Posted on 06/13/2009 12:26:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
DOMA is the federal statute that says state X, which prohibits gay marriage, can’t be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in state Y. As Tapper reminds us, candidate Obama opposed it in 2007. Two years later, Change has come to America. Question: Why does the president hate gay people?
Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,” she said. “However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”…
The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage), and re Mortenson’s Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).
“Holy cow,” wrote [Americablog's John] Aravosis. “Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.”
Consider this another one of those highly nuanced, “pragmatic” reversals that the media — sans Tapper, natch — will helpfully overlook. “But wait,” you say, “isn’t the president duty bound to enforce a federal statute until Congress gets around to repealing it?” Why, er, no. Back in 2000, a little-known law passed in 1968 that purported to override the Warren Court’s “Miranda warnings” was challenged before the Supreme Court. Clinton’s DOJ actually sided with the criminal in arguing that the Miranda case was based on the Fifth Amendment and therefore the statute was unconstitutional; the Supremes had to invite a law professor unconnected to the case to defend the statute at oral arguments. (The DOJ/criminal dynamic duo won.) The charitable view of this is that The One’s thinking strategically, knowing there’d be a backlash against gay marriage if states that prohibit it were suddenly forced to recognize gay unions performed in, say, Iowa. He’s only looking out for the best interests of gays, you see. The uncharitable view is that he’s worried that the backlash would cripple his reelection chances, no matter how much it might please his gay constituents, and therefore he’s better off defending DOMA. You don’t think our Barry would be that cynical, do you?
That is just absolutely kick-ass! Is that you?
Did it take you all afternoon to put all that together? It really doesn't wash - people here aren't dumb you know.
Regardless, I'd rather not "smoke it." Bull***t doesn't cook well or taste very good when smoked.
It appears that you - at least to some degree - feel badly about the original post. Why not just admit that and move on instead of (so verbosely) attempting to put a new coat of paint it?
Get rid of the other guy too.
Admin, I am being threatened by email, I’m being erroneously insulted, and I have been improperly silenced. I respectfully request you replace the comment #2 I posted. As a half-Hispanic, half-South American Indian, ALL HALF-BREED that I am, I am being discriminated against.
Good points.
Sheesh, get over yourself. You haven’t been silenced and the poster who attacked you has been banned.
You sound absolutely furious.
I may be a "dipsh!t," but I don't live in the city either, I don't suffer from "white guilt" and I'm barely bright enough to understand that there's nothing classic (or American) about proclaiming your ignorance in public, then pretending you didn't mean what you wrote.
If you live on less than 5 acres, you’re a munie. You’re a product of urban/suburban culture.
Half-breed means two things as I understand them:
1) An individual that is NOT accepted by either race they’re mixed of
2) The individual defined as such is no more than the races he’s mixed of.
My comment’s intent was to say he is on a racial island, and he’s a primitive thinker. In other words, he’s not intelligent, he lives on his devious instincts, he is little more than his mixed racial component.
This is how I understand the term. It is not a malicious racial description, it is in fact a personal insult directed at him. It is actually ANTI-RACIAL!
As I told you before, I don’t mingle with others to that level where I know what all of you munies have decided to give the term. I have no clue what malicious intent you all have concoted over the last 15-20 years. I never cared to know what all you munies socialize about. I don’t give a rat’s rear end what you elitists think words should mean. I’ve been working from home the last 10 years, and I spent time concerning myself with having a family, working 60-100 hours a week in part deliberately to avoid being corrupted by people like you.
You all have treated me like FASCISTS. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I didn’t care what you thought the word meant when we started this coversation, and I still don’t care.
Now, if you should choose to apologize, I’ll be glad to learn what it is you all seem to think this term means. Otherwise, we should simply agree to disagree, and respectfully avoid future unneccessary confrontation.
Congress very rarely repeals a law they passed, and Obama knows it.
Isn't the idea of "communication" such as we're engaged in here, to get a message across that the other party understands? To put the other party to whom you are speaking in the same frame of mind that you are when you make the communication?
If you don't care what words mean to the other person, and the effect that they have on them, then you aren't really communicating. And if you use words that create negative emotions in the reader, instead of the positive emotions you were intending to create, then you've sabotaged your own writing.
That's why I don't use the term "gun nut," I say "self-defense activist." I don't say "assault weapon," I say "rifle." I don't say "gun rights," I say "civil rights." I don't say "militia," I say "state defense force."
I'm interested in furthering my cause of Second Amendment civil rights, not undercutting it with everything I write.
The fact that you term a “negative emotion” to the term “half-breed” was YOUR interpretation, not mine.
My intent, in part, was to invoke a “nostalgic emotion” along with a description of Obama that clarifies what he is. I stripped him bare, as he intends to do to the rest of us. Be warned, Obama despises free Americans. He thinks of us as his mortal servants in his farcical immortal world, I simply claim he is nothing more than the sum of his parts. He is flesh and blood, and he hasn’t improved on his humanity. I have. I’m a half-breed, and much, much more. He isn’t.
How am I a racist for proclaiming that Obama has no race? Those of us “ half-breeds” in society need to work twice as hard to be accepted into society. I work my ass off. I embrace this human challenge. Obama seeks to eliminate the challenge and belittle us all unless we submit to him. I don’t.
Obama can defend himself. He doesn’t need your help. If he’s more than a half-breed, then prove it to me. So far, he’s proven he’s full of hatred for his fellow man. “Rise above your lack of race Obama, you petty looter!” is my message to him.
So much for FreeRepublic, if the few offended make it FauxRepublic.
“but it’s more them keeping the lid on a boiling pot;”
Very likely true as well.
And, if they are taking the approach I mentioned - accepting the DOMA federal legislative intervention as ‘Constitutional’, with the desire to use that to their advantage later on (to reverse DOMA by the same means),
then yes, they may under-estimate the reaction and
as you said,
“DoMA could be the 28th Amendment in-the-making quicker than you can say Bobo:”
I think that anyone concerned about ‘rights’ and watching the past generation of legal battles should understand that the Constitutional amendment route, while it is the harder route, is often the MOST correct route in the first place and when it is used the country takes that form of change as more definitive and settled.
Judicial fiat, or even legislative action, on some of these issues does NOT make them settled in the spirit of the American people. But take them through the hard slog of creating the state and national majorities needed to enact an amendment to the Constitution and once the amendment is adopted people move ahead believing the issue is finally resolved.
MY interpretation is HALF of the communication process. That's the point I'm trying to make.
And when your comments are ripped out of context by a hostile left-wing media and used to flog conservatives, then your interpretation becomes far, far less than half of the communication.
If you're in a fist fight, yet you don't subscribe to the FEAR that the other guy will punch you in the face, and refuse to duck out of stubborn principle thereby refusing to let the other side govern the definition of a "roundhouse," you'll wind up with a broken nose regardless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.