• 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!

DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

clownboy said:
Like it or not DOMA is the law of the land. Congress has a duty to defend or change that law.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. What many fail to realize, whether they agree or disagree with DOMA, is that it is the law. Therefore, our gov't has the right to defend said law. Whether we agree with it or not. By allowing Pres Obama to essentially forego the law, we are allowing him to do what he wants with legislation passed by our gov't under previous administrations. I'm sure this has happened under a Republican POTUS as well, but that doesn't make it right. The proper thing to do would be to wait on DOMA to be repealed. I don't see that happening anytime soon honestly.
BTW, while the finger point is occurring, how much money did the Eric Holder spend defending himself for Fast and Furious? The entire premise of the OP is ridiculous and that was the point of my reference to Pres Obama and drones. People such as the individual who started this thread and HOJ can point the finger all they want. The finger can be pointed right back and most likely point at something ever larger the other side has done. No one in our gov't is innocent of all wrong doing, as are none of us posting here. The finger pointing crap generally does not generate anything but people being on the defensive about "their guy". In this case, Pres Obama.
 
MarineTpartier said:
An excellent point. What many fail to realize, whether they agree or disagree with DOMA, is that it is the law. Therefore, our gov't has the right to defend said law. Whether we agree with it or not. By allowing Pres Obama to essentially forego the law, we are allowing him to do what he wants with legislation passed by our gov't under previous administrations. I'm sure this has happened under a Republican POTUS as well, but that doesn't make it right. The proper thing to do would be to wait on DOMA to be repealed. I don't see that happening anytime soon honestly.
BTW, while the finger point is occurring, how much money did the Eric Holder spend defending himself for Fast and Furious? The entire premise of the OP is ridiculous and that was the point of my reference to Pres Obama and drones. People such as the individual who started this thread and HOJ can point the finger all they want. The finger can be pointed right back and most likely point at something ever larger the other side has done. No one in our gov't is innocent of all wrong doing, as are none of us posting here. The finger pointing crap generally does not generate anything but people being on the defensive about "their guy". In this case, Pres Obama.
Click to expand...

Obama has not "forgone" the law. It is still enforced. Not defending a law in court is not something unusual for a president to do with a clearly unconstitutional law. I would have to look up list again to list all the recent presidents who have done it, but I know Bush did it, and correctly.
 
Redress said:
Obama has not "forgone" the law. It is still enforced. Not defending a law in court is not something unusual for a president to do with a clearly unconstitutional law. I would have to look up list again to list all the recent presidents who have done it, but I know Bush did it, and correctly.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that though, and that's my point. Our entire gov't system is built so that one man cannot rule. When Presidents are allowed to do what Pres Obama is doing and past President's have done, it is totally against the entire premise of our system. The proper way to do it is have the SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional or the Congress repeal it. Yes, it takes longer to do. And yes, DOMA is unconstitutional. But it's the right way to do it. The American people elected idiots into power that did this. They need to elect people that will undo it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I don't agree with that though, and that's my point. Our entire gov't system is built so that one man cannot rule. When Presidents are allowed to do what Pres Obama is doing and past President's have done, it is totally against the entire premise of our system. The proper way to do it is have the SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional or the Congress repeal it. Yes, it takes longer to do. And yes, DOMA is unconstitutional. But it's the right way to do it. The American people elected idiots into power that did this. They need to elect people that will undo it.
Click to expand...

It is not that unusual for a federal law being challenged to illicit amicus briefs from different people and parts of the government to offer opinions for the SCOTUS to consider in addition to the briefs submitted by/arguments made by the actual parties to the case. I think they generally invite those from the WH/Congress actually whenever any federal law is at issue. Some of the most brilliant writing I have read has come from those briefs, especially when you have ones filed on behalf of most of the Attorneys General in the nation who have a vested interest in the outcome of the case even if they are not a direct party to it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I don't agree with that though, and that's my point. Our entire gov't system is built so that one man cannot rule. When Presidents are allowed to do what Pres Obama is doing and past President's have done, it is totally against the entire premise of our system. The proper way to do it is have the SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional or the Congress repeal it. Yes, it takes longer to do. And yes, DOMA is unconstitutional. But it's the right way to do it. The American people elected idiots into power that did this. They need to elect people that will undo it.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is going to rule on it, this year. The law is in effect until then. There is nothing inappropriate in How the process is being handled.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I don't agree with that though, and that's my point. Our entire gov't system is built so that one man cannot rule. When Presidents are allowed to do what Pres Obama is doing and past President's have done, it is totally against the entire premise of our system. The proper way to do it is have the SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional or the Congress repeal it. Yes, it takes longer to do. And yes, DOMA is unconstitutional. But it's the right way to do it. The American people elected idiots into power that did this. They need to elect people that will undo it.
Click to expand...

The President's duty is to enforce the law not necessarily defend a law as a matter of course.
 
digsbe said:
Slavery =/= SSM. Please do not make such an illogical straw man comparison.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. I believe that his claim is that states rights only goes so far. With SSM, it comes down to whether each state gets to decide on it's own, thus making a patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, and therefore putting some marriages in a state of confusion. For example, if a couple gets married in California, then later move to Texas, are they still married? I believe that Article IV Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States sheds some light on this quandry:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Click to expand...

This pretty much says that, if a same sex couple is married in one state, and if that marriage is deemed by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional, then that couple is still married if they move to another state, and must be granted the same privileges in ALL states. Thus, should the Supreme Court decide this issue, one way or the other, then this issue is no longer within the realm of states rights, but is Federal law, which overrides the states.
 
danarhea said:
With all due respect, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. I believe that his claim is that states rights only goes so far. With SSM, it comes down to whether each state gets to decide on it's own, thus making a patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, and therefore putting some marriages in a state of confusion. For example, if a couple gets married in California, then later move to Texas, are they still married? I believe that Article IV Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States sheds some light on this quandry:
Click to expand...
The way I read it was he was trying to compare not allowing SSM to slavery.
This pretty much says that, if a same sex couple is married in one state, and if that marriage is deemed by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional, then that couple is still married if they move to another state, and must be granted the same privileges in ALL states. Thus, should the Supreme Court decide this issue, one way or the other, then this issue is no longer within the realm of states rights, but is Federal law, which overrides the states.
Click to expand...

I don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to all state certificates and licenses. A license to drive may be recognized, but states can set their own standards for other things like a license to practice medicine, pharmacy, law, and other such things. Someone may be allowed to have a prescription for marijuana in some states, but another state doesn't have to recognize that either and smoking it there is still illegal regardless of the law and contracts in the other state. I personally don't view SSM as something covered under the clause and I would say using the clause to force all states to recognize SSM from other states is abusing it. Some states allow cousins to get married, those marriages are not forced to be recognized in other states and some state supreme courts have upheld rulings that banned cousin marriages that take place where it is legal does not force the current state to recognize the marriage. To my knowledge there is no SCOTUS ruling that overturns this or forces all states to recognize incest/cousin marriages if they ban them. I have not done extensive research into the issue.

I've done a little legal research into this and cannot speak with certainty, but it appears that if a state does not specifically ban incestuous marriages the default is to recognize them. If a state does ban the marriage though it does not have to be recognized.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
The way I read it was he was trying to compare not allowing SSM to slavery.


I don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to all state certificates and licenses. A license to drive may be recognized, but states can set their own standards for other things like a license to practice medicine, pharmacy, law, and other such things. Someone may be allowed to have a prescription for marijuana in some states, but another state doesn't have to recognize that either and smoking it there is still illegal regardless of the law and contracts in the other state. I personally don't view SSM as something covered under the clause and I would say using the clause to force all states to recognize SSM from other states is abusing it. Some states allow cousins to get married, those marriages are not forced to be recognized in other states and some state supreme courts have upheld rulings that banned cousin marriages that take place where it is legal does not force the current state to recognize the marriage. To my knowledge there is no SCOTUS ruling that overturns this or forces all states to recognize incest/cousin marriages if they ban them. I have not done extensive research into the issue.

I've done a little legal research into this and cannot speak with certainty, but it appears that if a state does not specifically ban incestuous marriages the default is to recognize them. If a state does ban the marriage though it does not have to be recognized.
Click to expand...


I was not comparing SSM and slavery. I was placing them in the civil rights category.

Just to be crystal clear:
SSM is not the same as slavery
However, they are both a civilright.
 
For your edification - The top 15 anti-gay activists who got caught having gay sex. And these are just the ones who got caught. How many others are wearing the women's clothing that is in the closets they are hiding in?

Jesus himself said that you can know ANYTHING by the fruit it bears, and believe me, the anti-gay movement is bearing a whole lot of fruits. Why does DOMA even exist? Easy answer - Because many Republicans hate themselves. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That is not the issue with DOMA. The issue with DOMA iswhether the federal government can refuse to recognize something a state does and is traditionally states domain.
Click to expand...

Wrong.DOMA says that states don't have to recognize marriages that other states recognize even though the constitution says otherwise
 
sangha said:
Wrong.DOMA says that states don't have to recognize marriages that other states recognize even though the constitution says otherwise
Click to expand...

DOMA also says the federal govt will not recognize a legal same-sex marriage certified by a state. Basically, the federal government can just ignore a state's marriage certificate. Hence the opposition on states rights grounds.
 
Deuce said:
DOMA also says the federal govt will not recognize a legal same-sex marriage certified by a state. Basically, the federal government can just ignore a state's marriage certificate. Hence the opposition on states rights grounds.
Click to expand...

It is really more a full faith and credit issue in the larger context of states' rights. I kind of like that there seems to be a lot of fertile states' rights issues festering out there (just so long as the courts come down on the side of states' rights). The irony is not lost on me that the liberals screaming about national supremacy of most things like gun laws are suddenly states' rights champions but just on this single issue.
 
Fisher said:
It is really more a full faith and credit issue in the larger context of states' rights. I kind of like that there seems to be a lot of fertile states' rights issues festering out there (just so long as the courts come down on the side of states' rights). The irony is not lost on me that the liberals screaming about national supremacy of most things like gun laws are suddenly states' rights champions but just on this single issue.
Click to expand...

The claim that "gun laws" are a "states rights" issue is delusional. In fact, the whole idea of states having rights is delusional
 
Fisher said:
It is really more a full faith and credit issue in the larger context of states' rights. I kind of like that there seems to be a lot of fertile states' rights issues festering out there (just so long as the courts come down on the side of states' rights). The irony is not lost on me that the liberals screaming about national supremacy of most things like gun laws are suddenly states' rights champions but just on this single issue.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one making the states rights argument, I was explaining what someone else was arguing.

I oppose DOMA on full faith and credit grounds as well as gender discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom