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!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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'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!
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.
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
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 ...
It's great he (finally) spoke up. I figured he would've back when things were heated up out here in California and other states...but better late than never, I suppose. I can't say whether his words are sincere or manipulated, though I sure hope they're genuine. I want to believe they are.
My question is this - how is anyone supposed to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue, or even get somewhere possibly close - when there's so much animosity?
"Think of the gay kids who now have the President on their side"
Killer quote.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
"Think of the gay kids who now have the President on their side"
Killer quote.
That is strong.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
It's great he (finally) spoke up. I figured he would've back when things were heated up out here in California and other states...but better late than never, I suppose. I can't say whether his words are sincere or manipulated, though I sure hope they're genuine. I want to believe they are.
My question is this - how is anyone supposed to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue, or even get somewhere possibly close - when there's so much animosity?
Not just here, mind you, but all over.
I think he has always been pro-Gay Marriage, but, unfortunately, as Jon Meacham once said, the truth has no place in politics; i.e. you have to keep your mouth shut and play politics.
I also think that he is as secular as he can be. I feel that I can spot a fellow agnostic when I see one.
It's great he (finally) spoke up. I figured he would've back when things were heated up out here in California and other states...but better late than never, I suppose. I can't say whether his words are sincere or manipulated, though I sure hope they're genuine. I want to believe they are.
My question is this - how is anyone supposed to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue, or even get somewhere possibly close - when there's so much animosity?
Not just here, mind you, but all over.
I think he is taking it one step at a time. First it was repealing Don't ask Don't tell and now he has come out in favour of Gay marriage. He knows he won't get it all done in one go so there's no point in putting all his cards on the table at once.
To answer your question I think if he gets re elected he can now say that he made everyone well aware of his intentions on legalising gay marriage and therefore he has a mandate(no pun intended) on giving gays marriage rights.
BTW, I trust no one was surprised by this... I'd be really shocked if someone said they didn't already assume that he supported same sex marriage if they knew anything about him. I'm glad that he's now actually come out and endorsed it... but it's not like we didn't all know it already. I think all it does is give some new hope for the direction society is taking. First the first black president, now the first time a president has actually stated his support for SS marriage... that is a good direction for sure. It reflects what society as a whole is moving towards. I hope the next election doesn't fuck it up and stop the progress in its tracks.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
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.
I was thinking the 14th as well, but not in my own interpretation. Agree with you on the other points as well.
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
Right-wing leaders quickly denounced the president for supporting marriage equality.
Not surprisingly, right-wing activists have been quick to denounce President Obama for announcing his support for equal marriage rights for gay couples.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, is using Obama's announcement to raise funds for his political action committee, Huck PAC, which supports conservative candidates, The Hill reports. He posted this pitch on his Huck PAC website:
"Barack Obama just announced he supports same-sex marriage. Nancy Pelosi immediately jumped on the announcement and emailed Democrat activists nationwide promising to continue their fight. This is going to be a defining issue this election. Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats have been a complete failure on economic issues so now they are going to focus on issues that will rile up their base.
"Well, Mr. President it's going to rile up our folks also. Men and women who support traditional marriage.
"Now I know you support traditional marriage, but what I really need to know today, is will you fight for it this election? If so, please send a donation of $10 or more to Huck PAC immediately. We only support candidates who support traditional marriage and who are pro-life. We'll make sure Congress and our state legislatures are stacked with conservatives who don't want our President and the federal government defining marriage for us."
Some others who weighed in:
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage: "President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada."
Maggie Gallagher, NOM cofounder: "On the one hand, morally this is good because lying to the American people is always wrong. President Obama has come clean that he is for gay marriage. Politically, we welcome this. We think it's a huge mistake. President Obama is choosing the money over the voters the day after 61% of North Carolinians in a key swing state demonstrated they oppose gay marriage. We now have clear choice between Romney and Obama, and we look forward to demonstrating in November that it's a bad idea for a national candidate to support gay marriage. Marriage is a winning issue for the GOP."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council: "The president's announcement today that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage finally brings his words in sync with his actions. From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law.
"As demonstrated by yesterday's overwhelming vote in North Carolina, redefining marriage remains outside the mainstream of American politics, especially in the critical battleground states and among minority voters. In North Carolina, the amendment received more than 60% of the vote in majority-black counties.
"Considering that 10 of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the president's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election.
"The president has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger Mitt Romney. Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama."
Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action: "America is headed in the wrong direction: we are on the edge of a moral, financial, spiritual, and national security abyss. President Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan is ‘Forward.’ The Titanic was moving forward but headed to disaster. We need to change course.”
Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum: "The announcement today by President Obama should come as no surprise to the American public. President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level."
Minnesota congresswoman and former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann: "The president's announcement today shows how out of touch he is the values of American families. The president continues to practice the politics of division and diversion. He's tried to divide the country over gender, education, class, and now he's attempting to divide families all as a diversion to his failed economic policies that have affected all Americans. Americans know better and support traditional marriage."
Comments
hahahaha
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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.
Sure liked to hang around with men..... :?
wasnt excaulty known as a ladies man
so jesus was bi? :shock:
makes the phrase "Get behind me Satan" take on a whole new meaning!
My question is this - how is anyone supposed to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue, or even get somewhere possibly close - when there's so much animosity?
Not just here, mind you, but all over.
Killer quote.
:shock: ....waoooooo that just sounds freakey.
Godfather.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Each book of the New testement sure does make a big deal about that kiss from Judas :shock:
I think he has always been pro-Gay Marriage, but, unfortunately, as Jon Meacham once said, the truth has no place in politics; i.e. you have to keep your mouth shut and play politics.
I also think that he is as secular as he can be. I feel that I can spot a fellow agnostic when I see one.
I think he is taking it one step at a time. First it was repealing Don't ask Don't tell and now he has come out in favour of Gay marriage. He knows he won't get it all done in one go so there's no point in putting all his cards on the table at once.
To answer your question I think if he gets re elected he can now say that he made everyone well aware of his intentions on legalising gay marriage and therefore he has a mandate(no pun intended) on giving gays marriage rights.
I was thinking the 14th as well, but not in my own interpretation. Agree with you on the other points as well.
Right-wing leaders quickly denounced the president for supporting marriage equality.
Not surprisingly, right-wing activists have been quick to denounce President Obama for announcing his support for equal marriage rights for gay couples.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, is using Obama's announcement to raise funds for his political action committee, Huck PAC, which supports conservative candidates, The Hill reports. He posted this pitch on his Huck PAC website:
"Barack Obama just announced he supports same-sex marriage. Nancy Pelosi immediately jumped on the announcement and emailed Democrat activists nationwide promising to continue their fight. This is going to be a defining issue this election. Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats have been a complete failure on economic issues so now they are going to focus on issues that will rile up their base.
"Well, Mr. President it's going to rile up our folks also. Men and women who support traditional marriage.
"Now I know you support traditional marriage, but what I really need to know today, is will you fight for it this election? If so, please send a donation of $10 or more to Huck PAC immediately. We only support candidates who support traditional marriage and who are pro-life. We'll make sure Congress and our state legislatures are stacked with conservatives who don't want our President and the federal government defining marriage for us."
Some others who weighed in:
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage: "President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada."
Maggie Gallagher, NOM cofounder: "On the one hand, morally this is good because lying to the American people is always wrong. President Obama has come clean that he is for gay marriage. Politically, we welcome this. We think it's a huge mistake. President Obama is choosing the money over the voters the day after 61% of North Carolinians in a key swing state demonstrated they oppose gay marriage. We now have clear choice between Romney and Obama, and we look forward to demonstrating in November that it's a bad idea for a national candidate to support gay marriage. Marriage is a winning issue for the GOP."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council: "The president's announcement today that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage finally brings his words in sync with his actions. From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law.
"As demonstrated by yesterday's overwhelming vote in North Carolina, redefining marriage remains outside the mainstream of American politics, especially in the critical battleground states and among minority voters. In North Carolina, the amendment received more than 60% of the vote in majority-black counties.
"Considering that 10 of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the president's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election.
"The president has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger Mitt Romney. Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama."
Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action: "America is headed in the wrong direction: we are on the edge of a moral, financial, spiritual, and national security abyss. President Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan is ‘Forward.’ The Titanic was moving forward but headed to disaster. We need to change course.”
Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum: "The announcement today by President Obama should come as no surprise to the American public. President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level."
Minnesota congresswoman and former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann: "The president's announcement today shows how out of touch he is the values of American families. The president continues to practice the politics of division and diversion. He's tried to divide the country over gender, education, class, and now he's attempting to divide families all as a diversion to his failed economic policies that have affected all Americans. Americans know better and support traditional marriage."