US gay marriage ban: US government drops defence of law

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LemonAndLime

Guest
The US government says it will no longer defend in the courts a law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages approved by states.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama had found the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) unconstitutional.

The 1996 law defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife”.

Five states and Washington DC allow same-sex marriages.

Meanwhile, Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie signed same-sex civil unions into law on Wednesday, which will give gay and lesbian couples the same state rights as married partners beginning on 1 January 2012.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12560964
 
We certainly can’t say Obama hasn’t accomplished anything during his presidency, unfortunately, he hasn’t accomplished anything positive. “President Barack Obama had found the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) unconstitutional”. This is why he isn’t trusted by Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of their Church. His approval rating continues to drop among those who didn’t see through his empty promises from the start, but are now waking up, as they see their own financial circumstances plummet. The only ones who benefit from his presidency are the immoral. This is why they remain faithful to this person Obama.
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
The only ones who benefit from his presidency are the immoral. This is why they remain faithful to this person Obama.
Click to expand...
“This person”? Last I heard, he is President of the United States, and as such deserves the respect due a holder of that office. 😦
 
This is absurd.No rational thinking human being can see homosexual marriage as normal.The people who allow(Obama included)are just as deranged morally as those who practice it.A morally deranged individual is incapable of making truelly rational decisions.His thinking has become unbalanced.Its possible to be swayed in matters not dealing with morallity as well.A foundation must be built on rock but now this country is built on sand.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
“This person”? Last I heard, he is President of the United States, and as such deserves the respect due a holder of that office. 😦
Click to expand...
Do you have any on topic comments? I respect the office of the President, not what the person has brought to it.
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
Do you have any on topic comments? I respect the office of the President, not what the person has brought to it.
Click to expand...
Our American tradition has always held that the person becomes the office. If you disrespect the person you disprespect the offcie. This doesn’t mean you have to like them, agree with them or avoid criticism, but we should afford the President the respect of at least being referred to in a proper and respectful manner.
 
LemonAndLime said:
The US government says it will no longer defend in the courts a law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages approved by states.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama had found the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) unconstitutional.

The 1996 law defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife”.

Five states and Washington DC allow same-sex marriages.

Meanwhile, Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie signed same-sex civil unions into law on Wednesday, which will give gay and lesbian couples the same state rights as married partners beginning on 1 January 2012.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12560964
Click to expand...
First, the President doesn’t decide what is Constitutional and what is not. Second, his job as the chief executive is to ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS, period. Not picka nd choose which ones he likes and which he doesn’t. This is all just further proof that Obama and the morons under him and incompetant and have zero interest in doing the job that they were elected to do. Which is why he doesn’t deserve 4 more years in office. It bad enough we have to suffer with him for the next 20 months.
 
Big_Ro said:
Our American tradition has always held that the person becomes the office. If you disrespect the person you disprespect the offcie. This doesn’t mean you have to like them, agree with them or avoid criticism, but we should afford the President the respect of at least being referred to in a proper and respectful manner.
Click to expand...
Not any more. WHen they started transforming the office of President into their own little social transformation sandbox, any dignity that the office held went out the window. If I could egg and TP the White House, I would.
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
We certainly can’t say Obama hasn’t accomplished anything during his presidency, unfortunately, he hasn’t accomplished anything positive. “President Barack Obama had found the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) unconstitutional”. This is why he isn’t trusted by Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of their Church. His approval rating continues to drop among those who didn’t see through his empty promises from the start, but are now waking up, as they see their own financial circumstances plummet. The only ones who benefit from his presidency are the immoral. This is why they remain faithful to this person Obama.
Click to expand...
I pray for the conversion of President Obama
in my daily Rosary intentions.
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
Do you have any on topic comments? I respect the office of the President, not what the person has brought to it.
Click to expand...
Respect the President, respect the Office. Doin’t have to like him. I thought Reagan’s policies to be near worthless, and I had little use for him, but I respected him as the President nonetheless.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Respect the President, respect the Office. Doin’t have to like him. I thought Reagan’s policies to be near worthless, and I had little use for him, but I respected him as the President nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Still off topic? Let’s see, where’s that forum member that always like to post “start a thread” when we need him?

I have more respect for the Office of the US Presidency than Obama does. *This, “President Barack Obama had found the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) unconstitutional” is a disgrace to the Presidency.

*Here’s where I bring it back on topic
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
First, the President doesn’t decide what is Constitutional and what is not. Second, his job as the chief executive is to ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS, period. Not picka nd choose which ones he likes and which he doesn’t. This is all just further proof that Obama and the morons under him and incompetant and have zero interest in doing the job that they were elected to do. Which is why he doesn’t deserve 4 more years in office. It bad enough we have to suffer with him for the next 20 months.
Click to expand...
The President has not refused to enforce the law, he has refused to defend its constitutionality in the courts. Presidents have a duty to uphold the Constitution, and the duty precludes them from arguing that a law is constitutional if they believe it is not. Most modern presidents have taken exactly the same approach, with pretty much every post-WWII president refusing to defend some law or other in the courts. As just one example, when the current Chief Justice was Bush I’s Deputy Solicitor General he actually argued in the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of existing federal laws establishing minority preferences in broadcast licensing, while the FCC argued in favor. You can agree or disagree with the President’s decision, but it is not in any way an abdication of duty for him to take this position - pretty much every modern president has done the same.
 
It’s unfortunate that Pres Obama wishes to support “gay marraige.” However, I see this policy of his as consistent with his apparent belief that many citizens are entitled to financial aid from the taxpayers.
I believe that the goal of the “gay marriage” movement is to create a new class of entitlement, namely, the ‘dependent spouses’ in a gay marriage. How unjust and offensive to tax a working father who sacrifices to support his wife and children, and then to use that tax money to eventually provide survivors’ social security benefits to a ‘surviving dependent spouse’ from a 'gay marriage." This so-called surviving dependent spouse is actually a sexually disordered man or woman who did not work and stayed home to raise the cats.
The whole gay marriage movement is about one thing, playing the government welfare system to get more money out of it.
We must hold to our faith in the Holy Spirit that he will guide us through this disordered and sinful era.
 
CorinneV said:
I believe that the goal of the “gay marriage” movement is to create a new class of entitlement, namely, the ‘dependent spouses’ in a gay marriage. How unjust and offensive to tax a working father who sacrifices to support his wife and children, and then to use that tax money to eventually provide survivors’ social security benefits to a ‘surviving dependent spouse’ from a 'gay marriage." This so-called surviving dependent spouse is actually a sexually disordered man or woman who did not work and stayed home to raise the cats. The whole gay marriage movement is about one thing, playing the government welfare system to get more money out of it.
Click to expand...
What an absurd thing to say. FYI, both spouses in same-sex households are more likely to be employed than opposite sex households and the median income is also higher for same-sex households.
 
His Excellency Mister President Barack Obama, duly elected head of the executive branch of the U.S. Government, sworn defender of the Constitution, Commander-in-Chief, sole representative of the several States united as One, leader of the free world, is – as is said in the parlance of the scions of the British Empire, from whose glorious stock our laws and government were descended and refined – a royal tosser.

It’s okay: I say the same thing about my last archbishop. We must respect the office and the authority it wields. We must render proper obedience, and even a certain species of filial love that is proper to virtuous patriotism. We need not, however, be polite or even civil towards the office-holder. That is strictly a matter of prudence. There’s certainly nothing remotely offensive on either or a moral or a civil level

Anyhow, back on topic: why is this a topic today? Chief Justice Holder dropped the defense of DOMA… what, about a month ago now? Much more interesting and timely is the Atlanta law firm that agreed to take the case for the U.S. House suddenly dropping it like a potato made of hot. And why is the thread in Moral Theology rather than World News? Honestly, I’m just a bit confused.

And, admittedly, wanted to poke some fun at Rich. No hard feelings, I hope, Rich!
 
Wowbagger said:
His Excellency Mister President Barack Obama, duly elected head of the executive branch of the U.S. Government, sworn defender of the Constitution, Commander-in-Chief, sole representative of the several States united as One, leader of the free world, is – as is said in the parlance of the scions of the British Empire, from whose glorious stock our laws and government were descended and refined – a royal tosser.

It’s okay: I say the same thing about my last archbishop. We must respect the office and the authority it wields. We must render proper obedience, and even a certain species of filial love that is proper to virtuous patriotism. We need not, however, be polite or even civil towards the office-holder. That is strictly a matter of prudence. There’s certainly nothing remotely offensive on either or a moral or a civil level

Anyhow, back on topic: why is this a topic today? Chief Justice Holder dropped the defense of DOMA… what, about a month ago now? Much more interesting and timely is the Atlanta law firm that agreed to take the case for the U.S. House suddenly dropping it like a potato made of hot. And why is the thread in Moral Theology rather than World News? Honestly, I’m just a bit confused.

And, admittedly, wanted to poke some fun at Rich. No hard feelings, I hope, Rich!
Click to expand...
Never, though sometimes I do exhibit a bit of pique at some posters’s remarks. 😃
 
No surprise here…just another act in the “destroy our culture as we knew it” parade that the extreme left (note: not true liberals) have been attempting for decades.

We must recall that quite often people feel that in order to have a different future, the present must be torn down to make way for the new…we see that in action and there seems precious few people who care enough to stand for the culture as it was. Nothing new under the sun…just a different day–same old attacks–same old actions—same old stuff.

There is a reason we humans are called fallen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top