House Republicans defense of DOMA will be rooted in their own ugly history.

  • metta

    Posts: 39150

    Mar 16, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    House Republicans defense of DOMA will be rooted in their own ugly history.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2287869/pagenum/all/
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Mar 17, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    I can't believe the Republican House is going to attempt to defend DOMA, much less spend plenty of taxpayers' money using private lawyers (ka-ching, ka-ching) trying to put together a legally/rationallyconvincing argument that (1) the origins of DOMA are anything but animus against gays and lesbians, and (2) there is credible evidence to support a rational governmental reason for the law to begin with, nor (3) will they be able to find its parts constitutional that restrict states' constitutional rights (such as governing marriage) where the several states that do include same-sex marriages as legal and valid, and finally (4) the anti-equal treatment provisions deliberately and clearly laid out in DOMA's language are in conflict with several Supreme Court decisions, and only now being challenged. And then (5) there are the weak sound bytes always about "procreation" and children as the basis for marriage -- also not true, not necessary, and not a criterion in any state's issuance of marriage licenses. And (6) that DOMA's exclusions of same-sex married partners' rights and privileges, benefits, and legal standing can be sustained and continue to deny equal treatment of military members now that the DADT law/policy/restrictions are being repealed and cannot be justified any more because of DOMA's discriminatory provisions.

    There has been at least one federal district judge who has ruled the DOMA unconstitutional - to be appealed now, and more cases are in line which likely will also be found for the plaintiffs for similar reasons.

    Excellent article from Slate, by the way. Thanks for that link!

  • cmdrkoenig67

    Posts: 163

    Mar 17, 2011 6:13 AM GMT
    Repuglican bastards and bitches.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 3:01 PM GMT
    Menergy_1 saidI can't believe the Republican House is going to attempt to defend DOMA,

    You can't? LOL republican= bible thumping selfish bigots.. its in their DNA.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 4:41 PM GMT
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1

    DOMA is not unconstitutional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 5:31 PM GMT
    atl2atx85 saidFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1

    DOMA is not unconstitutional.
    Reread your constitutional article carefully......
    Then tell us how Massachusetts plays into it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 6:18 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    atl2atx85 saidFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1

    DOMA is not unconstitutional.
    Reread your constitutional article carefully......
    Then tell us how Massachusetts plays into it.


    MA can recognize same-sex marriage as it pleases, but Congress can regulate whether or not other states must recognize that marriage. It's the plain meaning of the text.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 7:09 PM GMT
    atl2atx85 saidFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1

    DOMA is not unconstitutional.



    The POINT is not whether it was constitutional for Congress to pass DOMA.
    At the time it was passed, and currently - it was constitutional.

    The POINT is whether or not it's constitutional to treat gay Americans as second class citizens and deny gay Americans the same equal marriage rights that straight Americans enjoy.
    That will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court.
    When that happens, we will see if the Repub-dominated SCOTUS honors our Constitution - or the bigotry and hate of the religious right base of the Repub party.
    If the SCOTUS honors our Constitution and declares that gay Americans must have the same equal marriage rights as all other Americans - then DOMA and all similar legislation will be voided.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Mar 17, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    RickRick - Excellent post!
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 17, 2011 10:45 PM GMT
    This is all the more reason for a moderate and progressive takeover of the GOP. It is time for the permanent eviction of all the religious, right wing extremists from the GOP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThis is all the more reason for a moderate and progressive takeover of the GOP. It is time for the permanent eviction of all the religious, right wing extremists from the GOP.
    You have got to be the most twisted and lost individual poster here..

    And you have the gall to defend SB and his "right wing extremism".

    Pick something to stand on.. quit playing the game of agreeing to all sides or ideologies.. It makes you look as uniformed as you really are.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 17, 2011 11:37 PM GMT
    SB is not a right wing extremist. You are too liberal for your own good. I am not uninformed or twisted. I don't know where you came to that wrongful and offensive conclusion. You need to check yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2011 1:33 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said I am not uninformed or twisted. I don't know where you came to that wrongful and offensive conclusion. You need to check yourself.
    Sorry but you need to check your post at 720pm in this thread:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1436940

    Anyone here that doesnt know DADT WAS already repealed is "uninformed".. that means you bubba.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2011 1:41 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidSB is not a right wing extremist. You are too liberal for your own good. I am not uninformed or twisted. I don't know where you came to that wrongful and offensive conclusion. You need to check yourself.




    LOL!
    Anyone can see that SB is not only a right-wing extremist - he's a propagandizer for the Republican party.
    He certainly has a right to propagandize for the Repub party.
    And you certainly have a right to cheer his relentless posting of pure right-wing propaganda comments and threads here on RJ - if you so choose.
    But, to try to deny that SB is a hardened right-wing partisan - is really just not credible.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 19, 2011 2:44 PM GMT
    Your false accusations of SB being a hard right winger are the statements that have no credibility. Granted SB takes on some conservative views and there are times when I even disagree with him, but I don't resort to juvenile tirades against the man when he makes an unpopular opinion. Some of you guys on here are too extreme in your liberalism. You all seem to love big government and the astronomically high taxes that come with it.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 19, 2011 2:57 PM GMT
    You keep polluting the air with all your extremist left wing psychobabble.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 19, 2011 3:19 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidSB is not a right wing extremist. You are too liberal for your own good. I am not uninformed or twisted. I don't know where you came to that wrongful and offensive conclusion...



    yeh. rite.


    and fox news really is "fair & balanced" coverage.


    icon_rolleyes.gif

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

    Mar 19, 2011 3:32 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    atl2atx85 saidMA can recognize same-sex marriage as it pleases, but Congress can regulate whether or not other states must recognize that marriage. It's the plain meaning of the text.

    You should read more carefully.
    The text says "shall prescribe the Manner" in which, etc. It doesn't give Congress the authority to say whether, merely how. The preceding sentence makes it clear that "whether" is not on the table.


    they can prescribe the manner...or the effect thereof. The resulting effect can be nil. While we can argue semantics all day, SCOTUS has interpreted the second clause to mean exactly what I just said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 4:49 PM GMT
    atl2atx85 said
    jprichva said
    atl2atx85 saidMA can recognize same-sex marriage as it pleases, but Congress can regulate whether or not other states must recognize that marriage. It's the plain meaning of the text.

    You should read more carefully.
    The text says "shall prescribe the Manner" in which, etc. It doesn't give Congress the authority to say whether, merely how. The preceding sentence makes it clear that "whether" is not on the table.


    they can prescribe the manner...or the effect thereof. The resulting effect can be nil. While we can argue semantics all day, SCOTUS has interpreted the second clause to mean exactly what I just said.


    You're a moron. Yes, the first part of DOMA can be considered slightly constitutional.

    The Section 3, which prescribes a definition of marriage has NO constitutional outlet, in any way, shape or form. In order for it to be constitutional, to "clear confusion" of the language in sections 1 and 2, it would have to define same-sex marriage, and not "marriage" itself.

    That's why it's being sued for Section 3 ONLY.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 7:14 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidYour false accusations of SB being a hard right winger are the statements that have no credibility. Granted SB takes on some conservative views and there are times when I even disagree with him, but I don't resort to juvenile tirades against the man when he makes an unpopular opinion. Some of you guys on here are too extreme in your liberalism. You all seem to love big government and the astronomically high taxes that come with it.
    Talk about 'generalizations and credible statements'....

    Hey pot.. calling yourself black now?

    'Your false accusations of "you all" "loving big goverment and astronomically high taxes" are the statements that have no credibility.' <--- sound remotely familiar?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 7:33 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidYour false accusations of SB being a hard right winger are the statements that have no credibility. Granted SB takes on some conservative views and there are times when I even disagree with him, but I don't resort to juvenile tirades against the man when he makes an unpopular opinion. Some of you guys on here are too extreme in your liberalism. You all seem to love big government and the astronomically high taxes that come with it.




    Your post is total BS.
    We currently have the LOWEST tax rate since 1950.
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

    You need to educate yourself to the FACTS before you post.

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

    Mar 20, 2011 10:00 PM GMT
    atl2atx85 saidFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1

    DOMA is not unconstitutional.


    Not everyone agrees with this. Much of the legal literature on the DOMA point to this clause as proof of the Act's unconsitutionality.They argue that Congress has the power to dictate what the "effect" of judgments are, not whether those judgments have any "effect" at all.

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

    Mar 20, 2011 10:07 PM GMT
    you're all missing the point of the Obama Admin. dropping their defense on DOMA...it's because DOMA's section 3 has no constitutional foundation.

    section 1 and 2, are arguably fine by the full faith and credit.

    section 3 = the definition of marriage/spouse

    nothing in the constitution gives them the power to federally fucking define a certain word for the people of the U.S.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 22, 2011 10:05 PM GMT
    Rickrick91, my post is not BS, it is the truth. I know the facts, it is you that doesn't know jack shit but you keep flapping your jaws in the breeze. Put a lid on your extreme left wing psychobabble.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
    jayyp15 said
    atl2atx85 said
    jprichva said
    atl2atx85 saidMA can recognize same-sex marriage as it pleases, but Congress can regulate whether or not other states must recognize that marriage. It's the plain meaning of the text.

    You should read more carefully.
    The text says "shall prescribe the Manner" in which, etc. It doesn't give Congress the authority to say whether, merely how. The preceding sentence makes it clear that "whether" is not on the table.


    they can prescribe the manner...or the effect thereof. The resulting effect can be nil. While we can argue semantics all day, SCOTUS has interpreted the second clause to mean exactly what I just said.


    You're a moron. Yes, the first part of DOMA can be considered slightly constitutional.

    The Section 3, which prescribes a definition of marriage has NO constitutional outlet, in any way, shape or form. In order for it to be constitutional, to "clear confusion" of the language in sections 1 and 2, it would have to define same-sex marriage, and not "marriage" itself.

    That's why it's being sued for Section 3 ONLY.


    resorting to calling me names now? did i strike a nerve?

    through a textualist interpretation of the constitution (which will likely be the case considering the make up of the current court), the only way something is "unconstitutional" is if the constitution is explicitly at odds with the statute, which it is not. saying that the definition as employed in the statute is not supported by the constitution is irrelevant.

    i'm not here to debate whether DOMA will be struck down or not, because, honestly, the Court can make up its own god damn rules without hardly any restraint (i.e., judicial activism). my only issue is with people screaming "unconstitutional" the first instance something offends them without actually checking the constitution itself.