Obama approves of same sex marriage

[BlackAsCoal]

There is no question that marriage is beyond the scope of the responsibility of the federal government. All marriage, not just gay marriage. As it stands, 30 States ban gay marriage (N. Carolina just overwhelmingly passed a law against it, wrongly in My opinion) and they have that right. This is a States Rights issue.

However, just because there is a large enough following for a thing, does not mean that the Constitution and other laws of this nation should just be ignored or abandoned. We are a nation of laws. Not demands.

The Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

I'm betting that there were at least 30 states that banned marriage between black and white PEOPLE .. and therein lies your problem. They are PEOPLE .. and they have every right to that which is granted to PEOPLE.

Herein lays your problem. No one has a right to be married. No one. Not gays, not heterosexuals. There is a reason I asked if you knew what a right is.

Rights cannot be qualified or licensed or modified by Government(s). In fact, rights are beyond the reach of government. That is what IS in the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the power of marriage has never been delegated to the Unite States, they have no business forcing people to accept any marriage.

I'm a big believer in law. Current marriage laws are pretty much just a contract that has legal bindings and privileges. There is no reason that this country cannot move all marriage issues into contract law.

Then, if someone wants to be married, they can get a preacher to marry them. But that will have no recognition in law.

But then, I never needed the government to tell Me who I was married to.

I seriously disagree with what you've said.

I'm a big believer in common sense .. which ain't (eb) common and is often not reflected in the law.

I'm a big believer in "We the People" .. and if the American people want it and it does not hurt you .. so shall it be.

What difference does it make to you what two people in love do?

How does that hurt your marriage?

There is no common sense to your argument .. just tradition.

 

[g5000]

I'm betting that there were at least 30 states that banned marriage between black and white PEOPLE .. and therein lies your problem. They are PEOPLE .. and they have every right to that which is granted to PEOPLE.

You're leaving out a rather crucial thing, these black/white marriages were:

White man/black woman.
Black man/white woman.

Marriages between partners of another race but of the appropriate (i.e. opposite) gender in historical times are a very poor comparison to make with "gay marriage."

It is not until now that people like you added "man" and "woman" to "interracial marriage". Post hoc fallacy.

People discriminated against race in marriage in the past. Now they are discriminating against gender. It is as simple as that.

 

[Political Junky]

I agree that gay couples should be married and churches should be free to decide if they wish to or not wish to perform the ceremony.

The government should not be sanctioning any kind of marriage, but instead providing contracts between the two parties and enforcing those contracts, be they marriage, civil union, time share or revolving door.

Let the churches sanction whatever they think is right.

It is a state matter .. you must have a license to marry, whether you marry in a church or courthouse.

 

[Flopper]

He was trying to have it both ways but realized he had to make a decision. I personally support gay marriage as well but think Obama has been punking out due to his "evolving" views. Will it be a big deal in the election? Probably not. The economy as always will be what elects the next president.

This is the kind of issue that galvanizes people to get out and vote. Because this was on the ballot in North Carolina, the turnout was huge and the bill banning same sex marriage passed with 61% of the vote. North Carolina is (or was up to this point) a must win battleground state for obama, as Colorado is (or was) a battleground state. Colorado banned so much as civil unions.

This is just the kind of issue that is going to get people to the polls. There are conservatives on the fence about Romney, they won't be after today.

This is a flash in the pan event. Social issues are at the bottom of the list of voter priorities and gay marriage is at bottom of that list. It is unlikely to have any real impact on the election. However, it's a smart move for Obama. Taking the side of the underdog is always good for points and in this case national polls are showing a majority of Americans now favor legal gay marriage.


Pew Research Poll: Social issues rank lowest among voter priorities – LGBTQ Nation
For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

 

[Meister]

My opinion is that if a person is religious, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If a person doesn't believe in in the Bible then is becomes a political issue.
Then it's found under the guise of separation of church and state.

 

[Darkwind]

The Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

I'm betting that there were at least 30 states that banned marriage between black and white PEOPLE .. and therein lies your problem. They are PEOPLE .. and they have every right to that which is granted to PEOPLE.

Herein lays your problem. No one has a right to be married. No one. Not gays, not heterosexuals. There is a reason I asked if you knew what a right is.

Rights cannot be qualified or licensed or modified by Government(s). In fact, rights are beyond the reach of government. That is what IS in the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the power of marriage has never been delegated to the Unite States, they have no business forcing people to accept any marriage.

I'm a big believer in law. Current marriage laws are pretty much just a contract that has legal bindings and privileges. There is no reason that this country cannot move all marriage issues into contract law.

Then, if someone wants to be married, they can get a preacher to marry them. But that will have no recognition in law.

But then, I never needed the government to tell Me who I was married to.

I seriously disagree with what you've said.

I'm a big believer in common sense .. which ain't (eb) common and is often not reflected in the law.

I'm a big believer in "We the People" .. and if the American people want it and it does not hurt you .. so shall it be.

What difference does it make to you what two people in love do?

How does that hurt your marriage?

There is no common sense to your argument .. just tradition.

You are free to disagree, that does not make you right or your position one of common sense.

Common sense dictates that the entire debate is not one of equality. An equitable solution was presented to those who fight for gay marriage, and it gave them everything they wanted. However, it clearly was not what their aim was, nor what their agenda is. Nothing will do that they have to rewrite the English language in order to help them feel better about themselves.

I do believe that what happens between adults is their business; and no one else as long as no one is being harmed. It is why I am a Conservative. I don't believe government has the right to be in anyone's home or life as long as they are not hurting anyone. However, legislating morality does harm people. It is why I am against it when the GOP does it, and it is why I am against it when the Democrats do it. It is wrong.

I too am a big believer in 'We the People". However, 'We the People' cannot act outside the Constitution or our laws. Unless you are saying that you are willing to do away with those concepts.

I find that you are wrong in many things. You like to think that government exists to provide things for people, when in fact, it does not.

There has always been a means for getting marriage recognized by government; even gay marriage. It is called the Amendment process.

If your position is so right, and stems from common sense (it doesn't, but don't let that stop you), then passing an Amendment to the Constitution should not be all the difficult. After all, 'We the People' want it, right?

 

[BDBoop]

What is that supposed to mean? You enjoy being a part of the intolerant left? I thought you had more respect for yourself than that!

Immie

It means that from the minute I landed here and Gramps gave me my first neg rep, I have never been treated so disrespectfully on the internet by a group of people who self-label as Republicans.

I know first-hand how they treat people. It's not how I treat people, nor is it how I wish to be treated so no. I'll stick with myself and my belief system.

Wait a minute... you missed something. I said nothing at all about Republicans.

You stated you voted for Bush twice... so did I.

I said that you would mature when you had dumped the "other" side of the party. I didn't say, dump the other side and rejoin the side you left. I thought it was very clear that I am neither Dem nor Rep. Why would you think I was recruiting you to join the Republicans? Edit: for me it was the other way around. I joined the Democratic Party and left them to become a Republican. Then I found that they were not really any different than the Democrats and I said, screw that! Took me some time, but I'll be damned if I return to either party anytime soon.
Have I treated you disrespectfully?

Immie

Never have you treated me disrespectfully.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Political Junky]

My opinion is that if a person is religious, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If a person doesn't believe in in the Bible then is becomes a political issue.
Then it's found under the guise of separation of church and state.

The bible allows for a man to have many wives.

 

[g5000]

The Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

But as you should very well know, the Constitution does mention "equal protection of the laws".

I'm betting that there were at least 30 states that banned marriage between black and white PEOPLE .. and therein lies your problem. They are PEOPLE .. and they have every right to that which is granted to PEOPLE.

Are homosexuals not people?

The ban against marriage between blacks and whites was found to be unconstitutional because the sole reason such marriages were banned was that some people didn't like black people marrying white people. They could not show a rational reason for why black people marrying white people was banned.

Read Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court found that if you make laws which provide benefits to married people, then ALL married people are entitled to those benefits.


If gay people are married, then you cannot withhold the benefits that are currently withheld just because you don't like fags.

[W]e do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose

See my sig. That's what this is about. It is about equal protection of the laws. If you give a tax break to a white/white and man/woman marriage in our laws, you must extend that same tax break to a black/white and man/man marriage.

It's as simple as that...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why does obama get a pass on flip flopping on the same sex issue?

 

[Darkwind]

I agree that gay couples should be married and churches should be free to decide if they wish to or not wish to perform the ceremony.

The government should not be sanctioning any kind of marriage, but instead providing contracts between the two parties and enforcing those contracts, be they marriage, civil union, time share or revolving door.

Let the churches sanction whatever they think is right.

It is a state matter .. you must have a license to marry, whether you marry in a church or courthouse.

And that is why marriage is not a right.

 

[Immanuel]

My opinion is that if a person is religious, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If a person doesn't believe in in the Bible then is becomes a political issue.
Then it's found under the guise of separation of church and state.

The bible allows for a man to have many wives.

You realize, I hope, that God only did that to punish man for all the sins that were forthcoming. Multiple nag... er wives, God is truly a righteous God and one of mercy since that has gone the way of the past

Immie

 

[g5000]

Why does obama get a pass on flip flopping on the same sex issue?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines."

Key word: foolish

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong in the past.

 

[RightWingFerret]

does this mean Obama is going to campaign in the gay districts of san fransisco? will he dance with all the guys?

 

[BDBoop]

The government should not be sanctioning any kind of marriage, but instead providing contracts between the two parties and enforcing those contracts, be they marriage, civil union, time share or revolving door.

Let the churches sanction whatever they think is right.

It is a state matter .. you must have a license to marry, whether you marry in a church or courthouse.

And that is why marriage is not a right.

So why can't gays not have this right we don't have.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why does obama get a pass on flip flopping on the same sex issue?

Because he was wrong then, and he's right now.

 

[g5000]

And that is why marriage is not a right.

But equal protection of the laws is. Straight married people get tax breaks, Social Security death benefits, and so forth and so on. There is no rational reason for denying that same protection of those same laws to gays.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama tells Robin Roberts of ABC.

More political bullshit from the "perpetual Campaigner"...
Someone should ask: "Mr President, if one of your daughters came to you and you wife and told you they wished to marry their lesbian lover( that they previously knew nothing of) would you approve?

 

[BDBoop]

Obama tells Robin Roberts of ABC.

More political bullshit from the "perpetual Campaigner"...
Someone should ask: "Mr President, if one of your daughters came to you and you wife and told you they wished to marry their lesbian lover( that they previously knew nothing of) would you approve?

"That they previously knew nothing of?" wtf kind of question is that??

 

[Darkwind]

It is a state matter .. you must have a license to marry, whether you marry in a church or courthouse.

And that is why marriage is not a right.

So why can't gays not have this right we don't have.

You are asking for something that does not exist. Marriage is not a right.

Rights cannot be licensed or regulated. Government has no business in the bedroom or any other aspect of the citizens life (unless they are harming someone).

Legislating the morality of marriage either for or against gay marriage is wrong, plain and simple.

Get government out of the lives of the people. All the way out.