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 24 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
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.

While I agree with you to some extent, it's a little murkier than that. Telling the DoJ to not pursue the defense of DOMA is akin to a district attorney choosing not to prosecute a crime based on circumstance, ability to win the case, or any myriad of other reasons. It happens all the time. If they don't think a law can win in court, there is little point inbeating your head against the wall in its defense.




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

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 24 February 2011

Honestly, at this point in time this seems like a very odd choice ...

Being that this will (likely) resolve nothing before the next election, gay marriage is not particularly popular in most states, gay marriage has fallen off of the political radar because all people care about is the economy, and there are siginficant risks of another economic downturn before the next election a move like this could actually make it harder to make gay marriage legal in the united states.

Basically, would you want to go into an election as a sitting president with a multi-trillion dollar deficit, $150 oil, unemployment at (roughly) 10%, house prices that are a fraction of where they were when you were first elected and be running on an issue that has been voted against in even the most liberal of states?



badgenome on 24 February 2011
HappySqurriel said:

Honestly, at this point in time this seems like a very odd choice ...

Being that this will (likely) resolve nothing before the next election, gay marriage is not particularly popular in most states, gay marriage has fallen off of the political radar because all people care about is the economy, and there are siginficant risks of another economic downturn before the next election a move like this could actually make it harder to make gay marriage legal in the united states.

Basically, would you want to go into an election as a sitting president with a multi-trillion dollar deficit, $150 oil, unemployment at (roughly) 10%, house prices that are a fraction of where they were when you were first elected and be running on an issue that has been voted against in even the most liberal of states?

Normally, no. But his base is pretty dispirited, and I think he's clearly positioning himself to have (yet again) a sudden change of heart ("my stance on gay marriage is evolving") and use it as a wedge issue for 2012. It has traditionally been used as a wedge issue the other way around by the GOP, so this seems counterintuitive at first blush but Obama and/or his handlers may feel that it gives liberals a reason to keep believing in him as the bringer of change, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.



rocketpig on 24 February 2011
HappySqurriel said:

Honestly, at this point in time this seems like a very odd choice ...

Being that this will (likely) resolve nothing before the next election, gay marriage is not particularly popular in most states, gay marriage has fallen off of the political radar because all people care about is the economy, and there are siginficant risks of another economic downturn before the next election a move like this could actually make it harder to make gay marriage legal in the united states.

Basically, would you want to go into an election as a sitting president with a multi-trillion dollar deficit, $150 oil, unemployment at (roughly) 10%, house prices that are a fraction of where they were when you were first elected and be running on an issue that has been voted against in even the most liberal of states?

Have you been watching what the GOP has been doing lately? They've gone completely off the deep end with attacks against Planned Parenthood, redefining "forcible rape" (I mean, seriously), and all sorts of other nonsense completley unrelated to jobs or the economy.

Obama needs to mobilize his base and this is a good way to do it.




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

Kasz216 on 24 February 2011
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
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.

While I agree with you to some extent, it's a little murkier than that. Telling the DoJ to not pursue the defense of DOMA is akin to a district attorney choosing not to prosecute a crime based on circumstance, ability to win the case, or any myriad of other reasons. It happens all the time. If they don't think a law can win in court, there is little point inbeating your head against the wall in its defense.


It seems... unlikely that DOMA would lose though.  (Even though it should.)

It has an extreme history of winning.

The only real difference I see between this and Dont ask don't tell, is that Don't ask don't tell was being brought down by Republicans.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 February 2011
rocketpig said:
HappySqurriel said:

Honestly, at this point in time this seems like a very odd choice ...

Being that this will (likely) resolve nothing before the next election, gay marriage is not particularly popular in most states, gay marriage has fallen off of the political radar because all people care about is the economy, and there are siginficant risks of another economic downturn before the next election a move like this could actually make it harder to make gay marriage legal in the united states.

Basically, would you want to go into an election as a sitting president with a multi-trillion dollar deficit, $150 oil, unemployment at (roughly) 10%, house prices that are a fraction of where they were when you were first elected and be running on an issue that has been voted against in even the most liberal of states?

Have you been watching what the GOP has been doing lately? They've gone completely off the deep end with attacks against Planned Parenthood, redefining "forcible rape" (I mean, seriously), and all sorts of other nonsense completley unrelated to jobs or the economy.

Obama needs to mobilize his base and this is a good way to do it.

Well technically all that stuff was done under the banner "budget relief austerity" to get the deficit down.

Doesn't make it any less horrible, but it does make it tangentally involved to the economy.

Like if you have a wife who hates gaming and she tries to make ou sell your systems when money times are bad even though you'll get almost nothing from gamestop.