©
By JOSH GERSTEIN
The Obama Administration said Friday it is declining to defend the government in yet another lawsuit challenging federal laws limiting recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder sent Congressional leaders a letter formally notifying them that the Justice Department will not defend a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law preventing same-sex spouses of military personnel from receiving veterans' benefits.
"The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex spouses of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans," Holder said. In the letter (posted here), Holder instructed Justice Department lawyers not to fight the constitutional claims in a lawsuit brought by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of individuals who have been denied benefits.
About a year ago, with the backing of President Barack Obama, Holder told Justice Department lawyers not to fight lawsuits challenging the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that bars the federal government from providing health and retirement benefits to same-sex spouses of government employees, even if the couples are legally married in states where such marriages are permitted. Friday, he extended that position to benefits military spouses receive.
"Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that could warrant treating these [military benefit] provisions differently from [the parallel portion of] DOMA," Holder wrote.
The House of Representatives has essentially picked up the ball in the DOMA cases by retaining a private attorney, Paul Clement, to argue for the constitutionality of the law. A spokesman for House Speake John Boehner did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment on Holder's decision.
Gay rights groups hailed Holder's decision last year. They also welcomed the announcement Friday that the department was taking the same stance in the military-related cases.
"We are pleased that the Attorney General has decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the military context, just as he has declined to defend it in other contexts," Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement. "We are also delighted that, for the first time, he has said that separate definitions that apply to military veterans are also unconstitutional."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Eleminate all the dependant pay outs and solve all the concerns
From what I have read the unpopular vote getting issues amongst the poloiticians is/are based upon the "hero worsipering mentality" public. We are now since post Vietnam a volunteer service.Insure the best materials to cover the ACTIVE DUTY troop by eliminating the "family,ie commissary,class 6 store,the various family services etc."The spouse volunteers via proxy to "serve". Stop the handouts which make protecting the ACTIVE duty troop from protection.No more every child a free college education. Our Coms,Bx, etc are solicitating from local vendors, and the smart spouse will no longer pass by 5,10 etc stores to save pennies.The important value is the volunteer troop. This will save millions and eliminate the "gay" spouse concern and more
I knew it!
The writing was on the wall back in 2010 when this started to cease.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/11/gates-calls-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal#comment-1029711
Previously, gays were discharged. Yet, that was the law. That policy as dictated by the U.S. Code and each administration signing the UCMJ and adhered to by DoD.
Now that the winds of change have shifted and Congress corrected its stance and permitted gays to serve in the military, I knew it would come to this and others.
The FEDERAL government passed DOMA back in 1996 and now it won't defend it?
There's gotta be a better to deal with this.
IT'S ALL ABOUT VOTES
NOT about equality.............
Do you really believe that this president ALWAYS believed in this?
Read his history, look where he attended church and what was "preached" there.
I believe in equal rights but PLEASE don't make this some "magical moment" because it's NOT.
This is going to be a VERY tight election and they're doing everything possible to get more votes.
When will the media expose this manure as they have done in the past?
Separation of Powers
I am personally against the Defense of Marriage Act but the fact is that it is the law of the land, passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton. According to AG Holder, President Obama said, "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA ... is therefore unconstitutional..." The problem is that the President doesn't get to make that decision. Only the US Supreme Court can, and unless or until is does the administration is constitutionally required to uphold it. The proper route would have been for the Democrats to introduce a law repealing it when they had control of both houses of Congress. Instead, Obama waited until after the GOP took over to make this move.
Marriage benefits
I believe I should have the constitutional right to have multiple wives. We have opened Pandora's box.
Okay.
Okay.
My mother the car!
Yep, you can see where this is headed.
To repeat posts I've made before.
Ending don't ask don't tell had nothing to do with military service. It is a short cut to federal recognition of same sex marriage. Once one could openly serve, the matter of same sex couples would have to be settled. If a service member married in New York and filled for Married BAH the only outcome was for the federal government to recognize the marriage. Transfer the service member to a state that does not recognize a same sex marriage and the government can't say they aren't married anymore.
Some will say it was an unintended consequence, but it was the plan all along.
I just wonder what obama, reid and palosi would say to
two known pedohile males who get married and then want to adopt a child or 5 of them? Since they have to be concidered as any other normal couple, can any group deny them their choice of little girls? After all, they would be the most detested pairing on the face of the earth. Based on lib logic, they should be front of the line for anything they, as a couple, would want. Their civil rights would be violated if a judge said no to their most cherished desire. To hold a small innocent child behind closed doors. Will the libs demand that the little girls be given to these men who are only acting as a couple and who are following natures calling? Just like gays are following natures calling and demanding equal rights as a married couple?
Known pedophile males?
If they are "known pedophiles", they would have had a conviction record and would be required to register as sex offenders.
Sex offenders, depending upon the state or locality, are severely restricted about where they can live and how close they can approach anyplace where children congregate such as schools, playground and day care centers.
I don't think they would be eligible for being adoptive parents.
So, yes, they can definitely be denied the custody of any children, period.