By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama to DoJ: DOMA sucks, don't fight for it.

rocketpig on 23 February 2011

It's definitely under his jurisdiction to do this, it's more of a question of whether he should do it.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 February 2011
Rath said:
mrstickball said:

They deserve rights, but the real problem is that the government has the authority to deem what is and is not marriage.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and nothing more or less. Therefore, the government does not have the authority to utilize it both against people that would desire religiously-defined marriage to either be enforced, or to enforce alternate views of marriage on the religious.


I agree actually. I would prefer that marriage had no legal recognition at all, only some form of universal civil union. Marriage would be the ceremony rather than the legal concept.

 

Also I'm not entirely sure but I think the DoJ and all other departments of that sort fall under control of the executive branch of government? If so this is within Obama's powers.

He can, but at the same time, he shouldn't.  It's surprising he's doing this LARGELY because he fought against Don't Ask Don't Tell SPEICIFALLY because his administration was already being accused of firing conservative lawyers and only enforcing the laws democrats want to enforce and ignoring various discrimination suits and other such things from people who aren't key democratic groups.

By picking and choosing which laws to enforce and defend, you basically relieve youreslf from the burden of needing to pass laws, since you blantaly ignore the ones already on the books at your convience.



makingmusic476 on 23 February 2011
Rath said:
mrstickball said:

They deserve rights, but the real problem is that the government has the authority to deem what is and is not marriage.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and nothing more or less. Therefore, the government does not have the authority to utilize it both against people that would desire religiously-defined marriage to either be enforced, or to enforce alternate views of marriage on the religious.


I agree actually. I would prefer that marriage had no legal recognition at all, only some form of universal civil union. Marriage would be the ceremony rather than the legal concept.

I fully agree with you guys.



rocketpig on 23 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
mrstickball said:

They deserve rights, but the real problem is that the government has the authority to deem what is and is not marriage.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and nothing more or less. Therefore, the government does not have the authority to utilize it both against people that would desire religiously-defined marriage to either be enforced, or to enforce alternate views of marriage on the religious.


I agree actually. I would prefer that marriage had no legal recognition at all, only some form of universal civil union. Marriage would be the ceremony rather than the legal concept.

 

Also I'm not entirely sure but I think the DoJ and all other departments of that sort fall under control of the executive branch of government? If so this is within Obama's powers.

He can, but at the same time, he shouldn't.  It's surprising he's doing this LARGELY because he fought against Don't Ask Don't Tell SPEICIFALLY because his administration was already being accused of firing conservative lawyers and only enforcing the laws democrats want to enforce and ignoring various discrimination suits and other such things from people who aren't key democratic groups.

By picking and choosing which laws to enforce and defend, you basically relieve youreslf from the burden of needing to pass laws, since you blantaly ignore the ones already on the books at your convience.

My lawyer girlfriend sent me this, which has an interesting explanation behind the reasoning:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Mr Khan on 23 February 2011
Kasz216 said:

While I agree that the DOMA sucks.

I disagree that the President should be allowed to directly say "Just don't defend this."

It basically sets the precident that the President can pick and choose what laws are worth following and enforcing... because well, that's exactly what he is doing.

It is the president's and DOJ duty to defend EVERY law on the books, even ones that they completely disagree with, and don't even believe are constiutional.

Just how every criminal even those you think are guilty deserve a fair and honest defense.

The executive branch has been doing this for years, whether or not they specifically ignore certain laws or are merely more lax on enforcement of certain types of laws (some financial regulations in Republican administrations, for instance)

On topic: how was this law constitutional in the first place? Weren't Republicans trying to push for a constitutional amendment on this five years back or so?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 February 2011
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:

While I agree that the DOMA sucks.

I disagree that the President should be allowed to directly say "Just don't defend this."

It basically sets the precident that the President can pick and choose what laws are worth following and enforcing... because well, that's exactly what he is doing.

It is the president's and DOJ duty to defend EVERY law on the books, even ones that they completely disagree with, and don't even believe are constiutional.

Just how every criminal even those you think are guilty deserve a fair and honest defense.

The executive branch has been doing this for years, whether or not they specifically ignore certain laws or are merely more lax on enforcement of certain types of laws (some financial regulations in Republican administrations, for instance)

On topic: how was this law constitutional in the first place? Weren't Republicans trying to push for a constitutional amendment on this five years back or so?

Which really means nothing, except for the fact that the Obama administration has been accused of doing it even more, when you'd want to start doing it less.

 

As for the second part.  They consider it constiutional in the same way that banning Achohol in some states of Utah is consitutional even when prohibition was repealed.

They were seeking an ammendment not because they thought it was an unconstituional law, but soley because they wanted to make it "Super DUPER illegal." 

Much how most gay marriage arguements tend to go like this.

Democrat: I think gay marriage should be illegal

Republician: I think gay marriage should be illegal harder.

Democrat: What?

Republican: Therefore we should pass a law that makes it illegal.

Democrat: But, it's already illegal... in that it's not legal.   I mean, you can't marry a cat.... but there isn't a law specifically saying you can't marry a cat.

Republican: AHA! So your for people being able to marry cats!  Which makes you for gay marriage!

Democrat: What... no... wait... what?

Republican: Exactly!



Kasz216 on 23 February 2011
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
mrstickball said:

They deserve rights, but the real problem is that the government has the authority to deem what is and is not marriage.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and nothing more or less. Therefore, the government does not have the authority to utilize it both against people that would desire religiously-defined marriage to either be enforced, or to enforce alternate views of marriage on the religious.


I agree actually. I would prefer that marriage had no legal recognition at all, only some form of universal civil union. Marriage would be the ceremony rather than the legal concept.

 

Also I'm not entirely sure but I think the DoJ and all other departments of that sort fall under control of the executive branch of government? If so this is within Obama's powers.

He can, but at the same time, he shouldn't.  It's surprising he's doing this LARGELY because he fought against Don't Ask Don't Tell SPEICIFALLY because his administration was already being accused of firing conservative lawyers and only enforcing the laws democrats want to enforce and ignoring various discrimination suits and other such things from people who aren't key democratic groups.

By picking and choosing which laws to enforce and defend, you basically relieve youreslf from the burden of needing to pass laws, since you blantaly ignore the ones already on the books at your convience.

My lawyer girlfriend sent me this, which has an interesting explanation behind the reasoning:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html


That just sounds like Obama is saying that he wants to be a judge.

I agree that it SHOULD be unconstiutional, but it's the Justice Departments job to defend all the laws of the land.

I mean, they even quote DADT which they specifically defended, and Obama basically said "I think it is unconstiutional but I want to repeal it the right way!" 

What happened to wanting to do things the right way?   

I mean, if he wants to start cutting corners like this, he may as well just signed an Executive order suspending DADT as soon as he entered office.  Would of been quicker.



NiKKoM on 23 February 2011

w00t... it's almost 10 years ago that same sex marriage were granted in the Netherlands! been to 3 of them..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

M.U.G.E.N on 23 February 2011

Bravo!!!! that is all I have to say



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

MARCUSDJACKSON on 23 February 2011
rocketpig said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html

It's nice to see that our President has the balls to look the GOP machine in the eyes and say "Fuck. You." The Democrats have sat back for far too long and taken beating after beating over social issues when they're on the right side of the battle. I don't care if you despise gay people to your very core, they deserve rights just like the rest of us.

agreed. the dem's have been letting the GOP run the show even when they didn't have power. being nice gets you screwd.

on the other hand 2 adluts should be able to do as they plz as long as it dosen't endanger the life of mine



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves