Obama calls for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
438
#1
Obama calls for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, October 2, 2011

President Barack Obama on Saturday night called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during his keynote address to the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th Annual National Dinner.

The law defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and prohibits legally married same sex couples from receiving federal benefits.

At the beginning of his speech, Obama joked that he talked “with your leader, Lady Gaga” and went on to tout his record on LGBT rights.

He noted that with his help the Matthew Shepard Act was passed, expanding the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Obama also noted that he had lifted the HIV travel ban and successfully fought to repeal the military policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“I need your help to fight for equality, to pass a repeal of DOMA, to pass an inclusive employment non-discrimination bill so that being gay is never again a fireable offense in America,” the president told the audience of 3,000.

“And I don’t have to tell you, there are those who don’t want to just stand in our way but want to turn the clock back; who want to return to the days when gay people couldn’t serve their country openly; who reject the progress that we’ve made; who, as we speak, are looking to enshrine discrimination into state laws and constitutions — efforts that we’ve got to work hard to oppose, because that’s not what America should be about.”

“We’re not about restricting rights and restricting opportunity. We’re about opening up rights and opening up opportunity and treating each other generously and with love and respect,” Obama said.

The Respect for Marriage Act — legislation that would repeal DOMA — was introduced to the U.S Congress in March.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/02/obama-calls-for-repeal-of-defense-of-marriage-act/
I see what Obama's doing here. Taken an essentially large non-issue and trying to drum up support from the lefties to turn out to the polls in 2012. Republicans are already going to be turning up in record numbers so the net effect would be more Democrats. The Republicans used this strategy in statewide gay marriage referendums in 2004 that were enough to push Bush over the hump and get reelected in a couple of key swing states.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
393
#2
I see what Obama's doing here. Taken an essentially large non-issue and trying to drum up support from the lefties to turn out to the polls in 2012. Republicans are already going to be turning up in record numbers so the net effect would be more Democrats. The Republicans used this strategy in statewide gay marriage referendums in 2004 that were enough to push Bush over the hump and get reelected in a couple of key swing states.


I don't know

This may back fire on Little Barry as the bible bangers have no love for Mitt Romney and even though they hate Little Barry, I don't see them turning out to vote in huge numbers for Romney unless Little Barry decides to make homosexuals a big issue.

I am not against homosexuals getting married, however its not important enough for me to care about and I have a feeling more people think like I do on the issue, especially in this climate of nearly 20% actual unemployment.

Lets see the stock market has one of the biggest loses in history or a bunch of fags signing nonsensical contracts - what issue really matters to peoples lives ?
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
848
#3
At the beginning of his speech, Obama joked that he talked “with your leader, Lady Gaga”
Ugh. I'm not sure which is worse, that he talked to that dumb bitch on a serious subject, or that he made that joke.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
398
#4
How about the federal government stays the fuck out of the issue of marriage either way.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
398
#6
Wouldn't that require repealing DOMA?
Probably. I don't know anything about it... not very high up on something I'm concerned with (like others have stated). I don't think the federal government should have any stance on marriage to any degree. Leave it up to the states.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
438
#7
Obama... went on to tout his record on LGBT rights.
He's on record as being against gay marriage. He also implored hospitals to give visitation rights to gays so that it would lessen the criticism he faced for opposing gay marriage. Those would've been a good places to start.
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
458
#8
How about the federal government stays the fuck out of the issue of marriage either way.
Therein lies the problem. DOMA was a Bush era law, which, the Federal Government had no business in passing as marriage laws are a State issue. While I have no issue with Obama wanting to repeal this; frankly I think we have far more important things to worry about such as our economy.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
88
#14
Its is kinda a federal issue since state laws that define marriage as only valid between member of the opposite sex raise serious constitutional questions. I concur that the federal gov should not have a law that defines marriage as only valid between member of the opposite sex.

its simple contract issue. In the eyes of the "state" (meaning gov. in general here not State as in US State) marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. You cant let one class enter into a contract while restricting another without a valid legal basis. To put that restriction on some and not others violates the constitution.
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
458
#15
Its is kinda a federal issue since state laws that define marriage as only valid between member of the opposite sex raise serious constitutional questions. I concur that the federal gov should not have a law that defines marriage as only valid between member of the opposite sex.

its simple contract issue. In the eyes of the "state" (meaning gov. in general here not State as in US State) marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. You cant let one class enter into a contract while restricting another without a valid legal basis. To put that restriction on some and not others violates the constitution.
I see what you're saying, but if Federal involvement is necessary it should be at the Supreme Court level. The President and Senate have no rights to be legislating this kind of stuff. If a State wants to legislate that gay marriages are illegal, that is fine. If individuals in that State want to challenge those State laws to the Supreme Court, that is also fine. What is NOT fine is any President and our Senate trying to legislate this stuff.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
88
#16
I see what you're saying, but if Federal involvement is necessary it should be at the Supreme Court level. The President and Senate have no rights to be legislating this kind of stuff. If a State wants to legislate that gay marriages are illegal, that is fine. If individuals in that State want to challenge those State laws to the Supreme Court, that is also fine. What is NOT fine is any President and our Senate trying to legislate this stuff.
agreed, so the DOMA should be repealed.
 

chumpy

No hopes of repair
Donator
Apr 14, 2004
763
#19
Let those faggots stop whining about this so they can get back to those important things like fashion and gossip.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
398
#21
I'm going to preference this by saying I could care less if two gay people want to get married.

However, there's nothing in the Constitution that deals with marriage, so at this point I would say the decision is a state's right. Also, the word "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and has religious implications for many. I do not believe the state should give benefits or rights to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples can't have access to, such as tax deductions.

I've always thought a compromise would work... keeping marriage as between a man and a woman but allowing social unions that carry the exact same rights in the state's eyes. I think the gays would gather more support if they weren't so intent on calling it "marriage". Again, I don't care if they call it marriage... it's just a suggestion.

Either way again this is an argument for individual states.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
763
#22
I see what you're saying, but if Federal involvement is necessary it should be at the Supreme Court level. The President and Senate have no rights to be legislating this kind of stuff. If a State wants to legislate that gay marriages are illegal, that is fine. If individuals in that State want to challenge those State laws to the Supreme Court, that is also fine. What is NOT fine is any President and our Senate trying to legislate this stuff.
A civil right should be defined by the Legislature. There's no guarantee the Supreme Court would even accept a case regarding inequality of gay marriage.
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
458
#23
A civil right should be defined by the Legislature. There's no guarantee the Supreme Court would even accept a case regarding inequality of gay marriage.
Right, the STATE legislature, NOT the Federal legislature. When I got married the words spoken were; "by the power vested in me by the State of Virginia"; not "by the power vested in me, by the United States of America."

Also, I do not believe marriage is considered a "civil right" as you can, or cannot be married based on your own decisions. Marriage is I believe classified a "privilege" by the government.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
578
#24
Good. It is complete bullshit that the federal government is actively discriminating against a whole group of people. First, there is no Constitutional authority for the feds to even have an opinion on marriage. Second, there is that pesky little thing called the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I guess this doesn't apply to the feds or the states somehow. How can it be legal to deny a group of people the ability to marry without violating the above clause?
 

BullsLawDan

She A Great Big Fat Person?
Feb 9, 2006
0
#25
Right, the STATE legislature, NOT the Federal legislature. When I got married the words spoken were; "by the power vested in me by the State of Virginia"; not "by the power vested in me, by the United States of America."

Also, I do not believe marriage is considered a "civil right" as you can, or cannot be married based on your own decisions. Marriage is I believe classified a "privilege" by the government.
Marriage is a "fundamental civil right," according to the Supreme Court, read Loving v. Virginia.





Obligatory plug for Tapatalk