DOMA's Days Are Numbered

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/Febru...g-222.html

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

So this will allow gay marriage?

Lol. Thats funny. The President likes to say one thing like DOMA is unconstitutional while he ignores the courts when they tell him that Obama care is also unconstitutional. He sure does like to pick and chose when he is infavor of the constitution. Just seems to be a double standard to me. Though in reading section 3 of DOMA, it only defines the words marriage and spouse. The definition is exactly the same as that found in the dictionary so I fail to see the problem here.

So this will allow gay marriage?

No, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages.

No, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Is DOMA for or against same-sex marriage? You said it prevents the federal government from recognizing it, meaning that it's against same-sex marriage, but you said no to me.

I guess I should rephrase my original question.

Is this a step forward for homosexuals looking for equal rights in marriage?

edit: I guess the fact the kanevaldier is against this AND public healthcare should make it pretty obvious that it is a pro-homosexuality movement.

Is this a step forward for homosexuals looking for equal rights in marriage?

Yes.
Removing this doesn't suddenly enable us to marry, it just removes the federal "LA LA LA WE CANT HEAR YOU" that ignores states that allow the marriage.

Yes.
Removing this doesn't suddenly enable us to marry, it just removes the federal "LA LA LA WE CANT HEAR YOU" that ignores states that allow the marriage.

So, basically, go to a state that allows it and the government will have to acknowledge the marriage legally?

So, basically, go to a state that allows it and the government will have to acknowledge the marriage legally?

Yes

So, basically, go to a state that allows it and the government will have to acknowledge the marriage legally?

Yes

Cool :O

Lol. Thats funny. The President likes to say one thing like DOMA is unconstitutional while he ignores the courts when they tell him that Obama care is also unconstitutional. He sure does like to pick and chose when he is infavor of the constitution. Just seems to be a double standard to me. Though in reading section 3 of DOMA, it only defines the words marriage and spouse. The definition is exactly the same as that found in the dictionary so I fail to see the problem here.

Thing is, Judicial Branch can make any ruling they want. The Executive and Legaslative branches dont need to follow Judicial Branch's decision. Most presidents in our history actually ignore whatever Judicial Branch rules if they want to continue their plan.

Think of the Supreme Court as elderly advice, not supreme law of the land (even if they say they are!) because really, what the hell can they do? They can't make laws, they can't cut the president's funding if the president continues his decision. Judicial branch is the weakest and most neglected branch in our government to date. Always have, and always will be.

Thing is, Judicial Branch can make any ruling they want. The Executive and Legaslative branches dont need to follow Judicial Branch's decision. Most presidents in our history actually ignore whatever Judicial Branch rules if they want to continue their plan.

Think of the Supreme Court as elderly advice, not supreme law of the land (even if they say they are!) because really, what the hell can they do? They can't make laws, they can't cut the president's funding if the president continues his decision. Judicial branch is the weakest and most neglected branch in our government to date. Always have, and always will be.

What you state is partially true. The judicial branch tends to get neglected. However, it does have real power. The supreme court was set up to interpret the law and the constitution which is the highest law in this nation. That said they can charge the president in contempt if they so chose. Forcing him to go through the court system. Thats part of the checks and balances of our government.

@sarah....no I am not against getting rid of DOMA. But the article focuses on section 3 and that is why I dont see the problem. Section 3 only defines the words marriage and spouse and both definitions are as they are in the dictionary. That doesnt make section 3 unconstitutional at all. DOMA is however unconstitutional because the federal government is not supposed to supercede any of the states laws. Each state makes its own laws for its citizens. Getting rid of DOMA will not change that. Same sex marriage will still be unrecognized in the states that dont recognize it.

Lol. Thats funny. The President likes to say one thing like DOMA is unconstitutional while he ignores the courts when they tell him that Obama care is also unconstitutional. He sure does like to pick and chose when he is infavor of the constitution. Just seems to be a double standard to me. Though in reading section 3 of DOMA, it only defines the words marriage and spouse. The definition is exactly the same as that found in the dictionary so I fail to see the problem here.

Er... you can only think all things are unconstitutional or constitutional? Just because he disagrees with the courts over health care doesn't mean he has to disagree with everything.

DOMA is however unconstitutional because the federal government is not supposed to supercede any of the states laws.

Don't see it anywhere in the Constitution, bud, unless I missed it. It is entirely possible that I missed it since I only skimmed the text, though.

Leading title.

A better one would be, "President says DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional"

Don't see it anywhere in the Constitution, bud, unless I missed it. It is entirely possible that I missed it since I only skimmed the text, though.

I only have a vague memory of last year's US History class, but I'm pretty sure federal law actually supercedes any state laws, but as i said it's a vague memory.

Er... you can only think all things are unconstitutional or constitutional? Just because he disagrees with the courts over health care doesn't mean he has to disagree with everything.

I am sorry, but when it comes to the government and the things that go in within the government the only way to look at it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of this country and must be followed when making legislation. The fact is that DOMA and Obama care are both unconstitutional and therefore should be removed. I used the health care part as an example in my original post. He can disagree with the courts all he wants to but that doesnt mean that he can just say screw you, I can do what I want. The courts are there to prevent such arrogance from taking place.

@corn....It is there in the constitution, just not worded the same way I said it. All you need to do is take the time to read it to see that the states and federal government share power but that the federal governements power is limited to the powers given in the constitution only.

I am sorry, but when it comes to the government and the things that go in within the government the only way to look at it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of this country and must be followed when making legislation. The fact is that DOMA and Obama care are both unconstitutional and therefore should be removed. I used the health care part as an example in my original post. He can disagree with the courts all he wants to but that doesnt mean that he can just say screw you, I can do what I want. The courts are there to prevent such arrogance from taking place.

@corn....It is there in the constitution, just not worded the same way I said it. All you need to do is take the time to read it to see that the states and federal government share power but that the federal governements power is limited to the powers given in the constitution only.

The president is essentially saying "I think that DOMA is unconstitutional, but I disagree in that I think the health care program is constitutional." There is an entire 200 years worth of presidents disagreeing with the court system. Now if the health care program makes it to the court system, they can then say it's unconstitutional and make rulings against it, but until they the president can do whatever he wants.

federal law > state law. I think you're mis-interpreting the 10th amendment; it states that any powers not given to the federal government is the state's right. And in that sense, the law is unconstitutional because the federal government was not given the right to define marriage. But this does not mean state law supersedes federal law. Article IV of the constitution says that the constitution is the "law of the land," and most of the time when state and federal laws conflict, federal wins.

The president is essentially saying "I think that DOMA is unconstitutional, but I disagree in that I think the health care program is constitutional." There is an entire 200 years worth of presidents disagreeing with the court system. Now if the health care program makes it to the court system, they can then say it's unconstitutional and make rulings against it, but until they the president can do whatever he wants.

federal law > state law. I think you're mis-interpreting the 10th amendment; it states that any powers not given to the federal government is the state's right. And in that sense, the law is unconstitutional because the federal government was not given the right to define marriage. But this does not mean state law supersedes federal law. Article IV of the constitution says that the constitution is the "law of the land," and most of the time when state and federal laws conflict, federal wins.

You are correct in that when state laws conflict with the laws that are stated in the constitution and bill of rights, the federal government will win. That said, you also made my point with the health care part as well. The federal government does not have the right to define marriage and by that same token it also does not have the right to force the people to have to get health coverage. That is one reason Obama care is unconstitutional.

You are correct in that when state laws conflict with the laws that are stated in the constitution and bill of rights, the federal government will win. That said, you also made my point with the health care part as well. The federal government does not have the right to define marriage and by that same token it also does not have the right to force the people to have to get health coverage. That is one reason Obama care is unconstitutional.

This is of questionable legitimacy but

Non exempt persons not securing minimum essential health insurance coverage are also fined under the shared responsibility rules. This requirement to maintain insurance or pay a fine is often referred to as the individual mandate, though being insured is not actually mandated by law. Not being insured will not be a crime and no criminal penalty can attach to non payment of the fine. The fine serves to encourage most people into an insurance pool and to deter healthy individuals from buying insurance only when they become ill.

I may be interpreting this wrong, but i'm pretty sure this is saying no one is forced to get health care.

I may be interpreting this wrong, but i'm pretty sure this is saying no one is forced to get health care.

Obama care contradicts itself many times throughout the entire bill. It is far too long of a bill and there is a ton of BS packed in it. Go actually read the bill and then tell me its completely constitutional.
Back to the topic. Die DOMA die....lol.