NOM Founding Chairman Prof. Robert P. George is mentioned in this article defending DOMA:
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came into play in a civil court case argued this week in a federal court in Pennsylvania.
Ellyn Farley was a lawyer working for a Pennsylvania-based firm before she died in 2010 of cancer. In her will, she designated her elderly mother as the beneficiary of her life insurance and retirement packages. To her lesbian partner, Jennifer Tobits, she left her Jeep, the condominium they shared, and the all the cash in her bank account.
Tobits, however, is suing Farley’s parents for the life insurance and retirement benefits, saying she is entitled to them because she and Farley had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed in Canada in 2006.
DOMA, however, means same-sex marriages performed in other countries are not recognized by federal law, including those laws that apply to retirement plans and other federal benefits. And neither Pennsylvania, where Farley’s law firm is based, nor Illinois, where the women live, have a state law redefining marriage.
...Though it’s essentially a property dispute, the case, which was argued for more than four hours Monday, brought out eight separate legal teams: One for Tobits; one for Farley’s parents; one for the law firm where Farley was employed; one each for the U.S. House of Representatives, the Frederick Douglas Foundation and Princeton University Prof. Robert George, who are defending DOMA; and one each for the Obama administration and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which are challenging it. -- CitizenLink
17 Comments
SSm extremists seem greedy to me...
". . . and one each for the Obama administration and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which are challenging it."
That is a mis-characterization - I think. The administration has ceased defending the law believing it to be unconstitutional (an opinion that has been buttressed by several federal court decisions). However, it is enforcing the law as written.
How lowly must a person be to sue an elderly woman for money that was legally willed to her?
For those who support President Obama's failure to defend DOMA, here's the presidential oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Most of us believe that faithfully executing the Office of President would include defending the law. It's not his place to interpret or reinvent the Constitution.
Several presidents in the past have refused to defend laws but enforce them until they are thrown out.
"Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States" pretty much allows a president to not waste his time in court fighting for unconstitutional laws.
It's appalling that the president is not only neglecting to do his job in defending U.S. laws, but using taxpayer dollars to undermine those laws in court, all in the effort to please a special interest group.
If elected officials will go to these lengths to please gays, there's no telling what else they would do.
I hope that the Republican nominee is skillful in exposing Obama on this issue. His undermining of DOMA is bound to come out during debates. He won't be able to play the fence for long.
The President is not obeying his oath of office. He should have been impeached long ago for behaving as though the rule of law means only obeying and upholding the laws he makes.
This particular part of the population wants what they want and be damned about anyone else.
"How lowly must a person be to sue an elderly woman for money that was legally willed to her? "
How low must the religionists go to deny and elderly Connecticut woman the home she shared with her lawful same-sex spouse, instead giving her over $300,000 in inheritance taxes????
President Obama, like President Bush before him, is free to not defend laws he deems are unconstitutional. Unlike Bush, President Obama is actually familiar with the constitution, and in a better place to make such a decision.
Based on the information provided, I agree with Barb. Challenging a deceased loved ones wished for personal gain is awful. I'm no law expert, but would a straight married widow even be able to get away with this?
Having an affection for the law as written I know for a fact that the law holds the last will and testiment of the departed in high regards; to the extent that it is considered a cornerstone of our civilization.
This is quite obviously just another full frontal assault on America's foundational supports.
He promised to uphold the law, and he hasn't. Seems pretty clear cut to me what his obligations are.
I guess gay people can be as greedy as straight people.
And in Texas a judge blocks deportation proceedings for a friendship, seems:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/tag/doma
He's actually going against the law? Why do we have a president in office who actively seeks to break US law? 2012 elections can't come fast enough. No wonder his stats are in the toilet.
Thanks for the link Little Man;
I've been telling folks for years that the vast majority of SSM in California were to out of state residents who came in by the bus loads in an attempt to make their numbers appear larger than they were. Even if all 18,000 faux marriages in California were to state residents that will still only account for less than one tenth of one percent (.1) of the population of the that state.
This whole assault on marriage was designed to appear to be far more popular than it actually is. Marriage corruption supporters have based their arguments on excuses, not reasons, peer pressure, not compassion.
Littleman -
If so-called SS"M" is legalized, there is no reason to stop brothers from marrying brothers, moms from marrying sisters, and even brothers from marrying sisters; once the procreative link between marriage is broken, anyone can marry anyone. After all, it's all about love, right?
This, of course, is a great way to bypass the immigration laws. "Marry" your non-citizen brother, bring him into the country then divorce him; then "marry" your non-citizen sister, bring her into the country, divorce her, etc....
One Trackback
[...] View article: George Argues for DOMA in Pennsylvania Federal Court – NOM Blog [...]