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.
He has not grown anything except more pandering for votes, I can not believe folks do not see through his con
he is desprate, he has ignored gay folks for two years now he is dangling a bone out there hoping to get some support for 2012~
All that may be true.
It is also the morally correct thing for him to do.
It is also the morally correct thing for him to do.
What is the "morally correct" thing? It's morally correct to circumvent the very essence of separation of powers and allow the leader of this nation to declare laws constitutional or unconstitutional sans judicial oversight and rulings on it? It's morally correct to go against the democratic process that passed this law?
Or, best yet, it's morally correct for Obama to declare the law unconstitutional, yet he himself still believes that gay marriage is wrong?
Bottom line - I don't agree with DOMA and I do hope it is overturned or repealed. However, I am not going to champion a sneaky move by the executive branch to fulfill this for me. What next? The next President deciding that the healthcare law is unconstitutional and hence won't defend it? A Congressman declaring that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional (a la Rand Paul) and hence should no longer be defended at the federal level?
He has not grown anything except more pandering for votes, I can not believe folks do not see through his con
he is desprate, he has ignored gay folks for two years now he is dangling a bone out there hoping to get some support for 2012~
Maybe the mounting challenges to DOMA actually made this administration consider the moral and ethical aspects of this legislation, as well as how costly it was to government to continue defending an Unconstitutional law.
What is the "morally correct" thing? It's morally correct to circumvent the very essence of separation of powers and allow the leader of this nation to declare laws constitutional or unconstitutional sans judicial oversight and rulings on it? It's morally correct to go against the democratic process that passed this law?
Or, best yet, it's morally correct for Obama to declare the law unconstitutional, yet he himself still believes that gay marriage is wrong?
Bottom line - I don't agree with DOMA and I do hope it is overturned or repealed. However, I am not going to champion a sneaky move by the executive branch to fulfill this for me. What next? The next President deciding that the healthcare law is unconstitutional and hence won't defend it? A Congressman declaring that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional (a la Rand Paul) and hence should no longer be defended at the federal level?
A refusal to defend doesn't render the law null and void. That will only happen with Congressional repeal or if the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional.
So, what's the big deal here? If the DOJ and the President feel that these cases are unwinnable, why spend the time and money to fight them? No different from a DA refusing to take a case to court because he/she feels it lacks the evidence to win.
To stop discriminating against American citizens based on their sexual preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
It's morally correct to circumvent the very essence of separation of powers and allow the leader of this nation to declare laws constitutional or unconstitutional sans judicial oversight and rulings on it?
Take him to court and get all the judicial oversight you want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
It's morally correct to go against the democratic process that passed this law?
If the democratic process of which you speak delivered an immoral outcome, absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
Or, best yet, it's morally correct for Obama to declare the law unconstitutional, yet he himself still believes that gay marriage is wrong?
It is often the most moral of acts to do what is right, even in the face of your own prejudices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
Bottom line - I don't agree with DOMA and I do hope it is overturned or repealed. However, I am not going to champion a sneaky move by the executive branch to fulfill this for me. What next? The next President deciding that the healthcare law is unconstitutional and hence won't defend it? A Congressman declaring that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional (a la Rand Paul) and hence should no longer be defended at the federal level?
You seem to be suffering under the delusion that this is the first time a President has ever done this. Guess what?
So, like I said... Take him to court and get all the judicial oversight you want or need.
What is the "morally correct" thing? It's morally correct to circumvent the very essence of separation of powers and allow the leader of this nation to declare laws constitutional or unconstitutional sans judicial oversight and rulings on it? It's morally correct to go against the democratic process that passed this law?
Or, best yet, it's morally correct for Obama to declare the law unconstitutional, yet he himself still believes that gay marriage is wrong?
Bottom line - I don't agree with DOMA and I do hope it is overturned or repealed. However, I am not going to champion a sneaky move by the executive branch to fulfill this for me. What next? The next President deciding that the healthcare law is unconstitutional and hence won't defend it? A Congressman declaring that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional (a la Rand Paul) and hence should no longer be defended at the federal level?
You act like this has never been done before. News alert, this isn't new. Sometimes bad laws get passed, and while this is still working its way up through the courts, pretty much being called a bad law all the way, the President has simply said that the Department of Justice won't incur the expense of defending this bad law any longer. He didn't veto the law. The law is still in effect. But in terms of the courts, it's not worth expending resources to continue to defend such a flawed law.
Marriage is nothing more the majority rule of society.
Marriage lost its meaning when government and businesses give benefits and penalties based on the status of your RELATIONSHIP!
The constitution was created to protect the individuals rights not your legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a form of control for the religious and the use of government from local, state and federal in the form on property and taxes and social norms. Property is individual ownership and your rights and those rights you can delegate to others in times of medical and financial needs you don't need marriage to do that.
If marriage is to exist it must be plain, simple and have no legal or economic benefit in society when it comes to your government. To do so its discrimination against everyone else who are not married. Just another reason for me to distrust this sorry excuse for government and the idea that the income tax system is any way shape or form FAIR!
Will God be angry about this? Maybe Obama should watch his back now. God might have him get hit by a bus. God can be very vindictive, you know.
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.
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.
