Quantcast

Obama declares key section of gay marriage ban ‘unconstitutional’

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:51 EDT
google plus icon
gaymarriage-afp
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

Update (video, below): White House spokesman says Obama still ‘grappling’ with ‘distinct’ feelings on gay marriage

In a stunning reversal of policy announced Wednesday, President Barack Obama decided that a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era law that restricts the benefits of marriage to a man and a woman only, is unconstitutional, and ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending it.

The nation’s top law enforcement agency said in a media advisory that in reviewing two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, the president concluded that the act did not meet constitutional standards against discrimination.

From now on, they added, in cases where Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is challenged, the Department of Justice will no longer offer a defense.

“In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply,” the department’s media advisory said.

What this means is that the administration will no longer uphold Section 3 of the act as it applies to couples that are already legally married in states that have allowed same-sex couples.

It does not mean the ban on gay marriage has been lifted.

“Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law,” Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement read. “But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.”

Speaking to reporters in the White House briefing room, Obama spokesman Jay Carney explained that the president was forced to act on this issue now due to a legal deadline, adding that he is still “struggling” with “distinct” feelings on gay marriage.

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” Republican House Speaker John Boehner said, reacting to the announcement.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, however, welcomed the news.

“The decision by the Obama administration not to defend the discriminatory, so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ is a tremendous step toward recognizing our common humanity and ending an egregious injustice against thousands of loving, committed couples who simply want the protections, rights and responsibilities afforded other married couples,” a statement read. “We thank the Obama administration for having the integrity to recognize that this law should not be defended in court. Discrimination has no place in our society, and DOMA has only served to belittle our country’s deeply held values of freedom and fairness. It’s time to end DOMA once and for all.”

This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast Feb. 23, 2011.


Watch this video on iPhone/iPad

The complete statement follows.

####

WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

Stephen C. Webster
Stephen C. Webster
Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.
 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/CT77MNPZ622QD5PTP7YQIZV7HI manuel

    Oh let them marry, the moment they are free to do it they will forget about it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EZ4W5CDCIVXKIIKESYBN2EP6VE brian

    It’s extremely rare that I get to thank this President. Usually there are ulterior motives, ie settlements in Palestine and the UN resolution last week. But this is something, finally, that makes sense. Thank you President O.

    Now end the wars. Bring our troops home. Close Gitmo. And stop sucking the dick of all the corporations and start working for the American people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Zentrails/100001475536421 Bob Zentrails

    Nonsense. If allowed there will be plenty of marriages. That’s been the pattern everywhere gay marriage has been allowed, even if only for a day or two. Where do you get your news, pal?

    This story is somewhat inaccurate, though. The President can indeed order that sections of federal law be “non-enforced”, in fact that was the whole idea behind Bush’s unprecedented number of “signing statements” that did just that.

    However, the President cannot “declare” something to be unconstitutional, that is something only courts can do. I highly doubt that President Obama declared anything other than the fact that that particular section of the law will no longer be defended by his administration in court.

    Nevertheless, ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME, Obama. Better late than never, bravo.
    While the RW nutjobs are busy trying to justify scuttling our unions all over the place, Obama does an end around and takes them completely by surprise.

    If it weren’t for the idiot Repub governors trying for this blatant and offensive GOP power grab, Obama’s directive would be at the top of the headlines and fruitcakes like Andrew Breitbart and Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck would be screaming their lungs out about this. Ha, you guys have just been pwned along with Governor Walker and his cozy chat with a fake Koch Bro.

    Nothing like a successful prank call to make a lying, incompetent politician look bad, and in the process, they’ve shoved the Koch Bros right into the middle of the Wisconsin mess, which is the last place the Koch Bros wanted their names to be.

  • Guest

    If this really was the “land of the free”, nothing this personal and trivial to the big picture would matter one half an iota. Priorities in the U.S. are so skewed as to be inane and insane.

  • Anonymous

    well – I find it interesting that LGBT TAX paying Ameriocans HAVE TOO Fight so hard to Marry – meanwhile, the GOP is falling all over itself -as usual- trying to get ANti-Gay measure on Ballots asap………..they WILL BE Relegated to the statsus of George Wallace & Civil Rights…..sure they don’
    t see it now- but they will..Im 50 now ,and I HOPE I live long enough to see it…and give a good ol’ nelson “Ahhh Haaaaaaa”!!!!! Meanwhile heteros TAKE THEIR “special” RIGHTS IT FOR GRANTED – MARRYING NOW- LATER,TONITE.TOMORROW…in Vegas by Elvis, or a JP…or preist in a church…………how about American ACTUALLY Living UP TOO the words Liberty & Justice for ALL???

  • Anonymous

    As much as we need the President to cave to the ‘right’ on fiscal issues, we also need him to be strong on social issues.Social freedoms are the sacred rights that are the basis of all other rights. The overall needs and wants of every individual are alike; and that being so, it is not in the interests of any to impede the pursuit of happiness from any other, especially when the pursuit of that happiness in no way impedes the same pursuits of others…..

  • Praxman

    Hey…this gives me an idea for a Time mag piece….

    Obama: A Portrait in Courage.

    Today’s America is not the same America of 2008, when a brash young President, battling the odds, took the reins of a mighty nation. blah blah blah

  • Anonymous

    Hey Obama: grapple *this* you fucking bigot.

  • http://bravonewworld.blogspot.com/ Tim Bravo

    Um…Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Executive Branch doesn’t have the power to declare law unconstitutional. That would be the job of the JUDICIAL Branch, yes?

    That said, I agree with Barack Obama. It IS and SHOULD BE DECLARED unconstitutional. This is a basic human freedom of choice that government should not be regulating. That said, it seems Obama needs to retake high school civics.

    Again, please correct me someone – if I’m wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Now somebody please declare the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GCPX7DXZGK2H2CPNYRR5IS5A64 Turnip Mcgee

    No, it’s a little worse. I don’t see anyone wearing stripes either. Of course, the informed were not caught unaware.

  • Anonymous

    Chip, chip, chip, chip……..the christers are falling apart.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GCPX7DXZGK2H2CPNYRR5IS5A64 Turnip Mcgee

    You stole my post, although I was prepared to use the words ‘proclamation’, and ‘loyal subject’ . . .

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GCPX7DXZGK2H2CPNYRR5IS5A64 Turnip Mcgee

    I do declare !

  • Anonymous

    Wow we have Supreme court picking presidents and presidents deciding constitutional issues?? My civics teachers sucked or I might have been sleeping when they told me about this

  • Robert Shaftoe

    The GOP and tea Party want to shrink government down so it will just fit inside your BEDROOM.

  • Guest

    Glad Oblahblah has his priority’s straight, patriot act, fisa, gitmo, etc, etc……but hey now gays/lesbians can go through some legal/religious ceremony. Hooray for progress! I mean good for them, I personal think they should be able to get married, but I think we have bigger problems to address right now.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t you hate people who suck dick?

    Jesus fucking Christ.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3NVQSZZC5IM66JEOCSFJUV7FCE Jacques G

    Quit “struggling” with your feelings Mr. President. It’s not your issue. Just get the damn amendment repealed. My partner and I married in 2008, the world is still intact. The universe hasn’t collapsed. Give us our full legal equality. We pay our taxes, give us our equality.

  • http://twitter.com/VaginaHedgeFund Lloyd Blankfein

    Obama: Judge, jury and executioner.

    This is the worst sort of politics because its only purpose is to make certain people feel good. When a new president and AG take office they might decide to start enforcing the act. This helps no one because anybody that looks further than their nose is left swinging in the wind.

    Repeal the act, thats the solution.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3NVQSZZC5IM66JEOCSFJUV7FCE Jacques G

    He may not declare the law unconstitutional, BUT he can determine it unconstitutional for sake of the DOJ enforcing or defending those laws. A good step, not the best but better than yesterday. Now, just to get it repealed.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3NVQSZZC5IM66JEOCSFJUV7FCE Jacques G

    Where they can gang RAPE it.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing like gay marriage to get everyone worked up into a tizzy while the sparks of revolution ignite.

    Keep your eye on the ball, people.

  • Anonymous

    OK ……….. ANOTHER QUIZ………..

    DID THE GOP WRITE AND PRODUCE ANOTHER VERSION OF………”THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES”?

    they seem to be dwelling more on the vagina lately………more then anything else……………

    hummmmmmmmm? WHY?…………..

  • DesertSun59

    Hey, look at that. Obama has decided to get out of my bedroom.

    And yours.

  • DesertSun59

    The administration simply got out of my bedroom. And yours.

    Less government.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KLF5SUA5RDYXG54WWF5SHMVRAI X

    Is this the same Obama who previously said that he was Constitutionally required to argue in favor of the law for which he’s now Constitutionally prohibited from supporting?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EKTMZWPUVVU4CBKH4HWPKPVNCY cal5000

    No I love women

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EKTMZWPUVVU4CBKH4HWPKPVNCY cal5000

    Thats the attitude that makes people want to help…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EKTMZWPUVVU4CBKH4HWPKPVNCY cal5000

    Where does it say anywhere that its a basic human freedom? Youre stretching the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean, not what it says

  • Anonymous

    good! about time!! get with it barak

  • YeaSayer

    Don’t you hate people who fuck?

  • Anonymous

    hear hear!!
    that law is the basis of tyranny and a possible dictatorship in america

  • Johnny Warbucks

    He just threw the Amerikans a bone while the steals the house behind their back.

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    Gee, it doesn’t take a ton of bricks to get through to this guy. Just a half a ton and two years.

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    No. It’s his other clone. The real Barry Obama is locked up in a cell under CIA headquarters.

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    Because it’s vaginalicious?

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    So, basically, he’s got one eye on Wisconsin and the other eye on North Africa, just trying to figure out whether he’s gonna find himself living across the street from Gaddafy in beautiful downtown Montevideo. Better not walk and chew gum at the same time.

  • Anonymous

    Karl Rove has to secretly just love Obama, our very first openly Republican Democratic (in party name only) president.

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    He may be physically out of your bedroom but he still have his Super Snooper sound monitoring antenna across the street.

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    He hasn’t declared it LEGALLY unconstitutional. He has simply determined to the best of his own knowledge that it IS unconstitutional and therefore has decided not to defend the law, which he has every right to do. Hundreds of thousands of laws are ignored in the U.S. every day. There is no constitutional mandate that they all be enforced. When’s the last time you got a ticket for spitting in the street?

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    Yeah, be nice to Adolf. He might just voluntarily shut down the gas chambers. ;-)

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/UR4DHHC3P6RRXIUP4LWX54YN7I hu

    This is what is known as a “football issue” – an issue of absolute irrelevance that two parties are permitted by their corporate masters to kick back and forth, to create an illusion of difference between them.

    The compromise is simple and obvious – civil unions for everyone, anyone – leave the religiously charged marriage up to religion. Want to get married? Go to a religious figure. Want to create a legal union with another for tax, inheritance and child custody purposes? Go to a courthouse. Seperation of religion and government – problem solved.

    It won’t happen though, because the Dems and Reps need a policy to disagree on, since they agree on the war, bank bailouts, austerity cuts, foreign policy, and everything that actually matters.

  • Hassan i Sabbah

    I thought Christians weren’t allowed to fuck?

  • Anonymous

    I’d be happy to see Obama end up in Montevideo — provided Dan Mitrione was still head of the office of public safety and Obama was a beggar.

    As for chewing gum, stay away from the Nutra Sweet.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MSVG73USMG342DWORQKIEJ6HVQ Bob

    Obama throws LGBT folks a bone. The 2012 election clock must be ticking…

  • Anonymous

    Now end the wars and tax the rich and you will get my vote next year.

  • Anonymous

    Only through a hole in the sheet

  • Anonymous

    Obama is just another homophobic blackman who is, at bottom, still struggling with his own internalized racism.

    Get over it.

  • Anonymous

    And here I thought it was the job of the Supreme Court to decide if a law was consitutional. Thank you President Obama for setting a precedent for State nullification of Federal Laws.

  • Taleisin

    I salute the bravery of the president to open the debate on this crucial subject. ;)
    I hope he has a little time on his hands to tell us his opinion on Wisconsin!

  • Anonymous

    What debate, unless it is impeachment for violating his oath of office. The consitution does not allow the president to declare any law unconsitutional. He is obligated to enforce all laws of Congress. Therefore, if you will argue that the president’s action are legal. I will thank you for making the arguement in favor of State nullification of Federal laws they determine are unconsitutional. Whether you agree with the DOMA or not, the President has no power to declare any law unconsitutional.

  • Jaimie11

    I think his opinion is worthless, Talei. His bosses are the same guys who ripped off all the retirement funds
    of public employees and the rest of us while they were stealing everyone blind all along. He is too biased to have an opinion of any value.

  • eYeDEF

    Sorry chap. As much as you want it to happen, there’s never going to be a constitutional right to bestiality and pedophilia. Too bad you had to get your hopes up but, you see, there’s this issue of “consent” present in same sex marriage that is not present in your two favorite recreational vices.Now, go crawl back under that rock you came from where you can’t do anyone any harm.

  • Anonymous

    No offence to gays and I agree with the outcome, but it’s scary to think that with all that’s going on in the country and the world today, this is the subject that Obama is spending his time thinking about.

  • Anonymous

    Obama is often a disappointment but he does seem to slowly get some things done. He has not said he won’t enforce the law, he has just said he cannot defend the law in court. He’s the king of nuance. Nuance doesn’t play well with the right and this could backfire on the President politically, at least initially. I see it as a small but significant step forward, which is not bad, especially since the right is riding high after the House election results. Nice job Mr. President. Could I ask that you find a way to stop the Wars and using drones? Work on that next eh.

  • Taleisin

    Sorry. I forgot to put a ;) at the end of my comment. I was being sarcastic.
    I’m Aussie. I don’t even salute the Queen, let alone your Prez.

    Considering the news coming out of America and the middle east right now, I am amazed the white house would even raise a topic as trivial as this, during a time of social upheavals. Why isn’t he speaking about Wisconsin? This is a standard red herring to divide people at a time when they may start uniting.
    It’s all bullshit.

  • Anonymous

    Bush did it in signing statement after signing statement!

  • Taleisin

    Sorry Jaimie. I should have been more obvious with my sarcasm.

    This is a standard smokescreen to divert the nation’s attention away from more important matters.
    I am in favor of recognizing gays as more than 3/5 of a human being. But at the moment, if I were president, I would be more worried about the Wisconsin national guard taking aim at protesters. If he is allowed to speak about international protests why can’t he speak out about state protests.

    This certainly does show how little his timing and opinion is to be regarded.

  • Anonymous

    You are correct and Bush should have been impeached too for the signing statements, for teh patriot act and for false wars.

  • Anonymous

    ATTN theofascists: What does the Constitution say about equal protection under the law?

  • Anonymous

    You clearly have never read the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia 1967.

    If you had, you wouldn’t have asked that question.

    Besides that you might want to try reading the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which is PART of the Constitution.

  • Anonymous

    Are you married Already_Dead? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself complaining that there are bigger problems than giving people who don’t have a right that you now enjoy and take for granted. Even if you’re not married, if you’re straight you already have the right to marry the person you love. People who don’t support a minority’s civil rights will ALWAYS complain that “now isn’t the right time” and “there are more important issues to deal with”.

    African Americans were told the same thing in the turbulent 60′s.

    This may not be a priority to YOU but to those of us who are in long term, same-sex relationships WITH CHILDREN and don’t get health insurance from our employers that our straight co-workers get, don’t have equal parental rights, don’t receive the same tax benefits and must pay HUGE inheritance tax on our common property if a spouse dies (unlike married straight couples) this is an ENORMOUS deal and there are very few bigger problems to address.

    Besides, why does it have to be an either/or situation? Can we not address other injustices while addressing injustices against gay CITIZENS?

  • Jaimie11

    You’re right – it’s so stupid – why does *anyone* have an opinion on the subject. It is the private lives of the people involved. But people are mean, and they don’t want gay couples to have the side benefits heteros enjoy.

    As for Obushma – I can’t stand him – and he has no say whatsoever over state affairs anyway. It would be an overreach for him to express an opinion. He’s at the Federal level, states are responsible for their own business. I hope the protests spread and get deeper – focus on the criminals themselves not the victims.

    You might enjoy this analysis – it is far more like what is really going on – but most people are too stuck in the sharp and bitter polarities to see how all sides of the masses are being played. In the end the public will lose and the 2%ers will win. Let me know what you think.

    http://tinyurl.com/6g7enp9

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been swindled. I’m sure of that. As I read the home page, the title of this article read:

    Obama: gay
    marriage unconstitutional

    When I saw that first line I got all of excited. Imagine that: Obama gay! What a show that would be!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

    “It is the private lives of the people”

    You are correct on that point for sure, but wrong on bringing the States into the issue, and the rest of your analysis falls apart. DOMA is a Federal law, and defending that law in court is what he wants to stop. He is to be congratulated for his act of bravery, when no other pol has had the nerve to do so. 3 CHEERS FOR MR. O!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

    Suggest you read and understand the article and what Obama did. He ordered the JD to stop DEFENDING it. The subtlety of the legal argument is lost on you and many others here.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

    As one of the LGBT folks, it is one hell of a bone more than anyone else has given us.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

    Then you should be on your way to NZ to help them out.

  • Jaimie11

    There should no laws at all regarding private lives and private behavior – it is all a boondoggle brought to you by the politicians so that you can all be jerked around like puppets. It’s all unconstitutional. If Obushma had any respect for the constitution he might earn my respect, but he never will, because all he cares about is serving his criminal masters. You people on the right and left just don’t get it. You’re all willing to sell your liberty for protection by the feds who hate you and to get revenge on your enemies.

    Look what’s being done to public employees and taxpayers of both parties – they’re fighting each other and they are all going to get screwed – it’s the same game plan no matter what bone is thrown to you guys.

    Go ahead, cheer the hypocrite, he’s going to turn around and back stab you tomorrow.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947947/-The-Koch-Brothers-End-Game-in-Wisconsin

  • Anonymous

    the jews will get mad

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ hounddogg

    they are to busy with all the bigots…better watch out, they are probably on their way to your house right now!…

  • Anonymous

    Like, there are still checks and balances…HA! Ever since the “decider” King G.W.Bush the Second figured that he can wage wars without congressional approval, Pharaoh Obama the First tightly follows to decides by bias and taste what should be talked about what shouldn’t.

  • Anonymous

    This fucking Obama bastard is looking to start fundraising for ’12 and he knows he needs money from this constituentsy (sp?). They have $$. Watch this fucking snake start talking progressive again for the election and then shut it down the day he gets re-elected.

  • Anonymous

    Hahahaaaaaa!!

  • Anonymous

    Must be an election year next year. How many fool me twice fools will be due shame after the next election? It won’t be me.

  • Anonymous

    A pretty sad commentary on American morals, ethics and political gamesmenship when a closet bi-sexual uses his bully pulpit to push through what is obviously everyone’s human right, marriage, to garner support for the rest of his odious platform.

    Understand, gay and lesbian allies? He must go: your rights are inalienable. He can’t “give you” what you already have.

    Oh well, let’s all get “Saibaidee” (chilled/relaxed) and enjoy watching the Imperial Experiment of Cheney, Clinton, Bush1&2, and all the rest of the criminal class crash and fucking burn. THAT is what is happening…and in not-so-slow-motion after all.

    Bob Appetit!

  • Anonymous

    I have no idea why my computer has now starting posting the time in Russian…anyone, is there a virus I need to know about? See what I mean??? As I write it…it changes back……

  • parrots_abound

    Oh….. look at Obama caring about the “Constitution”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ODHDTSN5TFE24TZS22LJWXHO6I Rash Lameballs

    Total inclusion is the only solution!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ODHDTSN5TFE24TZS22LJWXHO6I Rash Lameballs

    The President had a deadline from the courts to decide this matter.He had no choice but to do it now.Although I think this should have never been made a law to begin with.It is unconstitutional!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/XZOZFUWR3YKJ25ZUAQQZWO7R6I SR

    I support the right of humans to engage voluntarily in whatever social contract they wish, but I’m a little concerned that our king has decided to rule by fiat.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ESQMZ34URJNXQ4XGKHZMOMIW5E Crow

    The justice department isn’t a part of the executive branch…
    This is what we pointed out under W. Now we are to group them?

    Just saying that is is a bit dishonest.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s not pretend that he campaigned as a liberal in 2008. Anyone who read and listened to his positions knew he was a moderate. Liberals who feel betrayed by Obama simply weren’t paying attention. He never really took liberal positions in 2008.

  • Guest

    I don’t think we will hear the President chime in on Wisconsin anytime soon for fear he will be perceived as running the show from the top down. I think he will be more then happy to let it run it’s course.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    Not standing up. It can lead to dancing.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    I kind of thought restoration of the rule of law, new levels of transparency in government and observance of the US Constitution were at least nominally progressive values. But you’re right. His flip flop on FISA amendment and telco immunity in 2007 screamed “LIAR”.
    Which brings me around to the fact that this is indeed just another convenient flip flop and is strictly political.
    Obama was for DOMA before he was against it. Will the real Obama please stand up?

  • Anonymous

    Well, Mr Obama just didn’t want to have to fight it in court. He still is not a supporter of same-sex marriage.

  • Jaimie11

    I think you assumed something I did not say. I was responding to Talei and you took my answer out of context. You do that a lot. It’s a thinking glitch, an error that permits you to see only what you want and not what in intended. But if that’s how you get to feel good about yourself – go for it, cheap thrills.

  • Anonymous

    He won’t get my vote, I don’t care if fucking sarah palin is the candidate. I’ll write in a vote for myself.

  • Anonymous

    I did pay attention, and you are correct. He campaigned as a moderate.

    And he did break many of the promises he made on the campaign trail. And his presidency is way more to the right than moderate.

  • Anonymous

    or the banksters….so many criminals so little desire to indict.

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    we need him to STOP caving to the right wing on economic issues

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    the only thing keeping him from shagging sheep is the law against it, apparently

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    sorry, Clinton beat him to it

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    he can still notice that it is unconstitutional, which he did

    he didn’t try to MAKE it unconstitutional

    reading is fundamental, give it a shot

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    i know after 8 long years of Bush, it’s a shock, but that’s why the American people voted for him

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    reading is fundamental, try it with this article

    he didn’t issue a fiat, he simply stated that his JD will not defend the law in court

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    just one of the myriad of things bush was wrong about

  • Anonymous

    Bullshit. AND he sure as fuck didn’t campaign as the right wing neocon tool he is.

  • Anonymous

    To all who responded, you have good points about Obama (though my agreement with some of your comments is less than 100%). I’ve been frustrated with him many times. He’s far too quick to compromise, often doing so before he even gets to the negotiating table. He takes things off the table too quickly and completely, giving in to people who will still never even accept the compromises.

    My response was entirely aimed at johnniefavorite’s statement “Watch this fucking snake start talking progressive again for the election.” Obama DID NOT “talk progressive” for the 2008 election. The right painted him as an extreme liberal in opposition to the facts and many on the left ASSUMED he was liberal because they didn’t really listen to what he said. He talked a moderate game in the election and shifted right in office. He NEVER “talked progressive” during the 2008 campaign.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    And how are you going to feel when a republican president won’t allow his JD to defend labor laws, EPA regulations, etc?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    PEOPLE are afforded equal protection, not social contracts.

  • Anonymous

    The President has no authority in the constitution to stop defend a law he believes in unconstitutional. Has the execute his job is to enforce the law, that includes defending it in court. Only a court can decide if it is unconstitutional. What he personally believes is irrelevant.

  • Anonymous

    He cant notice anything. That is outside the executives power. To stop defending a law is the functioning equivalent as to not enforce it. Has a Court (the only branch of govt that can determine if a law is unconstitutional) determined it is unconstitutional? If not, he is duty bound to defend and enforce the law.

  • Anonymous

    They are going to like it a lot because we all know that Democrats (and for that matter Republicans) are not hypocrites.

  • Anonymous

    Because America was founded on Hatred, Intolerance, Cruelty and Lies, just like every society through out history but that still does not make gay marriage right. Neither does it make it a natural right. Procreation is a natural right, freedom of speech is a natural right, freedom of religion is a natural right but there is no natural right to get married. Not of gays and not for straights. It is a State issue.

  • Anonymous

    And you’re just another worthless PUMA skank!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    You’ll not see the gubmint playing with dick-n-bush anytime soon.. sounds too dirty.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/XZOZFUWR3YKJ25ZUAQQZWO7R6I SR

    Okkkkkk…so I take it him “simply stating” carries no weight.

    Our decider has decided not to do his job and carry out the law. Instead hes cherry picking what he likes and doesnt like, bypassing the proper democratic processes. Get it?

  • Taleisin

    As a ‘real aussie male’, I can’t think of anything more uncomfortable than gay sex.
    However, we have couples here, who spend their lives together and if one should die, the other is unable to access their partners superannuation etc. As the state does not recognize their relationship, it has no legal status and their wills can be easily contested by family members. It is a damn shame that a lifetime of devotion can be treated like this. Love is love. It should not be trampled on.

    Thanks for the website. Totally agree. The powerful know how to use diversionary tactics. It is just like chess or any other game that uses deception to win. As much as I am all for what is going on in the middle east, I am suspicious that the people are being manipulated. We will see in a few years who comes out real the winner.

Google+