Obama declares support for gay marriage

245678

Comments

  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,036
    I don't give a shit if this is political or not, it's right and it's moral and it's god damn awesome that the President finally voacally supports same sex marriage and equal rights for all.

    I don't think this will change much from election perspective. He may alienate some, he'll get more money from human rights organizations and he sure as fuck just got a large gay population motivated to help his reelection.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,766
    Godfather. wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    hello ! you can't see he's trying buy votes and support ?....wake up man..he's a politican (kinda) he may not be very good at it but he just suckered a whole page of train members :lol: and if he gets re-elected he WILL drop the gay marrige issue like a bad habit and at that point I WILL say I TOLD YOU SO.... :lol:


    Godfather.

    you can't be serious!??

    who the cuss is going to vote for obama now that he supports same sex marriage that wouldn't have voted for him anyways? ... if anything, he's alienated voters ...

    I still think he's trying to buy the gay vote.....but after thinking about it I believe you are right I think he is reaching for straws now in a panic for votes, but as you said he's done.

    Godfather.
    Did it ever occur to anyone that he intends to go forward? I mean, it happened in Canada; it wasn't just about votes, only to be dropped later - it actually happened. why not in the US as well? I mean, the Constitution CLEARLY makes it illegal to deny SS marriage, so I actually think it's a no-brainer that it will be legal all over the US soon enough.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    :clap:

    it's aboot time ;)
  • MayDay10
    MayDay10 Posts: 11,864
    23wnocy.jpg

    I saw this posted elsewhere.
  • peacefrompaul
    peacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    I mean, the Constitution CLEARLY makes it illegal to deny SS marriage

    Does it? Where?
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,766
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    I mean, the Constitution CLEARLY makes it illegal to deny SS marriage

    Does it? Where?
    Doesn't it say that everyone's equal somewhere? I thought it ensured equal rights for everyone... No?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • peacefrompaul
    peacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    I mean, the Constitution CLEARLY makes it illegal to deny SS marriage

    Does it? Where?
    Doesn't it say that everyone's equal somewhere? I thought it ensured equal rights for everyone... No?

    It guarantees certain rights. Says nothing of marriage which wasn't even defined by the government until 1996.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,766
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    peacefrompaul wrote:

    Does it? Where?
    Doesn't it say that everyone's equal somewhere? I thought it ensured equal rights for everyone... No?

    It guarantees certain rights. Says nothing of marriage which wasn't even defined by the government until 1996.

    Well, I think that this issue is contained within the idea that everyone is treated equally... I don't think that the courts can stand against this reasoning for much longer, because it is clear discrimination, and they simply can't continue discriminating in this fashion based on the laws of the country. The Justices simply won't be able to keep justifying it in the face of US laws regarding equal and human rights, is all I meant.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • ComeToTX
    ComeToTX Austin Posts: 8,073
    Godfather. wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    hello ! you can't see he's trying buy votes and support ?....wake up man..he's a politican (kinda) he may not be very good at it but he just suckered a whole page of train members :lol: and if he gets re-elected he WILL drop the gay marrige issue like a bad habit and at that point I WILL say I TOLD YOU SO.... :lol:


    Godfather.

    you can't be serious!??

    who the cuss is going to vote for obama now that he supports same sex marriage that wouldn't have voted for him anyways? ... if anything, he's alienated voters ...

    I still think he's trying to buy the gay vote.....but after thinking about it I believe you are right I think he is reaching for straws now in a panic for votes, but as you said he's done.

    Godfather.

    Buy the gay vote? You think a lot of gay people would have ever voted for Mitt?
    This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    I mean, the Constitution CLEARLY makes it illegal to deny SS marriage

    Does it? Where?

    I was thinking the same thing, and I would think it would be a solid argument to argue that the 14th amendment is being violated.
    Now if you wanted to argue that government should not be in the marriage business I am all ears, but if they are going to pass laws there needs to be equal protection. Separate but equal is not equality as we all know. So this civil union non-sense has got to stop. It isn't the same as being married whether the rights are the same or not, whether the word is the same or not...everyone knows it isn't equal, or we would still see segregated government buildings.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    MayDay10 wrote:
    23wnocy.jpg

    I saw this posted elsewhere.

    hahahaha
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,766
    ComeToTX wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:

    you can't be serious!??

    who the cuss is going to vote for obama now that he supports same sex marriage that wouldn't have voted for him anyways? ... if anything, he's alienated voters ...

    I still think he's trying to buy the gay vote.....but after thinking about it I believe you are right I think he is reaching for straws now in a panic for votes, but as you said he's done.

    Godfather.

    Buy the gay vote? You think a lot of gay people would have ever voted for Mitt?
    It's not the gay vote... it the people who support gay rights vote. And that's half of the country according to an article I read last night. Which is exactly what Obama's approval rating was last time they reported it, and 100% of those voters would not be, presumably, gay rights supporters. So this could actually help him a little bit. In more ways that one. It will probably get enough Republicans foaming insanely at the mouth that they will turn off a few more people and steer them away from the dark side as well! :D
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I was thinking the same thing, and I would think it would be a solid argument to argue that the 14th amendment is being violated.
    Now if you wanted to argue that government should not be in the marriage business I am all ears, but if they are going to pass laws there needs to be equal protection. Separate but equal is not equality as we all know. So this civil union non-sense has got to stop. It isn't the same as being married whether the rights are the same or not, whether the word is the same or not...everyone knows it isn't equal, or we would still see segregated government buildings.

    not to speak for her but she may have confused it with how it evolved in canada ... same sex marriage became essentially legal because it is considered part of the equality rights in the canadian charter of rights and freedoms ... and that denying it would have not been constitutional ... so, the bill passing the law was merely a formality ...
  • MayDay10
    MayDay10 Posts: 11,864
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    It's not the gay vote... it the people who support gay rights vote. And that's half of the country according to an article I read last night. Which is exactly what Obama's approval rating was last time they reported it, and 100% of those voters would not be, presumably, gay rights supporters. So this could actually help him a little bit. In more ways that one. It will probably get enough Republicans foaming insanely at the mouth that they will turn off a few more people and steer them away from the dark side as well! :D


    its intentional, and perfect timing. Everyone is abuzz on the issue, arguing on the internet.... And the president took advantage.

    Im glad. No matter the circumstances, to hear the President support this.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,766
    polaris_x wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I was thinking the same thing, and I would think it would be a solid argument to argue that the 14th amendment is being violated.
    Now if you wanted to argue that government should not be in the marriage business I am all ears, but if they are going to pass laws there needs to be equal protection. Separate but equal is not equality as we all know. So this civil union non-sense has got to stop. It isn't the same as being married whether the rights are the same or not, whether the word is the same or not...everyone knows it isn't equal, or we would still see segregated government buildings.

    not to speak for her but she may have confused it with how it evolved in canada ... same sex marriage became essentially legal because it is considered part of the equality rights in the canadian charter of rights and freedoms ... and that denying it would have not been constitutional ... so, the bill passing the law was merely a formality ...
    It wasn't just a formality, and it wasn't essentially legal before it was legal ... it made it legal as opposed to not legal and unrecognized under the law... So I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. It's not like gay marriage spent a time being decriminalized.
    But anyway, I'm not confused - I just don't know all the terminology from the US constitution. I do know that in the US the theory is that all people are to be treated equally, and that the government may not treat certain groups of people in a discriminatory manner, and continuing a ban on SS marriage is just that. So I just don't see how the Supreme Court can manage to hold off on it any longer.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    It wasn't just a formality, and it wasn't essentially legal before it was legal ... it made it legal as opposed to not legal and unrecognized under the law... So I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. It's not like gay marriage spent a time being decriminalized.
    But anyway, I'm not confused - I just don't know all the terminology from the US constitution. I do know that in the US the theory is that all people are to be treated equally, and that the government may not treat certain groups of people in a discriminatory manner, and continuing a ban on SS marriage is just that. So I just don't see how the Supreme Court can manage to hold off on it any longer.

    it was a formality because before the bill in 2005 ... 8 out of 10 provinces approved same sex marriage in 2003 ... opposing it would have been a legal challenge that would have lost because of clauses in the charter of rights and freedoms ... the US constitution is much different and the supreme court is a bit of a joke now as the stacking of justices by bush has basically made it a very partisan board ...
  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,973
    MayDay10 wrote:
    23wnocy.jpg

    I saw this posted elsewhere.

    It must have been about a different topic though because there are no historical reports of Jesus ever speaking on this issue.
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Kat wrote:
    MayDay10 wrote:
    23wnocy.jpg

    I saw this posted elsewhere.

    It must have been about a different topic though because there are no historical reports of Jesus ever speaking on this issue.


    :shock: you nailed it there Kat.


    Godfather.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    awesome...so when will DOMA be repealed mr president?
  • BinauralJam
    BinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Kat wrote:
    MayDay10 wrote:
    23wnocy.jpg

    I saw this posted elsewhere.

    It must have been about a different topic though because there are no historical reports of Jesus ever speaking on this issue.


    Sure liked to hang around with men..... :?
    wasnt excaulty known as a ladies man :lol:

Categories