Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Obama: Law Against Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Obama declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The president orders the Department of Justice to stop defending Defense of Marriage Act in court.

http://www.newser.com/story/112721/obama-law-against-gay-marriage-unconstitutional.html

The Obama administration has concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act—the law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage—is unconstitutional and won't defend it in court anymore, reports NPR. The president gave the Justice Department its new marching orders today, and Eric Holder says he agrees with the decision.

More information here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, how the Right-wing blogs are going to squeal!

This was on Fox News this morning and they had the Chairwoman for what...Family Marriage or whatever, basically the largest or second largest organization for protecting the "sanctity" of marriage on. You should have seen how into this the newswoman was. It was like she was being personally offended by this news and as if there was an all-consuming, critical battle about to be waged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was like she was being personally offended by this news and as if there was an all-consuming, critical battle about to be waged.

Well, in many ways there is. But not for the reasons she thinks.

I find it deeply offensive to my very core that Obama would dare talk about what is constitutional and what isn't given his utter disregard for it on all other occassions when the Constitution presents an inconvenience to his collectivist, regressive agenda.

As someone who happens to be gay I find deeply and personally offensive his disingenuous about-face pandering. He has always waffled on the issue but usually come down on the side against gay marriage. This turn about comes at a time when the Democrats can no longer take the gay vote for granted.

There is no "victory" here whatsoever for "gay rights" or individual rights. All there is is a lying opportunistic politician whoring himself to a demographic he was starting to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You should have seen how into this the newswoman was. It was like she was being personally offended by this news and as if there was an all-consuming, critical battle about to be waged.

From the point of view of the religious right, it is a critical battle. It's one thing not to harras or prosecute gays, quite another to recognize them as equals. So I can respect their integrity if not the principles they apply it to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read it, the act is not unconstitutional. http://frwebgate.acc...d=f:publ199.104

It states that the Federal government cannot "require" (force) one state to adhere to the marriage definitions of another state.

It also defines the term "marriage" as used in federal congressional acts to be specific to one man and one woman.

As for what the STATE's ought to do -- Ayn Rand was asked about that:

Q: Should the state prescribe the obligations of a marriage, or should this be left to the contractual desires of the couple?

Ayn Rand
: This is an important and difficult subject, because of two complex issues; the rights of children and property rights.

If two people are married, they may want or have children. Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self supporting.

In general, a husband and wife can make any property arrangements they want. But today, the law is a bit too much on the side of the woman. There was a time when the woman was at the economic mercy of her husband; today, she is not. There is a great deal of irrationality and contradictions in many state marriage laws, so there's room for improvement, provided thc basic principles are clearly stated and not arbitrary.

The government cannot undertake to enforce any contract any two people decide to make. If your contract falls under a certain legal category, then the government can undertake to enforce it; but it cannot be asked to enforce some contradictory contract. This is one reason why there must be a uniform code of law—why individuals are not entirely free to make contracts in any manner. But proper marriage law-- and even the mixed ones of today allow two parties to make legal contracts regarding their relationship. [FHF 68]

What is your view of laws prohibiting homosexuality and bigamy?

All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free.

Bigamy is a different issue. If a man wants a relationship with two women, he does not need the law to sanction it. But the state should have standards about what it considers a legal marriage. The law should be uniform, and there are good reasons why in most civilized countries marriage is a monogamous institution. lf a man wants a wife and another woman, he doesnʼt need the legality of bigamy if he's open about it. Bigamy laws concern cases in which a man has two legal wives in two different cities, and leads a double life. Here there are good grounds, legally and morally, to prosecute him. [FHF 68]

--
Ayn Rand Answers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
Like Sapere Aude said, Obama is doing this in the hope for votes. I wouldn't want him to be on the SCOTUS deciding what's constitutional... this man who derided the "negative rights" of the constitution.

Nevertheless, I'm glad this is happening. Any set back to the religious right means that a less religious GOP candidate can promise to restore the pre-Obama status quo, rather than feel he needs to promise to go beyond the pre Obama status quo.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of the religious right, it is a critical battle. It's one thing not to harras or prosecute gays, quite another to recognize them as equals. So I can respect their integrity if not the principles they apply it to.

I understand why they view it as a critical battle, the thing is it just frustrates me when this pretty young blonde woman is having these extravagant movements and everything on the news like this, yet is completely distant and normal acting when she talks about Libyans getting ripped apart by aircraft guns. I guess this is why I never watch Fox news anymore, the people on there are just so pathetic and I have never seen flat out lies or levels of sensationalism that have matched that channel news network so consistently (MSNBC was pretty bad at times but I have not watched them in years). CNN is relatively tolerable now that that jackoff got kicked off the air. As far as respecting their integrity, you have the right to have that opinion, as far as me personally...I don't respect these types of people whatsoever and I think its nauseating that we even have to have debates over things like this in the 21st century.

Well, in many ways there is. But not for the reasons she thinks.

I find it deeply offensive to my very core that Obama would dare talk about what is constitutional and what isn't given his utter disregard for it on all other occassions when the Constitution presents an inconvenience to his collectivist, regressive agenda.

As someone who happens to be gay I find deeply and personally offensive his disingenuous about-face pandering. He has always waffled on the issue but usually come down on the side against gay marriage. This turn about comes at a time when the Democrats can no longer take the gay vote for granted.

There is no "victory" here whatsoever for "gay rights" or individual rights. All there is is a lying opportunistic politician whoring himself to a demographic he was starting to lose.

I agree with all of this, but I am not exactly surprised. In fact I am not really even offended by the Constitutionality thing anymore these days. Do I get greatly annoyed? Yes. Offended? No. Why? Because I realize that pretty much every single President under the sun is whimsical and self-serving in their suggestions of what is Constitutional and what is not. I mean...Bush did it, Clinton did it (the guy that signed DOMA into law), Reagan, FDR, Kennedy, just go down the list. This is how politics works nowadays and most people don't understand the Constitution and many that do try to misapply it and subvert it. I am not really surprised they use this tactic in a pragmatic fashion, even if it annoys me a great deal.

EDIT: I wrote the above paragraph before seeing you mentioning yourself that you were gay, so I can certainly see how you view this as offensive to the core.I have a great number of gay and lesbian friends, and a few bisexual friends, and I really feel for what they have to go through with these religious bigots and this constant tug-of-war and as a result I am more outspoken than the average person about such issues as a result. I'm fully aware this was a political move, I mainly posted this to inform people that may not know about it this, particularly the foreigners who do not get this news as easily.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why they view it as a critical battle, the thing is it just frustrates me when this pretty young blonde woman is having these extravagant movements and everything on the news like this, yet is completely distant and normal acting when she talks about Libyans getting ripped apart by aircraft guns. I guess this is why I never watch Fox news anymore, the people on there are just so pathetic and I have never seen flat out lies or levels of sensationalism that have matched that channel news network so consistently (MSNBC was pretty bad at times but I have not watched them in years). CNN is relatively tolerable now that that jackoff got kicked off the air. As far as respecting their integrity, you have the right to have that opinion, as far as me personally...I don't respect these types of people whatsoever and I think its nauseating that we even have to have debates over things like this in the 21st century.

I agree with all of this, but I am not exactly surprised. In fact I am not really even offended by the Constitutionality thing anymore these days. Do I get greatly annoyed? Yes. Offended? No. Why? Because I realize that pretty much every single President under the sun is whimsical and self-serving in their suggestions of what is Constitutional and what is not. I mean...Bush did it, Clinton did it (the guy that signed DOMA into law), Reagan, FDR, Kennedy, just go down the list. This is how politics works nowadays and most people don't understand the Constitution and many that do try to misapply it and subvert it. I am not really surprised they use this tactic in a pragmatic fashion, even if it annoys me a great deal.

EDIT: I wrote the above paragraph before seeing you mentioning yourself that you were gay, so I can certainly see how you view this as offensive to the core.I have a great number of gay and lesbian friends, and a few bisexual friends, and I really feel for what they have to go through with these religious bigots and this constant tug-of-war and as a result I am more outspoken than the average person about such issues as a result. I'm fully aware this was a political move, I mainly posted this to inform people that may not know about it this, particularly the foreigners who do not get this news as easily.

No worries, even without the aside I wouldn't have been offended.

I fully understand why people don't want gay marriage and I can respect it despite the bias against me personally.

The "rights" that come with marriage are necessary only because the government is violating rights in other ways such as taxation.

Many people are rightly concerned that they may be forced to be more than "tolerant" of gay marriage- they may be forced to become party to it. This is not as far-fetched as many left-leaning people would like you to believe. There have already been lawsuits filed against private businesses for not catering to gay relationships and gay union ceremonies. Amongst these have been photographers, florists, musicians and the list goes on.

When a liberal politician defies common sense, the constitution or even just "the societal norms" to "help" gays I see it only as setting my cause further back. There are in fact a large number of gays that do want to "force their lifestyle" on social conservatives. They aren't the majority but neither are they some anomaly, right-wing myth or boogie-man.

It is in my self interest to want the same priveleges as straight people as I am a gay individual in a long term committed relationship. We own property and businesses together.

But it is, for myself at least, in my more rational self interest to forgo government created "rights" and priveleges if the likelihood is that my gaining privelege will be turned around and used to violate peoples' most basic rights such as freedom of association.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "rights" that come with marriage are necessary only because the government is violating rights in other ways such as taxation.

Many people are rightly concerned that they may be forced to be more than "tolerant" of gay marriage- they may be forced to become party to it. This is not as far-fetched as many left-leaning people would like you to believe. There have already been lawsuits filed against private businesses for not catering to gay relationships and gay union ceremonies. Amongst these have been photographers, florists, musicians and the list goes on.

Here in the UK we have gay 'civil partnerships' and have seen a successful civil case brought against Christian hotel owners for not allowing two gay civil partners to sleep in the same room. This was not specifically an anti-gay rule, they did not allow any unmarried couple to sleep in the same room. They were forced to pay £3600 (around $5800) in compensation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8266097/Gay-couple-awarded-damages-after-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-to-let-them-share-double-room.html

Further, Catholic adoption agencies were left with forced to compromise their principles or close when the government forced them accept gay adoption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7806780.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and not only is Obama trawling for the gay vote but I believe he is baiting the Republicans in order to derail them from their cut-spending agenda (which is so pathetic as to be almost unmentionable, though better than the alternative) and I'm sure the GOP will oblige him as they have already engaged on the abortion issue.

Another issue I find interesting is the idea that the Executive branch can decide not to enforce the laws passed by the Legislative branch. Gives a ray of hope that the next President may decide not to enforce Obamacare, maybe other laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here in the UK we have gay 'civil partnerships' and have seen a successful civil case brought against Christian hotel ...

Further, Catholic adoption agencies were left with forced to compromise their principles or close when the government forced them accept gay adoption....

That's injustice. However, if we accept that gay people have a right to marry, then we ought to fight both injustices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans in order to derail them from their cut-spending agenda

Has this developed fairly recently? Last I checked they were just making a pathetic and half-assed attempt and I would have ended up cutting much more waste than these clowns all by myself. That is not to say that it would still be better than Obama's "I am 5 years old with an unlimited credit card" mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this developed fairly recently? Last I checked they were just making a pathetic and half-assed attempt and I would have ended up cutting much more waste than these clowns all by myself. That is not to say that it would still be better than Obama's "I am 5 years old with an unlimited credit card" mentality.

Right, which is exactly what I said. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another issue I find interesting is the idea that the Executive branch can decide not to enforce the laws passed by the Legislative branch. Gives a ray of hope that the next President may decide not to enforce Obamacare, maybe other laws.

Pretty much par for the course for this administration. "Don't like Obamacare? Are you my buddy? Then don't worry about it. I'll give you a waiver." "Oh, the court system outlawed my oil drilling moratorium. No matter, I'll just have my bureaucrats sit on the applications." "I got a czar for everything."

My question is, why isn't anyone calling him on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of the religious right, it is a critical battle. It's one thing not to harras or prosecute gays, quite another to recognize them as equals. So I can respect their integrity if not the principles they apply it to.

D'kian, I'd advise you to check your premises re this sort of apologetic: if the end is wrong, then the means is too. Just so, integrity in pursuing wrong goals is more dangerous than its lack, if the goal is inimical to freedom.

- ico

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's injustice. However, if we accept that gay people have a right to marry, then we ought to fight both injustices.

Marriage laws should be extended independent of gender, and independent of children. If one partner gets ill, then the other will need to support them and perhaps even make medical decisions for them. There are of course other examples where one partner needs the support of the other in a proprietary situation, such that only a marriage contract can establish a family bond allowing the competent partner to make decisions for their potentially incapacitated spouse.

There is no excuse for marriage in the absence of children to be anything more, nor less, than a means to formally tell the world who you want to speak for you, legally, should you lose your voice.

- ico

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage laws should be extended independent of gender, and independent of children. If one partner gets ill, then the other will need to support them and perhaps even make medical decisions for them. There are of course other examples where one partner needs the support of the other in a proprietary situation, such that only a marriage contract can establish a family bond allowing the competent partner to make decisions for their potentially incapacitated spouse.

There is no excuse for marriage in the absence of children to be anything more, nor less, than a means to formally tell the world who you want to speak for you, legally, should you lose your voice.

- ico

But here I think is the perfect time to start making a conscious choice to think of this in terms of real rights. Fundamental apriori rights vs acculturation. Real rights vs the corruption of the term which is the same corruption that allows the govenrment to declare healthcare a right, or housing a right.

In real terms of what "rights" are supposed to mean there really isn't a "right to marry" as such.

What we do have is the right to association and the right to form voluntary binding contracts.

Here's the problem. Assuming that we are in agreement that there can be no right to infringe upon the rights of another (barring the given of retaliation against use of force, etc) the government has made this problematic with their progressive agenda of forced association. Most of the conservatives I know- even the very religious ones who believe that gays will go to Hell if they don't repent before death still grant that gays should be equally protected under law.

What they don't want is the forced association that comes with the government's take on "rights" as it pertains to gays. Again, I am talking about the majority of conservatives I deal with there are nutjobs in any given group that are extreme I will grant you. They don't agree with being forced to rent to gays on their property, they don't want to be forced to hire gays into their family businesses, they don't want to be forced to work for gays (as in the cases stated above where private business owners have been sued for refusing to cater to gay weddings).

While I don't agree with people who wouldn't want a capable employee hired just because they are gay (pretty irrational) I believe they have the right to make that choice. The government deliberately encourages these distractions. There is absolutely no reason why my gay marriage should have any impact on anyone other than my partner and myself. The government has created a situation and a society where it does impact others though.

I think society at large would be better off if instead of worrying about gay marriage (which in a rights respecting society would be a non-issue) and worrying about the real problem- government interference in freedom of association and freedom of contract.

Since I believe that day is not close at hand I will take gay marriage if I can get it- as a protection against the eventuality of death&taxes but I have trouble feeling contempt and loathing for those who are against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

D'kian, I'd advise you to check your premises re this sort of apologetic: if the end is wrong, then the means is too. Just so, integrity in pursuing wrong goals is more dangerous than its lack, if the goal is inimical to freedom.

I pre-check my premises before reading the forum. It saves time.

I prefer consistency in my enemies. It makes them predictable and therefore easier to defeat, or to protect agaisnt. The religious right has integrity in spades. The left doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay rights, marriage update:

(again- for those who don't read the whole topic I am not anti-gay just anti angenda)

http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/parents-clash-over-gay-curriculum/

So now we have a state law going into play that would require school textbooks (starting in elementary) to talk about homosexuals, "gay history" , gay families and to portray homosexuality always in a positive light. Now, if this were sex ed it would be somewhat understandable. But they are talking about moving it into the overall broad curriculum and parents will not have the option of opting their children out of gay studies.

It is unfortunate that more moderate people aren't speaking up about this. The fact that it is primarily the religious right who are vocally against it is really hurting the cause.

It really shouldn't be about whether God hates gays or whether homosexuality is natural or destructive or immoral.

I think the point is that a system that is failing to teach children math, history or english properly is now going to usurp parental prerogative and start indoctrinating children into a state approved code of sexual morality.

As a thinking individual I am appalled by the implications.

As a gay individual I fear the anti-gay backlash from those who will be rightly angry about this- even if for the wrong reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...