Bachmann raises cash off Obama's call to abandon Defense Of Marriage Act

Department of Justice statement on the Defense of Marriage Act:

WASHINGTON - The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department's course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ' s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because - as here - the Department does not consider every such argument to be a "reasonable" one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

Michele Bachmann's fundraising e-mail:

You may have seen the breaking news out of Washington that Barack Obama has demanded the United States Department of Justice stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - the law that defines marriage between one man and one woman - in court cases.

Thumbnail image for bachmann comic cover 3.jpg
I'm sending you this urgent message because if we don't join together and take action today, it could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement.

I've put together an emergency petition drive to send a message to Barack Obama that support for traditional marriage is overwhelmingly strong across the country. And I'm asking that you follow this link immediately to sign the petition.

This is just the beginning in our fight to repeal Barack Obama in 2012. Had Barack Obama been on the ballot in 2010, he would have gone down in a fiery defeat. Yet he continues to push his far-left, socialist agenda on the American people. And today, he has declared war on marriage.

As conservatives, we must push for a new type of "change" in our country and fight for our shared values. And you can start today by making sure Barack Obama hears us loud and clear- we stand for traditional marriage.

Please follow this link right away to sign my "Support Traditional Marriage" petition. I've set a goal to collect at least 50,000 signatures in the next 48 hours.

After signing the petition, I hope you will consider making a generous donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more. Your contribution will enable me to spread this petition to millions of conservative activists across the country.

This is not the end of the fight to save traditional marriage, it is only the beginning. I will continue to do everything in my power to fight back against Barack Obama's attacks on marriage and I hope you will join me by adding your name to my "Support Traditional Marriage" petition.

Thank you for your support.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
Sort: Newest | Oldest

George W. Bush's DOJ Opted Not To Defend Federal Statute That Prohibited Federal Money For Transit Systems That Accepted Ads Advocating Legalization Of Drugs. According to Congressional Quarterly:

The Justice Department will not defend a legislative provision that withholds federal money from transit systems that accept ads advocating the relaxation of drug laws.

The language, inserted into the fiscal 2004 appropriations omnibus (PL 108-199) by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., chairman of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, decreed that any local transit authority that ran ads advocating the legalization of drugs would forfeit any money extended through the omnibus.


Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement told the Senate legal counsel in December that the Justice Department would not appeal Friedman's decision, which had held "under well-established Supreme Court precedent [that] the funding condition amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," and that "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/26/05, via Nexis]

And from 2005, you have John Roberts (not a Justice at that time, of course) doing the same thing:

Under Acting Solicitor General John Roberts, DOJ Declined To Defend Federal Statute Encouraging Minority Ownership Of Broadcast Stations. According to a post written by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Georgetown University professor Marty Lederman:

The Washington Post reports today that John Roberts was the point person in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1990 when that office decided not to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast licensing. (In fact, Roberts was the Acting Solicitor General for purposes of the case, because SG Starr had a conflict.) The case in question was Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, and it raised very interesting questions about the circumstances under which the Department of Justice will refrain from defending the constitutionality of federal statutes.

Other Presidents who did the same thing: H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Jefferson.

But, let's look at this 1994 DOJ memo on the legality of this practise:"First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command)."

DOMA was signed into law by Clinton, but was written and passed by a Republican Congress. Since, it's "obvious" that marriage is about procreation and "the little sub-humans", it would seem strange that nothing in this piece of legislation (designed to "defend" marriage) restricts it to people capable of bearing children.

Look at those trend lines on the polls. Look where public opinion was when this legislation was signed into law. Things have changed quite a bit since then in terms of public opinion, haven't they?

"The supporters of Michelle Bachman are not "haters" they are people who have retained their sanity and ability to apply logic and reason." The problem is that they willfully and continually FAIL to exercise logic and reason. Much like Chas, they give their fellow conservatives a free pass to bellow any kind of falsehood, while holding contrary views to some ultra-strict standard of evidence that they themselves could never possibly meet. When challenged, they scream "liberal!", as if that negates logic and reason.And then they claim they have "integrity".


Retro Housewife writes:"Marriage is not about love you turkeys it is about creating a stable social unit for procreation and increasing the little sub-humans chances for survival."

And that is why fertility tests are required to get a marriage licence, right? Because marriage is about procreation. That is why an 80-year -old couple can't legally get married - because they can't have children. Obviously, this explains why, if a woman's husband dies, she must give up her children. Because it's no longer a "stable social social unit for procreation". Yup, there are no single parent families because that would be against the law.

BTW, Obama hasn't "overthrown" DOMA. He just won't enforce it. You know, the same way that Bush stopped enforcing dozens of laws through his signing statements.

Chas the Right
Chas the Right

Rather than being vague as you were, please name the dozens of laws Bush did not enforce?


Let's start with Bush's orders to the DOJ not to prosecute FBI agents guilty of illegal searches, or maybe the refusal to prosecute FBI agents who blatantly abused National Security Letters.

Also, the Supreme Court never ruled DOMA was constitutional. It only refused to hear a case challenging it. Refusal to hear a case is not a ruling. Odd that you didn't challenge Kirk on that, seeing how you are all about the evidence, Chas. Yup, nobody (except conservatives) can slip one by old Chas, because he's master of the facts.

Take a look at an attorney's take on this:"It’s important, first of all, to emphasize what Obama is not doing — namely, claiming to be above the law. He is not claiming that DOMA doesn’t apply, or that the federal courts cannot adjudicate the constitutionality of the act. He is not, in the manner of Jefferson or Jackson, saying that he would ignore a court ruling upholding DOMA. (The Reagan and Bush administrations — as was their right — repeatedly argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. The Supreme Court, as you may remember, declined.) He’s merely unwilling to argue on behalf of the law’s constitutionality. There’s nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with our constitutional framework or the rule of law. The judiciary is not the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution."

Now, Chas, point me to the law that says someone who is infertile cannot marry. Your failure to question Retro's assertion means that you must agree, because you are all about the facts.

BTW, this a blog. It's not a doctoral dissertation.

The Retro Housewife
The Retro Housewife

A society that gives same sex couples the same rights as biologically-capable-of-reproducing couples is a society on its way out. Marriage is not about love you turkeys it is about creating a stable social unit for procreation and increasing the little sub-humans chances for survival. Two people of the same sex can not produce offspring - not without a third party's assistance and subsequent abdication of their own rights. A glaring deficiency of the same sex couple's side of the equation which would force any reasonable person to conclude: Same Sex Couple < Opposite Sex Couple. Note the absence of the "=". What is not equal in reality should not be presumed equal under the law. The supporters of Michelle Bachman are not "haters" they are people who have retained their sanity and ability to apply logic and reason.

Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann

Hey dummy. My supporters hate gay people. Do you know how to even read you lying troll? OBAMA DECLARED WAR ON MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you even read my letter stupid? Do you love those you go to war with idiot? No. This liberal is not allowed to lie about my supporters. True conservatives hate gay people!!!!!!!! Did you see how us true conservatives made sure that GOPride would never be allowed to attend CPAC again? What do you think we did that out of love you dolt? Stop your liberal lies. If you don't hate gays you aren't on the same page as me scumbag.


Of course it is more accepting. As time goes by and the lie of it is normal are brainwashed on the kids, eventually this sickness will be ok. Time is the friend of the devil and his evil followers and this is true as this immorality has been slowly accepted as pushed by the liberal demons the last 50 or so years. It is also in prophecy that this evil, such as is abortion, will be accepted and what is morally ok will be looked on as wrong. But in the end, the devil and all his evil will be defeated and that is what makes all this sickness go away forever!

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Hmmm... no mention that DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Now Obama has overthrown that "evil gay hating" Bill Clinton's bill by executive order?After Bill Clinton signed this into law, it was challenged in the Supreme Court by the "fruitcake collation". It was upheld and deemed to be Constitutional.So, along comes Dictator ObamaYes, we are now have dictators in the executive branch of the government. Doesn't give a f*** about the other two branches of Government and the pecking order.Well people, say goodbye to abortion. Can't wait to get a hard core conservative in the White House!!!!! Or perhaps a Muslim president. Abortion is deemed an evil act in that religion.Oh the can of worms Obama has opened; and the best part, it will all be Obama's fault. HA HA HA


you are a jerk!  What happened to the freedom of choice in your little world?


Obvious troll is obvious.


well........this is surprising.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault