Obama Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

[weekendskp]

What does it matter. The left will find what ever interpetation they need to fit there agenda. Rowe vs Wade should not be law and the tax payer should not be paying for it, but that doesn't matter. The left will get there way by force if necessary. It's clear that we are not going to agree and that's fine. Mararage is between a man and a woman. The government has no business getting involved. But that's not good enough for the left. Before long we will have a law for you to marry your pet.

I think you're missing the point. We do agree! There shouldn't be a Federal or State law regulating marriage other than those to collect fees for paper processing. Marriage is whatever people decide it is. If by a vote of the entire population of the United States, the majority say that two males may marry, or two females may marry, then so be it. There shouldn't be a Federal or State law regulating abortion other than those to ensure the safety of medical facilities and medical staff training minimums to protect the parties involved. You wouldn't want the facilities that perform abortions to "go underground"! With no regulation, those facilities become pits of despair. Cleanliness and safety precautions often go by the wayside.

[fuhr52]

Where did you come up with that one?

As a conservative it pains me to see the Republican party consistantly choose to be a Christian party instead of a conservative party. The Tea Party movement does show some promise to change this though.

Were did I come up with that one? Do you not watch and listen to the news? A black man can make staements like killig crackers and maybe their babies and that's no big deal. Prgressive liberal politicians can say conservative politician want to starve your kids and feed dog food to gramma, not even challanged. Let a conservative say gay marrage is wrong and abortion is murder and the fight is on. Having a cross on public land is a violation of the first amendment and has to go. It's just the opposite, it's a violation to remove it. But it's ok to dispay a crusifix in urine because it is called art.

[fuhr52]

Just for clarification, are you saying in your opinion, "high cap mags cause people to go nuts?"


I'm "CONSERVATIVE". Just ask my wife. We're both card carrying members of the conservative party. Again you're substituting facts with "oh, woe is me". That attitude is not becoming. And while we're on the subject of free speech, the Supreme Court ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church can spout their hateful rhetoric at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. Do I think they have a right to free speech? Yes. Does that mean that I agree with their behavior? No.

No, I'm not say high cap mags cause people to go nuts. I was being sarcastic. The government says high cap mags cause people to go nuts. Look at some of the laws controlling them.

[G50AE]

The government has no business getting involved.

That has what I have been saying all along. There is no reason for the government to regulate mariage, sexual intercourse or reproduction, and the constitution does not provide congress the power to do so.

[fuhr52]

That has what I have been saying all along. There is no reason for the government to regulate mariage, sexual intercourse or reproduction, and the constitution does not provide congress the power to do so.

We do agree on that one.

[Unfettered Might]

That has what I have been saying all along. There is no reason for the government to regulate mariage, sexual intercourse or reproduction, and the constitution does not provide congress the power to do so.

Agreed.

What I'm getting ready to say is a great example of HOW IT WORKS and many need to get this.

I hate gay and lesbian acts, I think they are one of the most unnatural blights on the face of the planet and I wish they didn't exist. No one bother to argue with me, my ideology is not going to change on this.

However, I love the Constitution and I am a firm believer and follower in it's words. By the doctrine it hands down, none of us can slight them or punish them, it is not our right to do so and we are required by the Constitution to leave them alone and let them pursue happiness just like the rest of us.

My point is, notwithstanding how strongly I feel about something, if it defies the Constitution, despite my right to verbally express it, it is null and void. When the Constitution backs what I like, yay for me. When it doesn't, I have to get over it.

The country would be better off if everyone were to commit to THAT ideology.

It's kinda like how everyone gets out of the way of an ambulance, we submit to it's authority because we would like others to do the same for us if we were in the same situation.

[fuhr52]

Agreed.

What I'm getting ready to say is a great example of HOW IT WORKS and many need to get this.

I hate gay and lesbian acts, I think they are one of the most unnatural blights on the face of the planet and I wish they didn't exist. No one bother to argue with me, my ideology is not going to change on this.

However, I love the Constitution and I am a firm believer and follower in it's words. By the doctrine it hands down, none of us can slight them or punish them, it is not our right to do so and we are required by the Constitution to leave them alone and let them pursue happiness just like the rest of us.

My point is, notwithstanding how strongly I feel about something, if it defies the Constitution, despite my right to verbally express it, it is null and void. When the Constitution backs what I like, yay for me. When it doesn't, I have to get over it.

The country would be better off if everyone were to commit to THAT ideology.

It's kinda like how everyone gets out of the way of an ambulance, we submit to it's authority because we would like others to do the same for us if we were in the same situation.

I'm with you brother!

[CathyInBlue]

From one of my favourite legal blogs... okay, it's the only legal blog I read.

Superheroes and Contempt | Law and the Multiverse

Neither Congress nor the courts may direct the President or his agents to bring charges or maintain a case against anyone, nor can they require that charges be dropped. The ability to choose which cases to prosecute and which not to remains entirely at the discretion of the President. Granted, the President has sworn an oath to uphold the law, but even staying within the bounds of good-faith attempts to do so, there can be wild differences in emphasis. The Department of Justice has a finite budget, but there is an effectively infinite number of potential cases to pursue. An obvious criterion observed by almost all Attorneys General is to only pursue cases where there’s a reasonable chance of winning. Hard to argue with that one. But if, for example, President Obama decided that he wasn’t going to prosecute possession of narcotics charges… there isn’t a lot anyone could do about it. I mean, Congress could defund the entire Department of Justice in retaliation, but that’s a rather ham-fisted approach. Other political compromises are obviously on the table, but when it comes to actually forcing the President to do something, that’s about all there is.

So, even if Obama chose to not only stop defending DOMA against legal challenges before the courts, but also stopped all expenditures to officers charged with its enforcement and/or ordered them to end all enforcement actions related to DOMA, there's nothing that Congress or the courts could do to compel him otherwise.