DOJ won't defend constitutionality of DOMA; conservatives vow to make it 2012 issue
 

In a clear change of course, Obama has instructed the Department of Justice against defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court on constitutional grounds.

U.S. reversal on gay unions won't affect married couples for now

This doesn't immediately mean much other than perhaps a step into a direction that proponents of gay marriage have hoped to see.

What do you think?
Is this a step towards the legalization of gay marriage?
Is this a shallow gesture, perhaps Obama's way to getting ready for the next election?

Then there's this:

Conservatives vow to make gay marriage 2012 issue

This is interesting. It is perhaps the case that gay rights could very well be one of the battlegrounds in 2012.

I think 2012 will be very interesting. There will certainly be a heated battle on a number of fronts. It will be a battle of both economic and social ideology.

Does anyone else feel a storm brewing?

Wow. Obama has really stuck his neck out on this one.

I personally applaud this, but true to form, Obama will be held democratically accountable if the majority of Americans don't approve.

Well, at this rate, the GOP won't be able to run on the promise of job creation, since they haven't really done anything to work toward that goal and it doesn't seem all that likely that they will make any substantive improvements to the job market.

Good for them. They do well with wedge issues.

Good for Obama. While his international policy is disasterous and his economic policies are worse, at least his presidency has been able to correct some shameful discrimination. This is long overdue.

Except for not closing Gitmo and still spending way too much on the wars, I don't see how his policies would be considered disastrous. I can at least travel overseas now and get accepted as an American.


But, back to the OP, do conservatives think that their will be less gay sex if they ban gay marriage?

I'm also wondering if the gay democrats are supporting the unions, universal healthcare, environment, and other sections of the democratic base?

this is long overdue. it's a good thing, but it's taken a shameful amount of time to happen.

i find it remarkable that there still are conservatives after the bush administration pulverized their ideology by trying to implement it. but beyond that, i can't imagine anyone caring what issues they vow to use in 2012. i rather hope they do cast themselves as the homophobia party. it'll speed them toward a richly deserved irrelevance.

I tend to agree with roachboy.

I don't think traditional conservative touchstone (ie, social) issues are going to be as electrifying to the 'middle of the road' voters as they have been in the past. The economic situation is too dire, recent domestic events too alarming. I believe this 'tea party mandate' business is going to backfire on them. Big time. At least it better.

I think we have a President who acts based on keeping track of political points rather than doing what he believes in assuming he has core beliefs.

Bush's position was clear when he ran and he acted in a manner consistent with his views, no surprises and he did not care about the political gains or losses. If Obama believes that there should be no difference in the eye of government between m/f marriage and gay marriage - he should make the case and get it done. I believe he has already strategically planned on when and how he is going to throw his base a bone here and there - if true I find that very offensive and would not want a person like that in the WH even if I agreed with him or her on most issues.

I have to wonder what kind of reaction there would be, should another president decide to not enforce some other law, like the machine gun ban?

Another discussion where you raise the issue of guns?

Putting that aside, Bush issued hundreds of signing states that, in effect, claimed he could ignore provisions of many laws he signed.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be the POTUS, it can be the Governor or Mayor. There's lots of laws that aren't equally enforced.

It goes to more that just being equally enforced to the point of nullifying the intent of laws.

Many presidents have used signing statements.

In Bush's case, he often used them to disobey the law, or at least disobey the intent of Congress. The worst case was probably the Detainee Treatment Act that limited interrogation techniques of prisoners to those allowed in the Army Field Manual.

He claimed in his signing statement that he had the right as President and Commander in Chief to ignore this provision in order to protect the country from terrorists.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

The Detainee Treatment Act said you cant use interrogation techniques other than those in the AFM; when signing the bill, the signing statement that Bush added said, "screw you, i can use enhanced interrogation techniques if I think it it will protect the American people."

The PATRIOT Act required that he regularly inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers; On signing the bill, Bush added a signing statement that said "no I dont," not when I can claim my national security powers trump your need for reports or Congressional oversight of the FBI.

Claiming "unconstitutional restraints on executive power" to, in effect, nullify key provisions of laws enacted by Congress based on his own (not the Judiciary's) interpretation is a stretch of executive power, IMO.

Hmm, taken another way, would you also consider this the executive branch overreaching their power?

For example, that the legislature, representing the will of the people creates laws that specify certain norms. The president, by ignoring these laws, is in essence, abdicating his duty to 'execute' the laws. (I really am talking out of my ass here, but you get my point--failure to enforce the law that has been legitimately passed. For example, a similar parallel may be Southern States refusal to honor the 13th and 14th amendments following the civil war).

Interestingly, Article II and section 3 of the Constitution specifies that the president shall

Of course this, if Obama can make a legitimate constitutional claim, he would claim that he is fulfilling the presidential oath:

Interesting.

I of course, like Dksuddeth wish Obama would do something similar for firearms (Machineguns & SBRs for all!) but I doubt that's politically feasible.

IMO, nullifying provisions of laws (a pro-active approach to ignore provisions of laws you dont like, ie Bush's actions re" Detainee Treatment Act and Patriot ACt) is not the same as not defending laws (if and when the law is challenged in court, ie Obama's intent, re: DOMA).

This is a move/a step towards total US recognized gay marriage, but I Obama used this as distractive talking point to get the GOP off of other pressing subjects. Well, i guess we'll see.

yes, simply because that's the case law subject i know best. If I knew another one as well, I might use it. If necessary, i can refrain from legal discussions here because people are tired of talking about guns and gun laws, if you like.

I watched a brief but interesting interview of Mike Huckabee on CNN last night. He's hawking his book in which he strongly reiterates his priority of social issues such as marriage, family and morality over others.

The interviewer pointedly asked him why Americans should care about such issues given the state of the economy and his answer is that the state of the family IS an economic issue. He referred specifically to deadbeat dads and split-families in his explanation rather than gay marriage but you get the idea.

I thought it was a pretty clever spin but I don't think it'll hold much if the real economy is in the crapper.

So shouldn't he support gay marriage, since it's so important? :rolleyes:

ok. now i get it. for conservatives, legalized discrimination against people who choose to love another in a way that conservative incorporated has decided not to approve is a "core belief"?

so being a bigot is fundamental to conservatism?

got it.
thanks, ace.

that makes far more sense to me than the "if doma is unconstitutional let's have machine guns" um.....association? (not really an argument....a non sequitor is still an association....)

Let me state for the record, again, that I support the civil unions of two consenting adults in the eyes of the state and I don't care what gender those adults are.

However, after thinking about this a while, I wonder if this is overstepping his Constitutional authority? I believe it is the duty of any President to enforce and defend all the laws of the US, if not explicitly then implicitly. Shouldn't this be corrected through the Legislative branch? Isn't this the Executive branch unilaterally nullifying a law that they don't like?

I think I am supporting this because I agree with him, not because it's the proper thing to do? What if it was a law that I supported and any President simply said, "We aren't going to defend this law in the courts"? I would be pissed! I need to think on this and see if there are precedents for this.

point of order: obama is going to continue to enforce DOMA, he's just no longer going to defend it in court. big difference.

The Constitution says nothing about the President defending laws, but simply that the president will "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Holder said that the DoJ will enforce the law, just no longer take the the lead in defending it in federal court.

Rahl beat me to it.

tying together two separate ideas and arguments in to one belief in order to make an argument of 'conservatism is bigotry' makes you look foolish.

my point was simply about the hypocrisy of both liberals and conservatives on what laws they think are constitutional or not and how they would squawk if one of the other weren't enforced.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

whats the difference?

pro-active vs reactive.

I gave examples earlier that I thought reasonably explained the difference.

Stating that you will not enforce provisions of a law (ie nullify provisions of a law) is pro-active. Stating that you will no longer defend a law in federal court, if or when cases arise in the future is reactive.

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

From Holder's statement:
Obama is not nullifying Section 3 of DOMA as Bush did with provisions of the Patriot Act and Detainee Treatment Act.

Obama didn't decide not to uphold a law. A law was ruled unconstitutional and he said he wouldn't challenge that ruling. There is a huge difference.

DOMA will still be enforced

DOMA was ruled unconstitutional?

Actually multiple judges have:

Obama made me happy that day. It has been a long time since I saw him actually try to defend the people he promised he would.

DOMA is pretty much the same as the old days when black people or women could not vote. It fucking disgusts me that people are willing to say 'I think you are immoral. Less rights for you!'.

Its like when people say zomg we need smaller government and more freedom!! Oh, please make sure gay people can't marry and we don't want any more of those pesky muslims. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMM for me and you if you agree with me.

-insert image of self banging head on desk-