Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26163 comments on the politix.topix.com story from May 9, 2012, titled Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage. In it, politix.topix.com reports that:

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at politix.topix.com.

Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#23777 Dec 3, 2012
Can a Hetro join the thread and where are the bible thumping homophobes? Something going down at the Phelps compound?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23778 Dec 3, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
Can a Hetro join the thread and where are the bible thumping homophobes?
They got extremely quiet once several states starting voting in favor of same-sex marriage.
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#23779 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They got extremely quiet once several states starting voting in favor of same-sex marriage.
And for the first time more people in the US support Gay marriage over those that support it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23780 Dec 3, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
And for the first time more people in the US support Gay marriage over those that support it.
That's very true.
Charlie Sheen

Louisville, NE

#23782 Dec 7, 2012
And the Supreme Court takes the case, win or lose it's progress toward the inevitable, not that long ago same gender sex acts could be found illegal under Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986) then the Supreme Court reversed overruled their decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

A constitutional right to gay marriage is inevitable, if not in this round, the next.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#23783 Dec 7, 2012
Has Obama commented on Supreme Court choosing to rule on Prop 8 and DOMA yet?
Charlie Sheen

Louisville, NE

#23784 Dec 7, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Has Obama commented on Supreme Court choosing to rule on Prop 8 and DOMA yet?
Not that I know of, I think it's premature, this one could be very narrow and rule only on the issue of a states right to a State Constitutional bar same sex marriage.

If the Court gets gutsy, the appeals court in Prop 8 addressed a US (not state) Constitutional right to same sex marriage so the door is open to a nationwide Constitutional right to same sex marriage.

No matter what, the door has been kicked open and can never be shut again. I look forward to the day when my children and anyone else can marry the person the love no matter what the sex.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#23785 Dec 7, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I know of, I think it's premature, this one could be very narrow and rule only on the issue of a states right to a State Constitutional bar same sex marriage.
If the Court gets gutsy, the appeals court in Prop 8 addressed a US (not state) Constitutional right to same sex marriage so the door is open to a nationwide Constitutional right to same sex marriage.
No matter what, the door has been kicked open and can never be shut again. I look forward to the day when my children and anyone else can marry the person the love no matter what the sex.
Tell me do you really think Justice John Roberts wants to go down in the history books as the bigot who stood against equal rights for gays and lesbians? Do you think he wants to be remembered that way? Remember Obamacare when he ruled in it's favor?

I'm more optimistic. I say just strike it all down in all 50 US states under Equal Protection clause.
Charlie Sheen

Louisville, NE

#23786 Dec 7, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me do you really think Justice John Roberts wants to go down in the history books as the bigot who stood against equal rights for gays and lesbians? Do you think he wants to be remembered that way? Remember Obamacare when he ruled in it's favor?
I'm more optimistic. I say just strike it all down in all 50 US states under Equal Protection clause.
I lean that way slightly, law is my profession. I expect a victory (but would not bet money on it) what will it be, a victory can be small here (A state may not bar same sex marriage at the STATE Constitutional level), which would only apply to a state that did and does not grant the right of same sex marriage in the 41 states where it is illegal.

Or (and only because the Appeals Court addressed the US Constitution issue, otherwise procedurally the Supreme Court could not address the issue, will the ruling be that the US Constitution forbids marriage discrimination based on sex.

If you believe there will be a victory here, will there be a small move of the bar that effects gays in a few states or will the Court smash the bar and open it up for all.

Either way Roberts comes out looking good to many but will he carve out his name for the History books 100 years from now or will he be a footnote in the journey.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23787 Dec 7, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I know of, I think it's premature, this one could be very narrow and rule only on the issue of a states right to a State Constitutional bar same sex marriage.
If the Court gets gutsy, the appeals court in Prop 8 addressed a US (not state) Constitutional right to same sex marriage so the door is open to a nationwide Constitutional right to same sex marriage.
No matter what, the door has been kicked open and can never be shut again. I look forward to the day when my children and anyone else can marry the person the love no matter what the sex.
Or the "ones" they love.

Hi ya Woody, come va?

http://www.7dvt.com/2012love-plus
Love Plus

A Vermont prof says polygamy is the new marriage-rights frontier

SD: Why should we legalize plural marriage?
JB: We need to just step back, get off our high horse, and look at this from a civil liberties perspective. If we’re going to pave the way for alternative sexuality, why not provide liberties for those who choose the polygamy form? We hear a lot about the abuse cases, but we rarely hear about the well-functioning families. As a feminist, I say,“Bring it on; let’s legalize it.” In that way, what you do is you bring the abuses into the light. You bring in governmental regulating policies that protect second wives.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#23788 Dec 7, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
I lean that way slightly, law is my profession. I expect a victory (but would not bet money on it) what will it be, a victory can be small here (A state may not bar same sex marriage at the STATE Constitutional level), which would only apply to a state that did and does not grant the right of same sex marriage in the 41 states where it is illegal.
Or (and only because the Appeals Court addressed the US Constitution issue, otherwise procedurally the Supreme Court could not address the issue, will the ruling be that the US Constitution forbids marriage discrimination based on sex.
If you believe there will be a victory here, will there be a small move of the bar that effects gays in a few states or will the Court smash the bar and open it up for all.
Either way Roberts comes out looking good to many but will he carve out his name for the History books 100 years from now or will he be a footnote in the journey.
I believe with specific regards to Prop 8, that SCOTUS might seriously be looking at the Article 3 Standing issue........outside of that, I don't believe SCOTUS will overturn the 9th's ruling on Prop 8 being Unconstitutional as in this particular case, a right was grant, marriages too place and remain valid today and then the right was eliminated for no other reason than animus towards a particular group of individuals.

I also believe Olson has a good record in front of SCOTUS and I don't see him losing his case!!!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#23789 Dec 7, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe with specific regards to Prop 8, that SCOTUS might seriously be looking at the Article 3 Standing issue........outside of that, I don't believe SCOTUS will overturn the 9th's ruling on Prop 8 being Unconstitutional as in this particular case, a right was grant, marriages too place and remain valid today and then the right was eliminated for no other reason than animus towards a particular group of individuals.
I also believe Olson has a good record in front of SCOTUS and I don't see him losing his case!!!
I would agree 100%.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#23790 Dec 7, 2012
I don't buy slippery slope arguments, fear tactics over logic, all the legislation has to do is define marriage as a union between two non related consenting adults.

But if you want a slippery slope argument here is one, if we allow a man and a woman to marry, what is next, men marrying men, women marring women? Same logic, same structure, any slippery slope argument always cuts back to the core decision, in this case the right of marriage for any class.

That said, who the heck in this country wants multiple wives, think of the honey do list!
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the "ones" they love.
Hi ya Woody, come va?
http://www.7dvt.com/2012love-plus
Love Plus
A Vermont prof says polygamy is the new marriage-rights frontier
SD: Why should we legalize plural marriage?
JB: We need to just step back, get off our high horse, and look at this from a civil liberties perspective. If we’re going to pave the way for alternative sexuality, why not provide liberties for those who choose the polygamy form? We hear a lot about the abuse cases, but we rarely hear about the well-functioning families. As a feminist, I say,“Bring it on; let’s legalize it.” In that way, what you do is you bring the abuses into the light. You bring in governmental regulating policies that protect second wives.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#23791 Dec 7, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree 100%.
Now, we wait to see if SCOTUS agrees.....lol!!!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23792 Dec 7, 2012
Before I even read the story, it was obvious prof in question wasn't a professor of law. Perhaps she could explain how polygamy jibes with the ultimate purpose of civil marriage--to establish primary kinship. Unlike OS or SS marriage, polygamy would require extensive rewriting of virtually all marriage laws and creation of entirely new codes.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the "ones" they love.
Hi ya Woody, come va?
http://www.7dvt.com/2012love-plus
Love Plus
A Vermont prof says polygamy is the new marriage-rights frontier
SD: Why should we legalize plural marriage?
JB: We need to just step back, get off our high horse, and look at this from a civil liberties perspective. If we’re going to pave the way for alternative sexuality, why not provide liberties for those who choose the polygamy form? We hear a lot about the abuse cases, but we rarely hear about the well-functioning families. As a feminist, I say,“Bring it on; let’s legalize it.” In that way, what you do is you bring the abuses into the light. You bring in governmental regulating policies that protect second wives.
Charlie Sheen

Louisville, NE

#23793 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, we wait to see if SCOTUS agrees.....lol!!!
Yup, That's all that matters.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#23794 Dec 8, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, That's all that matters.
Yes, it is and I would love to see how Charles Cooper is going to sling his re-hashed garbage in front of SCOTUS........seeing that he hasn't done so well up to this point!!!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23795 Dec 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Perhaps she could explain how polygamy jibes with the ultimate purpose of civil marriage--to establish primary kinship. Unlike OS or SS marriage, polygamy would require extensive rewriting of virtually all marriage laws and creation of entirely new codes.
I frequently bring up that point to the anti-SSM posters, but they don't seem to get it.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#23796 Dec 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I frequently bring up that point to the anti-SSM posters, but they don't seem to get it.
I am a supporter of SSM, and a hetero. I would point out however that it appears you homosexuals seem to not "get" something that the antis have been trying to tell you on the matter as well.
You miss the point that it matters not what needs rewritten or how much needs rewritten, or how "difficult" it would be. The point is that if disallowing SSMs is argued to be unconstitutional on the grounds of discrimination, then it also applies to other forms of "marriages", and that includes poly marriages. If there is validity in arguing that the gender of the participants is irrelevant, than likewise, so is the number of "partners" in the marriage contract.

I find it fascinating that you (meaning most of the gays here, and NOT you in particular) argue valid constitutionally discriminating points when arguing your own situation, but stop short of allowing the same arguments to be made for marriages that you personally disagree with - which is you doing the exact same thing that you get all bent out of shape at others for doing to you. Your retort and comeback concerning poly marriage is a flippant "it's too hard because it requires a lot of writing", and you abandon the "constitutional ship" of valid argument.
Interesting indeed.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#23797 Dec 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Before I even read the story, it was obvious prof in question wasn't a professor of law. Perhaps she could explain how polygamy jibes with the ultimate purpose of civil marriage--to establish primary kinship. Unlike OS or SS marriage, polygamy would require extensive rewriting of virtually all marriage laws and creation of entirely new codes.
<quoted text>
The purpose of civil marriage is to "establish primary kinship"?
Really?
Interesting.

The real point and question is - is it unconstitutional to disallow poly marriages?
Stow your, I'm too lazy to rewrite crap, and actually address the question for a change.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 3 hr No Surprise 497
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr No Surprise 6,952
News Gay men - to be allowed to donate blood three m... 4 hr Gordon 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr cpeter1313 52,151
News Tennessee judge rules gay couples have equal pa... 4 hr Gordon 12
News Gay Teen Vogue editor defends mag's anal sex guide 7 hr Big Dawg 131
News California College Fires Black Gay Man For Twee... 7 hr Gilbert 5
News Gay couple grilled by judge about their sex liv... 8 hr Wanka Wanka 98
More from around the web