So the DOJ is no longer going to enforce DOMA.
On the surface, that’s fine with me. I think DOMA is an embarrassing sham. “Defense of marriage” my fanny; its sole intent is to treat GLBT as lesser citizens; to legalize discrimination because you think it’s icky or some sort of abomination (geez.. didn’t we do this to Blacks and other non-Whites some years ago?? how’d that turn out…). Homosexuals aren’t a threat to marriage. The exact numbers vary depending whom you ask, but most have it that the divorce rate (of heterosexual couples) is over 50%. So uh… I think THAT is more a threat to marriage than any fag, n’est-ce pas? I also think that a loving couple in a long-term dedicated relationship where they support and care for each other, and then support and encourage and care for their children, that does more for the positive health and well-being of the children. That statement applies, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. I’d rather see a child in a loving household run by two gay men, than in an abusive, destructive, and unhealthy household run by two heterosexuals. It’s about love and other matters, not sexual orientation. Those concepts are orthogonal.
And now… I’m sure I’ve pissed off my conservative friends and readers, and confused my liberal friends and readers. 🙂
But I’m not here to talk about that.
Nor am I here to talk about the fact that, while people (that support this) are reporting this with a rather broad brush, you have to realize the actual reading of the DOJ statement is VERY narrow. It’s not as big a win as you think it is or want it to be. All it really is is a political statement on Obama’s part, trying to shore up votes for the 2012 re-election. It is a very small baby-step in the right direction, but really folks… you have to look at the actual statement and movement and realize that it’s pure political posturing.
And that’s the real issue here.
Obama is vulnerable for the 2012 election. So long as the Republicans find someone who has a good shot (read: not Palin), Obama is certainly in trouble. Now is the time for him to start doing things to pander to his voter base, and that’s all this is.
But what’s worse? You have a sitting President instructing the Attorney General to not defend the law of the land. That is unreal! If Obama wants to question the constitutionality of DOMA, how about questioning the constitutionality of this overreach of Executive authority! How would anti-gun people react if a President opted to instruct the DOJ to no longer enforce the 1934 National Firearms Act? Or a President instructed the DOJ to not enforce the anti-discrimination policies and laws? People would be screaming about abuse of Presidential power! But why aren’t we hearing that now?
A tainted win is not a win, and again if you read the actual statement it’s not really much of a win at all. If you really want DOMA to go away, you need to go through proper means to make it go away. If you want to demonstrate it is unconstitutional, then that has to be taken up properly within the court system. This is political pandering and an abuse of Executive power; it should not be allowed to stand.
Updated: BTW, this is the same AG that said he’ll prosecute marijuana users even if state law permits it. You’ve got to love this selective enforcement of the law, don’t you?
And to all you liberal progressive types… why are you standing for this? Or is it OK to do bad things when you benefit, and not OK to do bad things when it injures you?
Stuff From Hsoi 
It’s not like it’s anything new for the 0bama administration to nor enforce immigration laws or voting rights violations depending on which PC group you favor, or blow-off a federal judges ruling to punish an industry (and it;s workers) by keeping an unlawful drilling ban in place.
Why is this newsworthy? Because he went out and said it instead of just doing it?
It’s newsworth because the liberal media loves GLBT. Plus, it’s a chance to paint the hOly One in a favorable light.
Me? I don’t care who is doing this. I mean, if the next President is a Republican and they opt to do the same thing for the 1934 NFA, I might like that, but I still think it’s the absolute wrong way to go about it.
When something is wrong, it’s wrong… if you benefit from something wrong, that’s wrong.
This is the new activist judge. The activist chief executive. This happen recently in California and for the life of me I can’t remember what it was they refused to enforce. But like Kurt said, it’s nothing new, immigration laws are the place where each level of government decides to or not to enforce things.
And you could say the cop who chooses not to arrest someone who he thinks had a justified shooting, or just thought the shootee was a scumbag, is deciding not to enforce the law. Making a judgement in the field. But he generally doesn’t issue a statement saying he’s going to do it in the future.