[TheRealVille]

WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/Febru...g-222.html

[TheRealVille]

A win for human rights and the beginning of all citizens being treated equal.

[Old School]

A president cannot decide what is and what is not constitutional?
I wonder what else will Barry and his buddies want to change because he thinks is unconstitutional?

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday sent a
letter to Congress to inform them that the Justice Department
will now take the position in court that the Defense of
Marriage Act should be struck down as a violation of gay
couples' rights to equal protection under the law.

"The President and I have concluded that classifications
based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and
that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under
state law" a crucial provision of the Defense of Marriage Act
is unconstitutional, Mr. Holder wrote.

[Hoot Gibson]

It is not a president's job to decide which laws are or are not constitutional. President Obama has unilaterally decided that he has the power to selectively enforce laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by is predecessors, in accordance with the US Constitution.

Democrats applauding this decision are helping place our government on a glide path to a dictatorship, where men rule and written laws will no longer matter.

Which part of "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" does our constitutional lawyer-community organizer president not understand?