Does Federal Law Trump an Oath to the Constitution?

Obama’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act follows conservative precedent.

It’s not every day that the Obama administration borrows a page from the conservative legal playbook. But that’s what happened last week when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.

According to a letter Holder sent to Congress, DOMA’s requirement that the federal government recognize only heterosexual marriage “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” and should therefore be struck down. “This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute,” Holder wrote, though he noted that the administration will continue to enforce the law and will provide Congress “a full and fair opportunity” to assume DOMA’s legal defense.

Despite the angry protestations of leading conservatives—former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fumed that “the president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama” while the Capital Research Center’s Matthew Vadum argued that Obama could be impeached for failing to defend DOMA—the president’s decision actually follows in the footsteps of two significant conservative precedents.

First, there was Solicitor General (and future Supreme Court nominee) Robert Bork’s approach to the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo. Bork’s job as solicitor general was to give the government's position in defense of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The only problem was that Bork believed one of FECA’s provisions, which allowed Congress to appoint members to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. In Bork’s view, the power to make FEC appointments fell exclusively within the executive branch.

So instead of submitting one brief to the Supreme Court, Bork submitted two, one challenging the constitutionality of the appointments provision and the other strongly defending the rest of FECA. Bork also ensured that the FEC would be filing its own brief defending the provision he had attacked. In its ruling, the Court largely sided with Bork, striking the appointments provision while upholding other aspects of the law. As Bork later explained of his approach, “it would seem to me not only institutionally unnecessary but a betrayal of profound obligations to the Court and to Constitutional processes to take the simplistic position that whatever Congress enacts we will defend, entirely as advocates for the client and without an attempt to present the issues in the round.”

That’s what Obama and Holder did last week. Keep in mind that while the Constitution requires the executive branch to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the president also swears an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. The question is what happens when the executive is charged with executing a law he deems unconstitutional. Should a contested congressional statute trump an oath to the Constitution?

Deputy Solicitor General (and current Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Roberts faced that dilemma in 1990. At issue that year in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission was a government policy giving preferential treatment to minority-owned stations seeking a broadcast license from the FCC. According to the George H.W. Bush administration this racial preference was unconstitutional. Roberts therefore filed a brief with the Supreme Court describing the policy as “precisely the type of racial stereotyping that is anathema to basic constitutional principles” while permitting the FCC to mount its own defense of the minority preference. The Court sided with the FCC.

So unless Gingrich and other conservative critics are also willing to denounce Bork and Roberts for violating the rule of law, they have no coherent argument against Holder and Obama. In fact, conservatives might even want to thank the administration. While Obama’s decision was probably unnecessary to secure DOMA’s eventual legal defeat, it has given the GOP a powerful campaign issue. It may also have set the stage for some political payback. As the liberal UCLA law professor Adam Winkler worried last week in response to Holder’s announcement, “Think of the laws that might be undermined by the next Republican president.”

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BTW, Fuck Racist Holder||

    Off Topic/:

    Reich To Rich: Redistribute Or Risk Angry Populace Turning On You!

    Nice house there, rich guy. Wouldn't wanna see nuthin' happen to it . . .

    Robert Reich has actually argued that the rich should welcome redistributing more of their income to prevent an angry American populace from turning on them.

    Clinton's former Labor Secretary made his astounding assertion on Cenk Uygur's MSNBC show this evening. View video after the jump.


    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blo.....z1FTvnWw5E

  • Gus||

    "And then they see, uh, Republicans are very good at channeling that anger toward what? Government, immigrants, public employees. Well, an angry population and an angry populace could just as easily turn their anger toward the very rich. Again, it is in the interest of the people at the top to actually call for a more equitable distribution of the gains of economic growth and a better tax system: a tax system that is fair."

  • The Gobbler||

    That is one disgusting man.

  • ||

    Oh, please. The left always retreats to this when they're worried that the majority isn't buying into entitlements with enough zeal. "If you don't give them more, they'll kill you in your sleep!"

    Nonsense. Things simply aren't bad enough here, even at the bottom, for people to revolt over economic disparities.

  • The Administration||

    Just give us a little more time.

  • Tony||

    Having the world's largest prison population by a mile helps keep things under control.

  • DK||

    Leave it to Tony to pull a nonsequitur citation of an effect of overbearing statism (the passage of laws which make private, victimless actions a crime). I'm sure this is all libertarianism's fault and everyone of the Reason boards believes this? God, you're dense.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.2.11 @ 6:02PM|#
    "Having the world's largest prison population by a mile helps keep things under control."

    And the idiot known as Tony wants to increase taxes!
    Hey, idiot! Where do you think those taxes go?

  • ||

    That's, of course, entirely false. You think China has fewer prisoners than us? Really? Ditto most of the other oppressive regimes in the world.

    It's a fair comparison when you talk about other liberal countries, of course.

    Anyway, heard the exact same crap during the welfare reform period in the 90s.

  • Joel||

    We have 2.3 million prisoners compared to China's 1.6 million.

  • DNS||

    We have 2.3 million prisoners compared to China's 1.6 million.

    This assumes that China's incarceration statistics are accurate. Out of a 5 billion + population, in a country notorious for a blatant disregard for basic human rights, color me skeptical.

  • Basic Geography||

    China has about 1.3 billion people.

  • ||

    Of course they don't. They're far more advanced than us. They cannibalize their political dissidents for organs and chic biology exhibits.

  • ||

    Until the economy blows up and there's no more money to fund the entitlement junkies. Unfortunately it will more likely be the middle class that suffers more from the impending violence.

    Look at Wisconsin, then tell me when there is a genuine financial disaster that there will not be rioting and looting, and that the rich will not be targeted.

  • sevo||

    "Look at Wisconsin, then tell me when there is a genuine financial disaster that there will not be rioting and looting, and that the rich will not be targeted."

    The "entitled" middle class rioting against the working middle class.

  • ||

    How, pray tell, are the rich the problem? They're already carrying way more than their fair share as it is. Who exactly do you think pays the income taxes?

  • cynical||

    How, pray tell, do you expect rationality to rule the covetous black hearts of the legion of malcontents that have empowered most of history's tyrants?

  • ||

    Learn to read (and economics), I didn't say the rich were the problem, I said they would be targeted. As for the rich, what do you think overburdensome regulations and the federal reserve do? The uber wealthy are not operating in a free market environment.

  • ||

    That doesn't even make bad sense.

  • ||

    We may get a chance to see the a republican President do the same thing when Obamacare goes to SCOTUS.

  • ||

    As Andrew Jackson proved, the President is not obligated to follow the Constitution or adverse SCOTUS rulings.

    George W. Sadr and Dickless Cheney were apt pupils in this regard - ignoring SCOTUS/Constitution on rendition/torture/Hamdan/EPA etc.

    After all - it was the Bushpigs who said "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper". *

    * (disputed by some - but in reality his actions said as much)

  • ||

    Shrike, you trying to win friends with that comment? That's all I heard around here for eight years.

  • DK||

    So Bush and Jackson were the only fucktards who ignored the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings? I think you should retake your history class. Get it through your head - both parties are filled with losers. No one gives a shit if you hate Bush; most of us do as well.

  • sevo||

    "* (disputed by some - but in reality his actions said as much)"

    IOW's you pulled it out of your ass.

  • The Gobbler||

    George W. Sadr, Barack Obama and Dickless Cheney were apt pupils in this regard - ignoring SCOTUS/Constitution on rendition/torture/Hamdan/EPA etc.

    Updated that for you.

  • Fire Tiger||

    “This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute,”

    If by "the rare case" he means, "an example of most of what gets passed", then may have a point.

  • ||

    Mr. Root, Neither Bork nor Roberts were AG or POTUS at the time. Also, they only submitted briefs as an argument to SCOTUS. This is a big difference when compared to unilaterally deciding to violate a constitutional oath to uphold the nation's laws, which Holder and Obama have decided to do. Please clarify why you are, effectively, comparing apples and oranges.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "...deciding to violate a constitutional oath to uphold the nation's laws"

    What? I thought he swore an oath to uphold the constitution. What could possibly be meant by a *constitutional* oath to enforce laws that violate the constitution? Where there's a conflict between the constitution and the laws, something has to give. That something should be DOMA, not the constitution.

  • MattN||

    Cool -- the only commenter who gets it so far.

    HUGE difference between filing briefs in COURT CASES, where these things ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDED, and taking unilateral action as the executive to effectively nullify legislation.

    The presidential oath reads, "... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    The ONLY way to achieve that standard is for the executive branch to: (1) NOT explicitly violate the constitution; (2) Carry out the responsibilities laid out for the executive in the constitution.

    The two examples you give violate neither of these, while Holder's actions violate the 2nd.

    Don't get me wrong -- I fully expect this has been done by Republicans in the past, and/or if it was an action in their favor they'd support it.

    But these supposed examples are totally pathetic.

  • ||

    This is a big difference when compared to unilaterally deciding to violate a constitutional oath to uphold the nation's laws, which Holder and Obama have decided to do.

    I find myself in the unusual position of backing, in principle anyway, what Holder and Obama are doing here. I say "in principle" because I am not at all sure that DOMA is unconstitutional.

    You can't uphold the nation's laws by implementing or enforcing unconstitutional laws, regardless of whether they have been passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    What Holder and Obama are doing here is merely taking the next logical step: that defending an unconstitutional law against a court challege is contrary to their oath to uphold the Constitution.

  • ||

    Ah, so clever. This is one of those fake "gotcha" moments.

    Damon Root raises many interesting, arguable points but he is misusing the term "precedent" when he writes that "the president’s decision actually follows in the footsteps of two significant conservative precedents."

    He is referring to decisions by previous administrations not to defend statutes or parts thereof in court out of concern they run afoul of the Constitution. Such decisions strike me as bad behavior just like the Obama decision not to defend DOMA in court.

    Here's where Mr. Root may not realize he is on thin ice.

    The thing that has "precedential" value is the opinion or judgment itself. A decision not to prosecute or not to appeal does not in and of itself set a binding legal precedent. A prosecutor's decision not to pursue one pickpocket does not require him to let the next pickpocket go free.

    Courts set precedents; attorneys don't.

    Root gets fairly slippery. He creates a false dichotomy consisting of i) enforcing a law and ii) failing to defend a law in court.

    It is truly a distinction without a difference. To enforce the law means to carry it out from indictment to trial and through appeals (or in a civil case from complaint to trial and through appeals). By refusing to defend a statute the administration is refusing to enforce the law. Period. No amount of lawyerly sophistry can change this fact.

    By the way, I am not actually convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act is a good thing. Perhaps it is indeed unconstitutional. I really don't know.

    The law may sometimes be an ass but while it remains the law the government must enforce it. This is the essence of the rule of law.

  • ||

    He creates a false dichotomy consisting of i) enforcing a law and ii) failing to defend a law in court.

    It is truly a distinction without a difference. To enforce the law means to carry it out from indictment to trial and through appeals

    So let's suppose that the last action of a departing-from-office President Obama is to sign a bill into law that mandates immediate confiscation of all firearms, with a mandatory death sentence for all who refuse to follow the law.

    Clearly, it violates a number of constitutional principles.

    Are you arguing that it would be the responsibility of the president following Obama to confiscate guns and execute those who refuse to give them up until every last appeal?

    Are you further arguing that it's the responsibility of the following president to appeal the law to its utmost conclusion and insist that such a clear violation of the Constitution isn't a violation of the Constitution?

  • DK||

    Moreover, if a Court sets this precedent, it's totally cool? You can go with any other heinous example you'd like. Guns might not be a great example as many on the left do have such visceral feelings.

  • DK||

    Moreover, if a Court sets this precedent, it's totally cool? You can go with any other heinous example you'd like. Guns might not be a great example as many on the left do have such visceral feelings.

  • Matthew Vadum||

    That is about as far-fetched an example as could be presented. It is a crazy hypothetical. Such a law could never be enacted in the U.S. and if it were to be enacted the point would be moot because the country would have lapsed into totalitarianism.

    Translation: Your argument is stupid and is not a serious reply to what I wrote here.

  • ||

    But we're talking about principles, here, Matt. Waving it away as unlikely is no answer.

    My position is pretty clear: a President's ultimate responsibility is fidelity to the Constitution. When he concludes that a given statute is unconstitutional, he has, not just the option, but a duty to not defend it against being voided by the courts.

  • ||

    Exactly. If the logic doesn't apply in "crazy" situations, then it fails by default.

    Most of the people who claim that this is "no big deal" or "not comparable" aren't affected by the law in question. It's funny how their tolerance for "always enforce the law regardless of constitutionality and defend it to the Supreme Court" vanishes quickly when it's *their* rights being violated and not some other group's.

  • ||

    It is a crazy hypothetical.

    Sorta like me asking you about a "crazy situation" where the US president would pass a law that would allow wiretaps without warrants, secret searches, and indefinite detention without trial back in the year 2000, eh?

    That's the trouble with you conservatives. No principles, no imagination, consistency only in your inconsistency, and ultimately no argument.

  • cynical||

    I think he was just saying, or at least strongly implying, that this is typical myopic TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE bullshit rather than a question of principle.

  • Number 2||

    I have vented elsewhere at the President declaring a law to be indefensibly unconstitutional while simultaneously continuing to enforce it, so I will move onto another issue.

    Obama and Holder assert that there is no reasonable basis for defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. That is hogwash. There is a "reasonable basis;" namely, that two Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld Section 3 against equal protection challenge. You may think those two courts got it wrong, but as long as that precedent is out there, you have a "reasonable basis" for defending Section 3 simply by citing those cases.

    What troubles me is that there are other constitutional grounds for challenging DOMA, not the least of which being that the federal government has no business defining marriage. But neither Obama nor Holder will make that argument. Under the Obama/Holder approach, the federal government can remain in the marriage regulation business as long as it treats gays and straights equally. They may appear to be serving the cause of equal rights, but they are silently pushing the expansion of federal authority in doing so.

  • ||

    there are other constitutional grounds for challenging DOMA, not the least of which being that the federal government has no business defining marriage

    Okily-dokily. Let's say this line of argument is accepted by the federal judiciary and carried out to the utmost. What happens to all the stuff that used to be dependent on federal marriage status -- from immigration to tax treatment to testimony exemption?

    I'm all for getting the gummint out of the marriage business, but it has to be done in a practical way.

  • sevo||

    "I'm all for getting the gummint out of the marriage business, but it has to be done in a practical way."

    And in a way which provides equal protection until that happens.

  • Number 2||

    What the hell is "federal marriage status?" There is no federal marriage. Marriage has historically been defined by state law.

  • sevo||

    "Newt Gingrich fumed that “the president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama”"

    Note to Ginrich: You're full of shit.

  • ||

    And that pisses Newt off, because its the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Newcularity.

  • ||

    Newt is an expert on the sanctity of marriage -- he's had three of them, with the first and second ended by illicit and adulterous affairs with the future "spouse."

    Adultery is a criminal offense in many states, punishable by prison time, fines and sex offender registration on conviction -- why aren't the attorneys general doing their constitutional duty and enforcing the rule of law to the letter against adulterers like Gingrich?!?

    (Goodness, this fake outrage over "the letter of the law" cuts both ways!)

  • ||

    So on this issue the constitution which has not meant anything for at least since FDR, at least since the creation of the federal reserve, at least since the reconstruction congress,at least since Lincoln comes into play?

  • sevo||

    Would you rather they continue to ignore it?

  • ||

    The point is the US constitution is a dead letter. A government by force that can change the instrument under which it was created as an act of voluntary agreement and by force keep the parties that want to leave is no longer a constitutional government.

    As for DOMA, let's assume that the USC is still in effect, then the original understanding of marriage at the time of it's ratification holds and it is entirely constitutional.

  • sevo||

    Len|3.2.11 @ 8:32PM|#
    "The point is the US constitution is a dead letter."
    In which case, your argument is irrelevant; the can do what they please.

    "As for DOMA, let's assume that the USC is still in effect, then the original understanding of marriage at the time of it's ratification holds and it is entirely constitutional."
    Hogwash.

  • ||

    Can't argue with your logic..as you didn't use any.

  • ||

    "the(y) can do what they please."

    Um, hello? WTF do you think they do?

  • ||

    As for DOMA, let's assume that the USC is still in effect, then the original understanding of marriage at the time of it's ratification holds and it is entirely constitutional.

    Well, except for this whole thing known as the "amendment process," which created this thing called the "14th Amendment," which pretty much eliminated large swathes of the "original intent" of marriage law -- including women as property of the husband and anti-miscegenation laws.

    Why do "original intent" people ignore the fact that Amendments are indeed part of the Constitution they claim to love so much?!?

  • suck me, please||

    Obama and Holder - two persnickety Negroes in positions of awesome power. This is America in 2011. We are being run by socialist characters with Everest-large chips on their shoulders, and now social justice rules the day.

  • ||

    Newsletter?

  • rather||

    You can google suck me, please and find plenty of newsletters with pretty pictures

  • That Guy!||

    Okay, so it's every other day.

  • ||

    The best argument for saying DOMA violates equal protection is that "marriage" is no longer defined as "between a man and a woman."

    Defined by who becomes the next question. For a Constitutional challenge, I think this would have to mean as defined by society at large. How does a judge know how society at large defines a term? Well, he can look at state legislation (still a small minority have rejected the traditional definition), so that doesn't bring it home.

    Or he can stare at the ceiling and just kind of go with what comes to him. Not a very satisfactory basis, IMO, for overturning a definition and an institution that has been in place for millenia. And not an approach that has led to liberty-friendly results in the past.

  • sevo||

    "Not a very satisfactory basis, IMO, for overturning a definition and an institution that has been in place for millenia."

    Bullshit. "Marriage" has been defined in many ways even in the last couple of hundred years.

  • cynical||

    Some definitions have been more dominant in the west and America than others.

  • ||

    Well... Team FagHate's argument consists of "Marriage is only one man and one woman, so our hands are tied. This is the tradition after all." Yet many other christian churches have ordained homosexual priests and pastors and have married same-sex couples. Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have all performed same-sex "Marriage".

    So, there you have it: either the definition of the word "marriage" is changing or there is no consensus on the definition of marriage.

    The "tradition" argument is not a strong point to stand on.

  • ||

    Marriage is between one man, and one woman... unless you're Newt Gingrich -- then it's between one man and THREE women (so far).

    Marriage is between one man and one woman, as biblically defined, except in the case of King Solomon, King David, and a dozen other Biblical characters.

    Marriage has ALWAYS been traditionally defined as a government contract of equals with the ability to dissolve it in a no-fault divorce -- an ancient tradition that goes back ENTIRE DECADES!

    Etc., etc., etc.

  • ||

    overturning a definition and an institution

    I *love* this bullshit argument.

    "If this group of people we hate is permitted to get a piece of paper from the gummint that allows them to share assets tax-free, sponsor each other for citizenship/visas, and legally avoid testimony against each other in court, AN INSTITUTION IS BEING OVERTURNED!"

    If the only thing preventing an "institution from being overturned" is the federal government treating others equally, that institution is a de-facto statist fiction and should be overturned.

    Of course, experience shows that the "overturning" point is alarmist horseshit, loved only by statists who believe that if society isn't micromanaged by bureaucrats according to their "standards," it will "collapse" (i.e. people will live the way they want to live rather than the way it "should be" according to the statist).

  • ||

    He swore an oath to defend the Constitution. DOMA is not part of the Constitution.

  • MattN||

    No, but the executive's role in the judiciary as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (in which Congress established the judicial branch) includes the creation of the office of attorney general and related functions -- as part of the executive branch. By choosing not to carry out that role the executive could be violating federal law as established by the Congress (as per their role described in the Constitution), and is therefore NOT preserving, protecting, or defending the Constitution.

    The only way to avoid the role established for the executive by congress, while still preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, is for the executive to file suit challenging the constitutionality of the law they wish to not enforce (or challenging the constitutionality of the office of attorney general... fat chance).

  • ||

    DOMA & Roe are bad federal law for the samw reason. STATES issue & regulate licenses. some will, some wont. dern federalism, how does that work?

  • Jeremy||

    Couldn't you argue that not defending the DOMA is a violation of the 10th amendment? I was under the impression that the DOMA was to make it possible for a state to deny recognition of a same-sex marriage of another state if that state decided only heterosexual marriage would be allowed.

  • mgd||

    That's Section 2. Section 3, which IIRC is the section that the administration is saying they will not enforce/defend, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Section 3 is a violation of the Tenth as defining marriage is not a power delegated to the federal government.

  • Lawless||

    If BHO weren't lawless in every other matter, this would go down smoother.

  • ||

    Ron Paul also bitched about this. He really disappointed me big time. In 2007 he tells John Stossel that gays should be allowed to marry. Then in 2011 he complains cuz Obama no longer defends a law that his party loves. Then he goes on to say he'd fight against this wholeheartedly in Iowa, then goes on a speaking tour with a right-wing conservative christian organization. Way to go Ron Paul, way to betray your Constitutional values of civil liberties. Way to kick out this gay that supported you and your cause and probably a lot of others.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is a fraud. He's been a fraud for a long time.

  • ||

    FYI, blowhards: there's as much in the Constitution to support the President's ability to determine constitutionality of a law as there is for judges to do the same. Same goes for Congress. Judicial review is a myth created by the 3rd branch to make their jobs more interesting.

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • Eddie||

    I have to admit that I haven't read everything there is to read about the Obama administration's decision regarding DOMA, but, instead of "unilaterally" deciding not to enforce DOMA, shouldn't there be (or is there?) a mechanism where the Executive Branch can bring a law it deems unconstitutional before the courts, in order to sue for the law's annulment?

    From what I understand, the Executive Branch is tasked with enforcing the laws enacted by Congress. No matter how good it is that Obama has decided not to enforce DOMA, if the Executive Branch has the power to pick and choose which laws it will enforce, that only gives the President more power. And, from everything I’ve read, I’d say that the Presidency has amassed enough power over the years.

    To put things in perspective ... I, personally, think the whole idea of marriage is silly, because my gal and I have two boys (spawned by the two of us), the oldest is nine, and, even though we haven’t signed a marriage contract, we’re still a family. Furthermore, the divorce rate makes the whole idea of marriage even more absurd. So, I don’t quite understand why this seemingly temporary contractual existence is such a “sacred” issue.

    Marriage should be a religious issue, governed by the First Amendment. I can’t see why the government, at any level, federal, state or local, should have anything to do with marriage. If two people want to sign a legal marriage contract, that should be between them and their lawyers. The only time the government should ever get involved is when one of the parties should seek to contest the contract.

    Yet, marriage is such a big deal that you can file taxes differently, if you’re married. You can get “family” insurance plans, so long as you sign that marriage contract. The problem of marriage lies in the fact that married couples are treated differently by insurance companies, the IRS, divorce lawyers, and who-knows-what-other institution.

    And, the reason married couples get such special treatment is because the whole idea of marriage is ingrained in the popular mindset. And, that’s fine. That’s what religion and the local communities are for. That’s what neighbors are for. That’s what friends are for. Most people, even those who consider themselves to be individualists or outcasts, have a need for approval from their fellow human beings. Communities and religious centers are truly the proper places for marriage debates. Town halls, state legislatures, Washington DC ... they all waste our time and money (procured in the form of taxes) debating the marriage issue.

    If homosexuals want to get married, let them! Why not? Two guys getting married the next state over, or the next county over, or the next town over, or the next street over, or even next-door won’t affect my life or your life in any way, whatsoever. Not even the smallest amount. (Well, unless you’re a divorce lawyer.)

    So, I support gay and lesbian marriage, but, at the same time, I don’t support the Obama administration’s decision to not enforce DOMA. If Obama opposes DOMA, he should find the legal means to have the law overturned, thereby preserving the separation of powers built into the Constitution.

  • kelly||

    Whoa...since when did you guys start doing game commentary?

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • دليل||

    asfasfa

  • mbti||

    asfasfa

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

  • jason||

    These are some of the complications of federal law, so we have to solve it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement