House authorizes and spends 6x original amount on DOMA defense

[nehalem256]

So if lawmakers passed a law legalizing, funding, and starting new Tuskegee experiment style human experiments that killed hundreds or thousands of Americans and Obama decided not to defend it when it went to the courts, you'd think it was an outrage?

What if instead Congress passed say the ACA and then by some chance Romney had been elected President before the SC case on it and had decided not to defend it

 

[kage69]

Bush and Cheney, with a wink and a nod, turned their backs on laws regulating the banking/business/insurance sectors during the whole eight years they were in office and wrote a plethora of signing statements to violate any other laws they felt were an obstacle toward pursuing their agenda. Were you outraged about that too? If so, my compliments on your even handedness toward defending our laws. If not, well, you suck. 😉

Point being, both sides do it to one degree or another. Obama isn't special in that regard.

What I was going to post...

Already had this conversation with 2 people today, and their outrage fizzling out was both palpable and hilarious.

Bush Amnesia Syndrome strikes again!

 

[xj0hnx]

Congress writes laws, not the supreme court. Gays want marriage? Start electing people to congress to write a law allowing it.

That free humans in a supposedly free country have to make a law "allowing" them to marry someone they love is fucking absurd. Every time I hear a "conservative" talk about the sanctity of marriage I want to vomit when over half of straight people that get married can't stay married for more than five years, or cheat on their spouse. The DOMA shouldn't even exist, much less have tax dollars wasted to defend.

 

[Matt1970]

Bush and Cheney, with a wink and a nod, turned their backs on laws regulating the banking/business/insurance sectors during the whole eight years they were in office and wrote a plethora of signing statements to violate any other laws they felt were an obstacle toward pursuing their agenda. Were you outraged about that too? If so, my compliments on your even handedness toward defending our laws. If not, well, you suck. 😉

Point being, both sides do it to one degree or another. Obama isn't special in that regard.

Deflect much?

 

[nehalem256]

That free humans in a supposedly free country have to make a law "allowing" them to marry someone they love is fucking absurd.

Its also a lie. You have to pass laws making the government recognize people's marriage. Gee I wonder why? :hmm:

Every time I hear a "conservative" talk about the sanctity of marriage I want to vomit when over half of straight people that get married can't stay married for more than five years, or cheat on their spouse. The DOMA shouldn't even exist, much less have tax dollars wasted to defend.

So I assume you want to eliminate no-fault divorce

 

[fskimospy]

What if instead Congress passed say the ACA and then by some chance Romney had been elected President before the SC case on it and had decided not to defend it

Any person receiving benefits due to the ACA would have standing to defend it. So, not a lot would happen.

 

[xj0hnx]

Its also a lie. You have to pass laws making the government recognize people's marriage. Gee I wonder why? :hmm:

The government should have no place in marriage.

So I assume you want to eliminate no-fault divorce

I think this whole issue is absurd. It's not the governments place to recognize people loving each other and vowing to be with each other. The idea that this has some how become a conservative issue is mind boggling. Supporting wasting money for the courts to defend something they should have a say in, in the first place, and interfering with peoples personal lives, it is the complete opposite of what it should be.

 

[nehalem256]

The government should have no place in marriage.

I think this whole issue is absurd. It's not the governments place to recognize people loving each other and vowing to be with each other. The idea that this has some how become a conservative issue is mind boggling. Supporting wasting money for the courts to defend something they should have a say in, in the first place, and interfering with peoples personal lives, it is the complete opposite of what it should be.

And all this is an argument against same-sex marriage. As well as opposite-sex marriage.

 

[ElFenix]

It shouldn't be struck down.

He is attempting to ceding power to the courts. The house is right in trying to defend DOMA.

Congress writes laws, not the supreme court. Gays want marriage? Start electing people to congress to write a law allowing it.

The only question the supreme court should be asking, is that if congress has the power to define what marriage is.

If congress doesn't have that power, then who defines marriage? [legal marriage]


I personally am not comfortable with a bunch of unelected kings, creating laws in the USA.

Liberals are.

please point out where in the constitution congress has the power to define marriage.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Treating fundamentally different relationships differently is not a violation of equal protection.

actually DOMA will be struck down by SCOTUS!!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

please point out where in the constitution congress has the power to define marriage.

In his mind, all branches have the power to force his religion on others by any means necessary.

 

[michal1980]

please point out where in the constitution congress has the power to define marriage.

1) If government does not define what a legal marriage is, then who does?

 

[dawp]

One of the main purposes of the SC is to take cases brought before it and review whether the laws applied to those cases can stand up to constitutional muster.

Saying that a law shouldn't be struck down simply because you don't think it should goes to show you don't really understand how the SC works.

 

[HomerJS]

That free humans in a supposedly free country have to make a law "allowing" them to marry someone they love is fucking absurd. Every time I hear a "conservative" talk about the sanctity of marriage I want to vomit when over half of straight people that get married can't stay married for more than five years, or cheat on their spouse. The DOMA shouldn't even exist, much less have tax dollars wasted to defend.

I got a big chuckle listening to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh defend "traditional" marriage this week. Rush on his 4th wife and Newt cheated on 1st and 2nd wife with 3rd.

Despite what these guys say, their definition is "one man and the woman you are with at the time"

 

[michal1980]

One of the main purposes of the SC is to take cases brought before it and review whether the laws applied to those cases can stand up to constitutional muster.

Saying that a law shouldn't be struck down simply because you don't think it should goes to show you don't really understand how the SC works.

+1

 

[ElFenix]

1) If government does not define what a legal marriage is, then who does?

that does not appear in the constitution.

please point out in the constitution where the federal government has the power to define marriage.

 

[glenn1]

Bush had at least one stimulus package as well, or have you forgotten your "free" check mailed to your house?

You realize the one time expenditure of the stimulus did more to help the economy than the entire 10 years of the Bush tax cuts have. And it cost the country about a quarter as much and unlike the Bush tax cuts isn't still adding to the debt. This isn't my opinion either, it's the opinion of every god damn respected economist in the country.

The point was that defending DOMA is spending, and therefore stimulative. By the logic of Krugman and the Democrats, it's a good thing when the government spends money on something, anything. Even if it's as stupid as fighting imaginary space aliens, paying lawyers to defend DOMA, or whatever other stupid ideas the Republicans might have, much less Democrats.

 

[nehalem256]

I got a big chuckle listening to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh defend "traditional" marriage this week. Rush on his 4th wife and Newt cheated on 1st and 2nd wife with 3rd.

Despite what these guys say, their definition is "one man and the woman you are with at the time"

Newt Gingrich is a massive hypocrite. It was sickening watching him billed as the "conservative" candidate.

that does not appear in the constitution.

please point out in the constitution where the federal government has the power to define marriage.

If the government cannot define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

 

[xj0hnx]

And all this is an argument against same-sex marriage. As well as opposite-sex marriage.

No, it's not, it's an argument against the absurdity of people trying to legislate peoples personal lives.

 

[TerryMathews]

Newt Gingrich is a massive hypocrite. It was sickening watching him billed as the "conservative" candidate.



If the government cannot define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

Id be ok with doing away it. Would close a hell of a tax loophole too.

 

[ElFenix]

If the government cannot define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

now there's an interesting question. is treatment of married people under the tax code differently from how single people are treated legal? the answer would almost certainly depend on whether there is invidious discrimination involved (as the feds can do practically anything under rational basis).

feds can't define civil unions either, btw.

 

[nehalem256]

now there's an interesting question. is treatment of married people under the tax code differently from how single people are treated legal? the answer would almost certainly depend on whether there is invidious discrimination involved (as the feds can do practically anything under rational basis).

feds can't define civil unions either, btw.

Isn't that basis of the DOMA lawsuit? Married couples are treated differently under the tax code, and the woman is suing because she wants that special treatment.

So if people are going to complain about marriage discriminating shouldn't they be arguing that marriage should be eliminated as a government recognized concept?

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's not, it's an argument against the absurdity of people trying to legislate peoples personal lives.

And so how does allowing government recognized marriage of anyone fit in with not wanting the government to legislate peoples personal lives?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Another sterling example of our tax dollars at work for the Christian Taliban.

 

[sunzt]

Isn't that basis of the DOMA lawsuit? Married couples are treated differently under the tax code, and the woman is suing because she wants that special treatment.

So if people are going to complain about marriage discriminating shouldn't they be arguing that marriage should be eliminated as a government recognized concept?

If a woman is legally married to either sex, isn't that marriage?