Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26162 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.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24932 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Err....you lied and claimed I hda a position on polygamy.
...
Not so.
Twas YOU son, who said your "position" is "I do not care".

YOUR words son.

Well hell man, I could take up your "position" on SSM then too son.
I do not care if you gain acceptance as a "marriage" it effects me not.
<smile>

YOU said that I did have a "position" and that it was against gay marriage. You ARE wrong son - AGAIN.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24933 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Numbnuts???!!!!
NUMBNUTS????!!!!
...Why...why...them's FIGHTIN' words!!!!
LOL!!!
C'mon now shitforbrains...is that any language to use towards me as polite as I've been in our conversations??
Well, YOU said that you did not like being called "sir", and accused me of having sdome sort of personality disorder or something and that created my "need" to call you "sir" - sir - so I branched out.

Come on over and poke me in the nose it if will make you feel better nonuts.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24934 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I SAID that it - THE LEGISLATION TO AMEND - must be ratified by a two thirds majority of the states.
What the fcuk do you think it takes to "ratify" an amendment anyway son? A moo from a cow?
I see it as a PROPOSED amendment, but I do NOT see it becoming ratified. There are too many red states for that sir. You do NOT have the electoral college advantage on this issue sir. THAT means that the INDIVIDUAL state legislatures would take up the argument. THAT means that the states with lesser population that ARE conservative, will NOT be enough to make a go of it.
That is my prediction sir. It will NOT be ratified any time soon.
Your SCOTUS ploy is moot. The SCOTUS does NOT carry the day on this issue. ONLY an individual state can rewrite and redefine if they choose.
THAT sir is NOT happening in the rural conservative states.
Add em up and see.
What your cause NOW needs sir, is STATE support - INDIVIDUAL state support ... NOT ... federal support.
It matters NOT how many total people in the US say it is cool with them, if they do NOT live in the MANY conservative rural states sir.
Besides that, your window of ratification opportunity is closing, as the political pendulum swings back to the conservative side.
You disagree?
Thanks for the common knowledge. Save the speech on how to open up a jar of Vlasic pickles next...that too is known.

It is currently under state control but the states have been allowing it one by one.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24935 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh strawman, I did NOT say anything even remotely similar to what you charge here> "you wouldn't be spouting off you'd only approve it if oplygamy were allowed".
Never said such a thing strawman.
I support BOTH forms.
So your "straight" eh.
I say bullshit !!!
<smile>
You can cry I have the woman you would want but will never have all you want sunshine.

I gotta go. Parties and such. They involve people...socialization. Something I have no doubt is more foreign to you than finding a blue and red Russian tree frog in your backyard.

Be good. Bitch on the computer for the next 12 months, the only thing you seem to be good at.

Funny thing...it seems these gays are making strides by taking action. Action no doubt is another foreign aspect to you as well.

HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24936 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, YOU said that you did not like being called "sir", and accused me of having sdome sort of personality disorder or something and that created my "need" to call you "sir" - sir - so I branched out.
Come on over and poke me in the nose it if will make you feel better nonuts.
If I did pop you given the little rat of a man you seem to be I might get charged with child abuse.

LOL!!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24937 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
If it fits but keep in mind Einstein same sexed marriages and polygamy are inherently different and therefore would need separate considerations based on merit.
Exactly.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#24938 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Lulu!!!!
Now I know we've had our differences but...OUCH!!!!
-Have a good New Years woman. 2013 will be good I'm thinking.
Sorry, that was following the ass comment. Ooops.

For sure. Way more prosperity I hope.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24939 Dec 31, 2012
Funny, but the USSC didn't see it that way in the case of Loving v. Virginia.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
So.
Big deal.
Yes, in the United States, the decisions of the USSC are a very big deal.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
It is STILL an individual states rights issue as it is up to the states to ratify any such legislation by a two thirds margin.
Correct?
The states have NO obligation whatsoever to bow to the SCOTUS on the matter. Correct?
I guess you missed the fact that the USSC's decision in Loving invalidated every state's law that prevented the legal recognition of interracial marriages. So yes, the states *did* have to bow to the USSC in regards to their marital laws.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24940 Dec 31, 2012
The point you miss is that marriage exists because humans form pair bonds, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Without sexuality, marriage would never have come into existence.
And all that matters to the legal recognition of marriage is that there are two people who are part of that pair bond, excepting those cases where it is in the state's interest not to recognize their marriage.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Humans form far more than "pair" bonds sir.
Yes, humans engage in all kinds of behaviors.

But that doesn't obligate the state to give legal recognition to those behaviors unless it's in the state's interest to do so.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24941 Dec 31, 2012
That you can't identify the so-called "straw man" in my previous posting speaks loudly to your inability to do so.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
In your first paragraph, you not only reworded one point, but twice in the same paragraph sir.
You changed the words, changed the premise to something entirely differtent than what I wrote sir.
Funny how you failed to provide your original quote, and then failed to provide a quote by me where I changed its meaning.

In other words, you still haven't identified the so-called "straw man".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24942 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
In my "race" it was ALWAYS customary to have more than one wife.
What "race" is that?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24943 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the common knowledge. Save the speech on how to open up a jar of Vlasic pickles next...that too is known.
It is currently under state control but the states have been allowing it one by one.
Yes.
How many have accepted?
How many will accept?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24944 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Funny, but the USSC didn't see it that way in the case of Loving v. Virginia.
<quoted text>
Yes, in the United States, the decisions of the USSC are a very big deal.
<quoted text>
I guess you missed the fact that the USSC's decision in Loving invalidated every state's law that prevented the legal recognition of interracial marriages. So yes, the states *did* have to bow to the USSC in regards to their marital laws.
I never said they were not a "big deal" in general.
I said that it is NO "big deal" concerning ONE case that is a STATE'e lower court appeal as it relates to the SSM issue.

I said THAT issue is a STATE's rights issue, and the SCOTUS does NOT dictate to the states as to their individual constitutions and laws.

In order for the SCOTUS to have ANY say in the matter that HAS clout over the states, it would take a LEGISLATED act by congress, signed by the POTUS, and then sent to the states for ratification.

THEN and ONLY then would it fall under a law that the SCOTUS would have jurisdiction and dictates to the states with clout on the matter.
Correct?

“Stop the liberal madness”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#24945 Jan 1, 2013
What I do like about Obama is that he betrays you clueless libs close to every chance he gets .

God forbid you dare utter a word.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#24946 Jan 1, 2013
Any sane Constitution loving person would support same sex marriage....Only hate filled nazi fascist KKK evil freedom hating people would not.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24947 Jan 1, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
In order for the SCOTUS to have ANY say in the matter that HAS clout over the states, it would take a LEGISLATED act by congress, signed by the POTUS, and then sent to the states for ratification.
THEN and ONLY then would it fall under a law that the SCOTUS would have jurisdiction and dictates to the states with clout on the matter.
Correct?
No, not correct. If you have doubts that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over marriage, read the Loving decision.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24948 Jan 1, 2013
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Numbnuts???!!!!
NUMBNUTS????!!!!
...Why...why...them's FIGHTIN' words!!!!
LOL!!!
C'mon now shitforbrains...is that any language to use towards me as polite as I've been in our conversations??
Why bother to post at all Dan, if you're just gonna post dopey unfunny sh!t?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#24949 Jan 1, 2013
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
What I do like about Obama is that he betrays you clueless libs close to every chance he gets .
God forbid you dare utter a word.
And Romney wouldn't have done that to idiots like yourself, right?

I find it funny how you throw the word "LIBERAL" or "LIBS" around like you know everyone's political beliefs......and you just make an AZZ out of yourself by making that ASSumption!!!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#24950 Jan 1, 2013
sickofit wrote:
Any sane Constitution loving person would support same sex marriage....Only hate filled nazi fascist KKK evil freedom hating people would not.
Any sane Constitution loving person would support opposite sex plural marriage...Only hate filled Commie pinko anti American evil freedom hating people would not.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24951 Jan 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Any sane Constitution loving person would support opposite sex plural marriage...Only hate filled Commie pinko anti American evil freedom hating people would not.
Our Constitution allows us to legislate morality doesn't it? It seems you hate our Constitution as much as anyone could.

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 Gay man denied marriage license hopes to unseat... 7 min Wisdom 51
Top 5 Topix Scumbags 16 min NE Jade 4
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 16 min RalphB 982
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 16 min spud 273
News Shocking discovery: Scientists find a gay genea 48 min RalphB 3
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 59 min RalphB 10
News Gay Couples In Australia Register Their Intent ... 1 hr jcofe 2
News Scientists find the gene that makes men gay - o... 1 hr Wondering 27
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 4 hr Oswald 378
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 4 hr Bently 26,887
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 11 hr Rose_NoHo 14,690
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 hr Bruddah Z 58,375
More from around the web