Much has been made about the decision by the Justice Department to no longer defend section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as it pertains to gay marriages. Many Republicans have been lying and spreading false information including and unsurprisingly Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich.
So what is the requirement for the Justice Department to defend a law? According to Partick Leahy a Republican prior to November 2008 wrote:
The Attorney General’s duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, not to circumvent them. The president and the American people are best served by an Attorney General who gives sound advice and takes responsible action, rather than one who develops legalistic loopholes to serve the partisan ends of a particular administration.
I have been unable to find the original source of this quote, but my best guess based on the information available is this is from Senator Arlen Specter a Republican from Pennsylvania.
From this quote you could interpret that it is the duty of the Justice Department to responsibly defend laws. I would also say this means that if the Justice Department does not believe there is a reasonable argument to defend the constitutionality of the law it means that it would be irresponsible for the Justice Department to continue to defend it. However, as the Justice Department is doing it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to enforce it until the law is either repealed or overturned by the courts.
Even if you disagree and state that the Justice Department must always defend the law to what degree must they defend the law? Must they take every case all the way to the Supreme Court? I do not think so. I think a case should only go to the Supreme Court if there is a reasonable belief that the lower courts decision does not follow the rule of the constitution. So in this case the Justice Department defended the law in the lower courts, lost, and now do not believe there are any further compelling arguments they can make to defend the law. The lower court has already said there existing arguments were insufficient.
And there is precedent for the Justice Department to stop defending a law. In 1990 the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush declined to defend a law that gave preference to minority owned broadcasters. And in 1996 under President Bill Clinton the department declined to defend a law that required the military to discharge HIV positive members.
This is also the reason we have our system of checks and balances. If Congress believes that the Justice Department is abusing their power and has made the wrong decision here Congress can choose to defend the law themselves.
So is the Justice Department required to defend every law all the way to the Supreme Court? No. However, it is very rare that the Justice Department does not do this.
Note: I am not a lawyer. These comments are based on my research and interpretation of the articles quoted and others that I reviewed and may not be correct in regards to the law.
My parents are gone after a short visit, which unfortunately means it is time to get back into the work groove. Overall it was a nice relaxing visit. We went furniture shopping for my family room and my parents pointed me in a much better direction than I was going to take. Went over to a family friends, which was interesting. I might get more into it later, I am still trying to decide what I want to say about it. There was a comment made that could be taken the wrong way. But fortunately no family drama to contend with.
I also noticed an ad that was on this site today. Despite what the ad says do NOT support Michelle Bachmann for Congress. Unfortunately, I do not control the ads that appear on this site and there appearance is by no means an endorsement of a candidate or company.
I have held off on publishing about President Obama’s decision to no longer defend section 3 of DOMA. Unlike many gay blogs I do not care about being the first to report news like this. Everyone can always get their news elsewhere.
I still am not really sure what I want to say about it. On the one hand I say great the President finally made the right decision. On the other hand I say too bad this really does not mean anything. Section 3 of DOMA is still in effect until the courts release the stay on the decision. And I have no doubt that either the Tea Party in Congress are going to hire their own lawyers to defend it or some other third party group is going to try to gain standing and defend it. This just means another year of the federal government not recognizing legal gay marriages and another year of discrimination.
I finally broke down and hired a house cleaner this week and it is one of the best decisions I have ever made. My house is the cleanest it has been since before I moved in and she did in 3 hours what it would have taken me well over 8 hours to do. Even better she cleaned my house for me before my parents show up today. I actually had to dirty it up a little bit because it was too clean.
This will be my parents 4th trip to Colorado to visit me in the 2.5 years I have lived here. It is getting harder and harder every time to entertain them. They don’t bicycle, ski, hike, or want to go out to clubs and they have already seen pretty much all of the tourist things there are to do in Colorado Springs. I always enjoy when they come out as I only see them 3 or 4 times a year, but trying to get ready for them can be stressful.
The bad thing about my parents coming out is I will not make it to the ski slopes this weekend. Always a great time and I will now be going 3 weeks without skiing. Last weekend the roads were too bad for the drive. I just need to get a condo out there.
Finally, I am really getting tired of my neighbors throwing parties ever weekend for the last 3 weekends. Fortunately they are quiet but all of the opening and slamming of car doors is really annoying. Somebody needs to figure out how to make car doors quieter.
There has been a lot of talk recently in the gay community about the lack and loss of funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. Although I agree that there is a significant need for funding I wonder whether the community is focusing too much on ADAP funding and less on other solutions. Let’s face it budgets are being cut, services will be cut, and yes as much as we may not like it ADAP funding will either be lessened or combined with another program. That is not to say fighting for ADAP funds is a waste of time but should we not also be looking for another solution?
Call me ignorant or stupid if you want as I have never been touched by AIDs nor do I know anyone who has.
In addition to the ADAP funding why are we not also talking about ways to lower medication costs to make them more affordable like the Fair Pricing Coalition did in Florida. It seems to me we could lower the cost of the drugs would make access to treatment more affordable and also lessen the need for the ADAP funding. This is not a fix all but it will certainly help. Why aren’t activists focusing on this?
What other things should be focused on to help make AIDs treatment more affordable?
As a Purdue grad and basketball fan, I feel obligated to post this today given the pending Purdue IU basketball game tonight.
Go Purdue!