# Uh oh. Obama invokes incest and marrying children in defense of DOMA **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 13, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640 "2009-06-13T04:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/21 "2009-06-13T22:03:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > States rights are more important. More things should be decided at the state level. It’s been tried. It rarely ends well. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/22 "2009-06-13T23:09:12Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > The truth is that the Obama administration has shown that LGBT causes are not a priority and it is not surprising that this brief is seen as a slap in the face. A greater slap in the face because one of Obama’s hailing points against Hilary Clinton was that he was fully in favor of the repeal of DOMA, which she is/was not. And an even stronger slap in the face that this news came out yesterday, the anniversary of Loving v. Virginia. Queer Americans have been ignored, deferred, rebuffed, delayed and cast aside by this administration from day one, while the president has, as recently as last week, claimed to be an ally. But his words and his actions aren’t matching up, and it’s becoming tiresome and now, flat out insulting nigh unto betraying. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/23 "2009-06-13T23:28:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s been tried. It rarely ends well. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/24 "2009-06-13T23:30:29Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > States do not have rights, any more than polynomials do. States hve powers. > > And individual rights should not be at the disposal of states’ powers, If you wish to advocate that gay people have no right to marry (each other. as opposed to fake straight marriages), I’ll listen – but will be difficult to convince. IMO there is a right to marry, which may be regulated for the common good (i.e., no 12-year-olds marrying, no fraudulent bigamous marriages, etc.), _where there is a legitimate government purpose_. Well personally I think all social issues should be decided at the state level. How the state chooses to recognize certain aspects of contract law are their own decisions. I’d apply this to many different social arenas from abortion to drug legality. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/25 "2009-06-13T23:48:37Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well personally I think all social issues should be decided at the state level. How the state chooses to recognize certain aspects of contract law are their own decisions. > > I’d apply this to many different social arenas from abortion to drug legality. Disgusting. So if a state wants segregation, or prayer in schools, or for the poor to starve to death, or for women to be forced to give birth that’s just fine ? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/26 "2009-06-13T23:59:05Z")
In what way is this “Obama invokes”? OK, its the Justice Department. Would that be the same JustDept that Bushco just spent eight years packing with Liberty University yahoos? Are we to be surprised that many in the JustDept do not share our enlightened views? Well, then, chuck them out! He’s the President, isn’t he? Yeah, but are we sure that’s the road we want to travel? Haven’t we had ample demonstration of the perils therein? Perhaps I am wrong, its possible, I was wrong in '68, and once again last year when I thought he’d never, ever make it. But it seems to me that he is intent to lean away from the imperial Presidency which so many of us find repugnant. And for good, solid reasons. But this is a just cause, and he is a good man, so there is little harm in such raw power! Perhaps. I am tempted sorely to say, yes, yes he _should_ ride rough-shod over the objections, he should exert the force we gave him, he should keep the JustDept a wholly owned subsidiary of the Presidency. But he would be stepping in another President’s footsteps, and I don’t like that one little bit. Nosiree, Bob. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/27 "2009-06-14T00:05:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Disgusting. So if a state wants segregation, or prayer in schools, or for the poor to starve to death, or for women to be forced to give birth that’s just fine ? So, if one supports concepts of federalism, one is a segregationist? :rolleyes: That’s an absurdly broad brush you’re painting with. News flash, someone can be about as far from a member of the Federalist Society as possible yet _still_ believe federalism (note the small **f** ) has a role to play in our government. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/28 "2009-06-14T00:18:56Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > So, if one supports concepts of federalism, one is a segregationist? :rolleyes: “States rights” is almost always a code phrase for “I want to make bigotry into law”. And considering that **mswas** has been defending the anti-SSM movement, which is the moral equivalent of supporting segregation, I see no reason to think this is an exception. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/29 "2009-06-14T00:31:56Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > :rolleyes: Well, I’ve got examples on my side, and I can think of a few potential ones for your side, if you’re not willing to make the effort. Limiting myself to marriage specifically, the individual states can set their own laws regarding minimum age, and restrict cousin marriage, which introduces some variation, I admit. Restrictions based on race ended up in the Federal courts, though. Overall, when civil-rights issues are contentious enough and important enough to get to the Federal courts, I don’t offhand know of a case where the state ultimately won out, despite occasionally violent resistance. I’m prepared to be educated, though. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/30 "2009-06-14T00:57:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I’ve got examples on my side, and I can think of a few potential ones for your side, if you’re not willing to make the effort. > > Limiting myself to marriage specifically, the individual states can set their own laws regarding minimum age, and restrict cousin marriage, which introduces some variation, I admit. Restrictions based on race ended up in the Federal courts, though. > > Overall, when civil-rights issues are contentious enough and important enough to get to the Federal courts, I don’t offhand know of a case where the state ultimately won out, despite occasionally violent resistance. I’m prepared to be educated, though. Now, taking those criteria, is sex of the persons entering into the marriage more like age or propinuity, or more like race? What does equal protection jurisprudence have to say about that question? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/31 "2009-06-14T02:21:05Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Now, taking those criteria, is sex of the persons entering into the marriage more like age or propinuity, or more like race? What does equal protection jurisprudence have to say about that question? Judging from the 20th Amendment and subsequent legislation, looks to me like sex is becoming less and less significant for legal purposes, and ditto for the 13th Amendment and Civil Rights Act and such for race. I don’t see any efforts to cast aside all distinctions between adults and children, though, so age will remain a legal divider. Being a legal child is a self-correcting condition. Whatever rights one lacks, one will get eventually. This isn’t the case with sex or race. Also, there are sound reasons to restrict the rights of children. With sex or race…? As for propinquity, to wit cousin marraige (or, for that matter, pairings that are genetically closer), … I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/32 "2009-06-14T04:19:51Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > A greater slap in the face because one of Obama’s hailing points against Hilary Clinton was that he was fully in favor of the repeal of DOMA, which she is/was not. It’s possible to favor repeal of a law without favoring judicial setting-aside of the law. Ask **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/33 "2009-06-14T04:28:26Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It’s possible to favor repeal of a law without favoring judicial setting-aside of the law. This is true. However, it puts your claims of considering the law a great injustice to question when your administration opposes the judicial set aside with inflammatory, insulting and belittling language and comparisons. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/34 "2009-06-14T05:20:52Z")
Don’t really have anything to add to the discussion, as I’m still trying to work my way through what this actually means. However… [QUOTE=Der Trihs] “States rights” is almost always a code phrase for “I want to make bigotry into law”. [/QUOTE] Horseshit. People who support States rights are no more using it as a code phrase than someone who supports a Federalist system is a gun grabber (or whatever other hot button issue you want to specify). You are painting with a ridiculously broad brush. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/35 "2009-06-14T05:43:47Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Horseshit. People who support States rights are no more using it as a code phrase than someone who supports a Federalist system is a gun grabber (or whatever other hot button issue you want to specify). You are painting with a ridiculously broad brush. No, I’m not. When someone says they support states rights, they almost always want to take away people’s rights and freedoms. They may _ **say** _ “state’s rights”, but what they _ **mean** _ is that they don’t want the federal government to keep them from stomping on blacks/gays/women/children/religious minorities/whatever. People who support a state’s right to do something but don’t mean to oppress anyone very, very seldom use that phrase. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/36 "2009-06-14T07:55:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, I’m not. When someone says they support states rights, they almost always want to take away people’s rights and freedoms. They may _ **say** _ “state’s rights”, but what they _ **mean** _ is that they don’t want the federal government to keep them from stomping on blacks/gays/women/children/religious minorities/whatever. People who support a state’s right to do something but don’t mean to oppress anyone very, very seldom use that phrase. There is some truth to this. All too often, “states rights” advocates are trying to enact laws that the federal government can’t, because they’d either be unconstitutional or flying in the face of a Supreme Court decision. And personally, it really doesn’t matter to me whether my freedom is being violated by my state or my country. It sucks either way. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/37 "2009-06-14T12:47:52Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > There is some truth to this. All too often, “states rights” advocates are trying to enact laws that the federal government can’t, because they’d either be unconstitutional or flying in the face of a Supreme Court decision. > > And personally, it really doesn’t matter to me whether my freedom is being violated by my state or my country. It sucks either way. If you’ll allow an znnoying meme, ^^This^^. **DT** is correct that historically, much of the use of “states rights” in the lst 70 years has been in support of eantrenched racism and other discrimination. Yes, there have been advocates of Federalism and ‘states rights’ who were acting from high motives. But I’d be hard pressed to constitute a jury panel of them. i think there’s a large area properly left to the states, where local control of lcoal conditions is appropriate. When the Feds. negan giving Federal aid and then tying it to adoption of nationally favored policies, they began damaging something precious to the fabric of this country. But that ambit does not extend to deciding whether or not to recognize the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/38 "2009-06-14T15:31:07Z")
States rights arguments used to increase personal freedom (i.e. marijuana legalization, same-sex marriage): By default good States rights arguments used to decrease personal freedom (i.e. segregation, anti-miscegenation laws): By default bad Federal-law arguments used to increase personal freedom (i.e. _Loving_ decision, _Roe v. Wade_): By default good Federal-law argument used to decrease personal freedom (i.e. national speed limits, drug laws): By default bad “By default” meaning I’m willing to entertain logical arguments why an expansion of freedom is bad (i.e. full drug legalization could lead to more addiction) or a restriction is good (i.e. national speed limits saved fuel). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/39 "2009-06-14T15:53:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > States rights arguments used to increase personal freedom (i.e. marijuana legalization, same-sex marriage): By default good But I almost never hear those called States Rights. In fact, about the only time I hear those and state’s rights brought up together is by someone pointing out how the people who normally advocate state’s rights try to use the federal government to crack down on states that do it. Despite their rhetoric, the great majority of people who talk about state’s rights only believe in state’s rights when it lets them exploit or oppress someone else; when state’s rights gets in the way of that, they’ve no problem with using the federal government to force a state to do things their way. “State’s Rights” isn’t a principle, it’s an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640/40 "2009-06-14T16:10:31Z")
Trouble is, you make no distinction between those who regard “state’s rights” as a valid, Constitutional issue, and those who will grab whatever justification is at hand. Leading to the impression that you make that judgement largely or entirely on how closely they agree with your opinions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uh-oh-obama-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children-in-defense-of-doma/499640.md?page=3)