Barack Obama | DOMA | Gay Marriage | News

Official White House Response to DOJ - DOMA Uproar

For the record, here's the official response the White House sent Towleroad (also sent to other media) to the uproar over the Department of Justice's motion for dismissal of the federal same-sex marriage case:

"As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT 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."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Except that they don't have to, as AMERICAblog has been pointing out.

    Posted by: Terry | Jun 12, 2009 7:05:07 PM

  2. I could understand them defending DOMA, but how they defended in the amicus brief for DOMA is offensive and distasteful.

    Posted by: Matt from California | Jun 12, 2009 7:07:42 PM


    Posted by: BLUEINTUIT | Jun 12, 2009 7:09:19 PM

  4. woo. f*cking. hoo.

    Posted by: Sam Perry | Jun 12, 2009 7:09:58 PM

  5. The key word is "generally." It's not mandatory, and the Obama administration shouldn't have supported this case. Furthermore, there's defending and there's defending. This brief went much, much too far.

    Posted by: jimstoic | Jun 12, 2009 7:10:14 PM

  6. So I guess that answers the question of whether the Obama administration knew this was happening. Clearly they do and they support it.

    Cue the apologists who try to say maybe he didn't know...we're patiently waiting your next excuse for this Administration's failure to follow through...on anything.

    Posted by: Alex | Jun 12, 2009 7:17:44 PM

  7. Oh, bullshit. The law is indefensible and Obama (and his DOJ) knows it. Even if they did have some sort of a duty to defend the law, they didn't have to plumb the depths of wingnut rhetoric to do so.

    It will be a cold day in hell before Obama sees a dime from me. And if he doesn't start putting some actions behind all his pretty words about gay rights, he can forget about getting my vote in 2012, too.

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 12, 2009 7:19:32 PM

  8. What a steaming pile of bull crap. Utter f---in cowards with no leadership on this issue.

    I guess this is the "big news in June" that was rumored to be given to LGBT people. What a riot.

    This turns the administration from neutral shameful silence to ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE.

    Shame on them.

    This is an outrage.

    Posted by: Leena | Jun 12, 2009 7:20:26 PM

  9. LAME!!!

    Posted by: Ever | Jun 12, 2009 7:21:24 PM

  10. We have been played big time.
    I'm changing my voter registration to anything but Democratic.
    I'm not voting for this liar in the next election.
    He lied to us to our faces when he wanted money. Now he doesn't only ignore us, he spits on us.

    Posted by: Mark | Jun 12, 2009 7:22:48 PM

  11. what a jerk wad thing to do. i had better hopes for this administration. they're dashed.

    Posted by: Kenny | Jun 12, 2009 7:24:04 PM

  12. President Obama you can't have it both ways.

    Posted by: Rafael | Jun 12, 2009 7:24:33 PM

  13. Sure -- defend the law by comparing gay men and women to child rapists. Yeah, right, that's the way to do it.

    Big surprise here, folks.

    Posted by: Kyle Sullivan | Jun 12, 2009 7:25:33 PM

  14. Just to inject a note of calm into this thread, it's worth keeping in mind the potential implications of a Federal Justice Dept that picks and chooses which Federal laws it decides to enforce/defend. Of course this law is disgusting, but imagine a rightwing Justice Dept refusing to enforce an existing Hate Crimes law or ENDA, or the Voting Rights Act. It's the exact same legal principle.

    Where we really need to go after Obama is the HIV travel ban, which even Bush said should go and for which the basic legwork has already been done.

    Posted by: Clay | Jun 12, 2009 7:28:03 PM

  15. LAME.

    Posted by: david | Jun 12, 2009 7:32:45 PM

  16. By the way I think they are getting ready for the Olson Boies lawsuit. The DOJ explicitly cited and argued against the principles and cases that could be tested in that case. This would explain why they went out of their way in defending DOMA by demeaning gay people and their humanity in the process. The White House is afraid of the political implications a Supreme Court ruling in our favor could have in regards to the Obama administration and their aspirations of a second term.

    Posted by: Rafael | Jun 12, 2009 7:39:59 PM

  17. Clay, the HIV travel ban is impossible to defend. But it's trivial compared with this.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jun 12, 2009 7:42:53 PM

  18. Until now, I believed that we should still wait and see before filling up the LGBT scorecard for the Obama administration. Relatively speaking, it is a rather young administration.

    Today, I wonder if I was wrong to think that everyone who has criticized the Obama administration's LGBT record so far jumped the gun in doing so...

    It's not even because they haven't really done anything 'yet'. I (we?) could've waited longer. But using that excuse to defend their action really hits a nerve with me. "We support you, but we have to wait till Congress repeals DADT and DOMA before we will show it."

    To appeal to a broader spectrum, I think the Obama administration just wants to avoid being labeled an activist administration. After all, the label of 'activist' judge comes with negative implications, especially that they will stray too far from established laws or the constitution. So, they proclaim support for LGBT rights, but will wait till it won't be too 'activist' or far-left to actually act on it before actually doing so. It's politically savvy for everyone but LGBT rights supporters.

    Still, I have hope, and when/if the administration finally demonstrates some action and leadership over this issue, we shouldn't hesitate to revise our opinions towards it.

    Posted by: Hish | Jun 12, 2009 7:46:56 PM

  19. I'm switching parties. I feel like a tool with the all the time and money I voted for change. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least we knew with Bush. Obama's just a snake.

    I think GLBT citizens should claim 8 dependents on their taxes this year. State and Federal governments would lose a fortune and it would cost a fortune to pursue.

    The time for civil disobedience is now!

    Posted by: B | Jun 12, 2009 7:56:02 PM

  20. I think it's time to cancel the Gay Pride Parade in NYC this year. It's the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots - No party, no music, no fun, no nakedness we need to get serious about this - we need to replace it with a massive march for equal rights - we need to take it to the streets. I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. We need to get angry.

    Posted by: Todd in NYC | Jun 12, 2009 8:01:04 PM

  21. Hell the HIV travel ban has already been rescinded by the legislature, its Obama who hasn't ended the practice yet. Fuck him!

    Posted by: Jersey | Jun 12, 2009 8:03:15 PM

  22. I believe the appropriate term to be used here in reference to this is, "Fucktard."

    I am sick of being used by politicians to get elected and then getting promptly dropped.

    Posted by: Alexander | Jun 12, 2009 8:15:51 PM

  23. In other words "Fuck you faggots"

    Posted by: Digger | Jun 12, 2009 8:16:26 PM

  24. When the hell are we going to march on Washington??? Where are our leaders??? Who is the next Larry Kramer???

    Posted by: Feral | Jun 12, 2009 8:30:16 PM

  25. Calm down people. Being against DOMA and wanting Congress to repeal it doesn't mean that one has to believe DOMA is itself unconstitutional. I read the entire brief and it is constitutionally sound and reflects precedent. That doesn't mean that the rights of gay people to marry shouldn't be found in the constitution and I do hope the Boies/Olson suit succeeds. But right now, under existing precedent, it is not a constitutional right and, putting my personal feelings and interests aside, I don't see how the constitution as currently interpreted would require states to recognize gay marriages from another state. I wish it we in there, but it isn't.

    Posted by: JimSur212 | Jun 12, 2009 8:32:59 PM

  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment


« «HRC, NGLTF, ACLU, Others Call on Obama To Repeal DOMA Now« «