Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.

"The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person briefed on the decision said.

The administration will formally notify Congress later today. The act sought to restrict single-sex unions.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/obama-or ... t-20110223" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Took you long enough

So who needs the SCOTUS with Mr. Justice Obama as POTUS?

UNHWildCats wrote:President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Didn't know it was his place to decide that.

89Hen wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Didn't know it was his place to decide that.

From a defense standpoint, yes. The DOJ has no obligation to defend laws that it feels are unconstitutional. He is not overturning the law - but stating that the DOJ will not defend it. Congress can still defend it, and it still is up to the SCOTUS to rule on it.

He would know unconstitutional.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Didn't know it was his place to decide that.

From a defense standpoint, yes. The DOJ has no obligation to defend laws that it feels are unconstitutional. He is not overturning the law - but stating that the DOJ will not defend it. Congress can still defend it, and it still is up to the SCOTUS to rule on it.

This is a non-event. If a homosexual couple wants to marry in a state in which it is not legal to do so, their course of action is to sue the state in which they reside. The states will still argue their side. They'll just now do it without any support from the AG's office.

DOMA was really a non-event too. It's legislative gay bashing that really serves no legislative purpose.

89Hen wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Didn't know it was his place to decide that.

Tell you the truth, I don't know why it is anybodies decision...

polsongrizz wrote:

89Hen wrote: Didn't know it was his place to decide that.

Tell you the truth, I don't know why it is anybodies decision...

I'll tell you why...
Because there's a percentage of people in this country who for some reason think that "The Bible" is acceptable legislation in this case - and - can come up with no other logical defense or explanation

However I am open to hear ANY explanation that makes sense

Chizzang wrote:

polsongrizz wrote: Tell you the truth, I don't know why it is anybodies decision...

I'll tell you why...
Because there's a percentage of people in this country who for some reason think that "The Bible" is acceptable legislation in this case - and - can come up with no other logical defense or explanation

However I am open to hear ANY explanation that makes sense

I have no defense for DOMA and no offer no defense for any government regulation of marriage. It's sad that the government feels the need to exercise power over marriage too. There's no reason for the State of North Carolina to be involved in my marriage anymore than the State of Arizona should be involved in Dback's.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I'll tell you why...
Because there's a percentage of people in this country who for some reason think that "The Bible" is acceptable legislation in this case - and - can come up with no other logical defense or explanation

However I am open to hear ANY explanation that makes sense

I have no defense for DOMA and no offer no defense for any government regulation of marriage. It's sad that the government feels the need to exercise power over marriage too. There's no reason for the State of North Carolina to be involved in my marriage anymore than the State of Arizona should be involved in Dback's.

Yup, I agree with that. Although historically, government has been involved because they get to sell marriage licenses.

If everyone, man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, could all just get civil licenses with everyone all having the same rights (inheritance, benefits, parenting, etc) I don't think there'd be much to argue about. A whole lot of arguing just because the word "marriage" is in there.

I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

blueballs wrote:I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

But Blue,
You've already admitted that you would vote against anything other than Man-Woman..?
So it sounds like you have a dog in this

blueballs wrote:I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

I won't comment on the in the hunt part, but the point about the President deciding what is and isn't constitutional and directing his Executive branch accordingly is very much akin to the signing statement controversy that came up a lot more under GWB. Not that I disagree with the concept, as I do believe the President has the discretion in his office to pick and choose what things he wants to vigorously enforce (kinda in the same vein as Andrew Jackson's quip to John Marshall - "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it") versus those he won't enforce as vigorously. But it's interesting that something that was so villified by some in the past administration is applauded by those same people in this administration. Just saying.

GannonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
I have no defense for DOMA and no offer no defense for any government regulation of marriage. It's sad that the government feels the need to exercise power over marriage too. There's no reason for the State of North Carolina to be involved in my marriage anymore than the State of Arizona should be involved in Dback's.

Yup, I agree with that. Although historically, government has been involved because they get to sell marriage licenses.

If everyone, man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, could all just get civil licenses with everyone all having the same rights (inheritance, benefits, parenting, etc) I don't think there'd be much to argue about. A whole lot of arguing just because the word "marriage" is in there.

Yup, I don't see the issue. I would go so far as to not even offer civil licenses. If people want to ensure that inheritance, benefits, parenting, hospital visitation, end-of-life decsions, etc. are covered, they can draft a will or go to the courthouse and sign a civil agreement. However, if a civil union (license) for everyone would end the issue, then I'd support that.

GannonFan wrote:

blueballs wrote:I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

I won't comment on the in the hunt part, but the point about the President deciding what is and isn't constitutional and directing his Executive branch accordingly is very much akin to the signing statement controversy that came up a lot more under GWB. Not that I disagree with the concept, as I do believe the President has the discretion in his office to pick and choose what things he wants to vigorously enforce (kinda in the same vein as Andrew Jackson's quip to John Marshall - "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it") versus those he won't enforce as vigorously. But it's interesting that something that was so villified by some in the past administration is applauded by those same people in this administration. Just saying.

Uhh, hello-welcome to politics.

Grizalltheway wrote:Uhh, hello-welcome to politics.

blueballs wrote:I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

It is interesting to see what other laws future presidents may find unconstitutional. I wonder if a future president may find the PATRIOT Act, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Americans with Disabilities Act unconstitutional,.

It does appear that the administration "will continue to enforce the law," but not "defend it in court." It seems that those would go hand-in-hand. But, the administration does seem to be attempting to draw a line. Given that there is no federal marriage license, it will be interesting to see what effect this will have on states that do not recognize gay marriages.

GannonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
I have no defense for DOMA and no offer no defense for any government regulation of marriage. It's sad that the government feels the need to exercise power over marriage too. There's no reason for the State of North Carolina to be involved in my marriage anymore than the State of Arizona should be involved in Dback's.

Yup, I agree with that. Although historically, government has been involved because they get to sell marriage licenses.

If everyone, man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, could all just get civil licenses with everyone all having the same rights (inheritance, benefits, parenting, etc) I don't think there'd be much to argue about. A whole lot of arguing just because the word "marriage" is in there.

I've never understood the reasoning people have for anti gay marriage. These are the same people that want smaller gov't. They want the gov't to be less intrusive...HOWEVER they want to restrict what someone else does because it's contrary to thier idea.

blueballs wrote:I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

I don't recall the last part , but don't you think the POTUS should disagree iwth a law if it says straight couples can't procreate anymore? Or be beneficiaries? (For example.)

GannonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
I have no defense for DOMA and no offer no defense for any government regulation of marriage. It's sad that the government feels the need to exercise power over marriage too. There's no reason for the State of North Carolina to be involved in my marriage anymore than the State of Arizona should be involved in Dback's.

Yup, I agree with that. Although historically, government has been involved because they get to sell marriage licenses.

If everyone, man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, could all just get civil licenses with everyone all having the same rights (inheritance, benefits, parenting, etc) I don't think there'd be much to argue about. A whole lot of arguing just because the word "marriage" is in there.

IMO this is the only way Constitutionally - No government can tell a church who it must marry (and to be clear... nobody is really trying that) and by extension no church gets to tell the government who is legally bound together...

separation of church and state is maintained and no Americans are denied their basic rights. it's just a shame that a huge number of people aren't happy unless others are second class citizens.

Chizzang wrote:

blueballs wrote:I don't have a dog in this hunt but didn't the president take an oath at his inauguration to uphold the laws of the United States- whether he personally agrees with them or not?

But Blue,
You've already admitted that you would vote against anything other than Man-Woman..?
So it sounds like you have a dog in this

Nah, Chizzie, you've got me confused with somebody else. I have no problem with gay marriage. The maid of honor in my wedding (my wifes best friend from HS) is gay and has been with the same partner for close to 30 years and is a dear friend of mine. In my discussions of this issue with her she convinced me and laid out a case I couldn't in good conscience argue with.

I'm more socially liberal than you think.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yup, I agree with that. Although historically, government has been involved because they get to sell marriage licenses.

If everyone, man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, could all just get civil licenses with everyone all having the same rights (inheritance, benefits, parenting, etc) I don't think there'd be much to argue about. A whole lot of arguing just because the word "marriage" is in there.

I've never understood the reasoning people have for anti gay marriage. These are the same people that want smaller gov't. They want the gov't to be less intrusive...HOWEVER they want to restrict what someone else does because it's contrary to thier idea.

Right wing-nuts want it both ways, no government intervention except to enforce their definition of the bible. So, in their eyes, keep the government out of people's lives except when a woman is discussing reproductive decisions with her physician, or when people other than heterosexuals want to marry.

Got it, get it!

blueballs wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
But Blue,
You've already admitted that you would vote against anything other than Man-Woman..?
So it sounds like you have a dog in this

Nah, Chizzie, you've got me confused with somebody else. I have no problem with gay marriage. The maid of honor in my wedding (my wifes best friend from HS) is gay and has been with the same partner for close to 30 years and is a dear friend of mine. In my discussions of this issue with her she convinced me and laid out a case I couldn't in good conscience argue with.

I'm more socially liberal than you think.

Indeed you're correct, in my haste to be a judgemental ass-hole I confused you with Baldy...