More obama hypocrisy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Yurt, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    Washington – A federal judge in Massachusetts has thrown a hand grenade into the middle of the culture war.

    By ruling Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act – which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriage – is unconstitutional, US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro has also shined a spotlight on how the Obama administration is working at cross-purposes on the law.

    President Obama has called the law known as DOMA “abhorrent” and pledged to overturn it. But his Justice Department has defended the law’s constitutionality in court – and is expected to appeal Judge Tauro’s ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

    Obama administration walks tricky political line on gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News

    intellectual dishonesty is a start
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    So tricky is what they are calling it eh. Moronic is more like it. He thinks he can have it both ways. Just like he thinks he can claim Federal supremacy as it pertains to the Arizona Law, and ignore Sanctuary cities.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    Here's the trick to the agenda shell game. While the judge ruled it un-Constitutional because of the tenth amendment and states rights. This will be used to force all states to obey Mass gay marriage law. which goes against states rights.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    From a governace standpoint, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.

    As far as the government ought to be concerned, denying anybody the right to enter into that contract should be found unconstitutional.


    What this really show us is that government ought to stay the hell out of this issue, but it cannot because marriage plays out in so many other legal and financial aspects of our lives.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    It's a state by state issue the Federal government needs to stay the hell out.
     
  6. MIPS
    Offline

    MIPS Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    963
    Thanks Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +156
    Not possible, President Obama used up all his hypocrisy in his first two months in office and I have a solid source that will swear in a court of law that Joe Biden has staunchly refused on more than one occasion to lend his royal high@ss any of his hypocrisy.....

    After all you can't spend what you don't have ...... on second thought this is the federal government we're talking about , so what did the President do with the hypocrisy he borrowed from China? :redface:
     
  7. NYcarbineer
    Online

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,363
    Thanks Received:
    11,295
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,413
    Would it be in keeping with his responsibilities as chief executive to refuse to enforce the DOMA?

    Is it possible to view a law as abhorrent but yet constitutional?
     
  8. MIPS
    Offline

    MIPS Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    963
    Thanks Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +156
    Er.. No genius since that would be the rule of man instead of the rule of LAW, King George III tried that "I view it thus and thou" nonsense and our founding fathers threw all his tea into Boston Harbor and then kicked his soldiers @sses so we didn't have to put up with despots "viewing" the law as they damn well pleased.

    SEE: RULE OF LAW

    SEE ALSO: BLIND PARTISANS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RULE OF LAW AND MERCURIAL DESPOTS.
     
  9. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    Because Federal Tax deductions are based on Marital status, this is a Federal concern.
     

Share This Page