Obama Administration to stop defending federal gay marriage law

[OCGuy]

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.

Read up on executive orders, please.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

You apparently didn't understand the question. I thought it was clearly worded...but hey (I'll go slow this time), please look very closely...down that long nose of yours...I used the word "Democrats" and did not refer to Obama specifically.

DOMA could have been repealed if there was a political will by Democrats during the past 2 years to do so...no?

This question really shouldn't be that hard to understand for a smart guy like you, especially one who has such a keen understanding of how government works.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Agreed. One very bad thing that I believe Bush started and Obama has continued is the signing statement, by which the President signs a bill into law but by adding a comment changes or nullifies a part of it, with the legal force of law. That should not be allowed. A President has a veto, not a right to change legislation. I'm all for giving the President the line item veto, but considering that SCOTUS shot that down, unless and until that Amendment is passed and ratified, there should be no signing statements accepted as law. Either veto it, or enforce it. If you think it's unconstitutional, either veto it, or for pre-existing laws request that SCOTUS fast-track a review of the law. For that matter, I wouldn't mind seeing a SCOTUS review of all new laws prior to their being enforced. That might slow down some of the bullshit, and would certainly save the cost of implementing, adjudicating through several levels, and then de-implementing a program or law that SCOTUS is not going to allow. But in any case, the President has a duty to uphold both the Constitution and the law, and if he believes the latter to be in violation of the former, he should have the responsibility to prove his belief (via SCOTUS) as quickly as possible. And I really, really don't like the idea that executive orders can overrule an act of Congress. Even though in this case I oppose that act of Congress, that seems to me to be a very bad path.

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

LOL Unfortunately this seems to be the interpretation.

 

[Phokus]

You apparently didn't understand the question. I thought it was clearly worded...but hey (I'll go slow this time), please look very closely...down that long nose of yours...I used the word "Democrats" and did not refer to Obama specifically.



This question really shouldn't be that hard to understand for a smart guy like you, especially one who has such a keen understanding of how government works.

Here, let me present to you the flow of the conversation:

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.

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.

And that's why i said you were changing the goal posts:

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

Words have meanings. This was about Obama. Like i said: "Rhetorical"

Conservatives never cease to amaze me.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here, let me present to you the flow of the conversation:

Words have meanings. Like i said: "Rhetorical"

And then you said I moved the goal posts and I said please humor me and answer my question. You been drinking today?

 

[jonks]

There is a difference between what he is doing and actually standing up for what he supposedly believes.
...
He gets to appear like he is liberal, but not ruffle any feathers in the middle. Sad.

1) Yoda quotes generally don't need a response

2) You keep implying he isn't walkilng the walk and is merely triangulating. And yet the exact same thing was said about his approach to DADT. "He's not serious, he's taking too long, he wants the gay vote without doing anything to earn it, he's all talk." Hey, it's gone. He said over and over that he was going to work to get DADT repealed, and fought repeatedly against issuing an executive order to do so foreseeing the holy shitstorm that would have descended had he tried such a stunt, not to mention the dubious constitutionality of such a move. His actions on DOMA have been on a parallel track. He has stated unambiguous opposition for years, and has vowed to work to get it repealed. He will not do so by presidential fiat, but DOMA is going to go away one way or the other. Gay marriage is going to be legal in all 50 states one way or another. History moves in the direction of equal rights and they spread fairly quickly once granted and justified.

Here's an old thread from August 2009
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=298548&page=2&highlight=jonks+obama+dadt+shocked

Er, how is his stance not firm? He's criticized DOMA in the strongest langauge possible, but because he doesn't take an extra-constitutional route to overturn by fiat a law passed by congress he's somehow faltering? Do you not see how much political capital he's lost just on healthcare? Do you think it would have been wise to move on gay rights too at this point knowing it would further inflame the right of center folks he needs to court for his other measures? He has another 3.5 years. If there isn't significant movement on repealing DADT/DOMA by the end of his first term I'll be fucking shocked. Quote me.

 

[nageov3t]

Hey, it's gone.

in fairness, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that other than signing it.

 

[Phokus]

And then you said I moved the goal posts and I said please humor me and answer my question. You been drinking today?

Because you ORIGINALLY asked about something OTHER than that? I said you were moving the goal posts and the conversation had nothing to do with a) the thread b) what i was originally responding to, meaning c) you were trying to sidetrack the conversation and i had no interest in it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Because you ORIGINALLY asked about something OTHER than that? I said you were moving the goal posts and the conversation had nothing to do with a) the thread b) what i was originally responding to, meaning c) you were trying to sidetrack the conversation and i had no interest in it?

Look...I asked you a question related to the topic. I acknowledged that I moved the goal posts by asking you to 'humor me' in my request for you to answer the second question I posed (a question directly related to the DOMA). You said that you answered it on 2 occasions when in fact you didn't. And then you had the audacity to accuse me of being dense.

Wow.

 

[jonks]

in fairness, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that other than signing it.

You can take that route if you want. I think unqualified and very vocal presidential backing provides political cover for allies as well as helping to shape public opinion. When a president stands up time after time and announces his fervent belief in a legislative effort, it has effect. You think the joint chiefs just up and decided to come forward and speak to the matter on their own? I don't. Do you think they would have while serving under a president fervently opposing DADT repeal? I don't.

Hey, from that thread I found back in 2009:

color me a cynic, the DNC has given us more than enough ground to base our skepticism in.

So have they earned even a little something?

 

[PingSpike]

There's no reason the administrations policies should make your head hurt, it functions like any other administration. First, take stock of which direction the wind is blowing. The policies supported are going in that direction. Make sure to sample often as the wind often changes direction.

 

[werepossum]

There's no reason the administrations policies should make your head hurt, it functions like any other administration. First, take stock of which direction the wind is blowing. The policies supported are going in that direction. Make sure to sample often as the wind often changes direction.

LOL There's a lot of truth to that, but Jonks make a good case that Obama is actually working behind the scenes to do what he promised to do but cannot openly do without taking a political hit. Of course, there's no way for us to know if that is true.

On the other hand, had Obama's and the Democrats' policies and arrogance not led to their getting shellacked in the 2010 elections, we would not have had a lame duck session full of fired and retiring Dems willing to vote their (or their party's) true preference and no longer with anything to lose by doing so. So I suppose you can credit Obama either way . . .

 

[Phokus]

Look...I asked you a question related to the topic. I acknowledged that I moved the goal posts by asking you to 'humor me' in my request for you to answer the second question I posed (a question directly related to the DOMA). You said that you answered it on 2 occasions when in fact you didn't. And then you had the audacity to accuse me of being dense.

Wow.

When i said 'moving the goalposts', that means it had nothing to do with anything and that i wasn't interested, was it not? The thread is about Obama, OCguy (although wrong in his conclusions) kept it about Obama, and it was explained several times before that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When i said 'moving the goalposts', that means it had nothing to do with anything and that i wasn't interested, was it not? The thread is about Obama, OCguy (although wrong in his conclusions) kept it about Obama, and it was explained several times before that.

I think it's pretty clear what happened...you thought I was referring to the first question I asked...saying it was already answered.

 

[shira]

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.

This change by the Obama administration is not forcing anything on the states.

DOMA is about how the Federal government treats same-sex marriages, although it does include a clause that says that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution doesn't force states to honor same-sex marriages performed and sanctioned in other states, which if anything SHIELDS states from Constitutional challenges.

If DOMA is no longer defended, then a married same-sex couple that moves to a state where same-sex marriages is not legal could sue the state in Federal court. The state would then have show why the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to marriages sanctioned in other states.

 

[IBMer]

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

The only thing the state has a right to do is allow or disallow gays to be married in their state. There is a catch though, and that catch is the entire purpose of DOMA. If someone is allowed to get married in one state, every state has to accept that as married. Its because of this that you don't have to get married in every state you live in to be considered married.

 

[pcgeek11]

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

The president is sworn / affirmed to uphold the constitution Period. He doesn't get to pick and choose.

 

[comptr6]

Another attack by dear leader on the Christian values that this nation was founded on.

 

[IBMer]

The president is sworn / affirmed to uphold the constitution Period. He doesn't get to pick and choose.

Its kind of on the same level of withholding funding from laws already in power instead of over turning them.

 

[Siddhartha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).

"The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."

 

[IBMer]

This change by the Obama administration is not forcing anything on the states.

DOMA is about how the Federal government treats same-sex marriages, although it does include a clause that says that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution doesn't force states to honor same-sex marriages performed and sanctioned in other states, which if anything SHIELDS states from Constitutional challenges.

If DOMA is no longer defended, then a married same-sex couple that moves to a state where same-sex marriages is not legal could sue the state in Federal court. The state would then have show why the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to marriages sanctioned in other states.

In case anyone was unaware of the full faith and credit clause:

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

This. Obama has become a law unto himself. But given he's a lib, the libs and the media won't care. Lib == good in all cases. !lib == bad in all cases. And the country takes another step towards the cliff.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Is there a deficit of reading comprehension in P&N?

I'll keep this short and simple, and type slowly so you can keep up:

The Obama administration will continue to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. It is the current law and this administration has stated that it will perform its Constitutional duty to enforce existing law.

The Departmant of Justice will no longer argue in support of this Act in any court in which its Constitutionality is being challenged. There is no obligation for this or any administration to argue in favor of an Act that administration believes is unconstitutional.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is there a deficit of reading comprehension in P&N?

I'll keep this short and simple, and type slowly so you can keep up:

The Obama administration will continue to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. It is the current law and this administration has stated that it will perform its Constitutional duty to enforce existing law.

The Departmant of Justice will no longer argue in support of this Act in any court in which its Constitutionality is being challenged. There is no obligation for this or any administration to argue in favor of an Act that administration believes is unconstitutional.

Just curious...is there precedent for this type of action? Seems like a convenient way to subvert legislation you don't agree with. The same approach could be used by a future President in regard to those seeking not to enforce Obamacare...no?

Looks like a slippery slope to me.

 

[IBMer]

Just curious...is there precedent for this type of action? Seems like a convenient way to subvert legislation you don't agree with. The same approach could be used by a future President in regard to those seeking not to enforce Obamacare...no?

Looks like a slippery slope to me.

So, now that the administration won't use tax payer dollars to defend the legality of a law that was signed in by another president 15 years ago, its subverting legislation? Not spending tax dollars is now bad?

But, not funding laws isn't bad right?