Frank Does 180, Supports DOMA Brief

[unhappycamper30]

<snip>

Bloggers had been critical of Frank for taking five days to respond to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss a legal challenge to DOMA. Frank then told a reporter, "I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate.”

Now Frank has amended his reaction with a new statement, which can be read in its entirety here.

In the statement, Frank says: “Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard -- which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid91642.asp

[Ian David]

1. What am I missing? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

2. This is the same Frank that dropped the transgender from ENDA

without giving it a second thought of the damage to LGBT community of having its most oppressed members being thrown to the wolves.

If you want real change, vote RED.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. He's introducing the inclusive ENDA next week

[mitchtv]

7. the Same Frank who blamed SF for the loss

in 2004

[GodlessBiker]

3. I'm speechless. Really. Is this from the Onion?

Frank just became Obama's bitch.

[xchrom]

5. ...

:mad:

[keepCAblue]

6. Get's my vote for "Uncle Tom of the Year" n/t

[mitchtv]

8. I think it's "Aunt Liza" around here

[QC]

9. I think the Pep Squad is going to give him the Spirit Trophy,

judging from their delirious reactions.

[bluedawg12]

10. The tale of two Barney's.

Wednesday was ethical,ideological Barney.

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_06_17_Barney_Frank_rips_prez_s_%E2%80%98big_mistake_:_Fuming_over_anti-gay_wed_filing/srvc=home&position=6


Thursday was political animal, Barney.

http://www.house.gov/frank/pressreleases/2009/06-17-09-doma.html

"...step-at-a-time people whose every step is just a little shorter than the preceding step."

[Laughing Mirror]

11. I would ask him to go back and read it again

And pay particular attention to the part where it argues that DOMA is good because it is good economic policy for the federal government.

I'll lend him my highly effective reading glasses if he has trouble focusing his weary eyes.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

12. That's not what the brief argued. At all.

I would ask YOU to go back and read it again. Or better yet, go to law school and then read it. Barney Frank is absolutely right. He doesn't need your reading glasses.

By the way, here's a bonus fact: the brief also never compares gay marriage to incest. Not remotely. Not even close.

[MNBrewer]

13. Is that so?

It uses as a basis for defending DOMA, a legal precedent involving marriage between cousins.

[Laughing Mirror]

14. with all due respect, counselor, that is exactly the argument the brief is making

This is on pages 36-37 of the motion to dismiss. Perhaps your, as well as Rep. Frank's, eyes begin to glaze over when you get to this part.

"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."

Emphasis mine.

[plantwomyn]

17. So the states want to benefit from the fees.

In Iowa $35.00 for a license but they don't have to extend equal benefits. We should demand prorated fees. We pay a percentage of fee that the state treats our marriages as equal. If you are a state employee and don't get equal treatment you only pay 50%. If this is true in Iowa then it's $17.50.
If we get a fraction of the rights we should only pay a fraction of the fee.

[donco6]

15. Yes it does. n/t

[joeybee12]

16. I guess the diploma you got from that Law School ad on the back pages of Spiderman..

...didn't teach you squat.

[GodlessBiker]

18. The brief tells the court that it should uphold DOMA because, if we analogize, this case...

is very similar to cases of incest marriages.

At a minimum, the DOJ and this fuckin' Mormon AUSA could have made the argument without this paragraph. Indeed, the whole brief could have been two pages long.

But no, the calculated decision was made to make our relationships appear to be on the same level as incestuous relationships - they made the argument that the court should see similarities in both. That's disgusting.

[FLAprogressive]

19. as proven in the Great Bailout Swindle of 08, Barney Frank is a sellout and not to be trusted