OK that may be stretching it, but if you are so inclined, I'd ask you to look at this opinion article and subsequent discussions.

Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/kenconno ... a_and_doma

The article is about the Federal Government not enforcing DOMA (kind of a weak position, I'd like to see DOMA gone, but not enforcing it is a positive first step).

Yes, townhall.com is a right-wing website. I like to read the columns by a few writers there (Tomas Sowell, Walter Williams, John Stossell, to name a few). I like to engage some of the thick-heads about issues they think win the day but are just pushing society backwards - such as the same sex marriage issue.

There is only one other person that is active that understands that the current federal law is discriminatory towards samesex couples. I have tried to explain it to them but somehow they either try to get biblical or say that current federal law provides "equal protection" for all.

Maybe because the tete a tete here has gone away my skills are not as sharp as they need to be.

If you feel the need, come drop a line or two. You will have to create an account there, but you don't have to subscribe to anything.

Thanks

I believe it should be gone as well. However the Executive branch does not and should not have the power to determine a law's constitutionality or to dictate enforcement. And when it comes down to brass tacks the decision leaves the law in place, and only affects a handful of cases.

The separation of power is pretty clear cut and exists for a reason. As many people have pointed out after Holder's statement, it just kicks the ball to Congress and to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see if the President can motivate them to tackle the issue. So far the Supreme Court has refused to play.

This is the fallacy that the republicans/tea party have been running with and people have been swallowing hook, line, and sinker. It drives me batty.

Obama said nothing about not enforcing DOMA. DOMA is still in effect. It still limits my own life with regards to my marriage. He is not "not enforcing" DOMA. But then the the people inclined to believe this never did let the facts get in the way of a good rally to promote their bigotry, so I shouldn't be surprised.

_________________

And on the other side of the issue there are many who think the move means the law will go away. The core of the issue is that the finger points back at the other two branches. It is a decently smart move as now he has a comment on record yet does not have to commit to real action. It is 'the other guys' now.

As I've said before, the President's first duty above and beyond every other duty is to protect and defend the constitution. Protecting unconstitutional laws is counter to his oath. The Obama administration is not failing to execute its duty to execute the law they are simply not defending unconstitutional law.

In this instance (and I think by now you would realize I'm not a fan of President Obama) he is doing both the appropriate thing and right thing.

Kula... has the law been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

I am trying to clarify for the uneducated on that site that for federal dealings, a m/m or w/w couple in a civil union or married in a state that approves it:

1) they could not file the same federal tax rates as a m/w couple in the same tax bracket and same type of union.

2) they can not claim communal property for taxes

3) COBRA coverage would cost more for less coverage than the m/w couple.

4) they could not benefit from SGLI (I think that is correct)

I am trying to show them that even if a ss couple were in a civil union (which is stupid, but whatever) that they don't have the same federal benefits as a hetero couple (and trying to show them the differences). If I had more examples I'd use them. A couple of the main idiots have left the argument (one I swear was multiple people for their total lack of comprehension).

How is the DOMA in any way constitutional? I'm not from the US so you may need to type slowly for me.

It is one of those grey area type laws. It sets the definition of what marriage is in Title 1 of US Code. (text: title 1; Chapter 7 Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
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.)

The US Code acts like a style sheet for most all other Federal Laws. They refer to the earlier sections for definition of who is covered unless specifically defined in the individual laws.

The US Constitution does not define, nor even discuss, the actual institute of marriage. DOMA seems to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (text:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.)

The easiest answer is :

Nothing is technically unconstitutional until the Supreme Court decides that it is. It may read as unconstitutional, and it may in fact be (and I think it probably is) -- but until the SC decides, it's on the books.

Whether it's enforced or not, that's a different story.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Isn't that ass backwards though? Shouldn't federal laws need to be deemed constitutional before becoming a law?

Sure it is. There's a lot of bass ackwards stuff in the US Government.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

yeah, there has been some talk (and all it is, is talk) about having the Constitutional authority put in the federal legislation before it is acted upon.

No. But when deciding between untested law (The Supreme Court has not declared DoMA either constitutional or unconstitutional) and the Constitution the Administration must choose the Constitution.

To believe that the Administration must defend the laws of Congress regardless of their constitutionality is to say that the Executive branch of government has no power in this instance and that Congress is more powerful than the Constitution. I don't believe this to be the case and if it is then perhaps the Presidential oath needs to be rewritten.

The Executive branch hasn't claimed to have the authority to determine a laws constitutionality. It does have the right to voice its opinion regarding a laws constitutionality though, just as the DOJ has the right to not defend legislation it feels falls on the wrong side of the line.

Regardless, DOMA is unlikely to go unargued with conservatives in charge of the House. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases, all it will take is for the highest court that does hear the case to decide it is unconstitutional.

ding ding ding. We have a winner.

_________________

I'd prefer to see the constitution upheld in the long-term rather than see quick fixes, bandaids, and/or any hint of stealth/deceptive tactics which will end up in less adherence to the constitution over time due to greater opposition. If you want to see constitutionality, why would you knowingly goad the other side? I'd rather do this systematically and methodically and get it right the first(and last) time than draw it out. If the Executive Branch has an obligation to uphold it, then what better method to employ when it results in the greatest observance of the constitution over the longest period of time? Beats a knee-jerk reaction to the most frenzied and frantic groups on the left and right.

Change naooooo I don't care for consequences!111 Gimmeh gimmeh gimmeh.

An obligation that they continue to meet and people's words seem to indicate they don't get.

All that Obama has said is that they can no longer in good conscience DEFEND one specific section (section 3) of the law in court and congress is free to do it if they wish, given they created it. It remains a law on the books and it remains upheld to this day, as such, regardless of DoJ defending section 3 of DOMA or not.

People really confuse me. One of the least accepted excuses any American will listen to, be it from members of the Nazi party or much more close to home such as our police and/or military, is the words "I was just doing my job" when it comes to doing something the person KNEW was wrong. No one, on either side of the aisle thinks that is a valid excuse and never has.

Obama has not invalidated the law. It remains upheld. He's simply said "I can't defend this because I believe it to be discrimination. Hey congress? You made this thing...if you truly believe it is not discriminatory, you defend it in the courts."

And quite frankly, he's right. For all of the conservative arguments about how marriage should be for the states to decide....some states DID decide. And section 3 completely invalidates their decision on the federal level for the states that decided "the wrong thing" as far as congress is concerned. As someone LEGALLY married in Iowa, I should be able to file federal taxes like anyone other married couple (no state taxes in Texas). The legal recognition of some marriages and not others by the federal government is what is at question here and why it is that some state marriages are recognized over others being rejected. Obama's team decided the sole factor was discrimination. And he can't defend that. So it is up to Congress if they feel their law is worth defending.

So for the last time: DOMA remains enforced. Obama is letting Congress defend legal challenges to their own law because he believes it to be discriminatory and can't defend it himself for that reason.

_________________

Oh...and btw...

even the republicans browbeating the media with "OMG HOW DARE OBAMA NOT ENFORCE DOMA!" know exactly what I am saying is true. They are deliberately misleading the populace in an attempt to score "points" for their "side" and hoping it works to their favor in the next election that people believe Obama is just willfully rewriting laws.

They know they are lying. I know they are lying....but I wager bets now that the very same people screaming about socialist obamacare (but don't touch my medicaid!) and deathpanels will be screaming these talking points for months to come.

_________________

I want to agree with you; I really do. The problem is that whether a law is constitutional or not is a subjective argument. I don't really want the Executive branch to have the power to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, and that is what you seem to be advocating. We already have a system to decide the constitutionality of a law, and ironically it's laid out... in the Constitution!

Actually, it's not. Members of Congress take similar oaths that they will uphold the Constitution, so, at least in theory, laws they create should be allowed within the confines of the Constitution. Even if they were to include in each bill the appropriate constitutional passage, it wouldn't change the fact that the Supreme Court, ultimately, could rebuke their claim. That fight's more about party politics than a congressional power seize.

If the court had to rule on every piece of legislation, it'd be an enormous bottleneck in the system. If they (or their clerks) have to read a 2,000 page omnibus bill, that's time taken away from cases that are *already* affecting people -- cases that, in many cases, are as much about how the law is applied, than the way the law is written.

I am not advocating that the Executive be allowed to enforce or not enforce Congress' laws based on their own views of the Constitution. That would be the case if I were saying that President Obama should direct the IRS to accept joint filings by same sex couples. All they have done is to choose not to defend law they believe to be unconstitutional. There is a huge difference in not executing law and not defending law.

Ironically Me and Topher got married in Washington D.C. where it is legal, and at least New Mexico shot down the DOMA here.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Kula wins again. One more and you get a kewpie doll.

_________________

Explain that one to me, Kula and Rugen, because I'm not seeing it. Not defending is maybe a step removed from not executing, but a huge difference?

I'm actually way past sleep time, so I'll short cut it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-s ... 28348.html

is a good break down of the difference. And the even shorter version of that is:



But the rest of the article is well worth reading.

_________________

Good morning.

The other thing I would note, Leo, is that it is not an accident that Obama and Holder made this announcement AFTER congress repealed DADT. Congress themselves have flagged the idea that discrimination against gays may be an issue of equal rights by removing one of two flagship laws on the books that singled out gay couples for "special treatment" for no reason other than they are gay. If it isn't ok to exclude gay men and women from military service just because they are gay, why would it be ok for the federal government to not acknowledge LEGAL marriages for gay couples just because they are gay?

So, no, it isn't an accident that after 2 years of defending DOMA in court (and defending that defense) that Obama has now turned around and said he can't defend DOMA as he believes it to be a discriminatory practice and that if Congress wants to defend their law, they can.

He's playing a long game and he's playing it smart. I lost faith for a bit there, I'll be honest, but the way this particular story has played out has shown a deft understanding of intricacies that i had never even considered until he made the move. Sadly, I think it will make him a 1 term president, but he's playing it right and he's playing it justly. I said all along through the election when people would bring up, "but he doesn't support marriage for gays!" that I thought his training as a constitutional lawyer would win out over his individual religious beliefs. I'm glad to see that I was right on this one.

Still not happy about Guantanamo, though. :p

_________________

Also, for the people acting as if this has never happened before

_________________

I believe that Nixon did this as well

uggh. I give up. I have shown to these idiot people (on TH not here) the differences between any hetero union and a same sex union. How taxes, benefits and nearly anything related to the federal government is not the same.

Yet, their "spokesperson" thinks he "wins" the argument with this post:


I am Kevin. There is a group of people using the Kevlar and Cambermeister accounts (and using them interchangeably). Also there is a Michael person that is the religious zealot that I have been beating my head trying to get him to understand my points.

forgot to add another's reply to that post then my reply.
Kevlar/Combermeister:


ME:


Anything else I should say/add?

You can't have a rational argument with a religoius zealot. To attempt to do so is a futile task.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I applaud your efforts, krby. I'm sorry that there are people like that out there.

I doubt there will be change, but at the same time I don't want to allow my cynicism to stop you from trying.

I am trying to appeal to them on a human level. And from what I can see, they regard non-heterosexual couples as sub-human.

It is a sad, sad commentary that they lead.

They keep trying to reframe the discussion but I keep calling them out on it. I did snap one night when replying due to the pure hate that they were spewing.

This last post, was actually easier to reply to because it is just one person that uses the account.

You might want to remind them that TRADITIONAL marriage was the exchange of property, in many cultures plural, and most recently, not interracial. The best way to fight traditional marriage junkies is to point out traditional marriage itself. Anything "modern" is revisionist. You can either revise it, or you can't. If you don't agree, you're either ignorant, a bigot, or an ignorant bigot. I'm not sure which is worst here.

I always try to imagine what it must be like to live with that kind of mind. It's almost like a wild animal, the way that they just throw all thought aside and blindly hate this or that.

I am trying to have them define marriage without using "man" and "woman"

So far they won't

I know I am fighting a losing battle with that thread. I just had to share with you is post:



First he is asking if I would vote for a nation-wide "civil union" that would give same sex couples the same benefits as hetero couples. I have answered that question by saying I'd support it fully if it treated all unions (same sex and hetero) as unions for dealings with the government, but what he has offered is better than what we have today". Somehow he can not read that answer, so I copied it again for him, for the past three days.

Second he is unhappy that I called him out on the multiple accounts thing, that is why he is trying to claim that I am two people. Kind of silly.

I just thought you would get a laugh at someone calling me a leftist.

You know what they call gay marriage in Canada?

Marriage.

I've simply stopped referring to it as gay marriage. It is marriage. Legal marriage, in fact. And those opposed to it are anti-marriage and anti-state choice, who want big federal government to mandate to everyone how to live.

Boy does that get some knickers in a bunch.

_________________

I bet it does.

I am still just shaking my head at them calling me a leftist.

Of course. There are just some people that absolutely cannot mind their own business and cannot stand that some people are different from them. It makes them crazy that somewhere, someone who isn't harming anyone is just living a life - but differently from how they think they should be living it.

Amazingly, they never see themselves as the bad guys, they never see themselves as the bigots or racists or all the other negative labels.

Anyway, Krby, I'm sorry you had to deal with that idiot on the TH boards. Usually I try to at least see both sides of an argument, but that guy is simply a colossal moron. My condolences.