Obama's move on same-sex marriage is 'very rare,' WFU law professor says

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
President Barack Obama's decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law that bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriages is a "very rare" move, not often used by presidents, according to a Wake Forest University law professor.

"It means that the Department of Justice lawyers, who work for Obama, will not show up" in court for any lawsuit against the United States by gay couples who are legally married in a state that allows it and who argue that they are denied benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.
Click to expand...

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/201...move-on-same-sex-marriage-is-very--ar-808531/

This arrogant Democrat president simply won't enforce laws that he doesn't like. Andrew Johnson did the same thing by not enforcing the 1868 Civil Rights Act.
 
The Obama is not The SCOTUS.

So here we have The Obama refusing to enforce a law that he doesn't like. Is it grounds for impeachment?
 
Damn Yankee said:
The Obama is not The SCOTUS.

So here we have The Obama refusing to enforce a law that he doesn't like. Is it grounds for impeachment?
Click to expand...

From your link:

"Just because the Justice Department lawyers won't show up in court doesn't necessarily mean that proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act will let those cases go unrepresented, Gilreath said.

"Congress, or private parties, can pay to hire lawyers to defend the law," he said.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Obama decided that his administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus" the Constitution is designed to guard against."
 
Apparently, as long as it furthers their agenda, some here have no problem with the POTUS acting as the SCOTUS.

:fu: to the Constitution.
:fu: to separation of powers.
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
Apparently, as long as it furthers their agenda, some here have no problem with the POTUS acing as the SCOTUS.

:fu: to the Constitution.
:fu: to separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that the state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional? So a federal law is somehow constitutional?

If POTUS and the justice dept deem that the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, they should defend it? The debates in congress were full of morality ploys that are clearly unconstitutional. It never should have ebeen passed to begin with.

Obama is simply not wasting tax payer's money defending something which the majority disagree with anyway.
 
I'd be willing to bet you would be all for it if George W. had simply ruled gay marriages illegal.

As I have said numerous times, gay marriage or gay civil unions (with the same benefits as marriage) are coming. Resistance is futile.
 
Apparently, as long as it furthers their agenda, some here have no problem with the POTUS acting as the SCOTUS.

:fu: to the Constitution.
:fu: to separation of powers.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Apparently, as long as it furthers their agenda, some here have no problem with the POTUS acting as the SCOTUS.

:fu: to the Constitution.
:fu: to separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Apparently you think he should defend it regardless of whether it is constitutional or not?

He has not done anything except refuse to waste tax payer money on defending an unconstitutional law.

I guess you want bigger gov't and to waste tax dollars when it furthers your agenda. But feel free to continue to repeat the same tired BS.
 
WinterBorn said:
Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that the state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional? So a federal law is somehow constitutional?

If POTUS and the justice dept deem that the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, they should defend it? The debates in congress were full of morality ploys that are clearly unconstitutional. It never should have ebeen passed to begin with.

Obama is simply not wasting tax payer's money defending something which the majority disagree with anyway.
Click to expand...

WB:

do you have a link for this, because i'm fairly sure this is not accurate. if it was, states could not continue to pass laws banning same sex marriage, ala california and why california is still in court.

as to thread:

iirc, obama's admin (doj) has the prosecutorial power to decide whether or not to prosecute or defend in this case, any violation of the law. i know states have it, unsure about the feds. that said, if obama determines a law would likely violate the US constitution and in his opinion it does, is it not his duty to uphold the constitution and thereby not prosecute or defend the law?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...

based on their research, they believe that the law violates the constitution. and they have laid out their reasons. how is obama to preserve, protect and defend the constitution in this case?
 
WinterBorn said:
Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that the state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional? So a federal law is somehow constitutional?

If POTUS and the justice dept deem that the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, they should defend it? The debates in congress were full of morality ploys that are clearly unconstitutional. It never should have ebeen passed to begin with.

Obama is simply not wasting tax payer's money defending something which the majority disagree with anyway.
Click to expand...
Um... no. The SCOTUS has not ruled those laws unconstitutional.
 
WinterBorn said:
Apparently you think he should defend it regardless of whether it is constitutional or not?

He has not done anything except refuse to waste tax payer money on defending an unconstitutional law.

I guess you want bigger gov't and to waste tax dollars when it furthers your agenda. But feel free to continue to repeat the same tired BS.
Click to expand...

Its demonstrated stupidity like this that identifies you as an idiot pinhead.:palm:
 
bravo said:
Its demonstrated stupidity like this that identifies you as an idiot pinhead.:palm:
Click to expand...

Thats what I love about this site. The members only debate using sound, logical, and factual arguments.

:palm:
 
Yurt said:
WB:

do you have a link for this, because i'm fairly sure this is not accurate. if it was, states could not continue to pass laws banning same sex marriage, ala california and why california is still in court.

as to thread:

iirc, obama's admin (doj) has the prosecutorial power to decide whether or not to prosecute or defend in this case, any violation of the law. i know states have it, unsure about the feds. that said, if obama determines a law would likely violate the US constitution and in his opinion it does, is it not his duty to uphold the constitution and thereby not prosecute or defend the law?



based on their research, they believe that the law violates the constitution. and they have laid out their reasons. how is obama to preserve, protect and defend the constitution in this case?
Click to expand...

My mistake. SCOTUS has not ruled the gay marriage ban unconstitutional, but a federal court judges has.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/california-gay-marriage-ruling-due-appeal-expected/story?id=11322255
 
Yurt said:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


based on their research, they believe that the law violates the constitution. and they have laid out their reasons. how is obama to preserve, protect and defend the constitution in this case?
Click to expand...

I thought this would bear repeating. Facts are such handy things in a debate in most circles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Solitary, would you have said the same thing about Andrew Johnson refusing to enforce the 1868 Civil Rights Act?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top