To all of you who blamed George W. Bush for torture, you owe him an apology.

As it turns out, it's not the President who runs the executive branch; it's the folks at the Office of Legal Counsel.

Sorry George. I now understand that you were just doing your job.

Oh, you too, Barack. I now understand that your Office of Legal Counsel operates independent of your leadership.

I'm learning so much on DU today.

:popcorn: i am LOVIN this. nt

:popcorn:

.

Just like Bush did... Hmmm, yeah, be MORE like Bush, fuck the rule of law and Congress.

(Oh SNAP!)

OOOH SNAP!

From environmental laws to FISA and security and now to DOMA.

Maybe we should stop worrying about stupidity like tobacco regulation and start worrying about getting Congress to pay attention to what matters.

who knows what else they could come up with.

And you don't consider that Important.....:wow:

The subject is DOMA; war crimes is a whole different drama.

And, "skippy"???

Really! :P

DOMA is the law of the land!!!!!!111 MUST UPHOLD IT!!!!!

Torture, war crimes? Not so much.

the pretzel twisting logic used on DU to excuse all kinds of shit is very disturbing indeed

you're supporting the wrong kind of law.

Try the Constitution.

Frankly, that is just a bald faced lie. It does not do that. Why don't you read the brief yourself. I've posted it ad nauseum, not that very many people around here actually care about facts. I can't for the life of me understand why the left thinks its intellectually superior.

But since you've read it and all, why don't you try to post it before I find it.

... And, as the Court repeatedly has acknowledged, longstanding principles of conflicts of law do "not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy." See, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 422 (1979); see also Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) ("Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the 6 Among the "incidents" of marriage mentioned in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws are "that the spouses may lawfully cohabit as man and wife . . . the marital property interests which each spouse may have in the other's assets . . . the forced share or intestate share which the surviving spouse has in the estate of the deceased spouse that a party to the marriage is the 'spouse' of the other . . . within the meaning of these terms when used in a will, trust or other instrument." See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284 cmt. a. 20 statutes of any other state."). Under this longstanding public policy doctrine, out-of-state statutes or acts that are obnoxious to the forum State's policy need not be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause...

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").

http://www.google.com/search?q=incest+obama+doj+brief&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Has absolutely no more to do with comparing my marriage to incest than any other marriage in the country. It's about comparing STATE LAWS. How in the hell do you think you are going to argue the difference between state laws without citing cases where the state laws were decided?

the laws regarding same-sex marriage with the laws regarding incest, they're not actually making a comparison between same-sex marriage and incest?

It's a legal brief. They don't compare social standing in legal briefs. They compare LAWS. They did not compare anything to do with the legality of incest itself, they compared LAWS regarding marriage in various states. Honestly why can you not see what is crystal clear.

of consenting adults with the legal standing of people involved in questionable activities.

Different states have different laws regarding marriage. That's All. Legal Rulings have come out of those cases as it relates to the extension of federal benefits, etc. That's It. Citing the cases does not compare the people involved even to each other, let alone you or me or anybody else.

That brief didn't do anything it was claimed to have done. The argument about "scarce government resources" was a quote from the House Report when DOMA was enacted. It was referring to the legal claims that were made in 1996. That was one of the claims that was made and it is GOOD for everybody to be reminded what was said.

:sarcasm:

What is it with you people? This is classic DU pissing and moaning. No context, no links. Just some random coment we are supposed to assume is sarcasm but is so riddled with stupidity that you dare anyone to respond.

OLC is crucial to any adminitration to ensure that all moves are legal and follow legal precedent. Bush's OLC did not operate independently but crafted opinions to do the bidding of Bush/Cheney. Yoo needs to be disbarred and possibly imprisoned. If you do not recognize that, then you need to do better research.

As for the Obama administration, I can only speculate what "sin" has put a bug up your ass.

A lawyer cited a precedent where a state ruled that incest marriage was illegal by state law even though a incestuous couple had moved from a place where incest marriage was legal.

Therefore, according to twisted logic, Obama compared homosexuality to incest.

They were pointing out the differences?

I thought they were pointing out the similarities.

I wonder how I got this so wrong.

You're being purposefully dishonest, and it looks like everybody can see through it.

Or it's dishonest to compare them?

What are you saying?

Marriage Law is being argued.

I believe I have a human right to health care. But if I visit Alabama and they don't accept my mental health insurance and I sue, the case is about the difference between Oregon state law and Alabama state law - not my believe in my human right to health care. That's a different law suit and one that I think they filed in Massachusetts.

Your position seems to be that while New York allows first cousins to marry, then if New York allows gay marriage, then gay first cousins should still not be allowed to marry.

That's sort of the basis for human rights applied to sexuality.

There were about 5 marital variations cited with differing laws in different states. If you're going to talk about how different states treat marriage laws, you have to talk about the cases involved.

but apparently I made a good choice!

Has nothing to do with incest. Has to do with what various states legislate.

Same with dad and daughter?

On Camera during a Moyer's program.

Someone who could sit around 24/7 and type out the mostly ghastly scenarios of how a broken arm might not be torture if it was done this way, or a twisted tendon might not be torture if it was done that way, or electrodes to the genitals might not be torture if done the other way - Yeesh! Is that even a human being?

and ignore laws it disagreed with, we all were pretty pissed about it.

I'm sorry. I think DOMA is total bullshit, but I also think we have to go about this the right way, which means WE have to let Congress know how we feel, and do so in mass numbers, and let them know that WE hold the power to vote them out if need be.

The couple in the precedent were legal, consenting adults.

But in the case of same-sex marriage, it's all the states, isn't it?

Hmm... Makes you think, doesn't it?

You know, calling it "incest" when 26 states allow first cousin marriages, and when the brief didn't call it "incest" either, is unhelpful in the bigger picture.

The point is that states have different laws on whom can marry and at what age - and the federal government recognizes those marriages for federal purposes.

Are you saying the federal government shouldn't recognize legal gay marriages, and advocating for non recognition of cousin marriages?

:thumbsup:

The Buck NEVER stops here!