Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GaryTaylor

Guest
news.msn.com/politics/obama-urges-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ban

And California Dreaming is becoming a reality? 🤷

"Obama, a former constitutional law professor, raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on Jan. 21. He said the nation’s journey “is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

“For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” Obama said."
 
I believe a session was past in Illinois and it will go the Supreme Court to be validated (most likely it’ll pass). Also there’s an article, floating somewhere on the internet, that more than 75+ “notable” Republicans signed an early stage petition to strike down Prop 8. People, same sex marriage is inevitable in the US. The advocates will gloat, no doubt once each state legalizes it, as they always do.
“is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh please. I was once an staunch advocate for same sex marriage. This type of attitude is ONLY in their minds. :rolleyes: But whatev. These types of people will equate their “plight” to black-white segregation and women’s suffrage.
 
is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law
Click to expand...
‘Equality’ argument for gay couples being allowed to marry is bizarre. Marriage is forbidden for brothers and sisters, first cousins, multiple people, and people and animals. Any of the people can argue they love each other and there can be equality when they can be treated like anyone else under the law

Fact that states prohibit such marriage proves the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide a right to marry whoever you want
 
Obama effectively admits DOMA constitutional
President Obama, who simply said his administration would stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act because he doesn’t like it, effectively has admitted in a court brief that the law that says for federal purposes only marriage between one man and one woman will be recognized as constitutional.
Click to expand...
That’s from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a premiere civil and religious rights legal team that analyzed the Obama team’s filings in a challenge now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Now the Department of Justice has filed a brief in the dispute, and Obama’s officials argue that it is unconstitutional under the “heightened constitutional scrutiny” standard.
Click to expand...
The analysis explains, “The Department of Justice does not challenge DOMA under traditional rational-basis analysis, which is the appropriate constitutional standard and the standard that the court applied in Romer v. Evans (an equal-protection challenge based on ‘sexual orientation’).” the group said. “Thus the Department of Justice effectively concedes that DOMA is constitutional. That is the only reasonable conclusion under rational-basis review, for opposite-sex couples generally further the state’s procreative purposes for marriage while same-sex couples do not.”
Click to expand...
The explanation continued, “The Department of Justices’ argument that DOMA is unconstitutional ignores that laws like DOMA, which affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman, rationally distinguish between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, and that this biologically based distinction is rooted in the reality that only opposite-sex couples naturally procreate. DOMA is constitutional for this reason because the Constitution requires only that the government treat similarly situated persons similarly. The government is not required to engage in gestures of superficial equality or otherwise pretend that different things are the same.”
Click to expand...
The ADF said while the DOJ claims “sexual orientation” should be treated like race or sex – triggering that heightened constitutional scrutiny – that’s not within reality because “‘sexual orientation’ is not an immutable or well-defined characteristic, as admitted even by scholars of that issue who support redefining marriage.”
Click to expand...
“Moreover, gays and lesbians wield tremendous political power, as is abundantly apparent by, among several other things, this brief filed by the Department of Justice and the most recent elections where a majority of citizens in Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted to redefine marriage.”
Click to expand...
The ADF said the DOJ also argues that promoting responsible procreation is not really an important governmental objective.
Click to expand...
“The Supreme Court has made clear that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of public policy. Thus, Congress and President Clinton acted constitutionally when DOMA was enacted. The wisest course is for the Supreme Court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage. The court should respect the freedom of both Congress and citizens to affirm a bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for the ADF.
Click to expand...
The arguments are expected before the Supreme Court within a few weeks.
Click to expand...
Obama’s stunt in simply ordering that a law he doesn’t like be ignored was cited by legal experts as one of several reasons that impeachment proceedings could be initiated against the Democrat.
Click to expand...
 
Along with 131 Republicans, Clint Eastwood and former members of the Romney team.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Along with 131 Republicans, Clint Eastwood and former members of the Romney team.
Click to expand...
Ooooh, socially liberal republicans who are unpopular with actual conservatives?

Shocking.

You’d think this was one issue the Catholics on this website could find common ground on. Sadly, not even this. God must weep for the pain and damage caused by pro-gay “marriage” Catholics.
 
Frank_Drebin said:
Ooooh, socially liberal republicans who are unpopular with actual conservatives?

Shocking.

You’d think this was one issue the Catholics on this website could find common ground on. Sadly, not even this. God must weep for the pain and damage caused by pro-gay “marriage” Catholics.
Click to expand...
Like Mario Cuomo’s dishonesty. Personally opposed, but would not want to impose that on others.
 
Frank_Drebin said:
Ooooh, socially liberal republicans who are unpopular with actual conservatives?

Shocking.

You’d think this was one issue the Catholics on this website could find common ground on. Sadly, not even this. God must weep for the pain and damage caused by pro-gay “marriage” Catholics.
Click to expand...
You are mistaking this for a discussion on whether the Catholic Church should permit gay marriage under the sacrament of marriage. This thread is discussing civil gay marriage and who in the civil government supports civil gay marriage.

Discussion of the Catholic Church changing position on gay marriage within the church is a complete waste of keystrokes-never going to happen.

Since the civil government is not based on the rules of any particular religion, what the civil government does is a different topic.
 
Wait, I thought they just wanted “equal protection under the law”? (CA has had same sex domestic parnerships since 1999)
 
scipio337 said:
Wait, I thought they just wanted “equal protection under the law”? (CA has had same sex domestic parnerships since 1999)
Click to expand...
Equal means a gay couple doesn’t have to spend money for a lawyer to get the same benefits a straight couple gets simply because the straight couple has the word “married” attached to their relationship.

Besides, aren’t libertarians and conservatives about decreasing government involvement in people’s personal lives? Get the government out of marriage altogether.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Equal means a gay couple doesn’t have to spend money for a lawyer to get the same benefits a straight couple gets simply because the straight couple has the word “married” attached to their relationship…
Click to expand...
That would make sense, except you don’t need an attorney for a domestic partnership in CA, and the state fee is actually LESS than the state marraige license fee.

“Equality” and “sameness” are not the same concept.

Sorry, “equality” isn’t the goal, it’s social acceptance. If you notice, every state except Iowa that now recognizes same sex marriages (or IL, who is now proposing it) had same sex domestic partnerships or civil unions before.

It’s never been about ‘equality’, and never will be.
 
“Prudential judgment”. Nothing to see here, folks, Barry be praised!

Move along.
 
scipio337 said:
That would make sense, except you don’t need an attorney for a domestic partnership in CA, and the state fee is actually LESS than the state marraige license fee.

“Equality” and “sameness” are not the same concept.

Sorry, “equality” isn’t the goal, it’s social acceptance. If you notice, every state except Iowa that now recognizes same sex marriages (or IL, who is now proposing it) had same sex domestic partnerships or civil unions before.

It’s never been about ‘equality’, and never will be.
Click to expand...
It is all about affirmation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top