Obama administration won't oppose same-sex marriage. - Polidicks

[B]CNN Obama administration won't oppose same-sex marriage[/B] [release]President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder. "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," Holder said. The key provision in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional." "Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination." Obama has previously expressed his personal opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act but had never stated an opinion relating to its constitutionality. The administration had a March 11 deadline to respond to two lawsuits against the measure in New York. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- which includes New York -- is the only federal circuit to have never decided the basic legal question of whether a law discriminates against gay men and lesbians. Republicans immediately ripped the White House's decision, calling it a distraction at a time when they said the focus needs to be on the economy. "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending,the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Representative Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the move a "transparent attempt to shirk the (Justice) Department's duty to defend the laws passed by Congress." "This is the real politicization of the Justice Department -- when the personal views of the president override the government's duty to defend the law of the land," Smith said. White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration had to make a decision before the court-imposed deadline. He stressed, however, that the law will continue to be enforced. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, praised the administration's decision, calling it a key step forward in the push for equal rights for gays and lesbians. It "is a victory for civil rights, fairness and equality," Pelosi said. "I commend (Obama) for taking this bold step forward to ensure the federal government is no longer in the business of defending an indefensible statute." Joe Solmonese, president of the progressive Human Rights Campaign, also praised the administration's course of action, calling it "a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples." "We applaud (Obama) for fulfilling his oath to defend critical constitutional principles," Solmonese said. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by the GOP-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and says states cannot be forced to recognize such marriages from other states. In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts became the first to rule the law unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro said that "irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest." The administration's decision comes on the heels of other major developments in the struggle over gay and lesbian rights. In December, Obama signed legislation that will repeal the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy and bring an end to the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces. Courts in California are considering a legal challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative narrowly approved by that state's voters in 2008. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is legal in five states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire -- and in the District of Columbia. Civil unions are permitted in New Jersey.[/release] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/23/obama.gay.marriage/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url] Other Sources and Sites covering this: Politico: [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50080.html]Little downside seen for DOMA call[/url] FOX: [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/23/obama-administration-drops-defense-anti-gay-marriage-law/#ixzz1EwXBYwwj]Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law[/url] Huffington Post: [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html]Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court[/url] Way to open the way for something like This Obama: [url]http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/24/attorney-general-mark-levin-wo[/url] (Notice, the contents of this link are a work of fiction based upon Obama's actions.) While this may be a step forward for gay marriage for now, the method used could send it two steps back.

Wow nice title you fucking idiot

Can I get a mod to fix the title? I had a brain fart. Edit: Please? Edit 2: Thank you.

I'm not one to get mad at you Glaber, but you purposefully fucked up the title, you're a dick. [editline]24th February 2011[/editline] Oh...:c now I feel bad, I'm sorry.

i find it ironic that the gop are accusing him of stirring up a controversial subject when he should be focusing on jobs or w/e while the gop has been trying to pass shitloads of their abortion-related bills

How could the method used send it back two steps? I'm curious.

What the fuck is up with that title? If a mod sees this, don't change that title, keep it so we can ridicule him.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;28271808]What the fuck is up with that title? If a mod sees this, don't change that title, keep it so we can ridicule him.[/QUOTE] Why? You'd ridicule me anyway. [QUOTE=Nikota;28271804]How could the method used send it back two steps? I'm curious.[/QUOTE] Well As Mark Levin's fictional piece points out. If the President can just declare something unconstitutional and not defend it or worse, stop enforcing a law or ruling. Who's to say the next president won't defend gay marriage? Obama is trying to act like a King or Dictator here!

[QUOTE=Glaber;28271827]Why? You'd ridicule me anyway.[/QUOTE] You know what, why the should I care? Disregard all previous statements. Also, finally, putting to bed all of this homophobic bullshit that conservatives keep up.

i'm kinda confused about what that "spectator" shit is about? can you explain to me glabs

The more homophobic the GOP gets, the more I believe that they're all closeted gays.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;28271870]i'm kinda confused about what that "spectator" shit is about? can you explain to me glabs[/QUOTE] Mark Levin's Spectator Piece, the piece in question, is fiction based on Obama's actions to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act Law. It tells of what could happen if Sarah Palin became president and decided that she was going to stop defending Roe v. Wade in the same way Obama stopped the government from defending the Defense of Marriage Act Law. This also has Mark as the Attorney General. The fiction piece was written as if it was actually happening and even takes a few jabs at obama. EX:[quote]At the White House, a spokesman said [B]Palin herself was never one to be "grappling" with her personal view of abortion[/B], and has always personally opposed Roe v. Wade as "unnecessary and unfair."[/quote] [url]http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/24/attorney-general-mark-levin-wo[/url]

[QUOTE=Glaber;28271967]Mark Levin's Spectator Piece, the piece in question, is fiction based on Obama's actions to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act Law. It tells of what could happen if Sarah Palin became president and decided that she was going to stop defending Roe v. Wade in the same way Obama stopped the government from defending the Defense of Marriage Act Law. This also has Mark as the Attorney General. The fiction piece was written as if it was actually happening and even takes a few jabs at obama. EX: [url]http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/24/attorney-general-mark-levin-wo[/url][/QUOTE] ah okay thanks for clearing that up i was getting a bit confused there.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28271827]Why? You'd ridicule me anyway. Well As Mark Levin's fictional piece points out. If the President can just declare something unconstitutional and not defend it or worse, stop enforcing a law or ruling. Who's to say the next president won't defend gay marriage? Obama is trying to act like a King or Dictator here![/QUOTE] You don't get why we ridicule you, do you? You keep proving yourself incredibly thick and willfully ignorant. When we point out that Fox News is legally not a declared news station and are therefore allowed to tell lies, you just say "bah, no, that's just what msnbc said". When the governor of Wisconsin admits to the fact he just wants to union bust, you just say "Failing education? Stop trying." rather than look at what the problems have been in the last few years and before that. We've been over how many different arguments? I'm not going to say you're wrong, but there's certain facts you're not getting, and you demonstrate that. Lacking responses, quips instead of answers, quote mining, hypocritical evidence acception, You certainly don't look at the whole argument. I know you blame all this on us just being a "liberal" forum, but really, the fox news comments? Are those the folks you want to be associated with? The many conservative forums i've been too and have seen are just... so backwards. I don't know what to tell you man, you'll just disregard whatever I say and take what rush limbaugh says like pigs from a pig trough. So, I guess you win in a deranged sort of way.

mark levin is an idiot

[QUOTE=Glaber;28271778]Can I get a mod to fix the title? I had a brain fart. Edit: Please?[/QUOTE] Then what do you call the rest of your posts? explosive Diarrhea? But in all seriousness its nice to see Obama defend gays like he originally said he would.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28271993]You don't get why we ridicule you, do you? You keep proving yourself incredibly thick and willfully ignorant. When we point out that Fox News is legally not a declared news station....[/QUOTE] Let me stop you right there. Where do you get this idea that Fox is not legally a news station? Show me your source. That law suit didn't only affect Fox, It allowed for ALL News stations to lie. It allowed for MSNBC to make up facts, for CNN to report Lies, for CBS to tell Non-truths. ALL NEWS STATIONS. And this is my source: [url]http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html[/url] This source says nothing about Fox being legally declared Not a News Station. I have to really wonder if Fox did the right thing here.

Oh Glaber, you make me forget neo-conservatism is mainstream with your conspiracy jive I love you

Obama is the gayest president.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28272230]Let me stop you right there. Where do you get this idea that Fox is not legally a news station? Show me your source. That law suit didn't only affect Fox, It allowed for ALL News stations to lie. It allowed for MSNBC to make up facts, for CNN to report Lies, for CBS to tell Non-truths. ALL NEWS STATIONS. And this is my source: [url]http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html[/url] This source says nothing about Fox being legally declared Not a News Station. I have to really wonder if Fox did the right thing here.[/QUOTE] Again deflecting it to "MSNBC" and "CNN", and everyone but fox. Since when do we source them? Confront who you source. I believe most sources we post are pretty credible from what I remember. Just confront waht you're sourcing, and how that bias is not just ours. The most uninformed viewers are fox news views? no surprise there. I know you can't confront that, but come on. The comments on all their online shit? Worse than youtube.