DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

basso · Jun 12, 2009

i eagerly await the FB auto-response to this outrage, and pgabs noting how the rights of blacks are different from those of gays.

[rquoter]Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 09:44:00 AM
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California.

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
[/rquoter]

much, much more at the link...

SamFisher · Jun 12, 2009

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u75yOQlrQ8s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u75yOQlrQ8s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SamFisher · Jun 12, 2009

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG6JkOOoo8c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG6JkOOoo8c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

pgabriel · Jun 12, 2009

i've never said gay rights and civil rights for blacks are different.

i said the gay rights movement is not equal to the civil rights movement. I stand by that statement even though I catch a lot of flack for it on this site. but please if you're going to give me the privilege of referring to me in the opening post of one of your thoughtful and enlightening threads, at least get it right.

El_Conquistador · Jun 12, 2009

Yet another community that got sucked into Obama's cult, only to have him spurn them at the first opportunity. Used and abused -- now more people know how Larry Sinclair must feel...

basso · Jun 12, 2009

Trader_Jorge said:

Yet another community that got sucked into Obama's cult, only to have him spurn them at the first opportunity. Used and abused -- now more people know how Larry Sinclair must feel...
Click to expand...

the self-pwning is remarkable- and today brings word that obama has fired an IG that had the temerity to investigate Kevin Johnson, a major campaign contributor.

El_Conquistador · Jun 12, 2009

basso said:

the self-pwning is remarkable- and today brings word that obama has fired an IG that had the temerity to investigate Kevin Johnson, a major campaign contributor.
Click to expand...

Yes, a new low for a very low person to begin with...

SamFisher · Jun 12, 2009

What the Heck IS “Abuse of Discretion,” Anyway?
February 28th, 2008 — Greg May
The “abuse of discretion” standard can be a tricky thing. I’ve heard lawyers ridicule it as a formula for automatic affirmance of the trial court. That is, of course, off the mark. But the breadth of discretion has to be defined for effective appellate review, and even appellate courts sometimes struggle with this standard or mistake it for something it isn’t. (I wrote about the difficulty the Ninth Circuit had in one case last year here, witha related post here and an announcement of my article on the topic here.)

I got to thinking about the complexity of the abuse of discretion standard again when I read a post last week at Legal Writing Prof Blog concerning an oft-quoted definition of the standard from the Fourth Circuit. The post was meant to be amusing, but the quoted definition actually struck me as not too bad. Certainly no worse than the description in Ticconi v. Blue Shield, case no. B190427 (2d Dist. Feb. 27, 2008), in which the court described the abuse of discretion standard in the context of an appeal from an order denying class certification:

“Because trial courts are ideally situated to evaluate the efficiencies and practicalities of permitting group action, they are afforded great discretion in granting or denying certification. The denial of certification to an entire class is an appealable order [citations], but in the absence of other error, a trial court ruling supported by substantial evidence generally will not be disturbed ‘unless (1) improper criteria were used [citation]; or (2) erroneous legal assumptions were made [citation]’ [citation]. Under this standard, an order based upon improper criteria or incorrect assumptions calls for reversal ‘ “even though there may be substantial evidence to support the court’s order.” ’ [Citations.] Accordingly, we must examine the trial court’s reasons for denying class certification. ‘Any valid pertinent reason stated will be sufficient to uphold the order.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]

It looks to me like there are several standards of review buried in there..

According to this definition, discretion can abused by the court’s employment of an improper legal assumption or improper criteria. That is an improper application of the law. Such questions are usually subject to de novo review. After all, you can’t give a court discretion to apply the wrong law.

Also according to the definition, the court abuses its discretion if it relies on a factual premise for which there is no substantial evidence. So, the substantial evidence standard must be used to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on a faulty factual premise.

It seems that the true abuse of discretion standard only comes into play after the court of appeal has determined by de novo review that the court employed the proper legal standards and decided on the basis of substantial evidence which of the court’s factual bases are supported. Then, the court can start from that point and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.

I think Ticconi bears out my thinking, or at least the first stage of it. The court finds that the court analyzed class certification under a mistaken view of the substantive law underlying the claim. Since that mistaken view of the law led it to consider factors that it should not have considered, and to fail to consider facts that it should have, the court remands with instructions to reconsider the class certification motion in light of the correct law and factors for consideration.

http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/28/what-the-heck-is-abuse-of-discretion-anyway/

nkbearsnk · Jun 12, 2009

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3GTbGEosxis&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3GTbGEosxis&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Click to expand...

basso · Jun 12, 2009

SamFisher said:

What the Heck IS “Abuse of Discretion,” Anyway?
February 28th, 2008 — Greg May
The “abuse of discretion” standard can be a tricky thing. I’ve heard lawyers ridicule it as a formula for automatic affirmance of the trial court. That is, of course, off the mark. But the breadth of discretion has to be defined for effective appellate review, and even appellate courts sometimes struggle with this standard or mistake it for something it isn’t. (I wrote about the difficulty the Ninth Circuit had in one case last year here, witha related post here and an announcement of my article on the topic here.)

I got to thinking about the complexity of the abuse of discretion standard again when I read a post last week at Legal Writing Prof Blog concerning an oft-quoted definition of the standard from the Fourth Circuit. The post was meant to be amusing, but the quoted definition actually struck me as not too bad. Certainly no worse than the description in Ticconi v. Blue Shield, case no. B190427 (2d Dist. Feb. 27, 2008), in which the court described the abuse of discretion standard in the context of an appeal from an order denying class certification:

“Because trial courts are ideally situated to evaluate the efficiencies and practicalities of permitting group action, they are afforded great discretion in granting or denying certification. The denial of certification to an entire class is an appealable order [citations], but in the absence of other error, a trial court ruling supported by substantial evidence generally will not be disturbed ‘unless (1) improper criteria were used [citation]; or (2) erroneous legal assumptions were made [citation]’ [citation]. Under this standard, an order based upon improper criteria or incorrect assumptions calls for reversal ‘ “even though there may be substantial evidence to support the court’s order.” ’ [Citations.] Accordingly, we must examine the trial court’s reasons for denying class certification. ‘Any valid pertinent reason stated will be sufficient to uphold the order.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]

It looks to me like there are several standards of review buried in there..

According to this definition, discretion can abused by the court’s employment of an improper legal assumption or improper criteria. That is an improper application of the law. Such questions are usually subject to de novo review. After all, you can’t give a court discretion to apply the wrong law.

Also according to the definition, the court abuses its discretion if it relies on a factual premise for which there is no substantial evidence. So, the substantial evidence standard must be used to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on a faulty factual premise.

It seems that the true abuse of discretion standard only comes into play after the court of appeal has determined by de novo review that the court employed the proper legal standards and decided on the basis of substantial evidence which of the court’s factual bases are supported. Then, the court can start from that point and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.

I think Ticconi bears out my thinking, or at least the first stage of it. The court finds that the court analyzed class certification under a mistaken view of the substantive law underlying the claim. Since that mistaken view of the law led it to consider factors that it should not have considered, and to fail to consider facts that it should have, the court remands with instructions to reconsider the class certification motion in light of the correct law and factors for consideration.

http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/28/what-the-heck-is-abuse-of-discretion-anyway/
Click to expand...

Sam- may one assume then that you support D'Oh!bama's position wrt DOMA?

Landlord Landry · Jun 12, 2009

basso said:

[rquoter]Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
[/rquoter]
Click to expand...

fist dabs for Obama......

FranchiseBlade · Jun 12, 2009

basso said:

i eagerly await the FB auto-response to this outrage, and pgabs noting how the rights of blacks are different from those of gays.

[rquoter]Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 09:44:00 AM
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California.

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
[/rquoter]

much, much more at the link...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which auto response you were referring to, but it will probably be forthcoming.

The DOMA is horrible policy, I don't care who the President is that supports it.

Secondly, you are not a true ally in the battle to allow same sex marriages. Until you realize that a President who supports permanently altering our nation's governing document in order to forever ban same sex marriages is not the same as a President who opposes such an amendment, then you are not an ally in the fight for equal rights for homosexuals.

Landlord Landry · Jun 12, 2009

FranchiseBlade said:

then you are not an ally in the fight for equal rights for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

THEY ALREADY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS!

fmullegun · Jun 12, 2009

Landlord Landry said:

THEY ALREADY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS!
Click to expand...

Not true. Since I am not gay it is perfectly legal for me to marry a dude.

kokopuffs · Jun 12, 2009

I suddenly love Obama. Even more than I did before.

Landlord Landry · Jun 12, 2009

fmullegun said:

Not true. Since I am not gay it is perfectly legal for me to marry a dude.
Click to expand...

marriage is not a right.

FranchiseBlade · Jun 12, 2009

Landlord Landry said:

marriage is not a right.
Click to expand...

we disagree on this issue.

Landlord Landry · Jun 12, 2009

FranchiseBlade said:

we disagree on this issue.
Click to expand...

what is there to disagree about? it's not a right. just say what you REALLY mean to say. Homosexuals deserve equal privileges and benefits.

now, on that issue, we most certainly disagree.

FranchiseBlade · Jun 12, 2009

Landlord Landry said:

what is there to disagree about? it's not a right. just say what you REALLY mean to say. Homosexuals deserve equal privileges and benefits.

now, on that issue, we most certainly disagree.
Click to expand...

Since there are laws regarding marriage, then homosexuals have the right to have those laws applied equally.

fmullegun · Jun 12, 2009

This is silly. There are no homosexuals in USA.

Forums

DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

basso Member
Supporting Member

SamFisher Member

SamFisher Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

basso Member
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

SamFisher Member

nkbearsnk Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

Landlord Landry Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

Landlord Landry Member

fmullegun Contributing Member

kokopuffs Member

Landlord Landry Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

Landlord Landry Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

fmullegun Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

basso Member Supporting Member

SamFisher Member

SamFisher Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

basso Member Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

SamFisher Member

nkbearsnk Member

basso Member Supporting Member

Landlord Landry Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

Landlord Landry Member

fmullegun Contributing Member

kokopuffs Member

Landlord Landry Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

Landlord Landry Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

fmullegun Contributing Member

Share This Page

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member