Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26164 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.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24971 Jan 1, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
It didn't do either one. It *did* make plain to society who was pair bonded with whom. Originally, it had more to do with inheritance (both the dowry that the woman brought to the marriage, and the identification of whose offspring would inherit from the father). Today, in Western culture, with the equality between men and women, the dowry issue is a non-issue, and people marry whether they plan to have children or not.
Yes, marriage as an institution changes over time. You pretend that it doesn't happen.
<quoted text>
If you mean that *some* men maintain both a wife and several mistresses, you are correct, but Western society accepts only one as the legal spouse.
***
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.
<quoted text>
It's in the state's interest to recognize those marriages, too. We've covered this. Do you really think you're scoring points by ignoring that?
***
<quoted text>
You mean, why is it in the state's interest to recognize when culture has changed such that men and women are legal equals and that people marry without any plans to reproduce?
<quoted text>
I've covered that in previous postings. Feel free to pretend that it wasn't already addressed.
"pair bonds"! Too funny!

P.S. I love it when you suggest other posters "feel free to pretend"! It makes me feel all loosey goosey and FREE!
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#24973 Jan 2, 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.
So you say if we stand up againt the constitution and fight againt freedom and equality like you nazi fascist traitors we some how fight for the constititution???????

YOUR INSANE.....freedom and equality and justice for all....not just rich white christians nazi fascist like you think TRAITOR...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24974 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
You mean, like the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
<quoted text>
Apparently you either do not understand, or do not like, my answer.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is *part* of the FEDERAL constitution.
Understand now?
Oh no I understood it. I think the few states that have redefined marriage, may be the exception to the full faith and credit clause. Granted up until now states have recognized marriages performed in other states. SSM is new territory, particularly when the various state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one women are taken into account, the Court may just find an exception.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24975 Jan 2, 2013
Well, that's a...creative...interpretation of a decision you obviously haven't read. How did laws that equally denied marriage to whites and blacks a matter of supremacy? More importantly, why don't the justices happen to mention that?

Not once did they mention "conjugal marriage"; they said flat out that marriage is a right of the people, not hetero people.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The Loving decision dealt with the larger issue of racial discrimination, and the State's attempt to maintain white supremacy through its marriage laws. It in essence confirmed the definition of marriage as a conjugal and/or sexual union of husband and wife. It no way did it attempt to redefine marriage.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24976 Jan 2, 2013
Oddly, the constitution doesn't mention a word about gays. but don't worry, it is being upheld--by supporting the rights of citizens, even gay ones.

Next time your god happens to come around, I'd be glad to show him the error of your ways.
Hates Queers wrote:
The Constitution needs to be upheld and get rid of the plague of Queers before it get's out of hand and God steps in and puts a stop to us for denying his law and word.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24977 Jan 2, 2013
State constitutions cannot supersede the federal constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no I understood it. I think the few states that have redefined marriage, may be the exception to the full faith and credit clause. Granted up until now states have recognized marriages performed in other states. SSM is new territory, particularly when the various state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one women are taken into account, the Court may just find an exception.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24978 Jan 2, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say if we stand up againt the constitution and fight againt freedom and equality like you nazi fascist traitors we some how fight for the constititution???????
YOUR INSANE.....freedom and equality and justice for all....not just rich white christians nazi fascist like you think TRAITOR...
Danth's Law.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24979 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
Does that, in any way, change the fact that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over marriage?
Yes or no?
<quoted text>
You mean, like the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
SCOTUS SCHMOTUS! Take a chill pill Drew!

Relax, it's just a silly topix thread.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24980 Jan 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
State constitutions cannot supersede the federal constitution.
<quoted text>
Ho boy. It's the "Cpeter1313" jackass!

Relax Pete.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24981 Jan 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
State constitutions cannot supersede the federal constitution.
<quoted text>
True, Civics 101. If SCOTUS determines there's not a federal constitutional issue with state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, the states win.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24982 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
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.
Without sex, coitally speaking, homosexuals would not exist to pair bond.
It didn't do either one. It *did* make plain to society who was pair bonded with whom. Originally, it had more to do with inheritance (both the dowry that the woman brought to the marriage, and the identification of whose offspring would inherit from the father). Today, in Western culture, with the equality between men and women, the dowry issue is a non-issue, and people marry whether they plan to have children or not.
Ahhhhhh the good old days before paternity DNA test. Do

Does "equality" mean the same?

Just out of curiosity.....even though there's no dowry, marriage or actually the wedding is weighed in favor of the bride. She gets the bridal shower, even a "bachelorette" party, the wedding is "her day". How does that work with SSCs? Do both women get bridal showers? "Bachelorette" party....and are there strippers....uh ahem I mean 'exotic dancers'? What about two men? Is there a "groomal" shower? Do both get the bachelor party? Who wears white? Enquiring minds want to know.
Yes, marriage as an institution changes over time. You pretend that it doesn't happen.
As long as its an institution of husband and wife, no it really hasn't changed all that much.
If you mean that *some* men maintain both a wife and several mistresses, you are correct, but Western society accepts only one as the legal spouse.
Okay that answer will work, although I was referring to polygyny.
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.
As in those states where there is no interest in recognizing SSM?
You mean, why is it in the state's interest to recognize when culture has changed such that men and women are legal equals and that people marry without any plans to reproduce?
Actually legal equals doesn't mean two left, or right shoes. Another point...funny thing about marital coital relations, even when couples marry with no plans to reproduce, it happens anyway. You know the old saying, two go to bed, but three get up.....and they called that third...Drew.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24983 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
You mean, like the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
<quoted text>
Apparently you either do not understand, or do not like, my answer.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is *part* of the FEDERAL constitution.
Understand now?
No. We understand and like your answer, it's you we don't like!

Understand now?

Funny!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24984 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
It didn't do either one. It *did* make plain to society who was pair bonded with whom. Originally, it had more to do with inheritance (both the dowry that the woman brought to the marriage, and the identification of whose offspring would inherit from the father). Today, in Western culture, with the equality between men and women, the dowry issue is a non-issue, and people marry whether they plan to have children or not.
Yes, marriage as an institution changes over time. You pretend that it doesn't happen.
<quoted text>
If you mean that *some* men maintain both a wife and several mistresses, you are correct, but Western society accepts only one as the legal spouse.
***
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.
<quoted text>
It's in the state's interest to recognize those marriages, too. We've covered this. Do you really think you're scoring points by ignoring that?
***
<quoted text>
You mean, why is it in the state's interest to recognize when culture has changed such that men and women are legal equals and that people marry without any plans to reproduce?
<quoted text>
I've covered that in previous postings. Feel free to pretend that it wasn't already addressed.
You are wrong.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24985 Jan 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Oddly, the constitution doesn't mention a word about gays. but don't worry, it is being upheld--by supporting the rights of citizens, even gay ones.
Next time your god happens to come around, I'd be glad to show him the error of your ways.
<quoted text>
Don't lie.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24986 Jan 2, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say if we stand up againt the constitution and fight againt freedom and equality like you nazi fascist traitors we some how fight for the constititution???????
YOUR INSANE.....freedom and equality and justice for all....not just rich white christians nazi fascist like you think TRAITOR...
So you say if we stand up against the constitution and fight against freedom and equality like you commie traitors we some how fight for the constitution ???????

YOUR INSANE.....freedom and equality and justice for all...not just rich left wing anti Christian commie pinko you think TRAITOR

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24987 Jan 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Our Constitution allows us to legislate morality doesn't it? It seems you hate our Constitution as much as anyone could.
Yes, it does.
The point that many miss however, is that generally those "morals" type issues are STATES rights issues, and you appear to think that there should be one "morality" for all fifty states as dictated from DC. Not happening.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24988 Jan 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The Loving decision dealt with the larger issue of racial discrimination, and the State's attempt to maintain white supremacy through its marriage laws. It in essence confirmed the definition of marriage as a conjugal and/or sexual union of husband and wife. It no way did it attempt to redefine marriage.
^THAT^ be the point.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24989 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the part where it defined marriage as a fundamental right?
What is a "fundamental" right?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24990 Jan 2, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a "fundamental" right?
As commonly used on this forum it seems to mean a gay right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24991 Jan 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Well, that's a...creative...interpretation of a decision you obviously haven't read. How did laws that equally denied marriage to whites and blacks a matter of supremacy? More importantly, why don't the justices happen to mention that?
Not once did they mention "conjugal marriage"; they said flat out that marriage is a right of the people, not hetero people.
<quoted text>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.[n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

Let me highlight a line for you:"...as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy". Ta daaaah!

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min JODECKO 38,723
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 24 min Rose_NoHo 15,734
News Lesbian pastor, United Methodist Church agree t... 38 min Fa-Foxy 8
News Judge who said she wouldn't marry gays fights b... 41 min Fa-Foxy 12
Do Gay Men Fall in Love With Women (Nov '07) 2 hr Lacey 3,329
News ACLU settles lawsuit over 'Some People Are Gay'... 2 hr Xstain Fumblement... 18
News If Prince Was A Homophobe, What Does That Make ... 3 hr Mikey 4
News After gay couple's home is egged, a community r... 4 hr Little Robbie 19
Dying off like flies 5 hr Little Robbie 23
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 7 hr Leo 68,950
More from around the web