Notice: All forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at

Obama: Screw DOMA.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Obama: Screw DOMA.

    Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

    By Pete Yost Associated Press / February 23, 2011

    WASHINGTON—The Obama administration says it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

    In a statement Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder says President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration can no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

    The Justice Department had defended the Defense of Marriage Act in court until now.


  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama: Screw DOMA.

    Really?  I mean nobody has to comment... 

    Oh well.  To those who always raised Obama's defense of DOMA to counter a suggestion that Republicans are anti-gay-rights or to counter the suggestion that Democrats are pro-gay-rights....    that dissapeared.

    Through various means, he will have effected the end of DADT and DOMA during his first time.


    WASHINGTON — President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional.

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday saying that the Justice Department will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law.

    “The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law,” a crucial provision of the act is unconstitutional, Mr. Holder wrote.