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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23798 Dec 8, 2012
It's not a matter of it being hard, it's a matter of creating an entirely different form of marriage altogether--one that relies on percentages rather than equality. Let's say 3 women and two men marry, then one wants to divorce two of the other spouses but not the other two, how would that legally be effected? Would the state force them to divorce all spouses? If children are involved, the matters of guardianship, custody, support, etc, would be a legal nightmare. If one falls ill and cannot make choices, what is a doctor to do if the remaining spouses cannot come to a concensus?

There are enough complexities when just two spouses are involved.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23799 Dec 8, 2012
Fu** you--I have answered it many times; you're just stirring up the same cauldron of shit AGAIN.

SSM is not related to polygamy. You want to marry more than the legal limit, get off your enormous ass, overturn bigamy laws, and start your own movement.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23800 Dec 8, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Apparently you didn't read the posting I was responding to. As that poster said, civil marriage establishes a next-of-kin link between two people who are otherwise unrelated. The issue isn't "difficulty", but how next-of-kinship is determined when there is more than one!
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Polygamy isn't a "form" of marriage. It's multiple *simultaneous* marriages. And in the case of same-sex marriage, preventing such marriages discriminates on the basis of sex (just as, in the case of interracial marriages, preventing such marriages discriminates on the basis of race).

Exactly who is being discriminated against by laws limiting marriage to one at a time?

People were once discriminated against on the basis of sex or race when it came to voting, but our laws finally fixed that. Do you think that people are also discriminated against when they are limited to having one *vote* at a time? If not, why not?
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Even in those countries where polygamy is already legal, the number of partners in the marriage contract is *still* limited to two. What you are failing to realize is that polygamy isn't about 3 or more people being in the *same* marriage contract, but it's about 1 person having *more* than one marriage contract at the same time.

And there should be no surprise that this is almost exclusively cases where a *man* has multiple contracts (not the woman). In other words, we find polygamy in societies where men and women are not equal under the law, such as in the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa, and among religious groups related to the Mormons.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23801 Dec 8, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
is it unconstitutional to disallow poly marriages?
Nope, just as it isn't unconstitutional to limit each person in our society to a single vote.
Pierrot Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23802 Dec 8, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Valid point
Pierrot Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23803 Dec 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's not a matter of it being hard, it's a matter of creating an entirely different form of marriage altogether--one that relies on percentages rather than equality. Let's say 3 women and two men marry, then one wants to divorce two of the other spouses but not the other two, how would that legally be effected? Would the state force them to divorce all spouses? If children are involved, the matters of guardianship, custody, support, etc, would be a legal nightmare. If one falls ill and cannot make choices, what is a doctor to do if the remaining spouses cannot come to a concensus?
There are enough complexities when just two spouses are involved.
<quoted text>
Welllllll......it's not "an entirely different form of marriage", but rather an excepted form of marriage, that has a deep historical foundation, and is still practiced in many societies around the globe, including, albeit on a small scale, in this country.
Pierrot Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23804 Dec 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you didn't read the posting I was responding to. As that poster said, civil marriage establishes a next-of-kin link between two people who are otherwise unrelated. The issue isn't "difficulty", but how next-of-kinship is determined when there is more than one!
<quoted text>
Polygamy isn't a "form" of marriage. It's multiple *simultaneous* marriages. And in the case of same-sex marriage, preventing such marriages discriminates on the basis of sex (just as, in the case of interracial marriages, preventing such marriages discriminates on the basis of race).
Exactly who is being discriminated against by laws limiting marriage to one at a time?
People were once discriminated against on the basis of sex or race when it came to voting, but our laws finally fixed that. Do you think that people are also discriminated against when they are limited to having one *vote* at a time? If not, why not?
<quoted text>
Even in those countries where polygamy is already legal, the number of partners in the marriage contract is *still* limited to two. What you are failing to realize is that polygamy isn't about 3 or more people being in the *same* marriage contract, but it's about 1 person having *more* than one marriage contract at the same time.
And there should be no surprise that this is almost exclusively cases where a *man* has multiple contracts (not the woman). In other words, we find polygamy in societies where men and women are not equal under the law, such as in the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa, and among religious groups related to the Mormons.
Hmmmmm....I suppose one could argue discrimination based on religious freedom, or marital status. One man many wives is polygyny, the predominate form of polygamy. Considering that men have different reproductive functions, is it any wonder that one man many wives is the norm?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23805 Dec 8, 2012
Oops...name misspelled. It's Pietro Armando

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23806 Dec 8, 2012
Pierrot Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Welllllll......it's not "an entirely different form of marriage", but rather an excepted form of marriage, that has a deep historical foundation, and is still practiced in many societies around the globe, including, albeit on a small scale, in this country.
Inheritance, taxation, and other laws pertaining to opposite sex couples are being denied same sex couples. Therefore, under the fourteenth amendment and various rulings on marriage have deemed marriage to be a fundamental right. Since these particular rulings, laws and regulations are limited to two people, polygamy is an entirely separate issue requiring those who are in favor to bring forth a separate legal challenge. Polygamy is also against the law. A person who is legally married commits the crime of bigamy when marrying more than one person at a time.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23807 Dec 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Inheritance, taxation, and other laws pertaining to opposite sex couples are being denied same sex couples. Therefore, under the fourteenth amendment and various rulings on marriage have deemed marriage to be a fundamental right. Since these particular rulings, laws and regulations are limited to two people, polygamy is an entirely separate issue requiring those who are in favor to bring forth a separate legal challenge. Polygamy is also against the law. A person who is legally married commits the crime of bigamy when marrying more than one person at a time.
Wastey

No matter how you dice and slice it, legal SSM opens the door. It sets a precedent that polygamist can, and on a limited basis, used to advocate their cause. There is a segment within the SSM movement that supports marriage equality for polygamists. Why is it difficult to see that legal SSM lays the foundation for some form of legal recognition for polygamists/poly families, perhaps not in the immediate future, but possibly in the not too far future?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23808 Dec 8, 2012

LAS VEGAS (AP)— A federal court challenge to Nevada's ban on same sex marriage has been turned back in U.S. District Court, but proponents vowed Friday to fight on with an argument that a pair of state laws regarding same-sex unions unconstitutionally make gay couples "second-class citizens."

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund attorney Tara Borelli noted that a Thursday ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge Robert Jones came a day before the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to take up the gay marriage question, and just weeks after voters approved same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth.

"We think this decision is not only out of step with where the country is headed, but also completely wrong on the law," Borelli said. She said a challenge will be filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Jones, in Reno, ruled that Nevada has "a legitimate state interest" in maintaining the traditional institution of marriage and that excluding the recognition of same-sex couples is "rationally related to furthering that interest."

The question "is not the wisdom of providing for or recognizing same-sex marriages as a matter of policy," Jones wrote in his 41-page order. Rather, he called it a constitutional question about Nevada's right to prohibit recognition of marriages from other states "if those laws do not conform to Nevada's one-man-one-woman civil marriage institution."

Monte Stewart, lawyer for the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a Boise, Idaho-based advocacy group that opposes gay marriage and was involved in the case, declined comment.

Officials with Gov. Brian Sandoval's office, Nevada state attorney general's office and Carson City attorney's office declined to comment.

The Nevada lawsuit, Sevcik v. Sandoval, was filed in April on behalf of eight Nevada couples. It was the first by Lambda Legal to make the direct state marriage equality claim in federal court.

It said the 2002 state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples in Nevada the same rights, dignity and security that other married couples enjoy.

Borelli said letting domestic partners register their legal status but not marry "brands these loving couples and their children as second-class citizens."

The lawsuit also accused the state of establishing a "selective bar to access to marriage" with a 2009 domestic partnership law that passed over a veto by then-Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican. And it maintained that same-sex couples are still discriminated against by hospital officials and police officers who question their relationship status because they aren't legally recognized as spouses.

The case in Nevada followed a four-year legal battle in California over that state's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages — one of the questions now on the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices are considering taking up a challenge to part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

During a hearing in Las Vegas in May, Jones noted a difference in the California and Nevada cases. The California ballot initiative aimed to kill a law that had been enacted to recognize same-sex marriages, while the Nevada Legislature didn't extend to same-sex couples the same degree of legal protection.

Jones said Thursday he would accept no further arguments in the case. He previously canceled oral arguments that would have been held earlier this month, and he said his ruling based on written filings was enough.

Nevada is one of 31 states that have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month, while Minnesota voters defeated a proposal to add a ban on gay marriage to that state's constitution.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Appeal-vow...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23809 Dec 8, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wastey
No matter how you dice and slice it, legal SSM opens the door. It sets a precedent that polygamist can, and on a limited basis, used to advocate their cause. There is a segment within the SSM movement that supports marriage equality for polygamists. Why is it difficult to see that legal SSM lays the foundation for some form of legal recognition for polygamists/poly families, perhaps not in the immediate future, but possibly in the not too far future?
Nonsense. As I explained before, it is an entirely separate legal issue. For example, if a legally married person marries more than one person at a time, they will be arrested for committing the crime of bigamy.

What a Jackass!!!

FUN

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23810 Dec 8, 2012
Pierrot Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Welllllll......it's not "an entirely different form of marriage", but rather an excepted form of marriage, that has a deep historical foundation, and is still practiced in many societies around the globe, including, albeit on a small scale, in this country.
It is a crime.

NEXT

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#23811 Dec 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. As I explained before, it is an entirely separate legal issue. For example, if a legally married person marries more than one person at a time, they will be arrested for committing the crime of bigamy.
What a Jackass!!!
FUN
He's back, and the ONLY thing he still has is polygamy?

You would have though he would have been spending his time trying to come up with a logical argument against same sex couples marrying. I'm guessing he couldn't fine any, and had to fall back on straight people marrying in multiples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23812 Dec 8, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
He's back, and the ONLY thing he still has is polygamy?
You would have though he would have been spending his time trying to come up with a logical argument against same sex couples marrying. I'm guessing he couldn't fine any, and had to fall back on straight people marrying in multiples.
Actually I was bored, and it had been awhile, thought I toss a thought or two, into the pot. Hmmm....isn't legal in a few states now?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23813 Dec 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Inheritance, taxation, and other laws pertaining to opposite sex couples are being denied same sex couples. Therefore, under the fourteenth amendment and various rulings on marriage have deemed marriage to be a fundamental right. Since these particular rulings, laws and regulations are limited to two people, polygamy is an entirely separate issue requiring those who are in favor to bring forth a separate legal challenge. Polygamy is also against the law. A person who is legally married commits the crime of bigamy when marrying more than one person at a time.
Yes marriage as a fundamental right as defined by.......? Who or what? It could just as easily be defined according to how its perceived, and practiced within a given state, culture, and/or society, as it could be by a court. Sodomy was at one time a crime as well, but its decriminalization/ abolishment paved the way for legal SSM. Why couldn't bigamy laws be abolished as well to provide legal recognition to polygamous family structures? Don't u want families to be more secure?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23814 Dec 8, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes marriage as a fundamental right as defined by.......? Who or what? It could just as easily be defined according to how its perceived, and practiced within a given state, culture, and/or society, as it could be by a court. Sodomy was at one time a crime as well, but its decriminalization/ abolishment paved the way for legal SSM. Why couldn't bigamy laws be abolished as well to provide legal recognition to polygamous family structures? Don't u want families to be more secure?
Fundamental rights pertain to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and are grated all citizens. Those rights cannot be denied any specific group unless there exists a compelling state interest to do so. Bigamy is not allowed any group of people, therefore legal discrimination does not exist. No citizen is allowed to practice bigamy. You are displaying wanton ignorance of fundamental rights with your BS Jesuit nonsense.

What a Jackass. Your arguments are illogical and childish.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23815 Dec 8, 2012
Pierrot Armando wrote:
I suppose one could argue discrimination based on religious freedom, or marital status.
First, anyone can marry as many times in any church that they like. But failing to give legal recognition to such marriages is not "discrimination based on religious freedom".

If a religion believes that children should be allowed to marry (or that adults should be allowed to marry children), is it "discrimination based on religious freedom" if the law fails to recognize such marriages?

As for "discrimination based on marital status", is it discrimination based on "voting status" if a person isn't allowed to cast another vote if they have already cast one?
Pierrot Armando wrote:
Considering that men have different reproductive functions, is it any wonder that one man many wives is the norm?
The norm where? Certainly not in the Western Hemisphere, in Europe, or in most of Asia.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23816 Dec 8, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
No matter how you dice and slice it, legal SSM opens the door. It sets a precedent that polygamist can, and on a limited basis, used to advocate their cause.
The legal recognition of same-sex marriage no more sets a precedent for polygamy than does the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage or the legal recognition of interracial marriage.

No matter how you dice and slice it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23817 Dec 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal recognition of same-sex marriage no more sets a precedent for polygamy than does the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage or the legal recognition of interracial marriage.
No matter how you dice and slice it.
He is just play an idiotic Jesuit game.

What a Jackass.

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 Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 10 min Sorry Hill 2,184
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 53 min Tdo 22,555
News Mexican leftist senators defend battering Trump... 1 hr JohnInToronto 2
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 280
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 43,051
News Vivian Romero is now Montebelloa s first openly... 3 hr testing 1 2 3 tes... 2
News Kentucky Has a Gay Senate Candidate - Does Anyb... 3 hr Frogface Kate 18
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 14 hr Just Think 44
More from around the web