Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Dems who backed DOMA laud its end


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:41 PM

http://www.politico....l#ixzz2XQpUXEz6

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”

He went on: “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”


 

Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.



 

 



#2 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:42 PM

:lol:



#3 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,383 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:44 PM

Well summer is flip-flop season....



#4 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:46 PM

On the other hand, it's nice to know that some people are able to come around and finally realize what's right.



#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:57 PM

On the other hand, it's nice to know that some people are able to come around and finally realize what's right.

 

It would be nicer to know that a lot of dems, much like repubs, in politics are not absolute hypocrits. That said, it certainly isnt surprising to see so many who voted for it, now cheer for it to be dismantled without so much as a wimper on putting it there in the first place.



#6 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,383 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:01 PM

this whole siuation is really going to end up ruining Gov Christie's eventual run for Pres...

 

http://www.businessi...me-court-2013-6

 



#7 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,383 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:06 PM

He wouldn't object to a referendum, but he WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT?! How does this make any sense?

 

:perplexed:



#8 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

It would be nicer to know that a lot of dems, much like repubs, in politics are not absolute hypocrits. That said, it certainly isnt surprising to see so many who voted for it, now cheer for it to be dismantled without so much as a wimper on putting it there in the first place.

 

 

I know what you mean and I agree, but I'm still hopeful that their feelings about this subject have evolved over the years.



#9 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:18 PM

I don't think it's "their feelings about the subject" as much as it is what will get them the most votes come election time.



#10 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:25 PM

I don't think it's "their feelings about the subject" as much as it is what will get them the most votes come election time.

which means they were representing their constituents?



#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:28 PM

which means they were representing their constituents?

 

They are representing their wish to remain entrenched in power. Besides, it isn't that they were representing their constituency from the start, they would still be silent on the issue they voted for in the first place if scotus hadn't over turned it. They represent their own best interest first. If a crumb or morsel makes it to the people, well,, thats just some more voting power for them.



#12 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:28 PM

Some of them anyway



#13 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:31 PM

They are representing their wish to remain entrenched in power. Besides, it isn't that they were representing their constituency from the start, they would still be silent on the issue they voted for in the first place if scotus hadn't over turned it. They represent their own best interest first. If a crumb or morsel makes it to the people, well,, thats just some more voting power for them.

This theory is based on what?

 

Yes I am skeptical of politicians in general, but isn't this the way it is supposed to work?   The constituents want X, and I vote that way?  Or is it more "I stand for X, Y and Z", "f you want X and Y, you will have to deal with me voting for Z"



#14 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:33 PM

They are representing their wish to remain entrenched in power. Besides, it isn't that they were representing their constituency from the start, they would still be silent on the issue they voted for in the first place if scotus hadn't over turned it. They represent their own master's best interest first. If a crumb or morsel makes it to the people, well,, thats just some more voting power for them.


#15 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,383 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:34 PM

CHristie sems to say "even if the voters want X, I will veto it until they hold a referendum to outvote me, who wil vote for Z."



#16 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:35 PM

I still try to look for the good in any given situation first.

Public opinion has evolved over the last 20 years.

Stands to reason that politicians' opinions would evolve, too.



#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:35 PM

This theory is based on what?

 

Yes I am skeptical of politicians in general, but isn't this the way it is supposed to work?   The constituents want X, and I vote that way?  Or is it more "I stand for X, Y and Z", "f you want X and Y, you will have to deal with me voting for Z"

 

 

That's not what happened here at all. Dems like Reid voted favorably for DOMA, not the other way around. The SCOTUS ruling gave people like Reid only one option; completely and utterly show what hypocrits they are. 



#18 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

That's not what happened here at all. Dems like Reid voted favorably for DOMA, not the other way around. The SCOTUS ruling gave people like Reid only one option; completely and utterly show what hypocrits they are. 

 

 

But what if people like Reid have since seen the error of their ways and really have changed their minds?



#19 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:41 PM

What was the opinion of Reid's constituents in September 2000?



#20 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:50 PM

But what if people like Reid have since seen the error of their ways and really have changed their minds?

 

What  if monkeys could fly?

 

It's the political bandwagon. I find it rather unreasonable to believe a grown man suddenly has an epipheny regarding freedom on one specific special interest group. Usually, such would encompass an overall resolution of individual liberty. In this case, it is painfully obvious that politicians will do and say whatever (where did I hear this from in the last election cycle??? Hmmm...) it takes to secure their positions.

 

Lets take the Patriot act as another example. Reid was for the initial bill, then he was against it, and then later again for it. It's all backslaps, side deals and hand washing in Washington. What he believes and what he does are based exclusively on what he can get out of it and with which team he plays.



#21 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:54 PM

What  if monkeys could fly?

 

It's the political bandwagon. I find it rather unreasonable to believe a grown man suddenly has an epipheny regarding freedom on one specific special interest group. Usually, such would encompass an overall resolution of individual liberty. In this case, it is painfully obvious that politicians will do and say whatever (where did I hear this from in the last election cycle??? Hmmm...) it takes to secure their positions.

 

Lets take the Patriot act as another example. Reid was for the initial bill, then he was against it, and then later again for it. It's all backslaps, side deals and hand washing in Washington. What he believes and what he does are based exclusively on what he can get out of it and with which team he plays.

 

 

We don't know that this is true at all.

He may have a family member or someone else close to him who came out of the closet and he came to see the error of his thinking.

On the other hand, you may be correct, but it's still just your opinion - TASB's reality.  :rolling:



#22 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:56 PM

That was not my question.   My question was "Isn't this the way it is supposed to work?"\

 

That is, If (and I don't know) Reid's constituents wanted DOMA passed in Sept 2000, should he have voted for it, or against it?  (regardless of how he felt at the time)



#23 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:57 PM

That was not my question.   My question was "Isn't this the way it is supposed to work?"\

 

That is, If (and I don't know) Reid's constituents wanted DOMA passed in Sept 2000, should he have voted for it, or against it?  (regardless of how he felt at the time)

 

 

Good point.  Public opinion is quite different now.



#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:59 PM

That was not my question.   My question was "Isn't this the way it is supposed to work?"\

 

That is, If (and I don't know) Reid's constituents wanted DOMA passed in Sept 2000, should he have voted for it, or against it?  (regardless of how he felt at the time)

 

He should vote based on the constitution. Not on what the mob wants, or what he wants. It took 16 years for the scotus to finally challenge legislation that was obvisouly unconstitutional in the first place. But this is the way it goes, isn't it?



#25 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:03 PM

That was not my question.   My question was "Isn't this the way it is supposed to work?"\

 

That is, If (and I don't know) Reid's constituents wanted DOMA passed in Sept 2000, should he have voted for it, or against it?  (regardless of how he felt at the time)

I'd say it would depend on what he ran for office under. If he ran on a pro DOMA stance then that's the way he should have voted. 



#26 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:09 PM

He should vote based on the constitution. Not on what the mob wants, or what he wants. It took 16 years for the scotus to finally challenge legislation that was obvisouly unconstitutional in the first place. But this is the way it goes, isn't it?

So every representitive should be a constitutional lawyer before hand.

 Even 4 of nine justices didn't agree that it was unconstitutional, but you expect a representative to know/understand that prior to his vote?  Pretty lofty goal, wouldn't you say?



#27 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:10 PM

I'd say it would depend on what he ran for office under. If he ran on a pro DOMA stance then that's the way he should have voted. 

And if it wasn't an issue when he ran?   Isn't that what all the " Write your senator/rep, tell them how you feel." business is all about?



#28 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:14 PM

So every representitive should be a constitutional lawyer before hand.

 Even 4 of nine justices didn't agree that it was unconstitutional, but you expect a representative to know/understand that prior to his vote?  Pretty lofty goal, wouldn't you say?

 

There is no need to be a constitutional lawyer before hand. He, like all others in congress, took an oath to uphold the constitution. If they can not read the document and clearly see that such a power is NOT granted to the federal government, then he belongs in a civics and constituion 101 class, not in a position to vote for such garbage legislation.



#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:16 PM

But of course, this is about power and staying in it. Not about upholding that ancient document that nobody cares about any longer. Even still, he's a hypocrit to praise the repeal of legislation he helped sign into law. The LEAST he could do is acknowledge that he voted for it and explain himself. Instead, he acts like he made history.



#30 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:17 PM

 The LEAST he could do is acknowledge that he voted for it and explain himself. 

 

 

Yes, he certainly should.



#31 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:18 PM

There is no need to be a constitutional lawyer before hand. He, like all others in congress, took an oath to uphold the constitution. If they can not read the document and clearly see that such a power is NOT granted to the federal government, then he belongs in a civics and constituion 101 class, not in a position to vote for such garbage legislation.

What about the 4 Judges?  Aren't they better qualified, since they most likely took a civics 101 class?



#32 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:25 PM

And if it wasn't an issue when he ran?   Isn't that what all the " Write your senator/rep, tell them how you feel." business is all about?

If it wasn't an issue then he should vote what he believes is right



#33 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:27 PM

If it wasn't an issue then he should vote what he believes is right

I guess.  Or if he got enough calls/letters ...

 

 

I do agree tho, getting on a soapbox cheering the demise of something you voted for, without explanation is a little tough to swallow.   (like an albany bagel ;) )



#34 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,354 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:29 PM

So every representitive should be a constitutional lawyer before hand.

 Even 4 of nine justices didn't agree that it was unconstitutional, but you expect a representative to know/understand that prior to his vote?  Pretty lofty goal, wouldn't you say?


It shouldn't be. Not rocket science here.

And do you think Scalia and his ilk really believed DOMA was Constitutional? He has shown consistently that no twist in logic is too convoluted to get him to where he wants society to be.



#35 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,354 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:30 PM

Legislators who vote for laws they know to be Unconstitutional, and Executives who sign them, oughta be run out of town. 



#36 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:45 PM

Apparently not many believed it was unconstitutional back then.

 

But it would have been nice to have had a purge and we could have started the rebuilding years ago

 

 



#37 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,583 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:53 PM

Doma being struck down is having ripple effects, along with the Pope saying who is he to judge.

 

 

 

Minn, Rhode Island to issue Marriage licenses starting tonight at Midnight.

http://www.boston.co...n4iJ/story.html

http://www.npr.org/2...nesota-is-ready

 

In England Gay Marriage is legal now.  http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-23338279

 

PA. mum, but Montogomery County has approved it, and will fight the state if they decide to SUE, which they now have.

http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=9189892