Archive

Obama Justice Department no longer defends federal marriage act

  • SQ_Crazies
    Gblock;690096 wrote: while we're at it lets gtfo of iraq/afghanistan

    Agree, it's a lost cause, but it's too complicated to just "get out". We have too much invested there. Let's move on from oil, then we can get out of there, like it or not.
  • O-Trap
    jhay78;690082 wrote:There's a loaded phrase that's open for debate.
    Actually, a study on identical twins who were adopted separately showed that if one sibling was gay, the other had a disproportionately high likelihood of being gay (42% I believe).

    Too low a percentage to suggest that it's genetically predetermined, but predetermined and predisposed are not the same.

    You can have a genetic predisposition to forming chemical addictions, but that doesn't mean you're born an addict, for example.
    jhay78;690082 wrote:So if the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, then whose calling the union of two consenting people "marriage" really matters?
    The ones who still provide special exceptions to spouses. Insurance policies, visitation in hospitals (or prison), spousal privilege in court, and other rules that currently do not include same-sex partners are a few examples of why it matters.
    jhay78;690082 wrote: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).
    Actually, I see a strong case for polygamy. Still consenting adults of sound mind. Just more than two.
    jhay78;690082 wrote:If the people = the government in our country (at least theoretically), then they should be able to define what is and isn't legally recognized as marriage.
    The people are the government, but they are not an unchecked government. If the people decide to discriminate against a protected class (and gender has been protected for some time), they are not allowed to do so. Currently, with regard to this topic, they are.
    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?
    If the rights become 100% equal, then I won't complain about semantics. It's the additional rights shared between married couples, which same-sex partners cannot share in many places, which I would be "seeking."
  • CenterBHSFan
    BGFalcons82;689797 wrote: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.
    Sometimes it's hard to keep in mind that he was a professor of Constitutional Law, whatever good THAT does.

  • I Wear Pants
    Con_Alma;690088 wrote:My wife and my Church.
    Yeah, I don't see how it's that hard of a concept to understand.

    The government should not be in the marriage business.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;690334 wrote:Yeah, I don't see how it's that hard of a concept to understand.

    The government should not be in the marriage business.

    Good luck getting them out of it, though.

    Like I said, the governing bodies don't seem to like to relinquish any control they currently have.
  • jmog
    FairwoodKing;689053 wrote:It's important to us. Until we have the right to marry, we will still be regarded as second-class citizens.

    You have the same marriage rights that a heterosexual does, we've all been over this.

    I actually like this as well, because it saves government money and while I always bust FWK's biased balls (so to speak) I actually am "for" homosexual civil unions/marriage (assuming a church still has the right to deny marrying homosexuals based on religious views).
  • O-Trap
    jmog;690352 wrote:You have the same marriage rights that a heterosexual does, we've all been over this.

    I actually like this as well, because it saves government money and while I always bust FWK's biased balls (so to speak) I actually am "for" homosexual civil unions/marriage (assuming a church still has the right to deny marrying homosexuals based on religious views).

    I don't have the same marriage rights as the lady who lives next door, though. ;)

    Gender. It's a protected class. :D
  • jmog
    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.

    Really? You have this complaint but not the same complaint about the last 2.5 years of 100% dem control and no jobs?

    The Rs are trying to get the budget under control first, which will stimulate the economy and in turn create jobs.
  • jmog
    O-Trap;690364 wrote:I don't have the same marriage rights as the lady who lives next door, though. ;)

    Gender. It's a protected class. :D

    Touche
  • jmog
    Gblock;690096 wrote: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

    lol, marriage will slow down STDs? You can't be serious with that one.
  • O-Trap
    jmog;690377 wrote:Touche
    Sometimes, I'm surprised that this isn't understood by more people.
  • O-Trap
    jmog;690388 wrote:lol, marriage will slow down STDs? You can't be serious with that one.
    Actually, monogamy within marriage would, yes. If you've got the clap, you'll be transmitting it sexually to only one other person, at most.
  • jmog
    O-Trap;690393 wrote:Actually, monogamy within marriage would, yes. If you've got the clap, you'll be transmitting it sexually to only one other person, at most.

    I understand the biology, but I was laughing at the believe that most people will get married and/or will be less likely to stray given the "right" to marry.
  • O-Trap
    jmog;690401 wrote:I understand the biology, but I was laughing at the believe that most people will get married and/or will be less likely to stray given the "right" to marry.
    Okay, now I see what you were meaning.

    Yeah, if they aren't monogamous now, marriage won't magically make them.

    Come to think of it, though, allowing same sex couples to marry should stimulate the economy bigtime. That's a whole new segment of the population now with the potential for buying a divorce lawyer's services. :D
  • jhay78
    Con_Alma;690088 wrote:My wife and my Church.
    So then gays should be content with the current status quo? As it stands now, their partner and their church can say, "You're (or we're) married". If that's all it takes then why aren't gays satisfied?
    O-Trap;690110 wrote:Actually, a study on identical twins who were adopted separately showed that if one sibling was gay, the other had a disproportionately high likelihood of being gay (42% I believe).

    Too low a percentage to suggest that it's genetically predetermined, but predetermined and predisposed are not the same.

    You can have a genetic predisposition to forming chemical addictions, but that doesn't mean you're born an addict, for example.

    Gotcha- I agree with the predisposed thing.
    The ones who still provide special exceptions to spouses. Insurance policies, visitation in hospitals (or prison), spousal privilege in court, and other rules that currently do not include same-sex partners are a few examples of why it matters.
    Then to me that's an issue with insurance companies, hospitals, courts, etc., not with whether or not state/federal government recognizes same-sex marriage. Again, if there's no government license for marriage, then what authority do hospitals, etc. go by to say, "OK, you're married. Priveleges granted."?
    Actually, I see a strong case for polygamy. Still consenting adults of sound mind. Just more than two.
    A strong case for it being legally recognized, or a strong case for it being socially accepted? Good luck with either of those.
    The people are the government, but they are not an unchecked government. If the people decide to discriminate against a protected class (and gender has been protected for some time), they are not allowed to do so. Currently, with regard to this topic, they are.

    If the rights become 100% equal, then I won't complain about semantics. It's the additional rights shared between married couples, which same-sex partners cannot share in many places, which I would be "seeking
    It seems you are arguing for societal acceptance of marriage, rather than a legal government recognition. But again I come back to the authority thing- whose authority should a hospital, court, insurance company, etc. go by to determine whether or not somebody is "married"? I mean, I could tell any of the above institutions, "Yeah we're married", when talking about anyone.
  • jhay78
    Back to Obama- how in the world can he instruct his Justice Department to no longer defend DOMA as constitutionally valid, but still have it be enforced?

    A Conservative opinion:

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/should-obama-abandon-defense-of-marriage-act
  • Con_Alma
    jhay78;690462 wrote:So then gays should be content with the current status quo? As it stands now, their partner and their church can say, "You're (or we're) married". If that's all it takes then why aren't gays satisfied?



    ....


    I don't speak for what should make people content. I don't know how anyone can determine what should or shouldn't make someone else content. I'm sorry I can't answer your first question.

    I have no idea why gays are not satisfied. Only they can answer that. I do know that I would be willing to drop the State mandated marriage requirement for heterosexuals also. There's no one in my opinion that should require the State's permission to get married.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455

    “Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view 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. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

    “First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

    “Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

    “The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

    Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.

    “I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

    “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.

    “Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”
  • FairwoodKing
    jhay78;690462 wrote:So then gays should be content with the current status quo? As it stands now, their partner and their church can say, "You're (or we're) married". If that's all it takes then why aren't gays satisfied?
    We're not satisfied because there are something like 167 legal rights a married couple has that an unmarried couple (gay or straight) doesn't have. This involves inheritence, hospital visitation, and all sorts of things. Even in those states where gay marriage is legal, the federal rights don't exist for these couples. In no state can a gay couple file a joint federal income tax return.
  • password
    I just don't believe that 2 guys swapping spit and spooning in bed is normal and they should not have the same rights as a real couple.This is just a political move by Obama trying to get more votes from the gays in 2012.

    Just my opinion!
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "This involves inheritence"

    Will, an attorney can draft one up for a couple hundred of dollars.

    "hospital visitation"

    Power of attorney, again can be set up by an attorney.

    "In no state can a gay couple file a joint federal income tax return."

    For many people, why would you want to, for two income households there is still a marriage penalty.
  • FairwoodKing
    password;692062 wrote:I just don't believe that 2 guys swapping spit and spooning in bed is normal and they should not have the same rights as a real couple.This is just a political move by Obama trying to get more votes from the gays in 2012.

    Just my opinion!

    I know gay and lesbian couples who have been together for 35 years or more. How much more "real" do you want?
  • tk421
    QuakerOats;692040 wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455

    “Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view 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. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

    “First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

    “Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

    “The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

    Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.

    “I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

    “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.

    “Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”

    Absolutely. The hypocrisy from the left and the media is outrageous. If Bush or any other Republican did this, the outrage and calls for impeachment would be non stop. Obama can decide not to enforce federal law by himself and it's OK. Bullshit
  • password
    FairwoodKing;692086 wrote:I know gay and lesbian couples who have been together for 35 years or more. How much more "real" do you want?
    Real marriage is a union between a man and a women as far as I am concerned.There are people out there that have been molesting children for over 35 years also,that doesn't make it ok.I am not saying that gays are molesters,just saying there are all kinds of people out there and some of them are wrong.Do you agree that men that marry young children in some countries is just wrong?I quess my problem is with the lifestyle more than the person as I know some gays that are good people and don't go for all the attention that some openly embrace because they have this look at me now attitude.They want to shove their lifestyle in your face and say ha ha we have the same rights as a male/female couple.
  • jhay78
    QuakerOats;692040 wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455

    “Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view 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. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

    “First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

    “Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

    “The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

    Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.

    “I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

    “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.

    “Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”

    100% true. How anyone can debate any of that is beyond me.