The Republicans In The House Want To Defend DOMA? Bring It On!
Last week, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he would in fact spend your tax dollars to hire private lawyers to defend DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act already declared unconstitutional by a sitting federal district judge. Some conservatives applauded this action, while liberals and others decried the waste of the people’s time and money (a great deal of money at that) on a social agenda that does not create jobs — except perhaps for trial attorneys — and reinforces the false concept that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals should be treated as second-class citizens.
But after great consideration, I say, bring it on!
DOMA is a grossly unconstitutional law that serves no just legal purpose. It has been rightly deemed unconstitutional, and I have full faith that it will be deemed unconstitutional again, this time at every one of the current ten or more DOMA challenges currently making their way through the federal courts.
Read: “The GOP’s Sanctimonious Defense Of The Sanctity Of DOMA“
Given Monday’s news that this week, a bill to repeal DOMA will be introduced into the Republican-held House, and as we await a companion DOMA repeal bill that will be introduced by Senator Feinstein into the Senate, the only certain way we can remove the shackles of DOMA is through the courts, as there is no way we will pass a DOMA repeal bill in this Republican-controlled House and in a pre-presidential election year Senate.
I reached out to Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom To Marry, and the man considered to be the father of the modern-day marriage equality movement, and asked him what he thought about the Republican House’s decision to defend DOMA in court. He responds:
“The President and Attorney General had it right when they said that morally and legally, the discriminatory so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ is indefensible. Whatever legal briefs the House leadership pays for — out of our tax dollars — will only be able to rehash the anti-gay arguments and absence of evidence that led the Administration — and the Nixon-appointed federal judge who ruled against DOMA at the trial level — to conclude that DOMA is unconstitutional. And that rehashing won’t make DOMA any more palatable .. or constitutional.”
I whole-heartedly agree.
One of the reasons we can and should let the Republicans be the ones to try to defend DOMA in court is the fact that we need to educate America about why DOMA is unconstitutional, and about why the law should be on our side. As if to prove my point, I came across a well-written but terribly misguided letter-to-the-editor in a local Kansas newspaper, titled, “Going Against God.”
The letter begins,
“President Obama’s decision to subvert the law and usurp the prerogatives of the Federal Judiciary by declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional should be cause for great concern for Bible-believing Americans.”
As many people know, the country is not ruled by the law of God but by the law of man, and any attempt to introduce biblical law into the books must be as vigorously fought on the left as the right is fighting the false specter of Sharia law introduction into America jurisprudence. And this decision neither “subverts the law” nor “usurps the prerogatives of the judiciary.”
The writer continues with,
“The president announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend DOMA. By deeming the Defense of Marriage Act to be indefensible and unconstitutional, President Obama has once again exposed his willingness to subvert the checks and balances at the heart of our Constitution.”
Stop right there sir! It is critical that we spread the word that a president has the legal right to not defend laws in court. While the executive branch must enforce the laws, it is under no obligation to defend them if they believe them to be unconstitutional, as this president, the attorney general, and a federal judge have all stated.
He continues,
“This, in spite of the fact that DOMA has been in federal law since 1996 – and has withstood many court challenges. The president and his attorney general have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Again, presidents have a duty to enforce, but not defend the law in court.
We absolutely must make absolutely clear that other presidents have refused to defend laws they believed unconstitutional also, including Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Truman, Ford, Clinton, Bush 41, Bush 43, and yes, Reagan.
NPR’s Nina Totenberg explains:
“During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.”
Getting back to our letter-to-the-editor writer, who says,
“Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Attorney General Eric Holder justifying his position says that in the congressional debates there were ‘numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate family relationships.’ He went on to describe this as ‘animus,’ or hatred.”
“There is no hate coming from Christians on this issue. God loves everyone. God’s moral laws are the best way for us to live as a society. Our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were set up by God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. God, through his book the Bible, says homosexuality is morally wrong. We love the sinner but not the sin. Ninety-eight percent of places of worship in America are Christian churches. Our president is going against the majority once again.”
Again, the laws of man and the relationship of man to god in America are neither congruous nor should they be. In other words, keep your bible out of my civil laws!
And, as an aside, yes there is hate, there has been hate, oh, so much hate and animus. And majority rule is never a good idea when it comes to the civil rights of the minority. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers the tea party likes to quote so much these days, who wrote, “that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.â€
Read: “Hate Group American Family Association: DOMA Is Unconstitutional”
Our letter writer ends with,
“The president and the attorney general took oaths to defend the Constitution. The arrogance demonstrated by them we can only hope awakens a deep resolve among patriotic citizens. God, who put us here to have a personal relationship with him, to spread his love and live with him forever, says it’s wrong. Our best chance of living a life of love and prosperity is to follow God’s word. Please don’t say, “What is the big deal, who cares whether gays get to marry?” God makes the rules. Our society and our families will benefit if we follow God’s word and not the words of man. A man, our president, is saying it’s OK for gays to marry, going against God’s word. Most of us live such a soft, spoiled life. We forget the blood, sweat and tears it’s taken to make our country great. Please, America, stand for what God says is the right and wrong ways to live.”
Let me remind this writer, and the public at large, that the president, sadly, has not said he supports marriage equality, or “gay marriage.” And also let me remind everyone, DOMA is not in the Constitution. You know, it’s so funny how modern-day self-professed “tea party patriots” and social conservatives (and the House Republicans) claim all of a sudden they need to know “where in the Constitution does it say…” yet they are so unfamiliar with the Constitution!
Bottom line, Obama has no legal requirement to defend DOMA. DOMA is not a part of the Constitution. Almost every president since Truman has refused to defend one law or another.
So, let the House Republicans spend the people’s time and money on defending DOMA. They will quickly learn unconstitutional laws are indefensible, they will lose, and we will be free of DOMA.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a six-term Democratic former U.S. Representative, is being branded a “solid communist” and a “communist sympathizer” by a Fox News host whose husband is a Trump cabinet nominee. The attack comes as the city deals with the massive wildfires that have killed 24 people and caused tremendous and historic damage to over 60 square miles of California. More than 12,000 structures reportedly have been destroyed and 92,000 people are under evacuation orders.
Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy is married to former Fox News host and Republican former U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, President-elect Donald Trump’s Transportation Secretary nominee. She has a history of throwing around the divisive “communist” label. On Monday, she joined the pile-on of attacks against the L.A. mayor.
“You know, listen, a lot of people have been talking about, you know, who’s to blame, you know, whether it’s [Governor] Gavin Newsom or the mayor,” Campos-Duffy told the right-wing channel’s viewers in what appeared to be prepared remarks. “A lot of people don’t realize that Karen Bass is actually, you know, we talk about these left wing, left wing policies.”
READ MORE: Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility
“She has ties to communism —she was cutting sugar cane in Cuba, um, she’s had 15 trips to Cuba, met with Fidel Castro,” Campos Duffy continued. “She is a solid communist, so don’t be surprised that your policies make your city, um, look like this when you, when you put a communist, somebody, a communist and a communist sympathizer at the top of your um of the heap as the mayor of Los Angeles, it’s uh, not surprising. Um, they manage things— look at how Cuba’s managed and now look at this.”
Campos-Duffy, a devout MAGA supporter and longtime Trump defender, earlier this month called January 6 rioters “political dissidents,” a term traditionally reserved for individuals persecuted for opposing authoritarian or oppressive governmental authority or policies.
Bass has indeed has traveled to Cuba, according to multiple reports, and “spent part of the 1970s working construction in Fidel Castro’s Cuba with the Venceremos Brigade, a group that has organized annual trips to Cuba for young, leftist Americans for half a century,” The Atlantic reported in 2020.
READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
That was five decades ago, work that began when Bass was 19 and doing volunteer work.
“The best way to think of Bass’s politics at the time—and now—is ‘as a Black activist who was deeply concerned about what the activists are raising today: systemic racism,'” Bass told Edward-Isaac Dovere, when he wrote for The Atlantic. She added: “I was also deeply concerned on the international front about issues like apartheid in South Africa and supporting the independence movements in Africa. And a lot of times that did not align with U.S. policy.”
Bass has said point-blank she is not a communist.
“I’m not a socialist. I’m not a communist,” Bass told NBC News in 2020. “I’ve belonged to one party my entire life and that’s the Democratic Party, and I’m a Christian.”
Political commentator Keith Olbermann declared he hopes Mayor Bass sues Campos-Duffy “into the ground.”
Watch the video clip below or at this link.
Rachel Campos Duffy on Los Angeles Fires: People don’t realize that Karen Bass.. She has ties to communism. She was cutting sugar cane in Cuba.. She’s a solid communist. Don’t be surprised your policies make your city look like this when you put a communist sympathizer.. pic.twitter.com/YbLyYEpzDd
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 13, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license
A freshman Republican Senator is promoting an unusual interpretation of the Senate’s role in the constitutionally mandated “advice and consent” responsibility.
U.S. Senator Katie Britt, elected in 2022, is the first woman Alabama voters have sent to the U.S. Senate. She gained national attention, and bipartisan criticism, after delivering the Republican response to President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address. During her speech, Britt criticized President Biden’s immigration policies and referred to an incident involving human trafficking, suggesting in her remarks a woman had been sexually trafficked because of Biden’s policies. However, as NBC News reported, the incident occurred two decades earlier, in Mexico, not in the United States.
READ MORE: Wildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting
At the time, even Republicans were outraged and mystified by her speech. One GOP strategist told The Daily Beast it was “one of our biggest disasters ever.” A Trump advisor told Rolling Stone, “What the hell am I watching right now?” as The Guardian reported.
This weekend, Britt spoke with CNN’s Jake Tapper about President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. Senate Republicans are beginning hearings this week, CBS News reports.
Senator Britt, an attorney, told Tapper that Trump’s “great nominees” will be on Capitol Hill, where they will “have the opportunity not only to make their case” to the members of various committees, “but they’ll have their opportunity to make their case to the American people of why they are best, where they are best suited to move President Trump’s agenda forward.”
In contrast, Senator Angus King (I-ME) recently outlined his view of the Senate’s role in evaluating cabinet nominees. In an op-ed last week, he wrote that a president’s “advisors, and especially Cabinet Members, must be qualified for the sake of the people they represent.”
“My position on Cabinet nominees has always boiled down to two priorities: the candidate needs to be experienced and capable, and not have a stance that is hostile to the department or bureau they would be leading,” Senator King added. “The framers of our Constitution set up a Senate confirmation process as a check on the executive branch to make sure that all parts of government are working by the people and for the people.”
READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
Senator Britt appeared to suggest alignment with Trump’s goals should be a key qualification, telling Tapper that she and the Senate will see if they “are best suited to move President Trump’s agenda forward.”
Tapper continued to press her.
“Why would you think somebody who’s willing to lie about the election results in Pennsylvania is going to restore integrity in the Justice Department the way that you are calling for?” Tapper asked.
After a brief pause, Britt replied: “Look, Jake, I’ve had very direct conversations with each and every one of these nominees that I’ve had the opportunity to sit down with. I take my duty as a United States senator seriously, Article Two, Section Two, mandates that I do.”
“We have an obligation both to the American people and to the president, to ask these tough questions. I asked that question very directly. And with each and every nominee, the answers that I have been given with them, has satisfied me that they’re gonna move forward in that direction.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Jake Tapper to Katie Britt: “Why would you think somebody who’s willing to lie about the election results in Pennsylvania is going to restore integrity in the Justice Department the way that you are calling for?” pic.twitter.com/aTCa5fg8Cq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 12, 2025
READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
Image via Shutterstock
House Republicans, especially the California delegation, are facing sharp criticism after spending portions of the weekend with President-elect Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence. They reportedly discussed ways to take the unprecedented approach of tying passage of relief funds—for the Golden State’s historic wildfire disaster—to raising the debt ceiling, as the fires continue to burn and the death toll rises to 24 people.
“Of the nearly two dozen House Republicans who attended the Sunday dinner at Mar-a-Lago, where this option was discussed, several are caucus leaders and appropriators with major influence in upcoming budget reconciliation and government funding negotiations,” Politico reports. “Trump also discussed the wildfires Saturday night with a group of House Republicans from California, New York and New Jersey.”
According to J.D. Wolf of MeidasTouch News, the California GOP members of Congress “chose to leave the state at its most vulnerable moment,” and “have drawn criticism for abandoning their … state during the crisis, opting instead to join Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.”
READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
“California [GOP] Representatives Jay Obernolte, Tom McClintock, Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, Darrell Issa, Ken Calvert, Vince Fong, and Young Kim were spotted in a photo with Trump this weekend when they could have been back home seeking ways to help even if the fire isn’t in their district,” he declared. “Instead, these lawmakers have prioritized meeting with Trump over exercising leadership in their home state. Their absence sends a troubling message to their state.”
In a stern rebuke, Wolf added: “In doing so, they have not only abandoned their duty to Californians but also cast doubt on their priorities and dedication as elected officials.” He also wrote: “Californians are left wondering if these leaders will ever prioritize their needs over political maneuvering.”
One House Republican from California was “not invited,” according to Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill.
“But all the talk of unity at Mar-a-Lago this weekend only went so far – Trump did not invite David Valadao (R-Calif.), 1 of the 10 House Rs who voted to impeach after Jan. 6, to the mtg of CA, NY and NJ GOP members.”
READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
Valadao’s presence would have made sense. Hill reports he is a caucus chief and senior appropriator.
Trump, who has a history of trying to withhold relief aid to California, has been accused of politicizing the tragedy, which Politico notes, “could become the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.”
It may become even more costly.
The Associated Press reports, “firefighters are preparing for a return of dangerous winds that could again stoke the flames on Monday.”
Over the weekend, on his social media website, Trump reposted this:
View the social media post above or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’
Image via Reuters
Wildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting
Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility
LA Mayor a ‘Communist’ Alleges Fox News Host With Ties to Trump Nominee
LA Mayor a ‘Communist’ Alleges Fox News Host With Ties to Trump Nominee
Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility
Wildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting
‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
News4 days ago‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’
News4 days agoTrump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
News3 days ago‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
News17 hours agoWildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting
News15 hours agoSenator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility
News11 hours agoLA Mayor a ‘Communist’ Alleges Fox News Host With Ties to Trump Nominee