POTUS another arrogant "prick"

[Pudfark]

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships -- precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's)Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... z1EoQlAGLB

Who the hell does Obama think he is? King?
What "right" does he have to circumvent the law and due process?
This issue may have the appearance of "Gay Rights" and if that's true?
Why is it not before the courts? Why is it being unilaterally decided by Obama?
Anybody see the conundrum here?
If you are against Obama's "right" to not obey the law? You are presumed to be Anti-Gay....

This is a classic example of Obama and his administration unilaterally castrating due process and the "rights"
of American people..."If ya don't like the law, ignore it"....Works for him, how about you?

Old Pudfark sez: " Transformation seems to exclude..."Legal Change"..... "

[callmeslick]

um, Pud, they've defended the law for two years, pending the recently completed legal review. They've now concluded it won't pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they won't obey it, until it gets overturned, merely that they will not advance arguments which they don't believe in before a court hearing. Nothing the least bit wrong, illegal or unethical about what they did. If you don't understand why I can make that claim, back to Civics 101 for you!

[Pudfark]

Their duty and responsibility is to defend/enforce that law until it is "Legally" overturned.
Back to Civics 101 for you and them.

Obama's decision is unilateral and he has once again turned his back on the rule of law and America.

[callmeslick]

Their duty and responsibility is to defend/enforce that law until it is "Legally" overturned.
Back to Civics 101 for you and them.

sorry, Pud, but they are only bound to enforce it. If their legal people determine it to be unconstitutional, they are NOT obligated to defend it. In fact, they could sue to overturn it themselves, theoretically.

Obama's decision is unilateral and he has once again turned his back on the rule of law and America.

well, he hasn't, actually. See my previous statement. He is following the law of the land to the letter, and clearly acting in the best interests of America, the nation, as a whole. Equal rights has always been sort of a cornerstone here, even if some folks get their share of 'equal' later than others.....

[Wullie]

Once again, slick can see no wrong with Barry S or his actions as KING of the good ol salt and soon to be nuke free USA.

[callmeslick]

Once again, slick can see no wrong with Barry S or his actions as KING of the good ol salt and soon to be nuke free USA.

didn't say anything of the kind, just that what Pud complained about was perfectly legal, and reflected the will of his base(see J. Boehner for that line of defense).

[Pudfark]

Their duty and responsibility is to defend/enforce that law until it is "Legally" overturned.
Back to Civics 101 for you and them.

sorry, Pud, but they are only bound to enforce it. If their legal people determine it to be unconstitutional, they are NOT obligated to defend it. In fact, they could sue to overturn it themselves, theoretically.

Obama's decision is unilateral and he has once again turned his back on the rule of law and America.

well, he hasn't, actually. See my previous statement. He is following the law of the land to the letter, and clearly acting in the best interests of America, the nation, as a whole. Equal rights has always been sort of a cornerstone here, even if some folks get their share of 'equal' later than others.....

Then that is what they need to do first. Anything else undermines the will/vote of the people.... Obama's history of ignoring what he personally does not like and his record of circumventing process are going to come back and bite him and his on the ass....just like what was stated in the "Remember in November" thread.

[Darkhorse]

I don't like where this is going. This decision is more than political. By implication, President Obama is saying that the idea of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman is indefensible. We have entered a world where the government has not only the authority to raise taxes, but to raze marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a moral institution.
It is considered sacred because essentially all the religions of the world consider it a divine establishment. It is stated unequivocally in our Declaration of Independence that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” America was founded on this thoroughly philosophical and yet practical idea – the idea of the divine origin of the rights of man. This is not a notion we can outgrow.
It is a smaller step than we may think from tampering with marriage to targeting people of faith with so-called hate crimes because they publicly uphold moral principles. God and any trace of divine authority have essentially been abolished from the public. And what has filled the void (for something always fills the void)? Government. It has taken on the role of God.
It is this toxic idea that is leading the government to cross the line into modifying and defacing moral law. After all, the same government that dares to redefine family can redefine faith. The same government that can declare a moral wrong to be a legal right can declare a moral right to be a legal wrong.
This isn’t hypothetical. The history of the 20th century shows that as governments try to supplant God as the source and center of law, they make religion unlawful. When the government ceases to be the defender of inalienable rights, and begins to dispense and withdraw inalienable rights, it leads to tyranny and slavery.

[Wullie]

I don't like where this is going. This decision is more than political. By implication, President Obama is saying that the idea of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman is indefensible. We have entered a world where the government has not only the authority to raise taxes, but to raze marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a moral institution.
It is considered sacred because essentially all the religions of the world consider it a divine establishment. It is stated unequivocally in our Declaration of Independence that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” America was founded on this thoroughly philosophical and yet practical idea – the idea of the divine origin of the rights of man. This is not a notion we can outgrow.
It is a smaller step than we may think from tampering with marriage to targeting people of faith with so-called hate crimes because they publicly uphold moral principles. God and any trace of divine authority have essentially been abolished from the public. And what has filled the void (for something always fills the void)? Government. It has taken on the role of God.
It is this toxic idea that is leading the government to cross the line into modifying and defacing moral law. After all, the same government that dares to redefine family can redefine faith. The same government that can declare a moral wrong to be a legal right can declare a moral right to be a legal wrong.
This isn’t hypothetical. The history of the 20th century shows that as governments try to supplant God as the source and center of law, they make religion unlawful. When the government ceases to be the defender of inalienable rights, and begins to dispense and withdraw inalienable rights, it leads to tyranny and slavery.

+1!

[Pudfark]

Well stated Darkhorse....you nailed it.
That is the type of "New Strategy" to undermine?
Everything.... Think of the "Global Missionary" types,
who espouse....one world, one government, one economy....one belief.
It isn't the God that we believe in....it isn't the way we were taught...
It isn't the way we will peaceably become....

I don't know about you? However, what you wrote?
Sounds like what I feel.
I'm so tired of "turning the other cheek", I'm getting
dizzy and pissed off at the same time....
It's getting pretty damn close..to making them turn their cheeks...

Well done Darkhorse.