February 28th, 2013
04:26 PM ET
7 years ago
Obama urges court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban
Washington (CNN) - The Obama administration on Thursday formally expressed its support of same-sex marriage in California, setting up a high stakes political and constitutional showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court over a fast-evolving and contentious issue.
In a broadly worded legal brief that senior government sources say had President Barack Obama's personal input and blessing, the Justice Department asserted gay and lesbian couples in the nation's largest state have the same "equal protection" right to wed and that voters there were not empowered to ban it.
FULL STORY
From CNN Politics
- America's Russia nightmare is back February 21, 2020 09:34 am
- More of Trump's chaos vs. Sanders' radical change? February 21, 2020 05:01 am
- Russia is looking to help Trump win, election security official told lawmakers February 21, 2020 04:31 am
- Trump says he won't pardon Roger Stone -- for now February 20, 2020 09:42 pm
- 'The American people cared. And I care.' Top lines from Judge Amy Berman Jackson during the Roger Stone sentencing February 21, 2020 01:54 am
- Warren proposes contract to free women from Bloomberg confidentiality agreements February 21, 2020 02:54 am
They should overturn on procedural grounds alone. It's not right to use a popular vote on a public referendum to grant the majority the power to define the rights, priviliges and freedoms of the minority.
He should be governing regarding our fiscal crisis and national defense issues before this issue. What happened to his doom and gloom scenario of the sequestration? He's screaming out of all sides of his mouth and not accomplishing anything – and threatening anyone (especially reputable journalists) who opposes his agenda. His downfall will be his own hubris.
Freedom-
It must be clear to you of all people that there is no point in "governing" with Republicans- they simply won't go there. As to the rest of your screed, the nation hardly has the luxury of dealing with one thing at a time. I don't know about you but rights, civil rights are important.
As far as threatening people, I don't think that you can find anything anywhere that says Mr. Obama had any direct communication with Mr. Woodward. As to the threat- my take is Woodward was clearly incorrect. The first ever Sequester Bill was passed in 1986, and therefore cannot be the brainchild of anyone in this administration. Ergo, "you'll regret that" is much like Romney's "terrorism" lie in the debate- the result is Woodward is proven wrong.
The only downfall here is the GOP. It is on fire and losing altitude.
@rs
Anything coming out of the White House is from the president's directive. Just like the talking points about Benghazi – it all goes back to his office.
Gotta love the last minute Ticker article CNN posted in order to do all the pearl clutching pseudo-analysis possible right before Obama came out and did what everyone knew he would do: support gay marriage fully.
Freedom- I still fail to see how Woodward feels threatened. From Sperling's e-mail:
“I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
Hardly seems threatening in full context.
More Right-wing conspiracy/fantasy.
"His downfall will be his own hubris."
We know how badly you want to call him uppity. Just do it. The attempt to hide it is actually rather pitiful. Say it loud and say it proud.
@rs
There are others who have received emails from the White House expressing that they will "regret" if they publish a certain article. They are Lanny Davis (a former aide to Bill Clinton) and the National Journal editorial director, Ron Fournier. This appears to be an ongoing tactic used by the administration.
What's the difference. This administration breaks and ignores laws on a daily basis.
Overturn it simply...
There is a separation of the three branches for a reason. It's called "checks and balances" Let the Judicial branch perform their duties as prescribed by law. Anything else is just "wrong"
jerks. stifling free speech.
I don't mean our President. I mean the people overseeing these postings.
Freedom- When the dead fish shows up in Woodward's office, the left still will be denying a threat. Woodward was the darling of the left when he wrote books about the Bush administration and ridiculed them for disagreeing with Woodward's summation. Now he's some kind of hack in the grasp of dementia.