Judge: "What harm in permitting same sex marriage?"

[jman19]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

Where did I mention President Obama?

you seemed to be implying that the objections to gay marriage were coming from the religious right and "keepers" of morality on the right.

I would say the loudiest and the majority of the objections do indeed come from the right.

 

[piasabird]

Dare I say, "How About the Children?"

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

Where did I mention President Obama?

you seemed to be implying that the objections to gay marriage were coming from the religious right and "keepers" of morality on the right.

I would say the loudiest and the majority of the objections do indeed come from the right.

Comments like that will get your ran out of this mostly right wing forum

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

I don`t know where you got that crap from......you are mis-leading people.....here is what Obama said --
http://cbs5.com/local/obama.gay.marriage.2.761332.html

Jul 1, 2008 1:55 pm US/Pacific Obama Opposes California Same-Sex Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5 / AP) -- Presidential candidate Barack Obama has come out against a ballot measure that seeks to outlaw same-sex marriage.

A club for gay Democrats in San Francisco says it solicited a statement from the Illinois senator's campaign in which he called the proposed constitutional amendment "divisive and discriminatory."

Obama also extended congratulations to gay and lesbian newlyweds who have gotten married in California over the last two weeks.

His letter was read aloud at the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's annual gay pride breakfast on Sunday.

Last week, Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, endorsed the gay marriage ban that is slated to appear on the November ballot.

Obama has said he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage but thinks the issue should be left to states to decide.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
We're coming up on a year with nothing tangible in sight except an endless stream of empty platitudes.

When would be an appropriate time to nicely ask my government to extend me the rights that I should already enjoy?

A year of nearly unprecedented activity. An economy on the brink, wars, health care, etc. He isn't sitting around doing nothing. It'd be nice for you to be able to get married, but wouldn't you maybe rather have a job first? I'm sure you'd like him to move more quickly, but harshly criticizing the guy who is in all likelihood going to make some massive changes for you during his tenure seems premature. As he said:

"Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Ok, that at least gives me a decent checklist for when I can expect it to happen.

1) The US military not engaged in a signifigant conflict
2) All Americans enjoy affordable healthcare
3) A booming economy
4) Public education repaired

Sounds reasonable to me.

You definitely have the right to be skeptical, but I don't recall any candidate making the explicit statements he's made. I recall vague platitudes from prior democrats about "fostering equal rights for gays' and such, but I don't recall anyone saying repeatedly and explicitly "I will end DADT. I will end DOMA." I just feel like he's been so out there on this that he has left himself no way out. If he leaves office without doing those things there will be no real way to spin it other than as a massive failure for equality. I've been disappointed by some of his decisions, but I haven't felt betrayed on anything to the point where I feel he outright lied about an important campaign promise. If he doesn't make serious headway on these issues I would consider that a betrayal to his constituency and of his explicit promises to act. Time will tell.

There is something you are missing here, that is that Obama must defend the constitution. He can't end DOMA. Some one else has to do it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
We're coming up on a year with nothing tangible in sight except an endless stream of empty platitudes.

When would be an appropriate time to nicely ask my government to extend me the rights that I should already enjoy?

A year of nearly unprecedented activity. An economy on the brink, wars, health care, etc. He isn't sitting around doing nothing. It'd be nice for you to be able to get married, but wouldn't you maybe rather have a job first? I'm sure you'd like him to move more quickly, but harshly criticizing the guy who is in all likelihood going to make some massive changes for you during his tenure seems premature. As he said:

"Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Ok, that at least gives me a decent checklist for when I can expect it to happen.

1) The US military not engaged in a signifigant conflict
2) All Americans enjoy affordable healthcare
3) A booming economy
4) Public education repaired

Sounds reasonable to me.

You definitely have the right to be skeptical, but I don't recall any candidate making the explicit statements he's made. I recall vague platitudes from prior democrats about "fostering equal rights for gays' and such, but I don't recall anyone saying repeatedly and explicitly "I will end DADT. I will end DOMA." I just feel like he's been so out there on this that he has left himself no way out. If he leaves office without doing those things there will be no real way to spin it other than as a massive failure for equality. I've been disappointed by some of his decisions, but I haven't felt betrayed on anything to the point where I feel he outright lied about an important campaign promise. If he doesn't make serious headway on these issues I would consider that a betrayal to his constituency and of his explicit promises to act. Time will tell.

There is something you are missing here, that is that Obama must defend the constitution. He can't end DOMA. Some one else has to do it.

That's a confused statement. Yes, Obama must defend the constitution, but DADT/DOMA aren't the constitution, they're laws, and while he must "faithfully execute" them while they are in effect, he may also work to overturn or change them through legal channels. Whenever the president says that he will do something, silently appended is "within the bounds of authority proscribed to me as president by the Constitution." It doesn't mean the president has no power to bring change in areas of law not directly under his control. Obama also said he would reform healthcare, I don't think anyone thought he was going to issue an executive order mandating universal coverage.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is something you are missing here, that is that Obama must defend the constitution. He can't end DOMA. Some one else has to do it.

That's a confused statement. Yes, Obama must defend the constitution, but DADT/DOMA aren't the constitution, they're laws, and while he must "faithfully execute" them while they are in effect, he may also work to overturn or change them through legal channels. Whenever the president says that he will do something, silently appended is "within the bounds of authority proscribed to me as president by the Constitution." It doesn't mean the president has no power to bring change in areas of law not directly under his control. Obama also said he would reform healthcare, I don't think anyone thought he was going to issue an executive order mandating universal coverage.

It should be noted that the legal community believes that in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to direct that DADT be discontinued.

DADT

Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to lift the ban. However, in May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara concluded that it is within the authority of the executive branch to discontinue the policy.

Edit: Not to be confused with DOMA, over which the President has no authority.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is something you are missing here, that is that Obama must defend the constitution. He can't end DOMA. Some one else has to do it.

That's a confused statement. Yes, Obama must defend the constitution, but DADT/DOMA aren't the constitution, they're laws, and while he must "faithfully execute" them while they are in effect, he may also work to overturn or change them through legal channels. Whenever the president says that he will do something, silently appended is "within the bounds of authority proscribed to me as president by the Constitution." It doesn't mean the president has no power to bring change in areas of law not directly under his control. Obama also said he would reform healthcare, I don't think anyone thought he was going to issue an executive order mandating universal coverage.

It should be noted that the legal community believes that in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to direct that DADT be discontinued.

DADT

Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to lift the ban. However, in May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara concluded that it is within the authority of the executive branch to discontinue the policy.

Edit: Not to be confused with DOMA, over which the President has no authority.

I would append that to "some in the legal community." Further, even assuming he could, unilaterally ordering such a change would certainly rub the military brass the wrong way. Let them be involved in the process, let the pentagon be involved in the process, push it through congress, cite the arguments for repeal, show the overwhelming support among the people (over 65% at last count) for repeal. I believe DADT is wrong, I believe it needs doing away with, I do not believe it needs to happen overnight. Further, if he merely changes the "policy", what's to stop the next president from re-instituting it? Let's get equality on the books for good.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is something you are missing here, that is that Obama must defend the constitution. He can't end DOMA. Some one else has to do it.

That's a confused statement. Yes, Obama must defend the constitution, but DADT/DOMA aren't the constitution, they're laws, and while he must "faithfully execute" them while they are in effect, he may also work to overturn or change them through legal channels. Whenever the president says that he will do something, silently appended is "within the bounds of authority proscribed to me as president by the Constitution." It doesn't mean the president has no power to bring change in areas of law not directly under his control. Obama also said he would reform healthcare, I don't think anyone thought he was going to issue an executive order mandating universal coverage.

It should be noted that the legal community believes that in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to direct that DADT be discontinued.

DADT

Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to lift the ban. However, in May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara concluded that it is within the authority of the executive branch to discontinue the policy.

Edit: Not to be confused with DOMA, over which the President has no authority.

I would append that to "some in the legal community." Further, even assuming he could, unilaterally ordering such a change would certainly rub the military brass the wrong way. Let them be involved in the process, let the pentagon be involved in the process, push it through congress, cite the arguments for repeal, show the overwhelming support among the people (over 65% at last count) for repeal. I believe DADT is wrong, I believe it needs doing away with, I do not believe it needs to happen overnight. Further, if he merely changes the "policy", what's to stop the next president from re-instituting it? Let's get equality on the books for good.

It would be extraordinarily unlikely for another President to roll back the change once is was executed and revealed not to be the big deal some people are making of it. Congress can follow up and enshrine it in law when they get around to it after he shows some leadership. Other Presidents (Truman for example) have exercised their powers in such a way and it has stood the test of time.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira
It should be noted that the legal community believes that in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to direct that DADT be discontinued.

DADT

Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to lift the ban. However, in May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara concluded that it is within the authority of the executive branch to discontinue the policy.

Edit: Not to be confused with DOMA, over which the President has no authority.

I would append that to "some in the legal community." Further, even assuming he could, unilaterally ordering such a change would certainly rub the military brass the wrong way. Let them be involved in the process, let the pentagon be involved in the process, push it through congress, cite the arguments for repeal, show the overwhelming support among the people (over 65% at last count) for repeal. I believe DADT is wrong, I believe it needs doing away with, I do not believe it needs to happen overnight. Further, if he merely changes the "policy", what's to stop the next president from re-instituting it? Let's get equality on the books for good.

I basically agree with your reasoning and with the process you recommend. But if Congress drags its feet, Obama should give 90-day notice to the military and then discontinue DADT. There'd initially be lots of resentment , but after a few months with no "unity" problems, critics wouldn't have a pot to piss in.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's always fun to watch the authoritarian little scum sucking Nazis and their repressed bigoted self-hatred of gays. This is what happens when ones feelings of inferiority shrink ones testicles so they function like girls. It's always about the hate of the feminine, hared of gays, fear of the breakdown of paternal authority they call family values, contempt for the weakness of liberals, insufficient militarism and aggressiveness on foreign affairs, the desire to punish, three strikes and you're out, hyper masculine bravado, and on and on, all because the little fuckers have ovaries where the testes should be and they are so ashamed.

 

[jonks]

8/4/10 UPDATE: DECISION TO BE ISSUED TODAY -
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...marriage-ban-ruling-to-be-released-today.html

 

[bfdd]

interesting.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Get rid of government recognized "marriage" altogether and instead call it something like "legal union" or whatever. For everyone. Then if people want to get "married" they can go to their church or mosque or cult hideout or whatever.

 

[Acanthus]

 

[werepossum]

Being a biological male married to a biological female not only finds me in the majority for a change, it makes me a strong advocate as marriage as an institution promoting social stability. Because marriage comes with a strong set of rights and obligations that define what a partner can and can not do in the area of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance benefits and a whole host of other rights.

At the same time, I have to realize there is a small minority, perhaps 4% of the population, that somehow does not feel that attraction to the opposite sex, and instead is attracted to the same sex. That 4% minority are not alien monster, and at least in the United States, are simply the sons and daughters of " normal " parents. And other than sexual preference, these people are almost the same as the average American. Granted, in a biological sense, a same sex union can not create a child, but in reality, such couples often do end up with children in a variety of ways, not the least of them by becoming the legal guardians of the children of deceased family members. And the track record show, on average, that such children are no more or less likely to end up homosexual than the average American.

So why should we deny such people the right to marry? And as far as I am concerned, anyone who goes well out of their way to make this minorities lives miserable is wicked and wacked out nuts who deserve only our scorn. Homosexuality is almost certainly biological and human societies have tried everything to stamp it out to no avail. While I do not advocate giving special rights to such a group, I can't see denying rights to that group either.

Quoted for truth and well said. I don't agree with judicial activism, but I think a case can be made for equal protection, and certainly homosexual marriage's adverse effects would be vanishingly small. If every American had the right to follow any Islamic sect I'd be pretty pissed because even though we all technically had the same rights, I would be constrained in my pursuit of happiness in a way that Muslims were not. Bottom line, there is and should be no Constitution protection from being offended by other individuals' private behavior, and there always should be a VERY compelling social reason for constraining individual freedom.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Regardless whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, that has got to be the worse judicial decision of all time.

A Judge is supposed to interpret law. Not change law on the basis of emotional arguments or his personal stance on political issues.

ohh..boohoo....don`t veil your homophobia by saying -- Regardless whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, that has got to be the worse judicial decision of all time. That`s a freaking ass cop out ands you know it!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This debate clearly highlights one salient fact: Republicans are anti-freedom, and favor big government intervention in the private affairs of citizens.

 

[CallMeJoe]

This debate clearly highlights one salient fact: Republicans are anti-freedom, and favor big government intervention in the private affairs of citizens.

Wrong.
Republicans are very fervently supportive of their own freedoms and vociferously oppose big government that does not support their personal agendas.

 

[piasabird]

Is it really worth opposing it?

Maybe Gays can get Survivor benefits under Social Security. Maybe that will bankrupt social security.

 

[theeedude]

Regardless whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, that has got to be the worse judicial decision of all time.

A Judge is supposed to interpret law. Not change law on the basis of emotional arguments or his personal stance on political issues.

The equal protection clause of the US Constitution is still law of the land, last time I checked.