# Uh oh. Obama invokes incest and marrying children in defense of DOMA **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 13, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640 "2009-06-13T04:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/1 "2009-06-13T04:14:01Z")
Please, somebody tell me this is a huge pack of evil lies: [http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html](http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html) > [@](#): > > The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/2 "2009-06-13T04:34:24Z")
It looks to me like he’s citing case law with regards to Full Faith and Credit exceptions, not invoking a slippery slope objection. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/3 "2009-06-13T04:41:59Z")
He’s not saying that people will marry their nieces- he’s saying that the several states cannot be required to recognize marriages performed elsewhere, when those marriages performed elsewhere violate that state’s policy. He then cited case law of situations where the same situation had occurred. How in the world did you get “Obama invokes incest and marrying children in defense of DOMA?” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/4 "2009-06-13T04:42:28Z")
He’s engaging in a defense of the defense of marriage? How meta… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/5 "2009-06-13T04:44:30Z")
After reading the whole thing, I now think it’s clear that the Obama administration is defending DOMA as a Constitutional exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause, not arguing against same-sex marriage _per se_. DOMA is not a ban on same-sex marriage, it just says that states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. I don’t like DOMA, it annoys me that the Obama administration is defending it, and I don’t know why Obama is bothering, but the linked article is mischaracterizing this brief as an invocation of incest/man-on-dog type slippery slope arguments against SSM, when it’s really just citing precedents for FF&C exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/6 "2009-06-13T04:50:09Z")
Yeah, my apologies, folks. Pardon me for posting tripe. I ought to know better than to post until I’ve thoroughly read the link. I went off half-cocked. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/7 "2009-06-13T12:51:37Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Yeah, my apologies, folks. Pardon me for posting tripe. I ought to know better than to post until I’ve thoroughly read the link. I went off half-cocked. In your defense, the blog writer himself made those claims from the title and through the article. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/8 "2009-06-13T14:02:08Z")
Further, it’s the job of the Department of Justice to defend the constitutionality of validly passed laws\* against challenges, unless directly ordered to do otherwise by the Attorney General, presumably in consultation with the President. Don’t construe this as necessarily political support of the Obama Administration for DOMA, merely that they have chosen not to expend political capital on its overthrow. The attorneys arguing this may not actually support DOMA, and may be in the same position of a defense attorney representing a probably-guilty client – their job is to make the best case they can for the posirion they hold. - By ‘validly passed’ I mean that it conformed to the legal requirements for enactment, a majority in each house and the President’s signature, not that it was necessarily constitutional, moral, or whatever. The Fugitive Slave Laws were validly passed; that doesn’t mean they were right. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/9 "2009-06-13T15:13:43Z")
Following up on **Polycarp** ’s point, one thing Obama campaigned on was the belief that we are a nation of laws, not of men, in the sense that we cannot ignore or contravene laws merely because we disagree with them – something the previous administration did regularly with those signing statements, for example. It is the duty of the Department of Justice to support all duly passed laws unless and until they are legislatively revoked or overturned by an appellate court of proper jurisdiction. Do we really want a White House that feels it’s okay to tell the DOJ what laws it should and should not uphold? Do we really want a DOJ that knuckles under to White House marching orders? Didn’t we have enough of that under Bush? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/10 "2009-06-13T16:27:39Z")
[Uh oh is right.](http://wordinedgewise.org/blog/2009/06/12/doma-defense-its-worse-than-you-think/) > [@](#): > > Whether or not the administration was legally required to do so (a debated point, but let’s assume Lars Thorwald is right, and that a legally defensible law should be defended), opposition to the suit (Smelt v. United States) might make sense as a tactic; if the case ever did reach the Supreme Court, the prospects for success are doubtful. But once that strategy matter is decided, there are all sorts of briefs one might write. The simplest, and least harmful, would have been to challenge the case on standing (since the plaintiffs hadn’t “applied” for federal benefits); to the extent a more substantive argument were thought advisable, a standard-issue argument about judicial deference would have sufficed. At the other end of the spectrum is the brief that was actually written. > > Dan Savage was merciless. Andrew Sullivan was more measured, but deeply concerned. (See this summary of his view, from a few minutes ago.) Reading his and others’ take on some of the legal arguments, I thought: Wait! I’m a lawyer, so I’m going to read the brief so I can assuage my worst fears. And then go have a beer. > > Well, this Friday night (and likely many more) are ruined. The brief is a jaw-dropping assault on gays and lesbians. Instead of the kind of measured and careful response I was expecting (despite the jeremiads I was reading), I got a brief that seems to have been intended to set the course of judicial progress on gay rights back many years. I wish I were exaggerating. The whole thing’s very discouraging. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/11 "2009-06-13T16:40:10Z")
Here’s a joint [press release](http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/39848prs20090612.html) from the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and others, criticizing the manner in which DOJ argued its position. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/12 "2009-06-13T18:01:12Z")
[QUOTE= Tom Tildrum] The whole thing’s very discouraging. [/QUOTE] Not once you learn about duty of zeal, it’s not. Personally, I find DOMA distasteful. I assume some of those working on this did as well. However, that doesn’t really enter into it. The idea behind a vigorous debate isn’t that one side capitulates to the other based on appeals to emotion and what’s right. The idea is that both sides are fully explored. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/13 "2009-06-13T18:22:10Z")
> [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](#): > > The idea behind a vigorous debate isn’t that one side capitulates to the other based on appeals to emotion and what’s right. The idea is that both sides are fully explored. I think a line should be drawn at arguments that are specious or intellectually dishonest. From my previous cite: > [@](#): > > First, the argument that DOMA saves the federal treasury money. So would denying federal benefits to marriages celebrated on Tuesdays. This argument is so clearly inane that one barely ever sees it even in state law cases opposing marriage equality, especially after the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge gave it an unceremonious burial. Of course the feds save money by hoarding the goodies for straight couples. The issue is whether the discrimination is justified. If it isn’t, then the available benefits should be distributed (even if slightly less) to all. This doesn’t pass what lawyers call the “red face” test (can you make the argument without blushing), and it’s distressing to see it here. IANAL, but it seems to me it’s one thing to take the strongest points of your case and it’s another to throw in everything and the kitchen sink, hoping something will stick. You can be a competent–even zealous–advocate and not necessarily resort to the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/14 "2009-06-13T18:36:10Z")
> [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](#): > > Not once you learn about duty of zeal, it’s not. 😕 The line you quoted was from **ArchiveGuy** , not me. ---
**Author:** ![rivulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rivulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rivulus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/15 "2009-06-13T18:43:43Z")
The crux of the matter is that while the DOJ has to do its job, there are different ways to go about it. As [this](http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/obamas-doj-did-not-have-to-go-this-far/) blog points out: > [@](#): > > Even if one argues, as I often have, that a government lawyer — from the Department of Justice to state attorneys general — must defend even those laws with which one disagrees\*, such a lawyer needn’t overstate his or her case. The government lawyer defending a statute with which she disagrees needn’t add gratuitous demeaning statements into the legal brief she files… Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case. I am deeply disappointed in the Obama administration for allowing this brief to go out. It seems they speak with forked tongues on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/16 "2009-06-13T18:57:11Z")
> [@rivulus](#): > > The crux of the matter is that while the DOJ has to do its job, there are different ways to go about it… In some ways, that could apply to defense attorneys. It’s a valid (though I would personally disagree) position, but I’d be curious if there’s someone who thinks the DOJ should pull some of its punches but a defense attorney shouldn’t. I’m in a slightly awkward position of wholeheartedly supporting marriage, while simultaneously thinking that DOMA is a good law. Marriage is a controversial issue, one far from a national consensus. To use the FF clause to bypass the federal experiment is somewhat antithetical to the spirit of the clause. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/17 "2009-06-13T19:19:45Z")
The truth is that the Obama administration has shown that LGBT causes are not a priority and it is not surprising that this brief is seen as a slap in the face. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/18 "2009-06-13T20:21:53Z")
> [@](#): > > The line you quoted was from ArchiveGuy, not me. Whoops. > [@](#): > > The truth is that the Obama administration has shown that LGBT causes are not a priority and it is not surprising that this brief is seen as a slap in the face. Nope. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/19 "2009-06-13T20:24:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > After reading the whole thing, I now think it’s clear that the Obama administration is defending DOMA as a Constitutional exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause, not arguing against same-sex marriage _per se_. DOMA is not a ban on same-sex marriage, it just says that states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. > > I don’t like DOMA, it annoys me that the Obama administration is defending it, and I don’t know why Obama is bothering, but the linked article is mischaracterizing this brief as an invocation of incest/man-on-dog type slippery slope arguments against SSM, when it’s really just citing precedents for FF&C exceptions. States rights are more important. More things should be decided at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/20 "2009-06-13T21:37:42Z")
States do not have rights, any more than polynomials do. States hve powers. And individual rights should not be at the disposal of states’ powers, If you wish to advocate that gay people have no right to marry (each other. as opposed to fake straight marriages), I’ll listen – but will be difficult to convince. IMO there is a right to marry, which may be regulated for the common good (i.e., no 12-year-olds marrying, no fraudulent bigamous marriages, etc.), _where there is a legitimate government purpose_. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640.md?page=2)