White House Abandons Defense of Marriage Act
- Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:03pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s)Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”
The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.
The move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.
“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 Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel.
Holder’s statement said, “Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed” the Defense of Marriage Act. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still “grappling” with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as “unnecessary and unfair.”
Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.
The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.
At a December news conference, in response to a reporters’ question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is “constantly evolving.” He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline – at this point, as he put it.
“This is something that we’re going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward,” he said.
On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.
The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the Defense of Marriage Act.
One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government’s denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 385 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 385 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (508)
Rowgue
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:19pmThis is not news. They’ve never defended the law in court, so saying they aren’t going to defend it any longer is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter anyway. They are incompetent and the legislation is better represented by intelligent people that actually know what they’re talking about. There is nothing unconstitutional about the legislation which is why all challenges to it have been dismissed.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:08pmActually, this is an important question in the law, as to when the DoJ can elect not to defend a law on the books. One of Reagan’s DoJ attorneys, who now is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, recommended that Reagan do the same thing, which he did, and Roberts made up new law to justify it. Now, I agree with you that you want the law vigorously defended (although I completely disagree with it) in order to respect the integrity of our constitution, and you cannot reasonably rely upon a President and Atty General that will only defend it half-heartedly taking the lead role. Having said all of that, if you accept Roberts’ rules for when the DoJ can avoid defending a statute, this case doesn’t seem to fit. On the other hand, if Roberts could make up those rules in the 80′s, then perhaps a couple more rules can be made up now, in the interest of having a vigorous defense of the law occur. For more detail on this, see:
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2009/06/when-does-justice-department-decline-to-defend-statutes.html
Report Post »dtitus1304
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:18pmhis numbers are dropping so he is trying to solidify the gay vote. This has nothing to do with marriage. He is campaigning for 2012.
Report Post »ibanrfknm
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:30pmThis I agree with.
Report Post »KL
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:18pmHaven’t heard one word from Clinton yet………..OR the GOP.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:23pmYou will.
Report Post »REETZBEE
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:17pmUnions protesting all over the country and Dictator Obama decides to throw this in the pot. What’s going on here and why is Obama so hell bent on dividing this country even further?
Report Post »BreeZee
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:33pmremember, a house divided cannot stand. obamma knows exactly what he is doing, don‘t blink he’ll slap you with the other hand. obamma is worse than Nixon was at being above the law. He needs to go down the same way also.
Report Post »Cattiecathy
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:17pmWhy isn’t the repulicans rasing he!! About this ? Pres, can’t pick and choose what laws to obey and he is not above the law !!! Are thse the crisis they have been wanting ? Maybe he wants to be inpeached so he doesn‘t have to run again cuz he’d have to show a birth cert ? Then he can blame the right .
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:12pmHe is not picking and choosing what laws to obey, he is being fiscally prudent as to which laws to mount expensive appeallate defenses of.
Report Post »cdwhite75
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:35amEveryone should contact their congressman to convey their support of impeaching Obama. He is circumventing the courts and trampling the Constitution. Despite anyones opinion of gay marriage, one state cannot impose its will on another. For example if I live in Missouri and hold a conceiled carry permit that does not mean I can legally carry a weapon in Illinois. I believe there is sufficient evidence to issue articles of impeachment, his noncompliance with the injunction on the drilling ban being the most blatant.
Report Post »El Jefe
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:14pmLibs=Pro Union, labor or civil…
Report Post »OneBuckeye
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:14pmObama declares himself a DICTATOR! Hmm, the next president could delare Obamacare void. Could be a good swap!
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:22pmDictators don’t usually stick to the term limit.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:11pmHow is making sure that all americans are treated fairly under the law an act of a dictator?
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:13pmSo this just another issue that Obama has flip flopped on
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
Who would have thought that Obama would change his stance when his is losing gay support and he is starting his re-election campaign…..duh
tifosa
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:32pmWrong. He ran on full repeal of DOMA. My guess is that you weren’t reading… 3rd paragraph, last sentence.
Report Post »Freddd
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:12pmSo a law can now just be declared by Obama and Holder and not upheld, because they just happen to ‘say so”..I think not.
Report Post »Uncurable wound
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:12pmOh boy here comes the POOPER POPPER PARADE!LOL
Report Post »God,Please just ONE LEADER!
OneBuckeye
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:11pmObama appointing himself dictator!
Report Post »Cabo King
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:11pmimpeach this idiot NOW!!!!!!!!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:15pmif by idiot you mean Walker, yes he is clearly a trained monkey of special interests and needs to be impeached.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:11pmHe figures there is so much chaos in the world nobody will notice. As a candidate he supported D. of M. I guess Joe Wilson was right. “You lie” Mr. President, “You lie”!
Report Post »pugsly84
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:11pmDoes this man have no shame? IMPEACH THIS MAN NOW!!!!
Report Post »scoter
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:28pmHell no they have no shame. WHEN I SEEN OBAMA I KNOW.
Report Post »hopefulmainer
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:11pmwho does this guy think that he is? Get him out of there.
Report Post »RIn3hart
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:10pmFor the love of “god” this needs to stop!
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:46pmNope, somehow it makes “regular” marriage null and void or something.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:51pmtompaineknowsthescore
It does pick your pocket just like illegal aliens pick your pocket. Treating AIDS that those poor destitute gays spread around so freely costs taxpayers millions every year. 63% of AIDS funding in the U.S. goes to treatment.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:07pmApparently you didnt know that African American Females have the highest reported number of AIDS and HIV positive people in the US.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:29pmtompaineknowsthescore hit the nail on the head.
Marine,
“Nope, somehow it makes “regular” marriage null and void or something.”
This is why it will be great when this stuff gets litigated in the courts. You have no case if you cannot show harm, and the right cannot show harm. This will be the undoing of anti-gay legislation.
Blackhawk, “tompaineknowsthescore: It does pick your pocket just like illegal aliens pick your pocket. Treating AIDS that those poor destitute gays spread around so freely costs taxpayers millions every year. 63% of AIDS funding in the U.S. goes to treatment.”
So by that logic, we should pass anti-Jewish laws, since we are also paying to treat and prevent Tay-Sachs disease. We also should pass anti-Black laws, since we do the same for sickle-cell anemia. Nice logic, there. Keep trying. I‘m sure you’ll find a new way to rationalize your dislike of gays to justify their unequal protection under the law–US Constitution be darned!!
Marine, “Apparently you didnt know that African American Females have the highest reported number of AIDS and HIV positive people in the US.”
Careful. He might try to take away their equal protection under the law as well…
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:35pmIt’s just interesting to know that there is a big civil rights hurdle to jump in the near future.
Report Post »Goodgriefgeezlouise
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:10pmLooking for votes anyway he can get them..This guy never stops campaigning…His ultra-liberal agenda keeps popping it’s head up while the world is burning..My question is what will Obama do if Israel is attacked?..He is just so off the wall..
Report Post »awizard
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:11pmQuick!.. the unions are falling apart … the blacks are dividing … Let’s get the gays on our side!..
@ProgressiveLiberalMarine; In this issue everyone has “equal rights”, a gay guy can marry any woman that will have him, a les. can marry any man that will have her … Marriage is a pact between a man and a woman “Period” … anything else is called something else(I don’t care what, just so it isn’t marriage) …
Obama flips again and “We don’t like this Law anymore, so we’re not gonna support it” … I think that should be illegal … but that’s just me …
Report Post »teachermitch32
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:24pmProgressiveLiberalMarine
So you agree that there is “regular” marriage? I guess that means that gay marriage is “irregular marriage. So we are in agreement. Gay marriage is “irregular”.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:33pmOh, you got me, I said regular. Love is love, Marriage is marriage. I’m atheist, so I don’t care about what Christians believe marriage to be, your christian beliefs shouldn’t be politicized.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:37pmI put the quotes around “regular” for a reason.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:09pmabc
Looks like your liberal buddy your defending got the boot. I guess thomaspainedidn’tknowbest. I see your now trying to compare diseases to lifestyles too. Last I checked AIDS is still a mainly sexually transmitted disease unless your unlucky enough to get it from a blood transfusion. The diseases you mention do not fall into the same category.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:09pmYep, equal right is pretty Dictatorial.
Report Post »Holy Shiite
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:20pmHey genius, everybody already has equal rights. The homosexual activists want SPECIAL rights. I don‘t believe for one minute that you’re a Marine, but if you really are, I hope they put you out in the very front of the front.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:34pmIt’s not special rights to get equal rights, and at this point I really don’t care if you or anyone else thinks I am a marine or not, just because I don’t think like a lot of the ones you have met.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:43pmSounds like the liberal marine (there is no such thing) might be a buddy of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. Your not the one making conjugal visits to ol’ Bradly are you?
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:52pmHah, get it! because I am in support of Gay rights I’m gay! You are pretty clever.
But no, I just don’t care if they get to marry.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:53pmDude, grow up.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:58pmTo late, I’m already Grown Up. Retired from the Military 5 years ago after 22. I guess it‘s true that if your in your 20’s and not a liberal your considered heartless. If your over 40 and a liberal your brain dead.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:00pmI didn’t say you were heartless, I just said you need to grow up. Which is still true after that juvenile comment.
Report Post »Holy Shiite
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:02pmOkay, dolt, I’m going to type this really slow for you so maybe you can get it, although I don’t have high hopes. Every American ALREADY has the right to marry a person of opposite gender. See, we ALREADY have equal rights concerning this. Can you grasp that? It’s fairly simple. Some homosexuals want a SPECIAL right just for them so they can marry each other. Lets do a scientific experiment. Get two working lamps with working bulbs. Now, touch their plugs to each other. The lights didn’t come on, did they? No, because for them to fulfill their purpose, they must be plugged into something OPPOSITE of themselves. By touching their plugs to one another, they will never be able to complete the purpose for which they were designed and constructed. Should we pass a law requiring them to be allowed produce light without a power source? No, that would be ridiculous and against the laws of nature, as would allowing homosexuals to legally INSTITUTE their abominable lifestyle. It‘s nice that you think you’re so compassionate and caring, but seriously, you’re a disgrace to your uniform.
Report Post »TexasProgressive
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:06pmHoly Shiite
How is asking for the same rights as opposite sex married couples asking for something special? They want the SAME rights.
Blackhawk1 – really a very dumb comment. Even if your numbers were true, which they are not, don’t those people have a right to be treated? You don’t get to opt in to what you want your taxes to go for…your taxes go to fight sickle cell anemia, a disease suffered by only black people…what are your thoughts on that?
Report Post »AYFKM
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:13pm“ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:52pm
Hah, get it! because I am in support of Gay rights I’m gay! You are pretty clever.
But no, I just don’t care if they get to marry.”
Except that you came to this board to promote the idea. Fella.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:14pm@Texas, Maybe they should just choose not to be black right? It’s the same thing, people are born one way and that’s just the way they are.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:18pmPromote and Defend are two different things.
Report Post »Progessives=Fail
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:35pmThere is a difference between a classic liberal and a socialist/communist/progressive. I would assume he is a traditional liberal. I’m conservative but can see that liberals have been hijacked by the progressive/communists/anti-america folks. I find it hard to believe we have an america hating marine here.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:40pmHow do I hate America?
Report Post »Progessives=Fail
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:44pmWhat I said is that I doubt you are an American hating marine. Progressives are anti-American.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:49pmJust a question. How many Gay People do you personally know? I dont mean “This effeminate man made my coffee at a Starbucks this one time”, but actually know.
Every single LBGT person I have ever known will always stand by the fact they are born that way. They didn’t just wake up one day and decide “Meh, I’ve have never tried the gay thing yet. Might as well give it a shot.”
It’s called Sexual Orientation for a reason.
Report Post »godfather
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:51pmIt‘s funny how conservatives always speak of small government and states’ rights but quickly backtrack when it is inconvenient. It’s funny that conservatives become inflamed when Michelle Obama promotes eating healthy, and no, no regulations have come out of her suggestions, but then you don‘t want a group of people you don’t like, homosexuals, to have the same rights as you. As conservatives like to say, I thought that the government’s power over you stops at your doorstep. Well, if that is the case, your power over homosexuals stops at the same place and they can do whatever they want.
Tell me this, how does two men or women getting married affect you in any way? And don’t try the slippery slope argument that next people will be marrying sheep. Marriage requires consent and last time I checked sheep can’t consent. So I ask you, how does allowing homosexuals to get married affect you in the least bit? Conflicting with your religious or moral beliefs is not enough.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:52pmAlso, sorry. I read the America hating sentence wrong. I just get accused of that enough on here I am used to it by now.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:53pmProgressiveliberalmarine
Nah…,you’re not a marine. But that does not matter.
This is what matters!…,UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!!!!!
Legalizing gay marriage opens up the legal door to anyone who wants a relationship with whoever.
If gay marriage becomes legal why can’t Ossie Schnick take three brides, or for that matter two brides and one groom? What about Bertha Boggs who isn’t crazy about human men but falls in love with every Tom she sees at the shelter? Oh wait! What about “NAMBLA?” Why shouldn’t some hip 45 year old guy be allowed to marry his 14 year old BOY TOY? There‘s more but you see where I’m goin Prolibma.
Civil ceremonies …., fine and dandy. No marriage in the church.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:53pmMy guess would be that our liberal Marine is no longer on active duty (if ever). I know a guy up here in the U.P of Michigan that claimed to be a Marine but was a liberal. Turns out that after 16 months in he got booted out (unable to cope with but still kept referring to himself as a Marine.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:56pmBecause what you described is illegal, and being gay isn’t. I don’t want to know where you are from if being hip consists of what you described.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:07pmTexasProgressive
Trying to compare a disease with a choice of lifestyle is absurd as is are most liberal arguments.
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:11pmThat argument would make sense, if being gay were a choice.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:14pmgodfather
People marrying sheep isn‘t an argument but let’s say I want to have 5 wives? Wouldn’t that be my choice? Just think of the tax deductions I could claim. Then I could fall into the 47% of people that pay NO federal taxes and the Government could shut down. I don’t have a problem with people being gay, just don’t try to force something on me I believe is wrong and make me accept it.
Report Post »FreedomFighter2006
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:08pmThis arguement has no foundation, being gay is a choice. As long as it’s a choice then the justification for homosexuals demanding equal rights is void. It’s like a rapist declaring in court that, “I did it because I was born this way.” Lies, lies, lies… Here’s the kicker… I know people who were gay but are no longer gay anymore. How does that work!?!?! Can someone on here explain to me how being gay is 1) Healthy? (the butt is not made to have things put in it) 2) Not a choice? (Gay Gene) 3) Able to sustain itself? (the population growth) if we supposidly evolved and are becoming more and more advanced over time? (which I dont believe that bs, but I want someone to explain it to me please!)
Facts and proof please, I don’t want anyones emotional explainations. (Trolls control yourselves)
Report Post »Montana Made
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:57amActually yes- I know quite a few gay/lesbian people- all fine individuals. I have asked the very question: “Born or Choice?” about half said born, the other- yep, choice. So the Gay Gene argument doesn’t wash with me, nor (according to my highly sophisticated polling data!) the Gay/Lesbian population. I think it has become lately a very convenient argument to just blame it on a gene- that they have no personal choice in the matter.
Report Post »One in particualr is extremely close to me (related by blood). He said choice, and no, he does not believe there should be a special condition for gays on marriage. It is what it is.
I also agree with the thought that it is completely unsustainable. Children come from somewhere, somehow- and the last time I checked (it’s been a while since I took biology…) it took a male AND a female to procreate.
HairRazor
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:10amI wonder if plmarine is really a marine… not to say he‘s not because once in a while a lower form will ’slide under the fence’ in just about any occupational field. oh, and keep the change.
Report Post »HairRazor
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:18amFreedomfighter. you got it right.
Report Post »Ronko
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:09pmIsn‘t that illegal for the President of the USA and the justice Department to ignore laws that they politically don’t agree with. I believe it is time for President Obama to be impeached because I believe that it’s illegal for the president of the united states to ignore the law not to mention that he is also violating the 10th amendment as well.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:54amThe Justice department is not required to defend laws before the Supreme Court; although, traditionally, they have done so, even when they disagreed with them.
The Justices can still hear the issue, and others can file in (albeit with reduced authority) defense of the law.
There is no guarantee how things will turn out.
Even if the White House makes no attempt to defend the law, if they win the case, they will try to take the credit.
Report Post »code green
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:09pmScrevv the constitution. We don’t like the law that was passed by congress and signed by a president so we are going to ignore it .
Report Post »Gangsters in the White House . Time to clean house .
abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:04pmJust to set the record straight, the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while in the DoJ advised Ronald Reagan to do the very same thing. And he made up some new legal categories to justify that unprecedented move. But no one calls Reagan a dictator, so please explain:
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2009/06/when-does-justice-department-decline-to-defend-statutes.html
Report Post »code green
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:23pmIf you are refering to Metro Broadcasting then you are mixing apples and oranges. Metro was a federal suit and Defence of Marrage is a law passed by congress and signed by the president.
Report Post »Also Roberts was the “Point man” not Reagan .
abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:19pmCode,
“If you are refering to Metro Broadcasting…”
Yes.
“…then you are mixing apples and oranges. Metro was a federal suit and Defence of Marrage is a law passed by congress and signed by the president.”
Nope. Both involved the question of whether or not the Executive branch would fulfill its duty to defend a statute that they actually disagreed with in court. The DOMA is before the Second Court of Appeals, and they set the timing for when this announcement arrived from the WH.
“Also Roberts was the “Point man” not Reagan .”
There is officially no “point man” position in the WH. Roberts was an attorney in the DoJ, but his advice to Reagan doesn’t control. He passes it up to the Atty General, who then has Reagan make the call. The President has the final say on whether the Executive branch defends or doesn’t defend the statute in court.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:08pmLooks like Barry flip flopped again
Report Post »Highland
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:27pmLooks like Obama is “grappling” with his own “evolving” sexuality.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:37pmFlip-flopped how? He had repeal of DOMA CLEARLY on his agenda. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:41pm@TIFOSA
Maybe you aren’t aware of how a constitutional government works, but Presidents don’t get to repeal legislation. That’s the job of Congress.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:05pm@GHOSTOFJEFFERSON, I was responding to the allegation that he “flip-flopped.”
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:08pmNext up:
Report Post »Obama will no longer defend USA
13th Imam
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:19pmThat train left the station long ago
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:29pmbreaking news,,,,HE HASN’T BEEN defending it. Since taking office, he has effectively divided the government, the people, and destroyed any chance for our children.
Report Post »Hisemiester
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:29pmHe hasn‘t and isn’t now standing for this nation. Satans minion. He is doing exactly what he told the American People he would do. Wake up America.
Report Post »freeus
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:18pmThat is an understatement.
Report Post »Arminianism
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:08pmI don’t think he is moving to middle
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:13pmThe scary thing is, I think he thinks this IS the middle!
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:01pmPsalm 108:9…. ” Let his days be few and another take his office.”
Report Post »Arminianism
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:31pmYour probably right GONZO, scary isn’t it?
Report Post »oldguy49
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:07pmImpeach !!!!!!!!! he now thinks he is a dictator!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Venom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:18pmFor the first time, i move to impeach him.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:22pmSorry, but he doesn’t think it……….he is one and he knows it.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:24pm2nd, all in favor?
Report Post »tompaineknowsthescore
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:33pmexplain on what grounds could he be impeached?
Report Post »and how exactly he thinks hes a dictator?
FlatFoot
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:36pmThis Wag-the-Dog moment brought to you by: Caesar Barackus Hubris Maximus — “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”
Report Post »freeus
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:58pmCould this be what Barry wants, more chaos?
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:02pmOkay, based upon the following article, assuming the analysis is correct, I think that Obama has made a bad call. This still doesn’t qualify him for the dictator moniker, but there doesn’t appear to be precedent for this in the law, which is not good for maintaining its predictability. Clearly, political calculations took precedence in this case, sadly.
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2009/06/when-does-justice-department-decline-to-defend-statutes.html
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:15pm@OLDGUY49
He is a dictator … We have our own Chavez …
Report Post »Red Meat
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:18pmDo any of the Blazers think anyone in the GOP has the backbone to start the impeachment hearings?
Report Post »AKMIIKEUS
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:27pmI love it how you people think you are incharge. NOT!
You don’t like living here, move.
Report Post »exdem
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:43pmHe swore an oath to uphold our laws. He has broken his oath and should be impeached for many things ,including this one. His goal is not to uphold our laws but to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA into an ISLAMIC state. Look around! It’s being done right before our eyes.
Report Post »Live it up now gays!! Because after you done being used to help dismantle our laws , you will be killed under Sharia law for being who you are. Wake up!!!!
Creestof
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:11pmForget impeachment. You saw what happened with that lying dirtbag Clinton. Obama’s going to be out of office in 2012…far sooner than any impeachment hearing would ever get him out.
Focus…Focus…Focus on our candidate to run against him. Because I guarantee we are going to wind up shooting ourselves in the foot, giving Obama his best shot at another term, simply because every doofus with an “R” next to their name is going to run…and while doing so, they‘ll sling mud against all the other Republicans running and it’ll wind up giving America a bad taste in its mouth and make the winning nominee “doubtful” to the American people to the point they vote for the guy who’s already unpacked.
We need to get our heads out of our butts, select 3 “possibles” based on their honesty/conservatism/ideals…and from that 3, the RNC needs to pick the one that has the best chance of winning. Once picked, every other possible candidate has to get on board, shut their damn pie holes and pack the nominee.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:39pmGuys, you can‘t impeach somebody just because you don’t like him. I despise Obama but he’s done nothing actually impeachable yet to my knowledge in a real sense. While we can quibble around the edges, it takes more than one-off type things to impeach a sitting President. This is something the GOP needs to learn, you cannot impeach a sitting President for getting a BJ, so stop trying. Impeach him for serious crimes, like selling state secrets to the Chinese (if you can prove it). This obsession with “impeach!” at every opportunity only weakens the call should something real arise.
Just my take.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:48pmExdem: He swore an oath to uphold our laws.
No he didn’t. Read the oath again. It only says that he will uphold the Constitution, nothing about having to support every individual law that has ever been passed.
It seems like everybody on this site believes in following the Constitution, except of course for that little technicality that you have to do something illegal to be impeached. You can’t remove a guy from office just because you don’t agree with his policies or statements. You can’t take him out for lying if it wasn’t under oath. You can’t take him out for having different priorities and not doing things you think he should have. You can’t take him out for simple incompetence. And you can’t take him out just for being a politician and negotiating with other politicians behind closed doors to get things done.
Also they do believe in the part that says Congress shouldn’t usurp the rights reserved for the States, except of course for defining marriage – which they’re okay with as long as it produces the result they want.
Report Post »exdem
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:13pm@CHETHEMP
Report Post »OKAY- when has he preserved, protected or defended our constitution??? he is dismanteling it and you know it as well as I do.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 9:19pmExdem
Report Post »I know no such thing. He’s just an ordinary moderately liberal politician who does his best to enact the policies favored by the people who elected him. I can’t think of anything he has done that any reasonable person would view as dismantling the Constitution.
exdem
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 10:00pmHEMP
Report Post »There are so many examples of Obama not upholding the constitution they are too many to list. Lets just take defend or protect. He bows to our enemies and insults our allies. He wants to try enemy combatants in NY. He cant even call them terrorist. He believes that America can absorb another terrorist attack. He has appointed radical czars and known communist to his administration. He has made a joke out of the justice department. He sues one of his own states (AZ) for enforcing immigration laws. He wont enforce them because he might lose a hispanic vote in his next election. Meanwhile, Hezzbollah has infiltrated that border. Tell me what do you think their intentions are? Do you feel safe?
I won’t even start on ObamaCare, or nationalizing our banks or car companies or collasping the economy. ……….
Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:34amExdem
Okay, you don’t like his style and don’t agree with his choices and don’t think he’s adequately fulfilled all his duties, but what makes you think that any of that is unconstitutional, let alone some kind of deliberate attempt to undo the Constitution? He has as good a relationship with our allies as his predecessor, and there’s no evidence that we are in any greater danger than before he was President. There were terrorist trials in civilian courts before he was President with no problems or negative results. He believes that America can absorb another terrorist attack because we can. Would you have felt better if he had said that a terrorist attack would shatter and crush us? If he has appointed radicals and communists, so what? It’s not the first time and it’s not unconstitutional, and you fail to name one unconstitutional act that any of them have actually done. Suing a state for enforcing immigration laws is technically upholding the Constitution since that is a duty of the federal rather than state government. He hasn’t improved the security of the border, but neither did any previous President for exactly the same reasons, so it’s hard to see it as an attempt to dismantle the Constitution. If Hezzbollah has infiltrated the border, everyone who says that they have also says that their intentions are fundraising, so yeah, I feel perfectly safe.
The bank bailouts and the economic collapse happened before he was President. He hasn’t actually “nationalized” any industries, and the only part of the healthcare bill that is probably unconstitutional is the individual mandate which was put in because the insurance companies and their Republican stooges wanted it.
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:07pmThis is a full frontal attack on God. Guess who will win!
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:12pmThe PROGRESSIVE agenda is going into third gear.
1. Destroy the economic value of the dollar.
2. Instruct Unions to destroy the wage earning system.
3. Remove any form of Religious entity from our lives.
Prepare
Report Post »Muslim in Chief
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:13pmOf course he abandoned it. He can’t be bothered with upholding the law. He is too busy bringing law suits against those who abide by it.
Here is the Hoax and Charade he promised
cheezwhiz
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:13pmI wouldn‘t have believed how intensely evil a person can be if I hadn’t seen Obama
ISeeDanger.com
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:16pmWhat do you see? Peace, Calm, Stability? I see danger….
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:19pmAmen, God himself will deal the final justice upon those who tread down his laws; the part we play in this is to stand strong and remembe that justice in the final form is HIS domaine and perview, by His own laws unto all of humanity. We do the best possible here on earth, with imperfect law systems, yet to outright declare unconstitutional a law of the land, where only the courts can declare the same, Obama has overstepped his presidential authority.
For 15 years the law has been in existence, and could be challenged in the courts if he feels so deeply in the unfairness of it; that is one reason the courts exist, to legally redress wrongs done or imposed by laws and statutes harmful to the ideals of the constitution.
Report Post »cnsrvtvj
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:20pmAmazing how the messiah completely discards the entire legal system whenever it serves his purpose. He’s losing the unions, so he needs a new base. Isn’t this the same guy that told us he was against gay marriage when he was campaigning? I think it was.
http://www.donsmithshow.com – see the world in chaos video
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:23pmObammar is working on his campaign for 2012. Looks like he is working on the gay vote now. Hopefully, they too will realize he will screw them over (no pun intended) as well when the election is over. Do not trust this man. What is transparent about this ‘politician’ is that he is not transparent.
Report Post »I have his birth certificate
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:23pmWTH!!! this is a -LAW- just because he is the president does not mean he can pick and choose what laws to uphold. Heads need to roll for this kind of BS. If he does not like the law fight it in court. He thinks he is KING OBAMA more and more every day.
Report Post »ozchambers
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:25pmDivide…divide…..divide….divide…..divide……PUSH! He is about ready to create enough unrest to kickstart the massive tea party protests again. But this time the labor unions / communists / socialists / anti capitalists are planning to mix it up with us in a violent way. And when that happens Barry unfortunately will have no choice but to shut down these violent tea party protests and their violence-inspiring rhetoric. The backdrop of protests around the world toppling governments will be enough to keep the sheeple from raising too much of a ruckus about the suspension of civil liberties.
Report Post »BreeZee
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:26pmPOTUS needs to be IMPEACHED!!!! Once again he has broken his oath of office. Who the hell is he to decide what is constitutional or not? which laws to enforce or not? He is still implamenting obammacare even tho it was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! He is breaking the law in doing so!!!! This man is evil and will be the dam-nation of us all.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:28pmHere are a few incontrovertible facts for you Beck -Bots to chew on:
1) Only about half of all Americans care a whit about politics. Of the half that does, about half of them HATE the other half. Sound like a winning formula to you?
2) In 2011 America, the Federal Government can and will do WHATEVER IT DAMN WELL PLEASES. And there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. They are above the law. Sound like a winning formula?
3) IF America devolves into Civil Unrest, NONE of you Blazer are “Prepared”. Especially the ones who spend some of your “preparation” time praying.
4) GLENN BECK CANNOT SAVE YOU.
How do you like them apples?
Blackhawk1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:33pmWhat makes you that Obama would abide by or uphold any LAW. He flagrantly ignores the Federal Judge who ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional in it’s entirety and there fore must stop implementing it. If ignoring the written laws or ignoring lawful rulings are not impeachable offenses, then what is?
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:34pmNot really news. Obama wasn’t defending DOMA in any valid way.
Report Post »The only news out of this is that he’s exposing himself. yet again.
Obama , on every issue, is taking the opposite positition of the majority of American people.
Most Americans are not for gay marriage, most are not for hugging Muslims , most are not for Obamacare , most are not for public employee unions.
Obama is the anti American President
abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:36pmMan, since he invented God.
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:36pmGay marriage (or it’s dis-allowance) will be one of those things 50 years from now that people will be ashamed that we outlawed, much like cross race marriage, and women’s suffrage. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God or religion and to pretend it to does shows a gross ignorance to what this country was truly founded on.
Resolved
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:39pmBegin Rant
I don’t honestly care about the repeal of DADT. Grinding on an aircraft carrier (or any of the other crude behaviors DADT was designed to prevent) should get you discharged with or without it, gay OR straight.
Now for marriage. I have two possible solutions. Since in the United States marriage is an institution of the state (not of the church like in Britain) I say let the states handle it. If California votes to do it, let them do it (they actually voted against it, but our court systems just won’t have that). (Note – any such measure should include the “NOT IN MY CHURCH” clause). BUT it would make more sense to me to simply extend secular benefits of marriage (recognition, tax breaks, etc.) to Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships, thereby protecting the ordinance of marriage but not interfering with others‘ right to choose how they live their lives so long as it doesn’t negatively affect me. This way, if the Homosexual community just wants to be equally recognized or eligible for benefit x, they get it, but if it‘s just the label and the subsequent ’stamp of approval from America‘ they’re searching for, they’re out of luck.
I believe strongly in Agency, and that means that, within the constraints of reasonable law, you have a right to make bad choices as well as good ones, and the obligation to live with the consequences.
End Rant
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:40pmDid you ever believe you would live to see the headlines reflect the stories in your Bible? I didn’t!! Do you remember the story of Balak and Balaam in Numbers 20-22? They are also mentioned in Revelation 2:12-14. Short version of the story is this: Balak was afraid of the Israelites and wanted Balaam to curse them. Balaam told him “NO man can curse what what God has blessed, but if you can get the Israelites to make enough compromises in their morals and beliefs…eventually, God will correct them himself and they will not be too strong for you to defeat.
Report Post »Would bet you lots of money that the current administration is NOT aware of this story, but the principles are all there.
Creestof
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:41pmIn my paranoid mind, I think BROKER101 is a paid GB employee. Think about it…A paid GB employee COULD come here and echo his boss‘s thoughts in hopes of adding to GB’s credibility, but oh my Lord, how much more effective the mole becomes by insulting GB…as he draws the audiences ire and bonds them even closer together in their opinions.
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:43pm@ broker0101
The reason you are is here is because you are lost.
We are all comfortable with the idea that Beck cannot save us. He is not supposed to. We are going to do this on our own, unlike you. You are waiting for the guy to show up and say “I am here from the GUBBERMENT, and I want to help”. I feel sorry for your lack of honor.
silentwatcher
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:43pmI find it odd that Beck keeps being attacked by the left. He’s not a politician, but is only informing the interested on the events as they unfold. Yet, he is attacked for what he ‘believes.’ Well, attack me, cause I ‘believe’ Beck has brought out some very good topics that have proven true. What else is odd is that you trolls go ‘way out of your way’ to make your attacks on people for what they believe. Is that what the commies believe? What the heck, yes I forgot, that is what they believe-CONTROL. News flash, and listen very closely,,,,,,,I will NEVER be controlled. I know that going into the fight.
Report Post »You commies trying to control citizens remind me of the Taliban shepherding the people with their sticks-whacking them when they step out of line. I know that I am NOT the only one who will not be controlled,,,,this nation is full of patriots-more than we know, because some of them just haven’t realized it yet. So commie, take that stick of yours and stick it up you a**.
npbreakthrough
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:45pm@snowleopard
you got right down to the real core of this issue, its about rule of law, obama is not a king that rules by decree……..he is an elected official and he will respect laws……..and so should his justice departement
Report Post »or he has broken his oath as president
godlovinmom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:48pmEnd times indeed…nothing in America surprises me anymore…if I didn’t know anything about the anti-christ…one would think it’s obama!
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:50pmJeremiah 17:9-10
Report Post »The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
freeus
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:52pmBarry wants chaos. He is trying to get the sodomites on board. Next up illegal aliens. This is part of the plan.
Report Post »easyed598
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:59pmObama lost a lot of his base in last year election.This is his way to start getting them back. He had the gay vote already and could alienate others that supported him in 2008.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:03pmThis move, and timing, is to take attention away for what is happening in Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado, et al. Those issues are losing public support, and The Magician (watch this hand – don’t worry about the other one) needs to distract attention from these events (at least for the LMS – giving them another story) and to build support for his 2012 campaign, which he will undoubtedly loose were it not for the billions he stole and will use.
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:03pmThe NUDGE has changed to RAM
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:04pmChill, gang, we will soon have Sharia law across America. I know they are all about Gay Rights. I just know it.
Showtime
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:12pmIs anyone SURPRISED?
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:12pmobama deemed it unconstitutional! now we don’t need courts. Obama can make all decisions for us
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:12pmWe have a RULING from a COURT that says Obamacare is unconstitutional .. Obama IGNORES IT! Now HE declares something on his own .. unconstitutional .. which has NOT been ruled on by a court. Separation of POWERS? When did we do away with that …. Obama RULES he doesn’t SERVE.
Report Post »proudconservative
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:13pmOur President is doing a tremendous job at setting by example of how to be a good President or even Christian for that matter.
All you have to do is believe and do the exact opposite of him and you would both be the best President ever and one of the finest most sincere Christians.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:16pm@broker0101
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:28pm
Here are a few incontrovertible facts for you Beck -Bots to chew on:
1) Only about half of all Americans care a whit about politics. Of the half that does, about half of them HATE the other half. Sound like a winning formula to you?
2) In 2011 America, the Federal Government can and will do WHATEVER IT DAMN WELL PLEASES. And there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. They are above the law. Sound like a winning formula?
3) IF America devolves into Civil Unrest, NONE of you Blazer are “Prepared”. Especially the ones who spend some of your “preparation” time praying.
4) GLENN BECK CANNOT SAVE YOU.
How do you like them apples?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About as much as we like you.
And you got your statistics from whom?
I have news for you. That might have been the case a few years ago, but America is no longer asleep.
Report Post »lketchum
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:24pm@cheezwhiz – you nailed that sad fact. Nor could any of us.
It is so hard to believe such evil exists in such a naked form.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:25pm@broker0101
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:28pm
Here are a few incontrovertible facts for you Beck -Bots to chew on:
1) Only about half of all Americans care a whit about politics. Of the half that does, about half of them HATE the other half. Sound like a winning formula to you?
2) In 2011 America, the Federal Government can and will do WHATEVER IT DAMN WELL PLEASES. And there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. They are above the law. Sound like a winning formula?
3) IF America devolves into Civil Unrest, NONE of you Blazer are “Prepared”. Especially the ones who spend some of your “preparation” time praying.
4) GLENN BECK CANNOT SAVE YOU.
How do you like them apples?
____________________
Let’s play…
You said, “1) Only about half of all Americans care a whit about politics. Of the half that does, about half of them HATE the other half. Sound like a winning formula to you?…”
Actually, everyone cares about politics whether they know it or not. Abortion? Pick a side–it’s political. Teachers in Madison? Pick a side–it’s political. Et Cetera, et.al. According to Marxists, EVERYTHING is political. While that sounds unreal in practical terms, it’s the way things are.
Or, for fun: everything can be considered ‘religious’.
Or dogmatic–choose the term of your pleasure. Words have influence, which is why the Left has this annoying knack of changing definitions. You know–sort of like you and others who post here.
You said, “…2) In 2011 America, the Federal Government can and will do WHATEVER IT DAMN WELL PLEASES. And there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. They are above the law. Sound like a winning formula?…”
That sounds defeatist to me. My mom always used to say you can’t fight city hall, but I’m not the type to roll over and play dead. By your statement, a mugger is going to make you a victim and there’s nothing you can do about it; a rapist is going to abuse your daughter and you’re helpless.
That’s how YOU are coming across. And there‘s no way I’ll subscribe to any of the defeatism YOU profess here. If anyone tries assaulting my daughter, that guy may win but it’s going to cost him, at minimum, one of his eyes. I and her mom taught her that: My daughter is no one’s victim, not even if government tries.
We have a Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. Funny–YOU say we are helpless, yet bash us for requiring Washington, DC hold to it. Which is it with you?
You said, “…3) IF America devolves into Civil Unrest, NONE of you Blazer are “Prepared”. Especially the ones who spend some of your “preparation” time praying…”
If you don’t believe in a Higher Power, that’s okay. But, in the real world, there are people who hold faith and YOUR view doesn’t change that. There are people all over the world, and through all history, who have risen up.
I won’t detail any of it but, how about locking away YOUR biases and sanctimony, and listen to people who have been down and brought back up? Really–talk to people outside your comfy, latte-sucking world, and talk to people. From what I hear of people in recovery, it‘s a good thing to leave what they call ’the comfort zone’.
You said, “…4) GLENN BECK CANNOT SAVE YOU.”
You’re right. But you think within tight limits. That’s on YOU, not us.
I have to see someone post here that Glenn is somehow a ‘savior’. Not even he assumes that he his.
Like us or not–despise ME all you want–but I prefer to trust a man who says, “Don’t take my word for it. Look into it yourself.”
You are so messed up. We here–we Conservatives–aren‘t here because there’s some altar to Glenn Beck. We are here because this is a place for like-minded Citizens to speak together, to exchange ideas and converse as individuals who demand to be left alone by criminals in government (MY term for them).
We all have stories to tell. Here, if YOU shut up long enough to end your invective, you will find we are:
Christian
Jewish
Atheist
White
Black
Asian
Hell–I’ll toss in a Klingon, for fun.
In the end, we know what we are about. On what do liberals stand–their ‘feelings’?
We have the Constitution, which keeps US united.
What do YOU have to offer that is superior?
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:26pmWell now we know for sure Obama is not a Muslim nor a Christian. If he was a muslim all the gays would be killed, and with this he cannot be a Christian. Are we really shocked, this is going to “change” the topic of debate. Now we will forget about supporting the Gov’s who are in battled against the Union robbers, now we will join the fight to stand against gay marriage. Obamam is going to try and do as much damage to this country as he can for as long as he can. He has no morals and no eithics in my opinion.
http://www.josephfawcettart.com Western Artist
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:28pm@ JOKER 101
Cat got your tounge.
Report Post »As I mentioned weeks ago, you remind me of an old college prank… it was known as “Chew and Screw” That fits you to a “T”
right-wing-waco
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:28pmI can’t help wondering just how many death threats he has received. All Presidents and lots of Congress and other bureaucrats get them too. This thug is playing dictator and all the polls show the American people are NOT in line with him.
If he continues shoving his finger in our face and passing his “laws” by proclamation (exec orders), the people will eventually stop trying to make ends meet and then, when the middle class revenues stop coming in, his world will crash and the government workers will go broke.
Barack Obama, a voter caused disaster!
Report Post »GayDem4Beck
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:30pmSee my response on page 4… I’m sure allot will give me heat on the second half, while most would agree with the first part.
Pres. Herman Cain / Vp. John Huntsman Jr.
Report Post »Sec. of State John Bolton / Sec. of Homeland Sec. Joe Arpaio
Clive
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:30pmdashriprock, i’m sure those stations are trembling at the prospect of losing your viewership. they should probably close up shop right now, as the economic fallout from your boycott will be devastating.
btw… glenn beck has no problem with gays, or gay marriage.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/08/glenn_beck_gay_marriage_advocate.html
Report Post »Pezman
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:47pmI have a problem with both sides in this particular argument. The President is clearly NOT living up to his Consitutional duties here. Let this stand and ALL future Presidents have preceedent (sp?) to ignore ANY law they find ‘troublesome.’ NOT a good idea.
Report Post »Why do I have a problem with BOTH sides?
Thee law is for more than one reason an unconsitutional piece of legislation. Here’s my argument. Clearly, the Consitution gives the Feds NO power to decide what makes up a marriage.
ANY legislation that tells one state what it MUST do is clearly a violation of the 10th amendment.
Now I recognize a states right to identify what is and isn’t a marriage.
Please consider this.
I have a marriage licence from NYS. As a consequence, I have certain rights with regard to property, medical proxy and inheritance that a gay couple does not. IF we honor the first amendment, then denying these rights based on marital status is in of itself unconsitutional.
ANY state that issues marriage licences, ( as is their right) but fails to come up with a mechanism to honor the civil rights of gay couples with marriages or civil unions from other states, is not honoring the concept of equal protection under the law.
IMHO, all states should issue nothing other than civil unions and leave it to churches to issue marriage licences, IN this way, we are all equal under the law, but maintain a mechansim to identify what is and isn’t a marriage without denying the secular/civil rights of others.
LAM2
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:55pmPoke, poke, poke, nudge, nudge, nudge, Shove!
Report Post »This administration wants every American to be angry or feel insecure about something. Pray for peace, strengthen your family, network with other like-minded people, and prepare. It’s time to be our best selves.
encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:59pmjblaze
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:07pm
This is a full frontal attack on God. Guess who will win!
______________________________________________________________
Nothing ot do with God and everything to do with basic human rights. If God is pissed off, he can go to the capital and protest in person.
jinx83
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:01pmthese people who are lapping this deadly milk up and enjoying it.. have a brutal truth to realize.. AMERICANS will fight for what is right..
Report Post »Enjoy your 6 months psychos. It’s going to rain hell on them all when all this blows over. (one way or another) What would be even better is.. IMPEACHMENT and get this finished… who wants an EARLY ELECTION ????????
meeeeeee
HillBillySam1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:04pm@ABC or BROKER
Report Post »Perhaps you brilliant fellers can answer a question for an old, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping imbecile such as myself…….isn’t it the Constitutional duty of the Chief Executive, our beloved President Obama, to uphold and enforce the laws of the land despite his/her personal feelings about said laws???? Or is that the “past history” of our land??? I’m sure that both of you agree with our Dear Leader about DOMA and since you are far too intelligent and enlightened to believe in God, since He is apparently just “man-made”, just who/what do you believe gives us the moral right to enforce ANY law??
jzs
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:04pmWhere is the Constitution does is say that someone can’t marry someone else of the same gender?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:07pmDale
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:03pm
This move, and timing, is to take attention away for what is happening in Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado, et al. Those issues are losing public support,
_____________________________________________________________________
The Gallup poll shows Americans are supportive of the Unions, while in Indiana the GOP has blinked and a third Federal court has issued an opinion today in support of healthcare reform.
Report Post »oldoldtimer
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:09pmSo now KING Obozo can call any act passed by Congress as unconstitutional without going through the courts. That is the end of the Republic. No matter waht law, bills or acts Congress passes he assumes the authority to make them unconstitutional by edict. WE have a dictator in the WH.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:10pmPezman;
You have to stand on your head to consider marriage other than between a man and woman MARRIAGE. You champion the Constitution, so you have some respect for law and history. How do you then turn how many thousand years of law and history into some recently-concocted ‘right’ that never before existed. I am just amazed.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:12pm@abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:36pm
Man, since he invented God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you talked to WHOM exactly, to get your horse’s mouth information?
I supposed Man made Heaven and Earth, too?
AGAIN, Broker, what are you smoking or snorting, besides hatred and ignorance?
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:14pmSam,
“@ABC or BROKER
Perhaps you brilliant fellers can answer a question for an old, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping imbecile such as myself…….isn’t it the Constitutional duty of the Chief Executive, our beloved President Obama, to uphold and enforce the laws of the land despite his/her personal feelings about said laws???? Or is that the “past history” of our land??? I’m sure that both of you agree with our Dear Leader about DOMA and since you are far too intelligent and enlightened to believe in God, since He is apparently just “man-made”, just who/what do you believe gives us the moral right to enforce ANY law??”
You’re not a knuckle-dragger just because you believe in the Bible. Afterall, I could be wrong about my lack of religion. You become a knuckle-dragger when you assert that you know for sure that my agnosticism is wrong. But I like the self-deprecating humor.
You’re asking a good question. I left a post in multiple places below that has info from a lawyer that has worked in government multiple times and who has summarized the murky rules around this very question. Personally, I hate the DOM Act, but I also think Obama made a mistake by deciding not to enforce it, given prior legal precedent. But it’s a close call, since I think the DOM Act deserves a vigorous defense in court, and if Obama’s team cannot do that, then it is better for them to step aside and allow someone else to offer it.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:14pmjzs;
You ask the WRONG question: where in the Constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is legal. Where in history does it say that the term even makes sense?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:16pmSooooooo…..the plan is to:
1. Ignore rulings on the unconstitutionality of Obama’s so called “laws” and enforce them regardless.
2. Obama decides for himself what is constitutional and chooses not to enforce whatever laws he dislikes.
No, kids, we aren’t living in a dictatorship. Really.
Report Post »freeus
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:16pmBarry is just trying not to let a crisis go to waste.
Report Post »HUNITHUNIT
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:18pmThere is a big difference between not continuing to defend the constitutionality of a law, and not enforcing said law. If you actually read the entire article, you would know that this administration is choosing to no longer defend the laws constitutionality, not refusing to enforce or uphold it.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:22pmGhost, you’re too smart to pull out the “dictatorship” moniker. As I posted elsewhere, Reagan did the same thing, but no conservative would call him a dictator. The rules about non-enforcement of a statute are murky, and i’ve left a link with more information. While rare, it isn’t without precedent. And in those limited cases, it actually makes sense.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:22pm@jzs
“Where is the Constitution does is say that someone can’t marry someone else of the same gender?”
Oh JZS, you can do better than that.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the President gets to decide what is and isn’t constitutional? According to YOU on another thread, the SCOTUS decides and while we are all entitled to our opinions on it, those opinions are not law. Now, you have a choice. Stick with your words about who interprets the Constitution, or become a political hack willing to suspend truth in order to promote ideology. What do you choose?
In case you don’t know, I’m against anti-gay laws in a general sense. But I also know that POTUS doesn’t get to decide which laws to enforce (or prosecute) and which ones not to based on his own judgment of constitutionality.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:25pmHooray… now I can marry my dog!
(sarc)
Nothing surprises me anymore… I am ready….
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:26pm“On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.”
Meaning, they won’t be actively defending using the law, meaning any challenge to the law will go uncontested, meaning that the legislation will be effectively nullified. Am I misreading something here?
Report Post »Dale
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:26pmencinom;
Which Gallup poll? What year? What are the internals? Most Americans, except union leaders and thugs, (which are you?) abhor violence. The hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and bad manners demonstrated are not lost on the MAJORITY. You may believe that you are winning – but you are not. The Wisconsin situation shows just who YOU are. Again, most Americans value fair play and equality. obomba said it himself “I won”. He and you lost the last election, but refuse to acknowledge it. That doesn’t play well. It’s a good thing obomba stole all that money, you’re going to need it.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:27pm@broker0101
That’s ok because only 1/3 of the brave souls had the courage to fight for our freedom in the revolutionary war and the other 2/3 were wimps like you who took advantage of it.
As for your remark about God… I know who wins in the end and an eternity is a heck of a long time… make your choice.
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:32pm.
This is outrageous! – and it has nothing to do with marriage…
This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Obama is not fit for office, nor is Eric Holder.
Their job is to enforce the laws on the books – laws that were written by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only a dictator would think he has the right to pick and choose what the law “should” be.
Begin impeachment proceedings now for Obama and disbarment proceedings for Holder. Obama cannot possibly be a “Constitutional scholar” nor can Eric Holder have learned anything in law school and do what they do.
Report Post »proudconservative
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:34pmCan you imagine the outcry if George Bush had come out and said I hereby abandon Roe Vs. Wade? Could you imagine the outcry from the left? This is basically what Obama is doing here. This man deserves to be impeached as much as Clapper needs fired.
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:35pm@ABC
Report Post »I agree with you that if the Obama Administration will not defend DOMA in a court, then they should step aside and let someone else defend it. I firmly believe that DOMA should be a State’s-Rights issue. If the good people in California want to legalize same-sex marriage, then the citizens of that state must be allowed give it a voice. If the citizens in my beloved Commonwealth of Kentucky decline to legalize it, then another state MUST NOT over-ride the will of the people for that state. Isn’t that the reason that we have our own seperate State and local governments??? I know that most Progressives absolutely HATE State’s-Rights issues…..they have used the Federal Legislative and Federal Judiciary to advance their causes…..but they can‘t overcome an individual state’s own rights to determine it’s own laws……thanks for responding, by the way……
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:36pm@ABC
I was going to respond otherwise, then saw you posted this below:
“abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 3:02pm
Okay, based upon the following article, assuming the analysis is correct, I think that Obama has made a bad call. This still doesn’t qualify him for the dictator moniker, but there doesn’t appear to be precedent for this in the law, which is not good for maintaining its predictability. Clearly, political calculations took precedence in this case, sadly.
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2009/06/when-does-justice-department-decline-to-defend-statutes.html”
So, we’re more or less on the same side here. As for calling him a dictator, I’m in a bit of a miff today, that was a bit too strong a word to apply to this situation specifically. It’s a bad day for me today.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:37pmGhost,
“Meaning, they won’t be actively defending using the law, meaning any challenge to the law will go uncontested, meaning that the legislation will be effectively nullified. Am I misreading something here?”
So I think you need to understand the context here. The Second Court of Appeals is going to hear a constitutional challenge to DOMA, and it set a deadline for when the Executive Branch files to defend the law in court. They have notified the Court, not to mention the Legislative Branch, that they do not intend to defend the law in court. The law is being enforced out there in the country, and nothing announced today will suddenly make gay marriage legal or enforceable somewhere. This merely relates to the court case. Now, whether the Administration should defend that law in court is a tough question in my mind. It doesn’t seem justifiable to not defend, given legal precedent, but since those rules and precedent are murky and have been ignored in the past (e.g., under Reagan), it could be justified. Further, some might argue that it also should be justified to ensure that DOMA gets the most vigorous defense possible.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:40pmProud, that isn’t what is happening. The analogy would be to ask what would happen if Bush opted not to defend against a lawsuit Roe v Wade. But that cannot happen, since you cannot sue over established cases ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:56pmSam,
I don‘t think it is fair to say that liberals hate states’ rights. Both right and left have played up the issue when it helped further their political agendas. Liberals historically overruled states rights to pass civil rights legislation, but they also defended states rights when places like California wanted to move forward with environmental regulation or stem cell rules that differed with the federal government. It is hard to find politicians on either side that have remained consistent. Heck, the entire Supreme Court broke with their prior history of rulings in Gore v Bush, so I guess it’s understandable.
The technical legal problem with your claim that this is a states’ rights issue is that the Highest Court has ruled that the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) in the US Constitution has been held to apply to the states as well. This means that if the Supreme Court rules that DOMA violates the EPC, then it must be enforced on the states. This is just like what happened during the civil rights era.
Ghost, I do think we’re on the same page, although you are having a far worse day than I am apparently. Feel better.
Report Post »from3itsgood
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:08pmI agree with most of the canderous statements, but really is this something we want our Federal Gov’t to decide? This is realy out of the scope or responsibilities for the Fed. Gov’t. I just wish the Obama administration would use this same “hands-off” approach to the other crap that has been introduced in the last 2 years. Know your Role!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:10pmDale
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 4:14pm
jzs;
You ask the WRONG question: where in the Constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is legal. Where in history does it say that the term even makes sense?
____________________________________
Where in in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government hsa any right to define what marriage is? Where in the Constitution does it say marriage of any kind is legal or not?
As for the Gallup Poll that shows americna support the WI labor unions, the support was 61% as reported today on Fox News of all places (of course they reported it wrong).
Report Post »dirty.dee
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:12pmfull frontal beats out god all the time. It’s like rock and scissors.
Report Post »ablisterin
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:27pmI have a gut feeling that the lolly-bama may be the last person that holds the title of President of the United States. I don’t think he has any plans of leaving his post, no matter what.
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 5:28pmABC
Report Post »Are you suggesting that the Equal Protection Clause would allow me to carry a concealed weapon legally in a state that has laws against concealed weapons?? Or that a lady who works at the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas can go to another state and operate in her “profession” legally?? It is a very murky area when you claim things under the EPC……I understand that those examples that I gave are extreme but I just wanted to point out that just because something is allowed in some states, and not others, it doesn’t make it un-Constitutional…..I understand that you cannot discriminate but I don’t think that same-sex marriage falls into that category……it is up to each state to determine it’s own laws and the Federal government is limited in determining what those laws are……and you can go thru a whole range of issues from voter registration, conditions of employment, commerce, gun rights, education, public safety, and so many others……I just don’t see the Federal government being able to pick-and-choose the laws it will defend and then turn around and tell the states which laws they have to enforce……perhaps I lack the total understanding that is required……but I did attend the 3rd grade twice……non-consecutively, of course……
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:10pmJzs and Encicom,
Report Post »Stop mis-characterizing the law.
Where does it say in the constitution that the Fed govt has the right to force one state’s marital definition on another?
ABC,
Glad we can be fellow-travelers on this one, and that you see the implications of a President not enforcing laws he’s sworn to.
To be fair, Bush used signing statements as a way to pick and choose what ways he felt his administration should enforce certain laws, but it was never in the spirit of “I will not enforce this at all”. I think that’s a far cry from unilaterally declaring them null and void by executive branch fiat.
ricklap
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:35pmA clear violation of separation of powers, the Executive branch telling the judicial branch what to enforce and what not to.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:40pmI FIND THIS QUITE INTERESTING………..discus Roe v Wade and every liberal nut job lawyer or judge will scream precedent …..precedent. Yet, for some reason the fact that marriage has been well established precedent not only in the laws of this country since its inception, but needless to say throughout human history seems to be out of step with this AG and administration. Again, liberalism is a contradiction at almost every turn. It is based on a contradictory worldview. And leads to things just like this. What a joke our AG is….he has got to be the worst this country has ever seen. That’s why liberalism is easily defeated in debate because they have no foundation rooted in Truth. Everything is relative so no one can ultimately say something is wrong, which is the self contradictory part because they just stated a universal truth. It is laughable and I am sure these people think they are so progressive in their thinking. Progressive ideology is actually a regression back to times of self willed men doing what’s right in their own eyes which is not progressive at all but rather enslaving and oppressive and as old as history !!!!!!!!
Report Post »waggie
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:43pmNothing should surprise us with this administration and in the world either for that matter. I tried to warn people when he was campaigning that I feared for America because he was the most liberal senator ever in US history. Nobody would listen to me.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:45pm@ BROKER….you are schizophrenic my nonsensical little friend….your bloviating and vociferation have abraded my affectibility !!!!! You sir are an nincompoop and a fabulist !!!!!!!
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:48pmThere is my inconsistent atheistic little friend ABC I wondered when we would be graced with his inconsistencies. “Man invented God”……………The fool says in his heart there is no God !!!!!!!!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 7:01pmHappyStretchedThin
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 6:10pm
Jzs and Encicom,
Stop mis-characterizing the law.
Where does it say in the constitution that the Fed govt has the right to force one state’s marital definition on another?
___________________________________________________
Full Faith and Credit Clause, the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment.
Report Post »michaeljay
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 7:06pmOf course God will win but in the meantime we cannot abandon our part in this warfare. With and by the Grace of God we will prevail. Remember to vote in 2012 and stay active in the meantime.
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 7:12pmENCINOM, please explain how the 14th Amendment applies to marriage………the Obama Administration has defended DOMA for the past two years and they just now realized that the 14th Amendment prohibits implimentation of the law?!? Where were you two years ago when they really needed you???? Go back to the Huffington Post to re-formulate your argument…….and don’t forget to scrub behind your ears…..
Report Post »14Truth
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 8:59pmNever thought one man could do sooo much damage in such a short time… he’s NOT working alone!
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 9:06pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBppaKdQKJ0
Report Post »Intellectual Honesty
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 9:09pmThis is purely a demographic argument in a political sense; as the older more, um… “traditional” values voters drop dead, they are being replaced by youthful voters that are not intimidated or threatened by gay people. So cling to religious doctrine as tightly as you wish, your numbers on this issue are in a permanent nosedive.
However I do appreciate the way your favorite politicians pander to you on these cultural issues, it ensures the populous can clearly identify you for what you are, and fortunately for those of us that have a different view, your tunnel vision blinds you to the increasing numbers of voters rolling their eyes each day.
So I’m 100% supportive of the “good Christians” on this one. Keep up your vocal opposition to these heretics like Obama! Demand your presidential candidates re-institute DADT and terminate as many rights from gay people as you can! Shout it from the rooftops!!!! Make sure you remind us all about God’s judgment and wrath too….
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 9:30pmTower,
Report Post »Stay away from this one dude. You will get your legs cut out from underneath you.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 10:12pmNCicom,
Report Post »Big swing and a miss.
Full faith and credit clause? It gives CONGRESS the right to decide how records definitions should apply between states NOT the executive branch.
You bring it up, but it makes MY point, not yours.
14th amendment Equal protections clause?
Your burden of proof: What right am I denying a gay man by defining marriage as between one man and one woman? I, as a straight man, am JUST AS forbidden to marry another man as a gay man is, ergo EQUAL rights!
And if you attempt to respond that it’s unequal because gay men love men, not women, then your dishonesty stands revealed. You are NOT after equal rights, you are after special privileges for a group whose very identity has a sexual behavior as its central core. Special privileges are odious enough when it comes to “protected” classes, but to place that legal category on a “class” which can only ever be defined SUBJECTIVELY is to undermine EVERYONE’s individual liberties.
crazytalk
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 10:53pmMore like a full frontal on the rule of law. We have a monarch now.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 11:40pmOh my word PEZMAN its called a civil union…….but many object to it be legalized form of marriage that has been defined by all the rest of HUMAN HISTORY as between a man and woman !!!!!!!
Report Post »Dionysus
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 11:41pmI do not believe that this is an attack on God, I actually believe it to be the exact opposite. I may not agree with Obama on MANY issues but I do support him on this. First, it is unconstitutional to define marriage and make religious laws. Almost all of the major arguments against same-sex marriage have been based on scripture, ever heard of separation of church and state. I cannot support any theocratic decision. Second, the bible has been misinterpreted, again. When the bible refers to homosexuality it is not talking about modern homosexuality rather it is talking about the only real known form of homosexuality back then which was child abuse. It was when a older male would sexually abuse a younger boy. This is absolutely disgusting but it also happens in heterosexual child abuse cases. Also, many tend to site Leviticus as the main religious argument against homosexuality but this book also goes on to say how it is a sin to wear more than one type of fabric or to sow to different seeds in the same ground. That is just plain stupid and most modern Christians would agree with me because it is too expensive to wear one type of fabric and the world would starve without crop rotation. My final argument for this theological debate is that God is love. Since God made gays in his image and He doesn’t make mistakes then He must have made gays exactly the way they are, the way he intended them. God didn’t write the bible, mortal men did. Men wrote it, interpreted it, and abused it. God never taught us to hate, he only taught us to love. God loves us all, and if He doesn‘t then He isn’t God. P.S. I read a lot of the post about your very illogical descriptions of Obama and how he is a dictator. I like Glenn Beck but blind faith is dangerous and you must not be a follower but a critical interpreter. Make sure you are logical in your arguments and that you back them up with hard evidence and don’t just blabber on about the “Progressive Agenda” and how it’s going to destroy America, because you kind of make me look bad. -Dionysus
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 11:44pm@ JZS …..where in the constitution does it say one can’t marry a literal Jack-Ass? Where does it say you can’t marry 3 different people? Where does it say an adult can’t marry a child? Where does it say you have a right to collective bargaining? Where does it say you have a right to abortion? Where does it say you have a right to medical care? Answer those for me and I will answer your question !!!!!!!!
Report Post »Montana Made
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:10amYEA!! Let’s celebrate gay marriage!! Next it will be Beastiality Marriage with a goat! Then we’ll have marriage to a car!! or a tree!! or marriage to/with ____________ (fill in the blank).
I have seen on this board “Where does the Constitution say gay marriage is prohibited?“ or ”Where does it say marriage is only between a man and a woman?” It was specifically for this reason that DOMA exists- to define marraige so there is no question of what it will be.
For those that say Let God have His say- that is exactly what I am afraid of- that He WILL have His say, and it won’t be pretty. We keep tempting Him & pushing- eventually He will answer.
The world is on fire and all we do is throw more gas on it… remember Sodom and Gomorrah?
Yeah, we’re there.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 5:19amJBLAZE…. thank you for your first post.
Report Post »After reading this article my contempt towards unrighteouse actions had my blood boiling. Your comment brought it back to 98.6.
JJ Coolay
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 5:26amBROKER0101 Writes: 4) GLENN BECK CANNOT SAVE YOU.
_________________
Nope he can’t. And no one here is saying he can either. Soooooooooooo?
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:57amShouldn’t we all have expected this from a man who fights against saving LIVE aborted babies???
Report Post »Issue after issue, this POS is on the wrong side — against anything decent and right!
rappini
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:03amI guess if you’re Gay why would you defend the Marriage Act between a Man and a Women. 2012 can’t get here fast enough.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:20am@ DIONYSUS…………Let me point out something to you and your contradictory comment, marriage is originally a religious contract not a government or civil contract sir……So your attempt to separate marriage from its religious roots is misguided and shows a lack of knowledge about what it is and how it originated very very weak argument. I would have had more respect for your argument if you would have just said why have marriage at all. At least it would have been more consistent.
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:56pmFreedom, my friends, can be a double-edged sword. It cannot discriminate. The defense of marriage act is stupid. I don’t want government defining what marriage is. The table could one day be turned and the government could opt to define it ONLY as a union between the same sex. God wants us Christians to be the light to the world, not to pass the buck to our government.
Where I debate with myself is the right of same-sex unions to adopt children. Being that they partake in a lifestyle that precludes procreation, I’d say that parenthood should be off the table. Though, I’d also make that assesment with Single mother/father adopters whcih are currently permitted to adopt. The Family has been dismantled consistently and is vital for the moral fabric of our nation.
And don’t come to me with “IT’S A GENE,” unless you explain how genes – the genetic inheritence of offspring gets passed without procreation and site specific sources. Some try to claim it is a mutation of an existing gene which amuses me that in defense of homosexuality, they – in essence – are calling it a defect. ANYTHING but a choice.
Report Post »canuck44
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 4:35pmEasy fix….Congress needs to create its own legal department to defend Congressional mandates and bills if Obama’s administration refuses to do so. This will erode the power of the Administration and allow Congress direct access to the courts to defend the States.
Report Post »Kookaburra
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:15pm@JBlaze–Right on the mark buddy! I am still waiting for this Commie usurper Nobama and all his devil cronies to be charged with treason on every possible level with the maximum possible punishment available. Since this has never happened in this country before, we will have to devise a whole new standard of punishment. He doesn’t deserve a trial. Why afford him any of our laws, he defecates on all of the anyway?
Read 2 Thessalonians 2. Obama IS the LAWLESS ONE spoken of in this chapter. He abides by Nothing, No Law, Zip, Zero, Zilch! Makes it all up as he goes along, and the whole darn country LETS HIM DO IT! Is it any surprise he is doing this, urinating on a Congressionally passed law because he doesn’t like it, so now he directs the Dept of Justice to NOT enforce it? This is the will of the people, and he spits on it!
Mark my word: The next thing you will see happen in this country is the upsurgance of the U.S. military against Obama. They have been against homosexuals in the military FOREVER! Then Obama panders to the LGBT lobbyists with his DADT mess he just pulled. Now, that poor Purple Heart war hero is heckled by the leftists. There will be serious hell to pay when the military turns on the USURPER IN CHIEF. That will happen. The writing is on the wall.
We say to ourselves, Where in the world is God while all this is happening? When will He step in and crush this Satanist? I think Billy Graham’s daughter said it best. I saw a video clip of an interview with her — I think someone asked her where God was during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, or one of those things. She said it best when she stated that: We have thrown God out of all aspects of our lives. We have removed Him from school, family, government, [I think] even churches. And being the gentleman that He is, He has done just that….bowed out gracefully…………My opinion is that He is allowing us to destroy ourselves.
Report Post »TenStrings
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:32pmo @broker0101
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 2:28pm
“Here are a few incontrovertible facts for you Beck -Bots to chew on:”
Let’s play around with your facts, show we?
BTW, being from the Northwest, I LOVE apples!
1) Only about half of all Americans care a whit about politics. Of the half that does, about half of them HATE the other half. Sound like a winning formula to you?
Yes, but, with every anti-American rant you leftists make, we gain headway. We’re sitting back and watching you drive the nails into your own coffin, ironic!
The only real “HATE” is on your side. We love America and Americans, including you.
Yes, it is a winning formula, if the libs don’t steal it like they did in WA. State, Minnesota, Nevada …need I go on?
2) In 2011 America, the Federal Government can and will do WHATEVER IT DAMN WELL PLEASES. And there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. They are above the law. Sound like a winning formula?
Why did you people think it was wrong under Bush 43 (Although, you were onlya bunch of conspiracy theory whackos saying that). In this case, your LORD O, IS actually subverting the rule of law and the Constitution.
3) IF America devolves into Civil Unrest, NONE of you Blazer are “Prepared”. Especially the ones who spend some of your “preparation” time praying.
Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but, have you checked the sales of firesarms and ammo in the last two years?….Just sayin’ is all!!
You should consider “praying”, wouldn’t hurt!
4) GLENN BECK CANNOT SAVE YOU.
We’re under no expectation of GB saving US, That is up to the Lord!
How do you like them apples?
Report Post »I always throw the rotten ones out. Ya know worms and bruises. They don’t actually spoil all the rest if you throw them away in time. Go away little troll, you’ve got no basket to sit in.
Problem is…We’ve let you “Bad Apples” sit in the basket WAY TOO LONG!!!
abc
Posted on February 25, 2011 at 5:41pmSam,
I’m not saying that at all, and EPC analysis doesn’t work like that. You are talking about random individuals, while EPC works on the level of a so-called “suspect class.” This is a group that is historically subject to discrimination, and which is being treatedly differently even though there is no rational basis for that diverse treatment. Of course, there is a rational basis and state interest in keeping prostitution out of areas that do not want it, but no one would ever claim that they are being discriminated against in that case. Same with the gun laws. EPC operates to ensure that even if a state passes a law saying, ‘no Jewish persons may drive“ or ”no gays may marry” when other groups outside the suspect class are allowed to do those things, then you have a violation of EPC that should be addressed. There is complexity in how it’s analyzed, but that gives you the general idea of when it applies.
Report Post »