The INDEFENSIBLE Defense of Marriage Act

[Bob Kohm]

Obama has ordered DoJ to cease to defend Article 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, putting an end to the Federal Government trying to impose the ridiculous idea that civil marriage can only take place between a man and a woman.

Thank God that bit of religious bigotry can now be considered behind us as well as beneath the dignity of our nation and its people.

[Moonlight J]

Can I marry a turtle now?

[Bob Kohm]

He's all yours, big boy.

[netboy47]

Can I marry a turtle now?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Can I marry a turtle now?

If he'd have ya....................

[amcg]

Don't know if this is related, but as soon as the words "can marry a turtle" were mentioned, that bar manager of mine seemed to get quite excitable in the back room. He must have bust open a keg or something because all I could hear was cheering and splashing. That musty furry smell is back as well...

[Midnight Otter]

Don't know if this is related, but as soon as the words "can marry a turtle" were mentioned, that bar manager of mine seemed to get quite excitable in the back room. He must have bust open a keg or something because all I could hear was cheering and splashing. That musty furry smell is back as well...

I was just laundering the money...er...uh....

[B-Fly]

Obama has ordered DoJ to cease to defend Article 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, putting an end to the Federal Government trying to impose the ridiculous idea that civil marriage can only take place between a man and a woman.

Thank God that bit of religious bigotry can now be considered behind us as well as beneath the dignity of our nation and its people.

I'm all in favor of the President's decision. But DOMA is not "behind us" until the federal courts rule that it's unconstitutional or it's repealed by Congress. States can still cite the federal law as a basis to deny recognition to same-sex couples married in states that permit it, other "friends of the court", including presumably the GOP Congressional leadership, could intervene in existing court cases and submit briefs defending the constitutionality of the law. And, unless it's been repealed by Congress or struck down by the Supreme Court, a new President could come in in 2012 or 2016 and opine that it is constitutional and should be implemented and defended.

It's also not entirely clear to me what President Obama's decision to have DOJ stop defending the law in court ultimately means with respect to the other myriad federal implications of the law. Will gay spouses be given Social Security spousal and survivor benefits? Will gay couples be able to file joint tax returns? And will the DOJ consider intervening to compel States and/or courts to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages?

[DJBeasties]

When a maaaaaaaaaaan loves a womaaaaan....or another man...or a turtle....he Can't keep his mind on nothin' else

[B-Fly]

Oh Justice Kennedy! What side of history would you like to be on?

[johnnya24]

Contentious topic ... no contention ... is this the Sports Bar?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Contentious topic ... no contention ... is this the Sports Bar?

We all love turtles in here

[B-Fly]

Contentious topic ... no contention ... is this the Sports Bar?

I think it's one of those issues where the moral passion of those in favor of gay marriage has become so strong that those who remain opposed avoid the debates. It's no fun being called a bigot. What to me is the most significant social development is that the righteous moral passion of the pro-gay-marriage side of this debate now appears to at least equal and perhaps surpass the righteous moral passion of the anti-gay-marriage side. I think it has to be clear even to the most ardent opponents of gay marriage, to the extent they look at the polling trends and breakdowns generation-by-generation, which way history is moving on this one. They may hate the fact that history is moving toward widespread support for gay marriage, but it's hard to see how the trend reverses at this point.

[Don Quixote]

The administration may refuse to enforce part of the law (whether such a refusal is constitutional is a good question IMO, since the President and AG are sworn to uphold the law), but until that part of the law is off the books, there is potential for trouble. "Going ostrich" is a way to avoid it and is what I've come to expect from the Hopey-Changey Gang, but it won't resolve the issue.

Obviously, such a partial or full repeal of DOMA isn't going to happen this year, but the sooner the better. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that we have bigger things to worry about than who marries who and who puts what body part in what aperture.

[johnnya24]

I think it's one of those issues where the moral passion of those in favor of gay marriage has become so strong that those who remain opposed avoid the debates. It's no fun being called a bigot. What to me is the most significant social development is that the righteous moral passion of the pro-gay-marriage side of this debate now appears to at least equal and perhaps surpass the righteous moral passion of the anti-gay-marriage side. I think it has to be clear even to the most ardent opponents of gay marriage, to the extent they look at the polling trends and breakdowns generation-by-generation, which way history is moving on this one. They may hate the fact that history is moving toward widespread support for gay marriage, but it's hard to see how the trend reverses at this point.

So IOW, whoever doesn't post in this thread is a bigot