***
Congressman Barney Frank issued the following statement in response to
a newspaper story regarding his position on the brief by the Department
of Justice about Smelt v. United States.
“When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s
brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I
made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of
what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson
to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before
I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.”
“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made
a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric.
There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing
their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that
they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather
what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard
– which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I
think it should be upgraded.”
“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration
had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think
it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of
President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed
with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example.
It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his
obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate
processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are
gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight
for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who
disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option
of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”
“I strongly opposed DOMA when it was adopted and I will continue to fight for
changes. I support very strongly the lawsuit brought by the people at Gay & Lesbian
Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) that make the cogent argument that DOMA’s provision
denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages blatantly violates the equal
protection clause. And I will work with the Obama administration as they have
promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job
discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical
when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief,
I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism
in this instance.”
