Breaking: Obama Administration Will No Longer Defend Anti-Gay Marriage Law

The government gets out of the business of enforcing bigotry
Politics • Views: 22,671

I may have spoken too soon when I said the Scott Walker phone call was the big story of the morning, because this story is huge: Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law.

In a statement Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder says President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration can no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

This is excellent news for anyone who believes the government should not be enforcing the homophobia of religious fanatics.

Jump to bottom

110 comments
1 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:13:13am

Speaking of this, what's the situation in that California trial on prop 8 at the moment?

2 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:13:58am

+1 for the good guys.

3 Sionainn  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:14:37am

Excellent news.

4 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:15:54am

Wingnut heads exploding. I can hear it.

5 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:16:25am

re: #4 Sergey Romanov

Wingnut heads exploding. I can hear it.

like popcorn popping!

6 Winny Spencer  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:19:28am

It was the right thing to do.

7 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:19:28am

re: #1 jamesfirecat

The state supreme court will be hearing oral arguments as to whether the defendants side has standing(the state isn't contesting Walker's judgment). I think the arguments are scheduled for September. If the CA court says they do, the case will then go back to the ninth circuit.

8 lostlakehiker  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:19:44am

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

9 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:22am

re: #6 Winny Spencer

It was the right thing to do.

That's why it took the left to do it.

/cheap partisan shot admitted!

10 Alexzander  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:23am

re: #4 Sergey Romanov

Wingnut heads exploding. I can hear it.

My mind is exploding. I really didn't expect the Obama administration to change course on this issue.
Not to be too pessimistic about their intentions, but I wonder if any new political considerations came into play?

11 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:39am

And now, for the GOP response

12 S'latch  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:44am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

The executive branch does not have the power to rescind laws by decree.

13 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:21:01am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

He's not rescinding anything.

14 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:21:15am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

This is a sick, unconstitutional law that has no business existing, and the Justice Department made the decision, not Obama.

15 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:22:45am

re: #10 Alexzander

My mind is exploding. I really didn't expect the Obama administration to change course on this issue.
Not to be too pessimistic about their intentions, but I wonder if any new political considerations came into play?

Probably enough news happening right now that it won't be the top story of the day.

16 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:22:55am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

Its true, there are no other laws anywhere in the United States that are no longer enforced. Never happens, Obama did it because he hates you.

17 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:23:39am

I can't wait to see what Bryan Fischer has to say about this.

18 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:23:44am

The DOJ also said they will not go after marijuana in states that allow it. Nobody gave a shit about that.

19 Merryweather  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:24:03am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

Did you actually read or understand a bit of what is actually happening?

Silly question, of course you didn't.

20 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:24:10am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

Refusing to defend does not mean it will automatically be stricken from the record, as the Prop 8 case proved, other people can step up to defend them in court instead...

21 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:26:11am

Maggie Gallagher and Bryan Fischer at the AFA are going to shit giant barbed wire wrapped bricks over this one.

Not a nice visual at all, but fitting, considering their predilection for graphic, glistening detail on what they think gay sex is all about.

22 mikefromArlington  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:57am

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of right wingers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

23 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:28:17am

re: #21 celticdragon

Maggie Gallagher and Bryan Fischer at the AFA are going to shit giant barbed wire wrapped bricks over this one.

Not a nice visual at all, but fitting, considering their predilection for graphic, glistening detail on what they think gay sex is all about.

For something they despise, they certainly put a lot of thought into it.

"Bryan, why do you have an entire collection of eastern European gay porn?"

"RESEARCH!"

24 Bulworth  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:28:25am

That does it. This Kenyan dude is obviously a Muslim Brotherhood cramming Sharia law down our throats.

25 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:28:27am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

How about we start with all the signing decrees of the previous President? So much more tidy to say you will just refuse to enforce the law at all, and no muss and fuss by having to veto it and send it back to congress.

Win!

26 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:28:36am

Right wingers on Twitter are already losing their alleged minds over this news. I've seen several comments already in the vein of, "What's next, marrying your dog?"

27 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:28:43am

re: #22 mikefromArlington

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of right wingers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Oh please let there be silence for once.

28 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:28:51am

A political question: has Obama just taken the issue off the 2012 table, or has he added an issue?

29 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:29:07am

Good on the administration for dropping the defense of this act. I would imagine the cost of continuously defending the act would have been better served in other areas, and should free up some funds (no matter how small) for other areas that are needed.

30 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:29:42am

re: #28 Sergey Romanov

He's basically dared them to restart the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

31 S'latch  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:29:44am

DOMA might be unconstitutional, but challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and it has declined to review any such case thus far.

32 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:30:04am

re: #29 commadore183

Good on the administration for dropping the defense of this act. I would imagine the cost of continuously defending the act would have been better served in other areas, and should free up some funds (no matter how small) for other areas that are needed.

So you're saying this means smaller government? I like it!

33 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:30:23am

Awesome news. The sooner DOMA goes down in flames, the better.

34 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:00am

re: #5 iceweasel

like popcorn popping!

Mmm. Butter and salt...

I saw a cool bit on the Food Channel with candied popcorn in strawberry cheesecake and white chocolate! Yum!

Can you get popped wingnut head in white chocolate and strawberry cheesecake?

35 researchok  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:08am

It is possible this is a political move.

No one is talking about budget or entitlements anymore.

36 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:24am

Obama determined the law is unconstitutional and will not defend it. It is up to congress to defend it in court.

37 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:33am

re: #28 Sergey Romanov

A political question: has Obama just taken the issue off the 2012 table, or has he added an issue?

Added. In a HUGE way. Not only is it like Obdi said, with Obama basically daring them to make 2012 all about gay marriage, but this will totally get the wingnuts revving.

Anyone check the fever swamps yet to see how many heads have exploded?

38 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:35am

Just so everyone is clear. DOMA has been challenged in court, and certain provisions were found unconstitutional at a district court level. What the DOJ has decided, with Obama's blessing, is that they now agree that section 3 of the DOMA is, in fact, unconstitutional, and they will no longer defend the law against the lawsuits pending.

And to take it a step further, they also feel higher courts should examine the law in order to verify that it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

The law isn't being rescinded by decree, the DOJ and Obama, are just choosing to no longer defend the law after having it declared unconstitutional at a lower court level.

39 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:32:10am

re: #35 researchok

It is possible this is a political move.

No one is talking about budget or entitlements anymore.

If it turns out that this does distract the right from those topics, it just goes to prove yet again that, deep down, they don't give a shit about the deficit.

40 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:32:46am

re: #28 Sergey Romanov

A political question: has Obama just taken the issue off the 2012 table, or has he added an issue?

I think he may have added. The right has gone full speed on social issues, thus freeing the left to do the same. I suspect he will come out in favor of gay marriage at some point too. I could be wrong, but on a personal level I think that's where he is in his heart and politically, the base needs the motivation.

41 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:32:46am

Yay! I am listening to Electric Six's "Gay Bar" in celebration. Honestly, I have the urge to send out their music video to Bachmann, McMorris Rodgers, (insert Republican senator here), because I think they could use a trip to a gay bar instead of continued demonizing of people they know nothing about.

42 researchok  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:33:09am

re: #39 iossarian

If it turns out that this does distract the right from those topics, it just goes to prove yet again that, deep down, they don't give a shit about the deficit.

Or, it might distract the left.

Or both.

43 avanti  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:33:23am

re: #17 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I can't wait to see what Bryan Fischer has to say about this.


He's not giving up:

"This battle is not over, not by a long shot, and will not ever be as long as we defenders of natural marriage have breath left in our bodies.

We will fight to the last ditch, to the last barricade, on the last hill, to defend the institution that is the cornerstone of a healthy society. We will resist to the last ditch, the last barricade, the last hill, the effort to normalize sexual deviancy in our culture.

To borrow a phrase from John Paul Jones, “We have yet begun to fight.”

Get used to it. We’re not going anywhere. "

44 Big Steve  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:33:42am

re: #30 Obdicut

He's basically dared them to restart the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Not really.....the current law will get decided one way or another by the Supreme Court. This is actually a very elegant solution. Several groups were already gearing up to challenge the outcome of the Supreme Court if it ruled to call the law unconstitutional by saying that the Federal Government failed to adequately to defend the current law. Now that is mute.

45 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:34:14am

re: #42 researchok

Or, it might distract the left.

Or both.

Both. It gets the left off his back in terms of the criticism he's gotten for defending DOMA, and it gives the wingnuts on the right something else to cry over and to focus on at the expense of the economy and jobs.

46 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:12am

re: #26 Charles

Right wingers on Twitter are already losing their alleged minds over this news. I've seen several comments already in the vein of, "What's next, marrying your dog?"

In a minute or so, the "Gheyz are coming ta rape yer kidz" will be exploding all over...

They can't help themselves.

Any mention of GLBT people immediately devolves into "You are a Satanic, child raping perv who fucks German Shepherds on porno movies" with these idiots.

You really start to wonder what their actual internal issue is, considering the obsession with child and animal sex.

47 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:41am

re: #41 Spocomptonite

Yay! I am listening to Electric Six's "Gay Bar" in celebration. Honestly, I have the urge to send out their music video to Bachmann, McMorris Rodgers, (insert Republican senator here), because I think they could use a trip to a gay bar instead of continued demonizing of people they know nothing about.

Or this one

48 Decatur Deb  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:52am

re: #43 avanti

He's not giving up:

"This battle is not over, not by a long shot, and will not ever be as long as we defenders of natural marriage have breath left in our bodies.

We will fight to the last ditch, to the last barricade, on the last hill, to defend the institution that is the cornerstone of a healthy society. We will resist to the last ditch, the last barricade, the last hill, the effort to normalize sexual deviancy in our culture.

To borrow a phrase from John Paul Jones, “We have yet begun to fight.”

Get used to it. We’re not going anywhere. "

"You can have my wang when you pry it from my cold, dead hand".

49 researchok  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:53am

re: #45 Lidane

Both. It gets the left off his back in terms of the criticism he's gotten for defending DOMA, and it gives the wingnuts on the right something else to cry over and to focus on at the expense of the economy and jobs.

You might be right on that. Two birds, one stone and all that.

I do wonder if Obama is getting ready for a major budget move, though.

50 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:36:00am

re: #35 researchok

It is possible this is a political move.

No one is talking about budget or entitlements anymore.

He has also always expressed a belief that DOMA is bad law and should be repealed. That probably won't happen with this Congress, but he does seem to prefer repealing bad laws to courts striking them down. We saw that with DADT.

51 jaunte  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:36:08am

re: #43 avanti

defenders of natural marriage


Why won't everyone quit trying to get Fischer's wife to divorce him?

52 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:36:42am

re: #43 avanti

He's not giving up:

"This battle is not over, not by a long shot, and will not ever be as long as we defenders of natural marriage have breath left in our bodies.

We will fight to the last ditch, to the last barricade, on the last hill, to defend the institution that is the cornerstone of a healthy society. We will resist to the last ditch, the last barricade, the last hill, the effort to normalize sexual deviancy in our culture.

To borrow a phrase from John Paul Jones, “We have yet begun to fight.”

Get used to it. We’re not going anywhere. "

Challenge accepted.

53 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:37:35am

re: #42 researchok

Or, it might distract the left.

Or both.

Good point, I see that.

54 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:37:35am

re: #46 celticdragon

You really start to wonder what their actual internal issue is, considering the obsession with child and animal sex.

Sexual guilt. Self-loathing. Religious repression.

The folks who are most vehement against gays are the ones who can't handle the fact that sexuality exists on a continuum, and they can't handle their own desire for or aesthetic appreciation of someone of their own gender. They also tend to be raised in all kinds of screwed up, hyper-religious backgrounds.

55 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:38:36am

re: #48 Decatur Deb

"You can have my wang when you pry it from my cold, dead warm, lubed hand".

56 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:39:30am

re: #55 Fozzie Bear

You never heard of "The Stranger"?

57 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:39:42am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

Jesus, so many, here's a short list:

that one about Elves and Dwarves copulating
riding unicorns on the right side of the road
a man's penis is proportional to his shoe size
riding any talking animal
Midsummer's War and mortal champions
how about the one that let's women say what ever the fuck they want once a month with no consequence? I hate that one
there's that one about nobles and their right to be first in on virgins? That one's got to go
the snorer has to sleep on the couch. Not fair
leaving the seat down, really not fair. What - women are to weak to lift the goddamn seat up?
sneezing in sunshine, pain in the ass
Ebay fees

58 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:39:59am

re: #48 Decatur Deb

"You can have my wang collection of East German hardcore gay porn with huge, uncircumcised body builders when you pry it from my cold, dead hand".

Remember: research only! ;)

59 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:42:17am

re: #40 moderatelyradicalliberal

He's baited the hook, and the right is going to swallow it. You want to loose independents in 2012, fight the culture war (again).

HEY ORANGE JOHN WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS?

60 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:42:37am

re: #57 Jeff In Ohio

Brilliant. "Sneezing in sunshine, pain in the ass."

61 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:44:48am

The NYTimes has a good article on why this is happening now:

Citing an executive-branch duty to defend acts of Congress when plausible arguments exist that they are constitutional, the Obama administration had previously argued that legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act should be dismissed.

But those lawsuits were filed in circuits that had precedents saying that when gay people say a law infringes on their rights, judges should use a test called “rational basis” to evaluate that claim. Under that standard, the law is presumed to be constitutional, and challengers must prove that there is no conceivable rational government basis for enacting it, a hard standard for challengers to meet.

But the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York. That court has no precedent establishing which legal test judges should use when evaluating claims that a federal law violates gay people’s rights.

That vacuum meant that the administration’s legal team had to perform its own analysis of whether gay people were entitled to the protection of a test known as “heightened scrutiny.” Under that test, it is much easier to challenge laws that unequally affect a group, because the test presumes that such laws are unconstitutional, and they may be upheld only if the lawmakers’ purpose in enacting them served a compelling governmental interest.

62 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:45:35am

re: #38 bloodstar

Just so everyone is clear. DOMA has been challenged in court, and certain provisions were found unconstitutional at a district court level. What the DOJ has decided, with Obama's blessing, is that they now agree that section 3 of the DOMA is, in fact, unconstitutional, and they will no longer defend the law against the lawsuits pending.

And to take it a step further, they also feel higher courts should examine the law in order to verify that it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

The law isn't being rescinded by decree, the DOJ and Obama, are just choosing to no longer defend the law after having it declared unconstitutional at a lower court level.

Repeated for accuracy in reporting and analysis.

63 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:45:45am

re: #49 researchok

You might be right on that. Two birds, one stone and all that.

It's a kind of triangulation. He gets the left giving him some kudos while the right gets distracted and bogged down in the culture war shit that pisses off independents and moderates.

I do wonder if Obama is getting ready for a major budget move, though.

I wouldn't doubt it. The best time to strike is when your opponent is divided and distracted.

64 Bulworth  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:47:44am
"Get used to it. We’re not going anywhere. "

But you are being, um, left behind.

65 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:48:33am

fucking owns. owns hard.


suck it, born agains, suck it hard.

66 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:50:42am

I find this president to be relevant to my interests, and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

Keep the good news coming, Obama.

67 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:51:51am

re: #8 lostlakehiker

Cool. Let's put together a list of laws that we think the president should rescind by decree. Why stop at just one?

As far as I can tell, he's merely saying that he won't defend the law, not that he is rescinding it by fiat.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:52:47am

re: #22 mikefromArlington

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of right wingers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Trust me, they ain't been silenced. We'll be hearing from them.

69 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:53:43am

re: #39 iossarian

If it turns out that this does distract the right from those topics, it just goes to prove yet again that, deep down, they don't give a shit about the deficit.

SQUIRREL!!!

70 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:54:12am

re: #22 mikefromArlington

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of right wingers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

That's because their heads just exploded. Give them a bit to put themselves back together.

The howler monkey classes will be all over this like white on rice. They won't be able to help themselves.

71 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:54:44am

re: #43 avanti

He's not giving up:

"This battle is not over, not by a long shot, and will not ever be as long as we defenders of natural marriage have breath left in our bodies.

We will fight to the last ditch, to the last barricade, on the last hill, to defend the institution that is the cornerstone of a healthy society. We will resist to the last ditch, the last barricade, the last hill, the effort to normalize sexual deviancy in our culture.

To borrow a phrase from John Paul Jones, “We have yet begun to fight.”

Get used to it. We’re not going anywhere. "

Mr. Fischer, I understand that you are a true believer.

So am I.

And history is on my side.

Bring it.

72 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:55:10am

re: #69 SanFranciscoZionist

SQUIRREL!!!

Skvirrel?! Vhere?

73 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:55:42am

re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist

Trust me, they ain't been silenced. We'll be hearing from them.

Hark! The dread piping of the Outer Gods!

AFA: DOMA Decision a "Wake-Up Call" for Conservatives

"I think it's a clear sign that we simply cannot avoid engaging on the social issues," Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the group, told TPM. "Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues and that would be fine if the homosexual lobby was willing to lay down arms, but they're obviously not and this proves it. A truce is nothing more than a surrender."

Fischer said he was not surprised by the president's decision.

"Frankly I was surprised that President Obama pretended to be a defender of natural marriage as long as he did," he said.

He said that the White House move should serve as "a wake-up call to all conservatives that fundamental American values regarding the family are under all-out assault by this administration. It ought to represent a clarion call to man the barricades before we lose what is left of the Judeo-Christian system of values in our public life."

74 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:56:15am

re: #46 celticdragon

In a minute or so, the "Gheyz are coming ta rape yer kidz" will be exploding all over...

They can't help themselves.

Any mention of GLBT people immediately devolves into "You are a Satanic, child raping perv who fucks German Shepherds on porno movies" with these idiots.

You really start to wonder what their actual internal issue is, considering the obsession with child and animal sex.

I think that part of it is that they're losing ground. Most Americans, regardless of their political or religious views, are really not that distressed at the thought of two grown people of the same sex having sex.

Everyone is against pedophilia and bestiality. It's a much easier argument to make.

75 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:56:20am

re: #49 researchok

You might be right on that. Two birds, one stone and all that.

I do wonder if Obama is getting ready for a major budget move, though.

Possibly, but I think he is waiting until the GOP puts forth it's deficit cutting plan in April. Then I think he plans to counter it.

76 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:57:04am

re: #73 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hark! The dread piping of the Outer Gods!

AFA: DOMA Decision a "Wake-Up Call" for Conservatives

WTF is "natural" marriage? There's no such thing.

Is he talking about arranged marriages for political/social gain? Polygamy? What?

77 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:58:17am

re: #76 Lidane

WTF is "natural" marriage? There's no such thing.

Is he talking about arranged marriages for political/social gain? Polygamy? What?

Polygamy is pretty natural, so, yeah. /

78 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:58:48am

re: #76 Lidane

WTF is "natural" marriage? There's no such thing.

Is he talking about arranged marriages for political/social gain? Polygamy? What?

Exactly. Lifelong monogamy can be done, but it's not natural. Humans are naturally, serial monogamists at best. And that's true for males and females.

79 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:59:34am

re: #76 Lidane

WTF is "natural" marriage? There's no such thing.

Is he talking about arranged marriages for political/social gain? Polygamy? What?

Natural marriage is where the woman keeps her mouth shut and does what her man tells her, as the Bible says.

Of course, if they do the same thing because of another religion, its a barbaric heathen religion.

///

80 jaunte  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:00:30am

re: #76 Lidane

Basic self-centered thinking.
'What I like is natural and right, what you like is
unnatural, wrong and disgusting, and you have no right to it.'

81 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:00:31am

re: #74 SanFranciscoZionist

I think that part of it is that they're losing ground. Most Americans, regardless of their political or religious views, are really not that distressed at the thought of two grown people of the same sex having sex.

Everyone is against pedophilia and bestiality. It's a much easier argument to make.

It's an easier argument, but it's also a fucking stupid one. Children and animals are incapable of giving consent, so it's a moot point. Plus, most people are rightly offended and outraged when a child is harmed. The chances of either paedophilia or bestiality becoming legal are less than zero.

Hell, even polygamy and polyamory won't catch on here, just because we've had centuries of socialization to accept relationships as part of a couple. Marriage as a legal contract is between two people. Neither of those things will change anytime soon.

82 Decatur Deb  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:02:33am

re: #76 Lidane

WTF is "natural" marriage? There's no such thing.

Is he talking about arranged marriages for political/social gain? Polygamy? What?

It's when you roll 7/11, not 6/9.

83 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:03:53am

re: #81 Lidane

It's an easier argument, but it's also a fucking stupid one. Children and animals are incapable of giving consent, so it's a moot point. Plus, most people are rightly offended and outraged when a child is harmed. The chances of either paedophilia or bestiality becoming legal are less than zero.

Hell, even polygamy and polyamory won't catch on here, just because we've had centuries of socialization to accept relationships as part of a couple. Marriage as a legal contract is between two people. Neither of those things will change anytime soon.

I agree (more or less) on "soon", but I can see multiple partners being the next legal hurdle, perhaps serially before simultaneously.

Why shouldn't you decide who to share your tax break with on a year-to-year basis?

84 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:04:29am

Why does the idea of informed, consenting adults making their own decisions based on their own personal beliefs and the available facts scare the living shit out of some people?

85 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:06:03am

re: #84 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because that would mean less power to the bigots known as the AFA and their ilk.

86 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:07:37am

re: #85 commadore183

Because that would mean less power to the bigots known as the AFA and their ilk.

I'm comfortable with that.

87 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:08:20am

At long last, my plan to enter into a gay interspecies marriage with my cat is coming to fruition.

88 lostlakehiker  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:10:32am

re: #14 Charles

This is a sick, unconstitutional law that has no business existing, and the Justice Department made the decision, not Obama.

Whether it's unconstitutional is for the courts to say. Your own wording for the post said that Obama had made the call.

President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration can no longer defend the federal law ...


I take it that opinion here is unanimous, save one, that when an administration concludes that it doesn't like a law, and when that law is under legal challenge, the law can be taken off the books by the simple expedient of forfeiting the case.

That, moreover, any defense, not of that law, but of the mechanisms by which we decide on laws, is illegitimate. That today's expedient device will never be, could never be, applied again, by some other president with his own agenda.

You-all are missing the wider implications. There are consequences to overturning the whole notion of a government of laws not men so as to get rid of one bad law. This law could have been rescinded by Congress. It could have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The device now used will be used again. It expands the powers of the presidency.

89 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:11:22am

re: #87 Fozzie Bear

At long last, my plan to enter into a gay interspecies marriage with my cat is coming to fruition.

Which begs the question...

How many people out there right now are thinking to themselves "I really want to fuck that goat, but thats illegal" and thats the only thing stopping them?

90 Decatur Deb  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:12:06am

re: #89 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Which begs the question...

How many people out there right now are thinking to themselves "I really want to fuck that goat, but thats illegal" and thats the only thing stopping them?

What kind of goat?

91 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:12:31am

re: #90 Decatur Deb

What kind of goat?

Fainting goats, easier to catch.

92 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:12:50am

I answered that too quickly, didn't I?

93 Decatur Deb  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:13:20am

re: #91 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Fainting goats, easier to catch.

Nah, never mind then.

94 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:15:19am

re: #88 lostlakehiker

Whether it's unconstitutional is for the courts to say. Your own wording for the post said that Obama had made the call.


I take it that opinion here is unanimous, save one, that when an administration concludes that it doesn't like a law, and when that law is under legal challenge, the law can be taken off the books by the simple expedient of forfeiting the case.

That, moreover, any defense, not of that law, but of the mechanisms by which we decide on laws, is illegitimate. That today's expedient device will never be, could never be, applied again, by some other president with his own agenda.

You-all are missing the wider implications. There are consequences to overturning the whole notion of a government of laws not men so as to get rid of one bad law. This law could have been rescinded by Congress. It could have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The device now used will be used again. It expands the powers of the presidency.

Doesn't the government have a right to not defend the laws they don't like?

The Governor of California for example declared his state wouldn't be defending Prop 8...

Why is it okay on the state level but not the national one?

95 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:16:58am

re: #94 jamesfirecat

State's rights!

96 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:17:35am

re: #88 lostlakehiker

I take it that opinion here is unanimous, save one, that when an administration concludes that it doesn't like a law, and when that law is under legal challenge, the law can be taken off the books by the simple expedient of forfeiting the case.


That's not what happens, though. Why do you think it is?

The law is on the books. The law can be upheld by the court, if defended by someone else with standing.

The device now used will be used again. It expands the powers of the presidency.

You seriously think this is the first time the DOJ hasn't defended a law?

What about when Roberts was at the Solicitor General’s office, and didn't defend the FCC’s affirmative action preference in awarding broadcasting licenses?

97 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:18:35am

re: #87 Fozzie Bear

At long last, my plan to enter into a gay interspecies marriage with my cat is coming to fruition.

Dan Savage actually tells a wonderful story of interviewing a man on the radio who was in a sexual--relationship? He thought so, anyway--with a horse.

At the end of the interview, it occurred to Dan that there was a question he hadn't asked, so he asked the guy, "Is it a male or female horse?"

Dude looked at him with DEEP indignation and said "Sir! I am NOT a homosexual!!!"

Some bigotries die hard, apparently. Even among horse fuckers.

98 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:19:40am

re: #96 Obdicut


What about when Roberts was at the Solicitor General’s office, and didn't defend the FCC’s affirmative action preference in awarding broadcasting licenses?

Ha ha, I was just about to go back to that one.

Here is some detail on the DOJ not defending laws (I love Google):

[Link: www.law.com...]

99 Lidane  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:20:04am

re: #96 Obdicut

What about when Roberts was at the Solicitor General’s office, and didn't defend the FCC’s affirmative action preference in awarding broadcasting licenses?

IOKIYAR

100 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:28:00am

Well done, Mr. President.

101 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:29:32am

re: #26 Charles

Right wingers on Twitter are already losing their alleged minds over this news. I've seen several comments already in the vein of, "What's next, marrying your dog?"

The Santorum is flowing...

102 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:29:59am

re: #101 ralphieboy

The Santorum is flowing...

How very frothy it is...

103 Jadespring  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:38:16am

Dear anti gay marriage people,

Hello,

You told me that when my country made gay marriage legal that all sorts of bad things would happen. You told me that my country would fall apart and chaos would run in the streets.

It's been years now and I'm still hunkered in my house waiting for this all to happen. I remember you telling me that it would bring us down yet my country has weathered this recession way better then yours and our economy is growing steadily. People still are getting regular married too.
So I am a bit confused. Can you please give me a time frame on when all this chaos is going to happen? Cause I'd really like to know how long I need to stay in this house.

Thank you muchly,

Janey Canuck

104 sizzleRI  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:24:57pm

Yes!!!

Not defending an immoral law is a good and legal thing.

105 dragonfire1981  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:43:29pm

Boehners response was priceless. I am paraphrasing here but it was something like "its unfortunate that with the economy the way it is a jobs scarce the President has decided to focus on a very socially divisive issue."

Says the man whose party is trying to tear down abortion rights across the nation.

106 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:54:04pm

re: #105 dragonfire1981

Boehners response was priceless. I am paraphrasing here but it was something like "its unfortunate that with the economy the way it is a jobs scarce the President has decided to focus on a very socially divisive issue."

Says the man whose party is trying to tear down abortion rights across the nation.

It's only divisive if you have zero capacity to mind your own fucking business. If it doesn't affect the vast majority of people in any way whatsoever, it shouldn't ever have been a political issue in the first place.

This is such a classic wingnut move. Divide people deliberately, then complain about divisiveness.

107 garhighway  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:35:53pm

re: #88 lostlakehiker

Whether it's unconstitutional is for the courts to say. Your own wording for the post said that Obama had made the call.


I take it that opinion here is unanimous, save one, that when an administration concludes that it doesn't like a law, and when that law is under legal challenge, the law can be taken off the books by the simple expedient of forfeiting the case.

That, moreover, any defense, not of that law, but of the mechanisms by which we decide on laws, is illegitimate. That today's expedient device will never be, could never be, applied again, by some other president with his own agenda.

You-all are missing the wider implications. There are consequences to overturning the whole notion of a government of laws not men so as to get rid of one bad law. This law could have been rescinded by Congress. It could have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The device now used will be used again. It expands the powers of the presidency.

You are right: this should only happen in very rare circumstances. It is important that each administration provide a good-faith defense of the laws passed by prior administrations whether they like them or not. Otherwise, we undermine the stability of the system.

The right question is whether this is one of those very rare circumstances that warrants the administration throwing in the towel. Frankly, I am not sure that it is. I think DOMA is odious, but I am not sure that it is unconstitutional per se, and I think that's the appropriate standard for the administration to apply.

So I reluctantly conclude that this was more of a political decision than a legal one, and while I hate DOMA, I am not sure that what happened here is a good thing in the long run. Because sooner or later, the shoe will be on the other foot.

108 theheat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:40:40pm

I see the landscape dotted with fundies fallen flat on their faces, one defiant fist in the air, vowing to rise again to fight to protect this great Nation from teh ghey our Founding Fathers™ fought so valiantly against when they dumped crates of tea in Pearl Harbor when we fought the Japanese for the right to live as a Christian Nation™ and stop the influence of their plastic cutlery Real Americans™ were forced to use at Family™ picnics.

Or something like that.

109 Ojoe  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 8:06:53pm

I don't think the government should be in the business of marrying anyone at all. Let the government stick to civil unions for whatever pairs of human beings. Otherwise I think it is a vestigial church-state connection & leads to all kinds of arguments. If people want to get married than can find a church that suits them. There are plenty of churches of all types. The government should stay out of the sacrament business. The founding fathers were very right about that.

110 Ojoe  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 8:10:31pm

re: #94 jamesfirecat

Doesn't the government have a right to not defend the laws they don't like?


The Constitution says that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

(Article 2 section 3)

If you throw this out, then anarchy, and why bother with government at all.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Train Songs Five
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
5 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 446 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 0 •
Train Songs Four
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
5 days, 22 hours ago
Views: 478 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Train Songs Three
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
5 days, 22 hours ago
Views: 438 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version) Snarky Puppy never lets you down, they always come out bright and enthusiastically high on the sounds. Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version)From Snarky Puppy's new album, Empire Central (September 2022, GroundUP Music)Stream/Buy: orcd.co Written by Mark LettieriArranged by ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 732 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 2 •