Obama and DOMA

[Misty_Morning]

I know that Obama had said that he believes marriage should be between one and one woman. I think, or hope, he was just trying to appease the voters.....


I have also heard that one of Obamas first objectives is to repeal DOMA.

May be just a rumor.

But if true....you are gonna see a true conversion.

If he does so...I shall forever a true believer.

Is it just a rumor?

 

[fieryjen]

I'm probably completely out of the loop here - what's DOMA?

 

[Belegon]

Defense of Marriage Act.

A 1996 kneejerk reaction passed by congressmen who feared getting voted out of office by the religious right.

 

[fieryjen]

Defense of Marriage Act.

A 1996 kneejerk reaction passed by congressmen who feared getting voted out of office by the religious right.

Thank you.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I'm probably completely out of the loop here - what's DOMA?

What is DOMA?


IMO it is one of the most disgusting acts passed by congress in the last century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Defense of Marriage Act.

A 1996 kneejerk reaction passed by congressmen who feared getting voted out of office by the religious right.

I'd disagree with that. Given the margins on the vote, and that Clinton was in term two... I'd say its more likely that they and/or most of their constituency supported the idea. Even those outside the religious right didn't care for gay marriage's propogation. Middle America didn't want it either.

That's not a meaningless distinction, either. Practically speaking, it relates to how the gay marriage question will have to be answered in the future... its not just "them religious kooks that are convenient targets"--its a huge chunk of the country. Even (especially) the non-fringe middle.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I'd disagree with that. Given the margins on the vote, and that Clinton was in term two... I'd say its more likely that they and/or most of their constituency supported the idea. Even those outside the religious right didn't care for gay marriage's propogation. Middle America didn't want it either.

That's not a meaningless distinction, either. Practically speaking, it relates to how the gay marriage question will have to be answered in the future... its not just "them religious kooks that are convenient targets"--its a huge chunk of the country. Even (especially) the non-fringe middle.

As was pointed out in another thread...

Civil rights should never "voted" on by others...if that were the case we would all be drinking from different fountains.....

This is ultimately a case for the US Supreme Court....and the answer is clear to all.....


YOU CANNOT DENY THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER JUST CUZ YOUR RELIGION SAYS IT CAN'T BE SO!






Can I get an Amen?

 

[rgraham666]

Amen!

But you'll never convince the AH's resident scholastic of that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTY

Youre shoveling shit against the tide.

The polity made an agreement that same-sex marriage will exist where voters approve it; so its legal in Massachusetts and Conn and Vermont. And its illegal where voters dont want it.

Tossing the issue into the US Supreme Court is gonna get you an all or nuthin toss of the dice, just like when Dred Scott tossed slavery into the Court. In an instant slavery was suddenly legal everywhere and every black in America lost his civil rights, even if he was free.

The Supremes already have 4 votes against same-sex marriage. My guess is one more vote is available, maybe 3. I'm not convinced the judges want to open the door to polygamy and child brides and the rest.

 

[lil_elvis]

As was pointed out in another thread...

Civil rights should never "voted" on by others...if that were the case we would all be drinking from different fountains.....

This is ultimately a case for the US Supreme Court....and the answer is clear to all.....


YOU CANNOT DENY THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER JUST CUZ YOUR RELIGION SAYS IT CAN'T BE SO!






Can I get an Amen?

Personally, I am in favor of allowing same sex marriage. However, I'm not sure that you'd get a decision from the Supremes that it is a right enumerated in the constitution.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ELVIS

Its a roll of the dice, and same sex marriage has serious consequences for every other alliance. Monogramy is no longer the yardstick if same-sex is okay. If Heather can have 2 mommies, she can damn sure have 5.

 

[lil_elvis]

ELVIS

Its a roll of the dice, and same sex marriage has serious consequences for every other alliance. Monogramy is no longer the yardstick if same-sex is okay. If Heather can have 2 mommies, she can damn sure have 5.

I like the way you extrapolate

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ELVIS

Well, its either heterosexual monogamy or everything....any combination or permutation of sexual alliance is good to go. If we go down that road all bets are off. If a girl can decide to have an abortion, she can decide to marry a geezer. Incest becomes legal because why shouldnt consenting relatives get married or have civil unions?

There was a time when incest was legal. There was a time when child brides were legal. But they created more problems than bliss, and were outlawed.

 

[lil_elvis]

ELVIS

Well, its either heterosexual monogamy or everything....any combination or permutation of sexual alliance is good to go. If we go down that road all bets are off. If a girl can decide to have an abortion, she can decide to marry a geezer. Incest becomes legal because why shouldnt consenting relatives get married or have civil unions?

There was a time when incest was legal. There was a time when child brides were legal. But they created more problems than bliss, and were outlawed.

So we can't define marriage as between two adults (only)?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

So we can't define marriage as between two adults (only)?

Of course we can. But Joe is right, that it isn't just the kooky fringe who oppose gay marriage. There are lots and lots of people who voted for Obama who are for "civil unions" but against "gay marriage." They want marriage still defined as between one man and one woman.

It's hard to point out the flaw in the argument to people who think they are being "fair" in that oh-so-insidious separate-but-equal sense...

 

[off2bed]

It doesn't seem to matter what a politician says he's personally for. If the party's loudest constituency groups want something, that's what he'll support. Obama said something about guns along this line, too.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It doesn't seem to matter what a politician says he's personally for. If the party's loudest constituency groups want something, that's what he'll support. Obama said something about guns along this line, too.

That's why it has to change from the bottom up. The voters really do make a difference in that sense... the possibility of losing that vote really will influence a politician.

 

[lil_elvis]

It doesn't seem to matter what a politician says he's personally for. If the party's loudest constituency groups want something, that's what he'll support. Obama said something about guns along this line, too.

And that's why sales of assault rifles are the only bright spot in the economy

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ELVIS

You cant limit marriage at all if its a civil liberty and constitutionally protected, as the gays claim. I mean, whats the basis for discrimination against polygamists? Polygamy is practiced in many places around the world.

 

[lil_elvis]

ELVIS

You cant limit marriage at all if its a civil liberty and constitutionally protected, as the gays claim. I mean, whats the basis for discrimination against polygamists? Polygamy is practiced in many places around the world.

As I said before, I doubt the Supreme Court would recognize gay marriage as a constitutional right. It was only my personal opinion that I don't oppose gay couples getting married.

 

[Belegon]

As I said before, I doubt the Supreme Court would recognize gay marriage as a constitutional right. It was only my personal opinion that I don't oppose gay couples getting married.

They don't need to do so.

All they need to do is recognize that there are situations in which being married creates and or confirms rights under the laws of the land, especially as regards such things as inheritance and medical treatment.


A person in a "civil union" is required to prove it with documentary evidence in most cases, even a medical emergency.

When is the last time a hospital required the viewing of a marriage license before granting the privileges associated with being a heterosexual spouse?

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment applies.

As for the "majority rules" argument... it is not the right of the majority to deny rights to a minority. The rights of a U.S. citizen are not dependent on public opinion.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

lil_elvis

Will you please stop quoting JBJ. Most folks have his ignorant ass on "Ignore" and quoting him defeats the purpose.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ELVIS

Too late. Its headed for the California Supremes, then it will go to SCOTUS. The bell is rung...you cant unring the bell.

Dont mind SANDY he stepped in shit up to his eyeballs the other day, then said I MEANT TO DO THAT.

 

[cantdog]

And that's why sales of assault rifles are the only bright spot in the economy

And gas.

 

[cantdog]

That's why it has to change from the bottom up. The voters really do make a difference in that sense... the possibility of losing that vote really will influence a politician.

Damn straight. Obama's promises were usually hedged.

"We can have this IF YOU WANT IT." If you sit back and leave it to the Democratic party, you'll have status quo-- faster than Speedy Gonzales.