Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, on Attorney General Holder's decision to cease defending another key aspect of the Defense of Marriage Act:
The Obama administration did an about-face concerning military policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act on Friday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any service members’ same-sex spouses suing the military for spousal benefits.
... Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, said Holder’s letter is constitutionally weak.
“It’s all just made up. There’s no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people,” he said. “This is really troubling because it’s a pattern. We’re not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it’s given power to do by the Constitution.” -- CitizenLink
23 Comments
Maybe it`s unconstitutional because it denies the spouse and children of a soldier the same rights as others only because a few bigots belief their version of god gives them the right to do that?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/charlie-morgan-lesbian-guardsman-cancer-john-boehner-doma_n_1263814.html
But faith is always a good excuse to spread hate.
Every appellate court to decide the issue of whether the ban on gays in the military is constitutional decided it in the affirmative, even as recently as 2008.
Apollonia,
Our laws are based on the laws of nature and natures God so as to protect future generations from the transitory passions of man. Basing a society on how people feel as opposed to who people are is a recipe for disaster.
The United States constitution is fashioned so as to protect us from ourselves; as opposed to changing on the emotional whims of disproportionately powerful minorities.
The obligation of the government to reward opposite-sex relationships for their greater importance to humanity than same-sex relationships has nothing to do with religion or bigotry.
appellate court smappellate court, certainly not of the activist variety.
"Every appellate court to decide the issue of whether the ban on gays in the military is constitutional decided it in the affirmative, even as recently as 2008.:
Activist judges....
Holder is a piece of work, and so is his boss. They sell thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, then use that as a rationale for gun control. Now this. They hate our country and our constitution. They are criminally insane. They have to go.
Egercito,
2008 was so four years ago. Regardless of your statement, DADT has been ruled, in court-no?, unconstitutional as recently as last year and/or the year before.
It's deeply depressing that with the disaster this president has wrought on this country, that the people are still considering reelecting him.
Not only considering to reelect Obama but knows that he will win thanks to the GOP for only finding Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. Republicans have themselves to blame for this one.
It was actually ruled unconstitutional in the very first court to hear a challenge against it, back in 1993.
" it`s unconstitutional because it denies the spouse and children of a soldier the same rights as others only because a few bigots belief their version of god gives them the right to do that?"
Again, where in the Constitution is it even mentioned that same-sex marriage is a "right?"
You seem to only support SSM for homosexuals. Couldn't same-sexed sibling relationships, or mother/daughter and father/son relationships benefit from govt. marriage benefits? Some of those couples are raising children together. If one doesn't support them getting married, does that make one a bigot? And, why don't you support group marriages? Please explain the role that homosexuality plays in neutering marriage.
"It's all just made up"
That seems to be the pattern - just make up a new definition of marriage, just make up constitutional "rights", just ignore inconvenient laws.
Greg,the ruling against DADT was explicitly vacated and overturned only months ago.
Louis, DADT doesn't exist anymore. Where have you been?
@Layne
I think that's what he was explaining.
Thats because it is "just made up" - the behavior of the Attorney General in this administration is unprecedented. One brief that will make its way to SOTUS's desks is the one detailing the unprecedented abuse of power by multiple courts and other arms traditionally under the egis of the judicial branch. These "non-partisan" appointments are supposed to defend the rule of law regardless of their ideological predispositions.
The Justices know this and know that if they dont reign in this trend Republican administrations will start following suit in the future... They have created a monster that they know needs to be dealt with or they risk the very integrity of the system.
This is judicial politics at a level that is VERY important to the outcome of these cases but gets very little discussion because of its complexity and the judicial branch's traditional appeal as above the fray.
I was referring to the ruling by Judge O'Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit that (independent of the repeal of DADT) completely nullified the ruling that it had to be repealed and prohibited its treatment as a precedent.
The DADT ruling was vacated because DADT had been repealed by the legislature before it came before the court. DADT will never again be imposed. There is no going back to discrimination.
@JR
DADT was not discrimination. It prohibited all soliders from engaging similiar activity and if you look at the numbers, it wasn't just homosexuals who were discharged. There were a lot of desparate souls who were not fit for the uniform that wanted to avoid war.
Zack - You are wrong. DADT discriminated against people for the fact they were homosexual, not for engaging in sexual activity while on duty. Someone who had a same sex lover back home, if found out, was discharged. It was blatant discrimination towards people born gay. The policy will never again be reinstated.
JR,no one is ever born "gay",as the "gay" identity is above all an attitude toward homosexuality that is learned and should be unlearned.Going back to the pre-DADT policy of actively finding homosexuals to kick them out is the only other option for improvement over the status quo.
JR, DADT was and could still be good military policy. The military discriminates for good reason not bad ones. Discrimination practice is bad in itself, such as, we are discriminating against homosexual activity because it make sesne to do so when considering it s negative attributes to society. We discriminate against smokers because-among other issues-smoking can kill you and you whether or not you are the person doing the smoking. DADT discriminated against human behavior, like other millitary policy does against unacceptable conduct. I would not be surprise if the policy is reinsteaded or a similar policy is created in the future...