Defense of Marriage Act no longer to be defended

[mikedog]

If you don't agree with it, fine. That's your opinion.
The government should have never been involved in this matter in the first place. Period.

The government is involved one way or the other because of the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution.

[Guisslapp]

So Guiss, if, let's say Romney gets elected. Let's say that he says he feels Roe V. Wade was decided wrongly and he doesn't feel the right to privacy insures the right to choose, you would be okay with him refusing to defend it (and throw it back to the states)?

I think he would violate his oath of office if he were to enforce an act that he thought was unconstitutional. BTW, I doubt RvW could come up in the DOJ enforcement context in the same way as FOMA. The government is on the opposite side of the issue in the case of RvW. The citizen would be defending the RvW right, and the executive branch has no way to restrict that. In FOMA the government is the enforcing party, thus, the government has the ability to control the enforcement. in RvW, the citizen would play the role of the enforcing party, thus the government does not appear to have a mechanism to avoid enforcement of RvW. I am pretty sure some Conservative president would have tried this in the past if it were possible.

[T_Won]

Roe v. Wade has already been decided by the Supreme Court, so the federal government's defense of that holding isn't nearly as important as the federal government's defense of a law being challenged for the first time.

A better example would be the individual mandate contained in Obamacare. If a Republican is elected President in 2012 and decides to not defend the mandate before the Supreme Court, how will the left react?

That would be awesome. The left would riot....again.

[Guisslapp]

A better example would be the individual mandate contained in Obamacare. If a Republican is elected President in 2012 and decides to not defend the mandate before the Supreme Court, how will the left react?

Yes, that is a more analogous example.

[touchdown123]

Flaming gaywad? Really? You make it very difficult to respond without feeling like I'm arguing with my 5 yr. old nephew.

Your 5 year old nephew calls you a "flaming gaywad" when arguing with you? Either that kid needs to go to church, or you are actually a big time flaming gaywad.

[Guisslapp]

Your 5 year old nephew calls you a "flaming gaywad" when arguing with you? Either that kid needs to go to church, or you are actually a big time flaming gaywad.

Or his nephew may play XBOX live.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I am pretty sure some Conservative president would have tried this in the past if it were possible.

A bogus statement for sure. That would never happen because of the liberal bias of the press and TV. It seems to be more of the Liberal left that have successfully forced their way of life and lack of morals on others in today's world. Not the other way around.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Yes, that is a more analogous example.

You know that's what was meant in the many posts above.

[Guisslapp]

It seems to be more of the Liberal left that have successfully forced their way of life and lack of morals on others in today's world. Not the other way around.

Interesting statement - so gays have tried to prohibit heterosexual marriage, potheads have attempted to force nonpotheads to smoke, and atheists have tried to force Christians to buy alcohol on Sundays?

Seriously, I have tried to think of examples where the left has forced their way of life on others, and I am having a hard time coming up with an example. This idea of forcing morality on others is really more of a Conservative thing.

[Guisslapp]

You know that's what was meant in the many posts above.

What was meant?

[T_Won]

Interesting statement - so gays have tried to prohibit heterosexual marriage, potheads have attempted to force nonpotheads to smoke, and atheists have tried to force Christians to buy alcohol on Sundays?

Seriously, I have tried to think of examples where the left has forced their way of life on others, and I am having a hard time coming up with an example. This idea of forcing morality on others is really more of a Conservative thing.

I get your point, but it seems that laws that have been the norm for thousands of years (not just in the US), Sodomy laws, drug laws, etc... are now being challenged more often. It doesn't mean that we have to be gay or potheads, but our society does need to accept that lifestyle, where in the past, we did not. Sodomy has gone from a sin to a crime to socially acceptable through the years. It is primarily the left that brought about that transformation.

[Guisslapp]

I get your point, but it seems that laws that have been the norm for thousands of years (not just in the US), Sodomy laws, drug laws, etc... are now being challenged more often. It doesn't mean that we have to be gay or potheads, but our society does need to accept that lifestyle, where in the past, it we did not. Sodomy has gone from a sin to a crime to socially acceptable through the years. It is primarily the left that brought about that transformation.

Yes, the left tends to believe people should be free to conduct their social affairs free from government scrutiny to the extent that their social freedoms do not infringe the rights of others. That is very different than forcing someone to behave in a way that (you believe) is moral. As a whole, you are not required to accept and acknowledge the morality of the behavior - just give them the freedom to act under their own moral code. You can believe that they are engaging in immoral behavior and teach your kids the same. It is a serious stretch to say that they are forcing their lifestyle and morality on others.

[T_Won]

Yes, the left tends to believe people should be free to conduct their social affairs free from government scrutiny to the extent that their social freedoms do not infringe the rights of others. That is very different than forcing someone to behave in a way that (you believe) is moral. As a whole, you are not required to accept and acknowledge the morality of the behavior - just give them the freedom to act under their own moral code. You can believe that they are engaging in immoral behavior and teach your kids the same. It is a serious stretch to say that they are forcing their lifestyle and morality on others.

What about anti-gay rhetoric being considered as a "hate crime?" This could actually lead to the banning of the Bible in the future, IMO... because it is filled with "hate."

[TYLERTECHSAS]

It is a serious stretch to say that they are forcing their lifestyle and morality on others.

Not at all and I don't see how you can even believe that statement.

[T_Won]

Not at all and I don't see how you can even believe that statement.

He's saying that the government doesn't force heterosexuals to be homosexuals or non drug users to use drugs. The government only enacts equality on both sides... makes everything acceptable. It is up to you to be offended or not, based on your individual morality.