you don’t marry, you are affecting the interstate market in marriages because your would-be soul mate will have to look elsewhere, perhaps even across state lines.

pedestrian on February 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Obama, unplugged. Watch for him to start saying more of what he really believes.

Paul-Cincy on February 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM

So on Obooba’s whim we could have no prosecutions for child prostitution, or heroin trafficking or whatever because, after all, Obooba is on the throne and he alone decides what laws he will and will not enforce.

The usual suspects will be here defending this atrocity shortly I guess.

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM

I don’t think anyone is really all that invested in DOMA anymore, so leave the bait on the hook.

I think only a push for a full repeal would create any sort of frenzy regarding the gay marriage issue. The Federal plank should have been removed a long time ago (i.e., citizens living in a state with a gay marriage/civil union should not be denied federal access).

lansing quaker on February 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The President is responsible for EXECUTING the law as written by the congress. Not picking and choosing what is or is not legal.

So with this action and with Democrat legislators in other states refusing to DO THEIR JOB because they don’t like the outcomes we’re having a full on government melt-down which is tantamount to a political oligarchy.

We do things the Democrat way or not at all and screw the laws.

Skywise on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

“the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.”

So? It’s not your job to pass laws or to strike them down…

or not bother to defend them!

katablog.com on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Unconstitutional?

Since when has this administration considered the Constitution a limiting document?

ZenDraken on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

The Folsom St. Fair will be spectacular this year!

All Hail the Messiah………….

dmann on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

What’s really sad is this will probably work.

Dash on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

DEC 2010-OBAMA IS TRIANGULATING!!!!!

JAN 2011-HE IS A CLINTON CENTRIST!!!!!!

Feb 2010-Ummm, uhhhh, hippie lefty Soros unions spending hurah! Hippie, lefty, Soros, unions, spending hurah! Hurah Hurah! Fiscal restraint, budgets, Wisconsin, Libya, blah blah! Blah Blah Blah!

How quickly the narratives change.

Indy82 on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Destroy the family, you destroy the country. Vladimir Lenin

Chip on February 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

How many more masks do they have to tear off before this country see’s them for what they are? I think the Dems could have a press conference and people still wouldn’t believe it.

Reminds me of the the scene in Ruthless People when Danny Devito dare’s his wife’s kidnappers to kill her saying after the phone call “Now that ought to do it!”

WisRich on February 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Why abandon DOMA now, after two years of defending it?

Never let a crisis go to waste. And, he’s got plenty of them to choose from right now.

a capella on February 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM

America in free fall.

Professor O’Barry will go down in history as a great Marxist hero along with Che, Castro and Stalin.

NickDeringer on February 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM

President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Since when does he get to decide what is constitutional and what is not? This is a further example of his imperial presidency.

EliTheBean on February 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Obama is realizing he is a one termer.

He is trying to go as liberal as he can, for as long as he can.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM

GOProud.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Democrat judges can “see” anything they want in the Constitution. It was always going to come down to this.

littleguy on February 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

“Have you been down to the DMV for your mandatory annual sodomization?”

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Silly … that’s not in their job description.

The TSA takes care of that.

Shiny_Tiara on February 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Wrecking Ball to-do list?

Traditional marriage recognized by mankind for thousands of years.

CHECK!

PappyD61 on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

yeah! Slavery too was recognized for thousands of years! Tradition! And human sacrifice! Tradition!

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Fair enough…
No Republican gets my support in 2012 without a commitment to enforce this law; and to not enforce O’care.

james23 on February 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

President Obama, pro-union, especially the gay ones.

myrenovations on February 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Why abandon DOMA now, after two years of defending it? Perhaps the President has finally realized that his allies are thinning, and he figures that he needs to start pandering to those still on his side. It could certainly help distract from the budget fight, if Republicans take the bait.

And that’s exactly his strategy. The left’s successes in electoral politics center almost entirely around social issues like this one. It’s not necessarily a winning issue per se for liberals like Obama, but if he can move focus away from his budgetary and economic failures onto this, then he weakens the unity of his allies. Right now conservatives and libertarians are united against him; he wants to break that up a bit.

Caiwyn on February 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM

alternate headline: The White House is out of waffles.

ted c on February 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Paging ken cucinelli and other AGs…we need a suit vs. Uncle Sam, stat, to compel it to enforce the law.

james23 on February 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM

This is the DOMA passed when the current secretary of state’s husband was president.

Oh, well, it’s not like Obama is dumping NAFTA or anything…

Wethal on February 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM

As the late Saul Alinsky admonished in his “Rules for Radicals,” “the community organizer … must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.”

faraway on February 23, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Ding, ding! We have a winner!

Shiny_Tiara on February 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Oh look, a gay squirrel!

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Slavery too was recognized for thousands of years! Tradition! And human sacrifice! Tradition!

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

You have the right to Marry right now Jetboy. You chose not to marry.

Remember that.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Wow, twice in one day. I agree with him on this one. But I have one question. Isn’t he stepping over that line that says the DOJ isn’t under his control?

AnninCA on February 23, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I think this is another “Squirrel” moment.

Cindy Munford on February 23, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Errrrr, uhhhhh.

Jeddite on February 23, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I’m glad the President is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. I wonder how Congress feels about that?

hawksruleva on February 23, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I meant he weakens the unity of his *opponents,* sorry.

Point is, if he can get Republicans to focus on something like this, then he gets a triple play.

1. He regains the faith of his liberal base
2. He moves away from an issue in which people are overwhelmingly united against him (spending) and into an issue where people are more evenly divided (gay marriage)
3. He successfully turns conservatives’ ire against Republicans who will now be focusing on this b.s. instead of dealing with the most pressing issues of our time (spending, the economy).

Caiwyn on February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Why abandon DOMA now, after two years of defending it?

Because Barry is going to need all the help he can get in 2012.

GarandFan on February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Since when does the President decide what is unconstitutional???? Isn’t that the courts job? Seriously who the hell does this guy think he is??? The President, the Supreme Court, and everything in between. So he gets to just decide which laws he will prosecute? I guess we have been doing that with illegal aliens too, but this is getting out of control.

momof2 on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM

It is a misconception to believe that only SOTUS can decide what is or is not constitutional. It is all 3 branches responsibility to answer this question. Congress should not be passing laws that they think are unconstitutional and the president should veto any law he believes to be unconstitutional. But, the president does have a responsibility to defend and enforce the laws that do exist as the Executive-in-Chief.

NotCoach on February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

You have the right to Marry right now Jetboy. You chose not to marry.

Remember that.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So I’m fighting for your right to marry a dude if you want to…even if you choose not to.

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Words, just words.

Just speeches.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I know emotions run high with this issue, but isn’t it about the DOJ and this administration aren’t enforcing the LAW, simply because they don’t like it?

Isn’t that the real issue here? Not the law itself, per se, but the refusal to enforce (by refusal to defend)?

catmman on February 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM

yeah! Slavery too was recognized for thousands of years! Tradition! And human sacrifice! Tradition! JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

And your tradition goes all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah! How’d that work out?!

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM

O/T…..Poor Walker is going to speak about the prank call. That, in my opinion, is a mistake. Just let it go, Scott.

AnninCA on February 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

SMOKESCREEN!

tomshup on February 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Why abandon DOMA now, after two years of defending it?

election time….

jay carney looks like a deer in the headlights during that press conference….

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

I think he just picks stuff like this from a hat marked… ‘Distractions’

RalphyBoy on February 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

yeah! Slavery too was recognized for thousands of years! Tradition! And human sacrifice! Tradition!

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

So you’re saying marriage is an archaic, useless institution? In that case, why are the more advanced people in our society (ie gays) lobbying to adopt this outmoded form of recognition for partnerships?

hawksruleva on February 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

that hard pivot on jobs is paying in spades

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

And your tradition goes all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah! How’d that work out?!

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Try actually reading the Bible…

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Fox is ripping Walker over this one. Good gravy….lol* It’s like watching the keystone cops at this point.

AnninCA on February 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Isn’t that the real issue here? Not the law itself, per se, but the refusal to enforce (by refusal to defend)?

catmman on February 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM

SSSSHHHHHHHHHH. You’re supposed to get the heebie-jeebies about the thought of two dudes kissing while clutching a document with the words “MARRIAGE” on it.

As Ed said:

It could certainly help distract from the budget fight, if Republicans take the bait.

Jeddite on February 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Oh lawd.

smh

lansing quaker on February 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM

“Have you been down to the DMV for your mandatory annual sodomization?”

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Loony paranoia is funny.

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM

So I’m fighting for your right to marry a dude if you want to…even if you choose not to.

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

You have the right to marry a women. You chose not to, for whatever reason.

Now you want to change the rules of marriage to fit your reason.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Gay baiting.

RedRedRice on February 23, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Ok, I’m totally adrift at sea without navigational aides.

So Obama is not going to defend and unconstitutional DOMA? Why does he need to defend it? Has it been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, like Obama care? Or DOMA is the law, and Obama won’t defend it? so it is…it is not..it’s law, it isn’t , it wasn’t didn’t happen just ignore it because we don’t like it because ..

left turn…360

THIRD BASE! (Abbot and Costello, “whos on first”)

Skandia Recluse on February 23, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Another misstep by Obama and Holder.

Never mind the critical issues facing the nation, all 20 or so of them right now… but I got a funny feeling this issue will die – whereas Reps wont touch the issue… because the acceptance of Gay Republicans at CPAC was a vocal and positive one.

Reps, for once – are actually ahead of the issue, though by circumstance, due to a bumbling idiot in the WH with a lackey DOJ head.

Had this been done even a few weeks ago – then Reps embraced gays.. it would appear as “pandering” – but due to the course of events recently – and the other 20 important issues right now – this is a nothing decision, politically speaking.

Odie1941 on February 23, 2011 at 1:04 PM

If adequate legal counsel can be found to carry this forward the absence of the DOJ is a blessing. Government lawyering is replete with instances in which public lawyers have purposely thrown cases in order to achieve policy results to the liking of the politicians. I’ve known many good government lawyers at the working level. The higher ups tend to be whores.

Mason on February 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM

So you’re saying marriage is an archaic, useless institution? In that case, why are the more advanced people in our society (ie gays) lobbying to adopt this outmoded form of recognition for partnerships?

hawksruleva on February 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I’m not saying that at all…All I am ever saying is that marriage does not have to be one man one woman…it’s a union of two loving adults. Because if the state can grant special rights and privileges to married couples over single people, or even those in civil unions (that’s all they can get) then it’s exclusive.

Gay marriage takes nothing at all away from anyone. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get married to the same sex. Pretty easy.

JetBoy on February 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I agree with most of the GOP which says, This is a state issue. As such, the DOJ really shouldn’t be involved.

No?

AnninCA on February 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Traditional marriage recognized by mankind for thousands of years.

Slavery has been around for thousands of years too, hey lets defend that.

triple on February 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Weird that he wants to fight over social issues in 2012. This is the kind of thing Reps did to create conservative turnout.

obladioblada on February 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM

so congress doesn’t have to defend obamacare…time to cut the purse strings on that sucker

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM

You have the right to marry a women. You chose not to, for whatever reason.

Now you want to change the rules of marriage to fit your reason.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Evidently a lot of people do. Let the government give them a license and let the churches teach that homosexuality is wrong.

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Too late, Barry. You lost the Hillbuzz boys during the campaign.
I say by all means let’s have a constitutional amendment that leaves the question to the states but specifies that it be settled by popular vote or legislative action as opposed to judicial fiat or executive order.
Kafir on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Here in CA we’ve passed a prop and an amendment to our constitution stating we only recognize and define marriage ascbetween one man and one woman and the fricking Liberals and their activist judges keep tying to subvert the will of the people. It’s before the court again and it looks like our legally voted for constitutional amendment probably isn’t going to survive so it’s on to the Supreme Court.

This is how the Left operates. It doesn’t respect the will of the voters! This is why I’m convinced that sedate going to have a lot of strife and violence in this country soon. An obnoxious and thuggish minority us trying to impose itself and what it wants on the law abiding majority and we have had enough!

CCRWM on February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM

The new “centrism”.

swamp_yankee on February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM

“Have you been down to the DMV for your mandatory annual sodomization?”

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

You just Won The Future with that remark.

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Now is the time to file the lawsuits to rule the laws against polygamy unconstitutional. If you can’t ‘discriminate’ based on gender, why can you based on number? Especially when there are historical and religious precedences that gay marriage doesn’t have.

Of course, I’ve always considered polygamy a self-punishing crime. I have trouble dealing with one wife; more would just gang up on me.

michaelo on February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Ask PBHO why he defended it for two years.

Because he needed the black community to vote for him and the black community is pretty opposed to gay marriage.

The man is an opportunist.

Now that his complete and utter failure to lead when international situations go to hell (see: Egypt, Libya) and his attempt to stick his nose into state’s business (see: astroturfing Wisconsin with bussed-in unions goons) have been revealed to the public and have both backfired he needs to do something to distract from it!

englishqueen01 on February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Weird that he wants to fight over social issues in 2012. This is the kind of thing Reps did to create conservative turnout.

obladioblada on February 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM

bingo

But it’s not weird at all. These are the very issues that loses the GOP the independent vote.

I’m a social liberal, fiscal conservative.

If the focus remains on spending, I’ll vote GOP. The Dems are hoping to bait the GOP into the social issues arena, where they usually win the moderates.

AnninCA on February 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Judge Gladys Kessler just said yesterday that thinking about and making a decision on health care was an activity the federal government could regulate.

But deciding to get married? That’s an activity, too, then? Think of the effect on the economy when people make that decision….

Wethal on February 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

“Have you been down to the DMV for your mandatory annual sodomization?”

Akzed on February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Histrionic much? And please tell me that marriage is not how you define humanity or there are some serious problems for very large portions of the population beyond homosexuals.

dieudonne on February 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Why are we even talking about this? Mitch Daniels called a truce on this. /

portlandon on February 23, 2011 at 1:09 PM

People — including HA people — should forget all the arguing about DOMA itself and focus on the single important issue here:

DOMA is the law. Osama Obama, in “deeming” it unconstitutional and unilaterally deciding to ignore a law, has committed yet another impeachable offense.

Congress doesn’t need to do a damn thing about the “social” aspects of this move. All it needs to do is start the impeachment proceedings.

Indicting Eric Shabazz Holder can — and should — be done after the Traitor-in-Chief is removed.

MrScribbler on February 23, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Sometimes… I hate my “smartphone”

CCRWM on February 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I agree with most of the GOP which says, This is a state issue. As such, the DOJ really shouldn’t be involved.

No?

AnninCA on February 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Is it or is it not the responsibility of the president to defend the law of the land? Whether one agrees or not with the federal DOMA is irrelivent. It is not the presidents duty to pick and choose laws to defend or enforce.

NotCoach on February 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6