obama declares section 3 of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional

www.justice.gov...

i'm just the messenger.

(sorry if this is already posted, i searched using the link to the article though, so..)

I think most rational people will applaud this, as it was discriminatory law.

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Yeah, this is great news.

Interesting how precedent can get in the way of progress sometimes... had to wait until this was challenged in a court that did not have a precedent to get in the way... maybe now a more respectable precedent can be established.

I find it hypocritical that he pushed for a severely unconstitutional Health Care system, now he's calling out other things as being unconstitutional. Not to derail the thread or anything, I just think that's a little funny.

reply to post by TupacShakur


no, it's certainly worth mentioning. i don't really buy his sudden stance on this myself, especially how it's mostly only recognized in this legalese sense (unless he has a press meeting about it in the future). this could have been taken care of a lot sooner. i mean it was literally just a matter of him saying "yeah let's not do that anymore.", and everyone was like "oook!".

at any rate, though, he did it. the statement by the department of justice made everything sound like they were just running a business though, individuals can still vocally undermine the decision and defend section 3 in court, so this isn't really the panacea that i'm sure many people were hoping for.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I find it hypocritical that he pushed for a severely unconstitutional Health Care system, now he's calling out other things as being unconstitutional. Not to derail the thread or anything, I just think that's a little funny.

Hey Tupac Shakur!! I thought you were dead and didn't know they had internet service in caskets.... I gotta get one of those caskets with WIFI lol! I too find it eggregious that the POTUS will willingly push unconstitutional agenda through the congress and pick and choose what unconstitutional agenda he will pick apart. I think we should wipe clean our judicial system and start over

reply to post by agentblue


Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Awesome!
As I've told many people I run into across the U.S. who are vehemently against homosexual couples:
"I'm a heterosexual, as straight as it gets. And yet I don't care. Do you know why? Becuase NONE OF THIS AFFECTS ME! My neighbor and I could live next door to each other for the rest of our lives, he being homosexually married, I being heterosexually married, and nothing would ever happen. This would bring NO CHANGE to my life."

Most people walk away stumped. Others fight on.
Yet my point remains: None of this changes my life or lifestyle.
Let everyone be happy. If it doesn't involve me, it doesn't affect me.
Good news and awesome post OP!
Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness!!!!

The President doesn't have the authority to declare something Unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court has that authority. So I would say it is irrelevant what Obama thinks.


Also I am not sure why the Gay and Lesbian community is so bent out of shape lately. I do find it eerily and interestingly spooky at the same time.

1. Hetero-sexual couples are moving further and further away from marriage as there are more and more domestic partnerships taking place in America as of late.

2. Homo-sexual couples are pushing more and more for marriage.

The spooky part that comes into play for me is this. Aside from artificial insimination homo-sexual couples cannot reproduce therefore the big push of homo-sexuality across the globe in effect is starting a domino effect that will ultimately begin to lower our global over-population. I am not sure about the whole sexual phenomenon. Not only does it go against religion but it also goes against science in general. It is supposed to be a natural instinct to reproduce but this seems to contradict that entirely.

I really have nothing at all against same sex relationships. I do however find a lot of the phenomenon to be very interesting to me. If you are a guy and you say you are into other guys then why is there a masculine femanine personality in the mix? You almost always have one guy that is femanine and one guy that is overly masculine. The same thing with females. You have women that try and grow facial hair and then you have the girly girl. So in effect are you not creating a guise of a hetero-sexual relationship while being two of the same sex? That is something that has always confused me.

Originally posted by Phantom28804
The President doesn't have the authority to declare something Unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court has that authority. So I would say it is irrelevant what Obama thinks.

no, he's saying he deems it unconstitutional, and the department of justice (DOJ is not the judicial branch ) agrees, but litigators don't have to defend the suspension of section 3 if they don't want. the section is unanimously unconstitutional, however, it's pretty blatant.

This is a lame argument which is tiring. This POTUS is an idiot to begin with, if he would only re-read the Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, he would know that the Powers of Congress, do not specify governing jurisdiction over marriages.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nope..didn't see anything that grants the Congress, POTUS, or the Federal courts system to make a ruling on this topic? After all, they are suppose to follow the law of the land ...right?

Originally posted by Phantom28804


I really have nothing at all against same sex relationships. I do however find a lot of the phenomenon to be very interesting to me. If you are a guy and you say you are into other guys then why is there a masculine femanine personality in the mix? You almost always have one guy that is femanine and one guy that is overly masculine. The same thing with females. You have women that try and grow facial hair and then you have the girly girl. So in effect are you not creating a guise of a hetero-sexual relationship while being two of the same sex? That is something that has always confused me.

edit on 2/23/2011 by Phantom28804 because: (no reason given)

despite being gay (or straight) we all have male and female aspects despite our gender. nothing can be unnatural, so it just makes perfect sense that an observable male who is exhibiting female traits wants a male mate. it's pretty simple, but also makes light of the fact that being born gay isn't common, which leads to it being misunderstood and looked down upon.

reply to post by shagreen heart


Well I know there is merit to the being born gay, as there have been scientific study on it that have found there is a gene.

As I said I am really not against the same sex phenomenon. I tend to look at everything analytically so it might sometimes come off as me being negative or anti something. Which is not the case. I am not a religious person so I don't really care much for what they think on the matter. The only thing the bible teaches me about homosexuality is that it existed even back then.

From a scientific standpoint it fascinates me as there is definitely homosexual tendencies in the animal kingdom, but I also knew a kid when I was growing up. I dated his sister actually and even at the age of 6 he was putting on her clothes. His parents were hoping it was a phase but he never grew out of it. I am happy to say that his sister still is supportive of him, but unfortunately his parents are the kind of cynical religious people that make me dislike religion that they won't even speak to him now. This only raises one question in my mind is what kind of a god would preach that you should forsake your own child just because of his behaviors? While at the same time excusing the blatant incest of Lot and his daughters after the fall of Sodom.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


You are 1000% correct.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is seen as nothing more than a GD piece of paper by more than just the imbecile who is given credit for verbalizing how most of the criminals in DC actually feel.

Originally posted by bozzchem
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

You are 1000% correct.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is seen as nothing more than a GD piece of paper by more than just the imbecile who is given credit for verbalizing how most of the criminals in DC actually feel.

like i said, obama's statement still carries almost no legal weight, he's just trying to look good without solving any problems or getting his hands dirty.

Funny, he has time for this nonsense...
Still hasn't said anything about Libya though.......................priorities?

reply to post by adifferentbreed


What can he say about Libya? Tell Gaddafi to quit? Seriously Gaddafi doesn't care what you, his people, or the president has to say about anything.

reply to post by Phantom28804


I don't know, I figured maybe he'd have something to say, he certainly has an opinion on everything else. Him saying something about it, doesn't have to mean anything to anyone, however, as the supposed leader of our country....a word here or there on the official stance of the US might be nice.

Once again this shows a President completely out of touch with reality. I thought he taught Constitutional law? Well if that is true then he would know that neither the President nor the Department of Justice have the right to declare something unconstitutional, and neither does the Congress. That decision is left up to the courts, and only the courts, to decide.

Plus is it not hypocritical to declare, in at least his opinion, one issue unconstitutional while at the same time ramming through a piece of legislation already declared unconstitutional by two judges?

Picking and choosing what you want to believe is reality helps no one.

Originally posted by Phantom28804
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

What can he say about Libya? Tell Gaddafi to quit? Seriously Gaddafi doesn't care what you, his people, or the president has to say about anything.

Obama said in the beginning - - - he would take each issue - - form a committee - - and study it.

Only when the results of these studies completed - - would he then address them and make decisions.

He stated - - - he would not be making decisions on "gut feelings".

As far as I can tell - - - that is exactly what he has done. I don't see him Flag Waving and Showing favoritism to any one group.

I know many gays were upset with Obama that he didn't "jump" on their cause(s). But seriously - - gays are only about 10% of the nation. As much as it is important to them - - - they really aren't on the "high" list.

I know there has been gay representatives visiting the White House and talking to the president. Obama has said something along the lines of "having met gays and listened to their valued points" - - he has been moved to understand their rights and the gay marriage issue better.

In other words - - he's been doing the work.

Whether or not the President has any real power regarding the DOMA - - - he IS making his decision known. I'd say his decision has real weight - - if not real power.