Obama Thinks Defense of Marriage Act Is a ‘Bad Idea’

Discussion in 'This Cesspool We Live In' started by Apox, May 15, 2012.

  1. Apox Artificial Turf Eater

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    18,879
    Location:
    haritz ona
    Reputation:
    23,713,410
    Ratings Received:
    +7,600 / 57 / -109
    [IMG]
    4 faghags

    You spoke too soon, Rand Paul. It sounds like the President's views on marriage just got even gayer.
    Somewhat buried in CNN's story on Barack Obama's fundraiser in New York is this little tidbit about his administration's plans for marriage equality—
    He also outlined goals he hopes to accomplish under a second term, including the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, which the administration has already stopped defending.
    This is the first time Obama has said that he will actively work to repeal the law.
    Correction: Another CNN story clarifies this point. While Obama said, "Congress is clearly on notice that I think [DOMA is] a bad idea," he did not say he would get Congress to repeal the law. Obama has called on Congress to repeal the law in the past, including in a 2009 speech to the Human Rights Campaign.
    At the fundraiser, hosted by openly gay pop star Ricky Martin, Obama called same-sex marriage the "right thing to do." He also said that contrary to what many rightwing pundits have alleged, marriage equality will help families.
    The President also touched on his freshly out same-sex marriage stance on The View. The segment, which he taped today, will air on ABC tomorrow.
    According to some White House officials, Obama had intended to speak out in favor of marriage equality on the talk show, but he was spurred forward by Joe Biden's early endorsement.

    more--

    http://gawker.com/5910277/obama-announces-plans-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  2. Clancy supports heterosexual buttsex

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,744
    Reputation:
    -6,484,243
    Ratings Received:
    +490 / 475 / -2,785
    The loaded term "marriage equality" is now the preferred media descriptor for homosexual marriage. The debate is framed in such a way , by the media, to deligitimize any opposition to gay marriage. If the media says that you are against "marriage equality" (this phrase doesn't even make any sense; the question is not whether or not gay "marriages" and normal marriages should be equal, but whether or not "gay marriages" should exist in the first place) the implication is that "gay marriage" is mandated by the Equal Protection Clause.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Snorts McGee: -25 Points (Decent post, cLancy...SHIT! finger slipped again.) May 15, 2012
    Johnson: -31 Points May 15, 2012
    tricknologist: -31 Points (gay) May 16, 2012
    • Gay Post x 2
    • Dislike x 1
    • Big Chimpin' x 1
    • Bad Spelling x 1
    • Dumb x 1
    • List
  3. Man Against Time Black Hole Melchizedek

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,281
    Location:
    fuhrerbunkered, awaiting the eugenic gigadeaths
    Reputation:
    14,802,373
    Ratings Received:
    +3,682 / 76 / -187
    Here comes Nancy the lawyer....

    You're wrong again, turd. The argument against DOMA's constitutionality is that it violates the full faith and credit clause. You're not in law skrewl yet and you won't get there with you IQ, sorry cinaedus.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Clancy: -1 Points (die, you fucking faggot) May 16, 2012
    tricknologist: 31 Points (lol @ clancy's -1) May 16, 2012
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Gay Post Gay Post x 1
    • List
  4. Macrobius The Old Usager

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    6,112
    Location:
    Bannaleuca
    Reputation:
    16,314,180
    Ratings Received:
    +3,502 / 43 / -218
    Someone should tell him the next asset bubble will be selling third party forward marriage contracts, and that Goldman-Sachs wants to create a derivative out of Ass-backed Securities 'leveraging' females, so they can do curve hedges on a jump-and-divorce model.

    That will get him back on broad.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    rust: 3,737 Points Jul 24, 2012
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  5. Ed4EBT Palestinian

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,926
    Reputation:
    3,838,424
    Ratings Received:
    +1,183 / 73 / -169
    [IMG]


    Barbara Walters knows this nigger's going down. Jive talk and nice teeth aren't going to cut it this time around.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    rustola: 18,021 Points Aug 18, 2012
  6. Clancy supports heterosexual buttsex

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,744
    Reputation:
    -6,484,243
    Ratings Received:
    +490 / 475 / -2,785
    oops...

    On June 13, 2011, 20 of the 25 judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California signed an opinion in the case in re Balas and Morales that found that a same-sex married couple filing for bankruptcy "have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." The decision found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and dismissed the BLAG's objections to the joint filing. It said:[104]

    On April 2, 2012, five bi-national same-sex couples represented by Immigration Equality and Paul, Weiss filed a lawsuit, Blesch v. Holder, in District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claiming that Section 3 of DOMA violates their equal protection rights by denying the U.S. citizen in the relationship the same rights in the green card application process granted a U.S. citizen who is in a relationship of partners of different sexes.[120]

    On July 8, 2010, Judge Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases.[85] He found in Gill that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.[86][87]

    On June 13, 2011, 20 of the 25 judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California signed an opinion in the case in re Balas and Morales that found that a same-sex married couple filing for bankruptcy "have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." The decision found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and dismissed the BLAG's objections to the joint filing. It said:[104]
    Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with
    respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors' right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    john z. whitey: -23 Points May 16, 2012
    tricknologist: -31 Points (lol) May 16, 2012
    Snorts McGee: -50 Points (There ought to be clowns...) May 25, 2012
  7. Clancy supports heterosexual buttsex

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,744
    Reputation:
    -6,484,243
    Ratings Received:
    +490 / 475 / -2,785
    This doesn't even make any sense. Since I'm not in law school, why should I be expected to have detailed knowledge of Constitutional law, and why would not having such knowledge be a reflection on my IQ. The illogicality of that statement certainly is a negative reflection on your IQ though, you fucking asshole.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    john z. whitey: -23 Points May 16, 2012
    tricknologist: -31 Points (pretending to know more about the law than a law student) May 16, 2012
    Snorts McGee: -50 Points (There ought to be clowns...) May 25, 2012
    • Big Chimpin' Big Chimpin' x 1
    • Gay Post Gay Post x 1
    • List

Share This Page