Obama: No DOMA

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where was wimpy boy?

Listen, I know that you are going to accuse me of acting because of political bias. But, you are going well beyond simple participation in a discussion and becoming disruptive. If you can be constructive and offer coherent opinions, then please continue to participate. But, if you continue acting as you are, you will find that your posts are disappearing as fast as you can write them. You are making it impossible to have any reasonable discussion. Please stop.

Yes, that is correct Jeff. You are upset about the DeKalb County fireavoiders union and not being able to corroberate the Obama church attendance. Is being disruptive putting forth facts or asking for others to put forth facts in support of their views?

[Anonymous]

I suppose if you only want one point of view here and that is what this is all about, you can do as you please.

You have to admit there seems to be a pretty one sided point of view here.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose if you only want one point of view here and that is what this is all about, you can do as you please.

You have to admit there seems to be a pretty one sided point of view here.

Again, multiple posts. Why is it that you constantly post multiple posts in a row without identifying yourself as the previous poster?

Now, read this very slowly. Stop, think about it, and only then, after carefully composing your thoughts, respond. Would I have written this:

"If you can be constructive and offer coherent opinions, then please continue to participate."

if I only wanted one viewpoint here?

I am not going to continue this discussion further. If your posts continue to be disruptive, they will be removed. If they aren't disruptive, they will not be touched.

[Anonymous]

I'm unclear, if DOMA is felt to be unconstitutional, what happens to that act? is it put in a backroom someplace? brought before supreme court by backers and detractors? what's next on a legal resolution?

[Anonymous]

As I understand it PP, it will have to be repealed by Congress or struck down by SCOTUS- there are pending cases in courts, but none have gone up to the high court yet.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear, if DOMA is felt to be unconstitutional, what happens to that act? is it put in a backroom someplace? brought before supreme court by backers and detractors? what's next on a legal resolution?

It's still current law and will be enforced. I believe that it is currently before an appeals court. The DOJ will still show up in court as a party to the case. However, they will not defend the constitutionality of the law. Since neither party will claim the law is constitutional, one would expect a judge to rule that it is not constitutional. At that point, I'm not sure there will be anyone with standing to appeal. If that's the case, it will no longer be a law.

[Anonymous]

If DOJ doesn't act, won't the conservatives try to participate as 'friends of the court' or whatever they call it? Or conservative states will challenge for autonomy, since the federal gov't doesn't issue marriage licenses?

[Anonymous]

That is just it pp, section 3 only deals with how the Feds treat marriage. States still have the option to not recognize legally valid marriages from other states so this decision does not really affect how states deal with the issue, which is unfortunate. I don't really understand how this is different than loving vs va

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose if you only want one point of view here and that is what this is all about, you can do as you please.

You have to admit there seems to be a pretty one sided point of view here.

Again, multiple posts. Why is it that you constantly post multiple posts in a row without identifying yourself as the previous poster?

Now, read this very slowly. Stop, think about it, and only then, after carefully composing your thoughts, respond. Would I have written this:

"If you can be constructive and offer coherent opinions, then please continue to participate."

if I only wanted one viewpoint here?

I am not going to continue this discussion further. If your posts continue to be disruptive, they will be removed. If they aren't disruptive, they will not be touched.

Jeff, what was the violation of my post about Auschwitz and offshore drilling illustrating evil and stupidity, besides your personal convictions of course?