Home > Congress, Democratic Party, Main Blog - General, Military, President Barack Obama, PUMA, Republicans, Senate, Stupid PUMAs, US Politics > Queerty And America Blog Go After Obama Admin for Comparing Gay Marriage to Incest and Pedophilia.The Reality.

Queerty And America Blog Go After Obama Admin for Comparing Gay Marriage to Incest and Pedophilia.The Reality.

I personally believe that it is right for gays to be angry about the continued operation of Defense Of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I think that they are awful pieces of legislation that should never have been signed off. Whatever the crazy remnants of Hillary’s campaign to the baser elements of The Democratic Party may now be saying about it, their Sainted Bill Clinton should have vetoed this. Their current opposition is only for nefarious reasons.

It should also be noted that this is a Bush carry over, written by a Mormon lawyer, as reported by America Blog.

Firstly, a President can not and nor should we expect one to just completely ignore a law passed by Congress and signed off by a Predecessor. Especially when that law has gone to Court 6 times under previous administrations and was declared Constitutional.

One of the main criticisms people had of W was that he ignored the law and sought too much Executive Privilege. So why should a Democratic Party President do the same?

The President has certain duties within the Constitution, above all ensuring it is protected.

Another obligation within the Constitution is protecting the right of States. DOMA does protect State rights, wrongly or rightly. And for all those running round saying Cheney is more progressive all he was saying is he agrees with DOMA, he argued gay marriage is a State issue. He did so after he left office, so his words were very carefully chosen for entirely Partisan purposes. Why did he not raise the issue of gay marriage when he was Vice President?

With regard to the brief that Queerty and America Blog so heavily objects to, it is the sworn duty of any Lawyer to put forward their best case. For those getting inflamed by the stories that suggest the deposition compares gay marriage to pedos and incest, it does not. The deposition recognises that States have different rules about who can marry (ie how closely related) and at what age. The case in question quoted was that of a 16 year old girl, hardly paedophilia.

The deposition in Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer v The United States of America stated

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (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 state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (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); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (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”).

Cousins marrying cousins is not in reality incest, nor does it say it is, someone marrying a 16 year old is not paedophilia and the deposition does not state that either. AmericanBlog are being disingenuous.

This law must be repealed. Unlike 1996 – 2008 there is a President who will not veto a bill that comes out of the Senate to repeal these awful Acts. While I agree that there is a possibility that he could (and therefore I believe he should) use USC 10, to suspend operation of DADT, he holds no power to simply overturn legislation directed towards protecting State “rights” and I would not wish him to do so.

This is a matter for Congress. They have mid terms coming next year and Primaries even sooner. Get them to work for your money, support and vote. If they will not get a better Candidate through the Primaries.

Gays represent the demographic with the largest levels of disposable income and high levels of free time.

There are 59 Democratic Senators, all wanting to keep their seats. (60 once Franken is finally seated). Get them to vote in line with the platform that they were elected on.

The motion to dismiss

CASE NO. SACV09-00286

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: