you know i happen to this really doma i don't support that law and i think that i think that you know whether it's scott walker in wisconsin or president obama if an executive believes that was unconstitutional then they have an obligation not to defend it because they have an obligation to uphold the constitution when they take care of that but i think it seems to me that a lot of these guys are just taking gratuitous shots. you know install it makes this historically we've had groups that. you know have been the victims of the demagogues basically and and you know we over the last decade you know the jury falwell era you know it was gays i mean you know gays are responsible for nine eleven and now it's also muslims right so it's well well i don't think i don't think that it's just republicans or just democrats who pander to one community or another but it's how actually it largely is partisan and also most democrats are lining up behind gay rights most republicans are are saying no way i think. you're seeing most republicans now focused on fixing government you see the leadership on

and in doma, there are two basically sections in doma. the first is defining marriage and spouse for the purposes of the federal government. the second is determining the states should be forced to recognize the same sex marriage. the second opponent doesn't apply the discussion. the first does. i suppose people could turn this into a discussion or debate about whether or not you think marriage should be one thing or another. it seems to me the more serious -- that's a serious principal indeed. something else is serious to everybody in the committee to pay attention to. that's the fact that there's a federal law on the books and that the military is decided that they are going to eggnog that law. that's a very serious question. does that mean that the law code on our books is an a la carte menu? does that mean that military can decide whether or not they are going to change the rules of engagement militarily, or how they are going to interrogate prisoners or whatever because they don't think the law suits their fancy? are we a nation of l

same thing with doma. certain things change, you change even though it's the law congress passed, there's a change in the cultural lag and it kind of catches up and the people's perception of it changes. some of the same people that gave us doma, most of us gave us the laws against internet poker. it was that family values crowd that -- yeah, quotes. they gave us those laws. but sometimes they might not have been the right laws. some of mr. forbes' folks who you could be prosecutie ining sf the obscenity cases with some of the people you've got otherwise concerned with some of these laws concerning internet poker. there are priorities. we can't do everything. don't you think in the priority range internet poker would be at the bottom of the level, beneath obscenity and hardcore pornography and child rape and things like that? >> well, there are a whole variety of things we have responsibilities for. you know, the cases that we brought, for instance, in the southern district of new york involved pretty subs

>> the section in doma -- doma has two parts. the first is it says one state you don't have to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. there was one part of doma. the other piece of doma talks about two things, talks about u.s. personnel and u.s. property, those two things. and so, those two cannot be involved, which their force is the policy that the military is considering is just flat against doma. so, to me, it isn't so much a matter of whether you like or don't like same-sex marriages with or not we're going to follow the federal law. that's -- i think that's the question before us. and i would yield back. >> i think that we have added -- >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. aikn. in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. >> please ask for a roll call vote. >> roll call vote is requested, and we will hold that as we move on. the chair now recognizes mr. johnson fo

same thing with doma. certain things change, you change even though it's the law congress passed, there's a change in the cultural lag and it kind of catches up and the people's perception of it changes. some of the same people that gave us doma, most of us gave us the laws against internet poker. it was that family values crowd that -- yeah, quotes. they gave us those laws. but sometimes they might not have been the right laws. some of mr. forbes' folks who you could be prosecutie ining sf the obscenity cases with some of the people you've got otherwise concerned with some of these laws conceing internet poker. there are priorities. we can't do everything. n't you think in the priority range internet poker would be at the bottom of the level, beneath obscenity and hardcore pornography and child rape and things le that? >> well, there are a whole variety of things we have responsibilities for. you know, the cases that we brought, for instance, in the southern district of new york involved pretty substantia

same thing with doma. certain things change, you change even though it's the law congress passed, there's a change in the cultural lag and it kind of catches up and the people's perception of it changes. some of the same people that gave us doma, most of us gave us the laws against internet poker. it was that family values crowd that -- yeah, quotes. they gave us those laws. but sometimes they might not have been the right laws. some of mr. forbes' folks who you could be prosecutie ining sf the obscenity cases with some of the people you've got otherwise concerned with some of these laws concerning internet poker. there are priorities. we can't do everything. don't you think in the priority range internet poker would be at the bottom of the level, beneath obscenity and hardcore pornography and child rape and things like that? >> well, there are a whole variety of things we have responsibilities for. you know, the cases that we brought, for instance, in the southern district of new york involved pretty subs

i want to assure you and everybody else that the decision we made with regard to doma did not have a political determination to it. it was a legal determination. >> i want to believe you. i really do. i mean that earnestly. but when i was in ausa, there was a court of appeals that said law enforcement officers didn't have to read miranda warnings anymore. it was an unusual opinion and one we didn't follow. it was one court of appeals that ruled that way. heaven knows the night court of appeals is presumptively wrong. we don't change our course of conduct -- i said that, not you. when the ninth circuit court of appeals comes up with something crazy, we don't change our course of action. it is difficult to explain why it's not a political calculation or decision when two courts of appeals post lawrence have said rational basis test is the one that applies and only one that argued for a heightened level of scrutiny. it's tough to see how that's not political. >> i think one example. i might be wrong on this one but my memory serves me correctly, when it came to the dickerson case, the f

said i would defend doma across the country. he quit the work and i assume he's continuing to vigorously representing the government in these cases. i'm told there are 10 or 11 doma challenges out there more than the attorneys knew of, two of which are immigration cases in the ninth circuit, others arising in the other circumstances. the expectation is that clement will appear in all 11 of those cases. there's more percolating at the administrative level at various rejeemz and will defend doma. >> he'll do that on behalf of the congress, not the u.s. government. >> thank you so much. can we give this panel a round of applause. [ applause ] let me just make an announcement that there will be lunch so you can go upstairs and you can go then to rooms 141 and 110, which are open for people to take their lunches and sit around. thanks so much ain and see you back in the afternoon. . . . [ recess ] >> tibor machan will take your phone calls and females alike today at noon eastern on c-span 2's booktv. >> now, the annual washington cor

i want to assure you and everybody else that the decision we made with regard to doma did not have a political determination to it. it was a legal determination. >> i want to believe you. i really do. i mean that earnestly. but when i was in ausa, there was a court of appeals that said law enforcement officers didn't have to read miranda warnings anymore. it was an unusual opinion and one we didn't follow. it was one court of appeals that ruled that way. heaven knows the night court of appeals is presumptively wrong. we don't change our course of conduct -- i said that, not you. when the ninth circuit court of appeals comes up with something crazy, we don't change our course of action. it is difficult to explain why it's not a political calculation or decision when two courts of appeals post lawrence have said rational basis test is the one that applies and only one that argued for a heightened level of scrutiny. it's tough to see how that's not political. >> i think one example. i might be wrong on this one but my memory serves me correctly, when it came to the dickerson case, the f

review the -- after reviewing the attorney general's recommendation that doma falls under the exception in which -- quote -- "the department of justice cannot offer a reasonable argument in defense of the statute's constitutionality." well, it's been defended and upheld by a number of courts. how do we just waltz in now and decide we're not going to defend a congressionally enacted statute signed into law by president clinton because they don't like it? that's what it appears to me. the administration apparently came to this conclusion after unilaterally deciding that -- quote -- "classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny." in the face of precedent from 11 circuit courts of appeals holding that such classifications should be reviewed under the much lower normal rational basis standard. there's a very big difference between refusing to defend the law that the administration regards as unconstitutional and refusing to defend a law that the administration opposes on policy grounds. the presiding officer: 15 minutes. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask for

doma does not deal with either of these items. it was a attempt to define that marriage was between one man and one woman in 45 states in this country have reached that conclusion either through a constitutional amendment ratified by the people, as was the case in wisconsin, or through statutory enactments by the legislature. my concern on this and it is deeply troubling that the president has decided to usurp the function of congress in making laws that the former president has signed and also to use -- usurped the function of the courts by saying this law is unconstitutional when that is not his job. i

review the -- after reviewing the attorney general's recommendation that doma falls under the exception in which -- quote -- "the department of justice cannot offer a reasonable argument in defense of the statute's constitutionality." well, it's been defended and upheld by a number of courts. how do we just waltz in now and decide we're not going to defend a congressionally enacted statute signed into law by president clinton because they don't like it? that's what it appears to me. the administration apparently came to this conclusion after unilaterally deciding that -- quote -- "classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny." in the face of precedent from 11 circuit courts of appeals holding that such classifications should be reviewed under the much lower normal rational basis standard. there's a very big difference between refusing to defend the law that the administration regards as unconstitutional and refusing to defend a law that the administration opposes on policy grounds. the presiding officer: 15 minutes. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask for