It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

obama declares section 3 of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Double Post. I fail.

edit on 24-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
There are ways to go about doing these kinds of things and making a "decree" is not one of them.
Lol I wonder what the reaction would have been if he had decided that the law didn't go far enough and said that it should be enforced at the state level.
Think about it people:
This may be something many want but this is NOT the way to go about it. Presidents do not have this kind of power for a reason.
This is just a stepping stone, the next "decree" will be a little bigger and the one after that a little bigger still ect. Ect........................



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 
Star for you muzzleflash.
I am glad that you double posted, if not then I would not have went back to page two to read it.
I am all up for getting the gooberment out of marriage.


Just for the record though, there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I have been saying the same thing since "gay marriage" came to the forefront of political discourse. The best way to secure the rights of all citizens is to remove "marriage" from the government sphere entirely. Marriage is a religious ritual.

I am 100% for civil unions. Whomever I set up house with, is my affair. Civil unions should have all the advantages/benefits of what is now defined by marriage. From now on, the state would sanction all marriages (religious rite) as being the equivalent of a civil union.

I think we are stuck in a gigantic fight over syntax/semantics.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erica1631
Not to avoid the topic, but I would rather address his motives and timing on this unexpected announcement.


This announcement did not just pop up out of no where. I am not gay - but I like to listen to Michelangelo Signorile on OutQ radio. This is a subject they have talked about for several months. Including the LGBT representatives who have spent time talking to Obama - - who has also spent some time talking to gay couples.

It is perfect timing for the announcement with Prop 8 decisions to come soon.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

If you want freedom for gay couples, let's get the government out of our business! This is the true solution.



Like freedom for Blacks would have happened without government making it their business.

When Marriage became a Legal Government License - - - religion was removed from the equation. Very simple.

Legal Government Marriage comes with specific benefits that need to be for ALL citizens.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Let's see - - a federal judge declares DOMA unconstitutional.

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

www.boston.com...

---------------------------------------------------------------

Obama gives an opinion agreeing with the judge.

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard [of stricter judicial review] and is therefore unconstitutional," Holder said. "Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases."

----------------------------------------------------------------

If you have a problem with this - - please explain in real political terminology - - what the problem is. Without the drama.

I'm listening to excerpts from FOX news right now - - on this - - and its very ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Let's see - - a federal judge declares DOMA unconstitutional.

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

www.boston.com...

---------------------------------------------------------------

Obama gives an opinion agreeing with the judge.

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard [of stricter judicial review] and is therefore unconstitutional," Holder said. "Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases."

----------------------------------------------------------------

If you have a problem with this - - please explain in real political terminology - - what the problem is. Without the drama.

I'm listening to excerpts from FOX news right now - - on this - - and its very ridiculous.


That decision you cited applies to Massachusetts. At that time, the DOJ actually defended the law in court. Now a 180 from Holder just in time for election 2012.

You want something official, take it the Supreme Court.
edit on 24-2-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Could you please define "REAL political terminology"?
while you are at it could you please show me where it states that the president or Eric Holder have the power to tell the DOJ not to enforce any laws passed by congress and signed by the former president.
Like I said, many will back this DECREE simply because of what it's about, with out thinking or caring about the ramifications.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



They said they are not enforcing constitutionality of article 3., which isn't constitutional anyway . Don't see a problem here. Why cry foul when this is actually a good thing that needs to be done? Just hate the man for anything.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Annee
 


Could you please define "REAL political terminology"?


I'm not the one being all dramatic and hysterical in regards to Obama.

Would you prefer Factual Politics?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
That decision you cited applies to Massachusetts. At that time, the DOJ actually defended the law in court. Now a 180 from Holder just in time for election 2012.

You want something official, take it the Supreme Court.


Why would it make a difference which state a Federal Judge is in?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Annee
 


Could you please define "REAL political terminology"?


I'm not the one being all dramatic and hysterical in regards to Obama.

Would you prefer Factual Politics?

hysterical? HHMMMMMMMMM.....not so much.
Maybe you would like to go back to my first post in this thread.
I don't so much disagree with what they want to do as much as the way they are going about it. Stop being so short sited Annie.
It may be that you just want to think that everyone who doesn't agree with the man is bashing him. Or it may be that you honestly do not see this as what it is. A power grab or a way to try and reach out to his base that feel he has abandoned them.
Seriously, Annie, he has mentioned more than once what his stance on gay marriage is. Why the change of heart now?

Factual politics? Would that not be an oxymoron?

Dramatic? Hmmmmmmm........ Yea, a little.
But at least I am not blind to the obvious.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Seriously, Annie, he has mentioned more than once what his stance on gay marriage is. Why the change of heart now?



I am not being short sighted - - - and it is ANNEE not Annie.

I am very much aware that Obama still does not support gay marriage. So what?

There are plenty of people who do not support abortion - - but support Right of Choice.

ONE of the XM news shows I listen to is Michelangelo Signorile of OutQ radio. Yes a news show on a gay station. They do try to honestly show both sides of an issue. They do try to have guests/experts who talk both sides of an issue.

However - - I am aware that LGBT representatives have been talking to Obama and Obama has also had visits from gay couples.

This is not something that just came from nothing.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yes, Obama said that he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but that his views are evolving sometime around the fight against DADT.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
Yes, Obama said that he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but that his views are evolving sometime around the fight against DADT.


Yes! And let's be real. Sadly - - Christianity still has a strong hold on this country - - and it is unlikely any politician is going to be successful at a high level if they don't embrace Christianity - - - whether they truly believe in it or not.

It is very risky for Obama to take this stand - - and I highly applaud him.

As far as Marriage being a religious thing - - - where was the outrage over non-religious courthouse marriages?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Ahhh, I give up, ANNEE. Keep your head buried in the sand. You see only what you want to see.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Ahhh, I give up, ANNEE. Keep your head buried in the sand. You see only what you want to see.


Only those who refuse to see all sides - - - bury their head in the sand.




edit on 24-2-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Seriously, Annie, he has mentioned more than once what his stance on gay marriage is. Why the change of heart now?






What change of heart? He is not imposing his personal will. He's promoting a move to remove a law that has been found to be Unconstitutional. He's doing his job, while you spin a benign legal precedent into something it resembles not.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

This may be something many want but this is NOT the way to go about it. Presidents do not have this kind of power for a reason.
.

What would be the way to go about it? Presidents don't have WHAT kind of power? On what legal standard and/or precedent do you base that opinion?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join