Alex Blaze

Log Cabin Republicans Support DOMA's Constitutionality

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 07, 2011 7:00 AM | comments

Filed in: You Gotta See This
Tags: DOMA, log cabin republicans, marriage, Republicans

The Log Cabin Republicans, who are challenging the constitutionality of DADT in court, apparently support the constitutionality of DOMA.

My guess is if Obama, two years ago, had said he wouldn't defend DADT in court the LCR would have never filed suit against the act and just waited for another org to do so. It's Opposite Day every day.


Recent Entries Filed under You Gotta See This:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Alex, this is a blatant misrepresentation of Log Cabin's position on this matter. If you actually read Log Cabin's statement on the issue, you'll see that "While Log Cabin Republicans firmly believe that DOMA is an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights and a violation of individual liberty, we agree with Speaker Boehner that the constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts, not by the president unilaterally."

Wait, if it's unconstitutional, and the president agrees, then they don't defend it in court. If the Justice Department's position, and the LCR's position, is really that the law is unconstitutional, then they don't defend it.

The issue isn't the constitutionality or whether there's a tradition of defending laws the Justice Department believes are unconstitional, though. The question is that it's this president and they're a partisan organization and they're going to criticize him on it because that's more important than taking a real position.

Their statement says that the president declared it unconstitutional "unilaterally." But he didn't - that's why it's still being enforced. It's just not being defended in court; the Supreme Court could still say it's constitutional.

Their position is silly and they know it. They just don't want to go against the party.