DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

I don't know what that means, I do know that Obama has had more pressing issues to deal with that affect all Americans. I don't think he really cares about gays not voting for him if that's what you mean.

 

Good thing he's not up for re-election anytime soon.

 

There's a difference between arguing whether a law is constitutional or not and arguing whether a law is appropriate or not. Do you understand that difference?

In this case, it appears the Obama administration is hoping to repeal what they see as an inappropriate but constitutional law. I don't necessarily agree with that, and I think it's valid to criticize the administration for defending the constitutionality of the law, but his actions are certainly consistent with his words.

 

Constitutional law is far from that simple. There is nothing in the constitution that says, "Congress shall pass no law that is discriminatory."

There can be several different reasons that one could argue the constitutionality of a law that they feel is discriminatory. For example, perhaps a previous case was decided by the Supreme Court that sets a precedent that this type of law is allowed.

 

The 14th Ammendment addresses that.

In regard to marriage this was discussed earlier. Marriage isn't an enumerated right since it isn't specifically in the Constution but in the Loving v. Virginia ruling the court said it was a right.

 

If he feels it's discriminatory but constitutional, then his administration would be doing their jobs by arguing that it is constitutional. I would think that in and of itself would be a good thing.

Also, if he feels that it is constitutional and that overturning the law in the courts would set a bad precedent for other things, he might argue its constitutionality but simultaneously work to get the law repealed.

 

The 14th amendment itself is discriminatory, which kind of proves my point. One can consider something to be bad, or discriminatory, and yet still defend it as constitutional. Constitutional law is just not that simple.

 

I can think of one big way the 14th Ammendment is discriminatory but I'm curious to why you think it is.

Agree Constitutional law isn't simple but I think to say that just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say "Congress shall pass no law that is discriminatory" means that it is Constitutional to discriminate. As you say its not that simple.

 

I was referring to the fact that it specifically refers to males rather than males and females.

basso is apparently trying to imply that because the Obama administration argued that the law was constitutional he must not think it is discriminatory. I am saying that it is absolutely possible that he could think it is both constitutional and discriminatory, so basso's inference is not well founded.

 

You need to get some things clear, because you are feigning ignorance to try and play politics.

Or you really are ignorant. Either way we'll just pretend to go along with your charade.

The person in the Justice Dept. who wrote that was someone from the W BUSH days.

After the idiot anti-gay bigot put that out there, Obama issued his expansion of health benefits which overrides some of the worst parts of what the idiot from the W BUSH days had done.

So you are wrong in even the first part of your presentation of the question. Obama isn't even allowing the Justice dept. to argue in defense of DOMA. He's making changes.

 

The "idiot from the W BUSH days" didn't do anything other than make an argument, did he? So Obama's announced changes aren't a response to that person except in terms of public relations. Or am I missing something?

In addition, what evidence is there to suggest that the Obama administration disagrees with the arguments presented in defense of DOMA? If they did disagree, wouldn't they have made some statement to that effect?

Finally, you said, "Obama isn't even allowing the Justice dept. to argue in defense of DOMA." Where did that come from? I haven't seen anything to indicate that might be the case, and obviously if he isn't allowing it now he certainly allowed it last week.

Unless I completely missed some statements from the administration, I think you are making assumptions that could very likely turn out to be false. I'm sure Obama will support the repeal of DOMA eventually, but that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the arguments made to defend it and it doesn't mean he is going to direct the Department of Justice to stop.

 

Yes you missed the fact that the Justice department rationale would have prevented same sex health benefits among other things.

He was reacting to that very bigoted and antiquated rationale by issuing his memorandum which trumps that rationale, and expands health benefits to include same sex partners.

He completely opposed and trumped part of what the Bush holdover in the Justice department was trying to do. Remember DOMA specifically prohibits these benefits to same sex couples who are federal employees.

Bush holdover in the Justice department defends the DOMA. Obama comes back and wipes out that part of the DOMA in fell swoop.

 

That was not my understanding at all.

My understanding was that the benefits Obama provided were only those that did not trump the ones specifically denied by DOMA. For example, because DOMA disallows same sex health benefits, the memo signed by Obama could not provide that, but because DOMA does not disallow long term health benefits, his memo could provide that. The existence of DOMA was the reason the benefits provided by Obama's memo were not comprehensive and were only a first step.

I don't have time to provide links at the moment, but I would go back and re-read some of those articles. I think you may have gotten it backwards.

 

If you say so. I think I've provided a perfectly logical explanation that says otherwise.

If Obama signs a repeal of DOMA before his first term is over, would you recant your objections with regard to this issue?

 

Good point though I think that has since been extended to women. I was thinking about the abortion debate and the argument regarding the personhood of a fetus. The 14th Ammendment only applies rights to those born so if you believe a fetus is a person the 14th discriminates against that.

ON that I totally agree and can see where an argument regarding DOMA could be made that it doesn't defy equal protection. It seems pretty clear to me that the Obama Admin. is looking for Congress to overturn DOMA rather than do so through the courts.