1 What? I'm trying to tee off here!

2
Consequences, elections have them.

3 Yeah....so what are you prepared to do about it, sport?

4 unless you flee the legislature...

5 I could use some DOMA.

6
Obama isn't stupid. Now he can devote more resources to suing Arizona.

7 I wonder how often this sort of thing happens.

8 If Republican politicians knew how to do this I would vote for them more often.

9 Barry is a passive-aggressive pussy.

10 just wait when rabbis, priests, ministers are thrown in jail for not allowing teh ghey's to marry in temples and churchs....and yes...that's next.....

11 The president believes the Constitution was poorly written as well. I'm fine with civil unions just make up a new name for it and don't pretend it is just the same as a man and a woman.

12 "The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional."

I'm pretty sure that's not part of his job.

13 "Marriage is between a man and a woman."  - Barack Obama

I'm not amazed.  He's a liar.  He's an opportunist.  He says whatever he can to appease whatever audience to get votes and support.  His statements carry expiration dates.  They mean nothing.  The media will not challenge him.

14 *facepalm*

He can't put out a statement about Libya massacring its own people, but he CAN put out statements about Scott Walker and the WI teacher's union, the earthquake near Christchurch, New Zealand, and a refusal to defend the DOMA in court.

What a fucking hack.

15 Come on. We all know he didn't mean it during the campaign so it's not breaking a promise.

16 Nice to see that the White House is no longer interested in doing their constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law of the land.

17 I've got a flaming head, too! Especially when I pee.

18 The Govt needs to get out of the marriage business now.

Just provide 2 party contracts and let the Churches figure out the Marriage part.

19 I'd declare federal gun control laws unconstitutional and not enforce them.

20 MFM rule #1: Nothing is a lie when a leftist said it.

21 "The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person briefed on the decision said.

That is not up to him to decide, methinks.  However, several courts have ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional, yet Obama still continues to support that.

22 Just provide 2 party contracts and let the Churches figure out the Marriage part.

Don't impose your monogamy on me!

23 Why doesn't he just grant a waiver to gays?

24 --The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person briefed on the decision said.


This is a surprise? 

Next stop, the feds jumping in with suits against states that refuse to recognize the utterly fashionable fiction of gay marriage.

25 @18
Miranda?   Who needs it?

26 Ok, the first GOP candidate who says if elected they will not enforce any ObamaCare, Davis-Bacon or other liberal legislation gets my vote.

I promise not to enforce the CRA (the housing one) or the tax code either.  Where do I get an exploratory committee?

27 Don't impose your monogamy on me!

Sorry I was just trying to be nice. If you think having more than one is gonna be all unicorns and skittles be my guest.

28

King Barry ignores a federal ruling that Obamacare is unconsitutional

He ignores a federal court order enjoining his drilling moratorium in the Gulf

He imposes crippling Obamacare regulations on business, then dispenses "waivers" to certain businesses that are friends of the regime

He refuses to enforce federal laws that have been upheld by the federal courts, on grounds that he personally believes they're unconstitutional, regardless of what the courts say

America's transformation into a banana republic is nearly finished.  Barry just needs to get some of Khaddafi's kwazy cartoon military uniforms to make the picture complete.

29 you know, how to put this delicately? There are certain core democrat groups that aren't very, ah, progressive when it comes to gay stuff. I wonder if this may hurt the One's street cred?

30 This guy is stealing every play in my book!

31 Is he punting?  The African-American churches are not going to like this - and I don't see how he can win without their help (actually, enthusiastic support) for the street level GOTV. 

32 Man, I'm gonna have a hard time competing with this Obama guy.

33 Oh, it's not a slippery slope, we are just traversing a reverse-positive path with minimal resistance at an increasing rate of speed.

And you all are raving stoopids for even suggesting that the next step is polygamy, cousin-marriage, etc. Sooopid. And racist. Very intolerant racists.

34 I'm pretty sure that Egypt will allow Gay Marriage once the new Democracy gets organized.

35 Sorry I was just trying to be nice. If you think having more than one is gonna be all unicorns and skittles be my guest.

I know.  Just pointing out the thin edge of the wedge.

Look for the phrase Between, or among to start making an appearance soon.

36

He's only mouthed opposition to gay marriage before because blacks are his most loyal base and they are 2-1 opposed to it.  Maybe this would be a good line of attack into a monolithic Obama constituency for 2012.  Some of them would have to peel off, right?  Or maybe I'm just dreaming.

He really is a gutless punk cocksucker president.  You almost have to trick him into saying what he really thinks, such as with his pro-union interview with a Wisconsin TV station last week.

37 Remember when Bush signing statements were grounds for impeachment or something? Now Presidents get to declare laws unconstitutional and ignore them? That's the rule? Ok


Been like that for some time now.

38 Barry just needs to get some of Khaddafi's kwazy cartoon military uniforms to make the picture complete.

The picture in my head of Barry the stick man wearing a big shouldered military uniform brings a chuckle and then a scream of fear.

39 Barry just needs to get some of Khaddafi's kwazy cartoon military uniforms to make the picture complete.
Reporting for duty! And get me some more drapes.

40 DOMA is brazenly unconstitutional.  Read the 10th Amendment. 

41 Miranda?   Who needs it?

Posted by: the next GOP president at February 23, 2011 12:27 PM (GMG6W)

Actually, who does need it?  The basics of the Mirandizing paragraph(s) are probably the most well-known English expressions in the world.  Even people who don't speak English can recite them phonetically.  We see and hear them more times a day than just about anything.  Every cop show (and many others) have them over and over and over.  Any American who isn't aware of his rights has no excuse.  Of course, our brilliant courts would excuse an arrest of a lawyer, if he wasn't Mirandized, which is the ultimate in self-mockery.  I guess extending that mockery to afghans in afghanistan was only to be expected. 

42 California was pulling this stuff before and didn't get slapped down for it. The new meme is to retroactively change laws on the books by unilaterally deciding whether to enforce them or not. Another, similar tactic is to defend a law in court in the most halfway and incompetent manner possible.

This meme will continue until some jurisdictions start clamping down on it.

43 There's no way blacks will fail to vote for Barry, gay marriage or no gay marriage. They're all in and the GOP should just give up on them for this cycle.

44 Par for the course with this lawless regime.

31 Is he punting?  The African-American churches are not going to like this

Mark my words. The black community will NOT abandon Obama. No matter how many times he betrays their values.

45 Need to have the president say his name backwards out loud.

Only way to be sure.

46 Doesn't this cause a constitutional crisis

47 You mean we all get to select which laws to comply with ?

April 15th just around the corner .. Hmmm ... pay my taxes .. NAY

48 Remember how the PATRIOT Act was shredding the Constitution?

This guy really does think he's a f'ing king.

Thanks, 52%ers. You really did us a solid there.

49

How many dollars per gallon will the price of gas drop by hammering him on this?

Sorry folks, while this is certainly more proof that this is a rogue Presidency, I just gotta keep my priorities for outrage straight.  Too many targets and you don't focus your fire effectively--stick to the economics and your chances are very good, indeed.

50 Smoke, mirrors, distractions.  Purposely done now to take the story away from the economy, his idiotic foreign policy, oil prices, and the socialist union fight he is supporting.

51 10 Barry is a passive-aggressive pussy.

Posted by: toby928™ at February 23, 2011 12:20 PM (GTbGH)

You had me at 'pussy'

52 "The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Show his college transcripts or there is no proof that he has any fkn idea what constitutional means.

53 Leave me out of this.

54 DOMA is brazenly unconstitutional.  Read the 10th Amendment. 

Posted by: Gay Conservative at February 23, 2011 12:33 PM (l2XpM)

Well-reasoned analysis, judge.

55

It is all about the Queers, always has been, always will be. 

I know some think they are clever with the "gov out of marriage bs", but it won't stop the lawsuits.  First church to say no to a homosexual couple will be sued into submission.

The fucking Queers will not stop until society blesses their devaint behavior.  Sex ed/Health class will be a real hoot for hetero young boys and girls at that point.

 

56 So much for the truce on social issues.

57 jonicelli - turnout matters, not who they vote for.

Specifically, turnout in Detroit, Philadelphia, East St. Louis, and Newport News

58

Technically he's right. Not enforcing laws passed on these troublesome social issues is within the terms of our truce.

Now, take a gander at my letterhead!

59 39 DOMA is brazenly unconstitutional.  Read the 10th Amendment. 

Posted by: Gay Conservative at February 23, 2011 12:33 PM (l2XpM)

No it isn't, at least in principle.  It's about licensure.  FedGov won't recognize certain licenses for certain purposes.

Unless you see same-sex marriage as serving the purpose of psychological validation.

60 I can only guess Sparky is getting creamed in the polls due to his union buddies and wayward demo Senators, so I guess they think this will improve his numbers. You know, Qadafi looks more presidential than Sparky. And he has better taste in women than that bony assed mac daddy. Too bad Qadafi didn't go to Harvard. He could have been a contender.  

61 There's no way blacks will fail to vote for Barry, gay marriage or no gay marriage.

Marriage? snort

62

Posted by: Reality at February 23, 2011 12:39 PM (Bs8Te)

Take your stupid rant somewhere else.

63 I should be surprised but I'm not. Again, Dems are not complying with their elected duties all over the country, why should we be surprised that Obama isn't either?

64

Start breaking that down and you do real damage to America. Posted by: DrewM. at 12:16 PM

Don't mean to get into verboten subjects, but does anyone here still believe this marriage can be saved?

65 Putting a little swish in presidential politics. As I recall didn't Sparky say he would defend this legislation during the campaign?

66 Hate to play devil's advocate, but if presidents defended every stinking law we'd have had a revolution or two by now. But yeah, given the polarizing and conspicuous nature of this law, it'd be wise to put up at least a token defense until it was repealed.

67 I'm married to my weapons and ammo, does that make me a polygunnest?

68 Democracy isn't simply a set of rules, it's a series of habits and shared traditions that people elected respect. Start breaking that down and you do real damage to America.

True -- but maybe that's the point. Who needs democracy when you have a genuine theocracy presided over by the Actual Messiah?

69 57 jonicelli - turnout matters, not who they vote for.         

Also, volunteering.  People often remember how important money is in elections, but getting those people to man phone banks all day long and knock on doors and lick envelopes and astroturf blogs.

But the main issue here has nothing to do with DOMA itself.  He's a liar.  That's the point.

70 "The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person briefed on the decision said.

I believe that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. I will not comply with its reporting and taxation requirements.

Wow! This is fun!

71 Actually, even though this is political hackery at its finest. If we believe that there are 3 co-equal branches of gov't then ANY ONE should be able to question the constitutionality of piece of legislation. If ( and again I know this is BS) the President believes that legislation is unconstitutional it is his solemn vow to not enforce it. Of course that brings up a lot of other issues, but there it is.

72 it'd be wise to put up at least a token defense until it was repealed.

Posted by: Stan at February 23, 2011 12:44 PM (dSHKh)

Yeah, that would require a legislature.  I'm not big on that.

73

"True -- but maybe that's the point. Who needs democracy when you have a genuine theocracy presided over by the Actual Messiah?"

 

Or one could reason that your choice of the opposite sex implied you really chose the same sex. See Kessler and Commerce Clause. All things are possible with hope and change. Winning The Future.

74 If and when clerics, rabbis, priests, etc. have to marry gays against their will, I think it would be fair to say that gay marriage would be the least of our problems. No intellectually honest court would uphold such a law, and no sane legislature would make one.

75 Doesn't this cause a constitutional crisis

Posted by: Gov98 at February 23, 2011 12:35 PM (I9Qyi)

That usually happens when I go on a grilled cheese sandwich binge.

 

Oh, you said constitutional crisis.

76 AmishDude - politician and liar are a congruent set, he is proving that he is not an "honest" politician and cannot stay bought.  I hope everyone who voted for him who is less then dedicated communist gets that message.

77 "And for the umpteenth time...If you think the framers of the Constitution or the 14th Amendment meant to protect gay rights you're nuts."

That is axiomatic among people with more than two functioning neurons. But apparently there aren't enough of us to prevent the destruction of the greatest political system in history.

78

I'm going for a walk.

79

The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional.

When did presidential beliefs become the standard by which the Constitution is enforced and defended?

Oh, wait...

80

"No intellectually honest court would uphold such a law, and no sane legislature would make one."

 

Well, you statement answers itself. We don't have an honest court nor sane legislatures. There was a time we referred to it as a Justice System, now its merely a legal system. Bend over and smile. Winning The Future.

81 This is a Clintonian move to shift the discussion from a losing battle in economics to a winnable battle in cultural issues.

He's running from the stigma of union support in Wisc. to a flashpoint cultural battle to bait out the religious conservatives, in the hopes of getting them to say things that can then be blared all over the tv as "homophobic", "intolerant", etc.

Do not fall for it; do not make this a big issue.  Keep hammering away on the Obama-Union-Special interests connection and Democratic fiscal insanity.

82

That is a good question as to whether Presidents have to enforce laws that they themselves deem unconstitutional.  The Presidency is a co-equal branch of the government, so if the President determines a law is unconstitutional, what is the difference than if the court deems it unconstitutional.  Just because that is not the general practice does not mean that it is not within the Constitutional framework or as the founders envisioned.  The President took the oath to be faithful to the Constitution - if he deems a law to be unconstitutional, then he shouldn't enforce it.  We shouldn't have to wait for the 9 justices to opine.  They are not superior to the office of the President (no matter what the left says).

One could argue that then the President could on his own not enforce any law - whether he truly believes they are non-constituional or not.  We yes, but there are checks and balances on this.  A litigant could go to court to get the President to enforce it.  The electorate can dismiss the President's position and vote him out.  Congress could withhold funds for other programs until the President does support it - ultimately, they could try impeaching him.

Whether  you agree with his actions or not, whether you agree with his analysis on DOMA's constitutionality, the President is within his right as a co-equal branch of government to not support a law he deems unconstitutional.

83 We're far too busy ignoring other laws to defend this one.

84 Well, Obama just locked up GOProud's endorsement for 2012.

85 OK OK. But before I go explain this to me: these parasites got plenty of shithole countries to move to that already have bought into this bullshit so why don't they just get the hell out of here?

86 I could go either way on this, either it's an impeachable offense, or it's something Republican administrations should be doing too.  The current situation, where Republicans are the only ones who play nice is the part I find unacceptable.

87

Posted by: Stan at February 23, 2011 12:47 PM (dSHKh)

It will be easy. Tax exempt status bye-bye. 

Game. Set. Match.

The bonus is that will appeal to a wide range of people.

88

A nation of laws ruled by a president of preogative and fiat.

Issa needs to haul Holder up to committee and have him state under oath if DOMA is the law of the land and have Holder restate the oath he took as Attorney General and to restate the Justice Department's charter.

This is tyranny and the type of behavior that is undermining the very foundation of our country.

Good post Drew!

89 DOMA is brazenly unconstitutional.  Read the 10th Amendment. 

Posted by: Gay Conservative at February 23, 2011 12:33 PM (l2XpM)

No it isn't, at least in principle.  It's about licensure.  FedGov won't recognize certain licenses for certain purposes.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 23, 2011 12:40 PM (T0NGe)

And the DOMA allows individual states to also refuse to recognize marriages from other states that fall outside of the federal government's definition of acceptable "marriage".  The federal government needs its own definition of marriage, because citizenship and immigration are family-based and, thus, require it.  The DOMA is the actual job of the federal government, anyway, to settle disputes that arise from the "full faith and credit" clashes from state to state.  It is not only perfectly Constitutional, but it is required by the Constitution, since otherwise the craziest state gets to dictate to every other state.

90 Gabby to chime in with the usual nonsense in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....

91 Since Barry chooses which laws he wishes to obey or enforce, then I guess it's the same for the whole country.

Anarchy, here we come.

92 I would add to SH that he is under a sworn vow to not execute unconstitutional laws....

93

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 23, 2011 12:54 PM (N49h9)

Word.

94 Of course DOMA is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to discriminate against gays, or to make laws regarding marriage? A quick double-check of Article 1, Section 8 doesn't reveal a clause about making sure the gaybos can't piggyback health benefits, unless I'm missing it.

95 The lawlessness continues.

A little deciding not to enforce immigration law here, a little flouting of court orders on drilling permits there ... and pretty soon you have the world's largest banana republic.

That's it ... The Plantain Republic™.

96 It'd be politically impossible to so blatantly override the First Amendment directed against most religious establishments. I think it would be more fruitful to petition the religious establishments themselves that are increasingly open to marrying people of the same sex. I mean, there's no law against having just about whatever ceremony they want and there's not about to be.

97 Obama says Obama is lying but if everything Obama says is a lie, then Obama is telling the truth, but Obama cannot tell the truth because everything Obama says is a lie, but... Obama lie, Obama tell the truth, but Obama cannot for Obama l... Illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are Human! Only Humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

98 re: Stan's comment There won't be a law forcing priests to marry homosexuals. Instead the feds will revoke a church's tax-exempt status if they in any way 'discriminate' against homosexuals.

99 Drew,

Did you forget that President Kennedy allowed the Federal workforce to unionize by Executive Order?

Presidential fiats are the sine qua non of liberal Presidents and used to remake our society according to their will. It should therefore come as no surprise that Obama will assault our society, which prior to him was based on democratic process driven by majorities, by every anti-democratic means possible.

I am guessing this is another rally the base move for 2012 since he realizes regular Americans aren't buying his Houdini Act.

100 And they won't let us, in Illinois!

http://tinyurl.com/4k9gxul

101 and oil is at $99.75.

102 No intellectually honest court would uphold such a law, and no sane legislature would make one. Posted by: Stan at February 23, 2011 12:47 PM (dSHKh) One would think so but alas: http://t.co/RWT20pz http://tinyurl.com/d4o8rv

103 My top priority is jobs jo....oh look, a shiny!

104 Like the Super Soaker 100, this shit'll get you wet! http://moisturepoints.blogspot.com/

105 TO citizen khan, I do not disagree.  I certainly do not think he is being consistent.  IMO most presidents sign into laws of dubious constitutionality - Obamacare, Campaign Finance Reform.  I was just defending (on constitutional grounds only) his actions.  Frankly, I would applaud the next Republican President if he simply refused to enforce Obamacare on the grounds that he finds it unconstitutional - even if Congress can't give him a law to repeal it.  There are constitutional remedies for dealing with all that.  Conservatives should not yield questions of constitutionality simply to the courts - then we no longer have co-equal branches - yes I know that is what we do (doesn't mean its right). 

106

Stan, your main problem (such as it is), is you are approaching this stuff from a reasoned, logical point of view.

Try thinking like a devious fuck bent on the destruction of the mores you were raised with.

 

107 I'm confused on the whole "bad dictator" thing. Help me out here. I'm having some cognitive dissonance between what Captain Bullshit has had to SAY about Egypt and Libya and what has actually happened. On Mubarak: He's a Bad guy. He needs to go. I didn't mean yesterday, I meant NOW. So saith Citizen Zero. Result? The sooper violent, repressive, freedom-crushing dictator Stepped. Down. Voluntarily. On Qadaffi: uhhhh.... Result? "The streets will flow with the blood of the unbelievers and I will turn this country into one giant roman candle if you people don't get the fuck back in your houses right now!" He's like the bully's yappy little bitch friend who tries to get his weak-assed licks in AFTER the bully's already crushed someone.

108 He's running from the stigma of union support in Wisc. to a flashpoint cultural battle to bait out the religious conservatives, in the hopes of getting them to say things that can then be blared all over the tv as "homophobic", "intolerant", etc. Do not fall for it; do not make this a big issue. Keep hammering away on the Obama-Union-Special interests connection and Democratic fiscal insanity. Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 23, 2011 12:50 PM (Y5I9o) This.. more than anything.

109 Do not fall for it; do not make this a big issue.  Keep hammering away on the Obama-Union-Special interests connection and Democratic fiscal insanity.

I wouldn't replace WI and unions with this as a focus.

HOWEVER, a CR by the House completely defunding DOJ would be appropriate right about now.  The whole shebang's about to be shut down soon anyway at this rate, might as well make a few pointed statements before it happens.

110 OT - Megyn Kelly running a story right now about Scott Walker being called by a commie journalist prtending to be one of Koch brothers.

111

Okay, so that's mis-demeanor, an impeachable offence. Of course the Democrats hate Truth and so would never allow this to reach the Senate. Barry could murder fifteen people on national television and the Democrats would accuse us of being "haters" for calling the bastard on it.

This shit-for-brains asshole is not a fucking real American, much less a true President. He should be impreached TOMORROW if things were working correctly and if we had actual real Americans in Congress instead of those blue-state Europhilic happytime fascists called Democrats.

112 Does this mean Bunga Bunga with my Mom is out? I'm interested in marrying either her or my Dad (whichever one lives the longest) to avoid those pesky inheritance taxation issues.
Who's with me? Let's marry our way to imaginitive retirement funding.

Is Leona Helmsley's dog still alive? Woof woof.

113 Delusional.  This "president" guy is going to start doing some really crazy-ass shit like wearing a cape and jacking off in public before his first term is over.

114 All my skills, all my abilities, all my wisdom, and all I can up with is-

This dude is a real fucking dickhead.

115 74 If and when clerics, rabbis, priests, etc. have to marry gays against their will, I think it would be fair to say that gay marriage would be the least of our problems. No intellectually honest court would uphold such a law, and no sane legislature would make one.

Posted by: Stan at February 23, 2011 12:47 PM (dSHKh)

< Stan, we are spiraling to just that. It is already being framed that those who oppose gay marriage are harboring "hate" and "bigotry"and are thus "perpetuating" societal inequities. All of this is headed to a very, very dark place of what Pope John Paul II termed the "shining darkness."  A Godless society bounded only by man's imagination for which pretense will usher in complete control attempting to reorder morality and your very freedom.  

116

The type of law he's refusing to enforce isn't the issue - it is the fact that he is, by fiat, dissolving Congresses power and claiming it. That's what fucking makes me sick to my stomach.

117 74 If and when clerics, rabbis, priests, etc. have to marry gays against their will, I think it would be fair to say that gay marriage would be the least of our problems. No intellectually honest court would uphold such a law, and no sane legislature would make one.

Posted by: Stan at February 23, 2011 12:47 PM (dSHKh)

Are you nuts?  First, we don't distinguish between intellectually honest courts and the usual ones.  Second, we wouldn't need a law, judges would just declare it. Third, it will happen through civil discrimination lawsuits.  Scumbag lawyer files lawsuit, church doesn't have the money to fight it, church backs down.

118 Obama's Administration also decided that they don't need to continue defending Don Rumsfeld from ridiculous lawsuits

119 All my skills, all my abilities, all my wisdom, and all I can up with is-

This dude is a real fucking dickhead.

Posted by: Berserker at February 23, 2011 01:05 PM (gWHrG)

Sometimes the most simple explanation is the most effective.

120 If you like your lawlessness, you can keep your lawlessness.

121 Timely, isn't it? At a time when Republicans are united against govt waste and fraud and when the Leftist unions are exposed as hogs... along comes a nice divisive issue to distract us and splinter us.

122

Libertarians and social conservatives should be on the same page at the federal level.  We should insist on limited government and only laws that Congress has authority to enact.  It's at the state level where their agendas differ.  States in general have plenary power (subject to their own constitutions and individual rights in the Constitution).  But at the federal level, libertarians and social conservatives should be united.  Which is why I have never understood why libertarians continually vote Democrat at the federal level.

123 Does this mean marriage between a man and Lt. Worf is legal?

124 110 OT - Megyn Kelly running a story right now about Scott Walker being called by a commie journalist prtending to be one of Koch brothers.

Posted by: Have Blue at February 23, 2011 01:03 PM (mV+es)

God, these liberals are nucking futs.  They've now invented their betes noires.  They're obsessed with these guys.  I guess it's Soros-projection.

125 O/T:  "Wisconsin gov. pranked by caller posing as donor"

"Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie confirmed Walker took the call, which will only heighten widespread suspicions that brothers David and Charles Koch are pulling strings in Wisconsin's battle as part of a conservative agenda to limit the unions' power."

this is bad.

OMG, Rush is talking about it now.

126 I can only get so outraged at a president failing to defend a law (see my first comment), and I think DOMA is constitutional since it doesn't directly prohibit gay marriage. But I do think laws against gay marriage for the most part are unconstitutional, if no other alternative union gives the same rights as married couples.

If the government refuses to get out of marriage completely, then any consenting adult should have the freedom to enter into a marriage-like contract. Call it whatever name you want, just give equal access. Denying this to certain people is discriminatory. I don't see any valid reason to justify that.

127

At a time when Republicans are united against govt waste and fraud...

Funny.

128

Every man is an island but moored to the indivisble fact, Liberty is endowed by the Creator.

 

129 I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the only option is to burn this country down to the ground and rebuild it.

130

Blah...blah...blah...

you guys gotta get with the program and play the game!!!

 

131

These libs are crafty.  Yes, keep up the pressure on the union shenanigans.  These libs are indeed controling the debate away from their losing union hand and creating a liberal lightning rod in the Koch brothers and DOMA.

 

132 So congressional laws mean whatever who occupies the oval office means I guess.  That's what Nixon was trying to tell us.

133 Can we impeach Holder

134 Posted by: Have Blue at February 23, 2011 01:03 PM (mV+es) God, these liberals are nucking futs. They've now invented their betes noires. They're obsessed with these guys. I guess it's Soros-projection. Posted by: AmishDude at February 23, 2011 01:09 PM (T0NGe) Liberals all need their boogy men (and woman, Sarah Palin). First it was Bush.. After him it was Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties.. And for diversity sake, Glenn Beck.. Now the Koch Brothers. It's their version of the Two Minute Hate that helps unite their group-thought against perceived Emmanuel Goldsteins.

135 the Daily Beast has a link to the "buffalo beast" and the page is not found.  This is apparently where the audio is.

136 this is bad. 

Nah. Not really.  It'll pass.

137 (I changed part of that last paragraph. It's not helpful to call people with a differing opinion "nuts".)

DrewM. 
Dude!  Keep it real.  Don't let 'em change you!  Don't dumb it down for the dummies!  Cmon man, Ace has already gone soft on us, don't you trade your journalistic independence for fame and fortune.

138 124 110 OT - Megyn Kelly running a story right now about Scott Walker being called by a commie journalist prtending to be one of Koch brothers. Posted by: Have Blue at February 23, 2011 01:03 PM (mV+es)

While Megyn was trying to speak with the Fox reporting, he was being heckled by the mob, the usual "FOX LIES!!!111eleventy!!111"

No way could I do what the Fox reporters do.  I'd ram my mic down a throat or three.

139 #138  Sigh. 

reporting = reporter

140 this is bad.

Why is it bad?  Nothing Walker said is particularly incriminating - he said exactly what he's been saying in public.

This isn't a smoking gun.  It's just a stupid liberal stunt.

141

The executive exercises its judgment re Constitutionality when a passed law hits the Pres's desk for signature. In this case, the Executive decided it was constitutional and signed the bill, making it law.

What's troubling about today's development is not that O is making a constitutional judgment, but that he is overruling and undoing his predecessor's decision on that point. That is where the ice gets thin. If this act is met by a tit for tat response by the next Republican President wrt O'care, for example, which it should be,  the facade that we are a nation of laws is gone for good. As is the facade that we are a political union.

142 I never heard of the Koch brothers until the liberals told me they were my sugar daddies.

143

The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional.

 

From the asshole who gave us Barrycare and ignores judges ruling that it's unconstitutional. Barry is nothing but Chavez north. 

144 >>we wouldn't need a law, judges would just declare it. Third, it will happen through civil discrimination lawsuits.  Scumbag lawyer files lawsuit, church doesn't have the money to fight it, church backs down.

I think either DOMA will be repealed, or anti-gay marriage laws ruled unconstitutional, and then your scenario will be much more likely. But it would only be a matter of time before an appeals court or the Supreme Court overrules the idiot judge or the lawyer's case.

And if you have no faith in higher courts defending the first amendment against your scenario, nor churches with the balls and means to defend themselves, I don't know what you're still doing here if you're not a violent revolutionary.

145 Hey, I still believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe in free speech. That doesn't mean there has to be a law about either one. I mean, I'm no dictator.

146 ""Barry is nothing but Chavez north.""

Oh he definitely is a wannabee, thats for sure.

147 Sweet jeebus.

Now Megyn is reporting that Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, is bragging he has conversations with the WH....every day.  WTF?  My head hurts.

148 I have never understood why libertarians continually vote Democrat at the federal level.

Perhaps I live in a conservative enclave where even the libertarians are more conservative but about half of my libertarian bro's are former Republicans who are unhappy with the lack of fiscal conservatism in the elephant party.

BTW libertarians generally vote for the libertarian candidate at the federal level.

149 In general I agree snort, it gets real ugly, real fast, if this can happen. However, the thing to remember is more than 90% of our current gov't would be considered absolutely unconstitutional by the founders. We were never even supposed to get to this point.....so what do we do now?

150 It would appear GOProud is somewhat pleased at the news:

Our office catch-up day is turning into GOProud office dance party...we're even thinking about ordering pizza for lunch!

about 2 hours ago via web
twitterswift.appspot.com/GOPROUD

151 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 23, 2011 01:19 PM (UOM4

yep, I've read that at a lot of places.  Well he replaced the other union dude as "the man"

152 Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 23, 2011 12:50 PM (Y5I9o)

Rush just pointed this out.  You beat him to it.

153 Executive Branch. If the Kenyan can't grasp these two words, he belongs with the Somali pirates

154 So it's a three-fer:
He is taking away Congress's role of legislating and the Judiciary's role of interpreting laws, while ignoring the executive branch's sole duty of carrying out the laws which have been passed.
The arrogance of this administration is beyond belief.

155 So we are giving up on triangulating then?
That didn't last long.

156 I'm sending Barry a tricorn hat, a set of braided shoulderboards and a sceptre.

157 He is "no longer going to defend it"???? When did he ever start defending it? However, is it something that needs defending?  My understanding was that that the law was passed in order to assure that States like MA where the judges all made same sex marriage legal through arbitrary rulings could not force their opinions on other States.

In any event, just one more reason why Holder should be in front of an investigation committee and sworn in for a merciless grilling. AND then fired via the budget process.

Hey House budget writers, zero budget for Holder salary.

158

Meh...I thought the Koch bros. were like film makers or something.

 

159 BTW libertarians generally vote for the libertarian candidate at the federal level.

Posted by: Bieber must die, for harvest at February 23, 2011 01:19 PM (F/4zf)

Yeah, a vote for the libertarian candidate is a vote for Democrats.  I'll never understand why libertarians act as if Republicans and Democrats are interchangeable.  If anything, those folks at Reason are more hostile to Rs than Ds.

160

Couldn't the headline just have been, "Obama Violates Oath of Office?"

Just curious.

 

161 For those of you complaining about the Precedent's usurpation of power, please answer the following question: If a Sgt. or LT. or whatever in the armed forces was given an illegal order to summarily execute someone, would he be justified in refusing to carry that order out, and from where does he get that authority?

162 I really hate that these cases so often involves gay rights issues because I'm much more of small "l" libertarian on these things (I really don't care who people sleep with or fall in love with). I just really hate the way the judicial system can be warped to achieve ends the Constitution simply doesn't allow. Posted by DrewM. at 12:16 PM New Comments Thingy This. This is my whole beef with this sort of thing. I voted against Prop 8 in California, but I also did not support the judge's decision to overturn it- if the voice of the people is irrelevant or relevant DEPENDING ON the agenda of the courts, the Constitution is going out the window. It should be a state by state decision- some states have legalized it, a huge number have said no. The feds should stay out of it- including the judges who obviously have their own axes to grind.

163 Our office catch-up day is turning into GOProud office dance party...we're even thinking about ordering pizza for lunch! "Gentlemen, NOW is the time to start sucking each other's dicks." -GOProud press release, 2/23/2011

164 If a Sgt. or LT. or whatever in the armed forces was given an illegal order to summarily execute someone, would he be justified in refusing to carry that order out, and from where does he get that authority?

Posted by: citizen khan at February 23, 2011 01:29 PM (yYiVO)

The law was passed and has not been declared unconstitutional.  That's very different from an order, illegal or not.

165 I'm happy GOP Proud is happy but what happens if the next law they decide not to defend is the law insuring that gays aren't discriminated against?

166 Well, they haven't been defending the immigration laws really so what's the difference?

167 In any event, just one more reason why Holder should be in front of an investigation committee and sworn in for a merciless grilling. AND then fired via the budget process. Hey House budget writers, zero budget for Holder salary. Posted by: Vic at February 23, 2011 01:27 PM (M9Ie6) Lets defund the justice department

168 It would appear GOProud is somewhat pleased at the news:

Seeing as GOProud was created by a Planned Parenthood shill, it's not surprising.

169 I'm being told by a friend that Walker is going after all the unions except the firefighters cause they were heavy campaign contributors.  Tish must be the next argument but, is it true.  I'm so sick of politics and geez you can't trust any politicians.

170 f a Sgt. or LT. or whatever in the armed forces was given an illegal order to summarily execute someone, would he be justified in refusing to carry that order out, and from where does he get that authority? Posted by: citizen khan at February 23, 2011 01:29 PM (yYiVO) Because the Laws of War and the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically spells out the Propriety of not following "Illegal" orders. But you had better be sure they are illegal orders because there are consequences. And NOWHERE has DOMA been finally judged to be illegal. It was passed by Congress and Signed into law by a Democratic President.

171 Lets defund the justice department

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 23, 2011 01:32 PM (7wmOW)

They quietly slipped all of homeland security under his umbrella and I believe homeland security MUST be funded no matter what.

I read a piece that says the republicans are having trouble finding the money that pays for obamacare as they anticipated this and hid it very well in the budget.

172 If anything, those folks at Reason are more hostile to Rs than Ds.

They are now that Gillespie is in charge.  Look back to when Virginia Postrel was editor, it was better then.

173 Um....Fore!

174 They quietly slipped all of homeland security under his umbrella and I believe homeland security MUST be funded no matter what.

One doesn't have to defund the entire DHS to defund his salary.

175 citizen khan, So, an individual giving a SGT an illegal order, on his own individual authority, which that SGT refuses to carry out, is the same as the President ignoring a LAW which was constitutionally passed by CONGRESS and not shown to be unconstitutional? Way to think that one through, brah.

176

I still don't think the gay "marriage" issue is as divisive as some others thknk it is. It's still unpopular enough to be defeated at the ballot box.

I know, focus. But there's no reason you can't add the DOMA thing to the long, long list of reasons why we, um, dislike Obama.

177 Defend the laws of our country? That's like asking him to make a necklace out of gook thumbs and clearly the correct course of action is to refuse.

178 Text of AG Holder's letter to Boehner informing him of the coup:

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC  20515

Re:  Defense of Marriage Act

Dear Mr. Speaker:

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.   Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive BranchÂ’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination. 

It goes on.  You will not be pleased.

http://bit.ly/gcJ0jg

179 Jeff, my point is only that the SGT or LT must come to a conclusion based on his knowledge of the UCMJ as to whether or not the order is in fact illegal.  And to say that a law was passed constitutionally is not to say that the law is Constitutional. We whine alot about how we are ruled over by judges,  why can't the executive branch, as a coequal branch, make that decision in reference to its interpretation of the Constitution?

180 That being said, I would not be opposed to articles of impeachment if the law was found to be constitutional by the courts, AND the congress was willing to go there.

181

Yeah, a vote for the libertarian candidate is a vote for Democrats.  I'll never understand why libertarians act as if Republicans and Democrats are interchangeable.  If anything, those folks at Reason are more hostile to Rs than Ds.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 23, 2011 01:28 PM (McG46)

Yeah, you'd think Obamacare would have taught them a lesson.

And seriously, Bush was not a good president from a libertarian perspective, but I can't think of any area Obama has been better on.

182

I'm commenting before reading the other comments, which I will go back and do.

But my gut reaction is that as disgusting as this is, this is how liberals govern, and we all know this. Decide which result you wish to obtain. Twist the law, the media, and the political process so as to achieve that. The end always justifies the means. Of course, until a Republican or conservative is in power.

To me, this type of thing has some parallels to radical Islam - it's OK to lie about your goals and who you are and what you stand for if it helps achieve the true objective.   

183

163 "Gentlemen, NOW is the time to start sucking each other's dicks."

-GOProud press release, 2/23/2011

Thread winner by unanimous decision

184 I'm beginning to believe that this man will not leave office in 2013.  Even if he looses the election.

185 Start breaking that down and you do real damage to America.
Some consider that a feature, not a bug.

186 It is a soldier's JOB to follow the UCMJ. Not based on his understanding of what it says, but by WHAT IT SAYS. And if he's wrong, there are consequences. It is not the President's fucking job to decide a law is unconstitutional. You really want any one man to have the power to nullify laws he doesn't like? This is exactly the type of dictatorial usurpation of power that screeching libtards CLAIMED boosh! was engaging in.

187

At a December news conference, in response to a reporters' question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is "constantly evolving."

 

Bullshit! He lied about his position on it during the campaign. He was always for 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.

 

Bullshit! His mind was made up long ago. In fact, it's probably because he's a pole smoker

188 The "law" is whatever the king/dictator says it is.  We're quickly devolving into a defacto feudal system.

189 This nothing less than the rule of men replacing the rule of law.

190 The "law" is whatever the king/dictator says it is.  We're quickly devolving into a defacto feudal system.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 23, 2011 02:02 PM (MAGjW)

We're in a deretardo fool system, right now.

191 Jeff, how can a president follow his vow to support and defend the Constitution if he is unable to act upon his understanding of it......( I also know what you are saying, I am just kinda curious where this leads) Also, we currently have many individuals that nullify laws they don't like, they are called judges.  We also have "prosecutorial discretion" which basically says that it's ok to ignore the law sometimes....so don't act like this is new to our way of life....perhaps in degree, but not truly in kind.

192

We whine alot about how we are ruled over by judges,  why can't the executive branch, as a coequal branch, make that decision in reference to its interpretation of the Constitution?

The executive branch did make a decision...when it signed the law in to effect.  The problem is that if every President can simply declare that it believes laws passed by it's predecessor to be unconstitutional and stop enforcing them, you no longer have the rule of law, you have rule by decree.  The man is not the office, he merely executes it for a period of time.  Like it or not, a certain continuity is necessary in order for people and institutions to feel secure in operating.

 

193 OMG.. they're shedding tears of joy over this over at Daily Kooks..

Yup.. the 2012 campaign has begun!

194 So unlike the legislature or the judiciary it is impossible for the executive to change its mind?

195 BTW, imo this argument would almost never happen if the Federal government only exercised its enumerated powers.

196 When a President decides that he will flaunt the law as Obama has done and the congress has decided that they will never impeach a Democrat, as they have done, there is very little else that can be done.

Obama is not the first President to flaunt the law or the courts and he probably will not be the last. That is, unless he is reelected and then he will be the last.

197 BTW - at the end of Holder's letter, he says:

Furthermore, pursuant to the PresidentÂ’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.


Apparently the party in the California Prop 8 case is already asking to vacate the stay on new gay marriages based on today's action.

198

At first I hated DOMA because I saw it as social conservatives wanting a big Federal intervention for their morality issue.  I hate big Federal responses to things that are state  matters (Roe v Wade immediately comes to mind).  But really, the main thrust of DOMA is to protect states from havinig to recognize gay marriages performed by other states if that state chooses.   That seems pretty much in support of states and the Republic.

As for Justice only enforcing laws that Holder agrees with, while infuriating, it seems to be the norm.  New Black Panthers case proved that to me right out of the gate. 

 

 

199 The problem is that the American system is set up to be confrontational. Two sides expound their views, then a judge determines an outcome. Two parties put up candidates, then the electorate chooses one. This is the heart of "checks and balances".

In the union situation in Wisconsin, the issue has been that public sector unions buy politicians, then sit across the table from them to discuss how much taxpayers are going to get reamed.

In the DOMA situation, there is a case to be made for and against upholding the law, but leftist activists are trying to own both sides of the debate -- and preemptively capitulate from the DOJ side.

Anyone trying to ensure that both sides are fairly heard is dumped out the egress for "lack of standing".

This "heads I win, tails you lose" garbage is infuriating on a visceral level. First, someone claims to speak for me; then, this person says things I'd never say; finally, I'm told that I have no right to object because someone's been speaking on my behalf.

200 Just wait, the Indonesian and his gang are going to start championing this as "privatization", since it will fall to individuals and private groups to bring and defend the cases - if they are granted standing by our all-powerful, though beneficent, judiciary. 

Then they'll tax the process.

201 I hate to say it, but BHO shows all of the signs of being a bi-guy.

He's married to a brute

He throws like a girl

He is skinny skinny...

202 I hate to say it, but BHO shows all of the signs of being a bi-guy.

He's married to a brute

He throws like a girl

He is skinny skinny...
Posted by: Cooter at February 23, 2011 02:15 PM

He's not bi, unfortunately.

203 I'm not going to do your fucking homework for you. You talk about enumerated powers and question why the president shouldn't be able to operate outside them? You're either a libertrollian or you really haven't read and understood the Constitution.

204 Furthermore, pursuant to the PresidentÂ’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

Sweet Hell. Obama isn't just going Fleebagger on DOMA Sec 3 he's flat out telling judges how they should rule on it. Who the hell is he to tell the judiciary what standard should apply? Total Bullshit.

Sec 3 is unconstitutional? How? All it does is set the definition of marriage for the FEDERAL government and FEDERAL benefits. The states can do as they please. On what grounds is it unconstitutional? How can he seriously suggest the federal government can't make it's own rules for itself with regard to marriage?

Obama - Fleebagger in Chief. Don't like the hand dealt to you just cut and run until you get the cards you want. FUCKING BULLSHIT!

205 It actually isnt that difficult to ignore most of ObamaCare. Just issue a universal waiver.

206

"Democracy isn't simply a set of rules, it's a series of habits and shared traditions that people elected respect."

 

Yeah about that shared traditions thingy........bolshes not so much.

207 Official statement from GOProud:

GOProud, the conservative LGBT group at the center of the CPAC controversy this year, came out in strong support of the DOMA decision as well.

"We believe states should be free to make decisions regarding marriage and family laws without the intervention of the federal government," executive director Jimmy LaSalvia said via e-mail. "The decisions of the each individual state should be respected by the federal government. Accordingly, we support the repeal of DOMA."

GOProud declined further comment beyond that statement -- LaSalvia telling TPM he's "going to hide under a rock" following the decision.

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com



"Now back to the pizza and shirtless man-dancing!"

208 Well, I'm hardly a troll, and yes I understand what it means if the President can just ignore the law.  What I am trying to suss out is what remedy a president does in fact have if he believes an existing law to be blatantly unsonstitutional, and are we absolutely willing to give the only power of review to 9 people in robes.

This is the President's oath : "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

So how does a president follow his oath with a blatantly unconstitutional law on the books?

I don't believe that not executing a law he believes falls outside the Gov't enumerated powers to in fact be acting outside his enumerated powers.

209

A bit of cheap bait to get his base back in love with him, to get homosexuals to come back to the reservation...and which will ultimately be used by another group for another purpose, methinks.

If I was gay I don't think I'd be taking this bait -- if the game that is up is what I think it is, this will wind up ending very badly for them.

210 "We believe states should be free to make decisions regarding marriage and family laws without the intervention of the federal government," executive director Jimmy LaSalvia said via e-mail. "The decisions of the each individual state should be respected by the federal government. Accordingly, we support the repeal of DOMA."

Conservatives my ass. DOMA doesn't say a thing about what states must do about marriage. States are totally free to  make decisions regarding marriage and family laws without the intervention of the federal government that apply to states. For the federal government to abandon it's own definition of marriage would mean that the federal government must recognize a marriage, no matter how it's defined, by any state. If a state decides to recognize a marriage between an 8 year old and a 40 year old then this idiot, and Holder, are suggesting the federal government must recognize it too because it's unconstitutional for the federal government to set IT'S OWN definition of marriage for the FEDERAL government alone.

211 OT:

A Canadian lawyer chick on Fox arguing about euthanizing that baby up there (they won't let the parents take the baby to die at home but have to kill it NOW, at the hospital): "Death is part of life."

Yeah.  The last part.

212 Remedy? How about: Legislation to repeal existing law Judicial review at the federal, appellate and Supreme level Constitutional amendment It is not the president's job to decide what he wants to ignore. It is his DUTY to enforce the laws of our country. Don't tell me this shitbrick can't find enough Dems to submit a bill repealing DOMA. An equally stupid question would be, "Well, why CAN'T legislators stop voting by fleeing the state and shutting down the congress. I mean, what if they knew they would lose the vote, but they REALLY, REALLY KNEW that they wouldn't get their way? What other remedy do they have?"

213 DOMA is brazenly unconstitutional.  Read the 10th Amendment. 

Posted by: Gay Conservative at February 23, 2011 12:33 PM (l2XpM)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tell me what part of DOMA violates the 10th? Does DOMA tell states how they must define marriage or state benefits? Does DOMA tell states they must accept other states defintion? Does DOMA tell states they have to do anything at all?
No, it doesn't. DOMA sets rule for the federal government and dealing of states BETWEEN states. All part of the function of the federal government.

214

210 Exactly -- or polygamy.

Now...who seem to be very fond of both extreme May-November marriages and polygamy...hmmm, I had the answer to this just a second ago...

215 Michael Steel, a spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized the timing of the announcement.

“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,” he said.



No criticism of Obama ruling by diktat, or comment on the issues raised by his actions, just a mild questioning of the timing.
 
Republican leadership.

216 Jeff, it is his DUTY to enforce the laws, is is also his sworn DUTY to preserve the constitution, I am talking about those two duties being in conflict.  Your list of remedies belies the fact ( or myth) of coequal branches of government.  That is more what I was after, but if you feel it necessary to get upset and insult people engaging in a little thought experimentation, please feel free.

217 IIRC, wasn't the whole attack on John Ashcroft being confirmed as Attorney General was that he had would not go after people protesting at abortion clinics? Funny thing, he actually did prosecute those cases.

218

Sorry empire, the President is co-equal with Congress and with Court.  He too can make a determination that a law is unconstitutional.  The idea that only the SC can is not just wrong, it is the knee jerk response of any liberal.  A president is within his constitutional rights to not enforce a law he determines unconstitutional.  The other branches, the states, and the people are within their rights to do what they can (under the constitution or at the ballot box) to compel him to do so.  The President is making a political calculation that his dropping the DOMA defense will not cost him.  If it turns out that it does, the next President will think twice before attempting to do something similar.  I doubt the dropping of the DOMA defense is going to cost him anything politically though.

For what its worth, I'm not so certain that DOMA isn't unconstitutional.  But on 10th A grounds, not 5th. 

219 Barney Frank thinks you could get into this, if you just relaxed:


Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) couldn't be more excited to see the White House come around on the Defense of Marriage Act, which he said was the right move legally and politically.

"It's great news," Frank, who is openly gay, told TPM over the phone. "Particularly after DADT repeal, this is a further expression of his commitment to doing away with discrimination."

Frank said he recommended to White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley in a meeting last week that the Administration drop its support for DOMA.

"I got some indication they were thinking about their position and I urged them to go ahead with it," he said. "I thought there would be no political problem. People who will be angry at the President over this won't vote for him anyway."

He added that he believed gay issues were losing their cachet even among social conservatives.

He even suggested the Administration's interpretation would mesh well with Tea Partiers' small government ideals, since it allows the federal government to recognize gay marriages in states where it they were legally performed, but not require state governments that still outlaw same-sex unions to do the same.

"That should have appeal to some of the Tea Party people with their states rights message," he said. "In this case they're not saying there is a constitutional right to marry in general."

220 BTW. This is huge. It practically hands the State of Mass their case that their defining marriage to include gay unions means the federal government must do so too, for those married by Mass, as itÂ’s unconstitutional according to Holder for the federal government to define marriage at all, even for federal purposes. If that stands then marriage will be redefined everywhere by judicial fiat. Those married in Mass will return to Texas and insist they get their federal benefits. From there they will flip Texas law under equal protection.

Section 3 is the most easily defended portion of the law. It deals only with the federal government. Throwing this out calls the rest into question. ItÂ’s the equivalent of a prosecutor chucking out the weapon in a murder case.

221

Go back and re-read some of the news reports from when DADT was declared unconstitutional by one of the federal courts. 

Obama defended it and the reports all said that he basically had to.  It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.  But at the time, I lept thinking why isn't he saying publicly: "Thank You, the court finally agreed with what I've been saying all along."  He was against DADT and he should have let the court decision stand without a fight. 

Now he's dropping defense of DOMA, and what will the reports say.....?

This guy has more faces that Sybil

222 You reich wingers didn't expect anything else did you? I played on squishy white folks guilt and now I'm going to fuck them all in the behind. It's fun...my friend Bwarny Fwank told me about it.

223 I guess if you repeat "co-equal branches of government" enough times, it proves that the President has unlimited authority to set aside laws he doesn't like. Well played. I'll be looking out for that one next time.

224 If I'm not mistaken, this amounts to a veto after the fact.

225 Empire there are other constitutional mechanisms for dealing with a rogue president.  I didn't say it was right or wise.  Only constitutional. 

226 1. well, they better re-shoot the ending of BIG LOVE's show finale now that this has happened.

2. does this mean i get to marry 2 men and have twice the headaches?

3. Utah becomes the 1st polygamist state in the union YIPPEEEEE.

4. Kentucky becomes the 1st state where you are expected to marry your cousin.

its all good people.
move along.
nothing to see here.
move along.

227 Is this not Obama's "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" moment?

The executive branch is now in the business of determining a law's constitutionality?  Where are the calls for impeachment?

228 Seriously, guys.  I know that this issue is very important not only in terms of cultural repercussions, but also in terms of presidential constitutional powers.

But it screams WEDGE ISSUE and will distract from the whole union thuggery and democrat ownership issue in ways that will doubtlessly be played as unflattering to social cons...which invariably means points scored for progressive.

Do not make this a big deal, or you will regret it.  Again, I'm not saying that it's not important. I'm saying that there is a time and a place to move on difficult issues like this, and that time is when you actually have a levers of power in your control.  Not when you almost do, but harping on this issue would let the other side effortlessly demagogue you out of the swing votes you need.

229 And if you think I'm wrong, look at the recent polls and ask yourself why Obama saved this until now.  He always believed in it, clearly.  But why did he hold back and risk upsetting his base so much for so long if not to have a trump card to play in just this kind of political situation that has him and the Dems looking so bad to so many regular americans?

230 Zero is one and done. He can go full retard now.

231

Sign behind Eric Holder's desk:

WHITES ONLY!

232 " Democracy isn't simply a set of rules, it's a series of habits and shared traditions that people elected respect. Start breaking that down and you do real damage to America."

Actually, the tradition of respecting Supreme Court review of law is just that.  One would think that they have more to lose than we do when these obsolete traditions fall by the way. 

233 Barack Hussein Obama ...MMM MMMM MMMMM! Another day - another constitutional crisis.

234 Hi.NHL Jerseys on sale,buy your favarite NHL Hockey Jersey for you.the best team :Chicago Blackhawks Jerseys and Pittsburgh Penguins Jerseys .

235 In my wallet are two forms of government identification, a drivers license and a voters registration.   It is not a voters license nor a drivers registration.  The term 'license' means permission.  The license indicates that I have permission to operate a motor vehicle.  A doctors license gives him/her/it permission to practice medicine.  The same is true with Law, Real Estate and even Beautician.  These mean that an individual has permission to practice these trades.  A marriage license means that two people have permission to marry.

I do not need government permission to vote.  That is my God-given RIGHT.  That is why my voter card is a registration, not a license.  It helps the government organize free and fair elections.

If we, as a society, decide that there is a RIGHT to marriage--in the same way that there is a right to free speech or peaceable assembly, then the government should not be issuing a license at all.  A registration--in the same way that a voter is registered--will be appropriate for government (taxation) purposes. 

At issue then is whether or not that marriage is a right.  It certainly isn't in the Constitution and such a "right" has escaped the attention of mankind from the dawn of history to this day.   This thing is better left directly to the voters than EITHER an unelected judge or even a President.  It is, however, a valid thing to discuss among candidates during the Silly Season.

If the homosexuals want to marry, they should propose a Constitutional Amendment, and submit it to the political process.  If it passes, then no government agency will ever again be able to issue a marriage license.  It will be a marriage (or partnership) registration only.