Here’s another of those amusing “WND Exclusive” stories. An exclusive story about the Supreme Court’s marriage rulings? Every news outlet in the country has a story about it. You mean this particular story is “exclusive”? Then isn’t every story “exclusive”? Anyway, they repeat this tired lie:
President Obama had refused to defend DOMA, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The provision simply said that for federal purposes, such as benefits, marriage is limited to a man and a woman.
However, Obama, and his attorney general, Eric Holder, announced they would not defend it as their oaths of office require.
Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, warned that the president’s stance itself is a dangerous precedent.
Striking DOMA, he said, “would set the precedent that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he does not.”
That, he said, would make a president an “autocratic dictator” by default, as he no longer would be bound by his oath of office to enforce all laws. If a president didn’t like the tax code, for example, he could order federal agents not to enforce it.
No, neither the president nor the attorney general’s oath of office requires them to defend the constitutionality of every law. It does require them to “faithfully execute” the law, which they did. Apparently it hasn’t occurred to these geniuses that if the Obama administration had not been enforcing DOMA, this case could not have come about. If they weren’t enforcing DOMA, they would not have charged the tax on Edith Windsor’s late partner’s estate. But in fact, even after the district and appeals courts overturned the law, the administration did not refund that money. They continued to enforce the law as written because the law was still being challenged in court.
They just lie. Constantly.
Like Dispatches on Facebook: