Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Obama Says DOMA Violates Protections Of 14th Amendment

February 28, 2011 by  

Obama says DOMA violates protections of 14th AmendmentPresident Barack Obama's administration has announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a Federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

On Feb. 23, United States Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement saying that the President believes that DOMA "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians" that violate the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Holder added that the legal landscape has changed considerably since the law was approved by Congress and signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. The Supreme Court has since ruled that certain laws discriminating against homosexual conduct are unConstitutional, and Congress recently repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that banned openly gay individuals from serving.

Six States have ignored the Federal law in recent years by legalizing gay marriage, while several other States have approved same-sex civil unions. On Feb. 23, Senate lawmakers in Maryland advanced a bill that would legalize gay marriages. Governor Martin O'Malley has pledged to sign the bill if it passes Congress.

In a column for The Huffington Post, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler expressed his concern that the White House's recent stance "sets a terrible precedent."

"Obama has declared that if the president doesn't agree with a law — even if the courts say it's Constitutional — he can choose not to defend it," Winkler wrote. "Don't be surprised if a President Palin points to Obama's decision when announcing her refusal to enforce and defend the landmark healthcare reform law because, in her view, the individual mandate is unConstitutional."

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Obama Says DOMA Violates Protections Of 14th Amendment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Vic Bailey

    This is what happens when you let a peter puffer run the country. He already has one as mayor in Chicago, and he’ll be putting one in every city soon. Then he’ll have them as governors. People you had better wake up, before we have nothing left of America!! We will fall just like the Roman empire because NOBODY cares, they just let anybody do anything at anytime, IT’S YOUR CALL!!
    Semper Fi.

    • Robert Smith

      Hey Vic,

      And look at what happened after Rome fell. Dark ages, inquisitions, crusades…

      Quite frankly I think Rome had it pretty good.

      Rob

  • J.M.R.

    who in the hell gave the monkey a&& dick-tater right to not follow the law.

    • Dee

      It’s because the egotistical, narcissistic s.o.b. believes he is above the law.

    • Robert Smith

      The President is in charge of enforcement. He must set priorities. Otherwise there isn’t enough money to do it all.

      Rob

  • Robin from Arcadia, IN

    The arrogance of Barry and his buffoons knows no bounds! Just who does he think he is? Does this mean that all courts that have deemed various portions of bills unconstitutional that we don’t have to follow the federal law? If so, lets get rid of Obamacare. He has opened this up for discussion by this latest show of arrogance, so it won’t be the people making waves when it was him who started it!

    • eddie47d

      You all led the charge in trying to change the 14th Amendment(birth issue)so does the 14th really matter to you? If you all would spend less time trying to discriminate against this person or that person you might have some credibility. (In this case the gay issue). How about going back to the good ol’ days where they had “separate but equal” laws. We’ll have a Heterosexual marriage license and a Homosexual marriage license. That way you both can claim victory and go home.

      • Robin from Arcadia, IN

        eddie… The President has more clout than the average person. If he makes a statement that a Federal Law is unconstitutional, it has a much bigger impact. Not that it should. If the Supreme Court has not made that ruling, than the President really shouldn’t expect to change things. That is not his right. Barry thinks of himself as King of the United States, not just a mere president!

        • Fellow Bigot

          The Obama administration is not the first to refuse to defend a law it believes is unconstitutional. There’s plenty of precedent for this action, including steps taken under Bush 41.

          If the law is *actually* constitutional, it will hold up in federal courts whether or not the Justice Department defends it.

          • Bus

            But that’s the point, Berry has now become the Judicial branch as well as the executive.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Fellow,
            What “steps”??

          • Robert Smith

            What about Bush selectively going after a law that Oregon had voted on TWICE?

            Remember when Ashcroft tried to dump the assisted suicide law? Isn’t that trying to control things from the Whitehouse?

            Remember in Oregon they voted TWICE.

            Why did the Republicans try to undo a vote administratively?

            Rob

      • Vigilant

        eddie says, “You all led the charge in trying to change the 14th Amendment(birth issue)so does the 14th really matter to you? If you all would spend less time trying to discriminate against this person or that person you might have some credibility. (In this case the gay issue).”

        WAKE UP, CHILD! If you had ANY sense of what this topic is about, you wouldn’t try to confuse it with ancillary issues.

        Perhaps you’d like to explain what is unConstitutional about trying to change an amendment. It’s provided by the Constitution itself, dummy.

        And discrimination or disagreement on moral rectitude has NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand. It is perennially the leftist’s muddled mind, working from an emotional foundation with absolutely no respect for logical discussion that torques my jaws.

        State’s have the right to pass laws that are subject to legal review at some later time. The Congress has the right to pass bills into law that may or may not withstand legal scrutiny in the future.

        NO PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO SELECTIVELY ENFORCE OR NOT ENFORCE LAWS WITH WHICH HE IS CHARGED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND.

        • Fellow Bigot

          VIGILANT says: “NO PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO SELECTIVELY ENFORCE OR NOT ENFORCE LAWS WITH WHICH HE IS CHARGED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND.”

          Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wake up, child! If you, Vigilant, had ANY sense of what this topic is about, you wouldn’t try to confuse it with ancillary issues.

          The Justice Department does indeed have the right to choose whether or not to DEFEND a law’s constitutionality in court. Indeed, if he were refusing to ENFORCE the law, he would be violating his duties as President. But that’s not what’s happening here.

          So please, let’s keep this to a logical discussion of the actual issue — lest your jaws get too torqued.

          • Vigilant

            Oh, this is delicious!

            “The Justice Department does indeed have the right to choose whether or not to DEFEND a law’s constitutionality in court.”

            And who’s denying that, my confused lefty? Your wordsmithing is that of an ambulance-chasing novice lawyer who doesn’t understand plain English.

            Who the HELL said anything about defending a law’s Constitutionality? Defending a law on the books is VERY different from defending the Constitutionality of that law, or is that too complex a distinction in your feeble mind?

          • Vigilant

            Stndard Encyclopedic Dictionary:

            “defend:”

            To shield from danger, attack or injury; protect.

            To justify or vindicate; support.

            What part of “support” are you having trouble with?

          • Fellow Bigot

            The actual issue here is that the Justice Department has decided it will no longer argue on the law’s behalf when its constitutionality is challenged in federal courts. That is not the same as enforcing the law by ensuring its continued adherence — which the administration is still obligated (and willing) to do.

            For the sake of civility, Vigilant, I’m not going to patronize you by posting a dictionary definition of a common word.

          • Vigilant

            Actually, you seem determined to ignore the dictionary definition of “defend.”

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Actually bigot,
            you are missing the point all together! It is not a function of the executive branch to decide whether to defend a law or not to!!

        • Edge Architect

          You are a wonderful person Vigilant! But, I’m sure you know that already. The President is specifically charged with upholding the Constitution and the Laws of the land in the Oath Of Office.
          I think this shows what kind of respect this creature has for us and our country.
          Did anyone see the teary eyed speach it gave down in Indonesia? …how he longed to return to his homeland? Anyone see how much money we spent to take him there? There were over six thousand American law enforcement and military personel to protect him there. That’s right! Six thousand! And every military and civilian advisor in America warned it against going there! It cost a fortune for it to visit it’s childhood homeland.

          • Vigilant

            Why, thank you Edge!

            As my old man used to say, “I’ve never been singularly noted for my lack of self esteem.”

          • JC

            Too bad this same Presidential critter won’t enforce the law on our southern border. He’s an anti-American, anti-Constitutional imposter at best.

      • JUKEBOX

        Eddie, wake up and read what you are saying. We might have wanted to change the 14th Amendment, but we are doing it the legal way, not by dictatorial executive FIAT. Obama has appointed himself the Emporer, whose ideologies and wishes trump the Congress, Supreme Court, and all state’s rights. A Republican President doing the same thing would be impeached, hung in effigy, and prompt all types of Union protests like we are seeing from the uber sensitive and caring Progressives today.
        You might as well learn to speak an Arabic language or Mandarin Chinese if you intend to survive in a FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED OBAMA AMERICA.

        • Vigilant

          BRAVO!

          • eddie47d

            Little to bravo about.Obama saw misgivings about his earlier decision and wanted the public to know about the changes which could affect DOMA. Maybe it will never change but he is giving everyone a heads up. Hiding behind a rock or ignoring an issue hardly solves anything. Should he have made it a sneak attack and demanded the laws be changed? Then you would have squawked even louder.

          • Dan Burke

            Sadly, someone of us heard Obama’s claims not so long ago that he was for the DOMA. Did we believe him? Some of us did not. I, for one, suspected that there may have been some sincerity in his claim. Yet, all I had to do was just project where his choices and path were taking him. I knew that unless he changed his course in some other matters that it was GUARANTEED that at some point as president that Obama would open the door for the Defense of Marriage Act to go away. He probably couldn’t make it go away by law right now–too many conservatives (note I did not say Republicans) got elected this midterm cycle. Obama can only tear down the DOMA right now if he chooses to not have the DoJ defend it.

            So why did I know Obama was going to allow the DOMA to go? Simple. Repealing DADT wasn’t going to satisfy the special interest groups. With the “shellacking” from recent elections, Obama must string along all the various fringe elements to maintain a resemblance of solidarity behind the White House. The fact that he was encouraging the repeal of DADT was very telling and great predictor of the future of DOMA under his “reign.” Sure, it isn’t dead yet, but the bullet proof vest has been removed and a big bullseye painted on it, complete with advertisement that says “Hit me now! You’ve got a clean shot between now and 2012 to go for the total killing blow.”

    • Fellow Bigot

      “Does this mean that all courts that have deemed various portions of bills unconstitutional that we don’t have to follow the federal law?”

      No, it means that the administration will no longer defend DOMA’s constitutionality in federal court — though Congress is free to defend the law on its behalf.

      • JUKEBOX

        I guess that, by your thinking, the first Amendment will protect all bigots and racists from calling people what they really are. Oh, I just remembered, you are already guaranteed that right if you are a liberal Democrat. If you ar a Conservative, you are prosecuted and driven into obscurity forever.

        • Fellow Bigot

          You’re free to espouse your bigotry and racism as much as you want, Jukebox, but I would take a moment to consider why you’re being prosecuted for those beliefs. Spoiler alert: it’s not because of some grand liberal conspiracy. It’s because you’re a bigot and a racist.

          • JUKEBOX

            I may be a bigot, but so are 80% of people in th world, and you need to learn the definition of “RACIST” before you start calling people that name. You may find that there are black, white, yellow, brown, and red racists in the world.

          • Fellow Bigot

            All sarcasm aside, Jukebox (I’m being 100% sincere here), I actually really like the argument that bigotry is justified because a majority of human beings aren’t interested in compassion. God forbid we take individual responsibility for improving our social civility.

    • s c

      I can’t think of one, good reason why I would waste my time thinking that people like Bubba Obummer or Holder have any use for the Constitution. They have shown the American people that they REFUSE to uphold the Constitution. They enforce laws they like, and they IGNORE laws they don’t like.
      THAT is the proper way to define and put a spotlight on those who do NOT deserve to hold ANY elected (or appointed) office. We have a poser for a prez, and an incompetent for a ‘law protector.’
      I never would have believed that citizens could have such L O W standards for the career criminals they elect (and those career criminals appoint).
      By the way, is there anyone out there who doesn’t realize that Uncle Scam (ala Obummer) is IN BED with labor unions? This in itself is an unconstitutional conflict of interest.
      Join a union, Bubba. Resign. Find a country where your ‘talents’ are needed. Let America have TRUE social justice! And take Holder and the rest of your criminal bunkies and closet criminals with you.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        sc,
        That’s a pretty safe comment!! It couldn’t be much clearer that he’s 100% pro-union and will use every power he wields to fight for them and take every cent they offer!!

    • s c

      Robin, let me clear the air AND put some half-arsed, defective progressives in their place at the same time. What these twit yahoos are trying to do – via their false White House god – is to let people think that being ‘gay’ is the same as being a member of a race (in this case, blacks).
      As long as we don’t dig into the topic, the bastards might get away with it. Dig a little, and the stench of this approach will make you gag. Relying on a progressive to be honest is like trusting a skunk not to spray you if you get too close.

      • Fellow Bigot

        Haha! Way to go, s c!

        These liberals think that homosexuality is completely natural — just like they think they can wipe their sodomized[offensive word removed] with the Constitution.

        • Vigilant

          ALERT! ANOTHER FAKE POSTING. WHOEVER IS DOING THIS, YOU ARE A TRUE LIBERAL COWARD.

          • libertytrain

            seems so.

          • JC

            The name was the first tip…”who’s” fellow bigot is he?
            Not mine that’s for damned sure.

  • karolyn

    Do conservatives not defend states’ rights? Also, here’s another money-saving measure. Why waste time defending an unconstitutional law? And I am positive it will be found unconstitutional.

    • Robert Smith

      Hi karolyn,

      SOME states’ rights. When it comes to medical pot, gay rights, and assisted suicide they jumped right in with the feds in an attempt to crush them.

      Rob

    • Ameribred1

      Any man made law may be deemed “unconstitutional” by other men. This is a law from God. Look it up in Romans. He doesn’t favor it in the least.

      • Doc Sarvis

        The U.S. does not govern by God’s law. If it did we would not have gone into Iraq and killed all those innocent people for no good reason. If you don’t want to marry someone of your same sex fine. But don’t ban other loving, consenting adults from doing so. It is another expression of “Personal Liberty”.

        • Robin from Arcadia, IN

          Doc… Perhaps we should govern by “God’s Law” and give it a try. I am sure we wouldn’t be in any worse shape than we already are!

          • Doc Sarvis

            So who’s God should we use? And once that is decided, which interpretation of that God’s word?

          • s c

            Ignore him, Robin. Ask that yahoo what would happen if America WAS living under God’s laws. We wouldn’t have politicians, we wouldn’t have any mentally defective progressives in America and the world would be a completely different place.
            I doubt very much if that yahoo has any interest in being serious, Robin. As for having any use for God,
            he’s probably a politically-driven, pc agnostic or an atheist.

          • Doc Sarvis

            sc
            Ask a perfectly legitimate question (or two) and the name calling starts. As a matter of fact I am a very faithful person NOT an agnostic or an atheist.

            My point is that even if you sat down with all the conservatives on this site alone it would be impossible for all to agree on their interpretation of the Bible and how that would lead to the theocracy that Robin is proposing. This is aside from the fact that this site samples just a small percentage of America and American relgious beliefs/interpretations.

          • Curtis

            How about Sharia Law?

        • Vigilant

          karolyn, Bobbie Smith, and Doc Sarvis (the usual suspects):

          karolyn says, “Do conservatives not defend states’ rights? Also, here’s another money-saving measure. Why waste time defending an unconstitutional law? And I am positive it will be found unconstitutional.”

          All of your responses indicate the usual left wing disdain for the Constitution and rule of law. Karolyn, YOU don’t get to determine what’s Constitutional, I don’t get to determine what’s Constitutional. state governors, state legislatures, the Congress of the United States, the Attorney General and the President DO NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WHAT IS NOT!

          Constitutionality is not determined by whether something saves money or not. Constitutionality is not determined by anyone’s certainty that a law will eventually be ruled unConstitutional. It is not determined by what current morals and conventions dictate. Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

          Conservatives do indeed defend state’s rights. Does that mean they have to agree or defend every state law they feel is unfair? Of course not! Are you going to tell me that the left doesn’t defend some state laws and disagree with others?

          Doc: says, “But don’t ban other loving, consenting adults from doing so. It is another expression of “Personal Liberty”.

          You have every right to take that position, you have every right to work the system to get laws changed, to initiate a Constitutional Amendment. But neither you nor the president gets to decide what’s constitutional.

          Obama has once again violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

          • Fellow Bigot

            Just a quick question: how is it that Americans don’t have the right to determine what is Constitutional or not (which, by the way, every American DOES, by virtue of being free to express our personal opinions — just not in any legal capacity) yet they have every right to determine — and declare — what is “God’s law” or not?

          • Vigilant

            FB says, “Just a quick question: how is it that Americans don’t have the right to determine what is Constitutional or not (which, by the way, every American DOES, by virtue of being free to express our personal opinions — just not in any legal capacity) yet they have every right to determine — and declare — what is “God’s law” or not?”

            Notwithstanding the sarcastic framing of a loaded question, I’ll answer it for you.

            Americans DO have the right to declare what is Constitutional. It’s called “amending the Constitution.”

            Americans have the sacred right to declare whether or not they BELIEVE some provision of law should or should not be deemed Constitutional. Americans have the right to state their beliefs regarding the will of the Creator.

            But no person has the legal right to disobey a Constitutional mandate for which they took a solemn oath to obey. The passage from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

            “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            Now what do you think that means? That he’ll “protect” it from weathering? That he’ll “preserve” it by keeping bugs away from it? That he’ll “defend” it by saying it’s a good document? No, it means he’ll adhere to its legal promises and dictates, execute its provisions with integrity and enforce the laws it prescribes.

          • Fellow Bigot

            Pop quiz, Vigilant:

            “[I]t would seem to me not only institutionally unnecessary but a
            betrayal of profound obligations to the Court and to
            Constitutional processes to take the simplistic position that
            whatever Congress enacts we will defend, entirely as
            advocates for the client and without an attempt to present
            the issues in the round.”

            Who said this?

            HINT: It is not Obama or Holder.

          • Vigilant

            Robert Bork said it, and…..?

            Interesting you should quote something that doesn’t quite make your point. Read the last part of the sentence, idiot, especially the last 10 words: “entirely as advocates for the client and without an attempt to present the issues in the round.”

            Holder & Co. aren’t going to defend the DOMA, period. Failing to defend does NOT mean attempting “to present the issues in the round.”

            Next question.

          • Fellow Bigot

            You’re right — Bork was defending his decision to present both sides of the issue, and not to stop defending the law altogether — but the point stands that it’s a “simplistic notion” to assume that just because Congress passes a law, the President must advocate for it in court.

            The President and the DoJ can not:
            1) Declare a law unconstitutional, rendering it invalid.
            2) Refuse to prosecute based on a disagreement with the premise of a law.

            The President and the DoJ CAN, however:
            1) Decide that, because there is no longer any reasonable legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (and, indeed, because it appears to be in violation of the 14th Amendment), it would be unreasonable and unfair to advocate for it in federal court.

            So, Bork claims that the DoJ can argue AGAINST a federal law, but isn’t that also a violation of the Executive oath? If the Executive Branch is allowed to argue both sides of the issue in court, provided there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides, then certainly it is allowed to argue for neither side when the potential argument FOR the law has no legal, constitutional basis.

            Honestly, in my eyes, refusing to defend a law that violates the Constitution is the BEST way to preserve, protect and defend that Constitution.

          • Vigilant

            I’m sorry you missed the point. When you state, “Honestly, in my eyes, refusing to defend a law that violates the Constitution is the BEST way to preserve, protect and defend that Constitution.”

            That sentence demonstrates the WHOLE problem here. Who judges that a law violates the Constitution?

            Your sentence “PRESUMES” the unconstitutionality of the law, and is therefore disingenuous. There is no logical answer to it if you put in that gratuitous “violates the Constitution” as a declarative fact, which it is not. It’s like asking, “are you still beating your wife?”

            The contradiction is contained in the sentence itself. You and I can presume anything we want, but that doesn’t make it so. OF COURSE no one would ever want to defend an unconstitutional law. But it’s not up to us, and certainly not up to Obama, to make it unconstitutional by presuming it to be so.

            Once again, ONLY the SCOTUS has that power under the Constitution. We may not agree on the validity of their decision one way or another, but once it is made we have only 4 choices: obey it, disobey it, craft new laws to address the issue in a different way, or revise the Constitution through Amendment.

          • Vigilant

            And I would say that the ONLY way to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is to restore it to its honorable place as the Law of the Land, warts and all. No civilized, and certainly no free society, has ever survived in the wake of lawlessness.

          • Brad

            FB,

            Just one question for you, when did marriage become a civil right? If you read the 14th amendments equal protection clause, ” the Equal Protection Clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights”. “The Court also will apply this test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights, such as First Amendment rights”, since Ohmama doesn’t care for the first amendment you could elaborate. The vast majority of christian religions believe homosexuality is against gods will, thusly they produces nothing, then a man and woman come togther they produce offspring to re-populate said culture.

      • JUKEBOX

        This is not just a Judeo/Christian value. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and all major religions consider marriage as between a man and a woman. Why don’t these civil rights promoting gay loving Progressives excoriate the other religions that don’t believe in Adam & Steve being married? Are they afraid of Jihad?

        • Fellow Bigot

          Because, Jukebox, Buddhists don’t go around proclaiming that the laws of the United States should adhere to “Siddhartha’s will.”

          • JUKEBOX

            Why not, Muslims demand that we allow Sharia law in the US.

          • Fellow Bigot

            No they don’t. What? When? In that sensationalist scare-tactic news story from a year ago?

            Jesus Christ, people. Is this really how you view the world?

          • S.C.Murf

            Whats wrong FB, you call out the name of Jesus but you don’t believe that He exist. What’s up with that?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            bigot,
            There is a demonstration day after tomorrow, I believe, in Washington where radical muslims are demanding the US include sharia law into their laws!!!! Wake up, have a cup of java , and see the facts, son!!!

  • Demoncrat Exorcist

    Obama and Eric Holder believe that they have the power to make law and decide what is and isn’t law. The people should be demanding Congress start an immediate investigation into Barry’s past. It’s obvious to anybody with average intelligence and common sense that Barry/Barack is not qualified to hold the office of president.

    In fact, it was obvious before the election to anyone who had the slightest knowledge of our Constitution and our history, but the Republicans sat quietly and did absolutely nothing while the Democrats created a smoke screen by questioning McCains eligibility.

    The rigmarole over McCain’s eligibility was a clever ruse to throw off speculation about Obama’s citizenship and his actual past. It was all a smoke screen, and it should be obvious that both Republican and Democrat leaders were involved in the deception and subsequent cover up.

    If the Republicans weren’t involved in the deceit and cover up, they should still be voted out of office along with the Democrat conspirators for incompetence.
    http://www.petition2congress.com/2/2349/petition-to-remove-barack-obama-as-president-united-states-americ/

    • Robert Smith

      Do you mean like when Ashcroft went to Oregon to kill assisted suicide?

      That one was voted on TWICE by the people there. I guess he ddn’t get the memo.

      Rob

      • Vigilant

        RS, what is your point?

        How about mentioning that the “Oregon Death with Dignity Act” was challenged by the George W. Bush administration, but was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v. Oregon in 2006? You might also want to mention how attempts to force repeal in the US Congress were put down.

        Such a great legal expert as you are, perhaps you’d like to explain how Ashcroft acted unConstitutionally in Oregon. On the contrary, the whole process PROVED THE POINT that the legislative and judicial processes worked as they are supposed to.

        Nice try, Rob, but that dog ain’t gonna run.

      • JUKEBOX

        No, like when Eric Holder pardoned Marc Reich, and cost taxpayers $50 million in unpaid taxes. His action helped slick Willy get a couple of million for his double wide library.

        • Fellow Bigot

          Jukebox,

          Didn’t you know, Mark Richs pardon was bought and paid for. Holder at the time told Clinton he (Rich) would give he all his ill gotten gains for said pardon, got it from the horses mouth.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        robert,
        you mean like bloomberg going to Arizona to try and ban gunsales??? THAT one has been voted o by the people, upheld by the supremes and is also stated in the constitution!!! The biggest arguement is that it is a God given right, upheld by all three!!!

        • Curtis

          YOUR god gave you the right to have a gun? Really? That’s too funny.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            curtis,
            As a matter of fact, yes he did!! he gave me the right to defend myself!! He also gives all the right of free will!! If you can’t see the connection then you are blind and far be it from me to try and open your eyes when you are blind!!

  • Dave

    So truly, Mr Obama does indeed believe he is king or supreme ruler, and can pick and choose what laws to enforce and defend by decree.
    Much like illegal immigration?

    The arrogance and ignorance is simply stunning!

    Red Dawn II, the Obama Years.
    Coming to a city near you.

  • Dennis

    It is time to do away with the Supreme Court, they are no longer needed to interpet the Constitution or laws. The “SUPREME” ruler has spoken in all of his mighty “WISDOM”, and declared he knows all.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Dennis,
      I especially liked the comments of the one senator that said that we shouldn’t have to come to Washington D.C. and kiss the ring of the president to determine what health care they have!!!

  • Joyce

    Ummmmm don’t we have way more pressing issues to deal with….ECONOMY, GAS PRICES, WAR…..our country is becoming a laughing stock…..oh and BTW where the heck is that birth certificate???

    • JUKEBOX

      I want to see the passport that was used to bring him back from Indonesia, or the court order changing his name back to BHO from Barry Soetoro. These documents will be more telling than the birth certificate.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Jukebox,
        I want to see his college finance records as to how he paid for his college education!!!

    • Vigilant

      Joyce, I would consider this perhaps the most pressing of issues today. Are we going to allow our Constitutional Republic to be seized by political special interests? Are we to allow selective enforcement of Federal laws on the books because some would-be sovereign abdicates his responsibilities, nay, his sacred duty, to respect the rule of law?

      No, gas prices are not the issue, the very survival of our freedoms is at stake.

    • Fellow Bigot

      Our country is a “laughing stock” because you people still insist on this absurd birth certificate conspiracy.

      • Vigilant

        Spoken like a TRUE bigot. Getting a bit stereotypical, aren’t we?

      • s c

        F, America is viewed as a great deal worse than a laughingstock because of your false White House god,
        his yahoo vp and every member of the current self-serving, incompetent administration. By the way, the topic of this article is ‘Obummer and DOMA.’ Did you forget?

      • Fellow Bigot

        I’m sorry guy’s I’m the true laughing stock on this blog, please forgive me.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Bogot,
        HE is becoming a bigger laughing stock to the world by not just producing the long form and his records thus putting it to rest!!!

  • Raggs

    Hummm.. The closet door is open…

    • Dan-o

      Hurry kick the door closed before they get out, oh crap look their out and everywhere, better give them there vaccinations before they infect someone.

  • Charles

    As President of the United States, he pledged to uphold the constitution and laws of our country. If he is not going to keep his pledge, it is time for impeachment proceedings to begin.

    • Fellow Bigot

      He did not pledge to “uphold the constitution and laws of our country.” What he pledged to do was “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — which includes enforcing the laws that adhere to that Constitution.

      If there are laws that DON’T, however, he is under no obligation to defend THOSE LAWS. He is only obligated to ENFORCE them — which he is still doing.

      • JUKEBOX

        HE ALSO IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING, INCLUDING ANY PART OF HIS LIFE. HE IS A TOTAL FRAUD!

        • Fellow Bigot

          GRRR I’M SO MAD THAT A MAN REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE A SECRET PAST THAT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!

          • s c

            Grrrrr, F. Are you mad as in ‘angry,’ or are you mad as in . . . ? It’s hard to tell.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Prove that it doesn’t exhist!!! You CAN’T!!!

          • Curtis

            Joe? Is that supposed to be an argument? Proving that something DOESN’T EXIST is logically impossible… and it’s a position that intelligent, rational and reasonable debaters would never bother to consider.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            curtis,
            here are many things that can be proven not to exhist!! If you and I were in the same room, I could prove your third arm doesn’t exhist. Just like after talking to you I can prove your above average intelligence doesn’t exhist!!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Oh, and BTW, Nobummer could produce his paperwork and prove his secret past doesn’t exhist!!

      • Vigilant

        FB, that argument goes nowhere. See my posting above.

        • Fellow Bigot

          Wait, which posting above? The one in which you don’t argue any convincing position or the one in which you misrepresent the purpose of the Executive Branch?

      • Vigilant

        FB bleats as follows: “What he pledged to do was “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — which includes enforcing the laws that adhere to that Constitution.

        If there are laws that DON’T, however, he is under no obligation to defend THOSE LAWS. He is only obligated to ENFORCE them — which he is still doing.”

        And who, my fine feathered friend, determines whether or not a law adheres to the Constitution? Sonny, he’s required by the Constitution to defend ALL LAWS that have been properly legislated, and which have not been ruled unConstitutional BY THE SCOTUS.

        What part of that do you not understand?

        • Fellow Bigot

          1) He is not actually “required” by the Constitution to defend the laws before the courts. Please show me that passage.
          2) You still haven’t answered my pop quiz — or acknowledged the fact that, by your standards, Bush 41 was also in blatant violation of his presidential oath.

          • Vigilant

            “1) He is not actually “required” by the Constitution to defend the laws before the courts. Please show me that passage.
            2) You still haven’t answered my pop quiz — or acknowledged the fact that, by your standards, Bush 41 was also in blatant violation of his presidential oath.”

            HA! Not even close, and certainly no cigar.

            (1) You have been shown the passage, Article II, Section 1. If you have reading comprehension problems, see a tutor. You might want to clue us in on what arcane meaning you imply for the word “defend.” Precisely, what does “defend the Constitution” mean to your addled brain?

            (2) Already answered, prof. I couldn’t care less what earlier administrations did. If Bush violated his oath, then he should have been held accountable for it, period. Unlike you libs, I’m a man of principle and will censure anyone who violates the law. BTW, they’re not just “my” standards, they are the Law of the Land.

          • Vigilant

            BTW, you seem to have some anal retentive hangup about the difference between “defend” and “enforce.” Just out of curiosity, since you claim Obama’s enforcing the law, give us your erudite views on just how he’s enforcing the Federal statutes regarding immigration? Just curious.

          • Fellow Bigot

            Defending the Constitution, to me, means that when a passage in the Constitution states

            “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.”

            then the President must defend that passage, and when a law clearly violates those principles — as DOMA clearly does — defending it in court would be antithetical to the principle of honoring the Constitution.

            Sure, the president’s duty is also to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” but when that law is contested, and the text of the Constitution provides no basis for that law’s continued execution, then how on Earth can he defend the law without violating his oath to defend the Constitution?

          • Vigilant

            Your comment re the 14th Amendment: “then the President must defend that passage, and when a law clearly violates those principles — as DOMA clearly does — defending it in court would be antithetical to the principle of honoring the Constitution.”

            You still don’t get it, do you? YOU and the Prez are stating something that is an opinion, not a fact. For whom does the law “clearly violate those principles?” Are you a legal scholar who has presented cases before the Supreme Court? Are you our new dictator? Are you divinely inspired to know, outside of the established Republic and legal framework within which we live, what “clearly violates those principles?

            No sir, you are not, and neither is the president. NO ONE gets a chance in this Constitutional Republic to decide on matters of Constitutionality other than the judicial system. Presume or pontificate all you want, but NO LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL THE FAT LADY (SCOTUS) SINGS.

            And then, “Sure, the president’s duty is also to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” but when that law is contested, and the text of the Constitution provides no basis for that law’s continued execution, then how on Earth can he defend the law without violating his oath to defend the Constitution?”

            Answer, very simply: he doesn’t get to decide, period.

            Speaking of which, you’re strangely silent on my point about Obama’s failure to enforce immigration law. Are you going to “presume” that’s unconstitutional too?

  • patrick

    I just wish Obammy boy would either marry Eric Holder or Emmanuel or Axelrod and Michele can marry Janet Nipotano or Hillary or Pelosi and then we can send them all back to Kenya to live happily ever after!

    • Fellow Bigot

      patrick, this comment was very open-minded and rational and insightful and not at all racist. Kudos!

      • Vigilant

        You bet your backside it’s not racist! Read the posting again.

        Leave it to the leftie to (attempt to) play the race card. Sorry, son, it doesn’t work here, and we’re wise to your Alinsky subterfuge.

        • Fellow Bigot

          OK, sure, I’ll read it again.

          “…we can send them all back to Kenya…”

          Whoops! Still racist.

          • Vigilant

            Axelrod? Hillary? Pelosi? I think you need to see either an optometrist or a shrink. Kenya? That’s a country in Africa in which birthers claim Obama was born…hmmmm, doesn’t sound racist to me.

          • Fellow Bigot

            Birthers claim Obama was born in Kenya because he is African-American. There’s no rational basis for the claim OTHER than racism.

          • Vigilant

            “Birthers claim Obama was born in Kenya because he is African-American. There’s no rational basis for the claim OTHER than racism.”

            Well, that’s a new wrinkle! Devoid of not only evidence to support your insult, but very stereotypical as well.

            Let me get this straight, the thrust of patrick’s posting, aside from the birther issue, was that Napolitano, Axelrod, Hillary and Pelosi should also be prevented from doing more damage to our great nation.

            Now tell me, is patrick a misogynist as well? And is David Axelrod the proud member of a non-race I’m not familiar with?

            “no rational basis for the claim OTHER than racism?” Oh, I can think of a lot of reasons, but then again, I have to admit that my mind is not shackled with one-track thinking.

            Tell me, FB, my ancestors owned slaves. Does that make me a racist?

            You’ll NOT shut down conversation with deployment of the race card. It’s a shopworn trick and it doesn’t work any more.

          • Vigilant

            Oh, and by the way, your very choice of screen names shows your propensity to presume that anyone not in agreement with your views is a bigot. You’re some piece of work.

            But that’s OK. Sparring with a mental midget is getting tiresome. You guys are too easy, kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

            Please continue with your postings. You are doing a fine job in reaffirming to us why we level-headed people believe the way we do.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            BTW, Bigot?? He’s also half WHITE!?!?!?! Are you missing that element in the formula???!?

    • JUKEBOX

      I believe he already proposed to Rahm in that Chicago bath house they are so fond of.

    • Brad

      FB, Patrick was being sarcastic you idiot.

  • James

    What no one here seems to honor is the purpose for the Executive Branch of the federal government. Its primary role is to execute the laws passed by the Legislative Branch (Congress). When a president refuses to execute federal immigration laws, and now DOMA, he has violated his oath of office. It’s the role of the Judicial Branch to determine whether or not a federal law, when challenged, is constitutional. This president has usurped the powers of the other two branches.

  • Raggs

    I have to wonder how his muslims feel about this.

    • JUKEBOX

      I thought Homosexuality was a death sentence under Muslim law.

      • Raggs

        Yeah I thought the same… thats why I wonder how obama is getting away with it. Prehaps to decieve?

      • James

        It’s also a capital offense under God’s Law (Lev. 20:13).

  • dancingrabbit

    it is peregrine obama who violates the 14th amendment..he fails to meet the standards of subject to jurisdiction. The intent of the framers of this amendment. A person born to citizen to parents who were citizens. WKA stated a person born to permanent residents can be citizens.

    Peregrine Obama fails to meet those standards since his father was not a citizen and a permanent resident. He was a transient student.

    The supreme court has told us a natural born citizen is born to citizen parents. The Court has never told us a NMC is born to an alien and citizen.

    A president must not only be a citizen he must be a natural born Citizen.

  • 45caliber

    I read a newspaper from England every day. One thing I’ve noticed over and over again: when someone talks of their spouse, they say “partner”. Marriage is almost meaningless there now – and in most of the rest of Europe. And the kids aren’t to be controlled by their parents (except when the government wants the parents to pay for something their kids did) – they belong to the government’s “ownership”.

    And now Oblama and friends wants us to go the same way.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      45caliber,
      It’s a good thing that he didn’t come along sooner then. I would have ended up in jail! I expected my kids to do as I said! I tried to set a good example and show them the proper way to go, but if they didn’t??? They got punished as they should have. They all turned out to be pretty good kids, so I must have done something right!!

  • busterggi

    Seems to me that if the folks here are really interested in personal liberty they should apply that to everyone including gays.

    Instead I see a lot of theocrats who want to make their version of sharia law the law of the US.

    • Fellow Bigot

      So what if we do? If gays were allowed to marry, this great nation would become a cesspool of sodomites, our noble Constitution given way to the fetid marriage certificates of ten-million homosexuals locked in a godless embrace.

      That is, of course, unless we can prove that Obama’s citizenship is a lie perpetuated by the Communist Pride Parade.

      • Vigilant

        ALERT! This is the real Vigilant. Someone has hijacked my screen name (probably “Fellow Bigot”). Typical underhanded tactic of the Alinskyites.

        Bob Livingston , what gives? I was under the assumption that screen names were inviolate.

        • Fellow Bigot

          Inviolate like the Defense of Marriage Act’s constitutionality!!!

          • Vigilant

            AND ANOTHER COWARDLY USE OF MY SCREEN NAME.

        • Karolyn

          It’s not the same. Can’t you see he added an l at the end.

  • Angel

    Now people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will be free to marry inter-gender as they really have wanted to for all these years.

    • s c

      What is it with progressives? Is it that hard to stick to a topic? FYI, A, the topic of this article is ‘Obummer and DOMA.’ Now, either stick to the topic, or do everyone a big favor and go away.
      I repeat. The topic of this article is ‘Obummer and DOMA.’ Got it?
      While you’re at it, take the time to get acquainted with what the 14th Amendment covers AND what it DOESN’T cover.

      • Vigilant

        Why, s c, how cruel of you! Shouldn’t we encourage this sort of leftist palaver because every time they put finger to key they demonstrate the bankruptcy of their cause? (:-)

    • Raggs

      Angel… you need a new name!

  • Vigilant

    Text of e-mail just sent to Bob Livingston:

    Mr. Livingston,

    On the topic, “Obama Says DOMA Violates Protections Of 14th Amendment,” someone began to use my screen name (Vigilant) about 15-20 minutes ago to make me look bad.

    I thought our names were unique and not useable by anyone else. Can anything be done about this?

    If this can’t be fixed, I see no need to contribute further to your website discussions.

    Thank you,

    • Vigilant

      BTW, I notice “Fellow Bigot” left the posting scene around the same time the second, spurious “Vigilant” began to post.

      Great move, FB, you’ve just shown your true colors.

      Fellow posters should be able to select my TRUE postings as they know my feelings.

      Until Bob Livingston can correct this problem, sayonara friends.

      • Fellow Bigot

        What?

        You know, Vigilant, some of us actually work for a living and don’t have the entire afternoon to spend self-validating our unqualified opinions on a neocon’s hackneyed political blog.

        • Raggs

          Hey there bigot… GO TO HELL!

          • Vigilant

            Thanks Raggs. Glad I’m appreciated here (:-)

        • Vigilant

          Sorry, fellow posters, I couldn’t let this one go by.

          “If you have to work for a living, you’re not getting the job done very well are you?”

          As for me, I’m 64 years old, retired after serving my country for 24 years in the USAF and another 14 years working for NATO in Europe. People with whom I’ve conversed on this site know it’s the real Vigilant as you would not have those facts at hand unless you’d been here a while.

          NEOCON? You don’t know the meaning of the word if you accuse any of us, or Bob Livingston of being so. Unlike you leftists, we fully understand (and decry) the false philosophy of NEOCONS like GWB. Most of us here are either true Constitutional conservatives or Libertarians.

          And we don’t attempt to sow disorder and sabotage a website if we don’t happen to agree with the people posting on it. You have not denied the charge I’ve leveled at you, so I will go by the Latin phrase, “Qui tacet consentire vidétur,” “silence gives consent.”

          Kindly pick up your marbles and go home if you can’t stand the heat, and resort to such shabby tactics. Shame on you!

    • Vigilant

      And another cheap shot from “Fellow Bigot.” You’re doing a great job in sabotaging this website, leftist ass!

      • Brad

        By the way Vigilant doesn’t cuss on this blog, sir I would sujest you go some where else. I can tell you aren’t who you claim through the time stamp.

      • Raggs

        So if that is the case stop giving him credit, he is doing that to you on purpose.

  • Marlene

    It appears that Obama’s refusal to uphold DOMA is that he’s paving the way to get shed of Michelle so he can marry Holder.

    • Raggs

      Maybe but lets look at his overall agenda… He is trying to appease his following which consist of communist, socialist, marxist, and all other scum… I think that he knows he has NO chance of re-election so his sigths are on a world domination via the EU in which he is already the de-facto president of.

      • 45caliber

        Maybe he’s trying to give Bill Clinton a run for the job of next Secretary General of the UN … Just a thought.

        • Raggs

          .45… Well maybe but, I don’t see obama as taking a back seat.
          He has streched his arms out… The democommunist have his seat on the thorne of a world leadership… clinton the adulterous, carter the nut, chavez, soros, need I say more?:
          For the most part many of the people in the US are stupid to the facts or prehaps they are willingly blind…

          • Raggs

            I think that even the people that see are blind…
            By the link i gave some see the beast as being of the east… In my thinking the east has no power to consume the west unless that the west should fail. ( hence obama ) ?… even at that it is not likely that the east will be the beast considering a world leader.. The deception of looking in the wrong direction seems to be working in his favor.

        • Raggs

          Hey .45 take a few minutes to read this…

          http://seekingtruth.co.uk/world_government.htm

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Raggs,
            It’s ironic that Germany should support an EU army!! Guess they unlike Japan don’t LEARN from their past mistakes!!!

  • Vigilant

    Another faux reply from the liberal ass who’s hijacked my screen name.

  • Brad

    Vigilant,

    To hell with BIGOT, I salute you and your service to our great nation, US Navy (ret) 20 year’s, and I won’t hold the Air Force against you. Got your back my friend ;)

    • Vigilant

      Brad,

      I’m back, hopefully without the imposter trying to hijack my name again. I’ve heard nothing back from Bob Livingston, nor has he seen fit to answer my question on this thread. I’m a bit disappointed.

      I thank you as well for your service, Brad. I was in from 1966 – 1990. I’ll cut you some slack for being Navy (:-).

      Seriously, though not in every case, I believe most of us veterans understand the privilege of serving this great nation, how much there is to be thankful for, and how sacred is the Constitution to our way of life.

      I’m enjoying my retirement to its fullest, and while I can’t say I’m homesick for the service, I’d do it all over again for my country. Thanks for your kind words, my friend.

      • Karolyn

        Do you really think Bob Livingston has nothing better to do than to closely monitor this? He’s probably off to Hawaii or somewhere having a great time.

        • Vigilant

          Karolyn, it doesn’t have to be Bob Livingston personally, one of his staffers would do.

          Do you understand the confusion this can cause? Do you see how susceptible this is to the very sabotage that happened today? If someone took your screen name and started posting whatever they wanted, with a vindictiveness and purpose to make people think you are someone different than who you really are, how would you feel?

          No, it’s a simple safeguard that would prevent these kind of shenanigans, which are a breed of hacking.

          • Karolyn

            But he did add two “ls” to the name, so it is not the same; and anybody can see that.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Karolyn,
            would you point out the two ls in the last fake post???

          • Vigilant

            Joe anf Karolyn: Well, vindication at last! It WAS “Fellow Bigot” who swiped my screen name. You’ll note that Personal Liberty Digest changed his “Vigilant” postings to reflect his true name.

            Thank you, Bob Livingston!

            And heartfelt thanks to Brad, Raggs, libertytrain, Joe H. and others who have stood by me on this and offered their support/encouragement.

          • Vigilant

            Karolyn, the early postings were spelled correctly. He might have figured he could bypass the checks and balances by varying the name and thinking he could get away with it.

            I enjoy posting here, and you and I rarely see eye to eye, but I would sincerely not want you to think that I have some of the screwball ideas that Fellow Bigot was trying to foist off on me.

      • libertytrain

        Vigilant, there are always losers who think they are clever, but just demonstrate to us that they are in fact, losers. And that fellow is most obviously a loser who likely really does live in his mother’s basement. :) “not that there’s anything wrong” with living in his mom’s basement.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Vigilant,
        I’ll back you to the end, my friend!!!

  • Raggs

    Has anyone but me noticed that even post political power from the democrats that they always seem to remain in the political field.
    Look at jimmy the nuts carter… bill the adulteruos clinton…
    The communist pigs never seem to leave…

    What do you think what will happen sence obama cannot be re-elected?
    Where will he go next?… Global!

    • Vigilant

      Good points, Raggs. I hadn’t thought about it, but it does seem that the leftist activists, once out of office, have no skills beyond things like “community organizing.”

      I didn’t agree with GWB on a lot of things, but he has had the class to stay out of the dirty business. And I’ll say he shows that class by letting all of the blame and insults of the Bush-bashers just roll off his back. He has not once criticized Obama.

  • Raggs

    Watch the hands of the communist democrats

  • Julian

    We used to have three branches of government, but now that the presidential has taken over the judicaiary were down to two. How long before we are down to one?

  • Raggs

    Alot of post above but, I would have to say that even the ones that I may have some agreement with still have no clue to the real issue here.
    The November elections really didn’t mean squat, regardless of how much hot air we put on the house floor.
    To put this in a way some may see… look at who we have as a dictator for foriegn affairs, a democommunist.. Even if obama is to lose in 12 he will and is the world leader..

    You really need to understand what that means.

  • ONTIME

    Barry the Shill can say anything his heart desires but in truth this uncredentialed POTUS still is sworn to defend the Law according to the Constitution. It’s just Barry’s little ongoing war to undermine the rule of law and dare the courts to enforce the law, he has been doing this since before he took office.

  • Vigilant

    Well, vindication at last! It WAS “Fellow Bigot” who swiped my screen name. You’ll note that Personal Liberty Digest changed his “Vigilant” postings to reflect his true name.

    Thank you, Bob Livingston!

    And heartfelt thanks to Brad, Raggs, libertytrain, Joe H. and others who have stood by me on this and offered their support/encouragement.

  • Vigilant

    Well, vindication at last! It WAS “Fellow Bigot” who swiped my screen name. You’ll note that Personal Liberty Digest changed his “Vigilant” postings to reflect his true name.

    Thank you, Bob Livingston!

    And heartfelt thanks to Brad, Raggs, libertytrain, Joe H. and others who have stood by me on this and offered their support/encouragement.

  • Vigilant

    The thread really looks weird now! There I am protesting the theft of my name, but it was corrected to “Fellow Bigot.” Anyone coming into this site now will think I’ve lost my mind. What a lark!

  • newspooner

    “DOMA” was an unnecessary law and did not “define” marriage. Marriage has been defined for centuries by consensus of society overall, not just government. “DOMA” would have been bad if it tried to redefine marriage. Government has no right to redefine anything. Government should only make laws based on things as they are defined already. Once government gets away with redefining marriage, it can get away with redefining anything, and all liberty will be lost.

    • James

      Newspooner, I believe DOMA upheld traditional marriages. President Obama declined to apply it because courts had upheld same-sex marriages. He anticipated that since the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawrence v. Texas) had struck down sodomy laws, they would likely OK same-sex marriages.

  • http://com i41

    Onumnutts has always swung both ways and since he hasn’t been going with his favorite roping mare to any muslim goat abusing countries. He must have got this groove back on for some young boys and queers again. Since his days of the Chitcago bathhouse gatherings for”businesses. Since Trunka has been meeting with the muslim marxist consistantly and “not discussing unions” what else could it be?

  • http://www.google.com google22222222222

    GScraper, it’s a new black hat Search Engine Optimization tool, the most powerful scraper or poster for link building, If you’ve never used it, you real cannot imagine that the scrape and POST can crazy to what extent! google22222222222 http://www.google.co

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.