• 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

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



:shrug:

You do not understand what an opinion is? Can you show me where the president has the power to declare a law unconstitutional? Can you show me that since he has declared the law unconstitutional it is no longer on the books?
 
You do not understand what an opinion is? Can you show me where the president has the power to declare a law unconstitutional? Can you show me that since he has declared the law unconstitutional it is no longer on the books?

Failing to enforce it has the same practical effect. The president shouldn't have the power to declare anything unconstitutional despite the fact that you'd obviously be perfectly ok with it.
 
Last edited:
Failing to enforce it has the same practical effect. The president shouldn't have the power to declare anything unconstitutional despite the fact that you'd obviously be perfectly ok with it.

He is not failing to enforce the law. Read the damn AG statement linked multiple times in this very thread where it specifically states the law will continue to be enforced.
 
Until you can admit you're wrong here, there's really nothing else to discuss.



:shrug:


Dude, there is a difference between declaring an entire law unconstitutional and declaring part of a law unconstitutional
 
Dude, there is a difference between declaring an entire law unconstitutional and declaring part of a law unconstitutional

Actually, it goes deeper than that. There is a difference between declaring a law unconstitutional and declaring that you will not defend the constitutionality of an unconstitutional law, although you will still continue to enforce it.
 
Actually, it goes deeper than that. There is a difference between declaring a law unconstitutional and declaring that you will not defend the constitutionality of an unconstitutional law, although you will still continue to enforce it.
How does one enforce a law they're not willing to defend?
 
Dude, there is a difference between declaring an entire law unconstitutional and declaring part of a law unconstitutional
In either case, the president is declaring it (all or part) unconstitutional. I thought some here were saying the prez doesn't have that power.
 
The same way you enforce any law you disagree with.
Well, except this isn't like a criminal law. Enforcement would depend on defending DOMA in court, which is what the DOJ is now refusing to do, again, the practical effect is the same. No defense = no enforcement.
 
In either case, the president is declaring it (all or part) unconstitutional. I thought some here were saying the prez doesn't have that power.

The same way cops who smoke pot arrest people who do the same thing.

There are a lot of people enforcing laws they disagree with.
 
The same way cops who smoke pot arrest people who do the same thing.

There are a lot of people enforcing laws they disagree with.

I agree that's possible with criminal laws, I just don't get how DOMA can be enforced without being defended in court.
 
Well, except this isn't like a criminal law. Enforcement would depend on defending DOMA in court, which is what the DOJ is now refusing to do, again, the practical effect is the same. No defense = no enforcement.

Not enforcing DOMA from a federal standpoint would be allowing same sex marriages the same federal benefits as opposite sex married couples. If you see a rush of opposite sex married couples applying for and recieving joint tax returns and other such federal benefits, then you would be right. Want to bet whether that happens Monday? It will not, because DOMA is still in effect.
 
Well, except this isn't like a criminal law. Enforcement would depend on defending DOMA in court, which is what the DOJ is now refusing to do, again, the practical effect is the same. No defense = no enforcement.

Ummm...no. Enforcement has an entirely different meaning both in the english laguage and in court from defending.
 
Not enforcing DOMA from a federal standpoint would be allowing same sex marriages the same federal benefits as opposite sex married couples. If you see a rush of opposite sex married couples applying for and recieving joint tax returns and other such federal benefits, then you would be right. Want to bet whether that happens Monday? It will not, because DOMA is still in effect.
Ok, what if a same sex couple sues for whichever federal benefits you're referring to? If fed government rolls over than isn't that the same thing as not enforcing the law? Actually, Redress, I don't understand why this distinction matters to you. If Obama had said, "I don't believe in this law so I'm not going to enforce it, wouldn't your position be exactly the same as it is now?
 
Not enforcing DOMA from a federal standpoint would be allowing same sex marriages the same federal benefits as opposite sex married couples. If you see a rush of opposite sex married couples applying for and recieving joint tax returns and other such federal benefits, then you would be right. Want to bet whether that happens Monday? It will not, because DOMA is still in effect.

Is it? In July, a federal district court in Boston ruled in two separate cases section 3 of DOMA violated the fifth and tenth amendments to the constitution, and that it could no longer be cited as a basis for denying spousal benefits to legally married same sex couples. Enforcement has been delayed because the DOJ filed an appeal of the ruling, but Holder sent a latter to the US Circuit Court in Boston withdrawing the appeal, so section 3 of DOMA is no longer in effect.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Ok, what if a same sex couple sues for whichever federal benefits you're referring to? If fed government rolls over than isn't that the same thing as not enforcing the law? Actually, Redress, I don't understand why this distinction matters to you. If Obama had said, "I don't believe in this law so I'm not going to enforce it, wouldn't your position be exactly the same as it is now?

Then it would go through the same court process the other challenges are going through.
 
Not enforcing DOMA from a federal standpoint would be allowing same sex marriages the same federal benefits as opposite sex married couples. If you see a rush of opposite sex married couples applying for and recieving joint tax returns and other such federal benefits, then you would be right. Want to bet whether that happens Monday? It will not, because DOMA is still in effect.

Actually, it just allows petitions to be brought against it in the Courts and says the government won't defend it as being right. This allows the Supreme Court to decide.
 
Is it? In July, a federal district court in Boston ruled in two separate cases section 3 of DOMA violated the fifth and tenth amendments to the constitution, and that it could no longer be cited as a basis for denying spousal benefits to legally married same sex couples. Enforcement has been delayed because the DOJ filed an appeal of the ruling, but Holder sent a latter to the US Circuit Court in Boston withdrawing the appeal, so section 3 of DOMA is no longer in effect.




Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Currently there is a stay or hold on this until the appeal is done. Have you read the actual rulings? I am not a lawyer but managed to get through both and it is facinating reading.
 
Actually, it just allows petitions to be brought against it in the Courts and says the government won't defend it as being right. This allows the Supreme Court to decide.

Not exactly as I understand it. Next step is that the House of Representatives has a certrain amount of time to decide if they want to defend it. The court case will still go forward on the same timeline, which means it is at the first appeal step, I forget which court.
 
Not exactly as I understand it. Next step is that the House of Representatives has a certrain amount of time to decide if they want to defend it. The court case will still go forward on the same timeline, which means it is at the first appeal step, I forget which court.

If it's law, I think your understanding is in error. Please provide the link for your information, as I'd love to read it.
 
If it's law, I think your understanding is in error. Please provide the link for your information, as I'd love to read it.

It is a blog, but seems pretty accurate from what I can see. I can try for better in a bit: Box Turtle Bulletin » DOMA: recap, summary, and analysis

The law remains on the books, the Administration will continue to administer the law, and gay couples have no more federal recognition than two random roommates living in a dorm.

However, it is a very short time before this could all change. The House of Representatives has a small window in which to decide whether to defend DOMA in court. Should they fail to do so, then in March the courts will be presented with a motion for summary judgment (a request for a trial-less determination) which argues that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional, and in response the DOJ will say, “I got nothing.”

Presented with only one side, it is extremely probable that the judges will find for the plaintiffs and order the federal government to recognize their marriages. This could be limited to specific circumstances for individual plaintiffs or applied broadly against the United States and applicable to all same-sex marriages. However, without appeal to the US Supreme Court, then these decisions will only apply to same-sex married couples in Second Circuit states (Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York).

I forgot about the motion for summary jedgement, which I suspect will be denied anyway.
 
It is a blog, but seems pretty accurate from what I can see. I can try for better in a bit: Box Turtle Bulletin » DOMA: recap, summary, and analysis



I forgot about the motion for summary jedgement, which I suspect will be denied anyway.

No it's an opinion. I want something with facts. Because there are NOT adjustments added to current laws in our nation by the House. The House can start its own resolution to see if it wants to start a new law, but the DOMA is on its own course now, with any decisions as to constitutionality awaiting it in the Supreme Court. It's why Bush put is under scrutiny by the federal attorneys. He knew if it reached the Supreme Court, it would not stand the test of the constitution on rights to American citizens. Republicans created this.
 
No it's an opinion. I want something with facts. Because there are NOT adjustments added to current laws in our nation by the House. The House can start its own resolution to see if it wants to start a new law, but the DOMA is on its own course now, with any decisions as to constitutionality awaiting it in the Supreme Court. It's why Bush put is under scrutiny by the federal attorneys. He knew if it reached the Supreme Court, it would not stand the test of the constitution on rights to American citizens. Republicans created this.

You are dismissing my documentation as "not facts", but are not sourcing anything you claim. You are making alot ofstatements as fact, but have offered less to back them up than I have. Also note that I am continuing for about another 15 minutes to look for a better source...after that I got stuff to do for a couple hours.
 
You are dismissing my documentation as "not facts", but are not sourcing anything you claim. You are making alot ofstatements as fact, but have offered less to back them up than I have. Also note that I am continuing for about another 15 minutes to look for a better source...after that I got stuff to do for a couple hours.

I see. My bad. Yes, it does talk about Congress defending it in COURT. This still remains a court issue. Congress can't change it as it is a law.

However, it is a very short time before this could all change. The House of Representatives has a small window in which to decide whether to defend DOMA in court. Should they fail to do so, then in March the courts will be presented with a motion for summary judgment (a request for a trial-less determination) which argues that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional, and in response the DOJ will say, “I got nothing.”
 
I see. My bad. Yes, it does talk about Congress defending it in COURT. This still remains a court issue. Congress can't change it as it is a law.

Yes. As I read it, the next step; in court will be a motion of summary judgement, which I suspect will be reviewd, and determining who has standing to defend the law. The information out there is highly contradictory at the momemt, so from the last fewe minutes of reading I am even more unsure than less so.

Interesting reading:

Culhane: Legal analysis of Obama Administration decision to stop defending DOMA | News Story on 365gay.com
 
Back
Top Bottom