Obama urges court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by mrvee

Gay marriage is so wrong in so many ways.
Just Gross.

You don't like it because it sounds icky? I think you're going to need a more reasoned argument than that, unless your intention was just getting flamed by everybody...

[PsYcNeT]

Well the actual vote had millions of dollars worth of interference from the LDS and Catholic churches.

It is a bit uncomfortable, but definitely unprecedented.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by mrvee

Gay marriage is so wrong in so many ways.
Just Gross.

Your story left me riveted and on the edge of my seat. Tell me more about your homophobic rhetoric!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by mrvee

marriage is so wrong in so many ways.
Just Gross.

No worries everyone, I fixed it to something we can all agree on!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well the actual vote had millions of dollars worth of interference from the LDS and Catholic churches.

It is a bit uncomfortable, but definitely unprecedented.

If you're referring to the pressure from the Executive it's definitely not unprecedented. The Justice Department pretty routinely submits briefs. It's no more a case of pressuring the judiciary than we see from any other lobbyist group.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

If you're referring to the pressure from the Executive it's definitely not unprecedented. The Justice Department pretty routinely submits briefs. It's no more a case of pressuring the judiciary than we see from any other lobbyist group.

No not the Executive pressure, I was speaking more the specifics of the situation. Though, thinking back, past presidents have championed for Civil Rights (Kennedy being an obvious example), but it is sadly rare.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There is no government current or future that's going to reopen that.

Shhhhh, Harper is going to bring armed people with guns to your street so he can change it.

Muhahahahahahha.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by valo403

If you're referring to the pressure from the Executive it's definitely not unprecedented. The Justice Department pretty routinely submits briefs. It's no more a case of pressuring the judiciary than we see from any other lobbyist group.

... except that this lobbyist group enjoys slightly more influence and power than other lobbyist groups, no? So much so, in fact, that the judiciary's primary role is as a check and balance to this lobbyist's influence and power.

EDIT TO ADD: If Obama really cares, the federal government should apply for intervenor status and make submissions like everyone else.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Makarov

... except that this lobbyist group enjoys slightly more influence and power than other lobbyist groups, no? So much so, in fact, that the judiciary's primary role is as a check and balance to this lobbyist's influence and power.

I don't think they really do. Sure the appearance is that they do, but in effect I don't see a brief from the Justice Department holding more sway than a brief from the supporters of Prop 8, particularly at the SCOTUS level. On issues of civil rights I think the Justice Department has a responsibility to speak up.

[gargamel]

Obama just wants to be on the right side of history with this. The Supreme Court definitely uses submissions from lobbying groups to make an informed ruling when the case involves technical issues (for example, patent law cases), but I don't think they really care what these groups say when it comes to civil rights issues.

As for whether Obama is improperly putting pressure on the justices, they're appointed for life, so there's really nothing he could do to them even if that was his goal.

[onetwo_threefour]

^ What valo said. The American democratic experiment is starkly different from the Canadian version in this regard as I see it. The role of the President effectively demands that he take a leadership position on issues, but given the states rights arguments resulting from their federal system he can't be seen to interfere with state level decisions until it becomes a matter of national interpretation. I imagine he's been itching for the opportunity to stake out his position on this and a legal brief is an appropriate mechanism for that now that the matter is before the supreme court. Given the more expansive breadth of authority of our federal government and the ability to directly create and implement legislation being entwined as a result of our executive branch directly controlling the legislative branch, the Canadian PM simply doesn't have to function in the same way.

[neo45]

Obama doesn't really care. He was openly against same-sex marriage 5 years ago. He, like any politician, will plan his "morals" around what gets him more votes. Seriously, he did a complete 180 on the whole subject and nobody calls him out on it.

But ya, it isn't getting changed in Canada, and that is a good thing. I think Canadians are generally proud that their country has same-sex marriages.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by neo45

Obama doesn't really care. He was openly against same-sex marriage 5 years ago. He, like any politician, will plan his "morals" around what gets him more votes. Seriously, he did a complete 180 on the whole subject and nobody calls him out on it.

That's an awfully cynical way of looking at it. You don't think it's possible for someone's views on a given issue to evolve and change over time?

As a personal anecdote, when I was a teenager and early 20-something, I was against gay marriage. As I matured as a person and became friends with a few homosexual people, I realized my previous position on the issue was mistaken, and I've since become a staunch proponent of legalized gay marriage.

[onetwo_threefour]

^ while I may be naive, I think Obama has actually privately supported equality of marriage, but simply wouldn't make an issue of it in his first term for political reasons. It's just too much of a hot-button issue with the republican fundy base for a democratic president in a first term to take on if he wants to get re-elected. We can certainly discuss whether that cKind of cold calculation is appropriate, but that's my take on his 180.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by neo45

Obama doesn't really care. He was openly against same-sex marriage 5 years ago. He, like any politician, will plan his "morals" around what gets him more votes. Seriously, he did a complete 180 on the whole subject and nobody calls him out on it.

This is false. He still personally is against same-sex marriage, however, from a political standpoint he voted against the FMA, and has stated prior to his presidential run that he is opposed to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Hell, in The Audacity Of Hope (published in 2006), he stated “I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,”.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ while I may be naive, I think Obama has actually privately supported equality of marriage, but simply wouldn't make an issue of it in his first term for political reasons. It's just too much of a hot-button issue with the republican fundy base for a democratic president in a first term to take on if he wants to get re-elected. We can certainly discuss whether that cKind of cold calculation is appropriate, but that's my take on his 180.

This.

He did make his views pretty clear during the election though.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ while I may be naive, I think Obama has actually privately supported equality of marriage, but simply wouldn't make an issue of it in his first term for political reasons. It's just too much of a hot-button issue with the republican fundy base for a democratic president in a first term to take on if he wants to get re-elected. We can certainly discuss whether that cKind of cold calculation is appropriate, but that's my take on his 180.

I'm not so sure about that. He openly declared his support for legalized gay marriage six months before the 2012 election. He wasn't quietly waiting until he was safely in his second term to make this an issue; he was prepared to campaign on it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Fixed your post there.

Hahahaha awesome, was waiting on pins and needles for your response

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ What valo said. The American democratic experiment is starkly different from the Canadian version in this regard as I see it. The role of the President effectively demands that he take a leadership position on issues, but given the states rights arguments resulting from their federal system he can't be seen to interfere with state level decisions until it becomes a matter of national interpretation. I imagine he's been itching for the opportunity to stake out his position on this and a legal brief is an appropriate mechanism for that now that the matter is before the supreme court. Given the more expansive breadth of authority of our federal government and the ability to directly create and implement legislation being entwined as a result of our executive branch directly controlling the legislative branch, the Canadian PM simply doesn't have to function in the same way.

Appreciate the American state lesson from you and valo. I too often overestimate its similarities to the Canadian state.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by mrvee

Gay marriage is so wrong in so many ways.
Just Gross.

So don't get gay married.