Obama DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases

Meanwhile, as LGBT Americans face threats from the GOP, our "fierce advocate's" Department of Justice continues to defend laws that keep LGBT citizens second class citizens. Yes, Obama got DADT repeal legislation passed, but now it seems we are back to the same old crap: lots of lip service and actions that tell a far different story. There are those who will disabuse me for saying so, but I still don;t trust Obama as far as I could throw an aircraft carrier. To me, actions speak louder than mealy mouthed words and precedents exist where Obama could relent in his defense of DOMA, a law that wrote religious based discrimination into the federal laws. To me. it's yet another example of the special rights given to Christians - or should we say conservative Christians whose rights always seem to trump those of all other citizens. I am OVER IT! Chris Geidner looks at Obama's latest bullshit at MetroWeekly. Here are highlights:
*
[T]he Department of Justice filed its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in a single filing for both Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States. This past July, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Section Three of DOMA -- which sets a federal definition for "marriage" and spouse" -- is unconstitutional.
*
The government announced in October 2010 that it planned to appeal the rulings. the government asserts three reasons to justify DOMA's continued validity:
*
1. Congress Could Have Rationally Concluded That DOMA Promotes A Legitimate Interest in Preserving a National Status Quo at the Federal Level While States Engage in a Period of Evaluation of and Experience with Opening Marriage to Same-Sex Couples.
*
2. Congress Could Reasonably Conclude That DOMA Serves a Legitimate Federal Interest in Uniform Application of Federal Law Within and Across States During a Period When Important State Laws Differ.
*
3. Congress Could Reasonably Have Believed That by Maintaining the Status Quo, DOMA Serves the General Federal Interest of Respecting Policy Development among the States While Preserving the Authority of Each Sovereign to Choose its Own Course.
*
Although each is slightly different, these three "rationales" do read like different shades of the same argument, which is more or less that DOMA made sense -- or, is rational -- because the states hadn't reached a uniform decision. In addition, the government argues that -- contrary to the trial court decision in the Massachusetts case -- DOMA does not violate either the Spending Clause or the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
*

The DOJ can parse words and do whatever disingenuous verbal somersaults it wants. In the end DOMA is based on one thing and one thing only- anti-gay prejudice that stems 100% from increasingly antiquated religious belief. As such, it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.