Bigotry Watch: House Repubs to defend DOMA? Bring it on!

Read: “ The GOP’s Sanctimonious Defense Of The Sanctity Of DOMA “
Given Monday’s news that this week, a bill to repeal DOMA will be introduced into the Republican-held House , and as we await a companion DOMA repeal bill that will be introduced by Senator Feinstein into the Senate , the only certain way we can remove the shackles of DOMA is through
the courts, as there is no way we will pass a DOMA repeal bill in this
Republican-controlled House and in a pre-presidential election year
Senate.
I reached out to Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom To
Marry, and the man considered to be the father of the modern-day
marriage equality movement, and asked him what he thought about the
Republican House’s decision to defend DOMA in court. He responds:
“The
President and Attorney General had it right when they said that morally
and legally, the discriminatory so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ is
indefensible. Whatever legal briefs the House leadership pays for — out
of our tax dollars — will only be able to rehash the anti-gay arguments
and absence of evidence that led the Administration — and the
Nixon-appointed federal judge who ruled against DOMA at the trial level —
to conclude that DOMA is unconstitutional. And that rehashing won’t
make DOMA any more palatable .. or constitutional.”
I whole-heartedly agree.
One
of the reasons we can and should let the Republicans be the ones to try
to defend DOMA in court is the fact that we need to educate America
about why DOMA is unconstitutional, and about why the law
should be on our side. As if to prove my point, I came across a
well-written but terribly misguided letter-to-the-editor in a local
Kansas newspaper, titled, “Going Against God .”
The letter begins,
“President
Obama’s decision to subvert the law and usurp the prerogatives of the
Federal Judiciary by declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be
unconstitutional should be cause for great concern for Bible-believing
Americans.”
As many people know, the country is not ruled by
the law of God but by the law of man, and any attempt to introduce
biblical law into the books must be as vigorously fought on the left as
the right is fighting the false specter of Sharia law introduction into
America jurisprudence. And this decision neither “subverts the law” nor
“usurps the prerogatives of the judiciary.”
The writer continues with,
“The
president announced that the Department of Justice would no longer
defend DOMA. By deeming the Defense of Marriage Act to be indefensible
and unconstitutional, President Obama has once again exposed his
willingness to subvert the checks and balances at the heart of our
Constitution.”
Stop right there sir! It is critical that we
spread the word that a president has the legal right to not defend laws
in court. While the executive branch must enforce the laws, it is under no obligation to defend them if they believe them to be unconstitutional, as this president, the attorney general, and a federal judge have all stated.
He continues,
“This,
in spite of the fact that DOMA has been in federal law since 1996 – and
has withstood many court challenges. The president and his attorney
general have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially
when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Again, presidents have a duty to enforce, but not defend the law in court.
We
absolutely must make absolutely clear that other presidents have
refused to defend laws they believed unconstitutional also, including
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Truman, Ford, Clinton, Bush 41, Bush 43,
and yes, Reagan.
NPR’s Nina Totenberg explains :
“During
the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in
one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in
schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the
post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently
upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend
the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme
Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house
legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the
administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.
The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the
dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W.
Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied
mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads
advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush
administration, theJustice Department refused to defend a federal law
providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a
law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote.
Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead
counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by
the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.”
Getting back to our letter-to-the-editor writer, who says,
“Thirty
states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as the union
of one man and one woman. Attorney General Eric Holder justifying his
position says that in the congressional debates there were ‘numerous
expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their
intimate family relationships.’ He went on to describe this as ‘animus,’
or hatred.”
“There is no hate coming from Christians on
this issue. God loves everyone. God’s moral laws are the best way for us
to live as a society. Our Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence were set up by God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians.
God, through his book the Bible, says homosexuality is morally wrong. We
love the sinner but not the sin. Ninety-eight percent of places of
worship in America are Christian churches. Our president is going
against the majority once again.”
Again, the laws of man and
the relationship of man to god in America are neither congruous nor
should they be. In other words, keep your bible out of my civil laws!
And,
as an aside, yes there is hate, there has been hate, oh, so much hate
and animus. And majority rule is never a good idea when it comes to the
civil rights of the minority. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of our
founding fathers the tea party likes to quote so much these days, who
wrote, “that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws
must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Read: “ Hate Group American Family Association: DOMA Is Unconstitutiona l”
Our letter writer ends with,
“The
president and the attorney general took oaths to defend the
Constitution. The arrogance demonstrated by them we can only hope
awakens a deep resolve among patriotic citizens. God, who put us here to
have a personal relationship with him, to spread his love and live with
him forever, says it’s wrong. Our best chance of living a life of love
and prosperity is to follow God’s word. Please don’t say, “What is the
big deal, who cares whether gays get to marry?” God makes the rules. Our
society and our families will benefit if we follow God’s word and not
the words of man. A man, our president, is saying it’s OK for gays to
marry, going against God’s word. Most of us live such a soft, spoiled
life. We forget the blood, sweat and tears it’s taken to make our
country great. Please, America, stand for what God says is the right and
wrong ways to live.”
Let me remind this writer, and the
public at large, that the president, sadly, has not said he supports
marriage equality, or “gay marriage.” And also let me remind everyone,
DOMA is not in the Constitution. You know, it’s so
funny how modern-day self-professed “tea party patriots” and social
conservatives (and the House Republicans) claim all of a sudden they
need to know “where in the Constitution does it say…” yet they are so
unfamiliar with the Constitution!
Bottom line, Obama has no legal
requirement to defend DOMA. DOMA is not a part of the Constitution.
Almost every president since Truman has refused to defend one law or
another.
So, let the House Republicans spend the people’s time and
money on defending DOMA. They will quickly learn unconstitutional laws
are indefensible, they will lose, and we will be free of DOMA.

David Badash is the founder and editor of The New Civil Rights Movement .