I should point out that Obama announced months ago that he and Eric Holder would no longer defend the "Defense of Marriage Act."

While I agree with the rationale, I don't agree with his actions. DOMA is clearly indefensible. You cannot invalidate someone's marriage merely because they move to another state. That's a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV, sec. I).

On the other hand, the power of judicial review belongs to the courts, and no one else, and it's been that way since Marbury vs. Madison (because Thomas Jefferson was an stubborn jackass who decided to have a faceoff with the Marshall SCOTUS). It is not for Eric Holder, the AG, to decide, "This law is unconstitutional, therefore I will not enforce it." His job is to defend the law to the best of his ability and the courts will strike down DOMA on their own.

Just pointing out that Obama has been "evolving" his feelings about gay rights for quite some time now. Not that I would vote for him...I may end up writing in an independent if the GOP goes with Romney.

Obama and the Democratic party in general may be diaappointed to find gay and labor checkbooks have evolved away from him and it. But I'm trying to imagine which Republican idiot might get your vote.

I hope there's somebody (more "independent" than Democrat or Republican) who is worthy of my vote, unlike in the last election...and so many elections.

Hey Ms. Be-responsible-for-yourself:

What about the responsibilities of marriage?

Ya know - like fidelity.

We know that most gay couplings either dissolve in narcissistic jealousy in under 2 years, or are forced open by the compulsive drive for additional partners.

Which may be why only a tiny fraction of gays bother to marry when it's offered. Because their couplings in no way resemble what the rest of us call marriage, and most gays have little desire to accept the *responsibilities* that come with committed relationships.

Like the rest of the gay-rights agenda - this is one big puffed-up lie. The purpose is not "equal rights" - nobody has a "right" to get married - but to radically redefine marriage, and ultimately destroy it.

I agree with Amy that is wrong to say gays want the rights without the responsibilities. They want to commit to who they love, and we should all sympathize with that regardless of our position.

My concerns with gay marriage are due with societal and parental consequences. Here in Illinois, they have legalized civil unions, and the State's Attorney General (who I know, admire, and worked for many years), has told Catholic Charities they must adopt out to gay couples if they want to provide adoption services. In other words, they cannot prioritize giving a child a mother and a father. This is exactly the sort of thing I was concerned about. I'm not for the government stopping gay couples from adopting, but i'm not for the government stopping a group from giving children a and a father. If it were not for societal things like this, I wouldn't have concerns over the marriage issue.

But I do agree with Amy on the other points, that gays aren't asking for rights without responsibilities, and that we should hold anyone accountable who sells their convictions one way or the other to the highest bidder. No one who would do that on either side has character worthy of high office.

He's afraid of losing the black vote if he comes out in favor of gay rights like he promised to.

-jcr

If I believed that marriage was legally a "right" I would say that gays are being denied their "rights" by being unable to marry. However. marriage is not a "right" in the constitutional sense and never has been.

We put all sorts of time, place, manner, and genetic restrictions on it that take it out of the category of being a "right" and into that legal category called a "privilege" or a "license" (and a heavily regulated one) at that.

The mere fact that Congress had chosen to make certain contractual benefits automatic in the case of a married couple does not "discriminate" against the single, disabled, or underage citizen, as there are no "rights" at stake here, only privileges and licenses that do not rise to the same level of constitutional scrutiny (or any constitutional scrutiny at all)

Gays who believe they are being discriminated against by the tax laws are repeating straw man arguments. Any competent accountant or tax attorney can show you in about five minutes how single people, or better yet, single people with children pay fewer federal taxes as individuals than a marriage couple with the same combined income.

Contrary to popular opinion, the full faith and credit act is a lot more restrictive than people imagine that it either is, or should be.

I really do hope that a third party libertarian candidate is elected President one of these days. Because when it happens, a lot of dreamers on this board may finally figure out that it is Congress, and whatever political that hold a majority of both seats and the three branches of government that are actually in charge.

Without a veto proof majority in both the House and the Senate, and control of the Presidency, you neither control the agenda nor do you change the laws or fund/defund your pet projects.

When you don't totally control the government, you end up with what we have now, which is a wretched system where you vote for stuff you don't want as a compromise to get some of what you do want, and this "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" is leading us down the road to financial ruin.
It won't change with a different face in the White House no matter what party label you stick on the guy. :-)

I can understand having an "evolving" view of gay marriage. I have had one.

At first, I was against it. After all, marriage was designed to protect and support children. Almost all married unions produce children - especially historically. Until recently, very few gay unions did.

Statistics show that gay couples have the highest incomes. Do they need tax breaks? Do they need one partner to stay at home when there are rarely children and those children are virtually always by "choice" (accidents are rare)? Without the responsibility of children, health insurance does not seem to be the same problem.

Of course, the new face of gay partnerships changed that for me. Now many gays have or are starting families. Perhaps it has always been that way. I began to believe that perhaps rights should incur when families began. To keep things fair, this could be done for men and women, especially since the number of children is now more under individual control.

Finally, I began to believe that it is about choice and human rights. Marriage needs to evolve to keep up with the changing face of marriage and the lives of homosexual people.

Opinions can change. They are not always created out of hostility. In my case, I am for the support and care of children, our most precious resources.I now believe that supporting gay marriage does this.

Amy, may I just say that if weren't for the enlightened and sensible viewpoints of people like you, the comments of the closed-minded commenters of the cyber-world might have caused me to abandon all hope a long time ago. Thanks for being an upstanding and intelligent human being. Seriously.

And by the way, my hubby and I have been together almost ten years. I'll be sure to let him know that according to the standards dictated by one Ben David (Ya know - like fidelity?) we missed the two year cutoff of required narcissistic jealousy and are very bad at being gay.

Thanks, JonnyT, and sorry about the primitives and the lack of rights (I think gay people should pay fewer taxes).

My friend Bob Morris has been married to Ira since March of 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/fashion/24love.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin

And one of the most moving things I've seen is when my late Advice Lady partner Marlowe was in the nursing home before her death (brain damage -- caused EMS intubated her wrong, most tragically). One man gave the most gentle, loving care to this other man, totally out of it with dementia. They had been together for over 30 years.

And Jen, we don't stingy up on rights and privileges for straight people based on whether they're wealthy or have children. Personally, I think the government should be out of the marriage business altogether, but as long as straight people get marriage, gay people must be allowed it, too.

Until they are, since they're getting only partial citizen benefits, gays and lesbians should pay fewer taxes.

Here in Illinois, they have legalized civil unions, and the State's Attorney General (who I know, admire, and worked for many years), has told Catholic Charities they must adopt out to gay couples if they want to provide adoption services. In other words, they cannot prioritize giving a child a mother and a father.

It depends on how Catholic Charities is acting. If they are running their own adoption services to place Catholic children with Catholic families -- they have that right. If they are acting as a general adoption agency like the Acme Adoption Agency, Inc. then they have to follow the secular rules.

This is the same as a soup kitchen or a food pantry. Many around the country are privately run and have the choice of who they want to donate to. But if they are also receiving food or money from the government -- they can't discriminate.

You say "That isn't right," or "It should be this way." That is the way it is when you take government funds.

The way to solve it is to go back to privately funded organizations. Then your organization has the right to not support gay couple adoptions, or a mixed-racial couple adopting, or a couple adopting out of their "race". Or overseas adoptions.

And this same train of thought extends to marriage as well. Marriage is a sacrament of the various religions (i.e. non-secular authority). But per the state (secular authority) marriage has always been a specialized contract law -- a civil union regardless of the religion of the participants. If marriage, as defined by the state, was predicated on being religious -- why are notaries, judges, and sea captains able to perform the ceremony?

Please don't be an idiot about this (of course, if you're not, then I'm not talking to you):

When one individual is denied equal representation or protection under the law, an injustice is present.

You might want to go off on what some people do wrong, as Ben-David does repeatedly.

But that's fallacious. None of you has rights guaranteed by the Constitution subject to what you might do wrong - by definition, in the future.

Some of you are willing, even eager, to assume guilt when you're pointing at someone else, not realizing that the law applies to you, and when it sets precedent, it can be used against YOU.

-----

The bulk of the current ruckus consists of just two motive forces - the desire of homosexuals to:
1) "fit" better into society
2) prevent the alienation which occurs when a loved one dies, and distant, sometimes hateful family appears all of a sudden to sop up money.

In the second case, you can make every bit as much case that the significant other contributed to the success of the union as June aided Ward Cleaver.

But some of you apparently think, "Screw that fag", no matter the consequences.

In neither case, above, is the State worse off. They get more tax $$, they get clearer legal position w/r/t probate.

If you don't want to act gay, then don't. But you have no grounds whatsoever to deny someone their position in society because they don't lick the same things you do in the dark.

Being able to imagine a mechanical act repugnant to you does not mean everything.

-----

One more thing, specifically for Ben-David:

Previously, when I pointed at the search term, "androgen insensitivity syndrome" you dismissed the immediate result by pointing out that only about 20 thousand people suffer acutely from that syndrome.

Way to miss the point(s).

Not only did I show you that such cases exist, their existence points directly at the primary lack of decency you display here again and again: you will deny someone the protection of the law, and of the Constitution, based on the way they are built (cue Godwin's Law - guess who did that?).
Further, you did not notice that AIS is not the end-point of discussion. As I showed through that link - to anyone not foaming from the face because someone likes show tunes - gender identity is NOT BINARY.

"The way to solve it is to go back to privately funded organizations. Then your organization has the right to not support gay couple adoptions, or a mixed-racial couple adopting, or a couple adopting out of their "race"."

Don't count on this. The Fair Housing Act says you can't choose who you rent to as long as they meet the objective criteria.

Here in Illinois, they have legalized civil unions, and the State's Attorney General (who I know, admire, and worked for many years), has told Catholic Charities they must adopt out to gay couples if they want to provide adoption services.

Catholic Charities of Illinois left hundreds of kids in a lurch and laid off dozens of their own employees. They did this because they couldn't stand the possibility of adopting kids out to gay couples. Seems to me that they felt their right to discriminate was more important to them than the kids they *claimed* to care so much about.

What really irks me is that, prior to this, Catholic Charities had NO problem with adopting out to single people living alone. So clearly, they're not all that concerned about giving kids a "mom and a dad" as they are about discriminating against gay couples.

If you missed it, I have evolved to where I am totally on-board now! Full rights!

"marriage was designed to protect and support children"

That certainly explains the one husband / dozens of wives model of marriage ...

"I think gay people should pay fewer taxes)."

Than who? You? Me? Gregg? Can I pay less if I ditch the hubby and lick me a woman? There are a whole LOT of people (um, at least 48% of the country, who pay none at all and/or get more back than they paid) that pay less than me. Am I-a white hetero married mom-discriminated against? Apparently. So let's cue the protests....now!!

Don't count on this. The Fair Housing Act says you can't choose who you rent to as long as they meet the objective criteria.

There was an exception built into this from the get-go. If you are a retirement community, you can discriminate against children or those under a certain age. I can agree with that. But if you believe that this doesn't still happen, check into your local home owner's association, condo board, etc. They can't say overtly that they won't sell/rent to <race/sex/ethnicity/orientation> but they do it by finding other reasons why.

This is the same as joining a private club. If you ever try to go to a Fraternal order of <Eagles/Moose/etc.> and aren't white -- expect the reception you get.

What really irks me is that, prior to this, Catholic Charities had NO problem with adopting out to single people living alone. So clearly, they're not all that concerned about giving kids a "mom and a dad" as they are about discriminating against gay couples.

It is sad. That they can't see beyond the end of their nose is disgusting.

Note that I am not defending any discrimination; I'm just trying to state the real world. But in some cases, at this point in time, is get the state and fed out of a large majority of the social issues. SCOTUS screwed up in Plessy v. Ferguson, and it took until 1950's for Brown v. Board of Ed. and the Civil Rights act to clean it up.

If you didn't have the DCFS/CPS, you didn't have the Fair Housing Act, the rest of the alphabet soup and let the states be their own labs you would have a completely different world.

Any competent accountant or tax attorney can show you in about five minutes how single people, or better yet, single people with children pay fewer federal taxes as individuals than a marriage couple with the same combined income.

That is true ONLY for two high income people. I just got divorced and my taxes are going up massively. (On top of that, turns out that being single has thrown my IRA deduction down the toilet.)

I've long felt that as long as all can give full consent, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone (including polygamists.) Having just gone through a divorce, even I was surprised at how many rights it grants you.

Finally, as I've said here before, isn't the true conservative position to tell the government to get out of our private lives?

Good Lord, I just caught a few minutes of the Miss USA pageant. What an alarming display of plastic. Are there any straight guys that actually enjoy this? And the co-hostess. A true horror.

Terminology.

"Marriage" is a religious ceremony, not a State one, and has no actual benefits under the laws in most of the US. I dont care if you flew in the RC Pope or the Dalai Lama to perform the ceremony, the State does not recognise the marriage as what US/State governments have emplaced in law. Come down to it, in my State (and I suspect most others) neither man would be allowed to sign the State License/Certificate, one for not being a resident and the other for not being a member of one of the six religions which may request being allowed to sign the State paperwork.

Now, although governments have in the past used "marriage: as an understood term, what is meant is "civil union." The oriogin of government licensing tracks back to some unsung genius bureaucat of the Republic of Rome. Noting that courts had clogged with inheritance cases (yes, a third cousin could claim an estate on the basis of being a relative while wife/children had no "proof" of same), and no [civil] will existed (most people did/do not bother) he came up with an idea. Instead of relying for "proof" on records of the religious ceremony - often unavailable, if even written down in the first place - after the ceremony (or even in place of one) for a very small fee the State would write and guarantee the availability of a record of the union, and in the absence of a will would distribute inheritance in a standardised manner.

This idea rapidly spread even beyond the reach of the Republic, and the later Empire, eventually becoming global even in places where only one State religion was officially recognised.

The State`s "Marriage License" never was recognition of a religious marriage, but rather registration of a certain type of partnership - to wit, a "civil" arrangement. The State seldom has, and in general should not now, specify the conditions for a religious "marriage" as such, though it may rule against certain types of ceremonies such as including human sacrifice in the ritual.

My own opinion in re same-sex unions being authorised/recognised by the State is that they should in light of certain things having accrued to those who have the certificate but denied to those who do not have it. E.g. "family-only" visitation "right" to an Intensive-Care Unit patient. Just as in the Republic of Rome, a never-met third cousin may invoke this State-imposed "right" while an undocumented life-partner of decades cannot: allow for a document. OTOH, this does not mean that a religion, whether Roman Catholic or Moslem, should be forced by the State to perform marriage rites.

"Marriage" is a religious ceremony, not a State one, and has no actual benefits under the laws in most of the US.

That's not remotely true. A couple can get married by simply going to the courthouse and doing so. No religion need be involved.

While it may be cute to think that the state simply performs a civil union, that isn't how the law is written (even if some of us preferred that it did.) The word marriage is part of the civil law; pretending it isn't is just disingenuous.

the State does not recognise the marriage as what US/State governments have emplaced in law

Utah does in terms of identifying polygamous marriages. Moreover, many states recognize common law marriage IF the couple has made it known that they are married. Having a religious ceremony supports this.

To make it clear concerning taxes. The joint tax burden of my ex-wife and I will go up by about $4,000 this year as the result of our divorce. It would be more were our second son not graduating from high school early and starting college in January, which lets me take the tuition tax credit from an education brokerage account I set up years ago. (It may be higher if my ex-wife doesn't earn more this year, maximizing the earned income child credit for the child she is claiming on her return. Without the latter and without the tuition tax credit, our joint tax burden would be $7,000 higher this year.)

Sorry Joe, I just don't believe it. While it is possible that some of the financial repercussions of your divorce caused your taxes to be higher than they were last year, the progressive nature of the tax system means that in almost any bracket filing as two single tax payers, you will each pay less than if you filled jointly with the lower standard deduction or with combined itemized deductions. Now if you had to file as married, filing seperately, as a result of the divorce, that is a different catagory than married filing jointly, and if you are married filing seperately, you will usually pay the highest rate of all.
There are many things that can cause your taxes to go up that occur during a divorce, cashing in tax deferred investments, in order to split joint property, and also loss of a tax deduction when you no longer have a mortgage because the house had to be sold in order to allow for an equitable division of assets. Also, the loss of a tax credit from one year to the next. These things and other issues will both affect your tax rate and also cause tax penalties.
I have done hundreds of returns, for married, single, and the recently divorced. Taxes and contracts are my legal area of expertise. I would be happy to help you find a way to reduce your Federal tax burden, but. I will tell you upfront, getting remarried isn't going to help one bit.

I've never seen it as an inherent right. I see marriage as a contract, with important modifications to property and legal rights.

The primary reason marriage is encouraged is because it commonly results in children who grow up to be part of the national workforce and pay taxes. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anybody that we do need that.

So I've opposed the expansion of the institution because the social cost of contract enforcement and dissolution would be greater than the benefits to society at large. After all every contract type has certain requirements. One does not have the inherent "right" to form an S corporation or a C corporation unless one meets certain qualifications, why should marriage be different?

Besides, almost all of the legal and property matters that marriage entails can be attended to with an ordinary contract, if one cared to draw one up.

But with that said, I've come to the conclusion that, at least it is possible, the cost to quality of life for the gay population due to the uncertain legal standing of their union, may also have understated legal and social costs. So perhaps it is best that the marital contract be expanded so that existing laws can cover the identical matter of homosexual unions.

We do not need a whole new set of laws or rules after all, bringing that small part of the population into the same contract fold as the rest, may be best.

"Previously, when I pointed at the search term, "androgen insensitivity syndrome" you dismissed the immediate result by pointing out that only about 20 thousand people suffer acutely from that syndrome."

Rad, Ben never did address my ascertion that lesbians have the lowest STD rate. Turns out gay men are sexually promiscuous because they are MEN not because the are gay. What moral ground do heteros have over gays again? Surely if straight males had the same opportunity as gay males do they would take it. But evolutionary biology denies them the right, as women are not so inclined.

Catholic Charities should just stop worrying about Catholic doctrine and do what you want, right?

I have no dog in this fight, but the name ought to be a clue. They are not the only provider of adoption services. Move on.

To be fair, Amy posted after I started typing. The "you" in my comment is generic, and not directed at any individual. I apologize for appearing rude.

I may end up writing in an independent if the GOP goes with Romney.

Which is just vote for Obama. So go vote for Obama. Own the suck.

Isabel1130,

When one member of a couple has a much higher income than the other, "married filing jointly" has a huge advantage. This is by design.

(And I wouldn't get remarried for tax purposes or any other reason.)

Isabel: If I believed that marriage was legally a "right" I would say that gays are being denied their "rights" by being unable to marry. However. marriage is not a "right" in the constitutional sense and never has been.

SCOTUS ruling Loving vs. Virginia says marriage is a right, so chew on that. Also, the "full faith and credit clause" is not an act. Acts are subject to judicial review, articles and amendments are not. The full faith and credit clause is part of Article IV, section I of the constitution. I'd have more "faith" and give more "credit" to your opinion regarding the full faith and credit claus, IF you actually knew what the hell it is...which you clearly do not.

IRA Darth Aggie: Which is just vote for Obama. So go vote for Obama. Own the suck.

No, a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for an independent is a vote for an independent. And you have no way of knowing which side an independent will be taking the most votes from anyway. Ralph Nader, for instance, took more votes from Al Gore than Bush.

"Ben-David ignores anything that doesn't confirm his homophobic belief that gays are all sex-mad perverts. "

Ben-David and his comments are meaningless anyway. This is a discussion about a matter of US law. Ben-David was an American but then emigrated to another country and renounced his citizenship. His opinions about this country or anything going on in it are meaningless and empty. He is not worth talking to.

SCOTUS ruling Loving vs. Virginia says marriage is a right, so chew on that.

Oh good, Patrick's here with his "Loving v. Virginia says marriage is a right and that trumps any other argument" trope. And he brought along his unbridled hostility toward anyone who disagrees with him.

=========================

In Loving, the US Supreme Court ruled,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The Court went on to say that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and unconstitutional:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

You'll notice a lot of references to race in the Court's opinion.

You'll also notice no references to any other kind of marriage (first cousins, polygamy, etc.)- because the Court was not arguing in its decision in Loving that society could not restrict marriages, only that to do so on the basis of race was unconstitutional.

=========================

There has been a great deal of disagreement whether Loving applies to gay marriage.

Gay marriage advocates are arguing that the opening statement of the Loving decision means marriage is a right and cannot be restricted.

Gay marriage opponents argue that marriage was never understood to be between two men or two women and therefore the right of two men (or women) to marry each other is non-existent.

The New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

In August 4, 2010 Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving in his ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The decision in that case overturned California's Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. Walker ruled that "the right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender."

Walker's ruling was subsequently upheld by an appeals court. No word on whether the appeals court agreed with him on Loving's applicability to the case.

The case is most likely headed for the US Supreme Court.

=========================

I think we need to be very careful about letting the courts decide this issue.

As in Loving, we may end up with a decision being applied by advocates to another type of marriage or social interaction which was not even conceivable when the Court made its original ruling.

Rick Santorum may be an idiot, but he wasn't entirely wrong on this one small point (he wasn't entirely right either).

=========================

By the way, both the Presbyterian and Catholic Churches supported the Lovings.

=========================

I think society gains a great deal of benefit from marriage (even ones that do not involve children).

And I think society would gain those benefits from gay marriage as well and should recognize it.

I simply disagree with Patrick (and others) that marriage itself is a right (for straights or gays).

The institution of marriage has been around since the beginning of recorded human history. Obviously, it fills some need in the human psyche. But that doesn't make it a right.

=========================

For one thing, societies and civilizations differ on their definitions of marriage.

An Islamic husband is allowed to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. So, is it the wife's "right" to be beaten?

An Islamic husband may divorce his wife by declaring three times that they are divorced. Can the wife's "right" to be married be abrogated so easily?

Until the practice was stopped by the British, a Hindu wife had the "right" to throw herself alive on her husband's funeral pyre.

Until only recently, in many societies wives were not allowed to inherit their husband's property. How they must have enjoyed their "right" of marriage when left destitute by a husband's untimely death.

"So I've opposed the expansion of the institution because the social cost of contract enforcement and dissolution would be greater than the benefits to society at large. After all every contract type has certain requirements. One does not have the inherent 'right' to form an S corporation or a C corporation unless one meets certain qualifications."

I have to disagree with this. The right to enter into a contract is one of the most important and inherent rights in Western society, long predating the formation of the USA. There is no restriction on my forming a corporation -- I can pay a lawyer a few hundred bucks to draw up and file the paperwork, and I've got a corporation, and I can do it anytime I want. Now, once I've done that, there are certain restrictions that I must abide by if I want to sell shares or get favorable treatment from the IRS. But there is no legal authority in the United States that can tell me "no, Cousin Dave, you do not have the right to enter into a contract, and you cannot form a corporation." And my right to enter into a contract is not contingent on the contract providing some benefit to society as a whole.

Which is why I think the way forward on this is to make marriage a matter of private contract, and get the state out of it. I haven't made up my mind on whether or not married couples should (in theory) get favorable tax treatment, but that's a secondary point anyway.

Also: Patrick brought up a point in his first post that I haven't seen anyone address. Should the executive branch have the power to decide which laws it will or won't defend in court? I think it's a very bad precedent. It gives each administration (and the activist groups attached to it) an effective veto power over which laws are really laws. If the Obama administration decides that it will concede a challenge to DOMA, the next Republican administration may well decide that it will concede a challenge to, say, the Davis-Bacon Act. It puts the courts in a bad spot too: what if someone files a Constitutional challenge that is clearly specious, but the Justice Department tells the the court "we concede"? Does the court rule in favor of the specious claim, or does it take the responsibility of the defense upon itself? Neither is a good option.

Patrick brought up a point in his first post that I haven't seen anyone address. Should the executive branch have the power to decide which laws it will or won't defend in court? I think it's a very bad precedent. It gives each administration (and the activist groups attached to it) an effective veto power over which laws are really laws.

The same thing happened in California with Proposition 8. Jerry Brown, as Attorney General, decided he would not defend Prop 8, a proposition legitimately put on the ballot and enacted by a majority vote of California voters.

Which brings up the question, if the Attorney General gets to decide which laws he will defend in court, does he also get to decide which ones he will enforce?

"Which brings up the question, if the Attorney General gets to decide which laws he will defend in court, does he also get to decide which ones he will enforce?"

It is heading in that direction. That was why there was so much heat over the Bush Administrations "Signing Statements, instructions to federal agencies on which laws to enforce and how much. It can also be more subtle than that. "Prosecutorial discretion" menas that LE agencies prioritize which offenses to investigate. This can be shaped by guidance from the executive who ultimatelycontrols those agencies.