Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term

[rightwinger]

Friend of mine, Vike, retired Army officer.
His sister is married to an African American here in rural Georgia. Get the picture? But things have changed dramatically on that over the last 20 years.
"One day 40 years from now everyone is going to sit down and talk about how utterly ridiculous it was to oppose gay folk from getting married. We will laugh and then cry over that absurd fight" Vike 2002
Thanks Vike for being the great influence you have been on me in this matter as 20 years ago I had those same prejudices against gay folk.

20 years ago I had the same prejudice against interracial marriage. It wasn't the way I was brought up. It did not look right to me.

I realized that it is none of my business. That marriage is about love and not about race. It is up to the individual to determine who they fall in love with, not up to those people who think the relationship is "yucky"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No one expected Obama to "fight for gay marriage". Although they hope he will choose liberal supreme court justices.

Why do libs lie to themselves? I could give you empirical evidence to the contrary; but I'll just let you lie to yourself. You got your guy. You won the us vs. them election and that's what counts right? Good job.

 

[Truthmatters]

Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s the gay community.

On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

Here’s the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states’ rights, asserting, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”






Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term









Laughing at liberals all the way!

guess what size the gay voter group is?


the same size as the margin of win Obama had in this last election.


so much for your theory of gays not being important enough to stick behind as a voting block

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Friend of mine, Vike, retired Army officer.
His sister is married to an African American here in rural Georgia. Get the picture? But things have changed dramatically on that over the last 20 years.
"One day 40 years from now everyone is going to sit down and talk about how utterly ridiculous it was to oppose gay folk from getting married. We will laugh and then cry over that absurd fight" Vike 2002
Thanks Vike for being the great influence you have been on me in this matter as 20 years ago I had those same prejudices against gay folk.

20 years ago I had the same prejudice against interracial marriage. It wasn't the way I was brought up. It did not look right to me.

I realized that it is none of my business. That marriage is about love and not about race. It is up to the individual to determine who they fall in love with, not up to those people who think the relationship is "yucky"

Only idiots are framing gay marriage as a tolerance issue.

 

[Gadawg73]

Friend of mine, Vike, retired Army officer.
His sister is married to an African American here in rural Georgia. Get the picture? But things have changed dramatically on that over the last 20 years.
"One day 40 years from now everyone is going to sit down and talk about how utterly ridiculous it was to oppose gay folk from getting married. We will laugh and then cry over that absurd fight" Vike 2002
Thanks Vike for being the great influence you have been on me in this matter as 20 years ago I had those same prejudices against gay folk.

20 years ago I had the same prejudice against interracial marriage. It wasn't the way I was brought up. It did not look right to me.

I realized that it is none of my business. That marriage is about love and not about race. It is up to the individual to determine who they fall in love with, not up to those people who think the relationship is "yucky"

And gay marriage to me is WEIRD! But that is well put about it is none of my business.
As soon as folks learn that is about what you state, LOVE, then they catch on.
Just like what someone makes a year in income should be no one's business!

 

[Gadawg73]

so NOW the teabag taliban wants to defend gays against obama?

funny how the right turns into 'concern trolls' for the gay community when it suits their agenda to manipulate anothers right to marry..if you would get the fuck out of the bedroom and start legislating something beside vag and gay marriage you might actually get something done.

you only care about gays if you can use them against obama..

and you should know..IF YOU WERENT CREEPIN IN GAY BEDROOMS ACROSS AMERICA AND DEFINING ANOTHER'S MARRIAGE..THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH.

so fuck anyone 'concern trolling' the gay community. marriage isnt your word or you right to give and take or 'defend' when it suits your fucked up political agenda.

and in fact please do not pretend you defend the gays..it is a detriment to them..but you already knew that, yes?

I am the right and have been defending the rights of EVERYONE, gays included, for the last 20 years.
Quit trying to put a square peg in a round hole, your claims do not apply to the all of "the right".

 

[bodecea]

Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s the gay community.

On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

Here’s the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states’ rights, asserting, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”






Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term









Laughing at liberals all the way!

Not a problem with this for three reasons:

1. He's already done more than any other President in our history.

2. At least he's not working against us like Romney would have.

3. It's now in the states and Supreme Court's lap.

 

[bodecea]

New Christmas II is coming soon.

Let me get this straight, you are both gloating over 9/11/01 and anticipating another hit with bated breath. ??? Really??? Are you for real???

Well as usual you don't have it straight. The only person gloating over 9-11 is Salt Jones and with this post he's promising a second one. Get a damn clue whydon'tya?

You DO know he was trolling you for a reaction, right?

 

[Neurotika]

so NOW the teabag taliban wants to defend gays against obama?

funny how the right turns into 'concern trolls' for the gay community when it suits their agenda to manipulate anothers right to marry..if you would get the fuck out of the bedroom and start legislating something beside vag and gay marriage you might actually get something done.

you only care about gays if you can use them against obama..

and you should know..IF YOU WERENT CREEPIN IN GAY BEDROOMS ACROSS AMERICA AND DEFINING ANOTHER'S MARRIAGE..THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH.

so fuck anyone 'concern trolling' the gay community. marriage isnt your word or you right to give and take or 'defend' when it suits your fucked up political agenda.

and in fact please do not pretend you defend the gays..it is a detriment to them..but you already knew that, yes?

I am the right and have been defending the rights of EVERYONE, gays included, for the last 20 years.
Quit trying to put a square peg in a round hole, your claims do not apply to the all of "the right".

you are an exception as opposed to a rule and the statement was primarily made to the OP and those who piled on..which IS a concern troll post.

my bad if you got sucked into the us/them vortex of idiocy..

i did use a generalization of 'the right'..my bad..but the op is falling into that generalization quite nicely..and if we are to avoid the 'libtard'/'rethuglicunt' thing then lets ALL do that

and in your defense of the gay community..may i ask how you 'defend'?
[i get confused here because 'some' of the 'right' say they defend/support equality,
yet they vote for and promote the very same people who defend doma]

did you vote for people who would legislatively defend their right to marriage?
or did you vote your party [the right?] who would restrict those rights?

did you donate to 'the cause' of gay marriage?
or did you send your donations to those who would legislate against gay marriage?

did you protest when boy scouts of america decided to stand by their discrimination of gay children and leaders?

how do you 'defend' marriage/gay equality?

 

[Dot Com]

Only idiots are framing gay marriage as a tolerance issue.

only idiots are sporting pre-election, fail avey's

 

[AmyNation]

When you pulled the lever for obama asswipe.

Maybe if your party didn't run such a terrible candidate they would have earned my vote. Don't whine when it's your own damn fault.

And FYI, I voted 3rd party.

Their candidate was the least of the GOP’s problems.

And as a third party voter you’re more to blame for Obama than the democrats.

I don't subscribe to the idea that I have to vote for pinky or the brain, and that any deviation from the status quo means I'm to blame for who Americans picked. I chose the person who best fits me, others did the same.

 

[martybegan]

We already have an Amendment, the 14th Amendment. It is up to the courts to define the scope

Individual rights should not be decided by popular vote nor by individual states

We already saw that prior to the Civil War

The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they wanted this to apply only to the rights of blacks, they could have. As written, it applies to all citizens of the United States.

So by your reasoning, affermative action is unconstitutional, polygamy laws are unconsitutional, even denying me the use of the marriage tax bracket is unconsitutional. Professional liscensure laws are unconsitutional, all because it is not applied "equally"

Also note the language uses the word "state" hence I Dont see DOMA being overturned, as it is a federal act.

 

[WillowTree]

Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s the gay community.

On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

Here’s the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states’ rights, asserting, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”






Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term









Laughing at liberals all the way!

Not a problem with this for three reasons:

1. He's already done more than any other President in our history.

2. At least he's not working against us like Romney would have.

3. It's now in the states and Supreme Court's lap.

You lie to yourself, A. Romney would not have touched you and B. It's always been in the hands of the States, Remember how you asswarps tried to crucify North Carolina for their choice. You really don't believe in choice do you, and thirdly this is lame excuses since he's now dumpted you cause. It was only to get ;himself re elected.. his "evolving" statement should have given you a clue.

 

[WillowTree]

Let me get this straight, you are both gloating over 9/11/01 and anticipating another hit with bated breath. ??? Really??? Are you for real???

Well as usual you don't have it straight. The only person gloating over 9-11 is Salt Jones and with this post he's promising a second one. Get a damn clue whydon'tya?

You DO know he was trolling you for a reaction, right?

No I don't know that. he's threatening.

 

[rightwinger]

The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they wanted this to apply only to the rights of blacks, they could have. As written, it applies to all citizens of the United States.

So by your reasoning, affermative action is unconstitutional, polygamy laws are unconsitutional, even denying me the use of the marriage tax bracket is unconsitutional. Professional liscensure laws are unconsitutional, all because it is not applied "equally"

Also note the language uses the word "state" hence I Dont see DOMA being overturned, as it is a federal act.

Each of those will have to be fought on their own merits

Our court system has consistently supported the constitutionality of affirmative action. This court may decide otherwise.

I have no issues with polygamy if it is between consenting adults

I doubt if DOMA can pass Constitutional muster

 

[martybegan]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they wanted this to apply only to the rights of blacks, they could have. As written, it applies to all citizens of the United States.

So by your reasoning, affermative action is unconstitutional, polygamy laws are unconsitutional, even denying me the use of the marriage tax bracket is unconsitutional. Professional liscensure laws are unconsitutional, all because it is not applied "equally"

Also note the language uses the word "state" hence I Dont see DOMA being overturned, as it is a federal act.

Each of those will have to be fought on their own merits

Our court system has consistently supported the constitutionality of affirmative action. This court may decide otherwise.

I have no issues with polygamy if it is between consenting adults

I doubt if DOMA can pass Constitutional muster

What does DOMA violate if the 14th amendment is a restriction on the states?

Also, note you have determined a "line" where, in your opinion, equal protection does not apply. All I am doing is moving that line to the opposite side the gay marriage issue.

Once you can move the line on a "right", how much of a right is it? Wouldnt it be better to have it defined via legislation, or if really in favor of it, by amendment? If it is as popular as people say, getting it into various state consitutions should not be an issue. Then you would have a better fight against DOMA on 10th amendment grounds.

 

[AceRothstein]

When did Obama say he was going to fight for gay marriage? I may have missed it but I don't remember he saying he was going to fight for gay marriage.

I also see nothing from him saying that he isn't going to throw his support behind legalizing gay marriage at the state level, just that he isn't going to try to do anything at the federal level.

 

[rightwinger]

So by your reasoning, affermative action is unconstitutional, polygamy laws are unconsitutional, even denying me the use of the marriage tax bracket is unconsitutional. Professional liscensure laws are unconsitutional, all because it is not applied "equally"

Also note the language uses the word "state" hence I Dont see DOMA being overturned, as it is a federal act.

Each of those will have to be fought on their own merits

Our court system has consistently supported the constitutionality of affirmative action. This court may decide otherwise.

I have no issues with polygamy if it is between consenting adults

I doubt if DOMA can pass Constitutional muster

What does DOMA violate if the 14th amendment is a restriction on the states?

Also, note you have determined a "line" where, in your opinion, equal protection does not apply. All I am doing is moving that line to the opposite side the gay marriage issue.

Once you can move the line on a "right", how much of a right is it? Wouldnt it be better to have it defined via legislation, or if really in favor of it, by amendment? If it is as popular as people say, getting it into various state consitutions should not be an issue. Then you would have a better fight against DOMA on 10th amendment grounds.

I don't believe the 14th amendment is restricted to states

You are welcome to cite any case law saying it doesn't apply to the federal government

Popularity is irrelevant. People should not have the right to vote on what rights others are entitled to have

 

[martybegan]

Each of those will have to be fought on their own merits

Our court system has consistently supported the constitutionality of affirmative action. This court may decide otherwise.

I have no issues with polygamy if it is between consenting adults

I doubt if DOMA can pass Constitutional muster

What does DOMA violate if the 14th amendment is a restriction on the states?

Also, note you have determined a "line" where, in your opinion, equal protection does not apply. All I am doing is moving that line to the opposite side the gay marriage issue.

Once you can move the line on a "right", how much of a right is it? Wouldnt it be better to have it defined via legislation, or if really in favor of it, by amendment? If it is as popular as people say, getting it into various state consitutions should not be an issue. Then you would have a better fight against DOMA on 10th amendment grounds.

I don't believe the 14th amendment is restricted to states

You are welcome to cite any case law saying it doesn't apply to the federal government

Popularity is irrelevant. People should not have the right to vote on what rights others are entitled to have

So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process? How oligarchical of you.

Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.

How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?

Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, god, not that again. Where does equal protection end? If you carry that clause to its extreme I should be able to abort a baby I made because denying me that right denies me equal protection. Or at least I should be spared from paternity.

The government being able to demonstrate a compelling government interest in treating two like situated groups differently. If it can make that case, then it is not compelled to treat the two groups the same. In this case one group is law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple that are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states) and law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple that are denied equal treatment under the law (in most states and by the federal government).



Pretty clear line.



>>>>