Specifically, the president referred to a section of the Act that requires defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Technically, the law still must be enforced until it is repealed or officially named unconstitutional by Congress, but it is very nice to see our president following through on pre-election policies. Oh, also, there's that whole thing where there isn't a reason gays should not be allowed to get married.
Bout time!|||Quote:
Bout time!
I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. Personally, I look forward to the next President striking down Roe v. Wade, the creation of the EPA, the separation of Church and State, the Posse Comitatus Act, and various implementations of the Commerce Clause, amongst others.
And you people shrieked about Bush having an "imperial Presidency"...
|||what is DOMA?|||Quote:what is DOMA?
Defense of Marriage Act - basically stated, one state's queer wedding doesn't have to be recognized by another state's gov't.|||Quote:
And you people shrieked ...
'You people' pretty much means, everyone here except you. I think that is a rather broad exaggeration. Also, I do not recall the shrieking...|||Quote:
'You people' pretty much means, everyone here except you. I think that is a rather broad exaggeration. Also, I do not recall the shrieking...
Well, it <has> been two years.
Seriously? Because it's a Marxist President, rather than da Ebil B00sh, this is somehow a good thing?|||Quote:
Personally, I look forward to the next President striking down Roe v. Wade[...]
How on earth could the president strike down a Supreme Court ruling? He'd need a constitutional amendment, and that's still more an act of congress.
Quote:
Seriously? Because it's a Marxist President, rather than da Ebil B00sh, this is somehow a good thing?
I think people approve because of what he's arguing against. A great number of people thing institutionalized bigotry is a bad thing. I'd have supported Bush repealing DADT and legalizing homosexual marriage if he'd been willing to, but since fighting against that was one of his major planks that didn't seem likely.|||Hooray!
Ya know, it often makes me pause and wonder why our elected officials spend so much time on their damn fool ideological crusades, instead of governing.
Last november, republican senators and congressmen were super excited to get elected: "We're gonna tackle the budget and create JOBS, baby! J-O-B-S!! Somebody start /fistpumping!!" Then, congress goes into session and the first thing we hear out of this class is "Let's de-fund Planned Parenthood!!"
Seriously? Abortion? That's what you're going to spend your time on? What about the unemployment and budget platforms that you ran on? Was that all just a bunch of bullcarp?
(Yeah, lol, it was.)
Anyhow, the point I'm trying to get out is: Good game tossing out legislation which could be boiled down to a few old white homophobes trying to keep their fringe base happy. Please continue to spend less times on ideological tugs-of-war, and more time ACTUALLY governing. That'd be swell.|||Quote:
How on earth could the president strike down a Supreme Court ruling? He'd need a constitutional amendment, and that's still more an act of congress.
Point being, that's essentially what Obama is being praised for doing. Refusing to support the law because <He> says it's unconstitutional, despite any grounds or legal argument (or God forbid, due process).
THE ONE is being blatantly hypocritical here, because He's gone out of His way to support DOMA elsewhere. This is political red meat for His far-left allies, desperately thrown because of his miserable reaction to Arab uprisings, the approach of $5 gas this summer, and tanking approval ratings - nothing more.
Quote:
I think people approve because of what he's arguing against.
Sure, but the point is that <He> is doing this without any standing. If the President decides arbitrarily what will and will not be enforced, where's the limit? I'd have thought that given the screaming about Bush "torture" and "illegal war", which only rose to the level of legal maneuvering, would have been enough to scald Leftist sensitivities regarding a high-handed Executive.
As for "institutionalized bigotry", the fact that I dislike Federal Gov't trumping the will of the majority (while you're lovin' it) indicates we're not going to agree here. 30 states have had constitutional amendments on this issue, and those 30 states have turned it down. 41 states concur with DOMA. Just because the tyranny of the minority is something you agree with doesn't make it legitimate in any way.
If people decide that they want to have the IRS allow "married filing jointly" status to apply to queers, I'm behind that 100% (though I've stated previously I'd prefer there be no such status, or better yet, revamp the Progressive Income Tax). But I can't agree with people applauding the President for arbitrarily discarding settled U.S. law. And <WHEN> the shoe is on the other foot, you'll be squealing like a stuck pig.
Isn't it bad enough that THE ONE has already decided that there is no racism to be found within the New Black Panthers?|||Quote:
Point being, that's essentially what Obama is being praised for doing. Refusing to support the law because <He> says it's unconstitutional, despite any grounds or legal argument (or God forbid, due process).
He's not exactly refusing to support it. He's obeying his executive duty and enforcing the law, but directing the justice department not to defend it against the various suits.
Quote:
This is political red meat for His far-left allies, desperately thrown because of his miserable reaction to Arab uprisings, the approach of $5 gas this summer, and tanking approval ratings - nothing more.
You may well be correct. I am willing to accept needed civil rights work as a political maneuver. So long as it gets done, I'm happy.
Quote:
Sure, but the point is that <He> is doing this without any standing. If the President decides arbitrarily what will and will not be enforced, where's the limit?
I'm not sure he doesn't have standing though, that's what makes this so interesting. As president he does have the right to direct the Justice department, and there's no law that I'm aware of requiring him to fervently defend everything.
Quote:
I'd have thought that given the screaming about Bush "torture" and "illegal war", which only rose to the level of legal maneuvering, would have been enough to scald Leftist sensitivities regarding a high-handed Executive.
The torture part was well beyond "legal maneuvering," it was a human rights violation. The illegal war thing was pretty much legal maneuvering though.
Quote:
As for "institutionalized bigotry", the fact that I dislike Federal Gov't trumping the will of the majority (while you're lovin' it) indicates we're not going to agree here.
Is this kind of like why the National Guard had to escort black kids to school? The majority gets to rule only insofar as they respect minority rights. When that stops, it's the duty of the government to get involved. That's kind of the whole point.
Quote:
Just because the tyranny of the minority is something you agree with doesn't make it legitimate in any way.
Grr, those evil tyrants, loving each other and living together and wanting the same rights as heterosexuals. Can't you feel the injustice?!
Quote:
And <WHEN> the shoe is on the other foot, you'll be squealing like a stuck pig.
Not at all. If the republicans want to fight bigotry I'd be behind them all the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment