Obama Administration to stop defending federal gay marriage law

[nageov3t]

heard on the news that Eric Holder said that the DoJ will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)... still waiting for an analysis of what this actually means for the states.

trying to understand this administration's policies and ideology makes my head fucking hurt, it seems like it was just a month ago that the DoJ was comparing gay marriage to bestiality and saying that it would be unconstitutional to stop enforcing Don't Ask/Don't Tell without a congressional mandate.

Here's the immediate practical effect of this change:

-The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.

-The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law.

-If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...o-longer-defend-federal-marriage-act-in-court

 

[Ozoned]

heard on the news that Eric Holder said that the DoJ will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)... still waiting for an analysis of what this actually means for the states.

trying to understand this administration's policies and ideology makes my head fucking hurt, it seems like it was just a month ago that the DoJ was comparing gay marriage to bestiality and saying that it would be unconstitutional to stop enforcing Don't Ask/Don't Tell without a congressional mandate.

Just ahead of the 2012 election cycle. They call it a building block. Most people put them on foundations...

 

[Slick5150]

So you're suggesting that the federal government SHOULD be spending time and resources to stop people from getting married that want to?

 

[thraashman]

heard on the news that Eric Holder said that the DoJ will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)... still waiting for an analysis of what this actually means for the states.

trying to understand this administration's policies and ideology makes my head fucking hurt, it seems like it was just a month ago that the DoJ was comparing gay marriage to bestiality and saying that it would be unconstitutional to stop enforcing Don't Ask/Don't Tell without a congressional mandate.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...o-longer-defend-federal-marriage-act-in-court

First off, the administration always said that DADT was something they would defend because it was the law and that they believed Congress had to repeal the bill. They never compared it to bestiality. As far as this, I applaud the administration for taking the right stance on this but I don't agree with their choice. I don't think the DOMA should exist. I think it's a bigoted and horrible thing. However, it is law and I feel that the administration, no matter their stance, should defend existing law. The Bush whitehouse had a long history of trying to use signing statements to effectively change laws it didn't like by refusing to enforce them or having a weird view on how they were enforced. The law is the law even if you don't agree with it and I feel that someone who is supposed to defend it should. I do agree that Congress needs to repeal this law, but so long as it remains law I think the administration should defend it even if protesting it while doing so. Just because you hate the work you do doesn't mean you can stop doing your job.

Hopefully Congress will repeal this civil rights destroying act soon and the administration won't have to keep doing something I disagree with to stop something I disagree with. I do feel that the administration's approach to this is opposite to their approach to DADT.

 

[PokerGuy]

The rule of law is not important to this administration anyway, they just pick and choose when and how laws should be applied. This is certainly not a surprise.

 

[LumbergTech]

The rule of law is not important to this administration anyway, they just pick and choose when and how laws should be applied. This is certainly not a surprise.

they've all been like that..wake up

 

[werepossum]

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, I'm very big that every administration needs to enforce ALL laws or else take the lead in repealing them. On the other hand, I hate this bill - how does one defend marriage by restricting it? Should a bill restricting all minorities to failing inner city schools be called the Defense of Good Schools Act, or a bill prohibiting women from voting be called the Defense of Voting Act? Unfortunately this is all too common in government, with the name selected for good press rather than addressing the bill's actual intent.

If SCOTUS has ruled this Constitutional, then they should enforce it. If not, and if they truly believe it is unconstitutional, then I support not enforcing it as long as they speed its being adjudicated by SCOTUS. And I'd support repealing it.

 

[jonks]

First off, the administration always said that DADT was something they would defend because it was the law and that they believed Congress had to repeal the bill. They never compared it to bestiality.

You're correct, that would be disgusting. They compared it to incest.

 

[nageov3t]

So you're suggesting that the federal government SHOULD be spending time and resources to stop people from getting married that want to?

no, I'm just confused because when us gays were all "why are you defending these laws that you don't agree with," we were told that the Executive branch has a constitutional duty to defend and uphold every law on the books.

 

[OCGuy]

What a piece of Chicago slime. Instead of taking a stand on the issue and repealing the law, he just stops defending it.

How people dont see right through this administration is beyond me....

 

[jonks]

What a piece of Chicago slime. Instead of taking a stand on the issue and repealing the law, he just stops defending it.

How people dont see right through this administration is beyond me....

The president should "repeal" an act of congress how...?

 

[thraashman]

What a piece of Chicago slime. Instead of taking a stand on the issue and repealing the law, he just stops defending it.

How people dont see right through this administration is beyond me....

Um ... you do realize the President can't repeal a law right? That's Congress's job. If the administration wants this law gone, they can't get rid of it but they can stop enforcing it. And it's pretty obvious that with a Republican majority in the House that this law won't be repealed. I disagree with the admin choosing not to defend a law that is in place, it's getting to the point where this admin is almost 10% as bad as the previous one. When it hits 15% as bad then it's worse than all but 3 or 4 Republican administrations as far as legality and Constitutionality goes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What a piece of Chicago slime. Instead of taking a stand on the issue and repealing the law, he just stops defending it.

How people dont see right through this administration is beyond me....

Because it is a law, Congress must repeal it. His only choices are to enforce/not enforce.

 

[tk149]

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, I'm very big that every administration needs to enforce ALL laws or else take the lead in repealing them. On the other hand, I hate this bill - how does one defend marriage by restricting it? Should a bill restricting all minorities to failing inner city schools be called the Defense of Good Schools Act, or a bill prohibiting women from voting be called the Defense of Voting Act? Unfortunately this is all too common in government, with the name selected for good press rather than addressing the bill's actual intent.

If SCOTUS has ruled this Constitutional, then they should enforce it. If not, and if they truly believe it is unconstitutional, then I support not enforcing it as long as they speed its being adjudicated by SCOTUS. And I'd support repealing it.

This is pretty much my view too. The Executive Branch should not be picking and choosing which laws to enforce or defend. Only the judicial branch should be deciding what is and what is not constitutional.

If Congress passes a law over a presidential veto, can the president just decide not to enforce or defend that law? That's a dangerous road to be going down.

 

[Phokus]

What a piece of Chicago slime. Instead of taking a stand on the issue and repealing the law, he just stops defending it.

How people dont see right through this administration is beyond me....

Do you know how government works... at all?

Edit: Beaten.

 

[jonks]

This is pretty much my view too. The Executive Branch should not be picking and choosing which laws to enforce or defend. Only the judicial branch should be deciding what is and what is not constitutional.

If Congress passes a law over a presidential veto, can the president just decide not to enforce or defend that law? That's a dangerous road to be going down.

Well, it's not quite that apocalyptic. The law will still be enforced until it is ruled unconstitutional, and given that interested parties will have the ability to defend the law in court, the judicial branch will in fact be the arbiter, unless congress repeals it first.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm trying my damndest, but I just can't find the portion of the Constitution that says the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage. Little help?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you know how government works... at all?

Please tell us how it works in this particular case.

 

[jonks]

I'm trying my damndest, but I just can't find the portion of the Constitution that says the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage. Little help?

It's in that section adjacent to the clauses protecting the right to privacy.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm trying my damndest, but I just can't find the portion of the Constitution that says the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage. Little help?

my understanding is that the commerce clause gives congress the authority to do whatever it wants.

 

[OCGuy]

The president should "repeal" an act of congress how...?

The president can propose legislation and campaign for it. There is a reason it is called "Obamacare" even though congress passed the law.

If he cared so much about the GLBT community, he would take a stand on the issue. This is just a back-door way to appeal to his base without actually doing anything.

I think the gay community sees right through this, but they really dont have another choice when it comes to voting.

 

[Siddhartha]

nvm

 

[Phokus]

Please tell us how it works in this particular case.

It was explained above. And besides that, the only way Obama could've wiped out the law would have been if the law was presented to him by congress (it was passed way before the first day he stepped into office) in the first place and that's only if congress doesn't override his veto with a 2/3rds majority vote after that.

 

[Phokus]

The president can propose legislation and campaign for it. There is a reason it is called "Obamacare" even though congress passed the law.

If he cared so much about the GLBT community, he would take a stand on the issue. This is just a back-door way to appeal to his base without actually doing anything.

I think the gay community sees right through this, but they really dont have another choice when it comes to voting.

That's not "repealing", dummy.

 

[OCGuy]

That's not "repealing", dummy.

Argue semantics and call names instead of discussing the issue.

Something tells me that means you know I am right about Obama.

By the way, DADT could have been ended the day he took office with an executive order. No congress needed.