Ron Paul Condems Obama’s Decision to Abandon DOMA

[Inkblots]

Aside from DOMA potentially being benign to the extent it encourages subsidiarity, Glenn Greenwald, who is both a principled progressive and a homosexual himself, had this to say:

In response to objections from gay groups, Obama officials -- and their supporters -- insisted that the President had no choice, that it's the duty of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of all laws enacted by Congress, and that it's dangerous for the President to pick and choose which laws to defend or not defend. That's actually a reasonable position; there is a genuine danger in having the President selectively defend Congressional statutes . . . there is a valid concern on the part of those who argue -- as Obama supporters did for the last two years -- that it's never appropriate for the DOJ to refrain from defending a statute or, at least, that it would be wrong to do so in the DOMA case.​

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

If anything, Obama should be pushing Congress to repeal DOMA.

 

[sailingaway]

I bet Greenwald doesn't say that with Ron...

I'm not sure how I feel about this but I haven't read the act and you seem to know more about it than I do. I do agree his just not defending is both wussy and procedurally wrong; it is just Ron's position that surprised me.

 

[Brett85]

Good for Ron. DOMA is simply a law that reaffirms states' rights.

 

[Brett85]

and severs the ability of same sex spouse from claiming federal marriage related benefits.

Thank God. We don't need more government involvement in marriage.

 

[TonySutton]

Good for Ron. DOMA is simply a law that reaffirms states' rights.

No, if it would have given states the rights to ignore any marriage it would reaffirm states rights.

 

[Knightskye]

Why did he keep bringing up Iowa?

I know. He should be talking about Texas.

 

[dblee]

I don't like this at all. I like the part where it says states don't have to recognize each other's marriage licenses, but the part I don't like is where the Federal Gov't defines marriage as between a man and a woman. This is an individual, religious, and state issue. The Federal gov't has no business in people's personal lives, and to deny tax benefits to same sex couples while giving special privileges to opposite sex couples. This is discrimination.

I am a straight man, and a Christian, but I don't believe that the government should legislate morality. That is between each man and God.

 

[erowe1]

Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't support it?

Because DOMA is good.

Never mind. I think I misread your post the first time.

 

[Brett85]

This is discrimination.

You can't discriminate against a behavior.

 

[erowe1]

The Federal gov't has no business in people's personal lives, and to deny tax benefits to same sex couples while giving special privileges to opposite sex couples. This is discrimination.

Giving those privileges is always discrimination. It doesn't somehow become less discriminatory by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. All that does is move the boundaries between who is and isn't recipients of the privileges.

 

[Brett85]

No, if it would have given states the rights to ignore any marriage it would reaffirm states rights.

It gives the states the right to ignore marriages in other states.

 

[TonySutton]

Because DOMA is good.

DOMA is tyranny of the majority. Since when did the people here believe it is good to let government pick the winners and losers? If you believe DOMA is good then never complain when government gives corporations freebies.

 

[TheDriver]

The point he makes is valid, however I don't care if gays marry. I don't think government should be in the marriage business.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

The relevant quote for me is

“I will stand with the people of Iowa, against Unconstitutional federal power grabs, and will fight to protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage against the will of its people."

 

[TonySutton]

It gives the states the right to ignore marriages in other states.

WRONG! If gives states the right to ignore SAME SEX marriages ONLY! Read the ACT

 

[ssantoro]

I don't like this at all. I like the part where it says states don't have to recognize each other's marriage licenses, but the part I don't like is where the Federal Gov't defines marriage as between a man and a woman. This is an individual, religious, and state issue. The Federal gov't has no business in people's personal lives, and to deny tax benefits to same sex couples while giving special privileges to opposite sex couples. This is discrimination.

I am a straight man, and a Christian, but I don't believe that the government should legislate morality. That is between each man and God.

Agreed.

 

[ChaosControl]

No it only applies to same sex marriages, defines marriage as only between a man and woman and severs the ability of same sex spouse from claiming federal marriage related benefits.

Ah, I get it then. So if they "marry" in whatever state allows for that, they cannot say they are on the fed income tax returns.

So now I get why people are so big to bring it down.

 

[Inkblots]

Why is this turning into an argument over whether DOMA is a good law? That's really not the issue. Can we all at least agree that the President is wrong to oppose DOMA in this way, and if he wants it repealed (whether we agree with that position or not), he should rather advocate for Congress to repeal it, rather than simply refusing to defend it in court?

To repeat something from my previous post: as Glenn Greenwald says, it is reasonable to acknowledge that "there is a genuine danger in having the President selectively defend Congressional statutes".

 

[ChaosControl]

You can't discriminate against a behavior.

Yes you can, but some times you should.

For example I'd discriminate against being friends with people who didn't share my value set.

 

[Brett85]

I don't really see why people here believe that gays should have the right to have the government recognize their relationship. Is health care "a right" as well?