DOMA will no longer be defended

[Drachen]

Washington (CNN)– President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.
Read More (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/justice-department-will-no-longer-defend-doma-in-legal-challenges/#more-147937)

I have absolutely no problem with the OUTCOME of this action, but I am pissed about the PROCESS. WTF, the executive branch carries out the law, it doesn't determine constitutionality. That is what the JUDICIAL branch is for. What precedent is there for this (admittedly there may be some and I am undereducated about it)?

[MannyIsGod]

Executive branch does this all the time and has for as long as I can remember. Part of being in charge of enforcement means you decide what to enforce etc.

IE DEA drug raids in states like CA where medicinal MJ is allowed. During Bush's tenure they kept the raids going while as soon as Obama took over he stopped them. That shit is still illegal according to federal guidelines but it doesn't make any sense to enforce those laws when the people don't want them.

[boutons_deux]

"the executive branch carries out the law"

see "george w bush, signing statements", and that was to exempt his Exec from enforcing output of a REPUG Congress.

[DarrinS]

The exec has the power to selectively enforce the law -- see black panther case.

[Drachen]

"the executive branch carries out the law"

see "george w bush, signing statements", and that was to exempt his Exec from enforcing output of a REPUG Congress.

So let me get this straight, your argument is "well billy's mom let him do it"?

[Marcus Bryant]

I have absolutely no problem with the OUTCOME of this action, but I am pissed about the PROCESS. WTF, the executive branch carries out the law, it doesn't determine constitutionality. That is what the JUDICIAL branch is for. What precedent is there for this (admittedly there may be some and I am undereducated about it)?

My guess is the outcome will squelch concerns about the process from not a few who were concerned about the process during the last administration. Nothing new, of course.

Or, Bush did it, so we do it.

[Drachen]

The exec has the power to selectively enforce the law -- see black panther case.

Ok, I guess I am the only one here who found this to be bad. Mea Culpa

[MannyIsGod]

There are limited resources in the Justice Dept. There are things that are just not going to be prosecuted and the decisions will likely be made on political lines for obvious reasons. As long as nothing important is forsaken so be it.

[Marcus Bryant]

A bad practice continues. Selective enforcement, signing statements, whatever are just another exec branch power grab.

[baseline bum]

Or see Bush going after consenting adults for making pornography.

[MannyIsGod]

A bad practice continues. Selective enforcement, signing statements, whatever are just another exec branch power grab.

:dramaquee

Actually, I've got no problem with selective enforcement considering its imposilbe for them to prosecute everything on the books. This isn't a signing statement so I fail to see how its a "power grab".

Local DA's make these distinctions all the time. Its part of the judicial system whether its done at the federal or municipal level.

Not to mention in this specific case they're giving up because they have no grounds to keep going. They're not going to win appeals so giving up is the prudent thing to do and to save the taxpayer money.

I thought you were all about that, MB?

[Marcus Bryant]

It's another form of the executive branch making the law rather than enforcing it. Problematic if you believe in the rule of law and all that bullshit, but I guess it doesn't involve a war or an elected Republican official so it's cool.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you saying I would oppose this had it been done by a GOP official? :lol

Its "cool" because it makes sense. Thats why its "cool". Don't let reality get in the way of the whining, though. :dramaquee

[Marcus Bryant]

So expecting the rule of law, rather than men, is "whining." Process is everything. Being content with deviations because of the ends ignores the entire form of American constitutional government.

[LnGrrrR]

So expecting the rule of law, rather than men, is "whining." Process is everything. Being content with deviations because of the ends ignores the entire form of American constitutional government.

A question MB, how would you have the gov't determine caseload? First in, first out? Is there a non-partisan way to go about picking which cases to prosecute?

[MannyIsGod]

So expecting the rule of law, rather than men, is "whining." Process is everything. Being content with deviations because of the ends ignores the entire form of American constitutional government.

Where is the deviation of the process? This IS the constitutional process. This IS the rule of law.

Its whining because you're lamenting for some fucking Utopian system that isn't even necessarily better by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless I missed it where the government has to keep appealing in situations like this can you explain to me specifically what your problem is? Judges have ruled DOMA unconstitutional but the administration accepting that is itself unconstitutional?

Fucking rich.

[Marcus Bryant]

A question MB, how would you have the gov't determine caseload? First in, first out? Is there a non-partisan way to go about picking which cases to prosecute?

So what's the way to do it other than, gee, we don't like this law so we won't enforce it? It is on the Congress to fund the enforcement thereof, of course.

[Marcus Bryant]

Where is the deviation of the process? This IS the constitutional process. This IS the rule of law.

Its whining because you're lamenting for some fucking Utopian system that isn't even necessarily better by any stretch of the imagination.


Better for what you deem is an appropriate end. And if the constitutional process is about one thing, it is process.



Unless I missed it where the government has to keep appealing in situations like this can you explain to me specifically what your problem is? Judges have ruled DOMA unconstitutional but the administration accepting that is itself unconstitutional?

Fucking rich.

Judges have also ruled last year's mammoth health law unconstitutional, so the administration should accept that and not appeal it.

Fucking rich indeed.

[MannyIsGod]

Two separate cases. One judge has ruled against the US in that case. What about this case? Are they the exact same?

I'm sorry you don't want judgement being used but thats how any government will work which is what makes your Utopian dream one not even worth considering.

[MannyIsGod]

So what's the way to do it other than, gee, we don't like this law so we won't enforce it? It is on the Congress to fund the enforcement thereof, of course.

Enforcing the law requires judgement. You're really complaining about this?

[MannyIsGod]

You want an already bloated Justice Dept to be even more bloated? Really?

[Marcus Bryant]

So enforcing the law means ignoring the law.

The Constitution and related processes are ignored enough as it is, the last administration having provided quite a few examples. I guess it's too much to ask that our elected officials actually be held to a high standard.

[LnGrrrR]

So what's the way to do it other than, gee, we don't like this law so we won't enforce it? It is on the Congress to fund the enforcement thereof, of course.

I don't know of a good way. That's why I asked you.

Edit: I'm assuming, of course, that the DoJ doesn't have an unlimited budget/resources to prosecute each case that comes before it.

[jack sommerset]

Washington (CNN)– President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.
Read More (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/justice-department-will-no-longer-defend-doma-in-legal-challenges/#more-147937)

I have absolutely no problem with the OUTCOME of this action, but I am pissed about the PROCESS. WTF, the executive branch carries out the law, it doesn't determine constitutionality. That is what the JUDICIAL branch is for. What precedent is there for this (admittedly there may be some and I am undereducated about it)?

Just another example of barry doing what ever he wants. Less than 2 years left of this nonsense. You're right, it's the process. Let the fags get married is my opinion but barry force feeding his fellow citizens is not the way to go about it.

[MannyIsGod]

So enforcing the law means ignoring the law.
Being practical means sometimes ignoring the law. This applies any any level of government. In an ideal world this would not be necessary but we don't and never will live in an ideal world.

Do you support raiding places in California selling medical marijuana? Simple yes or no.



The Constitution and related processes are ignored enough as it is, the last administration having provided quite a few examples. I guess it's too much to ask that our elected officials actually be held to a high standard.

:dramaquee

The constitution is not being ignored. Its being followed completely. Which part is being ignored?

[MannyIsGod]

Just another example of barry doing what ever he wants. Less than 2 years left of this nonsense. You're right, it's the process. Let the fags get married is my opinion but barry force feeding his fellow citizens is not the way to go about it.

What is he force feeding exactly?

[Marcus Bryant]

You want an already bloated Justice Dept to be even more bloated? Really?

I can live with that, rather than an expanded health bureaucracy or military one.

Now we're left with not taking the law seriously, or better, a lack of clarity on what the law actually is because it is subject to the whims of the executive after the fact.

[MannyIsGod]

I can live with that, rather than an expanded health bureaucracy or military one.


False dichotomy. Prosecuting all the cases does not eliminate any other part of government but it sure does add a lot too it.

I do find it interesting you'd rather see your fellow citizens prosecuted as opposed to given health care though.



Now we're left with not taking the law seriously, or better, a lack of clarity on what the law actually is because it is subject to the whims of the executive after the fact.

This is a legitimate concern but one best applied to a case where the law has not been ruled unconstitutional or is actually worthy of being taken seriously. The justice department isn't ignore an important law. Thats an issue of judgement, but thats why its important to keep tabs on the decisions the make but not the fact that decisions have to be made itself.

[MannyIsGod]

MB would you rather the US Justice Dept raided places doing business for medicinal MJ or not?

[Marcus Bryant]

False dichotomy. Prosecuting all the cases does not eliminate any other part of government but it sure does add a lot too it.

Your assumption was that I shouldn't support it because it would add to the scale of government.






I do find it interesting you'd rather see your fellow citizens prosecuted as opposed to given health care though.



Actually, I'd rather they not be penalized for not complying with the individual mandate and I'd rather the state not be involved in marriage whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything?

And this discussion included the enforcement of laws, rather than just the appeal process. Selective enforcement of law is a bad thing.

[jack sommerset]

Does this mean we can marry multiple people now?

[Marcus Bryant]

MB would you rather the US Justice Dept raided places doing business for medicinal MJ or not?

False choice. The actual choice is whether or not the law should be enforced. I am in favor of the law being upheld. I also happen to be in favor of a limited scale and scope of the law, especially at the federal level.

Would I rather? No. But I expect the law to be enforced until it is changed by the legislative process.

[fyatuk]

I have absolutely no problem with the OUTCOME of this action, but I am pissed about the PROCESS. WTF, the executive branch carries out the law, it doesn't determine constitutionality. That is what the JUDICIAL branch is for. What precedent is there for this (admittedly there may be some and I am undereducated about it)?

It's not like them saying that overturns the law. Their just saying they won't go out of their way to keep it on the books. The article didn't even say they wouldn't continue to enforce it, only that they weren't going to continue defending against challenges to it's constitutionality.

And as has been said, at all levels of government, laws are selectively enforced according to the interpretations of those in charge. I don't get tickets for jaywalking, other people don't get tickets for changing lanes without signaling, etc.

If you are that upset about it, you can sue the executive branch and try to make a case that they have the obligation to defend the constitutionality of all parts of the US Code, but that seems kind of absurd. (Basically like states did a few years ago to try and make the EPA regulate CO2).

[MannyIsGod]

Your assumption was that I shouldn't support it because it would add to the scale of government.


I made no assumption I simply applied your complaints in other situations to this. Ignoring the bloat in the justice department enforcing every law on the books equally would cause is rather convenient for you here. That qualification doesn't need to be the end all be all but it should certainly factor into reality.



Actually, I'd rather they not be penalized for not complying with the individual mandate and I'd rather the state not be involved in marriage whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything?

And this discussion included the enforcement of laws, rather than just the appeal process. Selective enforcement of law is a bad thing.

Selective enforcement is not necessarily a bad thing if applied with good judgement. It is far from ideal but ignoring the fact that one person's ideal is not another does not make idealism any more practical.

Enforcement of the laws necessitates judgement and there is no way to remove that from the system.

[LnGrrrR]

I can live with that, rather than an expanded health bureaucracy or military one.

Even with additional money/resources in the Justice Dept, I think we can all agree that they will not be able to work each case presented to them.

Given this, what do you think the most "fair" way to determine caseload/cases taken is?

[Bartleby]

Given this, what do you think the most "fair" way to determine caseload/cases taken is?

Not that word again!

[LnGrrrR]

Not that word again!

:lol I put it in quotes for a reason. Though I'm pretty sure that MB will actually answer, unlike VY, who threw out a lot of philosophical names but seemingly couldn't debate morality when questioned. (Even after throwing out a "Bring it on" picture.)

[SnakeBoy]

Just another example of barry doing what ever he wants.

True, but in this case it seems appropriate that he uses a backdoor way around the law.

[Yonivore]

I think there's a fundamental difference between selective enforcement of criminal law and selective defense of the government's position in court.

I think this sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. I can see where a future Republican administration would find defending Obamacare, or any one of a Democrat administration's initiatives, a back burner issue.

What's good for the goose...

[LnGrrrR]

True, but in this case it seems appropriate that he uses a backdoor way around the law.

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

I think there's a fundamental difference between selective enforcement of criminal law and selective defense of the government's position in court.

I agree, but don't all presidents end up selecting which cases they want the DoJ to focus on prosecuting?

[Yonivore]

I agree, but don't all presidents end up selecting which cases they want the DoJ to focus on prosecuting?
From what I'm reading, Obama is forging new territory on this one...

Orin Kerr at Volokh (http://volokh.com/2011/02/23/the-executive-power-grab-in-the-decision-not-to-defend-doma/)


By taking that position, the Obama Administration has moved the goalposts of the usual role of the Executive branch in defending statutes. Instead of requiring DOJ to defend the constitutionality of all federal statutes if it has a reasonable basis to do so, the new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent constitutional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case — in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues — and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major institutional player with a great deal of discretion.

Point of Law Blog (http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2011/02/obama-administr-4.php)


I'm not a fan of the Defense of Marriage Act, but I do have a large problem with the politicization of the role of the Department of Justice. Strip away the gay-rights issue and consider the question: what would Democrats say if, in 2013, President Sarah Palin announced that her Department of Justice would refuse to defend the constitutionality of Obamacare in court? There is no provision in the Constitution for a retroactive veto. Compare and contrast the Bush administration Department of Justice, which steadfastly (and successfully) defended McCain-Feingold and enforced FACEA.

And, as Ed Whelan concluded (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/260523/obama-s-dive-doma-ed-whelan)...


Attorney General Holder has the gall to claim to be acting consistent with DOJ’s “longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.” There are lots of reasonable arguments in defense of DOMA. The Obama administration has abandoned those arguments for purely political reasons.

"...if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense." I'm pretty sure that's a new position on the part of the Executive.

[SnakeBoy]

what would Democrats say if, in 2013, President Sarah Palin announced that her Department of Justice would refuse to defend the constitutionality of Obamacare in court?

Well we know at least one democrat (Manny) would have no problem with it at all.

[ChumpDumper]

The exec has the power to selectively enforce the law -- see black panther case.Who was the victim in that case, Darrin?

[Marcus Bryant]

Even with additional money/resources in the Justice Dept, I think we can all agree that they will not be able to work each case presented to them.

Given this, what do you think the most "fair" way to determine caseload/cases taken is?

Choose whatever will give the administration the best pub and protect your cronies, obviously.

Random law enforcement creates an environment of arbitrariness in the law. We are then not a nation of laws, but of men, who curry favor with the executive to not be prosecuted.

Perhaps fewer laws are needed. That would seem to be the most "fair."

[Wild Cobra]

Washington (CNN)– President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.
Read More (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/justice-department-will-no-longer-defend-doma-in-legal-challenges/#more-147937)

I have absolutely no problem with the OUTCOME of this action, but I am pissed about the PROCESS. WTF, the executive branch carries out the law, it doesn't determine constitutionality. That is what the JUDICIAL branch is for. What precedent is there for this (admittedly there may be some and I am undereducated about it)?
WHAT THE FUCK???

Since when can he dictate to the Justice department?

[Wild Cobra]

"the executive branch carries out the law"

see "george w bush, signing statements", and that was to exempt his Exec from enforcing output of a REPUG Congress.
Agreed, but none of those signing statement were directing to disregard constitutional issues.

The president is the "executor of law." Not the interpreter of the constitution.

[Yonivore]

Again, I think y'all are confusing selective enforcement with selective defense.

The Obama administration has said it will continue to enforce DOMA but will stop defending it in court.

Think about that for a minute.

That's like saying, a prosecutor will arrest you, throw you in jail, and let you pony up for your own defense and legal fees but, when the time comes for trial; he won't prosecute you.

Seems like a waste.

What the administration is doing is fundamentally different than just not enforcing the law -- or determining, through a signing statement, that a particular law conflicts with his Article II powers. This administration has said they will enforce a law they believe is unconstitutional while refusing to defend it, in court, because of that unconstitutionality.

That's pretty novel, if you ask me.

[LnGrrrR]

Hm. Thanks for the distinctions provided Yoni.

[Winehole23]

A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday threw out a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, becoming the latest court to rule that the law passed by Congress to prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

Jeffrey S. White, a United States District Court judge appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled that the act violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying Blue Cross health benefits to the spouse of Karen Golinski, who works as a staff lawyer in the United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit. She married her partner of 20 years, Amy Cunninghis, in August 2008 during the brief period when same-sex marriages were permitted in California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/us/ruling-adds-to-string-in-favor-of-same-sex-couples.html

[Jacob1983]

Why can't states decide this shit? Oh wait, they already do. Marriage should be handled by the states. If gambling, unions, and medicinal weed are handled by the states then marriage should be as well. If you don't like that, tough shit. If you want to live in a state where two dudes can get married, move there and be happy and shut the fuck up about it.

Why does Uncle Sam have to tell every state "you're gonna do it this way or we're gonna make you do it this way"? What right does the federal government have to tell Wyoming how it should run marriage laws and regulations?

Abortion should be handled on the state level too. And Ron Paul was right. Planned Parenthood should get nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't states decide this shit? Oh wait, they already do. Marriage should be handled by the states.Why should government "handle" marriage at all?

[Blake]

Why can't states decide this shit? Oh wait, they already do. Marriage should be handled by the states. If gambling, unions, and medicinal weed are handled by the states then marriage should be as well. If you don't like that, tough shit. If you want to live in a state where two dudes can get married, move there and be happy and shut the fuck up about it.

Why does Uncle Sam have to tell every state "you're gonna do it this way or we're gonna make you do it this way"? What right does the federal government have to tell Wyoming how it should run marriage laws and regulations?

Abortion should be handled on the state level too. And Ron Paul was right. Planned Parenthood should get nothing.

Why do people like you get so worked up over federal law vs state law

[Jacob1983]

States have rights and that should never be forgotten, brah.

Just think of how much money America would save if money that was going to special interests was used to help poor people, the homeless, and veterans.

Democrats and liberals are hypocrites in the sense that they love to pick and choose what states can and can't do.

[Blake]

States have rights and that should never be forgotten, brah.


Not worth getting worked up over, imo.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not worth getting worked up over, imo.

shup and put on that purty dress I brung ya.

[Blake]

shup and put on that purty dress I brung ya.

Squeeeeeeal like a pig

[ChumpDumper]

States have rights and that should never be forgotten, brah.

Just think of how much money America would save if money that was going to special interests was used to help poor people, the homeless, and veterans.

Democrats and liberals are hypocrites in the sense that they love to pick and choose what states can ?Why should states pick and choose who can marry whom?

[Jacob1983]

It's more about definitions. Gay people and couples should probably get the same shit that straight married couples get but they shouldn't be given anything more than that. I am talking about definitions and defining things. Local and state governments should be allowed to "define" marriage. The federal government has no right to make that call. I know I'm quoting South Park but if a state wants to call two guys being together "butt buddies" then fine.

At the end of the day, I truely don't care either way. If the federal government defines marriage in whatever they want, I don't give a shit. I'm not going to lose sleep over two guys having kinky gay sex or getting married so they can pretend to be like straight couples which is weird because they're gay, not straight. If you're gay, be gay. If you're straight, be straight. Shut the fuck up about it and do whatever. Gay couples can get married or pretend to be like straight couples but most people will always see a bride and a groom at a wedding. A wiener and a bun make a hot dog. You can't have a hot dog with two buns or two wieners. That's just simple math and food knowledge.

And stop with this whole gay rights shit, you don't get special rights because you're gay. You get rights because you're a person just like everyone else. Being a minority doesn't make you special or better or worse than those in the majority.

[ChumpDumper]

It's more about definitions. Gay people and couples should probably get the same shit that straight married couples get but they shouldn't be given anything more than that. I am talking about definitions and defining things. Local and state governments should be allowed to "define" marriage. The federal government has no right to make that call.Why should any government be allowed to define what marriage is?

[boutons_deux]

It's more about definitions. Gay people and couples should probably get the same shit that straight married couples get but they shouldn't be given anything more than that. I am talking about definitions and defining things. Local and state governments should be allowed to "define" marriage. The federal government has no right to make that call. I know I'm quoting South Park but if a state wants to call two guys being together "butt buddies" then fine.

At the end of the day, I truely don't care either way. If the federal government defines marriage in whatever they want, I don't give a shit. I'm not going to lose sleep over two guys having kinky gay sex or getting married so they can pretend to be like straight couples which is weird because they're gay, not straight. If you're gay, be gay. If you're straight, be straight. Shut the fuck up about it and do whatever. Gay couples can get married or pretend to be like straight couples but most people will always see a bride and a groom at a wedding. A wiener and a bun make a hot dog. You can't have a hot dog with two buns or two wieners. That's just simple math and food knowledge.

And stop with this whole gay rights shit, you don't get special rights because you're gay. You get rights because you're a person just like everyone else. Being a minority doesn't make you special or better or worse than those in the majority.

List exactly what rights LGBT are demanding that is beyond what non-LGBT have.

[Jacob1983]

They want to make a big deal about their gayness when the majority of people basically have the attitude of "you're gay, so what". Most people don't care. Being gay does not make an individual special or unique. You are not a victim either. Gay people are gay. So what, who the fuck cares? Shut up about it and move on.


Crap Dumper, I will tell you why the government shouldn't be involved in defining marriage. Prop. 8 in California is a fine example of that. The voters of California clearly voted that they weren't fans of Prop. 8.
However, cry baby gay people couldn't be mature about it and accept defeat and basically bitched to get an activist judge to over rule what voters had already decided. Gay marriage enthusiasts in California shouldn't have been bashing religion, Christians, and Prop. 8 supporters. They should have been bashing themselves for not showing up and making sure that voters would vote their way. They have no one to blame but themselves. Prop. 8 haters should have accepted defeat and tried again to get another vote on the matter and try to be better at convincing voters to side with them on the issue.

If you are gay and want to get married and marriage means to much to you, then why not just be a grown ass mature adult and move to a state where it's allowed? Instead of bitching about it, why not just move?

[ploto]

So let me get this straight-- conservatives are mad because the federal government is not going to defend any longer the constitutionality of a federal law that conflicts with state law in the case of marriage- something that is licensed by the states?

[Jacob1983]

A true conservative would not support the federal government in any role when it comes to defining and regulating marriage.
Conservatives are suppose to be about small and limited government and saving money by spending less. It's not about gay people or abortion.

[ChumpDumper]

They want to make a big deal about their gayness when the majority of people basically have the attitude of "you're gay, so what". Most people don't care. Being gay does not make an individual special or unique. You are not a victim either. Gay people are gay. So what, who the fuck cares? Shut up about it and move on.


Crap Dumper, I will tell you why the government shouldn't be involved in defining marriage. Prop. 8 in California is a fine example of that. The voters of California clearly voted that they weren't fans of Prop. 8.
However, cry baby gay people couldn't be mature about it and accept defeat and basically bitched to get an activist judge to over rule what voters had already decided. Gay marriage enthusiasts in California shouldn't have been bashing religion, Christians, and Prop. 8 supporters. They should have been bashing themselves for not showing up and making sure that voters would vote their way. They have no one to blame but themselves. Prop. 8 haters should have accepted defeat and tried again to get another vote on the matter and try to be better at convincing voters to side with them on the issue.

If you are gay and want to get married and marriage means to much to you, then why not just be a grown ass mature adult and move to a state where it's allowed? Instead of bitching about it, why not just move?You didn't read the question correctly.

Why should any government define marriage?

[Jacob1983]

The Money Pit

[ChumpDumper]

The Money PitWhy should any government define marriage between Tom Hanks and Shelly Long?

[Winehole23]

repellent even to consider, better left unmentioned

[boutons_deux]

"majority of people basically have the attitude of "you're gay, so what""

but it's the hating "Christian" Christ-loving hating fringe that's denying LGBT equal rights.

Being gay does DOES make one special as a target of anti-gay hate and persecution, makes you a victim.

"voters of California clearly voted that they weren't fans of Prop. 8"

Gay-hating Mormon cultists from out-of-state bought that election.

[desflood]

Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Marriages

Judge Tonya Parker says she will not perform marriages in court
By Greg Janda | Friday, Feb 24, 2012 |

A Dallas County judge says she does not officiate marriage ceremonies because gay couples in Texas are not allowed to wed.


Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker says she won't perform marriage ceremonies until gay couples can wed.

During a Feb. 21 meeting, Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas that while she has the power to perform legal marriage ceremonies in her court, she will not.

“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it."

"I do not perform [marriages] because it is not an equal application of the law. Period," Parker told the Dallas Voice.

Though she chooses not to perform the ceremonies, Parker said she passes marriage ceremonies on to other judges so they can be completed.

Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.

I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.

Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies.

I do not, and would never, impede any person’s right to get married. In fact, when people wander into my courtroom, usually while I am presiding over other matters, I direct them to the Judges in the courthouse who do perform marriage ceremonies. If my deputy is not busy, I will even ask him to escort or help these individuals find another Judge who performs the ceremonies. I do this because I believe in the right of people to marry and pursue happiness.

During the meeting, Parker also mentioned other steps she takes to promote equality for gay, lesbian, and transgender issues, including adding the word "partner" to the list of people the jury is not supposed to communicate about the ongoing case with and admonishing an attorney who used the terms "child molester" and "homosexual" interchangeably.

Parker was elected in 2010 and is the first lesbian to be elected as a county judge in Dallas.



Good for her, IMHO.

[FromWayDowntown]

Since when can he dictate to the Justice department?

Since DOJ is a department within the executive branch of the government, I'd say: since he was elected. Questioning that is like asking why the CEO of a corporation can dictate to the Human Resources department of that corporation.

As for the decision itself, I think it's a bad one. I support the view that DOMA is rather silly, creates substantial full faith and credit problems (and just wishes away that constitutional obligation by fiat), and is slowly but surely becoming archaic, none of those things supports (in my view) this sort of approach to the law.

If Obama doesn't want to enforce DOMA, I'd argue that the better course for doing that is proposing legislation that would do away with DOMA.

[boutons_deux]

Republican Lawmakers Appeal DOMA Ruling To Ninth Circuit

A group of congressional Republicans defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will appeal this week’s District Court ruling against the law to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this week, District Judge Jeffrey White, a George W. Bush appointee, found DOMA violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it denied benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Some justices on the Ninth Circuit have previously ruled that the law is unconstitutional, although those cases did not establish a binding precedent. The House of Representatives, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), is defending DOMA in court after the Obama administration said it no longer would.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/24/432187/republican-lawmakers-appeal-doma-ruling-to-ninth-circuit/