News & Politics

Rave

White House Will No Longer Defend Marriage Act

Posted 15 months ago|12 comments|604 views
Written by
In what seems like a reverse in President Barrack Obama's White House, the President is no longer defending the law of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act was a federal law that mandated that a marriage could only exist between a woman and a man. The White House and Obama have decided that the law was unconstitutional and therefore the President has notified Congress that he will no longer uphold the law.

Most of us knew this time was coming. His campaign led many of us to believe that though he held marriage in high regard, Obama felt that many same-sex couples were being discriminated. The White House seems to believe that the Defense of Marriage Act had left many same-sex couples who had married but their status was not recognized by the federal government, hanging in the wind. Considering the recent repeal of the military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, is it any wonder that the White House would take this step?

What does this mean if the White House and Obama have decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act? Unless Congress or a federal court repeals the Act, it remains in effect as is. Also, the government will no longer defend the law in two states, New York and Connecticut where the law has been challenged.

For those backers of same-sex marriage, this is another step towards legal acceptance on a federal basis. However, with a majority of conservatives in Congress as well as a highly influential group of "Tea Partier's," the road to complete acceptance is a long and uphill battle.

Read More Articles Here
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
15 months ago: I see you have this as a "Rave" ...does that mean you approve?
Your opinion seems lacking, or maybe I just didn't get it.
15 months ago: Wow I seen this on the news, it shocked me his change of heart. But it is a good thing the government has no right to tell anyone who you can marry or love. And if you do get married the government don't have the right to to take your American rights from you cause who you marry.
Content Removed by Kqm2010
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
15 months ago: Is it a good thing that a President has said he can take it upon himself to not enforce a law of the land? He is now the judge of what is or isn't constitutional?
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
Auburn, NY
15 months ago: I find it funny that on the one hand, the Pres is implying that government shouldn't interfere with people's private lives,( as in marriage ) and then tell you that you have to buy health coverage.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
15 months ago: And I'm sure there's many Republicans who would defend the governments intrusion into regulating marriage while bleating about the intrusion of government health care. Be nice if there was rational consistency from all sides but alas, the partisans are forced to cater to their respective ideologies with one eye or the other tightly closed.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
15 months ago: This "Change" probably stems from Prop. 8 in California. This ban on same sex marriage was declared unconstitutional. The supporters of the measure are trying to appeal the decision but they have no legal standing so probably will not be able to appeal the decision (a decision by the Ca Supreme Court is pending)

The reason they have no standing is that Prop 8 was sold to the public as necessary because if same sex people could get married it would harm the institution of heterosexual marriage.

The people who successfully challenged Prop 8 demonstrated over and over that the propaganda used to pass the proposition was based on lies and had no basis in reality.

Same Sex couples in California and many other states had been allowed to marry and the sky did not fall, hetro marriage was not harmed, kids were not corrupted and there was absolutely no evidence that there was any reason that these people's constitutional rights should be denied.

To have standing in court you have to be harmed in some way. No one was, except those denied their rights.

The Calif. judge who declared Prop 8 unconstitutional was a conservative republican who was very methodical and exacting who took the time to look at all sides and he made his decision on very very solid grounds.

That is why the Republican governor of California, and the attorney Gen. decided not to apeal the decision (as did the new Gov. & new Att. Gen.) because there was no legal leg to stand on.

This decision was so well argued that Obama and the Dept. of Justice knew that DOMA would likewise be declared unconstitutional and that there was no legal reason to defend it, because it denies basic rights, and no one is harmed if it is overturned and people are allowed to marry whoever they want.

Big government should not intrude into people's bedrooms.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
15 months ago: Conservative Republican judge, Republican Governor? Well that upsets the apple cart somewhat, eh?

But speaking of carts, it would seem that Obama has put the cart before the horse on this one. Maybe he's just trying to get credit for something that was going to happen anyway.

"Big government should not intrude into people's bedrooms."

What is so special about the bedroom? Big government intrudes into many other aspects of our individual lives.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
15 months ago: It's funny that when the Health Insurance mandate was declared unconstitutional, the White House didn't jump on that bandwagon.
15 months ago: Thats because only one part of the health bill is unconstitutional. Taking marriage out of the governments purview is long over due. The astronomical cost associated with federal governments intervention can now be spent on other things.

But I suppose all that saving money business was just a way for good god fearing republicans to get their foot back in the door after they screwed us.

Marriage was designed as a pact before ones god. Let it return to that status while the rest of the world goes on about their business.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
15 months ago: I agree. Do away with marriage licenses and blood tests, and ALL regulations involving marriage. The government needs to quit penalizing people who do get married, and rearrange the tax code around those who are "married in the sight of their God".

re Health Care Bill: without the unconstitutional part, the rest of it falls to pieces.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
15 months ago: The Health Care law is our only hope for bringing costs down, so you should hope that the part that mandates everyone buy insurance ultimately is not deemed unconstitutional. Thus far one right wing ideologue said it was unconstitutional and another that part was, but two judges also said it was constitutional, so it will be decided by the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court takes this up if Justice Thomas does not recuse himself he should be impeached because he and his wife are invested against the law. Still if one part fails the rest of the law will stand but just be more expensive. It would be best for the country if they just expanded Medicare for everyone.

Marriage is a religious institution and the government should stay out of that part, but it should not deny rights because some religion says it should. We don't have Christian Sharia here yet.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
15 months ago: I put what I wanted to say about this matter here: http://rantrave.com/Rant/Executive-Rende...

Tell me what you think. Although I suspect I know what Al is going to say. I see no reason to believe he will take issue with ANY action by the Obama White House.

Ah, Al, marriage is a CIVIL issue recognized and sanctified by the Creator. The reason there are (and need to be) laws regarding marriage is primarily to settle property and inheritance issues along with custody of any offspring.

And for the record, I personally have no problem with any consenting adult marrying anyone or any THING they want. Polygamy, polyandry, line marriage, term marriage makes no difference to me. Just as long at they don't raise a ruckus and any children are provided for I could not be less concerned. But then I am pretty much of a libertarian at heart. I figure that as long as you stay the heck outta my back yard I'll stay outta yours.

I do wonder about gays, though. Never been interested in finding out what it'd be like to french kiss a man. And the way they gotta make love. Makes no sense to me to take a dip in the sewer when the garden of earthly delights is literally right next door. To my mind the simple topography of the two sexes would seem to dictate that the optimum combination would be one "innie"and one "outie". Two of either would seem to be problematic. Plus, using an output port for input seems contrary to normal function. But so long as you don't rub my face in it, I could not care less WHO someone sleeps, WHAT they sleep with, or IF they sleep.

Bad Cyborg X%-er

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.