• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, section 3 of DOMA will soon no longer be in effect.

No, I haven't read the rulings, just a couple of articles about them. As I understand the rulings, the judge said that it serves no legitimate federal objective for the federal government to have a definition of marriage that differs from any state's; in effect, it is none of the federal government's business what a state decides to define as a legal marriage.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Ok, section 3 of DOMA will soon no longer be in effect.

No, I haven't read the rulings, just a couple of articles about them. As I understand the rulings, the judge said that it serves no legitimate federal objective for the federal government to have a definition of marriage that differs from any state's; in effect, it is none of the federal government's business what a state decides to define as a legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Which I gather would mean that if married in one of the state's that recognize same-sex married, those marriages would be recognized by the Federal Government; but would not be recognized by those states that choose not to.
 
Gapeach said:
I do not care who gets married...so this law doesnt effect me. If they want to be miserable then so be it. Let them pay taxes and merge debts. I am all for people who love another even if its the same sex. Love is Love. I have many friends who are in GoProud.
Click to expand...

You say that while having a Biblical quote in your sig?

...How odd.
 
Wake said:
You say that while having a Biblical quote in your sig?

...How odd.
Click to expand...

There are many Christians who believe same-sex marriage should be legal.

Indeed, fewer than 1/3 of Americans believe that there should be some form of legal recognition of same-sex couples - either marriage or civil unions.

Since this country is more than 80% Christian, that implies that a good number of Christians support gay marriage or civil unions.

Behind the Numbers - Post-ABC Poll: Views on gay marriage steady, more back civil unions
 
FilmFestGuy said:
There are many Christians who believe same-sex marriage should be legal.

Indeed, fewer than 1/3 of Americans believe that there should be some form of legal recognition of same-sex couples - either marriage or civil unions.

Since this country is more than 80% Christian, that implies that a good number of Christians support gay marriage or civil unions.

Behind the Numbers - Post-ABC Poll: Views on gay marriage steady, more back civil unions
Click to expand...

There are many people who call themselves Christians.

There are some who follow the New Testament and the sections of the Old that weren't changed by Christ's sacrifice.

Do you think modernizing a 2,000 year old religion to fit "modern" perceptions, in terms of the original integrity of that religion, is wise? I do not.

I don't mind your opinion, and I don't care to show the multiple verses of the Bible in relation to homosexuality. Mayhaps you would twist them as others have? It doesn't interest me much to waste my time.

To say that America is 80% Christian, and that they support homosexuality... is insultingly incorrect.
 
Wake said:
There are many people who call themselves Christians.

There are some who follow the New Testament and the sections of the Old that weren't changed by Christ's sacrifice.

Do you think modernizing a 2,000 year old religion to fit "modern" perceptions, in terms of the original integrity of that religion, is wise? I do not.

I don't mind your opinion, and I don't care to show the multiple verses of the Bible in relation to homosexuality. Mayhaps you would twist them as others have? It doesn't interest me much to waste my time.

To say that America is 80% Christian, and that they support homosexuality... is insultingly incorrect.
Click to expand...

So you take the verses about homosexuality literally so you?
 
Wake said:
Which do you refer?
Click to expand...

Come now Wake...

We've done thus song and dance before.

If you take the bible literally for one thing, then you have to take everything else as literally or your entire point collapses.

So if I work on sunday should I be put to death?
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Ok, section 3 of DOMA will soon no longer be in effect.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of the word "soon". Most likely it will be a couple years yet.

No, I haven't read the rulings, just a couple of articles about them. As I understand the rulings, the judge said that it serves no legitimate federal objective for the federal government to have a definition of marriage that differs from any state's; in effect, it is none of the federal government's business what a state decides to define as a legal marriage.
Click to expand...

That judge actually ruled on two different cases involving DOMA, hence two rulings. My brief explanation of both: http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/redress/215-ssm-and-law.html
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does it matter if the judge is conservative or not?
 
Wake said:
There are many people who call themselves Christians.

There are some who follow the New Testament and the sections of the Old that weren't changed by Christ's sacrifice.

Do you think modernizing a 2,000 year old religion to fit "modern" perceptions, in terms of the original integrity of that religion, is wise? I do not.

I don't mind your opinion, and I don't care to show the multiple verses of the Bible in relation to homosexuality. Mayhaps you would twist them as others have? It doesn't interest me much to waste my time.

To say that America is 80% Christian, and that they support homosexuality... is insultingly incorrect.
Click to expand...

Even if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, you must readily admit that it was translated into English (and other languages) by men. There are many religious scholars who doubt the accuracy of many translations of passages in the Bible.

There are also many who misinterpret certain passages to for political purposes.

What you seek is to enforce your denomination's interpretation of the Bible on everyone - thus declaring yourself to be "more Christian" than others.

The opposite of faith is not doubt; the opposite of faith is certainty. Or do you deign to wholly know the mystery that is God?

And besides, would you outlaw liquor because you believe it to be a sin? Should we outlaw all sin? Or can one be a Christian and also believe that our Constitution gives people the right to live life as they see fit and be treated equally under the law, regardless of their religious belief?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Reminder, we have several threads discussing religion and SSM/LGBT issues. Please use them or make a new thread for those discussions. Thank you.
 
Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
Reminder, we have several threads discussing religion and SSM/LGBT issues. Please use them or make a new thread for those discussions. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Sorry! Just replying! :)
 
I think the most interesting thing about this is how close it comes to the election. What is Obama's position on gay marriage going to be in 2012? I don't know if the general public is ready for a pro-gay marriage platform yet. I believe in 2008 it was: personally, marriage is btw man and woman, but should be a state issue.
 
Krhazy said:
I think the most interesting thing about this is how close it comes to the election. What is Obama's position on gay marriage going to be in 2012? I don't know if the general public is ready for a pro-gay marriage platform yet. I believe in 2008 it was: personally, marriage is btw man and woman, but should be a state issue.
Click to expand...

No one is going to care about gay marriage in 2012 if the economy doesn't start to look up...

Most people have better things to worry about then what the gayz are doing...

I know i do...
 
Jetboogieman said:
No one is going to care about gay marriage in 2012 if the economy doesn't start to look up...

Most people have better things to worry about then what the gayz are doing...

I know i do...
Click to expand...

This seems to be true. Social issues in 2012 will take a back seat mostly to the economic ones, unless there is a real change by then.
 
Redress said:
You do not understand what an opinion is?
Click to expand...
You're opinion equates telling everyone the sky is paisley...

Redress said:
Can you show me where the president has the power to declare a law unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
That he does not have the power does NOT mean he didn't declare it unconstitution, as I've said three times and you continue to claim he has not. He does have the power to instruct the DoJ not to defend the law, which is a defato end run, instead of trying to repeal said law. Do you agree?

Redress said:
Can you show me that since he has declared the law unconstitutional it is no longer on the books?
Click to expand...
I've already addressed this with Deuce... and it's irrelevant to my argument.

Since you're not addressing my points, I assume you cannot address them. Still want to tell me he didn't say it?
 
Jetboogieman said:
No one is going to care about gay marriage in 2012 if the economy doesn't start to look up...

Most people have better things to worry about then what the gayz are doing...

I know i do...
Click to expand...
Most reasonable people don't give a cr**, but I don't think social issues will stop be an issue for at least another decade, and by then there will probably be some new social issues raising controversy. If nothing else there will be a token question in the debates.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

He doesn't, but he does have the power to have the Attorney General not fight against it when it's challenged in court. The judiciary will still make the final decision. Duh!! So simple even a 60 year old senile retard like me can understand it. LOL. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
You're opinion equates telling everyone the sky is paisley...

That he does not have the power does NOT mean he didn't declare it unconstitution, as I've said three times and you continue to claim he has not. He does have the power to instruct the DoJ not to defend the law, which is a defato end run, instead of trying to repeal said law. Do you agree?

I've already addressed this with Deuce... and it's irrelevant to my argument.

Since you're not addressing my points, I assume you cannot address them. Still want to tell me he didn't say it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Which I gather would mean that if married in one of the state's that recognize same-sex married, those marriages would be recognized by the Federal Government; but would not be recognized by those states that choose not to.
Click to expand...

That is my understanding of it.
 
Wake said:
There are many people who call themselves Christians.

There are some who follow the New Testament and the sections of the Old that weren't changed by Christ's sacrifice.

Do you think modernizing a 2,000 year old religion to fit "modern" perceptions, in terms of the original integrity of that religion, is wise? I do not.

I don't mind your opinion, and I don't care to show the multiple verses of the Bible in relation to homosexuality. Mayhaps you would twist them as others have? It doesn't interest me much to waste my time.

To say that America is 80% Christian, and that they support homosexuality... is insultingly incorrect.
Click to expand...

Personally disagreeing with an action and thinking it should be illegal are two entirely different things. There are Christians who are capable of saying "Well, I disagree with it, but my personal religion shouldn't be law of the nation and I don't see a constitutional grounds for making it illegal."

Does your particular religion override the freedom of others?
 
Ockham said:
You're opinion equates telling everyone the sky is paisley...

That he does not have the power does NOT mean he didn't declare it unconstitution, as I've said three times and you continue to claim he has not. He does have the power to instruct the DoJ not to defend the law, which is a defato end run, instead of trying to repeal said law. Do you agree?

I've already addressed this with Deuce... and it's irrelevant to my argument.

Since you're not addressing my points, I assume you cannot address them. Still want to tell me he didn't say it?
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, the president offering his opinion on a law is a violation of his oath. Ok.
 
Deuce said:
So in your opinion, the president offering his opinion on a law is a violation of his oath. Ok.
Click to expand...

Well, is that all he did, or did he take some action based on his opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom