I’ve said for years that President Obama doesn’t really have a problem with gay marriage, and the recent announcement that he’s finally come to believe that the anti-gay marriage aspect of the DOMA is unconstitutional would seem to reinforce that. At the VERY least he’s acknowledging that marriage isn’t the business of government, which is what a president should be saying.
You might think that the GOP, always advocating the notion that government should be involved in fewer and fewer aspects of life and staying out of people’s business, would be the first ones to praise this declaration as an example of government acknowledging its limits.
Nah.
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said that “the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” particularly at a time when “Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending.”
Well, let’s see. Not having government lawyers spending countless man hours in a pointless pursuit of marriage bias would seem to be saving some money. So basically Obama announced something that will hurt no one, cost nothing, and save money. As opposed to the GOP representatives who have shown little to no interest in creating jobs and are focusing on spending cuts that hurt lots of people while preserving the interests of big business and NASCAR.
Conservatives. Always good for laughs.
PAD
• 
.
Bravo. After two years he’s finally found the spine to have his walk match his talk. I’ll be more impressed if he doesn’t fold on the matter any time soon.
He’s pretty good about it. I was very pleasantly surprised last year, when it seemed that the drive to pass HCR began to falter, he redoubled his efforts and helped push it across the finish line.
Peter David:”At the VERY least he’s acknowledging that marriage isn’t the business of government, which is what a president should be saying.”
I’m afraid that I don’t understand this. Are you proposing that the government should cease to recognize the legal institution of marriage?
I don’t recognize your name Tim, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you aren’t really that fûçkìņg stupid.
He’s saying the government has no business telling gays they can’t get married.
Simple enough for you to understand?
Bladestar? Not really helpin’ here. How about assuming it’s a well meant question until shown otherwise?
I don’t know if PAD is proposing that, but I’m perfectly happy to do so. I’ve maintained for years that one of the big stumbling blocks with respect to gay marriage is that we’re mixing a government-recognized entity with a church-recognized entity and not being very careful about distinctions.
.
Let the legal term be whatever you like, but applied equally to all couples.
No, Timothy, not at all. I’m saying that the federal government has no business attempting to regulate marriage (beyond mandating that what’s recognized as a marriage in one state is recognized as same in all states) or, even more important, curtail it.
.
PAD
Peter David says:
February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
No, Timothy, not at all. I’m saying that the federal government has no business attempting to regulate marriage (beyond mandating that what’s recognized as a marriage in one state is recognized as same in all states) or, even more important, curtail it.
.
PAD
.
So what is it you are really saying Peter? The government has no business attempting to regulate marriage or they should be mandating whats recognize in one state as the same in all states? Wouldnt mandating be the government attempting to regulate marriage? Same sex marriage isn’t recognized in MN yet. Opponents agaist gay marriage would simply say “Hey MN. says you have to be of the opposite sex, so all states must follow suit”
No, Pat, PAD is merely saying that the feds should say that all states must give full faith and credence to other states’ marriage laws – that is, even if you couldn’t legally get married in Oregon, but you could and did in California, that Oregon must recognise that marriage.
Marriage, as a religious union, should be held distinct from the legal contract folks make that gives them joint interests in things. I’m having difficult phrasing this as clearly on the page as the idea is in my head, but bear with me.
.
Civil unions, to use a familiar term, should not be considered the same thing as marriages. Two people should be able to enter into a legal arrangement whereby they share property, are each other’s designated legal representatives, can participate in coverage offered by each others medical plans, etc. This is a civil and legal arrangement and is something that should be recognized by the gov’t.
.
Two people should be able to declare a spiritual connection with and lifelong commitment to each other and publicly celebrate that bond in whatever religious institution is agreeable to helping them do so. This is a ‘marriage’, a religious arrangement and is something in which the gov’t should have no involvement.
Pat, Article IV, Section 1, of the United States Constitution reads:
.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
.
DOMA violates this, by permitting some states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. Are you saying we should let unconstitutional laws stand because they suit your prejudices?
Jonathan (the other one) says:
February 24, 2011 at 10:42 pm
we should let unconstitutional laws stand because they suit your prejudices?
.
Jonathan. Please tell me what you know about my predjudices.
Well, Pat, I think I can pretty clearly state that you’re prone to assuming the word “you”, when used in argument, actually refers to you specifically, rather than being a more general usage of “you” as meaning “not me”.
.
Other than that, you (meaning Pat specifically) have shown yourself to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything you perceive as being “liberal”, even when the “liberal” action was considered a “right-wing reactionary” action twenty years ago…
Sean says:
“Two people should be able to declare a spiritual connection with and lifelong commitment to each other and publicly celebrate that bond in whatever religious institution is agreeable to helping them do so. This is a ‘marriage’, a religious arrangement and is something in which the gov’t should have no involvement.”
.
So, if marriage is a religious arrangement, where does that leave the atheists that want to marry?
.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist, it’s the first thing that came to mind when you said marriage is religious.)
Jonathan (the other one) says:
February 25, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Well, Pat, I think I can pretty clearly state that you’re prone to assuming the word “you”, when used in argument, actually refers to you specifically, rather than being a more general usage of “you” as meaning “not me”.
.
So, not directed at me personally…Cool
Right now, I’m marvelling at the genius of the Republicans. It’s insidious what they’re doing right now.
They’re following Obama’s request about cutting spending, but doing so to promote their Conservative Agenda (i.e. Planned Parenthood, Unions, removing a heck of a lot of women’s funding) full knowing they’ll get shot down or vetoed.
.
That way they can point back and say, “We did what he asked, and they just want to spend spend spend. It’s Obama’s and the Democrats fault.”
.
Amazing and possibly more evil than Lex Luthor. And pretty dámņ impressive. Hope someone on the left can call them out on it.
.
TAC
Travis, the Democrats are doing just that in Wisconsin as we speak.
.
And in the process, the likes of Governor Walker just go and show how truly drunk with power his party has become.
Gov. Walker in WI is fighting against public union collective bargaining. Currently, to teach in WI, you are FORCED to join the union and FORCED to have your paycheck garnished for it.
What happens with public union collective bargaining is basically unions elect the people who will be sitting across the bargaining table from them and those people will be bargaining with someone else’s money, (the taxpayer’s), so they have little incentive to keep costs down. This is quite different from private union bargaining. Both FDR and Jimmy Carter said public union collective bargaining is a bad idea.
Did Reps flee when Obamacare or the stimulus was shoved down their throats? No. And then we have Obama saying, “Elections have consequences.” So what do Dems do when they lose the election? They run away from the democratic process like little children.
Here’s a question: Why do the same people who think it’s a good idea to have government run their lives, (such as with healthcare), then form a giant, collective group due to fear of that same government taking advantage of them as workers?
The only problem is that the GOP’s proposals are so ridiculous, so draconian, and so obviously partisan that it is painfully obvious that they are not operating in good faith. Obama still comes out as the only adult in the room.
Sasha, the GOP is only just getting started, too. Something like 16 states are targeting unions now.
.
And this doesn’t even get into the insanity out of the likes of Georgia, Tennessee, and now today Rick Santorum, who is claiming that the left is rewriting the history of the Crusades because they hate Christians:
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50054.html
.
“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” Santorum said in Spartanburg on Tuesday. “And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom.”
.
Wow. If it wasn’t already official that the inmates are running the GOP Asylum, it’s pretty dámņ close.
Walker is proving to be something of a canary in the coal mine: A number of GOP governors (including Florida’s own Lex Luthor, Rick Scott) have backed off of their anti-union initiatives.
.
That Senator Richard Lugar is almost certainly going to be primaried (along with the fact that Bob Bennett was primaried out of office last election cycle) is about as close to definitive evidence that you can get that the Republican Party has jumped the shark.
Big deal! What, the guy suddenly gets a backbone and is for Gay Marriage? It looks like election time is right around the corner. I can’t believe what a lightweight our President is. Where’s some real leadership on the budget? And yesterday Andrea Mitchell talks to a guy that says Obama hasn’t spoken to at least six of his cabinet members in 2 years but the AFL-CIO head supposedly is in contact with the White House every day? WTF?!? The guy really comes off as a candyass. Looks like he enjoys the perks but doesn’t wanna do the work.
Everytime Obama tries to show leadership, the Obstructionist Úšhølëš… I mean, the Republicans basically shut down congress and all discussion, resorting to mindless sound bites.
Andrea Mitchell talks to a guy… Yah that’s truth all right. 6 cabinet members? Really and you believe this piece of tripe?
It looks like election time is right around the corner.
.
Two years away is right around the corner? Well…whatever.
.
PAD
For President, it is, Peter
And Bladestar, I don’t think the lack of leadership is ONLY (You saw it here folks, A Republican who concedes problems with his Party) the fault of the Republicans. I get the sense that President Obama has gotten bad advice from his advisors (who probably got it from their advisors, which really needs to stop) from the Democratic Party as well.
First, I’m going to not even swing at thee easy target of Boehner criticizing his political opponent “stir[ing] up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.” after the last six seeks of the Republican House of Representatives. Let’s talk about why now is the appropriate time.
.
It is my understanding that there are two suits concerning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the moment that the Obama Administration has to decide what position they’re going to take. Just leaving the issue for “less controversial time” (the political equivalent of promoting paralysis) is simply not an option. They have to decide what their position is now. The fact that they chose a position that favors marriage equality is very gratifying. Based on what I’ve read, I’m not sure that Obama actually favors marriage equality though. I wouldn’t consider it unthinkable that he was personally against it, but decided that the part of DOMA that allows states to refuse to honor same-sex marriages from other states violates the Full Faith and Credit Article and is, therefore, unconstitutional regardless of his personal preferences.
.
Unfortunately, DOMA isn’t history yet. It’s still on the books and it will be until Congress rescinds it (chances of the current House doing that are nil) or a court case strikes it down. Also, while I think it likely that any court that rules against DOMA is likely to strike down it’s most famous provision: empowering states to ignore out-of-state same-sex marriages, there’s another piece of DOMA that is just as odious in my eyes but likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. DOMA also sets the federal definition of marriage as a between a man and a woman. I found this out in my work as a CPA. A married same-sex couple in, for instance, Massachusetts file a tax return in MA with their status as “married”, but must still file two separate federal returns listing there status as “single.” The tax costs of this are just the tip of the iceberg, though. A little imagination can point out all the various ways that discrimination can come out of this statute: visitation rights, who makes medical decisions, health insurance coverage, etc.
.
Unfortunately, I don’t know of a reason the Federal Government can’t constitutionally define marriage in that way. It’s wrong, but I think it’s within their power.
Bladestar:”I don’t recognize your name Tim, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you aren’t really that fûçkìņg stupid.
He’s saying the government has no business telling gays they can’t get married.
Simple enough for you to understand?”
Bladestar, my question had to do with Peter David’s choice of language, which seemed to suggest the libertarian argument that government should really get out of the “marriage business” (i.e., cease to recognize it as a legal contract).
I’m unaware of what the Libertarian argument is, but I would simply point out that the line that is typically uttered at the end of a wedding ceremony is, “By the powers vested in me by the state of…” If the state is vesting the powers, what business is it of the Fed?
.
PAD
.
“If the state is vesting the powers, what business is it of the Fed?”
.
Tax deductions. 🙂
.
Most INTELLIGENT libertarians recognize that
.
a) contracts entered into by individuals freely should only be touched by government under emergency conditions (and being gay is not an emergency) and
.
b) there’s certainly utility in having a standardized set of established contractual rights and obligations in a civil union.
.
There’s not much use in conflating religious power with governmental power for this institution.
“I’m unaware of what the Libertarian argument is…. If the state is vesting the powers, what business is it of the Fed?’
Actually, that’s a very clearly stated example of one of the libertarian arguments– that the Federal Government must stay out of State matters (as stated by the 10th Amendment). There are many other libertarian arguments, as there are many different types of libertarianism, but this is probably the most useful, since a Constitutional argument can be used in court.
Unfortunately, the 10th Amendment as been widely ignored by the courts on many occasions, so it’s always a gamble to rely on it.
Peter David:”I’m unaware of what the Libertarian argument is, but I would simply point out that the line that is typically uttered at the end of a wedding ceremony is, “By the powers vested in me by the state of…” If the state is vesting the powers, what business is it of the Fed?
.
PAD”
Some Libertarians have argued that marriage is a purely personal matter, and that the state has no right to regulate it.After all, if I wish to marry my brother or my horse, how does it affect other people?To borrow a phrase, it neither picks their pockets nor breaks their bones.Following this logic, the government (on both the state and the federal level)should completely remove itself from the business of marriage, thereby reducing it to a purely personal arrangement between two entities. (Naturally, this would entail the removal of all “marriage privileges “:joint filing, automatic hospital visitation rights, etc).
“what business is it of the Fed?”: The Federal government has a long history of intervening in state marriage laws (cf Loving v. Virginia).
Following this logic, the government (on both the state and the federal level)should completely remove itself from the business of marriage, thereby reducing it to a purely personal arrangement between two entities. (Naturally, this would entail the removal of all “marriage privileges “:joint filing, automatic hospital visitation rights, etc).
.
Hm. I’d say be careful what you wish for. Mostly because a lot of these things are so useful in resolving disputes, something similar is going to evolve to take their place anyway.
.
Given that marriage is a secular, governmental function in the first place, to codify inheritance rights and protect minors, I’m not sure what the use of getting government “out” of the marriage business is. For one thing, it’s going to be there for enforcement purposes…
Given that marriage is a secular, governmental function in the first place
.
Actually, in the first place it wasn’t. but it has certainly grown to be perceived as being so over the years.
.
A clear distinction should be made between marriage and civil unions. Marriages are religious arrangements and should be seen as a public declaration of devotion and commitment in which the gov’t plays no role. Civil unions are legal arrangements and should be seen as such.
.
The two often go together but should be recognized as the distinct items they are.
Actually, in the first place, marriage was a secular, government function. Until the 14th century, the Church held that marriage was a worldly matter, and since they expected the Rapture any minute now, they didn’t want to be involved. It wasn’t until one of the Popes realized the revenue stream they were missing out on that priests started officiating at weddings.
.
This, of course, ignores the role of rabbis and imams, but then again, the whole debate seems to focus on definitions used in Christianity, not Judaism or Islam (and let’s not even acknowledge the existence of any non-Abrahamic faiths)…
Gee, that’s funny. I remember listening to the debates in Congress the last time the Federal Marriage Amendment was brought up in 2008. At least I think it was 2008. Please bear with me, I’m not great with names and dates.
One of the Dems arguing against it was saying something along the lines of “I asked [Rep Leader], ‘Why are we debating this issue now, when we all know it has no chance of passing, instead of working on something the people are asking for, like health care reform?’ And I was told, ‘This is an important issue. It needs to be brought to light from time to time.'”
So, now that they’re taking the exact opposite position, this tells me one of two things: Either that the Republicans are admitting they only brought it up in the first place to divide the country and avoid dealing with the issues the people wanted to be dealt with, or that it’s only an issue that should be brought to the light from time to time when the debate is to prevent civil rights, and not to grant them.
Either that the Republicans are admitting they only brought it up in the first place to divide the country and avoid dealing with the issues the people wanted to be dealt with, or that it’s only an issue that should be brought to the light from time to time when the debate is to prevent civil rights, and not to grant them.
.
Why can’t it be both?
.
PAD
Roger Tang:”Hm. I’d say be careful what you wish for. Mostly because a lot of these things are so useful in resolving disputes, something similar is going to evolve to take their place anyway.”
1. People entering into a living arrangement would simply have to draw up a contract.
.
Roger Tang:”Given that marriage is a secular, governmental function in the first place, to codify inheritance rights and protect minors, I’m not sure what the use of getting government “out” of the marriage business is. For one thing, it’s going to be there for enforcement purposes…”
2. “Protect minors”:Child protection laws function independently of marriage.
3. “Inheritance rights”:The only difference is that the spousal privilege would not be automatic. Under current law, when an intestate married individual dies, the property goes to the surviving spouse (barring legal action by relatives, etc).Under the proposed system of non-recognized marriage, this would not be so.
Aha! You’re a lawyer! And you want to multiply litigation by at least a magnitude or so!
.
Sorry, but it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re calling for, or what’s involved in what was originally a set of contract laws.
well said sir
Personally, guys, my attitude on gay marriage is the same as Kinky Friedman’s; gays have the right to be just as miserable as straights under the law. Let’em get married and put up with the same šhìŧ as all the rest of us.
.
There should be absolutely no difference in how one is treated; the law should apply equally, rich or poor, gay or straight, white, black, brown, red, yellow, green, male, female, hermaphrodite. Human. Nonhuman. No matter what.
.
And I, not really knowing jack about law, and preaching to the choir to boot, prolly ought shut my big dámņ mouth.
“There should be absolutely no difference in how one is treated; the law should apply equally, rich or poor, gay or straight, white, black, brown, red, yellow, green, male, female, hermaphrodite. Human. Nonhuman. No matter what”
.
Now, that’s just crazy talk.
.
(Or, it is if you listen to the GOP.)
.
Theno
It would be simply a matter of recognizing something that pretty much already happens.
.
I am friends with a lesbian couple that lives with two kids (one of them used to be married to a man), and they are a family just like every other family. Same joys, same problems, same everything.
The problem with leaning on the 10th Amendment’s “powers not enumerated” clause to say the Federal government should butt out of enforcing marriage laws one way or another is that this IS a power enumerated in the Constitution. It’s known as the “full faith and credit” clause…states are not allowed to ignore contracts and the like that were made in other states. This is where DOMA fails Constitutional muster, because it explicitly says that the full faith and credit clause is void in the matter of marriage, and does so without amending the Constitution.
I think it’s a good start on Obama’s part, one that was long overdue.
Once gay folks can serve openly in the military (the repeal of DADT is still being implemented) and can have legally-recognized marriages, they can then be on a more or less equal footing with the rest of us.
Yay!
In one of the few times anyone has ever argued with me about the issue, the best arguement the gentleman could come up with was that he didn’t think it was morally right for gays to marry. I then asked him how moral it was to tell someone you can’t have what I have. He had no response and I truly think there is no way to justify it in that light.
Roger Tang:”Aha! You’re a lawyer! And you want to multiply litigation by at least a magnitude or so!”
1. As opposed to the current system?
.
Sorry, but it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re calling for, or what’s involved in what was originally a set of contract laws.
2.Really? Feel free to explain what i am calling for
Republicans truly are LIBERTARIANS that are for SMALL GOVERNMENT.
.
LIBERTARIAN: Christian crusader.
.
SMALL GOVERNMENT: A kind of government that regulates sexual activities and relationships to protect the sanctity of the marriage institution, enforces pre-marital abstinency as the only possible sexual education, regulates entertainment and the media to protect our children, and generally upholds Christian traditions.
.
“… regulates entertainment and the media to protect our children… “
.
Yeah… You do realize that this also describes the Democrats and Liberals in America quite nicely as well, don’t you?
Yeah, but Liberals never claimed they’re for small government, so there is no hypocrisy there.
.
(There IS hypocrisy in a lot of Liberal positions, though. But more in the vein of “we’re for freedom of speech, but ohmygodohmygod that comma there may offend blacks/muslims/gays so get rid of it!)
Speaker Boehner should look into a career in standup comedy after he retires from Congress, because that there? Is some really funny šhìŧ.
In other good news for marriage equality, Maryland is due to legalize same-sex marriage any day now! The bill has passed the legislature and the governor has long declared his support!
If you could confine gay marriage to the states that have legalized it, that would be fine. But since gay couples are obviously going to be crossing state lines, divorcing and moving to different jurisdictions, etc., marriage is going to be the business of the federal government on some level, because one of the roles of the federal government is to adjudicate disputes between states.
Why Peter thinks this will cost no money is unclear (courts aren’t self-funding), but more to the point, why don’t the gay-marriage advocates (or opponents, for that matter) just draw up a constitutional amendment, put it to the vote of the states and try to end this thing? It certainly seems as though gay-marriage opponents could get the 38 states on board needed to pass it.
As for a pro-gay marriage amendment passing, forget it. So far the only way to get gay marriage through has been to do it by judicial fiat. That’s not going to change anytime soon.
-Dave O’Connell
So far the only way to get gay marriage through has been to do it by judicial fiat. That’s not going to change anytime soon.
.
Only, you’re already wrong on that.
.
Vermont legalized same-sex marriage via legislation in 2009. Maine had done so as well, but it was overturned on referendum. New Hampshire has also done so. And as Alyson mentioned right above your post, Maryland will likely soon follow.
I was slightly miffed at how it was done here in New Hampshire — NONE of the backers had said that it would be a top priority when they ran, but once they got elected it got fast-tracked — but overall I’m pleased with how it was done. And there has been no plague of boils or rain of frogs since.
.
The judicial fiat way is BS. That AIN’T how the Constitution is written. Kind of like Obama just up and declaring DOMA unconstitutional.
.
J.
.
“The judicial fiat way is BS. That AIN’T how the Constitution is written. Kind of like Obama just up and declaring DOMA unconstitutional.”
.
Yup, that’s just how it happened. Obama just woke up and out of the blue declared DOMA unconstitutional all on his own and without any judges having already declared it as such. And he then stopped the enforcement of it as well, right? It must be really fun living in a fact free world like your, Jay. You’ll have to tell us all about it sometime.
.
Oh, wait… You frequently do.
“The judicial fiat way is BS. That AIN’T how the Constitution is written. Kind of like Obama just up and declaring DOMA unconstitutional.”
.
Obama declaring DOMA unconstitutional is like me declaring that PAD’s background is blue. If a reasonable person were to actually look at the law (site) and understand the Constitution (the colour blue) then they would make the same declaration.
.
A law that goes against a constitutional ammendment is, by definition, unconstitutional.
.
Theno
Actually, Obama is on record numerous times saying he opposes gay marriage. It was one area where I was consistently more “progressive” than he is. So we are all agreeing that he was lying all those times he said that.
.
What he’s saying now is that he is unilaterally declaring a duly-passed law that has withstood court challenges is unconstitutional, taking the prerogative away from the courts. But he still intends to abide by the law until it’s challenged, at which point he intends to not fight it. (Nudge nudge, wink wink — say no more!)
.
So, in essence, Obama is saying “yeah, I spent years saying I opposed gay marriage and supported the DOMA, but now I realize that it’s unconstitutional and gosh golly, wouldn’t it be nice if someone were to challenge that again in court, so I can have my Justice Department tank the case?”
.
It’s all of a pattern — this “Constitutional scholar” and “brilliant mind” ignores the actual law, and does whatever the hëll he likes. The courts order his Department of the Interior to start issuing offshore drilling permits again, and he ignores them — to the point where the DoI is cited with contempt. A judge strikes down ObamaCare, which normally would put it on hold until the next court ruling, and he continues to implement it. Now he says he has the right to declare a law (passed overwhelmingly and bipartisanly, by the way, and signed by Bill Clinton) unconstitutional all on his own.
.
The dámņëdëšŧ thing is, the DOMA actually serves one very useful purpose — it locks marriage in as a state’s right to regulate, not a federal right. It spells out that marriage is exempt from the “Full Faith and Credit” clause, preventing one state from deciding that gay marriage is legal for the entire nation.
.
Naturally, anything that challenges the federal government’s power to do any dámņëd thing that it wants to do is anathema to Obama, so it has to go…
.
J.
.
“Actually, Obama is on record numerous times saying he opposes gay marriage. It was one area where I was consistently more “progressive” than he is. So we are all agreeing that he was lying all those times he said that.”
.
No, but we can all get on record agreeing that you’re once again full of it here.
.
Two things. (1) People do change their minds over time. Happens a lot actually. I have several friends who were almost violently anti-gay years ago who are now fine with gays being out there and getting equal rights. Life happened, they met people and they changed their minds. Not that I think Obama has actually changed his mind on preferring civil unions (I.e. separate but equal) to actual marriages for gay couples.
.
No, I simply think that it’s (2) he recognizes that he might not be in full agreement with the concept, but that a specific prohibition in the law might actually be wrong. He’s not after all jumping in front of a camera and declaring that gay marriage is great and that we should have it in all 50 states. He’s simply stating that the federal government will not join in the defense of DOMA in any case brought before a court based on prior rulings outlining why the thing has some unconstitutional aspects to it. Not quite the same as him suddenly going from an anti-gay marriage person to a pro-gay marriage person no matter how you wish to spin it.
.
Hëll, I’m sure there are people out there who would love it if he would come out with a pro-gay marriage stance on the issue. As it stands right now, all he’s doing is putting the DOMA in a holding pattern where it continues to be enforced as the law of the land until some unspecified point in the near or distant future. He’s “taking a stand” by not actually taking a stand at all and just letting the chips fall where they may. Even coming out and declare that he’s been telling lies about his POV on the subject after all this time would take more courage and convictions than this.
.
“What he’s saying now is that he is unilaterally declaring a duly-passed law that has withstood court challenges is unconstitutional”
.
Do you even bother to fact check anything you write?
.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled that denial of health coverage to same-sex spouses (the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits extending benefits to same-sex spouses) was unconstitutional.
.
Back in the middle of last year, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled on two cases involving DOMA. He found in one case that DOMA violated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the other he found that the same section violated the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. Translation: He said that parts of the thing were unconstitutional.
.
Several other challenges that have gone both ways on appeals haven’t made it to the Supreme Court because they’ve ducked the issue and declined to hear the cases. And the thing is still being challenged right now. There are (at least) two cases that people are trying to get the SCOTUS to hear right now. The active challenges are what all this is springing from.
.
Seriously, is this from the same selective reading universe where you think statements like “no official in the Bush administration ever stated definitively stated that Saddam had WMDs” is actually a fact? Do you even know what facts are at this point?
.
“… taking the prerogative away from the courts. But he still intends to abide by the law until it’s challenged, at which point he intends to not fight it. (Nudge nudge, wink wink — say no more!)”
.
Really?
.
Attorney General Eric Holder: “The President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with [the law], consistent with the executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality”
.
So, he’s telling everyone to follow the law until either Congress repeals the problematic portions of it or all of it altogether or the courts rule on the constitutionality of the thing. So, obey the law up until it’s repealed or unless it’s overturned through the courts. And this is wrong of him… how?
.
Seriously, try and answer that one without circular word games for once. Saying that the law needs to be obeyed as written until such a time as it is repealed or as ruled unconstitutional is wrong how?
.
“A judge strikes down ObamaCare, which normally would put it on hold until the next court ruling, and he continues to implement it.”
.
Well, other judges have ruled it as just fine and dandy. But then you don’t want to talk about that, do you. You just want to focus on the fact that one judge declared it unconstitutional and that would, in your world, “put it on hold until the next court ruling.” Hey, why not? Maybe we should play it by your rules.
.
A number of judges, as I pointed out above, have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional in part or in whole. As a matter of fact, more judges have ruled against DOMA than have ruled against ObamaCare. I guess that means, by the Jay Tea rules of life, that we should put all enforcement of DOMA on hold as of right now and no one should obey its mandates until the next ruling. Hey, your rules on how things should work.
.
“Now he says he has the right to declare a law (**2**passed overwhelmingly and bipartisanly, by the way, and signed by Bill Clinton) **2**unconstitutional all on his own.”
.
1) Laws that forbid the marrying of interracial couples (or for that matter, even just people of different races from being able to have sex without breaking the law) all passed in their times with large majorities made up of both sides of the isle. Bigotry is often bipartisan in nature, but it doesn’t make it right.
.
2) Uhm… No. Again, since it seems you live in a fact free world, several federal judges have already ruled the act unconstitutional. All they’re doing is stating that they agree on principle and will no longer spend money and time contesting the thing. They will instead let the court cases that are already in motion play out and await a judicial verdict. They have also, again, stated that until such a time that the law is repealed or deemed unconstitutional, it is in fact the law of the land and will be obeyed by federal agencies.
.
He is not declaring it unconstitutional all on his own and simply deciding that he won’t obey it anymore. Regurgitate the talking points all you want to, Jay, but it doesn’t make them facts.
.
“Naturally, anything that challenges the federal government’s power to do any dámņëd thing that it wants to do is anathema to Obama, so it has to go…”
.
Actually, you have that backwards (as you usually do.) DOMA specifically states that marriage is between a man and a woman as an official federal definition and thus prevents certain federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples from being given to homosexual married couples even when they’ve been married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. DOMA gives the federal government the power to declare that a state sanctioned marriage doesn’t really count for some things and thus they don’t deserve the full benefits that a heterosexual couple married in the same state would get.
.
But, just for a moment, let’s forget that. Let’s just look at the stupidity of your argument here. Let’s say that Virginia should have the right to declare that they don’t have to recognize a gay marriage from another state. What happens to a gay married couple just passing through if something of a legal or medical nature happens that requires one to be a legally recognized spouse of the other in order to be able to have any power of authority or say in what’s going on?
.
Here’s a fun one. What if (and this has happened) a gay American marries a gay foreign national in a state that recognizes gay marriage? Is that person only a US citizen and afforded the rights of a US citizen in that state alone or are they officially recognized as a US citizen in every state? The one partner has become a US citizen by the act of marriage. If the couple were heterosexual, that status is unquestioned in all 50 states. Is it still unquestioned here? Are they only a citizen and thus granted the full rights of a citizen in the state they were married in and other states that recognize gay marriage? Are they a citizen in all 50 states? If you say that they’re a citizen in all 50 states by virtue of their homosexual marriage then you are in fact recognizing that marriage in all 50 states already.
.
You say you don’t care? You say it’s a states rights issue? Yeah, you say that until it happens to you. Then, like so many of your type, you’ll cry like a baby about how unfair it is that the act of discrimination you want for someone else is being done to you.
Could a similar thing be used by any future GOP president to void Obamacare? Just take any Judges ruling that it’s unconstitutional (already have a few of those) and unilaterally declare that hey will not defend it or enforce it if a state challenges it (and I suspect that with something so complex if it is not strictly enforced across the country it will unravel).
.
Maybe this is something that’s been done many times before but it seems like it gives the executive branch even more power than it already has.
Could a similar thing be used by any future GOP president to void Obamacare?
.
I suspect that would be the case. But there would have to be court case for them to not defend.
.
I’d think it’s very likely that once the bill is in full force (still several years away) there is no turning back, which is why there is the push through the courts now.
It would not be at all hard to find some people willing to mount a court case, on any issue at all.
.
This kind of puts me in a bind–nice to see Obama finally showing some guts on gay rights but I can only imagine the howls of outrage that will come when a republican president decides not to defend any challenges to a law he or she does not like. May be setting a bad precedent here.
.
Also…what happens if the Supreme Court decides it isn’t unconstitutional? Can the president just decide they are wrong and continue the non-enforcement? If not, then this is just a punt to the Supremes.
May be setting a bad precedent here.
.
Odds are the precedent was set long ago, we just have to find them. 🙂
.
At the state level, the Prop 8 case is in the same boat. California’s attorney general refuses to defend the case, which has drawn criticism.
.
Can the president just decide they are wrong and continue the non-enforcement?
.
Hard to say. There are various ways to undermine an existing law (see: DADT, the health care reform bill), whether it’s being challenged in the courts or not.
.
And then there’s presidential signing statements. While Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton were known to use them to state objections, Bush Jr. used them regularly to attempt to modify and change the meaning of laws that Congress passed.
.
“Could a similar thing be used by any future GOP president to void Obamacare? Just take any Judges ruling that it’s unconstitutional (already have a few of those) and unilaterally declare that hey will not defend it or enforce it if a state challenges it (and I suspect that with something so complex if it is not strictly enforced across the country it will unravel).”
.
I’m not sure how they are not enforcing it since they are in fact continuing to enforce it. DOMA is a federal law and the provisions in it are enacted by the federal government. Even the court challenges that “has withstood” address that fact as well. There have been several cases brought against it by legally married gay couples that were dismissed by the judge on the grounds that the gay couple had no standing or were not harmed by DOMA. The ruling is then explained by pointing out that the couples in question were not denied federal benefits through DOMA as the did not apply for the federal benefits DOMA would deny them. The complaint by the couples may be legally sound, but they were not the couples to bring it to court.
.
Besides, from the memo Holder sent out to government agencies, I don’t think the Republicans could scuttle it that way. Obama didn’t order that the DOMA regulations would not be enforced from this point forward. He actually instructed exactly the opposite of that. DOMA is to be treated as the law of the land and is to continue to be followed unless or until it is repealed or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict on its constitutionality. I may be reading into it, but I don’t think that they mean just any old court and judge when they say the judicial branch” here since several judges and courts have already ruled the DOMA unconstitutional. They’re talking about a ruling on the matter from the Supreme Court.
.
If that’s the case and we get a Republican in office in 2012; let them do exactly what Obama is doing now. That would mean that ObamaCare would still be the law of the land while they’re calling it unconstitutional and would remain such until the were able to muster enough congressional votes to repeal it or until one of the existing cases makes its way to the Supreme Court and they rule on it one way or the other.
.
Hëll, Republican lawmakers all across the country are doing exactly that now with ObamaCare. They’re already declaring it unconstitutional while saying that it has to be followed and obeyed for now until they can get a majority needed to repeal it or until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. Somehow, I’ve missed Jay heaping scorn on Republican Governors, Senators and Delegates across the country for taking it upon themselves to declare this law unconstitutional, but stating that they’ll follow it until it’s repealed or knocked down through the judicial branch.
.
“Also…what happens if the Supreme Court decides it isn’t unconstitutional? Can the president just decide they are wrong and continue the non-enforcement? If not, then this is just a punt to the Supremes.”
.
Bill, the law hasn’t gone away. It’s still be followed and enforced. Not joining in the defense of the law in a federal court case isn’t the same as pretending that the law doesn’t exist and not following it. But if it is ruled constitutional as you wondered? Then he continues to do what he instructed them to do now with just one deletion from the instructions.
.
“The President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with [the law], consistent with the executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality“
.
*** BECOMES ***
.
“The President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with [the law], consistent with the executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3.”
.
So the government at that point continues to comply with DOMA until such a time as Congress repeals it in part or in whole. It continues on as the law of the land and they continue to enforce it as law as they’re doing now.
.
“This kind of puts me in a bind–nice to see Obama finally showing some guts on gay rights”
.
This is showing guts? Really?!? This looks about as gutless as can be. He’s not really making a stand here or backing either side in the argument. This is like a guy walking up to the head coaches of both teams before the Super Bowl and telling them that he’s not really supporter either team here, but that after the game hëll be right there with them in front of the cameras smiling and telling everybody that he was with them all along.
.
Obama hasn’t, despite Jay’s spinning to the contrary, gone back on his earlier positions or changed his views in the least. He has long stated that he would prefer civil unions to full on gay marriage. He hasn’t suddenly declared that gay marriage is now his preference over civil unions. He’s simply stated that it is his opinion and the opinion of his legal advisors that the DOMA, an act that denies some federal privileges to even gay couples married in states that legally recognize gay marriage and defines for federal law “marriage” as being between a man and a woman, to be unconstitutional in it’s scope and powers.
.
He may well be right. Certainly I think he is by the fact that the law is discriminatory. But the fact is that saying a law is unconstitutional in how it’s worded and enforced is not the same as taking a stand on an issue as for or against. I know guys who are even more anti drug than I have ever been, but they agreed that certain techniques that some law enforcement agencies were using with new technologies was in violation of the constitution. One such technique was using infrared cameras to literally look into houses at random without a warrant and look for any signs of an indoor hothouse consistent with the type used to grow marijuana in an attic. The view held by many (myself included) that believe in enforcement of our drug laws was that, since you could see a lot of other things with the higher end cameras (like bodies in bed doing more than sleeping) that you shouldn’t, you were violating the privacy of the individuals in question and violating several constitutional rights of both the criminals and the innocent people in the houses you randomly scanned. As these things worked their way up through appeals to the SCOTUS, they (and I) were right (insofar as the SCOTUS agreed that it was unconstitutional.)
.
No one said that they thought that drugs were now A-Okay despite years of statements to the contrary. We simply said that a new technique was unconstitutional. Obama has not come out in strong support of gay marriage here or renounced his past statements about gay marriage VS civil unions. All he’s done is agree with lower courts that aspects of a law are unconstitutional and stated that his administration would no longer waste the money, manpower or time to add to its defense in cases going before the court. It’s the no stand type of stand on an issue. If it goes to court and is ruled unconstitutional; he sits back and listens to the cheers for what he’s done. If it goes to court and is ruled constitutional; he’s been doing his job and has been continuing to enforce the law and simply states that the burden of dealing with the law is on the congress.
.
He’s not taking a stand. He’s not leading a cause. He’s essentially being an outside observer and waiting for one outcome or the other where to happen and essentially make a decision for him so that he he can then step in front of the cameras and tell one side or the other that, hey, that’s the way the cookie crumbles but that’s how the system works. If he were actually taking a stand or showing some courage here, he would be actively working with the congress to repeal the law rather than waiting for a court case that, given the history of the matter so far, might not even come until after he’s out of office.
Jerry, thanks. I have been uncharacteristically unable to keep up with all that’s going on (most of my current affairs interest is on the mideast of late) so I was just skimming what’s been said about this. From what you say this looks like there’s a lot less to this than the attention would suggest.
.
Yeah, well… You’ve been having all sorts of fun, enjoying hobnobbing with guys like Jason Carter and then following that up with a fun little retreat where you were surrounded by great people and discussing interesting creative endeavors.
.
I was stuck here working.
.
“From what you say this looks like there’s a lot less to this than the attention would suggest.”
.
It kind of is. I really don’t see where this does all that much right now. Frankly, the only people I see milking this for all it’s worth are the extreme partisans on both sides. Nothing has really changed from the time he declared that they won’t continue to defend it through to today. The only thing that has changed that I can see is that more people are aware of the court challenges and that more people are aware of the potential changes that could take place down the road if the SCOTUS declares the thing unconstitutional.
.
Given that such a ruling would likely be the same in the end no matter what Obama did, Obama hasn’t really gone back on the idea that he believes that civil unions for LGBT couples is preferable to gay marriage and that Obama hasn’t really taken a position other than sit, watch and wait… I really don’t see what all the fuss is about here.
.
“The dámņëdëšŧ thing is, the DOMA actually serves one very useful purpose — it locks marriage in as a state’s right to regulate, not a federal right. It spells out that marriage is exempt from the “Full Faith and Credit” clause, preventing one state from deciding that gay marriage is legal for the entire nation.”
.
“Naturally, anything that challenges the federal government’s power to do any dámņëd thing that it wants to do is anathema to Obama, so it has to go…
.
J.”
.
You know what? There’s a simple example of why you’re 180% from the facts (yet again) on this issue. Having worked late last night I was a bit brain fried and missed the most obvious answer about who wants the federal government to trump states rights here and who doesn’t.
.
Obama is prefers the idea of civil unions over gay marriage, but he has gone on record as stating that states should make that determination and he is therefore against the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
.
Many of the Republicans however would like to trump states rights on the issue and support the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in the United States. So, who exactly wants the federal government to have the power here and to declare that the states don’t have the right to make such a decision on their own again?
.
From CBN -October 20. 2008
Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment , are, are you for something like that?
.
Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”
.
But I won’t hold my breath waiting to see you rip Palin for wanting to take the right to choose on this issue away from the states.
.
February 25, 2004 – CNN
.
President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.
.
“The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said.
.
“Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.”
.
But I won’t hold my breath waiting to see you rip Bush for wanting to take the right to choose on this issue away from the states.
.
Look up John Boehner’s voting records on the issue. Boenher Voted “YES” on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
.
But I won’t hold my breath waiting to see you rip Boehner for wanting to take the right to choose on this issue away from the states.
.
Much like your stands on how Obama should handle ObamaCare due to a court ruling against it is in direct conflict with how you think he should handle DOMA despite to the various court rulings against it… Gotta love your hypocritical and selective sense of outrage about who wants to trump states rights when it comes to causes you support VS things you dislike.
“At the VERY least he’s acknowledging that marriage isn’t the business of government, which is what a president should be saying.”
Everyone focuses on the Gay/Lesbian/Homosexual context of the marriage/civil union topic. But there is also the issue of polygamy, which I feel (& I’m not a Mormon or Mormon supporter) is also an entitlement under the Freedom of Religion.
if polygamy become legal we will almost certainly have to change some things.
.
Just to throw it out there, do we still have that deal where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse? Maybe that needs to be revisited? (It sure would be if we allow gay AND plural marriage–Don Corleone would just marry each and every member of his organization. Yeah, even Luca Brasi.
The “cannot be compelled to testifty thing” was a plot point the THE SOPRANOS. It was one of the reasons why the ultra-hot-but-pitiable fiancee of Christopher was so eager to marry him, so that the FBI couldn’t pressure her to testify against him.
.
I don’t remember the details, but it seems like it was treated like an urban legend in the show. She would still have to testify, married or not. Or maybe the FBI was just intimidating her.
According to my quick-and-dirty research, spousal immunity is violated by the presence of a third party (which destroys any expectation of privacy) – not sure how that would be handled in a polygamous situation, but as written, group conversations would not be covered. Further, in some jurisdictions, if both parties are participants in a crime, there is no expectation of spousal immunity – and if your spouse tells you he/she has committed a felony, and you keep that to yourself, you’re now an accomplice after the fact…
Conservatives. Always good for laughs.
.
And there’s cases like this one, which lead me to believe that liberals are just as often just as depressing as their counterparts:
.
U.S. citizen recalls ‘humiliating’ post-9/11 arrest
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41808706/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
.
“The Obama administration, representing Ashcroft for his actions as attorney general, continues to argue the arrest was constitutional.”
.
Shocking? not really. See: TSA and their blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.
.
In the end, the only difference is that the bat-šhìŧ ideology of Democrats is a little closer to my own than the bat-šhìŧ ideology of Republicans. God help us all.
Nah, with the Democrats it’s less a matter of ideology, and more a matter of cowardice, IMO. They’re absolutely terrified of appearing to be soft on terror.
.
The Republicans are like the soldier who is extremely brutal against the enemy because he believes himself to be righteous. The Democrats are like the soldier who is extremely brutal against the enemy because he is afraid the other soldiers will call him a sissy if he doesn’t.
.
You’re behind the curve on the outrage over this one, Craig.
.
http://jjchandler.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/if-there-was-a-way-to-impeach-obama-over-this%E2%80%A6/
So many stories of abuse by our government, so little time, Jerry.
As much as I could say bad things about the Right, the Left is the biggest bunch of shameless people I’ve ever seen. They could star in a Daredevil spin-off as “The People Without Shame.”
They will say or do basically anything to get their way, even if they are complete hypocrites when doing so. From rushing bills through without even reading them, (Pelosi: “We need to pass it so you can find out what’s in it”), to saying the Tea Party and everyone are racists despite that they cheer for people like Allen West and Herman Cain,
immediately and without facts blaming the Arizona shooting on the Right when it turns out the shooter’s friends say he’s a liberal, calling for the end to “hateful rhetoric” as a talking point when it suits them yet not saying it when union people in WI put target sights and Hitler mustaches on the governor or when Chris Matthews calls white people who don’t like Obama’s policies “crackers”,
to Fleeing The State and thumbing their noses at the democratic process, to saying the Right are the ones who pushed the WMDs in Iraq thing even though you can find quote after quote of Democrats pushing it, to anti-gun people like Mayor Daley who then walk around with their personal armed guards, etc, etc, etc. The Left are “The People Without Shame.”
Since when does Obama care about The Constitution, anyway? A judge orders that his oil-drilling stoppage is unconstitutional, but he re-orders it again anyway. A judge orders ObamaCare is unconstitutional, but he tries to keep it going anyway, (including trying to delay it from The Supreme Court so more of its hooks and automated, double-counted funding can kick in).
Heck, the Obama administration puts U.S. citizens on assassination lists without Due Process. (If you don’t believe me, look it up.) Where’s Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to protest the civil rights violations of that? Where are all the people who demonized Bush for illegal wiretaps, (and rightly so)? But now Obama wants to use The Constitution as a reason for a decision? Yah.
“As opposed to the GOP representatives who have shown little to no interest in creating jobs….”
GOP has had the House for two months. Where are the jobs from the last 4 years(!) of Democratic-majority Congress and the last 2 years(!) of super-majority? Where are the jobs from the 778-BILLION-dollar “stimulus” bill that no one read? Where are all those “shovel-ready” jobs that recently Obama came clean and said never actually existed? Obama didn’t even care about jobs at all until Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat.
Doctors are retiring early due to ObamaCare. Businesses are not hiring due to the uncertainty but high expected cost of ObamaCare. Want more jobs? Get rid of that. Obama is exempting all his buddies from it anyway. And it’s been ruled unconstitutional anyway. And Obama is suddenly all about The Constitution.
Government doesn’t create jobs. Government gets in the way of creating jobs. I agree that Republicans should be doing more to create jobs, and that means they should be cutting more than the piddly amount they are arguing with the Democrats about right now. Cut 4 billion? 40 billion? The deficit is over a Trillion dollars! And how about that budget the super-majority Democrats passed last year? Oh wait, they couldn’t be bothered to pass one. :-\