• 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

Redress said:
You keep repeating the same tired stuff that has been refuted repeatedly in this thread. read the full text of Holder's comments. Read the other articles linked here. Just repeating the same false, refuted stuff again and again does not, and will not make it true.

Hint: if Obama was declaring the law unconstitutional, why is it still the law of the land?
Click to expand...

And you are doing the same old schtick --- saying he didn't say what he said. I've refuted it repeatedly as well with the mans own words that you don't seem to believe. I read the entire text, and my position stands.
You've provided no comparible president who declares any law unconstitutional in this same way, therefore it's unprecidented. The only text I need is the text I linked to which is the original text read out by Holder and the Constitution. You've not addressed any of the point, you just keep yammering away like a broken record. The man wrote what he wrote, said what he said and you're trying to convince me he didn't. Dunno what to tell ya.

The law is still the law of the land because President Obama at least realizes that the other two branches of government will still recognize it as valid. His direction and actions taken because of his "opinion" as I've repeatedly said are a violation of Article II Section III which he is require to uphold as President. I've also repeatedly said this practice is wrong no matter who did it in the past and who does it in the future as it undermines our Republic, which you called "over the top" rhetoric I believe. This has more to do with his 2012 re-election kick off than anything else and it's still wrong no matter the reason. But keep telling me the sky is paisley - it's fun watching you rationalize.
 
Redress said:
Not necessarily, though largely true. Many laws are on the books that legislate morality.
Click to expand...

Every law is based on morality. "Fairness" and "protection" are the root of all law, and are clearly moral.
 
Deuce said:
Presidents give their opinion on laws all the time and it's not a "refusal to defend" it's a "I have no argument with which to defend this law." You've been shown this repeatedly. At this point I start to wonder if you're deliberately dodging this.
Click to expand...

I've repeatedly show you Presidet Obama's own words as read by AG Holder - and you refuse to believe the mans own words. You therefore are ignoring the facts. I'll show this to you yet again. Why don't you believe the President? Do you believe he's lying?

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.
Click to expand...

What part of that is eluding you Deuce?
 
Ockham said:
And you are doing the same old schtick --- saying he didn't say what he said. I've refuted it repeatedly as well with the mans own words that you don't seem to believe. I read the entire text, and my position stands.
You've provided no comparible president who declares any law unconstitutional in this same way, therefore it's unprecidented. The only text I need is the text I linked to which is the original text read out by Holder and the Constitution. You've not addressed any of the point, you just keep yammering away like a broken record. The man wrote what he wrote, said what he said and you're trying to convince me he didn't. Dunno what to tell ya.

The law is still the law of the land because President Obama at least realizes that the other two branches of government will still recognize it as valid. His direction and actions taken because of his "opinion" as I've repeatedly said are a violation of Article II Section III which he is require to uphold as President. I've also repeatedly said this practice is wrong no matter who did it in the past and who does it in the future as it undermines our Republic, which you called "over the top" rhetoric I believe. This has more to do with his 2012 re-election kick off than anything else and it's still wrong no matter the reason. But keep telling me the sky is paisley - it's fun watching you rationalize.
Click to expand...

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Law.com - Government's 'Duty to Defend' Not a Given

In 1992, back when Congress could occasionally agree on something, there was bipartisan anger over a beverage called Crazy Horse Malt Liquor because it insulted the memory of a Native American chief who happened to frown on alcohol.

Congress quickly passed a law barring federal approval of any beer label that displayed the words "Crazy Horse." The brewer promptly sued, and not surprisingly a federal judge found the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

When the question of whether to appeal the ruling in Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady arose, then-Solicitor General Drew Days III decided it would be futile; the law was beyond rescue. "Congress seemed to accept the decision not to go forward," Days wrote later.
Click to expand...
 
Why not support Polygamy, the only thing stopping it is morality. So Redress, you have a problem with 3 men marrying? What about 2 women and 4 men?
 
MrVicchio said:
Why not support Polygamy, the only thing stopping it is morality. So Redress, you have a problem with 3 men marrying? What about 2 women and 4 men?
Click to expand...

If they are consenting adults, who's for you to say otherwise.

The slippery slope argument always gives me a chuckle
 
MrVicchio said:
Why not support Polygamy, the only thing stopping it is morality. So Redress, you have a problem with 3 men marrying? What about 2 women and 4 men?
Click to expand...

I am pretty indifferent myself. Not my cause. It's also a red herring as far as this discussion goes.
 
Redress said:
Law.com - Government's 'Duty to Defend' Not a Given
Click to expand...

record%252520needle.gif


Let me know when you can address the points i've repeatedly posted.
 
I think I have. Maybe you need to expressly state your point.
 
MrVicchio said:
Why not support Polygamy, the only thing stopping it is morality. So Redress, you have a problem with 3 men marrying? What about 2 women and 4 men?
Click to expand...

Seriously, I don't care. Really, as far as I'm concerned bigamy and polygamy should be perfectly legal between consenting adults. The government should not be telling its citizens who can and cannot legally marry. What the government can do is limit the number of spouse tax deductions that can be taken in any given household. Other than that, back the heck off. :)
 
Jetboogieman said:
If they are consenting adults, who's for you to say otherwise.

The slippery slope argument always gives me a chuckle
Click to expand...

It's what's coming. All the arguments for gay marriage equally apply for polygamy.
 
Redress said:
I am pretty indifferent myself. Not my cause. It's also a red herring as far as this discussion goes.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. None of you pro-gay marriage folks want to admit it. But the moment Gay Marriage goes legal someoen is gonna file for a multi-partner marriage and cite all the reasons for gay marriage.

Society MUST have standards to exist, the more walls you tear down...
 
MrVicchio said:
No, it's not. None of you pro-gay marriage folks want to admit it. But the moment Gay Marriage goes legal someoen is gonna file for a multi-partner marriage and cite all the reasons for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

....and this is a problem because.....? If they're all adults then who gives a ****, if a man wants to inflict terrible suffering on himself, then let him.
 
MrVicchio said:
No, it's not. None of you pro-gay marriage folks want to admit it. But the moment Gay Marriage goes legal someoen is gonna file for a multi-partner marriage and cite all the reasons for gay marriage.

Society MUST have standards to exist, the more walls you tear down...
Click to expand...

Why must this particular wall exist?
 
MrVicchio said:
Obama: I only bother with laws that I like...
Click to expand...

Obama never said that he would not enforce the law. He only said that he would not defend the constitutionality of the law. There is a huge difference.
 
MrVicchio said:
No, it's not. None of you pro-gay marriage folks want to admit it. But the moment Gay Marriage goes legal someoen is gonna file for a multi-partner marriage and cite all the reasons for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with this.

MrVicchio said:
Society MUST have standards to exist, the more walls you tear down...
Click to expand...

The more free they are? I have no problem with freedom.

Let me ask you something MrVicchio,

When Loving vs Virginia basically abolished all laws out lawing inter racial marriage do you think that someone said the same thing that you just said? I would bet that they did. Yet since Loving vs Virginia would you say that we have had MORE laws put into effect restricting us even more? Or do you think that "more walls have been torn down"? Or do you think that it is about equal?

See it is a common mis-preconception that people that say what you do often have. That of "either/or". In reality the whole government/society is nothing more than one huge never ending cycle. You tear one part of it down and something else will be propped up in place of what you tore down. Sometimes you may tear down more than what you put up, other times you put up more than you tear down, still other times its on a roughly equal footing. In the end though, it all evens out.
 
Ockham said:
record%252520needle.gif


Let me know when you can address the points i've repeatedly posted.
Click to expand...

DOMA is still law and is still being enforced. If I get a same-sex marriage certificate in one state and bring it to another, that state does not have to recognize it.

Obama did not magically make the law unconstitutional. It's still in effect. What Obama is saying is that if it comes under challenge on a constitutional basis in front of SCOTUS, the administration has no argument with which to defend it because they don't see a constitutional grounds for doing so.

On what constitutional basis would you defend DOMA? How do you see it as not violating the full faith and credit clause?
 
Deuce said:
DOMA is still law and is still being enforced. If I get a same-sex marriage certificate in one state and bring it to another, that state does not have to recognize it.

Obama did not magically make the law unconstitutional. It's still in effect.
Click to expand...
You're correct and I have no issue with these statements.

Deuce said:
What Obama is saying is that if it comes under challenge on a constitutional basis in front of SCOTUS, the administration has no argument with which to defend it because they don't see a constitutional grounds for doing so.
Click to expand...
That may in fact be the intent - however this does not address any of my prior points.

Deuce said:
On what constitutional basis would you defend DOMA? How do you see it as not violating the full faith and credit clause?
Click to expand...
This is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the President is violating Article II Section III, that the President personally in a statement declared the DOMA law unconstitutional which is unprecidented. I would defend DOMA however necessary - as it is the law. If I were the Presiden I would not have made stupidly made such a comment read out by the AG, but would have worked within the Republic we have to over turn that law, instead of doing an end run.
 
Ockham said:
This is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the President is violating Article II Section III, that the President personally in a statement declared the DOMA law unconstitutional which is unprecidented. I would defend DOMA however necessary - as it is the law. If I were the Presiden I would not have made stupidly made such a comment read out by the AG, but would have worked within the Republic we have to over turn that law, instead of doing an end run.
Click to expand...

The president did not declare the law unconstitutional. The law is still in effect. He does not have the power to declare the law unconstitutional. What he did was offer an opinion on the law, which is perfectly within his rights. Now what part of your complaint has not been responded to?
 
mac said:
This is a bit of a Red Herring on your part. You are citing a clear violation of the Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...

DOMA is a clear violation as well. Look at the court cases. Conservative judges are ruling against it. Based on current US law, it has almost zero chance in the courts.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's what's coming. All the arguments for gay marriage equally apply for polygamy.
Click to expand...

I am also in favor of polygamy.... Well, actually, I am not. I will always be married to the one woman I married, but it is not the business of the Federal government to regulate marriage. It should be done by the various states, which are empowered by the 10th Amendment to do so. If one state wants polygamy or gay marriage or whatever, then so be it. If another doesn't, then so be it. The Federal government's involvement in regulating marriage, via the DOMA, is nothing but an illegal power grab, and is unconstitutional.

I can't believe you support this Federal intrusion into states rights, my Liberal, fake Conservative friend. :poke :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
It's what's coming. All the arguments for gay marriage equally apply for polygamy.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do not. This is what we call false and a slippery slope fallacy, and a red herring.
 
Redress said:
The president did not declare the law unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Until you can admit you're wrong here, there's really nothing else to discuss.

President Obama's Statement said:
The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom