Should Obama Be Impeached Over DOMA?

Is not having the Justice Department continue to fight for the “Defense of Marriage Act” an impeachable offense? Conservative icon Newt Gingrich seems to think so, although he’s now backtracking once his comments hit the main stream media. Gingrich, considered by some to be a 2012 Presidential contender, compared President Obama’s refusal to continue to defend the act akin to a Republican president unilaterally decided to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Via The Hill:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) stressed Friday that he does not believe President Obama should be impeached in reaction to an interview he gave where impeachment of the president was discussed.

Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, pushed back hard against the characterization of his interview with the conservative Newsmax magazine, during which he was asked if President Obama should be impeached over his decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

“Congress has every responsibility to demand President Obama live up to his constitutional obligations, but impeachment is clearly not an appropriate action,” Gingrich said in a statement, released after news outlets had interpreted Gingrich’s statements to Newsmax as suggesting that Obama could be impeachable for not executing the law regarding DOMA.

In the interview, Gingrich said that if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) had been elected president and taken a similar action, she would be hearing calls for impeachment.

“Imagine that she had announced that Roe v. Wade in her judgment was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed,” he said. “The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

Asked if Obama’s decision is impeachable, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get into much later, but it is clearly a dereliction of duty and is a violation of his constitutional oath.”

Of course, Roe V. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, and hence proven constitutional, where as DOMA never has been. And Roe V. Wade regards giving all women access to abortion regardless of income level, creating equality among the gender regardless of class, where as DOMA actually creates discrimination by only allowing certain people to get married.

Gingrich himself has been divorced and married three times, so as an expert on the sanctity of marriage, his credentials are somewhat lacking.

Photo courtesy of wikimedia commons

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Karrie C.

1:13PM PDT on Mar 29, 2011

I am a strong Biblical Christian that strongly teaches separation church and state. This law is unconditional and Obama should not be impeached for removing it. Why can't we have a law to protect all marriges that are private in the bedrooms ?

send a green star

Good B.

8:57AM PDT on Mar 29, 2011

The poll about impeachment is spurious. I answered it, but I am offended by the very question. In the America in which I was raised, one supported the President, not looked for ways to attack him. The question is unpatriotic.

8:53AM PDT on Mar 29, 2011

The Defense of Marriage [sic] Act is an ethically reprehensible law, which attempts to create in the USA a Christian Theocracy. It was put forward by American Terrorists, no different from Al Queda, who wish to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the country. it has no place in America. People came to build this country to get away from a place where the King wanted to be in charge of what religion "his subjects" were allowed to practice. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion for all everyone, Not just Christians. Church and state are separate things. It should remain so.

Ann H.

9:47AM PDT on Mar 14, 2011

No U.S. President has the singular authorization to "ignore," repeal, or do away with any constitutional law. It's called checks and balances. If we give a U.S. President the power to do this, then we will have a king or dictator, not a president. I would like to see DOMA go away, but there is a process.

John S.

4:12PM PDT on Mar 13, 2011

Dawn W., Newt said don't impeach, so that means we should?

gerlinde p.

8:34AM PST on Mar 6, 2011

why does marriage need a defence act

Lika S.

1:07AM PST on Mar 6, 2011

These republicans should be impeached for being rude.

Barbara V.

6:20PM PST on Mar 2, 2011

I would start with the previous administration and then strike it from the rosters. I'll help.

heather g.

8:35PM PST on Mar 1, 2011

What a very silly heading !

Louise D.

4:38PM PST on Mar 1, 2011

Newt Gringrich is hardly a person who should be asked about defense of marriage having been married three times`and admitted to having an affair with his current wife while he was still married to his second…As a politician who may be considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how could anyone reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that he so vigorously defends? A clear case of double standards, still the Republicans abused impeachment when they tried to impeach Clinton. Yet there was plenty of evidence to impeach both Reagan & Bush but neither of them were impeached.