DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Complexity]

Try looking up the 13th amendment sometime. Sort of short-circuits that argument.

No, it doesn't.

I'm well aware of the 13th amendment.

The point I was making was that, if there were a law that supported slavery, I don't believe that Obama would defend it, nor should he.

I don't think he's above undertaking a defense of DOMA using 'upholding current law' as his *********** excuse, however. I'm sure his people are doing the political calculations at this moment.

What a waste his presidency is becoming.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't see why the Executive branch should be obligated to defend the constitutionality of a law that was signed by a previous administration.

Well, there is defending, and then there is defending.

OK, the DoJ fought for DOMA in court. They lost. They don't HAVE to appeal to the SC.

Then again, maybe they want to in order to make sure it is struck down properly and completely?

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'm trying to understand how Obama has been worse on gay issues than. . . any other president we've ever had. Or, how John McCain might have been the preferable alternative.

If the gay community turns on him next election, I think it'll be a serious case of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm trying to understand how Obama has been worse on gay issues than. . . any other president we've ever had. Or, how John McCain might have been the preferable alternative.

If the gay community turns on him next election, I think it'll be a serious case of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I remember at one point early on, the gay community was up in arms because Obama didn't come out strongly in support of some measure. They all had decided he had failed, giving him an "F", because he didn't actively rally in support of it and merely was silent.

I wondered, if that is "failing," then what grade would you have given to folks like George Bush or John McCain, who wouldn't have content with being silent and would have spoken strongly AGAINST the measure? An F-?

Obama may not be a great advocate for gay rights, but at least he doesn't advocate discrimination against gays like many politicians do. No, it doesn't go far enough, but it's a damn sight better than before. It's progress.

 

[BenBurch]

Certain people in Utah have to be thinking this is a very interesting decision...

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

/me coughs

Abraham Lincoln personally disliked slavery but felt that he had to uphold the constutition he was sworn to defend for example. One can't always keep your personal interested the same as your profressional ones.

 

[Juniversal]

I'm trying to understand how Obama has been worse on gay issues than. . . any other president we've ever had. Or, how John McCain might have been the preferable alternative.

If the gay community turns on him next election, I think it'll be a serious case of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Relatively speaking Obama is definately on the more progressive side of the fence regarding those issues. It would never have been concievable or even expected under the past President(s)/administration(s). He's more progressive but clearly not progressive enough for the gay and lesbian constituency. When elected they want him to kick down the door and legalize gay marriage, end don't ask don't tell and that good stuff but naturally it's not that simple or all in his hands...

 

[Travis]

I'm thinking replacing Obama with Palin in 2012 wouldn't really help the gay rights cause.
But maybe that's just me.

 

[Brainster]

Am I the only one struck by the rather perplexing logic employed in this case? That is, states' rights supersede the federal government's decision to allow individual states the right to ignore certain marriages? It's actually expanding greatly the reach of the federal government under the guise of states' rights.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Am I the only one struck by the rather perplexing logic employed in this case? That is, states' rights supersede the federal government's decision to allow individual states the right to ignore certain marriages? It's actually expanding greatly the reach of the federal government under the guise of states' rights.

That's because you're not paying close enough attention to specifically what part of the law was deemed unconstitutional.

 

[WildCat]

Hell, even Laura Bush is now on the record as supporting gay marriage. Of course, she's not running for office in 2012.

 

[Complexity]

Obama may not be a great advocate for gay rights, but at least he doesn't advocate discrimination against gays like many politicians do. No, it doesn't go far enough, but it's a damn sight better than before. It's progress.

Yes, Obama does advocate discrimination against gays - he is opposed to marriage equality, opposed to marriages other than those between a man and a woman. Not only is that harmful in itself to gays, but many benefits are provided for by federal law for the married as opposed to the unmarried.

Being formally regarded as a second-class citizen by your government is discrimination. Obama does not advocate recognizing gays as first-class citizens.

As I said earlier, my main opposition to Obama lies not with his failure on gay issues but with his failure on many other issues.

I don't vote for someone because he is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm trying to understand how Obama has been worse on gay issues than. . . any other president we've ever had. Or, how John McCain might have been the preferable alternative.

At least McCain and Bush were upfront regarding their opinion regarding gay marriage. While campaigning Obama said he would support repealing DOMA then in the case of Smelt v. United States the Justice Department defended the constitutionality of DOMA.

 

[Alt+F4]

Obama may not be a great advocate for gay rights, but at least he doesn't advocate discrimination against gays like many politicians do. No, it doesn't go far enough, but it's a damn sight better than before. It's progress.

How is it not discrimination when the administration denies benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees who were married in states where same sex marriage is permitted?

 

[Tricky]

How is it not discrimination when the administration denies benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees who were married in states where same sex marriage is permitted?

It discriminates against gay spouses who did not have that luxury. Let's face it. As long as there are different laws in different states, somebody is going to get discriminated against. We need an amendment allowing gay marriage.

 

[Complexity]

It discriminates against gay spouses who did not have that luxury. Let's face it. As long as there are different laws in different states, somebody is going to get discriminated against. We need an amendment allowing gay marriage.

Hear, hear.

I will accept no less.

 

[bynmdsue]

Hear, hear.

I will accept no less.

Get ready to accept not a damn thing.

 

[BenBurch]

Get ready to accept not a damn thing.

Get ready to be forced to accept it.

 

[Beanbag]

I just have trouble with heterosexual married couples acting like gay marriage will somehow "cheapen and demean" their marriage. I seem to recall reading similar claims about "inter-racial" marriages (I put it in quotes 'cause as far as I'm concerned, if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they're the same race). If a same-sex marriage somehow threatens or damages their marriage, then maybe their marriage had some fundamental shortcomings to begin with.

What exactly does gay marriage take away from "regular" marriage? Is this a zero-sum equation, where the benefits available to married couples is a limited pool, and allowing more married couples (regardless of gender) will cut into their individual part of the gravy?

What exactly distinguishes a "straight" marriage from a gay marriage (respective genders aside). I've known straight couples; I've known gay couples. From what I've seen, they tend to follow almost the exact same range and distribution of behaviors. They're indistinguishable by their behaviors. They're both COUPLES. When you get past the point of them both being the same gender, it's almost hysterically funny to see how wonderfully normal and ordinary their relationship actually is.

Marriage -- I think -- is a civilizing and stabilizing influence. Two people are willing to commit long-term to each other. Gay or straight, I think it's a good thing. It irritates me to no end to see what I consider to be small-minded people denying what should be a natural right to others for what I think are specious reasons.

Beanbag

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i had thought about this last year and i concluded the government shouldnt recognize any marriages, since marriage is a religious institution

instead, the government should issue civil unions (to everyone, not just gay couples) and the union is whats required for next of kin rights, spouse benefits on insurance and pension, changing your name, getting cheaper car insurance etc

the church would continue performing marriage ceremonies as it sees fit, and pastors would have the same "power vested in them" to issue a civil union at the same time

therefore, the church doesnt have to recognize civil unions (they will continue to live in sin as far as god is concerned, and it doesnt sully the word "marriage") and the government wont recognize marriages (oddly this would allow polygamy, lol, have as many marriages as the church lets you, but you can only be in one civil union)


of course it will never work, but at least it will expose the true motives of those opposed to gay marriage, as its not about "cheapening the idea marriage" its about the government letting those filthy sinner fags have their way