Last Member Drive of 2025!

Your year-end tax-deductible gift powers our local newsroom. Help raise $1 million in essential funding for LAist by December 31.
$672,360 of $1,000,000 goal
A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
 — 
See All Episodes
Subscribe

Hey, LA listener!

Download our app for the optimal streaming experience

Apple Store logo Google play logo
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
AirTalk

Constitutional principles behind Obama's DOMA decision

By AirTalk Staff
Published Feb 24, 2011
Same-sex couple Nowlin Haltom and Michael McKeon hold as sign calling for the right to marry outside the County Clerk's Office in Los Angeles on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2011.
Same-sex couple Nowlin Haltom and Michael McKeon hold as sign calling for the right to marry outside the County Clerk's Office in Los Angeles on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2011.
(
Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images
)
Listen 24:10
Constitutional principles behind Obama's DOMA decision
Yesterday the Obama administration announced it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).The administration said the 15 year old federal law banning the recognition of gay marriage is "legally indefensible." White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president has long opposed the federal law as "unnecessary and unfair." The announcement comes as two challenges to DOMA are pending in the Second Circuit court of appeals. This policy reversal could have major implications for the rights and benefits of gay couples. It could also become a major topic of debate for the 2012 campaign. Supporters and critics of the president’s decision are both invoking constitutional principles. To what extent is the president obligated to uphold the law? Is his decision a purely political move to placate his liberal constituency? What are the implications for other cases and other laws?

Yesterday the Obama administration announced it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).The administration said the 15 year old federal law banning the recognition of gay marriage is "legally indefensible." White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president has long opposed the federal law as "unnecessary and unfair." The announcement comes as two challenges to DOMA are pending in the Second Circuit court of appeals. This policy reversal could have major implications for the rights and benefits of gay couples. It could also become a major topic of debate for the 2012 campaign. Supporters and critics of the president’s decision are both invoking constitutional principles. To what extent is the president obligated to uphold the law? Is his decision a purely political move to placate his liberal constituency? What are the implications for other cases and other laws?

Guest:

Edward Whelan III, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Evan Gerstmann, Chair of Political Science at Loyola Marymount University