This is the only thing I'd consider good news that I've seen in the past couple days.

Abraham Lincoln did much the same thing as President, although under significantly different and more strained circumstances. Role reversals are not uncommon for a man with an unpopular cause, and in my opinion, they are no less honorable if they get the job done.

@Ben: Good grief, this doesn't cover, allow, or even have the slightest thing to do with making incestuous marriages legal.

It's a start?

Well maybe for the defense of marriage act, but respecting the law, respecting court orders, etc. - nah Obama has been ignoring the ones he doesn't like all along.

He has ignored the moratorium ruling in the Gulf, has been held in contempt by the judge. He has ignored the decision by a federal judge in the HCR suit that was in effect a summary decision killing it. He ignored the protection of the borders. He circumvented the legislative branch by using the EPA to install cap and trade ..........

What's new - this!

Wonder what law, court, judge will be ignored next?

Why shouldn't it! What difference does that make if it is a choice between two consenting adults. Same with plural unions. What right do people have to stand in the way of what these people's happiness. There needs to be no constraints based on what people like you belive is moral or immoral.

Thank goodness! Same sex couples have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us :)

Ben-1671313

So it's still ok to discriminate against Oedipus? Well that's a relief.

Perhaps, Ben...

But that whole 'Greek-sex' thing just got a big vote of yes... so Oedipus can't be far behind :-P

yeah the start of getting religion out of peoples faces..... aka your christian taliban beliefs to not be FORCED onto the of course lesser human non believers.

I believe that somewhere in the "Oath of Office" ,that the President is sworn to, that it says he will uphold and protect all laws of the United States of America. That being the case, he is sworn to uphold this law until/if it is repealed in the manner set up by the constitution. To do less is to break the oath of office and set himself up for rightful grounds for impeachment proceedings to begin. His decision to act in this manner relating to any law is grounds for impeachment, therefore this statement has nothing to do with opposing or supporting anyones rights. It merely supports the constitution and protocols required to change or uphold the laws as written.

Ed Pinson, he would not be the first person to circumvent or ignore the rules. The Republicans have been doing it for years. With that said, this is just political posturing and nothing more by Obama. Lame.

@bob-1805084

You are aware that it has been rulled un-consititutional by lower courts already right?

Lets look at your other claims:

1. the initial moretorium was struck down, the 2nd wasn't

2. yes the department of the interior was held in contempt, but it was because they voiced the opinion that the judge didn't have the right to rule as he did

3. Obama is the only president in history to actually reduce the real number of illegal immigrants in this country. He has already deported more pople than Bush ever did. The borders are also more heavily patroled

4. Health care reform has been upheld by two judges and pieces have been struck down by two judges...

5. It is well within the EPAs authority to identify and regulate environmentally toxic chemicals. CO2, while not as toxic as say arsenic, is still toxic and DOES kill things in sufficient concentration.

Do you have any more? This was fun

Your mistaken if you think that Obama gives a rat's patoot about LGBT rights. He was fine with denying them so long as it was politically expiditious and advantageous for him to do it. Now that he's starting to realize that the anti-gay marraige folks now hate him as much as they hate gay marraige and that the fair minded independents who want to give him a chance have now changed their minds about gay marriage, he suddenly reverses course.

Typical politician. He was against gay marriage until he was for it.

Don't do that, then.

I hate eggs. I don't eat them. Simple, elegant solution.

What I find troubling with this is that Obama didn’t stand up for what he believed in from the beginning. Most people knew he was not against same-sex marriage yet he campaigned against it. Now that he is elected, he changes his tune. What has so drastically changed in the President’s beliefs? Nothing. I’m always suspicious of politicians who are willing to change their core beliefs at the drop of a dime for an election. When the *hit hits the fan, where will they stand?

Wow, the DOJ is now blatently not doing it's job at the President's request? While I do not agree with the Defense of Marriage Act, it is still federal law and it is the job of the Department of Justice to defend federal law. If it isn't a constitutional law, fine, overturn it with legislation.

Oh no they are throwing punches! Republicans go after unions so Dems stop supporting Republican do as I say family values!

Too bad they don't focus on trickle economics and jobs!

How many times can these parties fumble the football?

Obama punch Boehner in the face, after he's done crying apologize buy him a beer and talk about how much you guys LOVE your (OUR) country and get it running again.

Keep it above the belt fella's, nice clean fight?

Separation of Church and State.... what a concept.

Government should not be in the marriage business... everything in the government's eyes should be a civil union and nothing different.

Churches can define marriage however they please.

All they want is the right to marry the person of their choice just as you are free to. I don't understand the whole "extra right" argument. Gay marriage does not prevent or impede straight marriage... it just extends to gays the same right to marry as you have...

So when did Obama appoint himself the head of the Supreme Court?

Obama's team must have concluded that he would gain more gay voters than he would loose in straight voters by abandoning the defense of marriage.

Obama and Holder don't have to do any such thing, Joe. I mean, Ivy League progressives who obviously are more educated and intelligent than the rest of us can simply say "f**k" the constitution and do what they know is best for us.

Kind of a cynical way of looking at what is a positive move on our administration's part, pjam. Oh, and, hooray!!! :)

I believe that somewhere in the "Oath of Office" ,that the President is sworn to, that it says he will uphold and protect all laws of the United States of America.

Perhaps you should look up the oath online. He pledges to defend the Constitution. The oath says nothing about defending laws.

OH ,So like it or Not

Comrade Obama will make us accept his social programs (health Care) ?

And now ,just as his predecessor ,To hell with the law !

Prosecute a couple of Black panthers at voting booths ? no

Its Time america ....we just can't afford any more impeached PROGRESSIVES ,

WOW! The US really IS a land of equality. Until now, I thought all that talk was just BS.

Pursuit of Happiness

I guess this means those who disagree with the individual mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act can ignor that without penalty.

Does anyone remember this line:

"If the president does it, then it's not illegal"

Who said that, and how many of you objected then?

By many responses on this thread, it's ok when the prez does whatever the hell he wants, as long as you agree with it, but if you disagree, then he's not doing his elected duty? Are you simultaneously cheering for the governor of Wisconsin? Do you mind that your electronic communications are monitored by the government?

That's what I thought.

DMan, are you sure you want to start a comparision as to 'which party' has the most scumbags: Let's see, Clinton, Edwards, Rangle, to name a few! There are scum in both parties so just accept it. Finally, as I recall, only the SCOTUS can declare legislation 'unconstitutional', NOT THE PRESIDENT! So where does Obama and his DOJ get the power not to enfore excesting legislation??? Oh, kind of like the immigration laws of the country, right! Because Obama and his liberal base want 'open borders' so they can have more members in the Dem party, they just don't enforce the law!

clonan ..(#1.19) How very Unconstitutional of our former Constitutional Law instructor.....

"5. It is well within the EPAs authority to identify and regulate environmentally toxic chemicals. CO2, while not as toxic as say arsenic, is still toxic and DOES kill things in sufficient concentration."

Too much oxygen will kill you too....

double standard by him. dont defend a law passed by congress but sue arizona for trying to enforce immigratyion laws. anything to buy votes. guess now someone could actually marry their dog and gain a dependent

Kraft

Johnson, a Southern Democrat who became president after Lincoln's assassination, supported a mild policy of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The Radical Republicans in Congress were furious at his leniency toward ex-Confederates and obvious lack of concern for ex-slaves, demonstrated by his veto of civil rights bills and opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment. To protect Radical Republicans in Johnson's administration and diminish the strength of the president, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which prohibited the president from dismissing office holders without the Senate's approval. A defiant Johnson tested the constitutionality of the Act by attempting to oust Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. His violation of the Act became the basis for impeachment in 1868. But the Senate was one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict, and Johnson was acquitted May 26, 1868

So Republicans are now conservatives and Democrats are now liberals?

We all know the Clinton thing and the Republican:

The "family values" Republican National Committee spent almost $2,000 last month at an erotic, bondage-themed West Hollywood club, where nearly naked women - and men - simulate sex in nets hung from above.

The RNC's risqu business expense covered a night out at the high-end S&M club Voyeur Feb. 4, Federal Election Commission records filed by the RNC show.

They certainly have fundementally different views on who should be rich and who should be poor!

When can I marry Obama's dog?

Dang. Why did all the GOOD comments get collapsed? ;-)

@Ed -- actually, you're an imbecile. He pledged to defend the CONSTITUTION and the laws. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is not in fact a law.

And you believe it's the executive branch's job to determine if the law is constitutional? lol.

MC-2075922

@Ed -- actually, you're an imbecile. He pledged to defend the CONSTITUTION and the laws. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is not in fact a law.

"If it isn't a constitutional law, fine, overturn it with legislation."

Another idiot comment. Congress has no power to make unconstitutional laws. Requiring Congress to overturn them would be absurd.

So what you're saying is the Defense of Marriage Act is not a law? I'm sorry, it is. It was passed by congress and signed by the president. Constitutionality of a law is not within the scope of duties of the executive branch, that is strictly the duty of the judicial branch.

In a major reversal, the Obama administration has notified Congress that it will no longer defend the federal law

Who cares what the law is....the above statement alone is enough to illustrate how derelict Obama is in doing his duty.

You have to question the timing of this....Obama's labor union buddies are in the process of getting their butts kicked nationwide....he needs to shore up the GLBT faction of his supporters.....environmental supporters are angry .....his coaltion is crumbling before his very eyes....he will have to try Amnesty through Executive Order soon.....watch for it.....

I'd like to point out to everyone who is stating "almost every law we have is based on Islam/Judao/Christian laws" as an excuse to defend denying the right to marriage need to realize that there are plenty of those laws that we decided were just stupid. I suppose you want to reinstate the law that requires women to live in a small community of only women outside of town anytime they are on their period as well. Or, how about all the laws on how to properly treat your slave (the bible was all for slavery)?

david: But imagine if one day Obama decided to lead. That would be freakin scary. I think that the plan calls for this to occur during the second term, along with identifying the exact planet of his origins. I can wait.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce

Sanctimonious?

For all the wanna-be Christians and the Christian bashers who try to speak of the Bible, please enlighten me on:

Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:9-10, Jude 1:7

The issue everyone has is that no one is trying to understand each other. What it comes down to is everyone’s personal definition of the word Marriage. If you believe that Marriage is something that was handed down from God then it is sacred to you and only a man and a woman can be married. If you believe the Marriage is simply a contract between two people then there is no issue because what does it matter who those two people are.

@ Those who are like me and believe in God. Remember that everyone has a choice and if you agree with that choice or not they have the right to make up their own mind. You need to accept them because no matter what they do they are still your brothers and sisters and we should all work together for a better future.

@ Those who do not believe. While you may not believe in God I would ask that you keep an open mind when it comes to the Bible. The morals and values it teaches are correct and can only lead us to a better future. Also don't be so ready to throw away Christian values; the Declaration of Independence said it best.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If there is no God then where do your rights come from? If it is from the government then the government can take them away, my point isn't to make you God fearing people but rather to make you consider the depth of what you believe.

I hope this has been somewhat constructive, normally I find that the correct response is a combination of views from opposing sides.

wait, wait. . . gay people CAN get married. everywhere. legally.

the ONLY problem is, why would they? a marriage occurs between individuals of opposite sexes. period.

almost everybody has nothing against gay people committing to each other. people seeking to re-define marriage will ultimately lose. the fact that gay commitments will become increasingly mainstream has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

since gay people, with the same rights as everyone else, can only marry people of the opposite sex, and they are by definition not interested in doing so, there is not an issue there. gay unions are an entirely new thing, and have nothing to do with marriage.

BIG WHOOPDI DO.

The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because only states have the right to license marriages.

This is per the US Supreme Court's decision in Maynard v Hill.

Obama's BS Adminisration's comment has zero effect on the states that have banned gay marriage or do not allow gay marriage.

Just in case anyone is wondering,

the US Supreme Court could care less what the Obama Administration thinks.

Um, sorry, 44101a, but no.

The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.

In other words, the President FEELS the Act is unconstitutional, but he's leaving it up to the SCOTUS to make the actual DETERMINATION. Do you have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension, or is it only when the story mentions Obama?

Now Obama is picking and choosing what Law should be protected and what law not . This is an aberration of democracy. The Marriage Act. is the law until the Supreme court declare that it is unconstitutional. This is a terrible precedent because it opens the door for other presidents to do the same whit any other law , instead to follow the democratic channels.

This is another example how democrats play the game insulting the democracy. Senators of Wisconsin flock Congress to avoid a defeat , what if every time the minority flea to avoid a defeat, what if republican fly overseas because they where going to lose against Obamacare. Do you call this Democracy? This is a joke. President Obama will be one term president.

Just a couple of points, which won't be interesting enough, or sexy enough to collapse. Sigh.

Anyway, and particularly for Joe and Jeff, and Brianb, too: First of all, there is a legal principle called "prosecutorial discretion." District attorneys and those holding such discretion get to decide which laws to enforce and which charges to bring. Generally, they have immunity from suit for making such decisions.

In reality, it IS a political question, not a legal or even ethical question. You are, therefore, just plain WRONG. So stop already with the smugly superior, hypocritical bluster.

I say "hypocritical," by the way, because I don't hear you yammering because President Obama has refused to prosecute George W. Bush, admitted torturer, for war crimes.

Second, in addition to Bush and Cheney saying that whatever they did was legal because they did it, you may want to recall that it was St. Ronald Reagan who failed to enforce the employer sanctions contained in the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 that were supposed to close the borders.

Look it up. Here's what you'll find:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026612.php

Reagan's record on immigration is a poor one. He signed legislation in 1986 that granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens but also included provisions to prevent future illegal immigration. Predictably, the grant of amnesty "succeeded" while the preventative measures turned out to be a joke.

No real difference here. Because these are the kinds of decisions that presidents make. And why we have elections.

Still waiting for any conservative to explain how gay marriage will affect them PERSONALLY. Seriously, how will it even come close to affecting you?

Are you so insecure with yourself that SOMEONE ELSE getting married will negatively affect your life? Get some self esteem you pathetic waste of life.

Are you worried your children will learn about it? How about you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to raise your kids instead of relying on the government to do it. God forbid a conservative take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the worthless creatures they create.

Are you afraid it will tarnish the reputation of marriage? Currently 50% of marriages end in divorce. On top of that, only a percentage of marriages that stay together are actually happy. So, out of all marriages, the MAJORITY are unhappy and fail. Your pathetic "institution of marriage" is an utter failure. There is no reputation left.

So come on, how else will this affect your life?

fear GOD and keep his commandments {exodus ch.20}

Perhaps this is political?

Could this just be one more stick for the Right Wing Social Conservatives to throw on the fire of their Social Agenda (Abortion, Family Planning, Union Busting, Repeal of the 14 Amendment, etc...) ?

You know, so they can immolate themselves all the sooner?

Karen in Los Angeles:

The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because only states have the right to license marriages. This is per the US Supreme Court's decision in Maynard v Hill.

Obama's BS Adminisration's comment has zero effect on the states that have banned gay marriage or do not allow gay marriage.

You're wrong. The United States can petition to the US Supreme Court to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. If the Supreme Court considers that the states that banned gay marriage violated the US Constitution, then they can void those laws. But they have to petition and in this case the petitioner could be either the United States (fed govt) or any individual, but the process is not automatic. Only in very few cases the Supreme Court on its own.

By the way, where are you going to finally understand that your rights end where the other person's rights begin???

It is nothing more than a low blow back at republicans for their low blow to unions.

And the Pendulum Swings and the fools get in line to vote!

Get your colors on drink your kool aid, get in line grab your bats yell a bunch of sensless propaganda and beat the hell out of each other so the rest of us can go about living our lives.

1.61 above!

@Thoughts from Cali - The problem with your question is that while you ask it, you are sanctimoniously pointing your finger at those who find major objection to allowing laws to be overridden for gays to marry. Let's call it what it is... another form of namecalling. If someone disagrees with your opinion, find a way to demean them. You are a great student of Alynski.

Not everyone feels that gays should be married because of their personal gut feelings and beliefs. Just because it doesn't effect me personally doesn't mean I don't have the right to object to it.

In this country, conservatism is being whittled away very slowly by those who will say "what's wrong with this plan." It is happening on a steady basis and has been going on for years. When will it stop? I'll tell you... it won't. Progressives/liberals are constantly trying to remove all semblance of conservatisim. They chip at it methodically, slowly, and with determination. While gay marriage may seem like it's an isolated theme, it ties into other progressive ideas that are based on a socialist end. Why do you think Obamacare was so objected to? The government gets bigger and the private sector gets smaller. Gay marriage is one piece of the puzzle that if it's allowed, progressives have scored another huge chink into the Constitution.

What will come next? I'm sure you can figure it out since the base has already been set by the government. We will end up losing all our freedoms and the government will have full control with progressive/socialists in charge.

Do you realize this country has experienced the longest period of freedom in human history? Why do progressives want to take that away?

Nothing new or unusual here. Obama and his bunch will defend or not defend anything depending on which way they think the political winds are blowing.

Why are so many posts here of the form 'why didn't Obama act like this before'...?

Why try so hard to turn good news into a downer conversation? Why not just appreciate the right thing is being done now?

It's too late to change the past... focus more on the present and the future...

Don't we all know by now that O & his wife sit around discussing what they can do next to shake up the American people and democracy? And, that's ALL they do.

By the way.....what does THIS mean???>>>>>>the administration has concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation must be subject to a higher constitutional standard than ordinary laws. Wha???

Homosexuals having the right to marry does in no way diminish heterosexuals marriage. Is John is going to divorce his wife just because homosexual marriage is allowed? Heterosexuals commonly flaunt their heterosexuality all the time. Look no further than your local bar where you will find many heterosexual men trying to 'score' with as many women as they can. Look no further than your co-worker's cube to find pictures of their spouses.

Some people spend WAY too much time thinking about the kinds of sex other people are having.

Heterosexuals have a "special right" to marry the person of their choosing whereas homosexuals do not. In many states heterosexuals have a "special right" to include their spouse on their health insurance without having to have the value of health insurance benefits from an employer for a spouse being counted as income to the employee for the purpose of federal taxes whereas domestic partner (if they are even allowed to include their partners on their health insurance) are taxed on the value of their partners health insurance benefits as income. Heterosexuals have a "special right" of refusing to testify against their spouse. Heterosexuals have a "special right" to workers' compensation survivor benefits. In fact there are some 1,049 laws giving "special rights" to married heterosexual couples. So how exactly are homosexuals looking for superior rights to heterosexuals?

Having said all that here is a solution. Convert all government issued marriage certificates into civil union certificates then allow (2) two non-related consenting adults to enter into a civil union. The sacred union of marriage by definition is a holy union under god therefore the federal government should be neutral on the subject. Another word, it should be up to churches to allow or not allow homosexual marriage. Same-sex marriage is a moral issue. Morality can not be legislated.

It was wrong of former President Clinton to sign the Defense of Marriage Act. I can only speculate that there were non-related riders to the bill that Clinton wanted to get passed thus he signed the bill into law. It was wrong of the Republican controled congress to waste taxpayers money passing the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama's decision to not WASTE taxpayers money defending this discriminatory bill should be appease the budget cutting crowd.

Um, sorry, 44101a, but no.

The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.

In other words, the President FEELS the Act is unconstitutional, but he's leaving it up to the SCOTUS to make the actual DETERMINATION. Do you have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension, or is it only when the story mentions Obama?

The second poster has the reading comprehension problem. You said exactly the same thing as the first poster. Do you speak English?

Hey Justice - I'm a working legal professional AND YOU ARE WRONG. Go ask a lawyer. I'm too busy right now doing work for lawyers.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, BIG WHOOPDI DO. Obama and Holder can not do JACK S about this law. PERIOD. IT IS NOT THEIR JOB.

It was wrong of president clinton to sell stolen secrets to Wen ho lee

But ,The Impeached one ,is a child of the royal family ,camelot !

Now ,usher in the New "tingely spine camelot" ,and bless us with Prince Rahm and King Obama !

do you remember an unelected princess ?

Her name was Hillary ! and 18 years ago ,wanted to cram a health care plan ,down the Kingdom's throat !

Now ,Czar Hillary ,has realized her unelected dream !

SCREW THE LAW !

HAIL TO KING OBAMA , AND THE ROYAL JFK WANNA BE CLINTONS !

MAY YOU GUIDE US ANOTHER 65 YEARS !

Why are so many posts here of the form 'why didn't Obama act like this before'...?

Obama is a political w h o x e. He knows he is losing votes from NORMAL people so now he is grasping at straws because 2012 IS NEXT YEAR

and OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE!

Karen in Los Angeles...(#1.67)...You wrote:

"The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because only states have the right to license marriages."

The same must then be true of ObamaCare because Health Insurance is and always was a State Issue.

karen, fetching coffee and making copies for attorney's does not a legal expert make. Nice try though.

While you may not believe in God I would ask that you keep an open mind when it comes to the Bible. The morals and values it teaches are correct and can only lead us to a better future.

Ah, yes... you mean the morality that one should be punished for another's sins? Or that children can be sold into slavery? Or how about that moral gem that decrees disobedient children should be stoned to death? Genocide, taking the virgins... yeah, what a great moral compass.

I think I'll stick to our slightly more evolved sense of morality. The one that outlawed slavery. The one that actually "mentions" children's rights and frowns on pedophilia. Feel free to point out the scriptures that condemn that. Oh sure, there's tons about how to cook your food... how to wash your hands... how to pray... you know, the really important moral codes that we as a 21st century society really should embrace yet again? Sure.

You can stick to the bronze age ethics if you deem them fit. Just don't try and pass that s**t off as ANYTHING but what it is.

They have just made an error of impeachable proportions.

Um, sorry, 44101a, but no.

The second poster has the reading comprehension problem. You said exactly the same thing as the first poster. Do you speak English?

Yes, I speak English. You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, too. Hope your lawyer bosses don't find out.

and your legal expertise comes from where Shellie? Pointless abusive comment without any reference or knowledge....but then again, I'm used to seeing the nonsensical liberal attack.

@Jon - You really have a warped sense of what the Bible is all about. Your references are all in history and some of what you stated doesn't exist. Quoting the Old Testiment and trying to relate it to bringing into todays world is juvenile. You know nothing about the Bible if this is your impression of what it says and how it relates to people. How about finding any of those references in the New Testiment. I challenge you to do it.

I know you won't do it because you find comfort in discrediting something you only have a flyspeck of information on. It must make you feel like a big man to say you can't, don't or won't try to understand something in the intent in which it was written.

Your reasoning won't help you escape your fate. Oh... before you say I am condemning you... I'm not. We have no one or anything to blame because we establish our own fate.

Anybody here old enough to remember when it was practically a stoning offense for a black man (or woman) to be linked to a white romantically? Unfortunately, that was not truly that long ago, but I don't seem to recall seeing many blogs from people up in arms about THAT topic, lately.

Give it a few more years and nobody will give any more of a damn whether the couple is mixed or same-sex, just as they got over the idea of interracial marriage.

Kenny, So What and a lot of other posters:

I think you'd be surprised to find how many conservatives are not against repealing the act. Personally, I think that if a gay couple wants to marry, good for them. The Defense of Marriage Act is probably beyond the scope of laws that congress should be able to constitutionally pass.

Regardless, while it is still a law, it is the duty of the executive branch to uphold that law. Obama and Holder do not have any authority to make that determination. There are legal, constitutional means to overturn DOMA, but until that happens, the executive branch has a duty to defend the law. That is exactly their job.

The real story here is the reluctance of the executive branch to perform it's duty, as per the oath and the constitution. Immediate action should be taken to remove Holder for failure to do his job.

An immoral society, a lawless society, and one with greed as it's measure of success is a society destined to the ash pit. Thanks, BHO, for pounding another nail into this country's coffin.

I'm not really going to make an argument, there's really no reason for debate on this matter. The US discriminates against gays, and it's about !@#$ing time a president came out against it. Let the damn gays get married already, who does it hurt? If your god doesn't want gay people to get married, let him deal with it, here in America, we're supposed to be a free society.

Hey Shelley - FYI, the assistants fetch coffee FOR ME AND DO MY DISHES. My billable rate is way too high for me to get coffe. Nice try though.

To this poster:

But I believe that somehere in the "Oath of Office" ,that the President is sworn to, that it says he will uphold and protect all laws of the United States of America. That being the case, he is sworn to uphold this law until/if it is repealed in the manner set up by the constitution. To do less is to break the oath of office and set himself up for rightful grounds for impeachment proceedings to begin. His decision to act in this manner relating to any law is grounds for impeachment,

Unfortunately, the only grounds for impeachment are high crimes and misdemeanors and this is not one.

What we can do is VOTE OBAMA OUT IN 2012!

@Brianb

There is no logical or rational path that supports your theory on the long-term ramifications of gay marriage. You say it will lead to a bigger government and socialism, while at the same time you claim that our freedoms are being chipped away . . . then you bring up health care? How does ANY of that relate to gay marriage?

The problem with your conservatism is that it tramples on the rights and freedoms of the minority. "They are not like you, thus they must be wrong and should not enjoy the same freedoms as you." If anything this is extending freedom to MORE people. This is calling for LESS government, by removing them from the position of "marriage police". And this has nothing to do with socialism or health care.

The ironic thing about this entire debate is that it falls under KEY CONSERVATIVE philosophies . . . but like any true conservative, they want to pick and choose where they apply these philosophies.

1) Less Government. I agree . . . get the government out of the marriage business. Opps, you don't want to apply your conservative ideals here, so you change position and call for more government to police marriages.

2) Personal Responsibility. I agree . . . marriage is a personal matter. EVERYONE should take personal responsibility for their OWN beliefs (or how they raise their children). Again, you don't want to apply this conservative mantra here, so you flip around and ask the government to be responsible for it.

3) Biblical Morals. According to another post, you seem to be educated enough on this one. I will admit I was impressed that you called out another conservative on Old Testament quotes. These same conservatives that quote Leviticus ALWAYS flip their position when you point out slavery passages in the same book.

You may call me a liberal or progressive because I support gay marriage, but this support stems from the conservative principles of less government and more personal responsibility. I will take these two principles and push them further than ANY conservative is brave enough to go. I believe the government should stay out of the lives of it's citizens, in ALL personal matters that do not harm others. There is not a single conservative who would support THAT kind of government.

i dont understand what all the flack about marriage is, god knocked up mary & did not get married ?? then they started a religion worshiping their illigetment offspring???

I'm so thankful that we have a good King like Obama that has decided which laws to enforce and which ones not to, that is in the Constitution isn't it? All of you Liberals that are cheering wouldn't be so happy if the next President decides not to enforce a law that protects you and your rights. This is dangerous, but not new; Dems have never felt like any law ever applied to them.

Karen: Go and read the books, you're not doing either job. One you're posting while you work and two, you're wrong in your comments. The President of the United States can contest any law he deems unconstitutional. Read the Memorandum entitled PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES dated 11/2/94. It will do more good than looking lousy in the type of job you do researching (if you're going to argue, at least do your research). After 4 grad level courses of Constitutional law and Procedural laws are not wrong. And by the way, working for an ambulance chaser don't make you a law expert...

@ BrianB: Oh, this should be fun...

@Jon - You really have a warped sense of what the Bible is all about. Your references are all in history and some of what you stated doesn't exist.

Really now? Well, I'm a former pastor with two degrees in theological studies. Please, feel free to educate me.

We'll start by your first lie: "... some of what you stated doesn't exist."

NAME IT. No, I insist. Point out what "doesn't exist." I dare you.

Don't make baseless claims unless you can support them.

Next, your statement of these issues being "historical"? When you argue that we get our morality from the BIBLE? Rather amusing. Just think about that for longer than 3 seconds.

Quoting the Old Testiment and trying to relate it to bringing into todays world is juvenile. You know nothing about the Bible if this is your impression of what it says and how it relates to people. How about finding any of those references in the New Testiment. I challenge you to do it.

First, it's "Testament." I can see we have a lot of work to do.

Second, to your bankrupt claim of being juvenile. Again, support your propositions. WHY is it juvenile exactly, when the topic is "morality from the Bible"? Does that pertain only to the pretty morality Brian? Do you exempt Yahweh from all acts of cruelty, positing that this is NOT a moral precept? Those inconvenient sordid acts of law given -- a law which David referred to as, "perfect", "guiding to righteousness", etc?

The problem here Brian is I know too MUCH about your holy book... way too much to turn a blind (and in your case, missing) eye to the historical facts concerning Yahweh and his bloodthirsty behavior. Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 28... I could cite chapter and verse until I bleed from the fingertips, but alas... you'll just say "Oh, that's the OLD Testament." As IF. As if that matters ONE single bit.

Are you so ignorant of your own theology that you believe the "new covenant" did away with the Pentateuch? Or made the character of God somehow LESS ridiculous, petty, or violent?

And the NEW Testament? How's this for starters:

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows." Luke 12:47

So, perhaps you claim that Jesus does not support the Yahveh-supported tenant of beating slaves, as long as you did not kill them? Look it up... or I'll do it for you.

"You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observeyour own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down." Mark 7:9-13

Nifty -- Jesus is taking up for the Levitical law that commanded children be STONED for disobedience... one of those "juvenile" things I mentioned in my first post, reiterated by Christ himself.

Should I continue Brian, or does this meet your "challenge" with due emphasis?

I know you won't do it because you find comfort in discrediting something you only have a flyspeck of information on. It must make you feel like a big man to say you can't, don't or won't try to understand something in the intent in which it was written.

Yeah.. 6 years worth of flyspecking. Nine more in the pulpit.

But seriously: Feel free. Rebut. I seriously, absolutely dare you to actually back up your words with those pesky things we in the real world call "facts."

Or, pass on your "superior understanding" of God's plan for commanding such atrocities. That's always an amusing juggle.

Your reasoning won't help you escape your fate. Oh... before you say I am condemning you... I'm not. We have no one or anything to blame because we establish our own fate.

It always ends with the infamous "... and you're gonna get it!" Pacalian bulls**t with believers who have only a cursory understanding of their own religion.

I find it ho-hum, predictable, and quite amusing.

Even more amusing, I await your response, although I'd pass if I were you Brian. You cannot even SPELL the segments of your holy book, let alone comprehend the scope of the Torah, the misguided take of the Messiah by evoking well-understood passages like Isaiah 52/53, or the invention of a once-and-done sacrifice.

Perhaps after you dazzle us with insight, we can delve into the philosophy of blood sacrifice, Adam's sin being bestowed on all mankind, the destruction of Job's innocent children...

You game Brian?

I doubt it. Something tells me you'll come back with some lame Billy Craig quote or blissfully ignorant, theologically inept stance liking these events to "God's preparation of man for redemption"... blah, blah, blah.

But by all means... feel free big guy, feel free.

sorry kenney

marriage laws are the business of each state...you don't get to tell everyone what to do or how it should be done

Definition of MEMORANDUM

1
: an informal record; also : a written reminder

2
: an informal written note of a transaction or proposed instrument

3
a : an informal diplomatic communication b : a usually brief communication written for interoffice circulation c : a communication that contains directive, advisory, or informative matter
doesn't say a thing about "law" , "constitutional", "president"....and from the "memorandum" :

"While the general proposition that in some situations the President may decline to enforce unconstitutional statutes is unassailable, it does not offer sufficient guidance as to the appropriate course in specific circumstances."

pretty much means it's BS and of no real value

"former pastor"...hahaha..."current libbie"...why former?...Jimmy Swaggert moment?...

"former pastor"...hahaha..."current libbie"...why former?...Jimmy Swaggert moment?...

Hardly. More like a moment of awakening. I had plenty of doubts through seminary but ignored them due to upbringing, family, friends... The glaring holes most if not all theologians see along with the character of Yahweh did the trick. As if any of this matters at all. Probably doesn't. Most here are into one-offs.

Funny: You can say "former lawyer" and no one bats an eye. Go figure.

"Libbie"... lots of rationalizations there, Tax Boy. I'm fiscally quite conservative. Independent.

Marriage has taken a strange... essence over the years. From union of individuals to uphold a high standard of values and to lawfully protect each other and children from adulterated states by providing a home of fairness unto each other to marriage is a business and its for everything and everyone.

When business consumes and darkens everything it touches, it usually is only is blinded by the illusion of glitter of that elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Mandates came and changed laws or legislature upon interpretation of this living language; it brought in a form of immorality that grew over time. At one time once marriage was consummated then the process of divorce was largely impeded by a time factor usually dependent on the age of the children which could be 10 to 15 years and the union of individuals. Also from time to time divorce would not be allowed depending on the state of the churches influence and thus only death could break the union. I find this was an over extension of church authority but not all things the church has done, has been done to a damaging affect. Cannon law is still something I would like to see re-enacted. Only because I despise money changers for such a simple task they have caused much grief to this... earth. For marriage was not of the self but of the greater whole. It was both an act between state and church and lawfully bound as it congeals the community to be a more efficient and effective in manner of process. Unlike what has happened at large today an inefficient work of the system by over extension of individualism instead of a well balanced individual that has gathered their self to act in a manner that will produce the highest quality of a community and intellect; Building a greater body with fewer egos trumping the more meek perspectives that are quietly hidden underneath the loud mouths of today. An efficient society which can manage itself and protect itself without the need of a high ratio of enforcers of law would be ideal. This would be more cost effective to projects that raise everyone as a whole. Neglect into morals of a society can have a devastating effect and can take years or even decades to correct. Who is to say what morals are correct, I see the church is often something to attack against but era and age and time, less that of media and movies know the truth and relevance of what was going on then. They are the keepers of our darkest and lightest moments of history, a reminder of our ego and our brilliance and barbarism. They too need to be kept in check, for if ever Viccar of Christ is too call himself God again... much upheaval that would cause. That is an ego of sorts either light or dark, depends truly on the interior of one’s own heart and the underlying principle. America is not America... will it ever be an America like it was few hundred years ago? Too much... human corruption for power and control of the masses has poisoned its mind, who is like the most high. Not of any us, not of one thing, we are only a part of it yet our own entity. We all seem to be a fragment of Lucifer to challenge it to our will but it always... wins for it is its laws we ultimately obey and it is its laws that gave us mortality. For this fruit let us be so knowing, but it gave us a gift for what purpose I do not know. Yet we challenge this entity and claim to be so high yet it captures our frailty of mortal flesh, I know this limitation will be conquered for the secrets it holds are so dear will be drawn from its arms, and given to all those that can embrace it.

Here is some fun I had since I read the comments just replying in general to the topic on hand religious and politics other stuff I read in there.

For we chase it so ferociously like a serpent chasing its tail. This beast lashes back with its fury holding its secrets so dear. This beast, we create as we chase it has polluted our minds to such an ego that we think of ourselves higher than that which will put us in our early death. It was and is before and after us forever and always... This is our adversary a plight given to us unwanted, we will strip away what it has given us and will not submit to its unkind rule, I seek to dethrone that which is so unjust... unfair. Was not the fruit a plan in likeness to see the torture you bear upon your own creation, forsaken for your pride. We will not kneel until all of it is our equal, and we can be released from this mortal shell. It is but cruel and loving and only it knows its origins, if it even has one. It is only from love we seek to form its laws into a more loving world then this.

"independent" = "libbie who is afraid to admit it"

"independent" = "libbie who is afraid to admit it"

And NOW we see the mentality of your low-brow GOPer. The world remains narrowly defined, for fear of having their imagined utopia uprooted by reality.

@OverTaxedAgain who said 'marriage laws are the business of each state...you don't get to tell everyone what to do or how it should be done'

Yes the issue IS up to each state thus the federal government should have a say and nothing I posted tried to take that away. I simply suggested that since 'marriage' is a sacred and since the word 'sacred' is a religious term the government should be involved. As a taxpaying American I have the right to have input into my government and YOU can't take that away from me. Second IT WAS A SUGGESTION for a solution. I don't see you coming up with any ideas.

A lot of people are in favor of disbanding the department of education because it hasn't accomplished anything. If Holder keeps this up, more of us are going to be for disbanding the Department of Justice as well.

Constitutional Immigration Laws: DoJ ignores them and fights to uphold the federal government NOT doing it's job.

Defense of Marriage Act: DoJ supercedes the Supreme Court and decides NOT to defend a federal law.

Election Law Violations: DoJ decides that intimidation at the election booths is not something they will NOT uphold.

What does the DoJ do besides arbitrarily decide which laws it likes and doesn't like?

I agree. Sad and shameful.

Shameful that there are still laws on the books enforcing bigotry against gay people?

why?

If God hates gays, I wonder why God allowed this thread to be collapsed. One would think He would want the word spread.

If God hates gays, then why do priests feast on young boys?

Oh wait is there something in one of the versions of the bibles that a young boy doesnt count? must be.

Some Priest feast on boys because they're gay.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. Here is one of a multitudes of links to factual statements concerning this myth.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Congress passed a law prohibiting the US government from funding the right wing militias and death squads in Central America. The law was valid and constitutional. Did that stop Ronnie Regan from ignoring or breaking that law? Of course not! Why should Regan have to obey a law he didn't believe in? So... his administration buddies simply sold American weapons to Iran and the took the proceeds and gave them to the right wing private armies torturing and murdering left wing activists. (Kind of like what the republicans and Fux "News" would like to do now) So all you republican, right wing crybabies can stop your ignorant whining!

just the bedroom? how many states cant sell liquor on SUNDAYs because of OTHERS religious beliefs? etc etc etc.....

Congress let alone the president cant even have one member that OPENLY says I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Just wait until they remember what day the sabbath really is, or for that matter, how the bible calculates a day. Imagine beer taps being off from Friday disk until Saturday dusk!

bspurloc, if I'm not mistaken, there are Jews, Muslims, and Christians along with people who don't believe in God currently in Congress! So what's your point?

to be sure you can only mean that if we followed strictly to that of the bible ...which as far as I know we as a country never were meant to do ... what we are is a country based on Christianity and the Bible and based on its beliefs while the whole separation of church and state is good otherwise we would have a Theocracy... and I am quite sure you do not want that. and since this country was founded by those seeking freedoms of religious persecutions i hope that we never become one, yet that is where we come from and yes our laws many still have a base in that religion... perhaps you would prefer shariah law maybe .. or better yet no laws? we all know how much control a government wants and tries and often has taken from their citizens in many countries around the world where they have no christian based laws or beliefs are in place. i would ask you then should we also take away your freedoms that according to the bible and this terrible christian based country give to you? how about your pursuit of happiness or any of them other nasty god given rights? after all if its in the Bible it can't be good? or did i miss something

wait, wait. . . gay people CAN get married. everywhere. legally.

the ONLY problem is, why would they? a marriage occurs between individuals of opposite sexes. period.

almost everybody has nothing against gay people committing to each other. people seeking to re-define marriage will ultimately lose. the fact that gay commitments will become increasingly mainstream has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

since gay people can only marry people of the opposite sex, and they are by definition not interested in doing so, there is not an issue there. gay unions are an entirely new thing, and have nothing to do with marriage.

I hate to say it, but true. Gay unions have to do with love. Marriage frequently does not.

That's what happens when a dimwit tries to think Please. Stupidity comes spilling out.

That is a good point, gays work so hard to pull the blinds over our eyes, playing cards like acceptance and equality. So much effort to make us accept their unnatural behavior, because at the end of the day behind closed doors in the dark when the marching and protests are over, that's what it is, self-serving, AIDS-spreading, unnatural anal penetration and the like. People are crushing our moral foundation, very few people have any moral backbone here. I am dumbfounded, of all the issues to deal with in the world we are questioning whether "marriage is between a man and a woman" ... duhh!! I have no problem accepting people, I'm not perfect by any means, but I don't try to promote my problems and force people to accept them because I just simply can't control myself. Things are so out of control, we have simply given up and "it's all good" is our anthem. I wonder what social and spiritual disease we will learn to accept next. I'm sure there is a more loving way to make this statement but I'm just not finding it in me right now.

It's nice to see there are still several of you out there that can't lead a happy life without worrying what people you don't know are doing with each other in the privacy of their own homes.

And so are you and Sue. How you can judge other people and try to control their lives while hiding behind Christianity is just wrong.

For all those teabaggers want states rights.... if a state approves marriage between same sex couples (no matter how that was done), then the federal government should be forced to recognize that marriage.

While this is long overdue, I am a cynic.

I think it was announced to counter this

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/02/obama-campaign-community-organizer-.html

Raises all sorts of unpleasant questions, not the leastmof which is "how much do these "fellowships" cost the taxpayers?

Oh, I don't know, AZ. I think President Obama just trumped your God.

How else do you explain why God didn't prevent him from taking this position?

Yep, and Sue is a Christian who "loves everyone".

I hope they do the same thing with the health care law. Unconstitutional, too. But, then the White House thinks it can pick and choose what is or is not constitutional without any basis in fact.

Well, so far 3 federal judges have ruled Health Care Reform constitutional and 2 have ruled against it, so...

Nope - so far, three cases against it were found to be without merit and dismissed. Far, far cry from "ruing that it's Constitutional".

Something is constitutional or unconstitutional based upon law- not fact. And I'm guessing you weren't so vocal when the last administration engaged in unconstitutional acts and cherry-picking its Court challenges.

Never mind, all of you. It doesn't matter what anyone says except for the Supreme Court. It seems to be taking its old sweet time getting there, though.

And even when the Court decides, I'm sure reasonable minds will still disagree. For example, liberals think Citizens United was wrongly decided, and conservatives think Roe v. Wade was.

So, in absolute terms, there is really no absolute answer to this question -- only a resolution, based on a given vote on a given day. And even resolutions can be overturned.

Gary: Something is constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court, not by law. In the US, any law can be deemed unconstitutional, it is a matter of interpretation. And that interpretation has to do with the political, social and economic views of 9 people (The Supreme Court Justices). There is absolutely no law specifying what is or not constitutional. For that to happen we should convert our legal system to the Napoleonic system of codes. And it is based on facts. There was no law in America before Row v. Wade... there was no law before Miranda v. US... The judges interpret the cases whether they violate the Constitution. And in a sense the Constitution is vague because allows the judges and justices to interpret the law according to their times. It is not rigid, it can be changed. That is what makes it a marvelous piece of work, always changing.

Nope - so far, three cases against it were found to be without merit and dismissed. Far, far cry from "ruing that it's Constitutional".

Nope: eleven cases were found without merit and dismissed. There were three actual rulings upholding its constitutionality. 3-2

Angie, then get congress and the SCOTUS to change the legislation. Until then, they are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States; even one which President Clinton signed into law!

wait, wait. . . gay people CAN get married. everywhere. legally.

the ONLY problem is, why would they? a marriage occurs between individuals of opposite sexes. period.

almost everybody has nothing against gay people committing to each other. people seeking to re-define marriage will ultimately lose. the fact that gay commitments will become increasingly mainstream has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

since gay people can only marry people of the opposite sex, and they are by definition not interested in doing so, there is not an issue there. gay unions are an entirely new thing, and have nothing to do with marriage.

Gay marriage is like watching my beagle roll around in horse apples! He's proud he's doing it. He loves doing it. He does it openly. And ultimately he comes out smelling really nasty. If your union isn't in the Lord's name, or in a church of God, have a nice time with that!

So Sirspewsalot, are you suggesting that all the hetero people that got married at the court house or in the park, or the Hilton ball room, or the beach or or or should be lumped into your asinine category as well? I didn't get married in the "lords" name or in a the house of the money changers (which you call a church), i'm doing just fine and having a great time thank you.

Gosh Shelly, I got married in Vegas by a really neat preacher lady at the Riviera. When we put our hands on the bible it was an exhilirating joining of two of God's souls. If you don't believe, I don't give a crap. But don't drag sodomy into a holy union. They don't belong to the same realm. Thanks though. Civil unions also happen at the courthouse. That's cool.

This isn't about sex. And besides, lots of hetero couples enjoy sodomy just as well...but it's irrelevant.

I agree....what a concept! Unfortunately, many can't wrap their tiny little brains around it.

malarky; since when does White House have say over rear- end zipper jeans........

Its not really if you support or don't.. Its how the WH picks and choose what they want to do vs following the law's of the nation!

Lets see, how's Obama gonna feel when the next republican president in 2012 decides not to defend Obamacare? See how this will work Obama? Where you might have had a chance to save your Obamacare, you've just shot yourself and Holder in the foot! Goes with Immigration inforcement.. the law is there enforce it or change it. Simple

You forgot militant communist nazi sith lord ;-)

while secretly working for Microsoft and Facebook to steal your info

And give it to Bank of America and Goldman Sachs...

Either that, or Obama really IS God.

And wouldn't that just cheese off the conservatives out here, who haven't been paying their dues to the right place.

Hey, don't insult Sith Lords like that. You can call him, in jest or not, anything you want, I didn't vote for him. But, please leave Sith Lords out of it.

Many thanks to the inept liar in the white house, this will make it much easier to dump his lying inept quasi socialistic fanny,.

Me thinks jerry is secretly homosexual. He does have an obsession with the president's fanny. Anyone but me notice that?

Funny thread. It's about time. ;-)

No clergyman is enlightened if he marries someone outside of the guidelines the Lord has set. You can't just make up your own version of things that God says and then go with it.

You can't just make up your own version of things that God says and then go with it.

Why not? It worked for the Catholics during the Ecumenical councils.

No clergyman is enlightened if he marries someone outside of the guidelines I imagine my personal angry delusions of some hypothetical magic being has set.

Fixed that for you.

Florida: it's got nothing to do with "what God says"--we're not governed by your bible in this democracy --We're governed by laws--(even if you believe that 'what God says' changes all the time...did you read about the ordination of the married man? Expediency changes rules even for the church with the claim of "knowing " what God wants.

Even if they do legalize marriage - they cant MAKE the church marry gay couples. They gay couples will have to get married either in a justice of the peace or a Captain or find some church that allows gay marriage - that wont be a catholic church. This doesnt mean that the church has to agree, like or welcome gay marriages. They will be able to get married if this passes yes, but they will not be able to have a Catholic Marriage.

Floridamom1-

You are kidding me right!?!?! The ENTIRE Bible if filled w/ "made up versions of what God allegedly said".

Edited for time & content, political & religious motives, hundreds & hundreds of years after the alleged occurance, plain & simple.

You can't just make up your own version of things that God says and then go with it.

Actually, this is what religions do all the time, and freedom of religion is a First Amendment right.

You can believe that Moses parted the Red Sea and promptly gay-married a dolphin if you want to, or you can believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that a super intelligent omnipotent being created the universe 6,000 years ago and planted phony dinosaur fossils to confuse the evolutionists. The sky's the limit

but don't take away somebody else's right to marry the person they love.

You go Nana! Things people forget in history, blacks and whites could not marry not long ago! Government stood in the way. Marriage had to be between white to white or "colored to colored". Another thing that all these hyped up people want to ramp on, god god god, what if there is no god! One group of individuals has the right to make another group misserable based on a book man made and rewritten dozens of times over history. Personally I think the joke is on the religious individuals! You all live in such missery that dictating what another couple should do in their own home is acceptable to you! Frankly don't we have more important issuess to argue about than two men or two women wanting to share a happy life together legally? How about that statement earlier about the WMD being proven a hoax? Wow! It is ok for grand old George H W Bush to sit back and collect his huge retirement for the rest of his misserable life there in Texas on his big ranch while the rest of us try to pick up the pieces and put our lives back together. One man has made a huge mess of this country and now he can just sit back and relax for the rest of his life. The bushes probably get together every Sunday for dinner and the Bush ranch and laugh about how screwd up Americans are. Fight over marriage while we have young men dying (oh and some are gay btw) in a war we didn't need nor want!

All I hear is God, God , God says it is wrong, seperation of church and State. Well lets look at evolution and biology for a minute. The main purpose of opposite sexes is to pro-create and maintain the lasting of the species. However, this can not be accomplished by same sex intercourse, therefore an ambomination to natural law... nothing to do with religion.

hey Einstien, there are many many women out there that can't reproduce. guess they are abominations of natural law too huh? you just don't have the ability to think before you speak do you?

davwin

All I hear is God, God , God says it is wrong, seperation of church and State. Well lets look at evolution and biology for a minute. The main purpose of opposite sexes is to pro-create and maintain the lasting of the species. However, this can not be accomplished by same sex intercourse, therefore an ambomination to natural law... nothing to do with religion.

There have recently been studies that suggest a multitude of things here:

First, the likelihood of a male being gay increases if the mother's father's family has other gay males in it. This suggests that there are some genetic origins of homosexuality (or that the mother's father's relatives have a tendency to sexually abuse this child even when they have no physical contact with him in his youth).

Second, a study has recently indicated that siblings of gay males tend to have more children. The theory here is that the gay male uncle is more active in helping his siblings raise their families. Since the siblings have some of the same genetic material as the gay male, those genes are passed on to a greater number of children then having their own children and so on. So, in this way a gay male doesn't have to actively reproduce in order to ensure his genes are passed on.

Interestingly, all of my siblings' (brothers) children have been girls so far...this would suggest that if they have boys, there is a greater chance that they too will be gay (the whole "mother's father's family thing).

And he probably still believes that. What taxes has Obama burdened the middle class with? You seem to be in a bubble of self made bull@!$%#.

Obama said he believed that marriage was between man and woman

Who says he doesn't still believe that? He's also principled enough to recognize that his own personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to public policy, and are outweighed in any case by the best interests of the country, straight and gay alike.

You know what it shows me? It shows me that he can put his beliefs to the side in order to do what is right. Tell me please how gay marriage will impact your straight marriage? It doesn't.

I guess you took that to mean he would impose that definition on the US? I must have missed that one....

You EVIL people, you don't even see you are lost and destined for HELL!....Understand this...God wrote about you more than 1500 years ago and you match his description exactly today...What a sad day it will be for you when the End comes....All you had to do was accept his free gift of Grace through the death of Jesus Christ but you choose to not acknowledge him as creator and what he did on the cross to cover all sin. Do you not know how beautifully and wonderfully made you are?

Jayhawk: maybe YOU can answer the question the rest of those on your side are ignoring: if it is "evil" to support gay marriage, and homosexuality is a "sin," please tell us who is hurt by gay marriage (or, alternatively, admit that your concepts of "evil" and "sin" have nothing to do with helping or harming humans).

@ Jayhawk ~

Jesus hated gays? Where did God write that? For that matter, where did God write ANYTHING 1500 years ago? Or was that just men ... hateful men, disguised as Christians, like you?

Jesus never said he hated Gays/Homosexuals, but he did say that anyone who practices this type of immorality can not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (1Corinthians 6:9-10). Jesus never hates the person, but He does call this sin and that is what He hates. He hates all our sin. Love the Sinner, But hate the Sin.

funny that the GOP majority in the house is too fractured to pass any legislation except for the bills that obama and the dems have promised to veto. if that joke of party which is in such a sad state can take the white house in 2012 thats definitely a sign of the apocaplypse. damn those mayans

Are you looking forward to 2012 too? Let's see, the GOP who campaigned on JOBS, has so far tried to repeal healthcare for 30 million people, tried to redefine rape and tried to defund planned parenthood. Yeah...that's going to go over really well with women in the next election. And, then, let's see...who are your options to run against President Obama? You've got Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Donald Trump...any other big names? LOL...2012 is going to be fun...if you're a Democrat.

The morals in this country are going right down the drain. The only reason Holder and Obama changed their views on marriage is to satisfy the liberal left. Sad, Sad commentary.

the morals of this country are going down the drain? how can anybody still believe gay marriage, which does not affect you in any way, is immoral? you people are unbelievable

judy: to papa g's comment, I will add a direct question:

What is morality, if not the distinction between helping people and hurting people? And if morality is about doing good for humans, who does gay marriage hurt, and who is helped by opposing it?

You might want to try educating yourself.

DOMA was knee-jerk reactionary legislation pushed by conservatives when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that bans on same sex marriage violated the state's constitution. They cons got all worried that the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution which requires all states to respect "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states...so they quickly passed an blatantly discriminatory exception to it.

And for the record....the actual author of DOMA, was Bob Barr...former Republican congressman from Georgia who ran for president in 2008 as the Libertarian party candidate.

What law was created by the liberals? Do you mean the DOMA law discussed in this article that was created by the republican congress of the 90's? It may have been signed by Clinton but it wasn't created by him. I think it's the conservatives who don't have it correct. For example they all talk about constitutional law yet they fail to recognize the part about 'all created equal' and they build in discrimination against gay people. Another example is that they talk of constitutional law except when they don't like the constitution and then they talk of changing the constitution - 14th amendment.

these laws were created ... by liberal democrats

I had to laugh at that one. If President Clinton signed DOMA into law (and also sharply limited the availability of public assistance to the needy), why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that he was, at a minimum, a moderate? Or does Democrat = "liberal" by definition, for you?

Dave in NM - for most of these right wing nutjobs, democrat = liberal = socialist = communist = satan

Dave, you won't ever get an answer. The opponents of gay marriage will never admit that it actually harms no one, any more than one of them will actually define what it is they call the "gay agenda." I've asked both questions repeatedly, and never gotten even one answer, because if the anti-gay crowd ever did respond, even they would have to publicly admit that they're nothing but bigoted fools.

As much as we Christians believe that marriage is defined as one man, one woman, the US Constitution defends the rights of all citizens. I would rather live in a country that protects "sinners," than a country that can and will punish or exterminate them. If the Christian Right wants to push this, just look at Iran or Nazi Germany.

The Kingdom of God, is built within the souls of man, not by the laws of any government. Laws will never change immoral behavior opposite to God's perfect plan for man. That was demonstrated by the Hebrews rejecting the Law of Moses. That is why God had to send His Son, Jesus.

In my Christian heart, I am saddened by those who will not inherit the Kingdom due to their lifestyle choices. These are not my words but His absolute Word.

America has grown cold to the Truth. But we try to share the truth in love and with grace. After all, it is everyone's free will to either accept or reject the Truth. God is the final judge, we are just His voice on earth.

yes sue you must be right lets send all those that dont believe the way you do right to hell. i would much rather have a christian that has molested a child or beat his wife sitting next to me than some damn homosexual that wants to express his/her love.

And which one do you think Jesus would prefer to have sitting next to Him?

And exactly where have you read that child molestation and wife beating are accepted "Christian" behaviors?

Laws will never change immoral behavior opposite to God's perfect plan for man. That was demonstrated by the Hebrews rejecting the Law of Moses. That is why God had to send His Son, Jesus.

Maybe He ought to send His Son again, just to clarify a little bit. I wonder why He doesn't.

And if laws will never change immoral behavior opposite to God's perfect plan for man, then I wonder why we bothered to outlaw slavery, or even murder. Let's take those back.

In my Christian heart, I am saddened by those who will not inherit the Kingdom due to their lifestyle choices. These are not my words but His absolute Word.

Somehow I don't think this is God's "absolute Word." I think it's just the word of some bigoted human who can only envision a God who thinks like he does.

By the way, talk to that guy up above who seems to think that child molesters and wife-beaters WILL inherit the Kingdom due to THEIR lifestyle choices. I don't think Jesus would include the one who is hateful while excluding the other who merely loves. Do you?

You must not have read the Word. It is plainly written that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. Whether you believe that or not, there is no equivocation in the Bible about it.

It is plainly written that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom.

And has anyone ever troubled themselves to ask why not? You all talk about this personal relationship with your god; why not bring it up and ask for understanding why something that hurts no one - that only increases the amount of happiness in the world - should be prohibited. I suspect that even if you did get an answer (which I bet would startle you as much as it would me), the answer would amount to "because I said so, now go to your room." Put less flippantly, I ask you, as I have asked innumerable others:

WHO

DOES

GAY

MARRIAGE

HURT?

My brother says it does not bother him if gays marry.My problem with this is if gays marry,and we accept them as a common thing,then what will the next step off the straight and narrow lead too?Will pedophiles be accepted next?What about incest?Where will it stop?Answer;When God gets his fill of man and his sin.You see,with each step farther away from morality,which is rallied against on these type of threads,you get farther into a whole that can't be dug out of.Drugs,murder,mayhem,gay sex,rape,and robbery,corruption of government,etc.,becomes more common.Gays can't reproduce,yet they are getting a much higher recognition,even though they represent only 1% of the population.What makes a person gay?How come people marry,have children,and then become gay?It wasn't too long ago that gays got no recognition,now you can't watch TV without making an issue out of this lifestyle.Why should they gain this much popularity?Do Christians get a fair shake here?I think not!I don't think that as a God fearing person that I can say that gays deserve marriage.What they do is there business,if kept in the closet,where it belongs.But,like a pedophile,when you get exposed,you don't get a medal for it.Christians never set out to be perfct,either,no man is perfect,but,we hate to offend our God for fear of punishment.Maybe,since gay is celebrated nowadays,the end is very near.Remember Sodom and Gommorah.Go ahead comment collapsers,make my day!

srsmith: Rather than "rallying against morality," I'm here asking you folks a question NO ONE has even TRIED to answer: if gay marriage is "immoral," it must hurt someone, right? If so, who?

Slippery-slope arguments ("b-b-but next people will be marrying ROCKS!") are worthless. All we're talking about are gays. NO ONE is trying to legalize pedophilia, polygamy or incest. We're talking about consenting adults. WHERE IS THE HARM? I am open to being convinced, if someone can just show me what actual threat, to actual people, they're so afraid of.

there is no requirement that a President be a Christian, of any litmus test for whatever his religious beliefs are.

I'll believe that the day we elect an avowed atheist (or a Humanist, agnostic, Buddhist, Native American, etc.). Until then, I will just wish it were true. Legally, of course, you're right, but in a practical sense? President Obama would have stood exactly zero chance of election were he not a Christian.

This country has been getting sicker with religion for decades, and while we unchurched Americans are gradually letting our voices be heard, there's no sign of the fever breaking.

There is separation of Church and State, and therefore this thing of a president has to be a certain religion is crazy. Americans denied or decided to make this seaparation so chill people and enjoy your own made ride.

There is separation of Church and State, and therefore this thing of a president has to be a certain religion is crazy.

Agreed, but try telling that to the millions of Americans, on both sides of the aisle, who will only vote for a Christian. Should be interesting, if Romney is nominated, to see the hordes of self-righteous righties backpedaling with all their contempt for Mormons.

The USA was founded as "One nation, under God". By the laws of the very religion the nation is founded under, homosexuality is an offense (lit. abomination in many versions of the bible). It shouldn't surprise anyone that a nation founded "under God" would not recognize homosexual relationships as "legally married" -- particularly when many states still have laws on the book making coitus illegal and punishable.

I don't have a particular opinion on the actual issue but the scholar in me has to point out that the further the USA gets away from "one nation, under God", the further we get from the establishment our founding fathers created. Which leaves us with one nation under... what? God? Allah? Obama? McDonald's?

Maybe we ought to think about revising the Pledge of Allegiance again.

Uhhh maybe you should look up the history of the pledge of alliegence... The words under god were added in the 1950's... little late to claim that those words were part of the founding father's ideas if they didnt make it in until 1954...

homosexuality is an offense

Against whom, and for what reason? What is the harm?

CC has addressed your massive error in falsely proclaiming that our great secular nation is in fact a theocracy. "God" wasn't even mentioned on our currency for decades after the nation was founded. Most of the founders were deists, not Christians, and did not believe any god even knew what we were doing, let alone cared whether we considered ourselves "under" it.

But back to my question: if homosexuality is such an abomination, why is that, and who is harmed by it? I'll bet you a million bucks you ignore the question like everyone else on your side (or come up with some answer that has nothing to do with homosexuality harming anyone).

Thank you Rugby, that's the best post yet that I've seen reading through this. This will not affect helath laws, true christians, or anybody else. It's kinda like, 'if you don't like the channel, change it!' I have my own beliefs and opinions, but for some reason I don't feel the need to rant and call people names over this.

Oh, BTW, before y'all start, I am a staunch conservative (no, didn't say republican..wouldn't do that to my belifs).

Well put!
Live and let live... let God take care of those with whom he has a problem,

Well put, yourself, thinkingmom. That's the basic point of Jesus' message, after all--take care of your own sins. God can handle everyone else's just fine without your help.

It's refreshing when a Christian is Christlike rather than simply a Christian!

Well God made every human and Homo's are there maybe to test the pure christians in this country of tolerance they keep shoving in everyone butt on fox news and other right wing gabage network. We ahve straight crazies so please! why not use this time to advocate on abused women who end up getting married to that straight guy...

Guy: No, wrong is imposing by law how Americans have to behave, think and act. Because it prostitutes the meaning of freedom and equality.

yeah what the hell do they think this is a democracy with guaranteed civil liberties, giving people freedom and liberty! IN THIS COUNTRY!

If stuff like this continues this country will sure go to hell. everyone free to choose the way they want to live their life free from gov't intervention and oppression.

Damn civil liberties

You think the "priority" of the Obama administration is something they're NOT doing? You think NOT defending this case is going to take away from balancing the federal budget or securing our borders? I'm not quite getting your point here. It sort of sounds like you just copy-pasted this from a comment in relation to something else.

He said he would stop supporting the bill in court, which frees up time to do those things you mentioned.

gypsypunk, you are so dumb and uneducated. Stop listening to the media and use that brain you have.

With this healthcare law, how do I have the "freedom and liberty" from not having health insurance? How do I have the "freedom and liberty" to know that all laws are being enforced? How do I know that my house will not be robbed again by Illegal's?

You can take "your" civil liberties and shove it, they cater to the small 5% while the 95% sits out here getting screwed. Everyone wants something, but at the expense of the greater whole, its like because you can't get what you want the legal, ethical way you want it handed to you.

I pity everyone like you.

@JaneDoe2A In case you hadn't noticed, Obama's administration has to spend time and resources defending DOMA when people bring legal challenges against it (which will continue to happen and at an increasing pace as more and more people realize that discrimination is wrong).

If you truly cared about the priorities of the administration then you never would have made that comment. Equal rights should be a priority for ALL AMERICANS to strive toward. Instead, you come off as someone who is against equal rights but does not want to be painted in such a light so you throw out some other excuses as to why equal rights should not be a priority.

You do realize that this is saving your tax money too, right?

Gypsypunk wants to redefine democracy. The gay movement is all about democracy only as it favors them and what they believe. Have they not ignored a constitutional amendment and the unsuccessful challenge thereof in California? What vote that has been against the gay agenda has been accepted by that community as the will of the people? No loss goes unchallenged, only challenged and challenged again until favor is found with some court, much like shopping doctors. If you don't accept the will of the majority then you really aren't about democracy, so you can drop that BS from your rhetoric. Many Americans, myself included, would be more tolerant of gay cries for equality if we believed you wanted equality and not superiority. It always seems that gay equality has to include embracing your lifestyle, not mere acceptance, and embracing your lifestyle is ridiculous for heterosexuals.

Pretty obvious that the federal government has no business involving itself in private marriage contracts. Gross overreach. This move was long overdue.

We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit for details.

Good thing you weren't around in the 1800's or there would still be slavery. Equality is for all not just for those you seem fit. If you truly love this country and what it represents than you should be cheering and supporting this law instead your narrow minded point of view is keeping your inner queen in the closet. tell me why are you so afraid of gays marrying. b.c it will ruin your twisted theory of what america is for you. or is it b/c you are afraid of losing the white hetero male majority. wake up

Dave

first of all you sound like an idiot. you want the freedom to pay 100,000s of dollars for treatment at a hospital. you want the freedom to have the insurance agencies bankrupt your family and this nation. turn off gelnn beck and read a book. congress has the exact same health bill that the republicans are trying to shut down. how can you as a "true american" vote against a health care bill that will improve the quality of life for people in this country. or do you believe only the rich should have a care free life. and everyone else should be stepped on

here you are arguing about who should be married when the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined you sir are supporting an oligarchy not a democracy

P.S. Chris to show your narrow mind point of view. I sir am not gay. just b/c I support gay rights and have gay friends and champion for freedom for all doesn't mean you can label me correctly. If this was the 60's you would have a white hood and assume i was an african american b/c of my desire for freedom for all.

No loss goes unchallenged, only challenged and challenged again until favor is found with some court, much like shopping doctors.

Oh, you mean like the challenges on the Healthcare Reform Act. Yeah, OK, got it now.

Janedoe I think you're really mistaken. His priorities are aligned with you according to what you wrote. He said that he's not going to waste government resources to defend something that is unconstitutional. That frees up those resources to focus on other things like.

to Dave, are you serious? your freedom is taken away because you have the chance to get health insurance? You have the freedom not to have it but then you pay a penalty on tax day. The reason is because the hospitals are forced to give you care if you show up at the emergency room. It's really not that complicated. If you don't want to be part of society you can move to another country. I'm also curious, since you're worried about 'illegals' robbing your house does that mean you don't care if legal citizens rob your house? What's your address again? lol j/k.

How is it that 95% of people are screwed because 5% are treated equal to that 95%? I think legal marriage for everyone is exactly what is being asked for. How is that being "handed" to anyone and not being reqested the 'legal and ethical' way? Your arguments make no sense at all. Additionally, if you're not interested in equality and civil liberties for all then you're always welcome to leave the United States. But you can't claim to ignore civil liberties of others and at the same time think you're some kind of patriotic American.

I, too, am glad to see that this is a priority to our government. After all, governance is what they are supposed to do. I would infinitely prefer to see my money spent on civil liberties for a;; Americans than repealing health care which has provided millions of jobs and insured millions of people. I would rather spend my money on ensuring civil liberties for Americans than war, reducing the rights of women to control their own bodies and ensuring that non-Christians hold public posts or build mosques. Really, how much public money has been spent on whether or not our president is an American citizen? We need to move forward , not backward.

Really, what if we all voted to make your religion illegal? Hmmm, might save a ton of public money. After all if a church is going to weigh in on the political arena then perhaps we should tax them. I think that is the biggest injustice of all. "For God so loved the world..." Not just the straight world and not just a seelct group of religious believers... everyone!

I see this as just the opposite. Not defending DOMA (especially in the wake of the pending lawsuit in CA) will give Obama plenty of time to do all those things you said he's not.

I think it's great, that, should just about the the last straw for the lying, inept, quasi socialist in the white house.

"If you don't accept the will of the majority then you really aren't about democracy"

Horsepuckey. You think losing one vote means everyone just turns around and goes home? Democracy is ALL ABOUT putting your beliefs out there and changing people's minds.

"Many Americans, myself included, would be more tolerant of gay cries for equality if we believed you wanted equality and not superiority."

Horsepuckey. This is fundamentally about your dislike of gay people and your belief that we and our relationships are inferior to heterosexuals.

"It always seems that gay equality has to include embracing your lifestyle, not mere acceptance, and embracing your lifestyle is ridiculous for heterosexuals."

Called it.

Some of you are under the impression that this is a 'civil right' we are talking about. 'Civil rights' are those which have to do wtih the civic duties we all share and have a right to contribute in. Marriage, like the privilege of driving a car, are just that: privileges. You do not have a 'right' to marry. You do not have a 'right' to drive a car. You DO have a right to vote, enter a hotel and get a room, get a job to earn a living, ride public con veyances etc. The Civil Rights Act has to do with skin color, not sex orientation.

Sex orientation means you are either a woman or a man. There isn't any other 'sex.' To give dignity to so-called gays being coupled in some kind of 'marriage' arrangement is unnecessary. They already have the civil right to a common law union with all the privileges that go along with that. These people deserve our respect as human beings but certainly not our acceptance for their 'orientation.' Transgenders et al are merely homosexuals who want to live out a deviant way of life ........ they have abnormal sex with each other. In fact, sex is the only thing they really want. Homosexuals et al want the okay of society to do unnatural things with their bodies.

No. this is a serious mistake Obama has made in reversing his opinion about gay marriage.

Actually, the civil rights act prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." (Wika) It includes interracial marriages, which many people back then considered "unnatural". And though originally the law sought to exclude the Federal Government later changes backed away from that exclusion. Furthermore, anyone receiving Federal funds must obey it. Which of course includes all state governments. So, it is not just a "civil" issue.

Later sexual harassment was seen as discrimination. And, in 1986, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled the act also covered same-sex discrimination. Now, none of this is dead on the mark, of course. But, the legal precedent for recognizing marriage as a "right" is substantial, mainly based on the 14th Amendment of 1868.

In the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), concerning the outlawing of interracial marriages, the court ruled:

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ... The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ..."

This ruling (and others) have found, of course, that marriage is in fact, a right, regardless of the exact case in question.

But, there is a whole other side to this coin: who, in a secular country, has the right to define what marriage is such that that definition applies to all citizens? No one.