Obama Administration to stop defending federal gay marriage law

[jonks]

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.

Take a stand? He's been calling for DOMA/DADT repeal for years. Introducing legislation is useless without votes. He has been crystal clear on his opposition, it's simply not in his power to singlehandedly do anything.

As to the gay community, they were disappointed about how he seemed to not be prioritizing DADT repeal...and lookit that, it's gone!

(from 2007
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/would-obama-pos.html
"He supports the complete repeal of D.O.M.A. which is the same position he has held since early 2004," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News.


***
and let's be honest here, if Obama somehow could, and did, abolish DOMA/DADT without congress you'd call it executive overreach, or dictatorship, or whatever. Repeal a congressional law by executive order? The right's heads would have 'sploded. Look how they reacted when it was done in congress! How you can reduce the difference between an executive order and signing a bill into law as semantics...

 

[Phokus]

Argue semantics and call names instead of discussing the issue.

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

Just admit you have no fucking idea what you're talking about (i wouldn't expect any less of you); there's a huge difference between cheerleading something and wiping a law off the books.

Also, you were implying that Obama's taking the easy way out here? With the way you shitheads cry about gay people and 'judicial activism' and use it as a wedge issue, he's setting himself up for you shitheads to bitch about him being an 'executive activist' and 'not enforcing the laws of the land'. I don't see how this would play out well for Obama's polls. He did the right thing here at the cost of political capital. It's not like Congress would have repealed the law. You have NO idea what you're talking about (as usual).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

DOMA could have been repealed if there was a political will by Democrats during the past 2 years to do so...no?

 

[Phokus]

DOMA could have been repealed if there was a political will by Democrats during the past 2 years to do so...no?

Now you're changing the goal posts. OCGuy was talking about Obama's ability to *giggle* 'repeal' the law.

 

[OCGuy]

Just admit you have no fucking idea what you're talking about (i wouldn't expect any less of you); there's a huge difference between cheerleading something and wiping a law off the books.

Also, you were implying that Obama's taking the easy way out here? With the way you shitheads cry about gay people and 'judicial activism' and use it as a wedge issue, he's setting himself up for you shitheads to bitch about him being an 'executive activist' and 'not enforcing the laws of the land'. I don't see how this would play out well for Obama's polls. He did the right thing here at the cost of political capital. It's not like Congress would have repealed the law. You have NO idea what you're talking about (as usual).

Just admit you have no fucking idea what you are talkng about. I'm not sure who "you shitheads" are, and what they say about gay people, but I am intrigued.

 

[Phokus]

Just admit you have no fucking idea what you are talkng about. I'm not sure who "you shitheads" are, and what they say about gay people, but I am intrigued.

You know, it's alright to be embarrassed about your lack of knowledge that a kid in elementary school would even know.

 

[piasabird]

For years even back to the early 1900 polygamy cases, the Supreme court has refused to enforce any laws on the states concerning their right to govern themselves and that marriage was a right that belonged to the individual state. It would be a major hurdle to overthrow states rights in this area. Good luck for anyone trying to enforce marriage laws on the states. Any federal marriage law would be shot down in the supreme court. Good luck!

I think this would be so hard that it would have to be in the form of a constitutional amendment, with ratification.

 

[OCGuy]

Now you're changing the goal posts. OCGuy was talking about Obama's ability to *giggle* 'repeal' the law.

Google "Obama repeal DOMA", or "Obama repeal X", and it is clear that it is a common way to discuss the president pushing his party members in congress to help pass a law that reverses a current situation.

It doesn't surprise me you are a giggler, btw.

 

[jonks]

Google "Obama repeal DOMA", or "Obama repeal X", and it is clear that it is a common way to discuss the president pushing his party members in congress to help pass a law that reverses a current situation.

Now we're getting into semantics, but that's not the problem with what you said. You said Obama didn't take a stand and repeal the law, which implies it was solely within his power to do so. It is not. He did campaign, he made public statement after statement for years. Claiming he didn't take a stand is just counterfactual.

 

[Phokus]

Google "Obama repeal DOMA", or "Obama repeal X", and it is clear that it is a common way to discuss the president pushing his party members in congress to help pass a law that reverses a current situation.

It doesn't surprise me you are a giggler, btw.

No, it's not. ANYONE could try to persuade a congressman to repeal a law, that doesn't mean that your act is 'repealing' it, dummy. Obama has no executive powers to repeal a law except in the case where he has a chance to veto it before it becomes law of the land. Sorry you don't understand the meaning of words or how government works. Just about everyone in this thread understands what it means, even those on the right.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now you're changing the goal posts. OCGuy was talking about Obama's ability to *giggle* 'repeal' the law.

Please humor me and answer my question.

 

[CallMeJoe]

This does not say the Obama administration will suspend enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act; this says that they will no longer argue in favor of the Act when it is challenged in court.

There is a significant difference.

 

[Phokus]

Now we're getting into semantics, but that's not the problem with what you said. You said Obama didn't take a stand and repeal the law, which implies it was solely within his power to do so. It is not. He did campaign, he made public statement after statement for years. Claiming he didn't take a stand is just counterfactual.

Yup, he doesn't understand how government works AND he lies.

 

[Phokus]

Please humor me and answer my question.

I just did, are you going to be dense like OCGuy? (I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question).

 

[Genx87]

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

Simple, they go where they think it helps them most to score political points.

 

[jackschmittusa]

You people that claim all the laws need to be supported all of the time please be sure to tell any officer that pulls you over and issues you a warning that he needs to enforce the law and give you a ticket.

 

[OCGuy]

Now we're getting into semantics, but that's not the problem with what you said. You said Obama didn't take a stand and repeal the law, which implies it was solely within his power to do so. It is not. He did campaign, he made public statement after statement for years. Claiming he didn't take a stand is just counterfactual.

No I was dragged down into semantics, I should know better than to take that bait.


Making statements and doing something are two different things. He could have pushed this to the front of the the congress he controlled (waiting for Phokus to come in and say he cant control the legislative branch ) to get it done.

The fact that he didnt either means he is anti-gay, or the (D) controlled congress was anti-gay, so he didnt have the votes.

 

[jonks]

This does not say the Obama administration will suspend enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act; this says that they will no longer argue in favor of the Act when it is challenged in court.

There is a significant difference.

No! No different! Only different in your mind! You must unlearn what you have learned.

 

[Phokus]

No I was dragged down into semantics, I should know better than to take that bait.


Making statements and doing something are two different things. He could have pushed this to the front of the the congress he controlled (waiting for Phokus to come in and say he cant control the legislative branch ) to get it done.

The fact that he didnt either means he is anti-gay, or the (D) controlled congress was anti-gay, so he didnt have the votes.

Just admit you have no fucking clue about the role of the executive branch, this is hardly 'semantics'. Yes, i'm sure there are other morons who incorrectly use the word 'repeal' as well.

 

[jonks]

The fact that he didnt either means he is anti-gay, or the (D) controlled congress was anti-gay, so he didnt have the votes.

Really, there's no other possibilities? How about prioritizing other things above it? How about timing? How about letting judicial cases proceed further? How about getting DADT done first? How about deal making and tradeoffs on other legislation? How about, yes, politics?

I would hope the lgbt community has learned to put a little more faith in Obama's methods at this point.

 

[OCGuy]

No! No different! Only different in your mind! You must unlearn what you have learned.

There is a difference between what he is doing and actually standing up for what he supposedly believes.

He does the same thing with MMJ. Instead of pushing congress to de-schedule pot, or put it on a schedule that means it can be prescribed medically, he just stops enforcing the law temporarily.

So here in CA, cancer patients are finally getting medical pot without worry. Obama is a compasionate hero!

Problem? The next president can easily just start enforcing the laws again, reversing any progress that was made.

He gets to appear like he is liberal, but not ruffle any feathers in the middle. Sad.

 

[Phokus]

There is a difference between what he is doing and actually standing up for what he supposedly believes.

He does the same thing with MMJ. Instead of pushing congress to de-schedule pot, or put it on a schedule that means it can be prescribed medically, he just stops enforcing the law temporarily.

So here in CA, cancer patients are finally getting medical pot without worry. Obama is a compasionate hero!

Problem? The next president can easily just start enforcing the laws again, reversing any progress that was made.

He gets to appear like he is liberal, but not ruffle any feathers in the middle. Sad.

This makes no sense at all, and you never answered my question about how this is in any way advantageous to Obama, he's opening himself up to easy political attacks. Publicly cheerleading for the repeal of DOMA and basically not supporting the law in courts is about the most he can do. You're just embarrassed that you were caught with your pants down and now you're trying to weasel your way out of this.

Also, you were implying that Obama's taking the easy way out here? With the way you shitheads cry about gay people and 'judicial activism' and use it as a wedge issue, he's setting himself up for you shitheads to bitch about him being an 'executive activist' and 'not enforcing the laws of the land'. I don't see how this would play out well for Obama's polls. He did the right thing here at the cost of political capital. It's not like Congress would have repealed the law. You have NO idea what you're talking about (as usual).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I just did, are you going to be dense like OCGuy? (I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question).

You never directly answered my question and please don't pretend that you did.

 

[Thump553]

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.

Unfortunately the bolded part is absolutely false. DADT was enacted into legislation by Congress in the 1990's, so (absent a finding of unconstitutionality) it took an act of Congress to repeal it.

 

[Phokus]

You never directly answered my question and please don't pretend that you did.

I said 'it was explained above'. Why would i need to repeat it? That's why i put the edit 'beaten', because i read what Common Courtesy and thraashman wrote after i replied to OCGuy

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31289344&postcount=13

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31289340&postcount=12

Then i expanded that by explaining how, under a hypothetical situation, where Obama could have PREVENTED Doma from becoming law, if it was originally presented to him by congress (hint: it was before his time as president). And yes, apparently my question was rhetorical.