Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  SAFE FOR NOW

Lesbian Couple Will Stay Together Because No One Understands Obama’s DOMA Position

So it looks like Sujey and Violeta Pando will get to stay together after Sujey’s scheduled deportation hearing yesterday, but only because immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov said the Defense of Marriage Act’s application in this case is “fluid” and “in a state of flux.” In other words, neither she nor anyone else knows what the hell is going on anymore when it comes to DOMA and immigrations.

Tsankov basically said that because the Attorney General’s questioned DOMA’s applicability in the April deportation case of New Jersey Irishman Paul Wilson Dorman and because Obama promised to deport criminals ahead of gay couples, she’s unsure whether to deport Sujey or not.

Of course, Obama’s treading lightly on this issue to avoid the two-headed election viper of illegal immigrants and gay marriage. But in the meanwhile Sujey and Violeta get to stay together with their million and one housepets.

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Aug 20, 2011
Tagged: , , ,

  • 12 Comments
    • slanty
      slanty

      A Republican wouldn’t think to deport criminals first. They’re only tough on crime where it’s a matter of fostering a public image.

      Aug 20, 2011 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @slanty:

      Republicans think gays ARE criminals.

      Aug 20, 2011 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      Barack Obama is opposed to DOMA when he’s not enforcing it.

      Aug 20, 2011 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maila
      Maila

      She’s miranda kerr?

      Aug 20, 2011 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andre
      Andre

      DOMA is still a federal law that has to be enforced. President Obama, can not just make it disappear with a executive order as people would like for him to do. He has made it clear he does not believe its constitutional. There for he is not defending it. There is movement in congress now to pass legislation that would repeal DOMA,its called “Respect for Marriage act”. Lets hope we get that passed, and these unfortunate situations of separating bi-national gay and lesbian couples can stop. Write or call your congressman/congresswoman and voice your support for “Respect for Marriage act”.

      Aug 20, 2011 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Andre:

      It is a violation of the president’s oath of office to enforce an unconstitutional law.

      Aug 20, 2011 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andre
      Andre

      @the crustybastard: That would only be when it is deemed unconstitutional. Just because he personally believes it is unconstitutional does not validate the unconstitutionality of it.

      Aug 21, 2011 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @Andre: Last year a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that Section 3 of DoMA is unconstitutional. Obama appealed that ruling and asked for a stay so he could continue to enforce DoMA. So, what is your point?

      Aug 21, 2011 at 9:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @the crustybastard: Thank you very much for pointing that out! I remember hearing for 3 years: “but the president HAS to defend all laws in court.” Then about 6 months ago that turned out to be a lie.

      Aug 21, 2011 at 9:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      Last I checked DOMA is still the law of the land passed by a majority in congress and signed by President Clinton. Because a president says a law is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. The presidency is not a monarchy. Obama doesn’t have to defend it, but it has to be enforced up until it is repealed by congress or deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

      Aug 21, 2011 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Andre: said..

      “DOMA is still a federal law that has to be enforced. President Obama, can not just make it disappear with a executive order as people would like for him to do.”
      __________________________________________

      Andre, EVEN the White house has stopped trying to push that lie. If you want, I’ll go over this in black and white for you.

      Bush refused to defend ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta,
      Clinton refused to defend Dickerson v. United States.,
      George HW Bush refused to defend Metro Broadcasting v. Federal
      Communications Commission., Ronald Reagan refused to defend INS v./
      Chadha

      Additionally, all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they
      didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an
      outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

      ‘So traditionally the President only defends heinous cases when he wants to.

      So seriously, take a history class, or read a book before you make a statement that is completely, patently untrue.

      Aug 22, 2011 at 8:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @tjr101:

      No, that is absolutely not the case.

      While you are correct executive branch is not a monarchy, you ignore the facts that (a) it is a co-equal branch with both Congress and the Judiciary, and (b) there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the president to presume all acts of Congress are Constitutional.

      Rather to the contrary, the Constitutionally required Oath of Office obligates the president to defend the Constitution against unconstitutional laws or other acts by the other branches. That would include refusing to execute duly enacted legislation and even judicial holdings that are contrary to the Constitution.

      This is so because Constitution is the highest law. Statutory law and common-law holdings are always, ALWAYS subordinate.

      Consider it this way: suppose the Congress passed a law so blatantly unconstitutional even you could understand that it’s unenforceable — something like, “No persons shall assemble for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances, any who assemble for such a purpose shall be subject to summary execution.”

      You would have the POTUS enforce such a law? I should hope not, and you would be correct in saying that such a law is unenforceable because it is unconstitutional.

      Even the judiciary tacitly concedes that it doesn’t require a court to nullify an unconstitutional act. Under American law, an unconstitutional law is no law at all, and never was. It is void from inception BECAUSE it is contrary to the Constitution. When a court holds such a “law” unconstitutional, it is not suddenly void from the day the decision is published — it is treated by construction as never having had any force of law.

      And that is why an unconstitutional act also cannot be enforced.

      People who have passed the bar, like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, really should know that already. And now, so should you.

      Aug 22, 2011 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.