The "Legalist" Award
Because freedom is only for privledged or protected classes
President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he will refuse to do his job when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is part of this stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process. Obama said that his administration would not defend the law in legal challenges because it is unconstitutional but that it would continue to enforce the law selectively. This is incomprehensible and incoherent, except in nakedly political terms. The president is using his power to do what he – and his base – wants.
Particularly egregious is Obama's unilateral declaration that homosexuals are a specially protected class under the Constitution and that this is the reason DOMA is unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not directly say so. Congress has passed no such law. Nor has the Supreme Court ever said that homosexual people are a protected class.
41 comments
Where did anyone get the idea that liberals think that homosexuals are a "separately protected class" under the Constitution? All they want is the same rights as heterosexuals. And if Obama is selectively enforcing the law instead of doing an all-or-nothing thing, then I agree that that's not good, but would Mr. Brown have viewed the Civil Rights Movement as a rejection of the democratic process, because its leaders used protests and civil disobedience? It boggles the mind.
Obama said that his administration would not defend the law in legal challenges because it is unconstitutional
That's the argument used by President Reagan. It's called a "signing statement", and George W. Bush was famous for them.
Bush creates huge deficits: no problem
What a hypocrite.
But the Constitution does not directly say so.
Where does it directly say that the Boy Scouts have freedom of expressive association or that Congress has any business waging a war on drugs? Take your time finding the exact words in the text. I'll wait.
Nor has the Supreme Court ever said that homosexual people are a protected class.
It's just a matter of time. Some lower courts have so held for decades.
Yes, gays are a privileged class. So much so that the ultimate goal of the gay-liberal-atheist-muslim-communist-fascist agenda is to force everyone to have gay sex. We're also going to use Bible pages as condoms and anyone who some much as thinks about complaining about this will be put in jail and whipped. There, I've fulfilled your persecution quota now go and masturbate in the corner like a good little Christian.
Particularly egregious is Obama's unilateral declaration that homosexuals are a specially protected class under the Constitution and that this is the reason DOMA is unconstitutional.
homosexuals are a specially protected class under the Constitution and that this is the reason DOMA is unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not directly say so.
They're not "specially" protected, they're protected because EVERYONE is protected. This is why it doesn't specifically mention homosexuality in the Constitution.
I really think that fundies like to interpret the Constitution the same way they do their bible.
From Wikipedia:
Matthew Shepard Act
On October 28, 2009 President Obama, signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
Fuck you, Brian.
Judging from what these fundies keep thumping on about, you'd think that gay marriage is the only relevant issue in American politics today, because we sure as hell don't need to worry about things like, you know, the economy, global warming, the slow death of journalism, the failed 'War on Drugs' or restructuring the medical and insurance industries.
That's UnAmerican, after all.
Ah, I see, when they don't do something you like, it's not doing their job....interesting...kinda like the same restrictions you place on your religion I wager
Brian, that is because no one is saying that homosexuals are a specially protected class, you twat.
Talk about strawmen, sheesh.
Obama chose not to DEFEND DOMA, he has to enforce it, it's his job, but he doesn't have to defend it when it comes up to the Supreme Court for Constitutional review - actually the Republicans are going to take that one on.
Actually, Ginsberg wrote an opinion in this last session that hints towards homosexuals being a "protected class." Also, with the enacting of the Matthew Shepard act, congress is passing laws that acknowledge that gays are an oppressed class.
No one is giving homosexuals special rights. We're simply trying to keep bigots from passing laws that keep them from having the same civil rights as everyone else. The idea is not that homosexuals are somehow specially protected under the law, but equal under the law.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I know that DOMA has been called unconstitutional for a number of different reasons. However, little as I know, I at least understand the basic concept of equal protection under the law.
Brian Brown needs to get his hands on a copy of the US Constitution and read it. Or if that's too hard, maybe just the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that's to hard for him, could someone just highlight the Equal Protection Clause for him? Just as a starting point.
"Particularly egregious is Obama's unilateral declaration that homosexuals are a specially protected class under the Constitution and that this is the reason DOMA is unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not directly say so. Congress has passed no such law. Nor has the Supreme Court ever said that homosexual people are a protected class."
The word "privacy" isn't anywhere in the Constitution either, but we have a constitutional right to it. And as far as I'm concerned, the Equal Protection clause extends to homosexuals they are obviously targets of discrimination everywhere.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Of course, we all know this is to the exclusion of them queers.
My, how quickly you meatwhistles forgot about your undying love, admiration, and support for this sack of shit...
image
Democracy is not mob rule. Democracy is not mob rule.Democracy is not mob rule.Democracy is not mob rule.Democracy is not mob rule.Democracy is not mob rule.Democracy is not mob rule.
The majority cannot take rights away from the minority. The majority cannot take rights away from the minority. The majority cannot take rights away from the minority. The majority cannot take rights away from the minority.
Yeah, those special protections that make it illegal to beat gays up and tie them to a fence overnight.
To me it seems that homosexuals are a specially persecuted/discriminated class in some circles in the US, which means they probably need a bit of special protection.
Isn't it illegal in the US to discriminate someone due to his/her characteristics?
Uh, it's not like other presidents have rejected laws that were unjust. Abraham Lincoln being one of them.
If the law is found to be unconstitutional and unjust, why would the administration uphold it in court? It's not like they just arbitrarily decided to "not follow the rules" because they don't like it. DOMA is discriminatory and denies married same sex couples recognition by the federal government while hetero marriages are recognized. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that's a double standard. It's a matter of equal rights, not special protection. Although LGBT people should be recognized as minorities that the majority oppresses.
Not that I would want to be seen as defending BB, but I think he's using "protected class" in the legal sense:
"Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
However, the moment the government decides to uphold the Establishment Clause, these guys get completely torqued up.
Odd that the government is only obligated to uphold the laws these guys deem important to them.
They are humans, therefore they are protected.
If you're an idiot who can't see people equaly because of your bigoted beliefs it isn't Obama's fault.
@Percy Q. Shunn
The fundies' previous God-man - Ronnie Raygun - was acted off the screen by a chimp, so goes to show how unevolved the Religious Right are; they voted for them after all. And the only way Sarah Failin would look hot, is if she was being burned at the stake.
>:D
Sarah Failin: the American Maggie Thatcher (*spit *)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
