• 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

X Factor said:
Well, is that all he did, or did he take some action based on his opinion?
Click to expand...

The same action every president in recent years has taken. Nothing in his oath says the AG has to defend a law that it has no argument to defend.
 
Redress said:
And this is why you need to actually try and explain what your objection is, since no one can figure it out. The only other possibility I can come up with is you don't know the difference between a declarative sentence and a legal declaration.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can come up with is you refuse to say you're wrong. Continually pointing you to the Presidents own words doesn't seem to work... you apparently believe he is lying.
 
Redress said:
The same action every president in recent years has taken. Nothing in his oath says the AG has to defend a law that it has no argument to defend.
Click to expand...

Evidence of "every president"? And what is your defition of "recent years"?
 
MrVicchio said:
Obama: I only bother with laws that I like...
Click to expand...

Try to follow the logic...

1) The prez must uphold the constitution....

2) DOMA violates equal protection... as does prop 8.

3) Ergo...
 
hazlnut said:
Try to follow the logic...

1) The prez must uphold the constitution....

2) DOMA violates equal protection... as does prop 8.

3) Ergo...
Click to expand...

Follow the process... if a belief exists that DOMA violates equal protection, take it to the SCOTUS to have it reviewed and found unconstitutional. See, there's a process for that.
 
Ockham said:
Follow the process... if a belief exists that DOMA violates equal protection, take it to the SCOTUS to have it reviewed and found unconstitutional. See, there's a process for that.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

The DOJ under the executive branch can decide enforcement priorities. They can be sued for not enforcing a federal law, then SCOTUS can review the case and order the executive branch to enforce the law.

As they did with the EPA and CO2 emissions.
 
Ockham said:
Evidence of "every president"? And what is your defition of "recent years"?
Click to expand...

Do you bother to read the sources linked multiple times in this thread? 13 times since 2004. Done before that as well, read the damn thread.
 
Ockham said:
The only thing I can come up with is you refuse to say you're wrong. Continually pointing you to the Presidents own words doesn't seem to work... you apparently believe he is lying.
Click to expand...

Since I have no clue what your point is, or what you are saying I am wrong about, how the hell am I supposed to respond? Mindless accusations of vague things is useless. Say what you are claiming, I will address it. If you cannot be bothered to make your point, why waste my time?
 
Ockham said:
Follow the process... if a belief exists that DOMA violates equal protection, take it to the SCOTUS to have it reviewed and found unconstitutional. See, there's a process for that.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the process underway.
 
X Factor said:
You're saying he's done nothing more than offer his opinion.
Click to expand...

Wait. So now I'm not saying "he hasn't done anything," now I'm saying he's done something?

I just want to be clear on this. When I said the president had done something, you concluded I was saying the president has done nothing?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it has been said yet, but, If he is refusing to enforce DOMA due to some lower court judge offering an opinion that "some aspects" of the law are unconstitutional, then shouldn't that apply in the Obamacare case as well?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I don't know if it has been said yet, but, If he is refusing to enforce DOMA due to some lower court judge offering an opinion that "some aspects" of the law are unconstitutional, then shouldn't that apply in the Obamacare case as well?


j-mac
Click to expand...

He is not doing that. Please read the thread.
 
Redress said:
He is not doing that. Please read the thread.
Click to expand...

I am not going to pour through 30 pages of, 'he said this', "No he didn't", 'Yes he did'


Suppose you tell me what is going on in a sentence of less, because I really could care less, seeing as how this administration can't do anything without lying openly.

j-mac
 
Congress is the group that has to repeal this bill if it is to go away without judicial involvement so they should be the ones defending it in court if they aren't willing to repeal it. I have no problem with this.

Now, I have very little knowledge on how these situations would work if a lower court declares something unconstitutional but it doesn't make it to the SCOTUS. I know that the last court decision is supposed to stand, but that doesn't explain the specifics of how it would actually work. Would the couples simply file any federal paperwork as a married couple and if they are denied those benefits, file another lawsuit til it reaches the SCOTUS? Seems very wrong to me, and extremely time consuming.

Also, anyone who is saying that Obama or DOJ is not upholding or enforcing the law by not defending it in court want to explain to me exactly how? Last I heard, neither Obama nor the DOJ has said that any federal agency should give any federal benefits to same sex married couples.

As DOJ Declines To Defend DOMA, Congress Could Step In | TPMMuckraker
Congress likely to ride to DOMA's defense | Deseret News
Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
j-mac said:
I am not going to pour through 30 pages of, 'he said this', "No he didn't", 'Yes he did'


Suppose you tell me what is going on in a sentence of less, because I really could care less, seeing as how this administration can't do anything without lying openly.

j-mac
Click to expand...

How about reading the OP?
 
roguenuke said:
Congress is the group that has to repeal this bill if it is to go away without judicial involvement so they should be the ones defending it in court if they aren't willing to repeal it. I have no problem with this.

Now, I have very little knowledge on how these situations would work if a lower court declares something unconstitutional but it doesn't make it to the SCOTUS. I know that the last court decision is supposed to stand, but that doesn't explain the specifics of how it would actually work. Would the couples simply file any federal paperwork as a married couple and if they are denied those benefits, file another lawsuit til it reaches the SCOTUS? Seems very wrong to me, and extremely time consuming.
Click to expand...

Best I can come up with from a few hours combing sources on this. Realize this is my interpretation, and that as one person put it, "the degree of difficulty in puzzling it out is 10". There are lots of dissenting legal opinions among legal experts, so take this with a whole lot of salt.

Next the house of representatives will decide if they want to defend the bill in the AG's stead. This has to happen quickly, and may not work as the court may rule that the house "has no standing" to defend the law. Within a couple months, the judge for the first two cases will hear a motion for summary judgment since the AG is no longer defending the case. If he agrees, then DOMA would be thrown out and presumably SSM couples would have their marriages recognized at least by the federal government.

More likely I suspect the motion for summary judgment will get denied and the case will go forward. Some one will be found to have standing(the house maybe), or possibly the judge will order the AG to present what case it can for defense. At that point the case will go forward just as it has been, though defense now has an increasingly difficult job proving their case since the AG has said that it believes the law unconstitutional.

Nothing is likely to change as far as the law and it's effect for a couple years yet, as the case most likely will still go all the way to SCOTUS and if, presumably, the judges between now and then rule against the law, a stay or hold will again most likely be issues to keep the law into effect until after the last appeal. There is just such a stay or hold in place now.
 
DontDoIt said:
Seems pretty contradictory that he claims to be a Christian and at the same time supports gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I guess he just made a life-choice to not be an ignorant, backward Christian.
 
hazlnut said:
I guess he just made a life-choice to not be an ignorant, backward Christian.
Click to expand...

What is an ignorant backward Christian to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom