Will Obama legalize gay marriage in 2nd term?

[compassrose]

My understanding from Pres. Obama's statement the other day was that he personally supports gay marriage, but still wasn't planning to try to get a federal law passed.
Does this new anti-Romney ad mean a federal change would come with a second term? Or is it just calling Romney a douchebag who would defend DOMA?

I really want my moms to be able to get married. They've been together for 25 years, and they are worried because currently, they can't inherit the employer's contribution of each other's pension. Also, my non-bio mom is a teacher and will be fired if she ever comes out. (Thank you, state of Ohio).

[SJ]

I have no idea, but I certainly hope so.

[cahabalily]

I thought he was pretty clear that he thinks this is a decision best left up to the individual states?

I wish there was a federal law, but don't think Obama will do it

[Deleted]

Unless both the House and the Senate have a Democratic majority at some point during his term, no.

I think we still have a way to go. And I think it will ultimately have to be a Supreme Court decision. Which means we need a few more years of Democratic presidents to appoint new Justices, since many of the Republican justices are young.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 13:34:13 GMT -5 cahabalily said:

I thought he was pretty clear that he thinks this is a decision best left up to the individual states?

He said that because he is a politician.

[EllieArroway]

I think it's going to be the SC that legalizes gay marriage at the federal level. I just don't see the pres & congress working together to get it done with the current political climate.

[UMaineTeach]

May 11, 2012 13:32:45 GMT -5 compassrose said:

Also, my non-bio mom is a teacher and will be fired if she ever comes out. (Thank you, state of Ohio).

WTF - that is messed up.

no, I don't think it will be legal in the next 4 years.

[h]

I don't think he would try to push legislation unless he had the votes, and he won't have them in his second term, so no. My prediction is that it will be left to the states for the next several years and at some point when public opinion has shifted further and a good number of states have already legalized it, the Supreme Court will step in and take care of the remaining states, just as they did with interracial marriage.

I think getting to a point that gay marriage is legal nationwide is going to take a Court decision one way or another. Even if Congress were to pass a law legalizing it tomorrow, the constitutionality of that law would be challenged, and the issue would be left to the courts. Also, legally I think it makes a lot more sense for the Court to say that it is a violation of the 14th Amendment for states to ban same-sex marriage than for Congress to legislate that it be legal.

[karinothing]

May 11, 2012 13:35:30 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Unless both the House and the Senate have a Democratic majority at some point during his term, no.

I think we still have a way to go. And I think it will ultimately have to be a Supreme Court decision. Which means we need a few more years of Democratic presidents to appoint new Justices, since many of the Republican justices are young.

I agree with this. I don't think there is a way Obama can do it. I do think it will have to come from SCOTUS. I don't knwo if we need a few more dem presidents though. I don't think (correct me if I am wrong) that SCOTUS have viewed gay rights through the Equal Rights Amendment yet. I think THAT could happen sooner rather than later.

I mean maybe the con justices would let their views get in the way, but I would hope that they would rule that the Equal Rights amendment applies to gays as well. . .

[Girls Own Love]

I think Obama's declaration was of his own beliefs, not a promotion for what he plans to do. I'm willing to bet it'll come down to the states.

[annael415]

Although I would be totally in support of it, I think there is very little chance of it happening, especially in the near term. It seem like it will remain up the the states for the foreseeable future, imo.

[cahabalily]

May 11, 2012 13:36:17 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

May 11, 2012 13:34:13 GMT -5 cahabalily said:

I thought he was pretty clear that he thinks this is a decision best left up to the individual states?

He said that because he is a politician.

excellent point...Gullible is my middle name, come to think of it....

[laigut]

I honestly don't think it would be smart for him to try to push that at this point in time. Even if the House and Senate both went to the Dems this year, it would risky to pass a law at the federal level. The constitutionality of the law would be questioned so it would go the SC, and there is a good chance it would get struck down there.

Best chance is to have a Dem for the next few presidents to get some more liberal leaning SC judges.

[laigut]

I do think though that in 20 years we will look back on the gay rights issue the way we now look at the civil rights movement...wondering how we ever were so closed minded.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 13:35:30 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Unless both the House and the Senate have a Democratic majority at some point during his term, no.

Exactly. The president can't single-handedly pass bills. Can we please all remember our Schoolhouse Rock?

Currently, there are challenges to DOMA in the courts, and the Obama administration is essentially no longer defending it. If DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional, then it opens to the door to state marriage bans (e.g., Prop 8 in California) being found unconstitutional, which would then require states to recognize marriage equality.

[birdgirl]

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5 @birdgirl said:

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

Not necessarily true. One can argue that marriage may be regulated by the federal government and Congress can pass a law regulating it. Isn't that exactly what the feds did with DOMA?

[rex]

At the very least, he needs to get DOMA overturned.

Saying he supports same-sex marriage is one step but he needs to be proactive about it. This is a serious rights issue.

[birdgirl]

May 11, 2012 13:40:50 GMT -5 karinothing said:

May 11, 2012 13:35:30 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Unless both the House and the Senate have a Democratic majority at some point during his term, no.

I think we still have a way to go. And I think it will ultimately have to be a Supreme Court decision. Which means we need a few more years of Democratic presidents to appoint new Justices, since many of the Republican justices are young.

I agree with this. I don't think there is a way Obama can do it. I do think it will have to come from SCOTUS. I don't knwo if we need a few more dem presidents though. I don't think (correct me if I am wrong) that SCOTUS have viewed gay rights through the Equal Rights Amendment yet. I think THAT could happen sooner rather than later.

I mean maybe the con justices would let their views get in the way, but I would hope that they would rule that the Equal Rights amendment applies to gays as well. . .

Well that would be tough since the ERA never passed. I think you mean equal protection (either 5th or 14th amendment depending on the particular context).

[Velvetshady]

May 11, 2012 14:35:35 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

May 11, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5 @birdgirl said:

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

Not necessarily true. One can argue that marriage may be regulated by the federal government and Congress can pass a law regulating it. Isn't that exactly what the feds did with DOMA?

But Congress =/= The President. He can't do squat until Congress does.

[birdgirl]

May 11, 2012 14:35:35 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

May 11, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5 @birdgirl said:

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

Not necessarily true. One can argue that marriage may be regulated by the federal government and Congress can pass a law regulating it. Isn't that exactly what the feds did with DOMA?

Edited

[h]

May 11, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5 @birdgirl said:

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

I agree with you, but if they were so inclined, Congress could just pass a law anyway and then let opponents challenge it in court, essentially forcing the Court to decide the issue. Lord knows Congress has passed unconstitutional laws before.

I know what you are saying, thought. This is an issue for the states and eventually for the Court. I highly doubt anything will ever happen on this issue at the congressional level, beyond the possible eventual repeal of DOMA.

[mrsjuleshs]

I think it stinks he wants to leave it up to the individual states. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I think they need to do away with the term "marriage" altogether and just label them as civil unions.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 14:41:17 GMT -5 Velvetshady said:

May 11, 2012 14:35:35 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Not necessarily true. One can argue that marriage may be regulated by the federal government and Congress can pass a law regulating it. Isn't that exactly what the feds did with DOMA?

But Congress =/= The President. He can't do squat until Congress does.

I know that. Thats not what I am addressing. I am addressing the bold.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 14:42:05 GMT -5 h said:

May 11, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5 @birdgirl said:

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

I agree with you, but if they were so inclined, Congress could just pass a law anyway and then let opponents challenge it in court, essentially forcing the Court to decide the issue. Lord knows Congress has passed unconstitutional laws before.

I know what you are saying, thought. This is an issue for the states and eventually for the Court. I highly doubt anything will ever happen on this issue at the congressional level, beyond the possible eventual repeal of DOMA.

I agree with this also.

Birdgirl- I know what DOMA says. I am agreeing with what Hens said better- I am arguing that Congress can so choose to pass laws about marriage - just because they may not legally have the power doesn't mean they don't pass unconstitutional laws all the time.

But like others said, and like I originally said above, I agree this will be a battle for the courts.

[h]

I think the title of the thread is just poor phrasing. In her post, the OP refers to the President "trying to get a federal law passed." Surely everyone knows that the President cannot pass laws himself, right?

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 14:35:35 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

May 11, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5 @birdgirl said:

The title of this post makes me want to bang my head against my desk. Not only can the Executive not make laws, the question of defining marriage is a state, not federal, question unless and until it reaches the Supreme Court.

Not necessarily true. One can argue that marriage may be regulated by the federal government and Congress can pass a law regulating it. Isn't that exactly what the feds did with DOMA?

But what the feds did with DOMA is state that the federal government won't recognize gay marriage and that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. (How that doesn't violate the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is a whole issue.) They didn't ban states from performing or recognizing gay marriages.

So all the feds can do is repeal DOMA, and amend federal laws to recognize same-sex marraiges for federal purposes - Social Security, employee benefits, internal revenue code, etc. Congress can't pass a law telling any state that it has to allow gay marriages although I suppose it could financially blackmail the states a la the 55mph speed limit in the 70s and the drinking age of 21.

Not that the GOP-controlled House is remotely interested in repealing DOMA.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2012 14:51:05 GMT -5 h said:

I think the title of the thread is just poor phrasing. In her post, the OP refers to the President "trying to get a federal law passed." Surely everyone knows that the President cannot pass laws himself, right?

I don't assume that everyone knows that. I've read too many papers from college freshmen in Intro to American Government to assume that.

[mbcdefg]

I don't think he'll push for a federal law, no. I think he might be a bit more vocal about it, since about half of the country is now in favor of gay marriage according to the polls.

I don't think we'll see a federal law for at least 5-10 more years, sadly. I really hate to think that we'll be looking back on this some day and realizing how stupid and bigoted the whole thing is.

And (sadly) I can totally believe that there are bigoted assholes in this country, but in this day and age I really CAN'T believe that they are free to be so vocal about it. Can you imagine politicians and famous people going on TV today and saying that, say, black people shouldn't be able to marry whites or shouldn't be allowed to vote, and not getting completely crucified over it?

[h]

May 11, 2012 14:53:34 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Congress can't pass a law telling any state that it has to allow gay marriages although I suppose it could financially blackmail the states a la the 55mph speed limit in the 70s and the drinking age of 21.

I was just sitting here thinking the same thing--that they could always threaten them with taking away federal highway funds, etc.