Obama "Expects" DOMA Will Be Found Unconstitutional

[trailmonkee]

Source: Buzzfeed/MTV

In an MTV interview, Obama says that “to legislate federally” on same-sex couples' marriage rights is “probably the wrong way to go,” adding, “The courts are going to be examining these issues.” The remarks are his most extensive on the topic since May.

video at link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-expects-doma-will-be-found-unconstitutiona

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-expects-doma-will-be-found-unconstitutiona

[RC]

1. What the hell is wrong with this country?

Why do we need to spell out each and every Right for each and every segment of the population that is not rich and white?
It should not matter your gender, skin color, your sexual orientation, education, how much you make, who you are related to, or who you know. Everyone should have the same Rights just for existing.

[center][font size="5"]Rights exist because we do,[br] not because government grants them to us.[/font size][/center]

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/list-of-human-rights.html

[yends21012]

2. I like that statement

I'm going to use it in some of the conversations I have with RW. Thanks.

[madrchsod]

3. it`s not so much our country..it`s the supreme court

the supreme court is what this election is all about. one of mittens advisers is robert bork and if mittens becomes president our nation will be fucked

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. The 'WE' Hasn't Always Included the 'US' - THAT'S WHY!!!!

Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2012, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Gradually it's been expanded to include more than white, straight, male, property owner's who historically created the 'us' when they decided to treat 'us' differently. While I agree with you, the 'us' didn't create the distinction.



Tell me....which one of 'us' are you........oh never mind.....LOL.

[PD Turk]

9. Precisely

The founders were rich white males and a textbook example of the old axiom "some are more equal than others" Black people were only considered to be 3/5 of a person, women were second class citizens with no right to vote, and eventually "manifest destiny" nearly wiped out the native population.

223 years after the Constitution was written, the struggle continues for inclusiveness. I guess the answer to "Why do we need to spell out each and every Right for each and every segment of the population that is not rich and white?" is, "conservatives". Best answer I can come up with anyway.

Pretty much every bit of progress made in this country has to be credited to the efforts of progressives/liberals. Without us, the regressive conservatives would drag this country back to the point where full rights and freedom belonged to rich white guys....that's their idea of utopia.

How they get as many poor white people to fall in with them to accomplish their ends just dumbfounds me sometimes.

[msanthrope]

13. We need to spell it out for those who don't get it yet. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. It should be, yes.

I suppose that all depends on the justices though. I've seen some insane crap in my lifetime. Honestly, regressive, insane crap.

[totodeinhere]

6. I would love to see Congress repeal DOMA once and for all.

Yes the courts will probably overturn it eventually, but what's wrong with repealing it too? Yes, I know it probably won't happen if the GOP retains control of the House. That's why we need to vote Democratic on all levels.

[eggplant]

7. Because if the SC declares it unconstitutional, congress can't just put it back later.

Barring that, Congress can get rid of it and bring it back as much as they want. A Constutional Amendment is *much* harder to accomplish.

[totodeinhere]

8. Good point. Although the Supreme Court could reverse itself at some point too. n/t

[eggplant]

10. Someone would have to sue and show cause, and the case would have to wind all the way back up.

I think.

If I'm right, there is effectively zero chance someone would be able to show harm. That's kind of the point for striking it down in the first place.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. Which five Justices does he think will vote to overturn it?

Scalia, Scalito, Thomas are fascists. Kagan is anti-marriage.

Does he really believe both Roberts and Kennedy will vote the right way?

[alphafemale]

12. I don't see how it can go otherwise.

It's a states rights issue at this point.

How can a marriage be legal in one state and not another?

Very similar to Loving vs the State of Virginia.

Ted Olson is going to be arguing on our side. Yes. That Ted Olson.