There has been some walk-back on the Justice Department’s brief in defense of DOMA, which seemed to equate same sex marriage with incest. As Jake Tapper reports, the qualms come from a staff secretary to the President:
In a panel discussion at the liberal American Constitution Society Friday, President Obama’s staff secretary, Lisa Brown, expressed personal reservations about some of the language in the Justice Department brief against same-sex marriage that cited the ability of states to refuse to recognize incestuous marriages as a comparison with same-sex ones.
“It was an awful lot better that the brief that was written in the Bush administration,” Brown said, as first reported by Politico’s Josh Gerstein. “There’s no question — personal statement — that there were some cites in there that should not … have been in there.”
Setting aside the weakness of the statement (“Mr. Dahmer said, of his freezer, that there were some heads that should not have been in there…”), this is something that should have come quicker, and from higher up, than this. The opportunity was certainly there, as the very same Jake Tapper gave Robert Gibbs a shot at clarifying this earlier in the week:
TAPPER: Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?
GIBBS: Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.
TAPPER: I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn’t have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph…
GIBBS: Well…
TAPPER: …that’s upset a lot of the president’s supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?
GIBBS: Well, again, it’s the president’s Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.
Worth noting is that, at least in Louisiana, incestuous marriages now enjoy more legitimacy that same-sex marriages. No, I am not kidding. If the administration’s argument is that this was an apolitical execution of some “vigorous defense” duty, they ought to say so, and distance themselves from this heinous comparison.
6 Comments
You mean I could marry my brother but not my sister? OMG my daughter’s going to teach there this year!!!!
Kissin’ Cousins rock.
You need to go to Iran. Marry a cousin. Then come to LA,. Then the courts will recognize it. Unless and until the decision gets reversed. Considering Iran is not a “state” I think the court erred. Nevertheless, one ought use the case to argue from absurdity to prove a point.
it’s not incest is y’all don’t have the same parents, and it’s not not gay unless y’all kiss.
“…..if y’all don’t…….”
spellcheck called .
I really fail to see where the white house is going with this. I pledge ignorance; I’m a computer guy, not a lawyer. But Richard Socarides is a law guy and he said the white house had a choice and the DOJ did not have to defend DOMA.
Well, let’s assume that the DOJ really have to defend DOMA. I’ve commented before, the democrats control congress and the WH. Why not repeal DOMA (and DADT while you’re at it)? Republicans will filibuster in the senate? Probably, and they might get a blue dog or two, but at least the ball will be in their court and democrats could say to one of their most faithful voting bloc that they tried, but these republicans didn’t let us, so help us along so we can get a filibuster-proof majority in 2010.