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.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24996 Jan 2, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww...a birther stumbled in! How cute!
I thought they were extinct...
Oh! a jackass responded to him. How FUNNY!

Birthers are rare but there's no shortage of jackasses!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#24997 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#24998 Jan 2, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a "fundamental" right?
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_ri...
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#24999 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_ri...
In regards to the right to marry, who or what defines that?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25000 Jan 2, 2013
They compared the constitutionality of laws supporting white supremacy to the laws fostering discrimination. They do NOT say interracial marriage was fostering white supremacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<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!
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25001 Jan 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In regards to the right to marry, who or what defines that?
It will be defined as a fundamental right of all citizens of the United States shortly by SCOTUS when they bag DOMA. End of game.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25002 Jan 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
They compared the constitutionality of laws supporting white supremacy to the laws fostering discrimination. They do NOT say interracial marriage was fostering white supremacy.
<quoted text>
Janis Ian eh? She's cool. There's talent there. I hear you. But is she still even alive? Hope so.

P.S. Did you learn the truth at 17 too?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25003 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
It will be defined as a fundamental right of all citizens of the United States shortly by SCOTUS when they bag DOMA. End of game.
"Bag" DOMA! Too funny.

How ya doin' toots?

Buncha jackasses here lately.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25005 Jan 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In regards to the right to marry, who or what defines that?
I told Halle Berry I had the right to marry her.

Then she called the cops.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25006 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_ri...
You mean my P.O. is Bullsh!tting me when he says I can't leave the state?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25007 Jan 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
The USSC didn't find an exception when states had constitutional amendments, such as Alabama's, which read (until the year 2000): "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25008 Jan 2, 2013
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
Pietro Armando wrote:
Without sex, coitally speaking, homosexuals would not exist to pair bond.
Which is irrelevant, since even those heterosexual couples who produce no offspring are still engaged in a pair bond. And yet the state recognizes their marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Does "equality" mean the same?
In the context of this debate, it means the same in terms of the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Just out of curiosity.....even though there's no dowry, marriage or actually the wedding is weighed in favor of the bride.
States give legal recognition to marriages whether there is a bride-oriented wedding or not.

***

Yes, marriage as an institution changes over time. You pretend that it doesn't happen.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As long as its an institution of husband and wife, no it really hasn't changed all that much.
It's changed a great deal. For example, have you forgotten that spousal rape used to be legal?

***
Pietro Armando wrote:
As in those states where there is no interest in recognizing SSM?
Now you're being childish. You know what "state interest" means.
Pietro Armando wrote:
funny thing about marital coital relations, even when couples marry with no plans to reproduce, it happens anyway.
Let us know when that happens with post-menopausal women. Or where the man has had a vasectomy more than several months previously.
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25009 Jan 2, 2013
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean my P.O. is Bullsh!tting me when he says I can't leave the state?
Parolees have their rights curtailed. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25011 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
Parolees have their rights curtailed. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
A joke. I'm not a con. I'm a perfectly law abiding citizen with a law enforcement background.

But it is an instance where someone cannot leave the state.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25012 Jan 2, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
Birther nut!!! GTFOH
Yeah. It's silly. By the time they prove it, Obama will have done his eight years!

And Hillary will be declared brain dead and therefore unable to testify on Benghazi!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25013 Jan 3, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
It will be defined as a fundamental right of all citizens of the United States shortly by SCOTUS when they bag DOMA. End of game.
Soooooo......until such time and/or if it occurs....marriage as a fundamental right is defined by......?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25014 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
They compared the constitutionality of laws supporting white supremacy to the laws fostering discrimination. They do NOT say interracial marriage was fostering white supremacy.
<quoted text>
Serious? That's your claim?! It doesn't take an SSMer Einstein to see that barring interracial marriage was part of an overall objective to maintain a state's policy of white supremacy. Man oh man.....and here we thought you were a smart fella.....so sad
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25015 Jan 3, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The USSC didn't find an exception when states had constitutional amendments, such as Alabama's, which read (until the year 2000): "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."
Hmmmmm...still trying the ole "banning SSM is like banning interracial marriage" contention I see. Nice try. It doesn't work with Loving, and it won't work here. Good thing I'm not a "white person or a negro". Did the Alabama amendment mention Italians? Greeks? Indians? Chinese? Koreans? Poles? Swiss? Brazilians? None of these? Talk about selective racial targeting. Good thing there's only two sexes. Before ya know it sine knucklehead will be proposing gender segregated marriage.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25016 Jan 3, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
Parolees have their rights curtailed. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Wow!......that's old school....1970's I think....Barletta....right?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25017 Jan 3, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
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?
No silly, I mean its in the state's interest to recognize equality of the sexes does not mean unisex. That its okay to admit men and women are different, and human reproduction is sexual. So even when a couple with no plans to reproduce, marry, pssst....here's a secret....it happens anyway.
Which is irrelevant, since even those heterosexual couples who produce no offspring are still engaged in a pair bond. And yet the state recognizes their marriages.
That's because they ARE marriages. Oh wait I think I see where the confusion is. Because you view your personal intimate relationship with another man as "marriage" you project that view onto others. No all share that view, hence this debate.
States give legal recognition to marriages whether there is a bride-oriented wedding or not.
Oh be a sport. Just play along here. Who got the bachelor party, you, your partner, or both of you? Did either one of you have a bridal....uh groomal shower? When two women marry, why does there seem to be always one who wears a tuxedo? Do they have bachelorette parties? Are there dancers at the party?
It's changed a great deal. For example, have you forgotten that spousal rape used to be legal?
Protecting the wife, or elevating her status, WITHIN the marital relationship, doesn't change the institution of marriage as a union of husband AND wife. You're proposing the wife be banished from the institution, and its foundation be based on the personal emotional sexual relationship between two men, at least in your case. Sounds like the institution underwent a massive wife-ectomy.
Now you're being childish. You know what "state interest" means.
There there.....yes I do. I still assert there is no compelling state interest in designating a personal intimate relationship between two men or two women as marriage.

[QUOTE
Let us know when that happens with post-menopausal women. Or where the man has had a vasectomy more than several months previously.[/QUOTE]

That means what exactly?

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 Malta bans 'gay cure' conversion therapy 6 min Trump Wins 1
News Transgender student named king of Kansas school... 7 min Trump Wins 4
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 8 min Imprtnrd 2,247
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 8 min Trump Wins 19
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 9 min Trump Wins 241
Gay oovoo (Dec '12) 1 hr greekboy26 27
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 6 hr Truth Sayer 1 942
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Truth Sayer 1 42,928
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 hr Betty Davis 22,495
More from around the web