Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:11 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,114,106 times
Reputation: 8527

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Nation & World | Defense of Marriage Act is ruled unconstitutional by judge | Seattle Times Newspaper

"The court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... without substantial justification or rational basis"

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,'" White wrote. "Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law....The 'ancient lineage' of a classification does not render it legitimate....Instead, the government must have an interest separate and apart from the fact of tradition itself."

Good, it's about time someone grew a pair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:17 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,009,955 times
Reputation: 5455
What is wrong with you folks. He is not enforcing it. He ordered the DOJ to not defend it. Same thing. You should be happy because now he at least now has a judge on his side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,481,395 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
He is not enforcing it. He ordered the DOJ to not defend it. Same thing.
No, it is not. If he were not "enforcing" it, the question of "defending" it would not arise at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,822,592 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
What is wrong with you folks. He is not enforcing it. He ordered the DOJ to not defend it. Same thing. You should be happy because now he at least now has a judge on his side.
Enforcing is different from defending it in the courts. He is obligated to enforce, but not to defend something that is deemed unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:31 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,009,955 times
Reputation: 5455
If the courts say it's unconstitutional the law is scrapped. Call it what you want but he jumped the gun on this one. Your great orator was just trying to appease a block of voters and the rabid supporters of their agenda. Pretty simple stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,822,592 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
If the courts say it's unconstitutional the law is scrapped. Call it what you want but he jumped the gun on this one. Your great orator was just trying to appease a block of voters and the rabid supporters of their agenda. Pretty simple stuff.
How so? He thinks it is unconstitutional and so do these courts. Deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:34 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,103,566 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
What is wrong with you folks. He is not enforcing it. He ordered the DOJ to not defend it. Same thing. You should be happy because now he at least now has a judge on his side.
Hahahahaha.

If he's not enforcing it, then why has his administration been sued many times for enforcing it? If he weren't enforcing it, then he'd have no DOMA lawsuits to refuse to defend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:35 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,009,955 times
Reputation: 5455
Deal with it?? Deal with it how? I could care less one way or the other about DOMA. I do care that the president doesn't overstep his authority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,421,721 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Nation & World | Defense of Marriage Act is ruled unconstitutional by judge | Seattle Times Newspaper

"The court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... without substantial justification or rational basis"

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,'" White wrote. "Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law....The 'ancient lineage' of a classification does not render it legitimate....Instead, the government must have an interest separate and apart from the fact of tradition itself."
Yes and that interest is to define marriage as between a man and woman. There is no compelling government interest to do otherwise.

Another verdict from the Left Coast that will be reversed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:43 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,103,566 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Yes and that interest is to define marriage as between a man and woman. There is no compelling government interest to do otherwise.

Another verdict from the Left Coast that will be reversed.
Another verdict from a conservative judge appointed by George Bush?

And government interest means preventing a harm to the people. For instance, it serves a government interest to ban blind people from driving. Answer me this - what harm is done to the people by allowing married homosexuals couples to access the federal rights of civil marriage in the same manner married heterosexual couples can?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top