Edwards would repeal DOMA

[sniffa]

For some reason I can only find this story in the Washington Times, a right-leaning, sometimes anti-gay source. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said in Iowa yesterday that he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by former President Clinton, along with 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

Edwards said, "I think we should get rid of DOMA; I think DOMA was a mistake from the beginning, and discriminatory, and so I will do everything in my power as president to do that."

When the Washington Times reporter asked Edwardsd why DOMA is discriminatory (duh), he said "I think it's discriminatory against gay and lesbian couples, that's what's discriminatory about it."

He also said, "The key is to have the federal government recognize civil unions between same-sex couples," and, according to the paper, that statement received much applause.

Though Edwards is opposed to gay marriage, he would not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

http://www.houstonvoice.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=15749

outstanding. :thumbsup:

[terrya]

1. Good for Edwards.

Good for him for advocating repeal of DOMA. And I'll say it...DOMA was and is one of the most shameful moments of the Clinton Presidency. DOMA is blatant legislative discrimination.

[rinsd]

6. Hillary is for repealing section 3 of DOMA.

Though I agree that is not good enough.

[geek tragedy]

2. Does he favor partially repealing it (like Clinton)

or fully repealing it (like Obama)?

[maximusveritas]

13. I think just part of it

He uses vague terms like "get rid of it", but I don't think he's ever committed to a full repeal. I know he was full a partial repeal in 2004.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26892

But even though Clinton supported the bill, his wife wants to overturn part of it -- the section GLAD is targeting. In fact, statements about DOMA by Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates have given a boost to GLAD's strategy and made the goal seem feasible, particularly if a Democrat wins the White House and Democrats maintain control of Congress. John Edwards also favors the repeal of that particular section of DOMA, while Barack Obama supports repealing DOMA in its entirety.

Some legal scholars believe repealing all of DOMA would clear the way for legalizing "gay marriage" nationwide. In the 11 years since DOMA was signed into law, 27 states have adopted constitutional marriage amendments.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Well cool!

When he becomes dictator, he can unilaterally repeal laws. Until then, he can only advocate.

[dragonlady]

14. The word "repeal" was used by the author of the piece

This short article gives the quotes noted in the original post. There is no quote there from Edwards using the word "repeal." Until something else is published that attributes that word to Sen. Edwards, we should confine ourselves to commenting on "everything in my power."

A few days ago I was given a lesson by another DUer about being careful to pay attention to quotation marks. I'm happy to pass along that favor.

[bean fidhleir]

22. No, he could do much more than 'advocate'

He could -though on his record I wonder whether he would- instruct the Justice Dept. to enforce the 'full faith and credit' clause in the Constitution. If he did, game over.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. He couldn't do that

against DOMA.

Not unless he's planning on becoming a dictator.

[bean fidhleir]

27. Don't talk nonsense! DOMA is a *law*, not part of the Constitution

FFAC is part of the Constitution, and trumps any law.

[kenfrequed]

31. Oh cool!

Whenever a candidate suggests doing away with oppressive and unconstitutional laws that your candidate doesn't position as strongly YOU can just call them a dictator.

Dare I count the logical fallacies?

Seriously, you don't think that since he is running as president that he MIGHT just be referring to how he will exercise his use of executive powers?

[MonkeyFunk]

32. No

I'm pointing out that Presidents can't repeal laws.

[kenfrequed]

33. Uhm no

Your response was analogizing the statement Edwards made in regards to doing away with these laws in some twisted manner to the powers of a dictator. Were it otherwise you merely would have said:

"I'm pointing out that Presidents can't repeal laws."

And by the way, you didn't answer my closing question. Do you think Edwards might have been talking about how he might be able to oh...I dunno put Supreme court justices up that would do away with that law? Or maybe change the manner in which it is enforced? Or any number of other options that the executive may exercise in this manner?

Oddly I usually notice that you don't make a lot of arguments criticizing congress for their failure to stand up to the sitting executive, so I don't actually expect a real response from you.

[wyldwolf]

4. good sentiment, but how?

[MonkeyFunk]

8. If he had stayed in the Senate

he would've been able to at least attempt it.

[orion9941]

18. True, but

Atleast he was more honest in his answer than Obama or Hillary during the LOGO debate.

Obama basically said seperate but equal...and even then they really had to push hard to get that statement out of him.

Hillary dodged all over the place when the issue came up and eventually leaned on her and Bill's work while in office for the LGBT community. Which was actually more harm than good IMO.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. You win the award

for the most awkward deflection of the year.

[bean fidhleir]

23. Enforce 'full faith and credit'. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

24. ok. How?

[bean fidhleir]

26. Please don't play stupid.

Laws are enforced by getting a judgement in court, and then sending in guys with guns if the miscreants refuse to obey the court.

[wyldwolf]

28. why won't you demonstrate a basic knowledge of how our system of government works?

[bean fidhleir]

29. Oh please, explain it to us. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

30. No, no. If you think he can repeal it, explain the process to us.

[bean fidhleir]

34. I already did.

FFAC is a cut-and-dried Constitutional provision with no wiggle room. So if he takes them to court, as Eisenhower and then the Kennedys did during Civil Rights days, they lose. Understand now?

[rinsd]

5. Ummm Edwards said that in the Logo debate in August

http://www.q-notes.com/top2007/top01_082507.html

[cali]

7. Good for him

but if he's saying he can repeal it- like a stroke of the pen thing- he's being misleading. And he did that before when he said he'd take away health insurance from the Congress.

[geek tragedy]

9. But, but, but he's going to FIGHT. n/t

[terrya]

11. A President Edwards is going to have to use his political capital to get Congress to repeal it.

And, again....good for Edwards for saying that. DOMA is wrong, on every level. But it won't be a cakewalk...look at the fight trying to pass ENDA this past year.

[AtomicKitten]

10. So would Obama.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Mr. Edwards: MARRIAGE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A CIVIL UNION IN THIS COUNTRY

It is called the First Amendment separation of church and state; look into it.

I am willing to support you, Mr. Edwards, but for crying out loud, stop showing off your abject ignorance on this matter.

[Clark2008]

15. He shows his abject ingnorance on a lot of matters. eom

[dragonlady]

16. That's an interesting point

Marriage is a concept that involves both a religious element (if the couple wishes) and the relationship recognized by civil law (joint ownership of property, inheritance rights, option to file joint tax return, and many other things). The right to enter into a marriage by the second method without being required to go through the first method would be protected by the First Amendment.

The term "civil union" has been adopted to mean a relationship recognized for people who can't marry under the current laws of the states. Until a state recognizes marriage between gays (like Massachusetts), it would be the best way to extend some of the benefits of marriage to gays. That's what Edwards is talking about, on the federal level, which is where the president can operate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Religious elements of marriage are thoroughly irrelevant under the law

The one and only way to create a legal marriage is by filing the appropriate civic documents with the appropriate civil authority (common law marriages are a different critter entirely.) That many religious institutions have a similar institution with the same name has no bearing at all on civil law.

Religious ritual does not create a legal marriage. If a wedding is held but the couple do not sign the civil papers, there is no legal marriage, period. Signing and filing the paperwork will create a marriage even in the absense of a religious ceremony. I know: I was a wedding officiant for several years who specialized in civil ceremonies. I have had more than a few "Starbucks weddings," believe me. :toast:

The problem with changing the terms is the vast body of court rulings and judicial precedent known collectively as common law. Three centuries of American jurisprudence has endowed the institution of marriage with a vast array of inherent rights, priviledges, responsibilities and protections that often go far beyond what the laws themselves say. If you change the name of the institution, every last bit of marriage common law is discarded and will need to be replaced right by right, protection by protection. This is not something that can by rewriting the statutes. It is flat-out impossible to create a truly equal institution by legislative fiat alone. The one and only way to extend the benefits of marriage to same sex couples is to extend marriage itself. Any other attempt would only create a variation on Jim Crow.

Added link to common law marriage to forestall questions about common law marriage. :hi:

[Hieronymus]

17. Edwards is a good man.

[Major Hogwash]

20. It was a stupid "I'm a good Christian values candidate" feel good law! It should be repealed.

Before someone authors a DOCA bill - defense of clean air bill.
Who would be against a bill like that?
Where's the "duh" smiley when you need one?

It is the state that issues marriage licenses - not the church!
It was a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid law!

Get the church out of the government and let me fuck whoever I want to!
It's not the government's bizness who I am with in my bedroom anyway!

By the way, where the hell is Mark Foley?