If the only qualification to be married is to be a consenting adult, then what
about the millions of married people who are also consenting adults? Can they
be denied the right to marry as well?
If the definition of marriage changes. This begs the questions of arrange
marriages, and the muslim practice of multiple wives. I'm sure that there are
many other marriage practices that are currently against US law. Would all of
these other marriage practices also be legal?
Utahprof, DOMA is a looser in the Northeast because why? Maine overtuned
genderless marriage. The list of states that have approved man/women marriage
and reaproved it is almost as long as the list of states. California passed
Proposition 8. You are wrong.Iowa, the only state out-side of the
Northeast that has genderless marriage only has it because the unelected judges
of that state's supreme court who are appointed on the recomendation of a body
of the Bar Association chose to force it. All three of the supreme court judges
up for the rubber-stamp approval which happens so consistently that it would
even be called undemocratic by the Saddam Hussein regime were voted out of
office.It is clear that the vast majority of people who vote do not
want genderless marriage. It is also informative that Obama lied and claimed he
opposed same sex marriage when he ran for office. All the evidence points to
this being part of a campaign to institute same sex marriage by stealth through
Obama's postion is part of his campaign lies. He was lieing through his teeth
when he said he opposed same sex marriage. He has all along been plotting to
allow for it to be overturned by judicial fiat and his appointments to various
judicial positions and the actions of his justice departement have clearly
demonstrated that any claim to support of man/woman marriage spoken by Obama was
100% a lie.Other than one rogue district judge in California no
federal judge has ever held that sexual orientation is subject to heightened
scrutiny. Even that most liberal of all courts, the 9th Circuit, has refused to
find any need for heightened scrutiny in these matters.It is false
to say that Mr. Obama is responsing to judicial rulings in this matter. He is
creating a precedent that he is hoping courts will use in considering
constitutionailty, not the other way around.
Utahprof,Regardless of whether the Justice Department is correct in
its position, it is not the executive branch's responsibility to decide what is
constitutional or not. That is the judicial branch's job. Period. The
judicial branch can offer an opinion during the process of creating legislation,
and can offer an opinion as to the constitutionality of certain actions of the
executive, but ultimately the courts have the final say on the matter. This is
a very unfortunate precedent that President Obama is setting. President Bush
opened many similar doors to executive behavior and we are paying the price.
We'll pay the price for this one too.
None of this will matter in two more years. The republicans will sweep most
elections and control the house and senate and the presidency. Conservatives are
tired of the spend, spend, spend Obama. We need more drilling, mining,
innovation and lower taxes. We need federal lands to be returned to the states.
Reduce the size of fed govt by 2/3 and then you'll see real growth. Our troops
must return home and be used to defend our nation's borders. Real health care
reform must be passed that truly reduces medical costs (drugs are a big portion
of this) and increases quality of life and respect for life. We need to protect
our religious rights. Put quality people into elected office. When they do not
live up to those standards, then quickly remove them.
First, in response to Counter Intelligence, Obama's position is not that the law
was not legitimately passed, but that judicial decisions in the last several
years have made it very difficult to defend constitutionally - and in this he is
quite likely correct. There are plenty of legal scholars who will tell you the
same thing, esp. if the District Court decision striking down CA's Proposition 8
is upheld.Second, this article's conclusion is based in its usage of
only right-wing, conservative Christian sources, with little sense of how many
members of Congress would actually join in. This issue divides the country
regionally, and DOMA is a loser in the Northeast, Midwest, Pacific states, and
parts of the West - with real purchase in only the Southern states and the more
conservative states. Given recent history, including the repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, I would very much doubt that one could assemble majorities in both
chambers to re-pass DOMA in a way that would strengthen it.