The Obama DOJ compared gay marriage to incest

Lounge
1

This is really messed up.

Tell Obama and Holder: Stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

They compared same-sex marriage to a marriage between an uncle and a niece. Or between two children.

No, we’re not talking about Rick Santorum. We’re talking about the Obama administration’s Justice Department. The brief the DOJ presented defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court was not just wrong. It was offensive. The New York Times called it “disturbing” in its lead editorial.

Rachel Maddow and Howard Dean discussed the issue on MSNBC on June 15. Take a look:

msnbc.com Video Player

Back in the days of the 2008 campaign, Senator Obama promised he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. But now that a gay couple in California is challenging DOMA in federal court, President Obama has chosen to take action to defend a law that prevents legally married same-sex couples from receiving any federal benefits, or from having their marriages recognized in other states.

The Obama administration now tells us it has no choice but to defend DOMA - after all, it’s the job of the Department of Justice to defend every law on the books. But a former Special Assistant for civil rights to President Clinton writes on AmericaBlog that this is far from true: On the contrary, the DOJ is charged with figuring out how to argue a president’s policy decisions, not the other way around.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder cannot stand behind a brief which, per the New York Times, “cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

Sign this petition today to ask President Obama and Attorney General Holder to withdraw this brief and apologize for its contents. We expect better from this administration than to compare same-sex marriage to incest.

Tell Obama and Holder: Stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

2

Maybe I missed something. All I saw was a few cases presented where a marriage was valid in one area but wasn’t valid in another area. Seems like kind of a stretch to say they were comparing gay marriage to incest.

3

That was the ruling in California, on a state level. This is a Federal Executive department, the Obama administration’s Justice Department, making the remarks within a brief defending a bill, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Feral Court, which does not allow for same-sex marriages to have the same Federal benefits as marriages between a man and a woman.

4

I just want to know when the fizzuck I’m going to be able to legitimize the deep and profound love my lemur, Marianne, and I share. As it is, because of an intolerant society, we have to live in secret, never letting on to the public at large how we really feel about eachother. Can you imagine the pain we feel daily, as we see couples strolling through parks, holding hands, stopping to hug and give eachother a quick, affectionate kiss just because they feel like it?

It’s wrong that I have to hide in shame just because I’m different. You know what? To hell with tradition! Tradition has done nothing for society, nothing for a free people (if you want to call it that, HA!), and nothing to promote the happiness of self-determined people like me and Marianne. It’s a sad world we live in. Sad indeed.

-D4

5

You know I love ya, Domnk. I really do.

But I have to take issue with this:

I work in this field, and … nope. Sorry, that’s not quite accurate. DOJ is charged with enforcing and protecting the laws of the land, however they come to pass, investigating and prosecuting crimes, etc. It matters not if a law is a result of a presidential policy, or a constitutional amendment, or a bill that worked it way through the mobius strip of the political machine that is DC.

HOWEVER,

I agree that this is a bad policy decision on Obama’s part. While I am not too fond of him anyway, this sounds like a HUGE cop out. “Well, it’s the law, so I have to stick with it…” If that were the case, and presidents couldn’t work to get new laws enacted or revisions made, can you imagine the society we’d be living in? I’d love to be living in a society still ruled by 18h century legal philosophy! :roll_eyes:

I support you, and I support equality. I don’t support fear mongering, hate or hateful tactics designed to bring people down or insult their integrity, as a human being or as a cultural group.

Now, I am not too fond of Rachel Maddow either… :roll_eyes:

I especially liked your description of our courts though: “…in Feral Court…” Many times when I have testified, it seems as if there are panthers snarling in the corner, wolves banging down the front doors, and hyenas, jackals, and monkeys shrieking all around!

…oh, wait… that’s the lawyers, press and jury…

My bad!! :smiley: :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

6

I wasn’t talking about California. I was talking about this:

The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage), and re Mortenson’s Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say they are comparing gay marriage to incest.

7

I misunderstood then, thanks for the clarification. One question though, were did you get that info? I’ve been looking for the actual brief, or more specific references to the documents exact wording.

But they did in fact compare gay marriage to incest, according to the info you have just provided. I know that it might be the only marriage cases they can cite involving state-to-state marriage statutes, but, even if that is the case, it is extremely insulting to use such a defense.

It implies that, even if it is legal in one state, incest isn’t always legal in another, and the same applies for gay marriage. And for that to be an accurate assessment, gay marriage would have to, in the eyes of the law, be an equally substantial legal matter. The fact that they are defending a bill, which is in conflict with our civil rights, suggests that it is not a justifiable issue, and neither is incest. That is the comparison.

I’d like to hear your reasoning as well though :slight_smile:

Dominick

8

Wait a minute… just what is so bad about incest between two consenting adults? If they’re both of sound mind and of the age of accountability, what’s wrong with a brother and sister getting married? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they’re aware of the possible risks of birth defects in their offspring, so they’ve both had the appropriate operations to prevent conception.

What’s so wrong with it then, and why would it be looked down upon vis a vis gay marriage?

-D4

9

I’m a libertarian. Do what you want, dont ask me to pay for it.

10

Marriage should be Marriage, one man and one woman,

If they want a Domestic monogamous partnership, “Gay Marriage Agreement” or some similar type of legal binding agreement, go for it. I just don’t support taking another law or definition and alter it to fit your needs.

Sorry, call me old fashioned but it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Amanda and Eve

here is a plan-

"Let the men who want to marry men, marry men,
Let the women who want to marry women, marry women,
Let those who want to abort their babies, abort their babies
and in three generations there will be no more democrats.
"
(at least we can always hope, there will be a lot fewer at least.)

11

Actually, it was Adam and Lilith, and she was turned into a demon, that preys on men and young children for their ‘seed’, for wanting to be on top when having sex, and then speaking the name of god out loud. Lilith was before Eve, and she and Adam were created in gods image from the dirt, but because Lilith was too independent, got created Eve from Adams ribs, so she would be submissive, obedient to Adam, the man. Why do you think it’s called a Lullaby? Seriously, look it up. It was in the bible, but after some editing by the Churches it wasn’t.

And hey, if were going by the bible in this one, why do you believe in ‘Domestic monogamous partnerships’ at all? In the bible it clearly says

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 8:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

Get something concrete please, if your going to start taking a religious view on this, one, stop using the bible and picking and choosing what you want it to say, and, two, get out of this discussion :wink: Because the bible is either absolute, or it isn’t, we are either an abomination, as the bible says, or the bible is not the word of god and the information with it is not valid. You can’t say something is absolute and also say the statements need to be selectively followed. That’s an extreme contradiction.

Were talking about politics, and the right of ever person in the United States to have equal rights. I’m sorry, but the fact is I nor any other person, with an orientation other than straight, don’t want to have rights which are ‘Separate but equal’.

You know, land owners and voters used to only be for white males, your right, laws should never undergo redefinition. :roll_eyes:

Edit: And no, I am not putting anyone’s religion down, merely using logic to try and invalidate a typical, and irrational argument, believe what you wish, just don’t tell me I have to live by that same code, and then expect me not to counter those points you attempt to force upon me. :roll_eyes::wink:

12

Exactly the reason why I put it that way. :smiley:

13

Oooorrrrr…

The “bible,” and the religion(s) around it are fundamentally supposed to be about love, light and true happiness, and sharing that love, equality, and happiness around with your fellow human beings. With elevating and respecting everyone around you, for who they are, and what they are, flaws and all…

But because “we” as humans are political, conniving, crazy people, we take what is supposed to be a happy, meaningful mythology, full of good thoughts, love and ideas, and turned it into a tool to use and abuse others.

The root intention, when you strip away the human interference, could still be all about love though - at least, thats how I like to see it. :roll_eyes:

But hey, I’m an atheist! I believe in the religion of science. :stuck_out_tongue:

Oh! And Lillith is rooted in the Kabbalah. :wink:

14

I think I Googled “Obama doj incest” to find that.

My reasoning is this: A certain make of car, say a Hugo or Tata, might be illegal in the U.S. because of emission standards. A certain make of Ferrari may be illegal because of emission standards. Even though the cases may be similar and relevent, no one is comparing the cars. Same with marriages.

15

Oh yeah, I know, in The Zohar, but isn’t it interesting that in Genesis, in the Bible, there are two different references to Adam and Eve’s creation by god? One, creating both from the Dirt, and, two, creating Adam in God’s image and creating Eve from his rib. It may not include Lilith’s name in Genesis, but the ‘New Testament’ does have it’s roots in Jewish texts. :roll_eyes:

One more thing, while it is controversial, it is believed that Isaiah 34:14, in the ‘New Testament’, references Lilith as a Succubus, but, like I said, it is controversial, due to it’s translation.

16

Comparison - n.

  • Rhetoric. the considering of two things with regard to some characteristic that is common to both, as the likening of a hero to a lion in courage.

Your comparing the cars emissions per states legal status, but you still brought up the fact they are both illegal.

In this case, it is incest is legal\illegal from state-to-state and gay marriage is legal\illegal from state-to-state.. hmm, a characteristic common to both, according to the definition, it is a comparison :roll_eyes:

17

Still waiting on a consensus on my incest question. Tigerlilly, as you’re a Libertarian, I appreciate your viewpoint. Anyone else? What’s wrong with it under the conditions I described?

-D4

18

incest is best kept in the family.

The trouble with incest is you already have the same sir name and get benefits of being family.
Maybe Gays should just change their sirnames to match and call each other family

19

I also concur

20

I agree with you. I heard it has been proven that many of the genetic mating problems with first cousins don’t exist and restrictions should be lifted.