[12Cickprior]

You don't see the double standards here?

I'm sure you will TRY to enlighten me!

[12Cickprior]

it is inevitable that gays will be allowed to marry in the USA

If we truly live by our "equal rights for all," absolutely, and it won't be a day too soon!

[casinobonbone]

If we truly live by our "equal rights for all," absolutely, and it won't be a day too soon!

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. You understanding that won't come a day too soon!

[casinobonbone]

I'm sure you will TRY to enlighten me!

This thread is not about DOMA as much as it is about Obamacare being unconstitutional but Obama defends that. If you cannot see the double standard there any effort to enlighten you will be wasted effort.

I suppose it is politicians like Obama's tendency to lie. It would be better for him to say, "I am a tyrant. I am not going to enforce the laws of the United States that I do not agree with even though it is my Constitutional oath to do so. Furthermore, I am going to advance an agenda that is against the Constitution until I am dead as I told a governor Obamacare will repeal over my dead body." Then Obama would finally fulfill his campaign pledge of transparency in government.

[12Cickprior]

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. You understanding that won't come a day too soon!

We both know that we disagree on any gay rights issues.

You want "marriage" to be made legal if it provides a "product" for the State, and you believe that people of the same sex could not provide this "product" (a child).

I believe that "marriage" is a commitment between two people to love, respect, and support each other. . .whether or not they decide to have a child, or to adopt a child The "legal" part of that commitment represents access to entitlements that are currently provided ONLY to a segment of couples, based on their sexual organs. . . That is much closer to "sex discrimination" than it is to anything else!

But. . .I'm more than happy to continue to be in total disagrement with you on this subject! In fact, I'm proud of it!

[ljq0AYOV]

Do you know the difference between victory and defeat? What they have in common is a fight is involved. While challenged in courts, DOMA was victorious in the fight.

You're funny.

You insist that the DOMA isn't unconstitutional. If that's so, it shouldn't need defending.

Also, would you be kind enough to point me to those threads in which you've heaped praise on the Administration for defending it prior to now?

Thanks so much...

[ljq0AYOV]

This thread is not about DOMA as much as it is about Obamacare being unconstitutional...

Which would certainly explain why you started a thread entitled "Obama administration ends its defense of DOMA".

Man, there's gotta' be an empty comedy club stage somewhere for you...

[dushappeaps]

Stupid motherfucker Barry has us stuck in a shit economy and this is supposed to be news?

Oh, and where is the first jobs bill from republican'ts? NOWHERE! The republican'ts are wasting no time dismantling our government and reshaping it into a playground for the rich and powerful. This decision stems from the arguments made leading up to the repeal of DADT. Those arguments failed to prove anything more than xenophobia, which our Constitution is supposed to protect us against.

The same is true for DOMA. Laws based on xenophobia are unconstitutional, period.

[Sotmoigma]

Obama says DOMA does not meet Constitutional standards as why he's decided to stop defending the law even though no court ruled it unconstitutional, Obama administration ends its defense of DOMA - Washington Times.

Sadly, Obama has not used the same criteria with Obamacare that HAS been ruled unconstitutional by multiple courts! The idea that he is presenting his decision on DOMA due to his strict construcionist view of the Constitution is a joke.

The guy was a professor of constitutional law and finished the head of his class, so I give the President way more cred on constitutional matters than the average person.

[Sotmoigma]

Well, if no court has found it to be unconstitutional, why would it need defending?

The Obama administration held up DOMA simply as a traditional thing that the White House does when a new administration comes into power.

Since it is the law, the traditional administration perogative is to say they will defend it, even if they don't mean it, until it gets defeated.

It is stronger to have a law defeated and/or repealed than to simply not defend it, but a repeal in this climate would be impossible.

[12Cickprior]

This thread is not about DOMA as much as it is about Obamacare being unconstitutional but Obama defends that. If you cannot see the double standard there any effort to enlighten you will be wasted effort.

I suppose it is politicians like Obama's tendency to lie. It would be better for him to say, "I am a tyrant. I am not going to enforce the laws of the United States that I do not agree with even though it is my Constitutional oath to do so. Furthermore, I am going to advance an agenda that is against the Constitution until I am dead as I told a governor Obamacare will repeal over my dead body." Then Obama would finally fulfill his campaign pledge of transparency in government.

This thread about constitutionality and not DOMA???
Well. . .I guess you wrote the OP without thinking?

You're a really uptight guy, but sometime you're really funny!

[hiedeemom]

How do you figure it violates the 14th Amendment? Marriage is not a right protected at the federal level, but a contract entered into at the state level. Nothing more.

As far as where the healthcare law runs afoul of the Constitution, that is a topic which is being discussed in a variety of threads in which you've been active. One more isn't going to magically help you understand.

Actual it's a simple license. they should make one for homosexuals to pacify them and leave the dog license for dogs and the cat license for cats.
(But that's not what they want, is it.)

[12Cickprior]

Actual it's a simple license. they should make one for homosexuals to pacify them and leave the dog license for dogs and the cat license for cats.
(But that's not what they want, is it.)

Now, that's a great post in defense of the sanctity of marriage!!!

Trying to insult homosexuals. . .ending up insulting all believer in marriage!
Well done!

[12Cickprior]

For your education:

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe

And for your education:

Ban on gay marriage overturned
Judge cites equal protection clause
By Robert Barnes and Sandhya Somashekhar / The Washington Post
August 5, 2010

"A federal judge in California ruled yesterday that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to equal protection, the first step in a legal struggle that is widely expected to end at the Supreme Court."

Just to show that, one's judge opinion is only ONE judge's opinion!. . .One federal judge finds it constitutional, the other federal judge doesn't. . .

Obama is well versed in constitutional law. . .so his opinion is at least as important than ONE judge!!!

[Noilemaillilm]

You don't see the double standards here?

Two laws, one violates at least the fifth, tenth and fourteenth amendments and the full faith and credit clause. The other is a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, according to most of the judges who have ruled on it.

No double standards, just standards.

[12Jasoumemoobia]

If he is so well versed in constitutional law, then he should know that even with his overblown ego, he doesn't get to decide what is constitutional or not. His arbitrary decision is illegal,as the government is required to defend the laws on the books. And since a judge has issued a stay on the ruling of unconstituionality, the Feds are required to defend DOMA.

[12Cickprior]

If he is so well versed in constitutional law, then he should know that even with his overblown ego, he doesn't get to decide what is constitutional or not. His arbitrary decision is illegal,as the government is required to defend the laws on the books. And since a judge has issued a stay on the ruling of unconstituionality, the Feds are required to defend DOMA.

And another Federal judge has ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. . .so. . .what's your point?

[12Jasoumemoobia]

a stay on a ruling of unconstitutionality means that until a higher court decides, the law must be defended.

[12Cickprior]

a stay on a ruling of unconstitutionality means that until a higher court decides, the law must be defended.

I'm sure President Obama has a much better idea than you do of what is or isn't constitutional and what the boundaries of his positions are!

And as much as you may disagree with this. . .I trust and respect President Obama's opinion in constitutional law a lot more than yours!

[12Jasoumemoobia]

except if you bother to do some basic research, you will find that I am simply citing existing legal precedent. For example, DADT was found unconstitutional, but after a stay on that ruling was granted, this admin was constrained by law to defend it, which it did. But regardless, Obama doesn't have the legal authority to decide something is unconstitutional. that power resides solely in the court system.