Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama admin stops defending DOMA

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Stokes, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  2. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +385 / 6 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Government should get out of marriage business. For civil purposes there should be civil unions for all (gay, straight, whatever). For those that attribute spiritual meaning to that union that would simply happen within the walls of their chosen place of worship.
     
  3. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +385 / 6 / -4

    #75 Jersey

  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    156
    Ratings:
    +356 / 7 / -4

    Amen ( :) )
     
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,266
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +990 / 2 / -9

    Jug Ears never supported Homosexual Marriage, the California Beauty Queen used Jug Ears as an example of another celebrity that thought like she did.

    Remember, Jug Ears is a politician, chronic liars, cheats and assorted sh!t bums.
     
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    There can be no other option, IMO. Anyone who argues that the government should be involved in the personal lives of the People is a communist POS!
     
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    as long as same sex couples have the same rights as married couples. I think most people could give a $#!t.


    call it a Gay Marriage, Civil Union, whatever makes you sleep better at night. But to be honest, gay people are people too. If they wanna dive into a lifelog partnership...so be it.


    who cares? f YOU do then you are being intrusive, and sticking your nose in other people's biz, I'd hate to also hear that you are a conservative. That would make you a hypocrite.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,375
    Likes Received:
    307
    Ratings:
    +838 / 7 / -3

    I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked.


    So when will marraige be open to everyone?
     
  9. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I'm with you Holy. About twice a year we agree on something, and it scares me every time.
     
  10. Gainzo

    Gainzo In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +90 / 1 / -2

    #11 Jersey

    Serious question: When did the Federal Government get involved with marriages?

    Right now I can down to Town Hall, show an ID, file the paperwork, then have a JP sign the marriage license for it to be official. I believe the process takes all of 3 days from filing to being officially married.

    BTW: I have been to 6 or so weddings in the last few years and none of them were held at a Church or with a Pastor/Minister/Priest. I'm going to weddings in May and July and both will have a JP.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Feds are not involved. States make the rules. The DOMA is an attempted smokescreen that neocon homophobes and bible thumpers are using to ban gay marriage because they think it cheapens or diminishes the meaning of marriage for straights. Not that a 50% divorce rate, domestic violence and infidelity could possibly do that.
     
  12. Gainzo

    Gainzo In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +90 / 1 / -2

    #11 Jersey

    The funny thing to me is that most of the deeply religious politicians against gay marriage have been divorced, had sexual relations with someone of their same sex, had affairs, or are from a deeply religious state.

    Why is marriage held to such a high standard? Gay marriage has been legal in Mass for a while and it has had exactly zero impact on me.
     
  13. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,625
    Likes Received:
    500
    Ratings:
    +1,290 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Yeah, I never got why they wanted to try and do something like this, and then they cry foul when a few Dems try to do something similar whilst trying to ban firearms and such.

    The whole "question of gay marriage" is just another partisan wedge used to win the Christian vote.
     
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I think there is a lot of common ground when it comes to libearals and conservatives, especially when it deals with being treated like a human, and keeping the gov't's nose out of our private lives.

    Isn't that what "Freedom" is all about?


    sure it costs a buck O' Five, but its worth it.


    YouTube - Team America - Freedom isn't free
     
  15. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,327
    Likes Received:
    710
    Ratings:
    +1,812 / 35 / -29

    #87 Jersey

    ....................
     
  16. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How convenient that my post on this subject has disappeared. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

    Ignoring the fact that this furthers the attempt to legitimize and force acceptance of a perverse lifestyle on mainstream America, this is a horrible precedent and another abuse of power by the crackhead in chief. It is a travesty to have the POTUS unilaterally decide a law is unconstitutional (last time I checked that was the courts' job) and refuse to enforce it.

    Like I asked before, and no one responded (although the post disappeared so fast I can't blame anyone for not responding): How would we feel if the next President unilaterally decided ObamaCare was unconstitutional and they weren't going to enforce it?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,766
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +492 / 20 / -17

    It appears a number of posts disappeared.

    I did respond pointing out what a remarkable coincidence it is that your opinion on whether the president should defend a law he finds unconstitutional happens to be with regard to a law you favor (DOMA). While I'm sure your point of view has been consistent over the years, perhaps if there had been more principled conservatives like you we wouldn't already know the answer to your question.

    New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

    For example, then-acting Solicitor General Paul Clement in 2004 told Congress "the government does not have a viable argument to advance" in defense of a federal law that barred mass-transit agencies receiving federal funds from allowing ads on buses and subways promoting the use of medical marijuana.

    ...

    Another landmark case in which the government did not defend acts of Congress was Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha in 1983. In numerous laws, Congress had given itself, in effect, a one-house "legislative veto" over certain executive actions -- in this case, Justice Department decisions to delay deportations. Even though numerous presidents had acquiesced in the practice, and Ronald Reagan supported legislative vetoes, Reagan's SG Rex Lee argued successfully that they were unconstitutional.

    ...

    Arguing against the constitutionality of a statute is even familiar to one of the current members of the Court. In the 1990 case Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, the Court, led by Justice William Brennan Jr., upheld FCC policies, backed by Congress, that gave minority broadcasters preference in obtaining licenses. The first Bush administration did not like the preferences, and it argued in the case that they were unconstitutional. The FCC defended the minority preference on its own.
     
  18. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You're coming awfully close to accusing me of being a liar here, Patters. So be warned since such accusations are considered a personal attack in this forum.
    None of these poor examples are even remotely analogous to the incident at hand. Having the justice department argue before the courts on the constitutionality of a law is not what we're talking about.

    We're talking about the POTUS just up and unilaterally deciding that a law is unconstitutional and saying he won't enforce it. You ignored my question, so I'll ask it again: How would you feel if the next POTUS unilaterally decided ObamaCare was unconstitutional and threw out all enforcement of it? Would that be OK or are your constitutional "principles" simply dependent on who happens to be POTUS?
     
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,766
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +492 / 20 / -17

    Where are you getting your info? I'd really like to know because obviously your source of information is ill-informed. At any rate, had you read the facts, you'd realize your question was moot or irrelevant.

    Obama abandons defense of federal gay-marriage ban | Jay Bookman

    "Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law," Attorney General Eric Holder's statement read. "But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court."
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011
  20. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,327
    Likes Received:
    710
    Ratings:
    +1,812 / 35 / -29

    #87 Jersey

    I deleted my thread as there was already a thread on this subject.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>