Archive

Obama Justice Department no longer defends federal marriage act

  • FairwoodKing
    This is why I like Obama. The damn Repubs wouldn't do anything like this.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/23/6116207-obama-admin-will-no-longer-defend-federal-marriage-act-in-court
  • O-Trap
    FairwoodKing;689021 wrote:This is why I like Obama. The damn Repubs wouldn't do anything like this.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/23/6116207-obama-admin-will-no-longer-defend-federal-marriage-act-in-court
    No, but the Libertarians would.
  • SQ_Crazies
    You like Obama because you're gay.

    Glad you have your priorities straight, because the marriage issue is so important.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Cool, doesn't really change the law, just saves court costs ha.
    I really don't see the law getting overturned though, by Congress or the Court anytime soon.
    And an R administration next can just reverse this decision.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Since I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage, anyway, I applaud this. And I don't usually like anything Obama does.
  • FairwoodKing
    SQ_Crazies;689049 wrote:You like Obama because you're gay.

    Glad you have your priorities straight, because the marriage issue is so important.

    It's important to us. Until we have the right to marry, we will still be regarded as second-class citizens.
  • SQ_Crazies
    We're all going to be third world citizens if we don't stop wasting our time on things like gay freakin' marriage, abortion, etc.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    SQ_Crazies;689058 wrote:We're all going to be third world citizens if we don't stop wasting our time on things like gay freakin' marriage, abortion, etc.

    So, is that more of an argument to keep the status quo then? (Legal abortions, no gay marriage)
  • O-Trap
    FairwoodKing;689053 wrote:It's impportant to us. Until we have the right to marry, we will still be regarded as second-class citizens.
    Look, on the issue, I'm with you. However ...

    ... you and I have the same "partner pool" from which we can marry (provided you are a male over the age of consent and of sound mind, which you are). The fact that you're genetically predisposed to not liking that pool doesn't mean that the rights are different between you and I.

    Now, as I've said before, there IS still discrimination going on in regard to this issue. The pool from which you and I are able to choose our spouse is NOT the same as that of a woman. Why? For the sole purpose that she's a woman.

    That's called gender discrimination.

    I know that sounds technical, and it is. The law is meant to be interpreted technically, so it has to be.

    As such, you and I are both experiencing the same discrimination (and women are as well). It just hurts you more than me, because it infringes on a right you wish to exercise, while for me, it infringes on a right I would not exercise.

    Given that it is STILL an infringement, as long as the Fed wishes to remain involved in marriage (which it shouldn't be, but government typically doesn't seem to like to relinquish control or involvement when it has it), a change needs to be made, so that any consenting adult of sound mind, regardless of sexual preference, is legally allowed to marry any other consenting adult of sound mind, regardless of sexual preference.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Maybe.

    Actually, my personal opinion is that the government should have nothing to do with issues like this. I don't care that Fairwood is gay, so why would I care if he got married to another man? This is a religious thing, not a political thing--what happened to separation of church and state? Oh yeah, it never existed. Abortion should be legal, weed should be legal, gay marriage should be legal. The government shouldn't be involved in issues like this, they're social issues--it's my opinion that the government shouldn't put their hands into social issues.

    However, I know that won't be the case. So yes, maybe just keep the status quo--whatever. Whatever throws these issues under the rug, AT LEAST until we can solve our REAL fiscal problems. Dudes not being able to marry dudes isn't losing anyone a job, isn't costing tax payers more money, etc.
  • 2quik4u
    FairwoodKing;689021 wrote:This is why I like Obama. The damn Repubs wouldn't do anything like this.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/23/6116207-obama-admin-will-no-longer-defend-federal-marriage-act-in-court

    “George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – “The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.”), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – “Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court’s Miranda cases.”), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.”) all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional.”

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/noms-maggie-gallagher-calls-obamas-doma-position-an-end-run/legal-issues/2011/02/23/17606
  • stlouiedipalma
    SQ_Crazies;689058 wrote:We're all going to be third world citizens if we don't stop wasting our time on things like gay freakin' marriage, abortion, etc.

    I'll agree with you on that. By the way, WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS? Boehner and his buddies were given power based on the premise of jobs, jobs, jobs. All we've gotten from them has been social agenda. The way I see it, they're wasting their 18 months. Before you know it, it will be re-election time and they'll have nothing to show for their time but empty promises.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Why are you question Boehner? He's hardly had time to do anything and first thing on the agenda should DEFINITELY be to do whatever can be done to reverse some of Obama's BS. Obama promised jobs many times, so good question, where are they?

    I'll tell you where they are, they're in the tax dollars. The government can't create jobs, that's why you'll continue to ask "WHERE ARE THE JOBS".
  • dwccrew
    SQ_Crazies;689049 wrote:You like Obama because you're gay.

    Glad you have your priorities straight, because the marriage issue is so important.
    Gay guy has his priorities straight. I found that amusing.
    stlouiedipalma;689177 wrote:I'll agree with you on that. By the way, WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS? Boehner and his buddies were given power based on the premise of jobs, jobs, jobs. All we've gotten from them has been social agenda. The way I see it, they're wasting their 18 months. Before you know it, it will be re-election time and they'll have nothing to show for their time but empty promises.

    Seriously? They've been in office for less than 2 months. Also, government can't create jobs. Why can't liberals realize that?
  • CenterBHSFan
    SQ_Crazies;689202 wrote:The government can't create jobs, that's why you'll continue to ask "WHERE ARE THE JOBS".
    Ohhh yes they can! ODOT, czars, Dept. of ________, IRS, and on and on and on. :)
  • O-Trap
    dwccrew;689266 wrote:Gay guy has his priorities straight.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one that chuckled at that.
  • fan_from_texas
    The way they're going about this is generally a bad idea, I think, because it opens the door for whatever party is in power to enforce only the laws they like. Let's see how healthcare is treated if a R becomes president and decides that it's likely unconstitutional.
  • BGFalcons82
    stlouiedipalma;689177 wrote:I'll agree with you on that. By the way, WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS? Boehner and his buddies were given power based on the premise of jobs, jobs, jobs. All we've gotten from them has been social agenda. The way I see it, they're wasting their 18 months. Before you know it, it will be re-election time and they'll have nothing to show for their time but empty promises.

    Here's your boy, Harry's, priorities:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbPsq0zY3ek&feature=player_embedded

    How does legal prostitution figure into the deficit discussion, there louie???
  • SQ_Crazies
    CenterBHSFan;689269 wrote:Ohhh yes they can! ODOT, czars, Dept. of ________, IRS, and on and on and on. :)

    Mhmm..
  • queencitybuckeye
    FairwoodKing;689053 wrote:It's important to us. Until we have the right to marry, we will still be regarded as second-class citizens.

    Johnny One Note checks in.
  • BGFalcons82
    I read an interesting POV this morning. This has nothing to do with LGBQ (did I miss a letter? :))

    So, Obama isn't going to invest public resources to defend this US law? Isn't the job of the Executive Branch to enforce laws passed by the Congress? Or is it the Executive Branch's Constitutional-duty to determine which laws are Constitutional or not? Do we have a Judicial Branch set up to do what Obama is doing? Why is the Obama administration doing whatever they want and ignoring laws that they are being paid to enforce?

    There is a federal judge in Florida that ruled ObamaKare is unconstitutional. And yet, here is the Obama administration IGNORING the court ruling and plowing ahead like this judge was a gnat in their way. It's as if a defendant was found "not guilty" by a court and then continues to be incarcerated because the prosecution felt they were right and the judge was wrong.

    It appears our President has completely forgotten about the Judicial Branch's role in our Constitution, as he sees fit to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases. IMO, he's coming extremely close to violating the Constitution, which he swore to uphold and defend on January 20, 2009. Those that violate it get impeached.
  • jhay78
    O-Trap;689061 wrote:Look, on the issue, I'm with you. However ...

    ... you and I have the same "partner pool" from which we can marry (provided you are a male over the age of consent and of sound mind, which you are). The fact that you're genetically predisposed to not liking that pool doesn't mean that the rights are different between you and I.

    There's a loaded phrase that's open for debate.
    Now, as I've said before, there IS still discrimination going on in regard to this issue. The pool from which you and I are able to choose our spouse is NOT the same as that of a woman. Why? For the sole purpose that she's a woman.

    That's called gender discrimination.

    I know that sounds technical, and it is. The law is meant to be interpreted technically, so it has to be.

    As such, you and I are both experiencing the same discrimination (and women are as well). It just hurts you more than me, because it infringes on a right you wish to exercise, while for me, it infringes on a right I would not exercise.

    Given that it is STILL an infringement, as long as the Fed wishes to remain involved in marriage (which it shouldn't be, but government typically doesn't seem to like to relinquish control or involvement when it has it), a change needs to be made, so that any consenting adult of sound mind, regardless of sexual preference, is legally allowed to marry any other consenting adult of sound mind, regardless of sexual preference
    So if the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, then whose calling the union of two consenting people "marriage" really matters? IMO society has a vested interest in defining what is and isn't marriage, as they already do with regard to incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. (and no I'm not comparing those to two consenting adults- before everyone freaks out).

    If the people = the government in our country (at least theorecitally), then they should be able to define what is and isn't legally recognized as marriage. But if y'all don't want the government involved anyway, then whose recognition or authoritative use of the word "marriage" do you seek?
  • Con_Alma
    SQ_Crazies;689065 wrote:Maybe.

    Actually, my personal opinion is that the government should have nothing to do with issues like this. ....
    Amen. I agree completely...even at the State level.
  • Con_Alma
    jhay78;690082 wrote:... But if y'all don't want the government involved anyway, then whose recognition or authoritative use of the word "marriage" do you seek?


    My wife and my Church.
  • Gblock
    SQ_Crazies;689065 wrote:Maybe.

    Actually, my personal opinion is that the government should have nothing to do with issues like this. I don't care that Fairwood is gay, so why would I care if he got married to another man? This is a religious thing, not a political thing--what happened to separation of church and state? Oh yeah, it never existed. Abortion should be legal, weed should be legal, gay marriage should be legal. The government shouldn't be involved in issues like this, they're social issues--it's my opinion that the government shouldn't put their hands into social issues.

    However, I know that won't be the case. So yes, maybe just keep the status quo--whatever. Whatever throws these issues under the rug, AT LEAST until we can solve our REAL fiscal problems. Dudes not being able to marry dudes isn't losing anyone a job, isn't costing tax payers more money, etc.
    i agree if anything it makes our country more stable just like heterosexuals who get married. less diseases like aids etc.... more stability...win win situation if you ask me. but this issue as well as others are costing tons of wasted dollars. while we're at it lets gtfo of iraq/afghanistan