The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.
[For the full article, see here
John Aravosis of Americablog, has a thorough, disturbing, and tragically predictable post about the Obama Administration essentially defending DOMA in this case in federal court.
The title of his post is Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children."
As of this time, his post is continually being updated, as he goes through the full 50 page brief filed by the Obama Administration. However, a small part of his post reads as follows:
We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable. And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent."
And, part of the 50 page brief from the Obama Administration reads as follows:
Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
What happened to "Yes we can?"