SFGate: Obama angers gays with marriage law defense

[Kadie]

Obama angers gays with marriage law defense
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, June 12, 2009

(06-12) 20:02 PDT SANTA ANA, CALIF. -- President Obama, who said as a candidate that he would seek repeal of a law denying federal recognition of same-sex marriage, has angered gay rights groups with court arguments portraying the law as a nondiscriminatory measure that "preserves scarce government resources."

The Justice Department's filing with a federal court in Santa Ana was the administration's first statement on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Those benefits include joint tax filing, Social Security survivors' payments and spousal immigration status.

The law also allows states to withhold recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another state or country.

Obama called the law "abhorrent" during the presidential campaign and said he would work to overturn it. He has not presented any such legislation to Congress since taking office, however.

"We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal (the Defense of Marriage Act) and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal benefits," the National Center for Lesbian Rights said Friday.

The Justice Department issued a statement saying Obama wants the law repealed "because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits.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."

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/12/MND5186EV8.DTL&tsp=1

[Ian David]

1. Mormon Bush holdover filed anti-gay DOMA brief today

Mormon Bush holdover filed anti-gay DOMA brief today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=137808&mesg_id=137808

[sandnsea]

3. That's not an issue

The brief had to be filed, they have to defend the law. Has nothing to do with who the attorneys are.

[Ms. Toad]

4. The top name on the motion was Tony West

a hand picked Obama appointee. It could not have been filed without his consent (short of someone looking to lose their license to practice law).

Edited to add the electronic signature on the document means next to nothing about who wrote it. There are far more case documents that I wrote the bulk of that were filed or entered under someone else's signature(the judge or co-counsel) than similar documents that have my signature on them. Particularly if you are looking at documents submitted by attorneys the signature is often more a matter of who has easier access to the electronic filing program (or less overloaded support staff).

[aquart]

2. "Scarce government resources." What a rotten excuse.

Like the man who, finding food low in the winter, told his aged father he would have to go. As the old man started out in the snow, his son draped a blanket over his thin shoulders. But the old man had scarce gone three steps when his grandson raced out of the house with a knife, grabbed the blanket, and cut it in half, returning back into the house with the torn piece.

"What have you done," His father screamed at him. "That was all he had! What possible excuse could you have?"

"I'm saving this for you, Pop."

[Gold]

5. The US Government should not be in the marriage regulating business.

I think those fighting to make gay marriage legal should not be fighting that fight. They are fighting to give rights to a certain segment of the population when they could be fighting to give rights to a larger segment. ie. their argument is to narrow in scope.

The US government should not be in the marriage regulating business. It should be none of the US governments business who is married to whom as long as all the participants are consenting adults.

There should not be special rights to spouses of any sort. Taxes should be filed individually with or without dependants and no special tax compensation given to those who are married.

It should be legal for a man to have 4 wives.
It should be legal for a block marriage (2 men and 2 women).
It should be legal for line marriages. As spouses die new ones are married in so the marriage could last for centuries.

People should not be fighting to make gay marriage legal. They should be fighting to insure that it isn't illegal. Some people think your not allowed to do anything unless someone made it legal to do so. I say we are permitted to do anything unless there is a law that says we can't.

There should be no laws pertaining to marriage at all. Let future marriage be the equivalent to a business contract. Such contracts can be for life or a set number of years. Such contracts could include all shorts of partnerships. None of which would be the US governments business.

Christians can still get married in a church. Such marriages would not be officially recognized by the US government because the US government would no longer be in the business of regulating marriages.

This is how you get equality for everyone.

[paulsby]

6. the title is bogus too

"Obama angers gays with marrriage law defense"

he's angering lots of gay (it's pretty rare to find one who is against same sex marriage rights), but he's also angering LOTS of straight people, myself included.