Gay marriage: Obama administration won't defend part of marriage act - Polidicks

[quote]In a key shift on gay rights, the administration says a section of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as applied to gay couples who are legally married under state law. The administration vows not to defend the law against two lawsuits brought by same-sex couples. Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration, in a major shift on gay rights, says it will not defend in court the federal law that bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriages and giving equal benefits to gay couples. "After careful consideration, the president of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal-protection component" of the U.S. Constitution, announced Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. Holder said the Justice Department now agrees with that claim. In his legal analysis, discrimination against gays "warrants heightened scrutiny," not general acceptance. "There is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today," he said. He also cited "recent evolutions" of the law in courts and state legislatures recognizing the principle of equal treatment for gays and lesbians. Until now, the Obama administration had taken the view that it had a duty to defend all laws, including discriminatory measures, so long as they could be justified as constitutional. In this instance, the administration could see no "reasonable arguments" to defend a law that denies equal benefits to legally married gay couples, he said. The administration said it will not defend the law against two suits brought by same-sex couples from New York and Connecticut. The administration's new legal policy is highly significant because it says that discrimination against gays is generally unconstitutional, unless the government has a strong reason to justify its policy. Until now, the government's official position was that official discrimination based on sexual orientation was generally constitutional. However, the practical effect of Wednesday's announcement appears to be limited to those states in which gays can marry legally. The lawsuit brought by the gay couples argued that they were entitled to the same benefits as other couples because they were legally married in their states. Holder said the government now agrees with that claim. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president doesn't believe the law is constitutional, though his own personal view on gay marriage is still evolving. "He's grappling with the issue," Carney said Wednesday afternoon. "But I want to make a distinction between his personal views" and the legal decision not to defend the law. [/quote] Source: [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0224-gay-marriage-20110223,0,5596955.story[/url] Hopefully this means it will be repealed sooner.

What a bro, if I was gay I'd kiss him

I still wonder why Clinton signed DOMA into effect anyway. Wasn't it to get elected again or something since re election was a few months away?

[quote]White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president doesn't believe the law is constitutional, though his own personal view on gay marriage is still evolving. "He's grappling with the issue," Carney said Wednesday afternoon. "But I want to make a distinction between his personal views" and the legal decision not to defend the law.[/quote] This is stupid. How can he be grappling with these views? I'm glad he's doing it and fighting for equality, but it seems so ass backwards he either has to hide the fact he's accepted gays, or not have actually accepted gays just simply due to political atmosphere. That's fucked.

That title is weirdly worded.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;28238193]That title is weirdly worded.[/QUOTE] Taken straight from the article.

[QUOTE=Nikota;28237964]I still wonder why Clinton signed DOMA into effect anyway. Wasn't it to get elected again or something since re election was a few months away?[/QUOTE] Him being a baptist is my best guess [editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] But this is great, finally seeing some change for the better for gay rights in the US

This make me gay as a flower. Good news.

DOMA needs to be repealed entirely and replaced with another bill that puts the definition of marriage solely in the hands of the federal government and redefines it as a union between any two adults - with some kind of clause in there to prevent individual states from weaseling out.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28239901]DOMA needs to be repealed entirely and replaced with another bill that puts the definition of marriage solely in the hands of the federal government and redefines it as a union between any two adults - with some kind of clause in there to prevent individual states from weaseling out.[/QUOTE] I would prefer the federal government remove itself from the union of marriage entirely, it would also solve the problem. You could still have state registration, you could still have custody settled with the birth certificate of the child, the only thing that would suffer is the tax break issue which i don't think married people should have anyway. That would solve the problem as well and i don't see a problem with it. Gay Marriage is something i never understood because marriage is accepted by the government. They could still hold ceremonies but they would be treated differently, because of the government. They want validation from the government when the government shouldn't be in the position to cast judgement on the validity of the marriage in the first place.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28240090]I would prefer the federal government remove itself from the union of marriage entirely, it would also solve the problem. You could still have state registration, you could still have custody settled with the birth certificate of the child, the only thing that would suffer is the tax break issue which i don't think married people should have anyway. That would solve the problem as well and i don't see a problem with it. Gay Marriage is something i never understood because marriage is accepted by the government. They could still hold ceremonies but they would be treated differently, because of the government. They want validation from the government when the government shouldn't be in the position to cast judgement on the validity of the marriage in the first place.[/QUOTE] All fine and dandy if civil unions were the only way to get special legal rights and marriage was purely ceremonial regardless of the sex of the people being married, but that will never be the case so the only way to ensure equality is to mandate that states allow gays to marry.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28240310]All fine and dandy if civil unions were the only way to get special legal rights and marriage was purely ceremonial regardless of the sex of the people being married, but that will never be the case so the only way to ensure equality is to mandate that states allow gays to marry.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. IN the States it seems more like the federal government has to force the states to do things with civil rights. Just look at Black rights.

Cool. When can we move past these archaic debacles and stop this immature "debate"? Our society is absolutely primitive. Congratulations, gov't. You are now 5% closer to where you should have been 150 years ago.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28240633]Pretty much. IN the States it seems more like the federal government has to force the states to do things with civil rights. Just look at Black rights.[/QUOTE] That is entirely wrong, the federal government signed those laws into effect because those movements were gaining ground, not the other way around. They wouldn't make laws that had no support whatsoever and believing that statement actually takes [b]so much[/b] away from the actual movements that got those laws signed in the first place. The government did nothing but introduce and sign the bills, the people pushed it forward.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28241048]That is entirely wrong, the federal government signed those laws into effect because those movements were gaining ground, not the other way around. They wouldn't make laws that had no support whatsoever and believing that statement actually takes [b]so much[/b] away from the actual movements that got those laws signed in the first place. [/QUOTE] same sex marriage laws have no support?

[QUOTE=s0beit;28241048]That is entirely wrong, the federal government signed those laws into effect because those movements were gaining ground, not the other way around. They wouldn't make laws that had no support whatsoever and believing that statement actually takes [b]so much[/b] away from the actual movements that got those laws signed in the first place. The government did nothing but introduce and sign the bills, the people pushed it forward.[/QUOTE] They people had to push it forward because the states weren't following through.

I just don't see the fucking issue. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWAfnsSOMV8[/media]

All hail King Obama for this wise decree! On a more serious note, gg on stepping on the courts Obama, that's their job to call what is and isn't constitutional, not your job. EDIT: And before anyone says it, no I have nothing against gay's or gay couples I just don't like how they went about doing this. We have due process for a reason and Obama was greatly overstepping his bounds on this.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28241621]same sex marriage laws have no support?[/QUOTE] Of course they do, but what I'm saying is in the 1980s it wasn't even up for debate at all. The people demand it and the people get laws to that effect, the great benevolent god-king federal government doesn't decide these issues, the people do. Sure they enforce these laws that they create and sign, but to say "IN the States it seems more like the federal government has to force the states to do things with civil rights. Just look at Black rights." is incredibly ignorant. he could have been referring to the collective states in the second instance, while the united states in the first and it seems that way, but maybe word your statements a little more carefully. I'm sure black people would like to think they fought for their rights and won them, and not that the federal government handed it to them.

Good news. However I believe there still should remain government regulation on issues like these. It's the states' fault that matters like this aren't solved already and if the states aren't going to support civil rights then people immediately look to the federal government. And granted how long it takes for the federal government to actually do something, well that's the problem. I swear country is more like 'United States who are too shit-stubborn and has to pulled by the Federal Government'

[QUOTE=AnathemicOne;28243148]I swear country is more like 'United States who are too shit-stubborn and has to pulled by the Federal Government'[/QUOTE] aka "United* States" *Unity not a guarantee

[QUOTE=zombieslaya;28242213]All hail King Obama for this wise decree! On a more serious note, gg on stepping on the courts Obama, that's their job to call what is and isn't constitutional, not your job. [/QUOTE] You make it seem like Obama is an authoritarian dictator - that's far from the truth. I wish he was. :crying:

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;28243523]I wish he was. :crying:[/QUOTE] democracy is a wonderful thing right guys

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28243540]democracy is a wonderful thing right guys[/QUOTE] It's a frustrating system, I'll leave it at that.

[QUOTE=zombieslaya;28242213]All hail King Obama for this wise decree! On a more serious note, gg on stepping on the courts Obama, that's their job to call what is and isn't constitutional, not your job. EDIT: And before anyone says it, no I have nothing against gay's or gay couples I just don't like how they went about doing this. We have due process for a reason and Obama was greatly overstepping his bounds on this.[/QUOTE] he's not stepping on the courts you dummy. He's not making it legal, he's saying he's refusing to oppose any challenges made against it in the courts. It's still the court's decision. try some reading comprehension [editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;28242793]Of course they do, but what I'm saying is in the 1980s it wasn't even up for debate at all. The people demand it and the people get laws to that effect, the great benevolent god-king federal government doesn't decide these issues, the people do.[/QUOTE] But it wasn't the people at large that decided most of the civil rights issues like integration. There was no vote to integrate schools in Arkansas; school segregation was brought down by a lawsuit brought against the board of education by an individual [QUOTE=s0beit;28242793]I'm sure black people would like to think they fought for their rights and won them, and not that the federal government handed it to them.[/QUOTE] the federal government bowed to the civil rights protesters (only partly because the administration sympathized with them), but those protesters were a minority of the population. If the government went with what 'the people' (as in, the majority of the american population) wanted, they wouldn't have gotten their rights when they did there is more than one "american people". I know it's nice to think that we're all united, but we're not, so majority rule is not how you are supposed run things. Majority rule leads to tyranny against minorities it's the same situation

The Federal Government should remove itself entirely.

thanks for your expert opinion it is highly valued

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28246570]thanks for your expert opinion it is highly valued[/QUOTE] Uhhh who here is an expert on anything? Why exactly should the government (whether it be state, federal, or what have you) be involved in marriage?

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;28243555]It's a frustrating system, I'll leave it at that.[/QUOTE] There are degrees of Democracy. I don't think America has their's right.

[QUOTE=Explosions;28246765]Uhhh who here is an expert on anything? Why exactly should the government (whether it be state, federal, or what have you) be involved in marriage?[/QUOTE] because it affects such issues as hospital visitation and child custody i mean how the fuck can you not already know that