# 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:** 3
**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 14, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/41 "2009-06-14T16:19:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But I almost never hear those called States Rights. In fact, about the only time I hear those and state’s rights brought up together is by someone pointing out how the people who normally advocate state’s rights try to use the federal government to crack down on states that do it. Well, I’m sure it happens. I admit somebody in Oregon or Vermont making a state’s-rights argument is probably more likely to be pro-freedom than someone from a southern state, which in the last century has frequently been pro-racism and most recently anti-ssm. Vermonters occasionally _do_ invoke state’s-rights arguments, a google reveals. In 2005 some Vermonters seemed quite incensed at a federal delay in licensing a hydroelectric dam. Oh, those crazy green mountain boys…! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/42 "2009-06-14T16:20:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Trouble is, you make no distinction between those who regard “state’s rights” as a valid, Constitutional issue, and those who will grab whatever justification is at hand. Because I don’t think there’s much of a distinction between the two groups. State’s Rights as a philosophy has pretty much died out except among those who want to use it as an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Leonard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@Leonard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leonard)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/43 "2009-06-14T17:12:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because I don’t think there’s much of a distinction between the two groups. State’s Rights as a philosophy has pretty much died out except among those who want to use it as an excuse. What makes you think it has died out? Maybe people just got tired of being called racists by people like you. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/44 "2009-06-14T17:38:11Z")
> [@Leonard](#): > > What makes you think it has died out? Maybe people just got tired of being called racists by people like you. Defending racism makes you a racist. When you try to, for example defend the South in the Civil War with talk about State’s Rights, you are defending slavery. Even as far back as then, State’s Rights was about bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/45 "2009-06-14T17:41:57Z")
And let’s not forget the [National States’ Rights Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_States%27_Rights_Party), or the [States’ Rights Democratic Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat). The phrase “states’ rights” comes by its unsavory reputation honestly. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/46 "2009-06-14T17:55:39Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > 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? I think yes, we do all want that. I know this because no one I’ve ever met has approved of every law of which they’re aware to such an extent that they think at least one of them is unjust. I’m not entirely sure they’d be willing to throw huge chunks of money to litigate in favor of upholding a law with which they disagree, or about which they’re ambivalent. I for one am not of the opinion that all laws are created equally. So much so that I’d rather not waste money judicial resources fighting for silly laws which really serve no purpose other than having passed some “sounds good, feels good” standard which appeals to certain morally superior asshats. It would be nice to see our resources spent on things of actual import: like buying elections, how to unfuck illegal wars and so on. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/47 "2009-06-14T18:08:22Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Defending racism makes you a racist. When you try to, for example defend the South in the Civil War with talk about State’s Rights, you are defending slavery. Even as far back as then, State’s Rights was about bigotry. So, that original Constitutional clause about reserving to the states those powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government…? Which form of vile injustice were they aiming for with that? If you admit that their intention was noble, or at least acceptable, then you admit that good things can be perverted to evil causes. Duh. Barry Goldwater, for instance, opposed the Civil Rights Act on exactly those grounds, that increasing Federal power, even in pursuit of a worthy goal, would sacrifice an essential principle. I thought he was wrong then, and I think so now, but I don’t for a minute think that he was motivated by bigotry. Lot of “grey” out there in the real world, **Der**. About time you caught on to that. ---
**Author:** ![rivulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rivulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rivulus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/48 "2009-06-14T18:21:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > In what way is this “Obama invokes”? OK, its the Justice Department. Would that be the same JustDept that Bushco just spent eight years packing with Liberty University yahoos? Are we to be surprised that many in the JustDept do not share our enlightened views? According to [this](http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/obamas-doj-did-not-have-to-go-this-far/) blog, it’s not just Bush holdovers who authored this brief: > [@](#): > > Tony West, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, is the senior person on the brief. [snip]He also was the co-chairman of Obama’s fundraising committee. This is an Obama person. And his name is on this brief. Obama’s hand-picked guy in the DOJ has delivered this slap in the face. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/49 "2009-06-14T18:42:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, that original Constitutional clause about reserving to the states those powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government…? Which form of vile injustice were they aiming for with that? Even back then, much of the motive for preserving state autonomy was the preservation of slavery. The rest had to do with the states at the time being nearly separate countries; that’s simply not true any more. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/50 "2009-06-14T18:50:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, that original Constitutional clause about reserving to the states those powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government…? Which form of vile injustice were they aiming for with that? > [snip] He needn’t answer that question as it’s a false premise. The constitution has to be taken as it is today, not as you want it to remain. Now equal protect and due process are, by the constitution’s own terms, extended to the states. I don’t see how arguing for the original framers’ intent is particularly relevant since the issue at hand was appended to the constitution many moons after they had all long been dead. That is to say that what we’re discussing is a power explicitly held by the federal government and applicable to the states. Indeed, so many were in favor of having that be the case simply because each state couldn’t be trusted to honor the spirit of the document and our precepts of ordered liberty wisely. So, the people decided to make it clear that there’s a bare minimum of fundamental liberties which lie beyond the government to proscribe. This has pissed off many people, none of them of the mind that personal freedom in an alleged democracy is a bad thing. Indeed, it’s the people who want to usurp an individual’s idea of what makes him happy with their novel, better idea of what would really make said person happy. Or, in the alternative, at least makes the would-be-usurper happy knowing that he’s managed to force others to live in his contrived notion of what should be. This is the very paragon of hubris. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/51 "2009-06-14T19:26:34Z")
You appear eager to misunderstand. The clause is there, hence, an argument that regards that clause as a Constitutional issue is on a firm foundation. One might well argue that America has outgrown it, and I would not disagree. But to assert that the “states rights” clause has no substance, and any argument based upon it is simply a smokescreen for bigotry is to presume too much. As I said, I thought Barry Goldwater was wrong on that issue, but not that he had no basis for his argument, only that the circumstances of injustice overwhelmed such objections, that immediate relief was demanded and justifiable, and that if such relief must injure the principle of “state’s rights”, then so be it. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/52 "2009-06-14T19:47:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You appear eager to misunderstand. The clause is there, hence, an argument that regards that clause as a Constitutional issue is on a firm foundation. One might well argue that America has outgrown it, and I would not disagree. > > But to assert that the “states rights” clause has no substance, and any argument based upon it is simply a smokescreen for bigotry is to presume too much. As I said, I thought Barry Goldwater was wrong on that issue, but not that he had no basis for his argument, only that the circumstances of injustice overwhelmed such objections, that immediate relief was demanded and justifiable, and that if such relief must injure the principle of “state’s rights”, then so be it. When Barry Goldwater is cited as a foundation of American law, then his thoughts might be relevant. As it stands now, the constitution allows for, nay mandates, that certain provisions of the constitution are directly applicable to the states. On this point there can be no reasonable argument otherwise. And as it is now, the federal government can, and does, with the full power of the constitution limit the degree to which states can screw their citizenry out of their rights. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/53 "2009-06-14T21:13:58Z")
Plese note the text of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I do not see the word “rights” anywhere in it, nor anywhere else in the Constitution is there any guarantee of ‘rights’ to states. The First Congress concurred with widespread pipular sentiment that the new Constitutional government required to be restrained from infringing on the rights of citizens of the United States. It wa felt that the states which had recently fought a war against what was popularly understood to be King George’s tyranny could be trusted not to so infringe. The events leading up to and during the Civil War gave the lie to that presumption, and the Fourteenth Amendment was in consequence passed, prohibiting the states from infringing on the rights of citizens of the United States. I might also point out that there is no constitutional ground for the passage of DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/54 "2009-06-14T21:38:08Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I might also point out that there is no constitutional ground for the passage of DOMA. The constitution says: > [@](#): > > . . .the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. which suggests that Congress is able to regulate how public acts in one state should be recognized by another. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/55 "2009-06-14T21:49:32Z")
“prescribe the manner in which [they] shall be **proved** , and the effect thereof” is the relevant language. The preceding sentence places an affirmative duty on **the states** to extend full faith and credit to specified acts of other states; Congress’s only role is to prescribe a national standard for proving such, and the effect of furnishing such proof. It does not give Congress power to make exceptions to the constitutional duty imposed on such states. Even if you wish to construe “and the effect thereof” as permitting a zero result. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/56 "2009-06-14T21:57:41Z")
Heck, I bet a 1L could find Constitutional grounds in the commerce clause. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/57 "2009-06-14T22:16:39Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > “prescribe the manner in which [they] shall be **proved** , and the effect thereof” is the relevant language. The preceding sentence places an affirmative duty on **the states** to extend full faith and credit to specified acts of other states; Congress’s only role is to prescribe a national standard for proving such, and the effect of furnishing such proof. Yes, except case law has determined that the affirmative duty on the states to extend full faith and credit to specified acts of other states isn’t absolute. There are limits to comity. Even without DOMA, a state could probably refuse to recognize gay marriages conducted in other states without falling afoul of the full faith and credit clause. (Whether such a ban would violate equal protection or due process is another question) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/58 "2009-06-14T23:04:24Z")
Note too that DOMA also set terms for _Federal_ recognition of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/59 "2009-06-14T23:20:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Disgusting. So if a state wants segregation, or prayer in schools, or for the poor to starve to death, or for women to be forced to give birth that’s just fine ? Then the people of the state bring a petition to the federal government under the ninth amendment to have the state’s claimed authority rendered illegitimate. ---
**Author:** ![rivulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rivulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rivulus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/60 "2009-06-16T02:22:43Z")
Richard Socarides, former Hill staffer and then former top aide to President Clinton, [weighs in](http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html): > [@](#): > > Like many other gay people who support the president, and as someone who had hoped he would be a presidential-sized champion of gay civil rights from the start, I was disturbed by his administration’s brief defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), filed late last week, in opposition to our full equality. > > It had such a buckshot approach to it, a veritable kitchen sink of anti-gay legal theories, that it seemed expressly designed to inflict maximal damage to our rights. Instead of making nuanced arguments which took into account the president’s oft-stated support for repealing DOMA – a law he has called “abhorrent” – the brief seemed to embrace DOMA and all its horrific consequences. > > I was equally troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640.md?page=2)