Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama and DOMA: Will the President Do the Right Thing?
Political divisions of the United States Defense of Marriage Act was always a false construct.
Enacted in the midst of the 1996 election season -- when conservative forces were raising a ruckus about the "threat" posed by same-sex marriage -- it was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 in an attempt to turn the volumn down on the issue by formally, if coherently, defining marriage as enterprise that could only be entered into by a man and a woman.
The law was blatantly discriminatory, and as a candidate the presidency, Barack Obama described it as "abhorrent" and "an unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage."
Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does," said candidate Obama in a statement that succinctly summed up the reasons for overturning the law.
Now, in response to a lawsuit brought by the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders against the Obama administration's Office of Personnel Management on behalf of eight married gay couples and three surviving spouses who were denied federal spousal rights and benefits because of DOMA, a federal judge has recognized the logic of those arguments.
The question is whether the president and his Justice Department will operate along the lines voters presumed it would when they elected Obama as a supporter of LGBT rights.
The unfortunate prospect is that the president will not do so.
Technically, the administration is in a process of "reviewing the decision" and had not yet decided whether to further defend DOMA. But, last year, when the department filed court briefs seeking to preserve DOMA, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler suggested that "until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
So the general expectation in Washington is that, with the president's blessing, Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department lawyers will appeal of the ruling by Massachusetts Federal Judge Joseph Tauro, who has ruled that DOMA "plainly encroaches" on the right of the states to make determinations regarding marriage. As Judge Tauro explained it: "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit."
That's the right read of the legislative history, and of the law. And, while Tauro's decision applies only to Massachusetts, a state that allows same-sex marriage, its significance extends far beyond the Bay State's borders.
Were the Justice Department to accept the Tauro's decision as constitutionally sound and appropriate, as federal and some state officials did when the courts began to strike down discriminatory laws during the segregation era, this could be a breakthrough moment in the struggle for marriage equality.
That's how Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, a lawyer and a member of the House Judiciary Committee who was the first open lesbian elected to Congress, interpreted it.
Said Baldwin:
I am thrilled by Judge Tauro's decision that declares part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. This is a tremendous victory for all who believe in equal rights and a dramatic confirmation of justice under law.
By ruling that DOMA violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Judge Tauro affirmed states' rights of sovereignty and individual rights to due process. Put simply, his rulings confirm what we already know - there is no legal basis for discrimination against same-sex couples.
The right of same-sex couples to marry with the same protections, benefits, and obligations as straight couples may, ultimately, be decided by the Supreme Court. The long march to full equality is not yet over, but now is a time to rejoice in this victory.
That is the language of a civil rights campaigner, a believer in the rule of law and an official who takes seriously her oath to defend the Constitution.
It is language that President Obama and Attorney General Holder should echo.
- Posted in
25 Comments so far
Show AllWill the President Do the Right Thing?
Whatever happened to the Nation magazine? There they are, covered with the foul sludge and slime Obama has repeatedly dumped on them, covered with flies as well, and they still think he's progressive.
"Oh, please, Barack . . . do the right thing."
As Wanda Sykes said, "You ain't shit, Barack!"
The Nation sold out to the Democrats years ago.
I'm feeling much better about your descriptions of the President. Thanks!
Did Wanda really say that? Where can I get the info on that?
He'll fudge, hmm and haw, make a speech in some out of the way place to show support, maybe even (though I doubt it) go so far as to blame the GOP, and then move on. He's more subtle as Bush, proclaiming 'Mission Accomplished'; he doesn't need the banner, only one speech.
"The Nation Magazine" is an example of the 'undead,' whose vulgar re- animations continue to befoul wherever they are found.
John Nichols, one of the 'undeads' most obsequious and ridiculous emissaries, is nothing but an ambulatory toxicant, that reeks of tumescence and decay.
It would be too forgiving to classify him as a zombie.
"Please Mr. President! Do the Right thing! Will you or won't you?"
"Sure, let me launch a few Predator Drones first. There are some new Afghan wedding celebrations to incinerate before I get to that."
John Nichol's grotesque beatings have long ago crossed over to the point where they should not suffer the exhumations of exposure, on this, or any other blog worth the salt to bury him and his ilk.
I have the impression JNichols is not one of your favourite writers.
In addition to lavishing your considerable eloquence on your visceral reaction to his work, would you care to expend a little on an explanation of your specific objections to it? After all, it is not JNichols who is launching the drones.
(I have never heard of Nichols, and my comment offers no position on his views.)
Without going all exegetic on you with a scholarly exposure of Nichol's and the Nation Magazine's obsequiousness before Obama and the Democrats, I'll try to answer your question.
All the while claiming they are being relevantly critical of his policies–while insisting on remaining umbilically connected– is that they have now become tacit enablers of those policies.
Both Nichols and the Nation will tell you over and over again– if you have the stomach to continue to read them– that anything but that is true. This has become a sad, even pathetic joke.
They both continue to gush and implore Obama to 'do the right thing' time and time again, while being ignominiously and repeatedly rebuffed. You think they would have learned by now and sever all support?
But they have not and they won't learn, even when the truth is staring them grimly in the face.
The fact they have not learned leads one to believe they are really not interested in learning.
That they are frauds who cannot be trusted.That they have become grotesque caricatures of themselves has rendered them uniquely uninteresting and irrelevant.
No, Nichol's does not 'launch the drones' but his now tedious failure to extricate himself from those who do, has all the reek of guilt by association despite of anything he may say to the contrary.
Aha! He's just another boot-licker and a poseur, then, in that his obsequiousness overrides his claim (fraudulent) as a policy critic. Neat trick. (irony alert)
Thanks, that helps - I appreciate your courtesy.
JNichols: 1. I hate to go all Sioux-Rose on you, but that is the worst piece of writing I've ever seen on this site. When you're freelancing you need to hire a competent editor. Does "The Nation" really accept this level of work?
2.The problem is that Obama (his writers, really) is supremely skilled at echoing all the right language - and I would agree with your point of view there.
The problem is that it's a hollow echo.
J.Alfred Prufrock rides again. Perhaps he's a zombie.
I hate to say it, but when I see (all too often) an article's headline here on CD that includes something along the lines of 'Will Obama Do the Right Thing?', I want to shout, "No! He won't! duh." It just seems so naive to think (and write) that he might, what?, suddenly change course and practice some justice and humanity which is, from the evidence so far, highly unlikely.
To answer the title question: Why should Obama start doing the right thing now all of a sudden?
Oilbomba is the Consummate Con Man, so his betraying yet more of his supporters is part of his shtick.
I am now beginning to understand what candidate Obama meant with his "Hope" mantra of the 2008 elections. He meant: "I sure hope that DOMA and other issues that can bite me will not be brought up before I bring them up, if I will bring them up at all". Unfortunately for our feckless president that is never the way the ball rolls. Over and over again Mr. Obama, by his own spouting of hot air followed by his inaction, has placed himself in awkward places from which he cannot extricate himself without additional loss of respect and support.
For the Democrats and its marketing supporters, just putting this article out there is more important than whether Obama "does the right thing".
The result will be for many Democrats to say, well okay, he didn't do the right thing here, but he must be doing the right thing somewhere else (while ignoring all that Obama has done to stab the Left in the back).
This President will ALWAYS do the RIGHT thing. Its that darn LEFT thing he has all the trouble with.
The society of the USA has been in peril for a long time. But, when it is necessary to pass a law to define who is eligible to marry, one has to believe there is nothing left of common sense or the culture.
the obama speaketh with forked tongues. he drones on, as the black and white bumblebee with the yellow tail, trying to pollinate every position.
we need a democrat to come forward and run in the democratic primary against obama, like in 2012 in new hampshire. there is a huge reservoir of resentment against this man, for all his fence straddling and broken promises. the only steel he shows is when he pursues his own ends, as he has failed to take a hard and relentless stand on any issue. if he feels vulnerable in the early primaries, he will quit tilting to the right. i guarantee it.
Common Dreams editors: Would you please show some common sense and stop printing this sycophantic drivel by John Nichols, Kathryn vd Heuvel, and other Nation writers.
They are as corrupted as the corporate Democratic Party, which they constantly shill for. Why do you publish their superficial remarks so often? Can you show some pity for your loyal readers please?
We concur.
Is it possible to link to Chris Floyd's pieces?
Thank you.
Will the President Do the Right Thing? NO!
Obama is what Obama does not what Obama says.
If honeyed words were what it took
to make a man a king,
I'm sure you'd rule the whole wide world
and everything.
If tender phrases came one day
to mean a person's worth,
There isn't any doubt...
you'd be the richest man on earth.
But it's too sad, my love
that I am wise to you.
I don't hear what you say ...
I only know what you do.
jwms '72
Obama do the right thing? ROFL! Yeah, if you're EXXON or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin or Bank of America or...
Capitalist politicians will always kowtow before the Shrine of the Bourgeois Family and its attendant Ghoul, Abrahamic religion. Heteronormative and homophobic, “the family” in capitalist society serves for the transmission of property among those who have it, and the inculcation of discipline and obedience to authority in those who don’t.
If there is a deity overseeing human affairs, *she* must be smiling gently at the irony of the current situation in relation to gay marriage.
In two countries which were once among the most socially backward on the planet — Roman Catholic Spain (remember the Inquisition and Francosism?) and Dutch Reformed South Africa, once the land of apartheid — gay marriage is a Law of the Land.
However, in that bastion of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy,’ the United States, and its cultural appendages like Australia and the UK, public policy is still dominated by the 3,000 year-old ravings of a crazy bedouin named Moses, whose petty ‘god’ of mountains and bush-fires also taught that menstruating women and women who had just given birth were ‘unclean’ and that eating pork chops and prawns (shrimp) was ‘forbidden,’ whose demented spiritual descendants in the first century CE thought that that a human being could be the son of a divinity, that disease was caused by ‘demons’ and that ‘the world’ would come to the end in their own lifetimes...
…and whose even more demented spiritual descendants in the seventh century CE thought it a good idea to put women over the age of eight into a mobile black tent before marrying them off a year later to men forty years older than they are, and in whose countries gays are regularly beheaded, stoned to death or buried alive.