Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

DoMA.

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 3:25:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, gives individual states the option of not recognizing gay marriages performed in states that do allow, perform and recognize same sex unions.

Personally, I am undecided on how I feel about DOMA. On one hand, I support individual state rights and I think overturning DOMA would actually infringe upon those rights and over-expand the power of our national government. On the other hand, if heterosexual marriages MUST be nationally recognized, then same-sex marriages should be privy to that same treatment.

Of course one could always say that marriage in general should not be nationally recognized at all, and that may be true. However I think we all know the real issue here is based on discrimination...

Nevertheless, I'm kind of annoyed at all of the hullabaloo that the gay community is making about Obama's so-called support of DOMA. Give me a break! Everyone is so outraged by his position because he criticized DOMA when running for President, and hasn't yet overturned the policy in his mere 5 months of being president.

What Obama said was: "Unfortunately, my administration is not authorized by existing federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it."

Honestly, his stance on the policy is the most left of any president or presidential candidate in recent history, so all of the whiny gay brats out there who know little to nothing about American politics need to STFU instead of misconstruing his words and actions and depicting him as just another lying politician. I mean he might be, but that's not the point.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 3:56:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Agreed with theLwerd. Gay rights activists are making way too much of this. I understand why they're doing it, but they should realize that Obama may not have a huge choice but to take it one step at a time. Let us all be glad that he was able to allow federal workers the right to same-sex marriage - step in the right direction, if you ask me.

Besides, Obama may be playing the Canada route. The idea is to allow states to legalize it, thereby shifting a lot of the blame onto the states. But if there isn't major opposition forming to the laws, then the federal jurisdiction puts it into law, thereby saving their skins this entire time.

It happened here. Almost all Canadian provinces legalized same-sex marriage before the federal government put it into federal law. The only province that didn't do it was Alberta, which is Canada's Texas/Kansas. But because there wasn't opposition in the majority of the population, the federal government felt safe enough to do it. It wasn't as if they were going to ever gain seats in Alberta anyways - just like Democrats don't have a chance in hell of getting Texas.
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 8:04:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 3:55:15 PM, theLwerd wrote:
What do you mean "lies?" I thought that whole cigar bit was pretty stellar.

ha.

as somewhat liberal as I may be... Bill Clinton was not pretty unsavory in my eyes when it comes to gay rights....
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 8:23:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 3:25:30 PM, theLwerd wrote:

What Obama said was: "Unfortunately, my administration is not authorized by existing federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it."

"Interferes with states' rights?" IT GIVES STATES RIGHTS!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 7:10:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
DoMA is unconstitutional, and goes against the "full faith and credit" clause.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 12:00:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How so?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 12:52:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
When a state recognizes something, then other states are supposed to recognize it with full faith and credit. (I'm too lazy right now to look up the exact wording)

This applies to marriage, too.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light