The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tucker on June 12, 2009, 10:00:23 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5832231
boston bean (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:19 AM
Original message
Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget.
From Americablog:
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California. We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable. Here is the entire document, and below are excerpts:
"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("
rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
Read Obama's motion to dismiss DOMA case here:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-depart...
redqueen (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. So.... Obama wrote that motion to dismiss?
nichomachus (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yes he did
Remember -- the buck stops with him. What the **** -- do you think some underling wrote it and sabotaged Obama with it? He is responsible for whatever the executive branch does -- that's why they call him the ******* president.
Bastard!
mnhtnbb (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. OMG. Try changing the language to extending the right to vote to African Americans
and the stress that will put on scarce government resources and see how it reads.
This is unbelievable. Let's deny equal rights because it will preserve scarce governmental resources.
Jesse Helms would be proud.
boston bean (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. Yep here it would be in all it's bigoted glory
Plaintiffs are of mixed race, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize racially mixed marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
sounds pretty grotesque to me.
GodlessBiker (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
6. O...M...G! ******* ******* bastards.
And the top post award go to............
QC (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. But surely this must be some kind of triple reverse Mr. Spock 300-dimensional chess strategy
too complex for mere mortals to comprehend! Mustn't it?
boston bean (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. won't be long before someone comes on and asks
Why can't all these LGBTers (ones who have serious doubts) just hush up and find their place quietly under the bus.
When will they realize that obama is a Socialist and no friend of queers?
nichomachus (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
16. Well, they are absolutely correct about saving money
It will be a cold cold day in hell before I give a cent to any Democrat running for anything. This is going to save me lots and lots of money.
Yeah right.
-
Poor DUmmies. :evillaugh:
-
Imagine that, a Dem administration DOJ brief I actually agree with. Sumbitch!
:cheersmate:
-
mnhtnbb (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. OMG. Try changing the language to extending the right to vote to African Americans
and the stress that will put on scarce government resources and see how it reads.
This is really a dumbass argument to use. It's not as if black people were able to vote and chose not too. They couldn't vote at all. I think traditional marriage is open to everyone of age who wants to participate. No one is denied this part of our society.
DUmbass argument.
-
When will they realize that obama is a Socialist and no friend of queers?
I dunno.
About the same time the primitives realize terrorists are no friends of theirs.
But of course it's pretty useless to realize something when one's dead.
-
The GLBT under the bus go bump, bump, bump......
-
So 0bama is to the right of Cheney on this issue?
:rofl:
-
BolivarianHero (139 posts) Fri Jun-12-09 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
38. If blood must be spillt to deal with the religious right...
Then let the ****ers bleed!
Shit-stirring mole. Which one of you posted this? :cheersmate:
-
I'll be interested in seeing just how strongly Dear Leader's justice department presses their side of the case. I don't put it past this dolt to takes sides on an issue in order to goof it up.
.
-
Starry Messenger (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
39. This is disgusting.
I'm having so many reactions I don't know where to start. I'm ashamed to be straight today. I'm ashamed to be an American.
So it's just a normal day for you, huh Starry?
-
I see no other purpose for gays to wish for "marriage" status except to extract the financial benefits society allows.
That makes it a perfectly valid arguement against.
-
Starry Messenger (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
39. This is disgusting.
I'm having so many reactions I don't know where to start. I'm ashamed to be straight today. I'm ashamed to be an American.
That's OK, we actually never thought you American, or for that matter relevent, anyway!
-
Whenever I read a headline here at the DUmpster that says ".......Heads Explode" it cheers me with a deep warm feeling.
-
Whenever I read a headline here at the DUmpster that says ".......Heads Explode" it cheers me with a deep warm feeling.
I always try to add a "heads explode", "chaos ensue", "flamesfest", or some such description if it is a particularly entertaining thread.
-
I'll be interested in seeing just how strongly Dear Leader's justice department presses their side of the case. I don't put it past this dolt to takes sides on an issue in order to goof it up.
.
So then you subscribe to the triple-reverse-Mr.-Spock-300-dimensional-chess-strategy-too-complex-for-mere-mortals-to-comprehend theory?
-
I see no other purpose for gays to wish for "marriage" status except to extract the financial benefits society allows.
That makes it a perfectly valid arguement against.
Can I ask why you wanted "marriage" status then?
-
Can I ask why you wanted "marriage" status then?
Not to offend God.
-
Can I ask why you wanted "marriage" status then?
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
That there are tax and inheritence benefits that a government has assigned to it is not of consequence to the traditional family reasons for heterosexual marriage.
Gays obviously have no use for the traditional and Biblical meanings so what does that leave.
Yes there are people that have lived together for a long time and eventually do marry for those reasons but even in doing it still hasn`t corrupted the entire reasons for marriage between a man and woman.
And btw not married.....women don`t give me the time of day. :p
-
Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:
nichomachus (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-12-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yes he did
Remember -- the buck stops with him. What the **** -- do you think some underling wrote it and sabotaged Obama with it? He is responsible for whatever the executive branch does -- that's why they call him the ******* president.
Oh the tragedy, the anger, the hate, the sheer terror of it all - quite juicy if y'all ASSk me!
Welcome to liberal throat cutting and under bus tossing class 101.
Enjoy you asshats!