• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Ikari said:
Man, if that's your definition of "true Christian", then I don't want any "true Christian" in political office. Gods do not come before the laws of man. Give unto Caesar. And what about female prostitutes? Do they get to inherit the kingdom of god?
Click to expand...
God should be put before oneself, assuming you believe in God.
 
DontDoIt said:
Funny you didn't quote my verse. How can one make an arguement against it, when it clearly states in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that homosexuals will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God? If you're a true Christian then how can you not believe/abide by this verse, or are you one of those people who believe bits and pieces of the Bible? Just curious..
Click to expand...

We're not talking about any kingdom of god. The government has nothing to do with any kingdom of god. What we are talking about are the laws of man, and the ideals of our Republic. Does the Bible say anything about that? So homosexuals won't "inherit the kingdom of god", that doesn't mean they can't legally be married here on earth.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've seen the versus before and know the rebuttals to them. It would be better if you read up on it.

Unfortunately, the Greek original from which many English language Bibles have been translated, is ambiguous about two of the groups who are condemned.

(snip)

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:
If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL VIEWS

Again, there are better books on the subject, but what is important here is that you understand there is disagreement.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have actually read the article on the site in the past, it was indeed an interesting read, but once again, I stand firmly with my Conservative Christian side, as you believe the Liberal Chrisitian side in a sense.
 
DontDoIt said:
God should be put before oneself, assuming you believe in God.
Click to expand...

And you can do so on a personal level, but not through government. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. It's that simple. Nothing states you have to get gay married. You can get straight married if you want. Or remain unmarried if you want. You have no right to enforce your perceived rules of your god on the rest of us, however. Not in this Republic.
 
DontDoIt said:
Yes, I have actually read the article on the site in the past, it was indeed an interesting read, but once again, I stand firmly with my Conservative Christian side, as you believe the Liberal Chrisitian side in a sense.
Click to expand...

Believe? I believe there is doubt. I beleive we should accept our inabillity to know all things. And I believe the Bible was not meant to remove our ability to think, reason, and show compassion. Quite the contrary. being a Christian doesn't require we quit thinking.
 
Ikari said:
We're not talking about any kingdom of god. The government has nothing to do with any kingdom of god. What we are talking about are the laws of man, and the ideals of our Republic. Does the Bible say anything about that? So homosexuals won't "inherit the kingdom of god", that doesn't mean they can't legally be married here on earth.
Click to expand...
I understand the law and religion have a separation, since not everyone is religious, and everyone is intact to their owns view. However, for anyone religious, obviously many of the moral problems in politics(gay marraige, abortion, etc), tie in closely to religion, whether one likes it or not, which is where many people will inadvertently inforce and intertwine their religion/political views, such as I am doing right now.
 
Boo Radley said:
Believe? I believe there is doubt. I beleive we should accept our inabillity to know all things. And I believe the Bible was not meant to remove our ability to think, reason, and show compassion. Quite the contrary. being a Christian doesn't require we quit thinking.
Click to expand...
Obviously it wasn't composed to abolish free thoughtful thinking, as it's being shown right now.
 
DontDoIt said:
I understand the law and religion have a separation, since not everyone is religious, and everyone is intact to their owns view. However, for anyone religious, obviously many of the moral problems in politics(gay marraige, abortion, etc), tie in closely to religion, whether one likes it or not, which is where many people will inadvertently inforce and intertwine their religion/political views, such as I am doing right now.
Click to expand...

Actually, he has to represent the nonChristian as well. So, this could say nothing about his beliefs. However, it is also consistent with being a Christian.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, he has to represent the nonChristian as well. So, this could say nothing about his beliefs. However, it is also consistent with being a Christian.
Click to expand...
Yes, God does love everybody, and represents them, although from what I believe, he doesn't probably agree with them, but we won't know anytime soon, hopefully. :D
 
DontDoIt said:
I understand the law and religion have a separation, since not everyone is religious, and everyone is intact to their owns view. However, for anyone religious, obviously many of the moral problems in politics(gay marraige, abortion, etc), tie in closely to religion, whether one likes it or not, which is where many people will inadvertently inforce and intertwine their religion/political views, such as I am doing right now.
Click to expand...

Those people push for theocracy, whether they know it or not. Theocracy is never a good thing, it will always go to bad places. It's one reason we in the West understood the necessity to divorce religion from politics. If you can't do that, then you're part of the problem. And a reason why we allow guns in this society.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Could we move the discussion of christian beliefs regarding SSM and gay issues to one of the many more appropriate threads and let this go back to being about the decision not to defend DOMA in court. Thank you.
 
Done and done. I think there is significant legal questions around the validity of DOMA. It essentially amended the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution in order to ensure that State, previously held under the same clause to recognize marriages performed in other states, could exclude same sex marriage if they choose. The same was done with interracial marriage (and interestingly enough, interracial marriage is what also spurred the creation of the Marriage License). However, to properly do that you must properly amend the Constitution; which requires ratification by the States and the People by super majority.
 
DontDoIt said:
Seems pretty contradictory that he claims to be a Christian and at the same time supports gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Not really. Many Christians agree in gay marriage, many don't care one way or the other. It is really on the fringe evangelical and mormon groups that make a big ruckus about it. Jesus himself wasn't overly concerned with gay issues.
 
DontDoIt said:
Well all know that the Bible is against same sex marriage, if we can't agree on this, then it isn't even worthy of having the debate. There are many people who slap the label of "Christian" on them, but we all know someone who claims to be a Christian, and is the farthest thing from it. However, if you truly are a Christian, that means you believe in Jesus Christ, and the Bible. If you truly believe in it, not just what you choose to, then you're agreeing with the Bible's advocancy toward prohibiting same sex marraige. If Obama is a true Christian, then putting God before himself should be no problem, and in this case he is doing quite the opposite, is he not?
Click to expand...

So I'm assuming that you also don't eat shellfish or where clothing made from two types of fiber, am I correct? Because that is against god's word as well...and you know that if you truly are "Christian" and believe in the bible, and that is TRULY believe in it, not just what you choose to, then you're agreeing with the Bible's views towards prohibiting the eating of shellfish and wearing clothing made from two types of fibers. If you are a true "Christian"...then putting God before yourself should not be a problem right? Are you one of those people who just takes bits and pieces of the bible that you want to agree/disagree with?
 
Last edited:
You can't have a President decide on his own, he doesn't agree with a law, that he (not a Judge, not Congress and not the SCOTUS) won't enforce it. He can't pick and choose which laws which were voted and passed by Congress, which was signed by a prior Presidents he's going to support. Such a thing is inherently dangerous and threatens the foundation this country is built on. This will be a major issue in the 2012 election. He's not King and it's wrong.
 
Ockham said:
You can't have a President decide on his own, he doesn't agree with a law, that he (not a Judge, not Congress and not the SCOTUS) won't enforce it. He can't pick and choose which laws which were voted and passed by Congress, which was signed by a prior Presidents he's going to support. Such a thing is inherently dangerous and threatens the foundation this country is built on. This will be a major issue in the 2012 election. He's not King and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, he is not choosing to not enforce the law. He is choosing to not defend the law from legal challenges in a court of law, which is so irregular that there are actual procedures for doing it. Bush did it, Obama is doing it, it has been done by presidents before them. All your over the top rhetoric is not going to change the actual facts.
 
Ockham said:
You can't have a President decide on his own, he doesn't agree with a law, that he (not a Judge, not Congress and not the SCOTUS) won't enforce it. He can't pick and choose which laws which were voted and passed by Congress, which was signed by a prior Presidents he's going to support. Such a thing is inherently dangerous and threatens the foundation this country is built on. This will be a major issue in the 2012 election. He's not King and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

I know Redress already said this (twice now) but I'm repeating it so people get this into their heads.

The President has not decided to "not enforce" DOMA. He has decided not to defend it in court. There's a difference, and it's an important one.
 
Redress said:
Again, he is not choosing to not enforce the law. He is choosing to not defend the law from legal challenges in a court of law, which is so irregular that there are actual procedures for doing it. Bush did it, Obama is doing it, it has been done by presidents before them. All your over the top rhetoric is not going to change the actual facts.
Click to expand...

Really... what law did Bush decide not to defend and which other Presidents? It's my understanding that this is unprecedented.
 
Ockham said:
Really... what law did Bush decide not to defend and which other Presidents? It's my understanding that this is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

I found out this earlier in the thread. Reposting the link: Law.com - Government's 'Duty to Defend' Not a Given

For example, then-acting Solicitor General Paul Clement in 2004 told Congress "the government does not have a viable argument to advance" in defense of a federal law that barred mass-transit agencies receiving federal funds from allowing ads on buses and subways promoting the use of medical marijuana. The reason: The law amounted to viewpoint discrimination, which the U.S. Supreme Court was unlikely to permit.

Sometimes the reason is strategic. In 2008, the Justice Department reported it was not appealing a district judge's finding that certain provisions of the federal child pornography law were unconstitutional in the case of an Iowa man. The judge had allowed the rest of the prosecution to proceed, however, and the government decided that an appeal defending the rejected parts of the law would delay the trial too long. The letter promised that the department would defend the law in other cases.
Click to expand...

According to the article, it has happened 13 times since 2004.
 
Redress said:
I found out this earlier in the thread. Reposting the link: Law.com - Government's 'Duty to Defend' Not a Given



According to the article, it has happened 13 times since 2004.
Click to expand...

I just read that and while very interesting --- SG's and DOJ lawyers may have argued that during those specific cases, no President has come out and declared it though, not like this. Holder read the letter from the President where he stated:

ABC News said:
Obama "has made the determination," Holder wrote, that Section 3 "as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that's not for him to decide. You may argue that this is clear exception due as the law infringes on Executive powers but I don't see how it does. To be fair, I don't see the need to circumvent the process by simply declaring "I don't agree" and ignore it in any of the cases... this is a backdoor veto without having to step up and put pen to paper. So my "hyperbolic" rhetoric stands... what's unconstitutional is this type of action no matter who does it. That the President is violating his own Article II vow for what... political gain to get more votes during the upcoming election in 2012? Not surprising...
 
Ockham said:
I just read that and while very interesting --- SG's and DOJ lawyers may have argued that during those specific cases, no President has come out and declared it though, not like this. Holder read the letter from the President where he stated:

I'm sorry but that's not for him to decide. You may argue that this is clear exception due as the law infringes on Executive powers but I don't see how it does. To be fair, I don't see the need to circumvent the process by simply declaring "I don't agree" and ignore it in any of the cases... this is a backdoor veto without having to step up and put pen to paper. So my "hyperbolic" rhetoric stands... what's unconstitutional is this type of action no matter who does it. That the President is violating his own Article II vow for what... political gain to get more votes during the upcoming election in 2012? Not surprising...
Click to expand...

Specifically which part of oath does this violate?
 
Ockham said:
I just read that and while very interesting --- SG's and DOJ lawyers may have argued that during those specific cases, no President has come out and declared it though, not like this. Holder read the letter from the President where he stated:

I'm sorry but that's not for him to decide. You may argue that this is clear exception due as the law infringes on Executive powers but I don't see how it does. To be fair, I don't see the need to circumvent the process by simply declaring "I don't agree" and ignore it in any of the cases... this is a backdoor veto without having to step up and put pen to paper. So my "hyperbolic" rhetoric stands... what's unconstitutional is this type of action no matter who does it. That the President is violating his own Article II vow for what... political gain to get more votes during the upcoming election in 2012? Not surprising...
Click to expand...

So you are saying that when the AG decides not to defend a ruling(Hint: AG works for the president and is directly responsible to the president), it is unconstitutional, even though it has been done for many years?
 
Deuce said:
Specifically which part of oath does this violate?
Click to expand...

Constitution: Aritlce II, Section III

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Click to expand...

The article linked identified it before. Here's the thing - in previous uses, it was the SG's or the DoJ lawyers who had issues. This is the first time that I know of a sitting President specifically declares a law unconstitutional, and sends his USAG to read a his statement of that declaration.
 
Redress said:
So you are saying that when the AG decides not to defend a ruling(Hint: AG works for the president and is directly responsible to the president), it is unconstitutional, even though it has been done for many years?
Click to expand...

I'm saying a President's executive powers of the Constitution does not give him the power to declare anything unconstitutional. And it wasn't the AG, the AG read a 5 page letter which I quoted already.
 
Ockham said:
I'm saying a President's executive powers of the Constitution does not give him the power to declare anything unconstitutional. And it wasn't the AG, the AG read a 5 page letter which I quoted already.
Click to expand...

He is not declaring the law unconstitutional. He is instructing his AG to not defend it from such a challenge.

The AG works for the president. The president is responsible for what the AG does, and that goes both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom