Boehner and the Repubs choose to launch an assault on equal rights for gay Americans

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_boehner_gay_marriage

    More proof of the fact that the Repub party advocates an anti-gay agenda.

    And more broken promises from the Repub party, which promised to focus solely on economic issues if they took control of Congress and NOT to focus on these kind of hateful and divisive "culture war" issues that do nothing to help the American people and are brought up by the Repubs ONLY in an effort to try to help THEMSELVES politically.

    They're wasting more of their time and our tax dollars on these BS wedge issues in a selfish purely partisan attempt to help their own party.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2011 11:02 PM GMT

    Ok,,,,,,

    Let's hear from the Righties that they oppose this.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 04, 2011 11:08 PM GMT
    what a boehne head position to have!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2011 11:13 PM GMT



    Wasn't it job, JOBS, JOBS John Bonner KEPT saying back in January?



    JOBS.............JOBS.............JOBS......





    And now pandering to the neanderthals?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 04, 2011 11:14 PM GMT
    When Nancy was Speaker of the House, Crybaby Boner couldn't shut up about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

    Now that he's the Speaker, suddenly, he doesn't give a big rat's ass about jobs.

    The Republicans around the country are busy union busting, taking away aid to the elderly and poor, and fighting to prevent people who love each other from getting married.

    Typical Republican bullshit...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2011 12:52 AM GMT
    Payday for lawyers!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    What an astonishing waste of time and money. They will lose, and they will be on the wrong side of history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2011 1:53 AM GMT
    This also proves that all that spin from Repubs about how it was really the Repubs who got DADT repealed because a few GAY Log Cabiners worked to try to get DADT repealed - WAS TOTAL BS.

    The Log Cabiners are outcasts in their own party.
    The ACTUAL Repub party disapproved of the Log Cabiners attempt to repeal DADT - and almost every single Repub in Congress VOTED AGAINST repealing DADT.

    And now that the Repubs in Congress are pushing this bill to deny gay Americans equal marriage rights - the proof is UNDENIABLE.
    The Repub party advocates an anti-gay agenda and is working to try to deny gay Americans the same equal rights all other Americans enjoy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2011 3:28 AM GMT
    Whoa! I am so confused!!!

    Wasn't it Obama who wouldn't take a court's ruling of unconstitutionality of DADT, but insisted that Congress needed to repeal it? But now, with no such court ruling, he decides he can ignore executing a law.

    Which is it, O?

    Personally, I don't think a president can pick and choose which laws to enforce. However, with a court ruling of unconstitutionality, I think a president can decide which rulings to appeal or not. Just like the courts decide which cases to hear or not.

    I don't want some future president to not enforce a law protecting gay rights.

    I think O needs to get Congress to repeal the law or take it to court and get it ruled unconstitutional.

    Anyone want to explain to me how I am wrong.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Mar 05, 2011 5:48 AM GMT
    Caslon17000 saidWhoa! I am so confused!!!

    Wasn't it Obama who wouldn't take a court's ruling of unconstitutionality of DADT, but insisted that Congress needed to repeal it? But now, with no such court ruling, he decides he can ignore executing a law.

    Which is it, O?

    Personally, I don't think a president can pick and choose which laws to enforce. However, with a court ruling of unconstitutionality, I think a president can decide which rulings to appeal or not. Just like the courts decide which cases to hear or not.

    I don't want some future president to not enforce a law protecting gay rights.

    I think O needs to get Congress to repeal the law or take it to court and get it ruled unconstitutional.

    Anyone want to explain to me how I am wrong.



    I totally agree. What Boehner and the Republicans are doing here is less about gay rights and far more about the precedent President Obama set by not defending this law. It should not be up to the President to pick and choose like this. It works in our favor perhaps this time around, but it could just as easily be another President not defending a law that is suppose to protect us where this sort of action would work against us. We can't have it both ways.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Mar 05, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    TheAmericanPeople said
    CuriousJockAZ said. What Boehner and the Republicans are doing here is less about gay rights and far more about the precedent

    Oh, hogwash. There's no "precedent" here. As Supreme Court reporter Dahlia Lithwick pointed out, several presidents have done this before.

    Oh, and Caslon, here's where you're wrong. President Obama's Justice Department has said they will enforce the law, but they will not defend it. They are obligated to enforce it. They are in no way obligated to defend it, and they have chosen not to do so.

    Um, kinda like how Jerry Brown and the Secretary of State of California have chosen not to defend Prop. 8 in court.

    Precedent, Todd? Really?



    I just see the action as opening a Pandora's Box of sorts should Presidents decide to overuse this sort of practice in the future for other laws. If it were a Republican president doing this to a law that protected gays, you would be screaming foul from the rooftops. Regardless, I disagree with the OPs assertion that Boehner's action is "an assault on gay rights".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2011 7:50 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    TheAmericanPeople said
    CuriousJockAZ said. What Boehner and the Republicans are doing here is less about gay rights and far more about the precedent

    Oh, hogwash. There's no "precedent" here. As Supreme Court reporter Dahlia Lithwick pointed out, several presidents have done this before.

    Oh, and Caslon, here's where you're wrong. President Obama's Justice Department has said they will enforce the law, but they will not defend it. They are obligated to enforce it. They are in no way obligated to defend it, and they have chosen not to do so.

    Um, kinda like how Jerry Brown and the Secretary of State of California have chosen not to defend Prop. 8 in court.

    Precedent, Todd? Really?



    I just see the action as opening a Pandora's Box of sorts should Presidents decide to overuse this sort of practice in the future for other laws. If it were a Republican president doing this to a law that protected gays, you would be screaming foul from the rooftops. Regardless, I disagree with the OPs assertion that Boehner's action is "an assault on gay rights".


    But plenty of presidents ALREADY HAVE----including George Bush!

    Really, your idiocy reaches a new low!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Mar 06, 2011 2:18 PM GMT
    TigerTim said

    Really, your idiocy reaches a new low!



    While your annoying condescending blather reaches new heights
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2011 2:22 PM GMT
    TheAmericanPeople said
    Oh, and Caslon, here's where you're wrong. President Obama's Justice Department has said they will enforce the law, but they will not defend it. They are obligated to enforce it. They are in no way obligated to defend it, and they have chosen not to do so.

    Thanks, JP. I had not heard that they will continue to enforce it.