Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 | Posted by: Top Mod2 | Full story: politix.topix.com

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

Comments (Page 1,204)

Showing posts 24,061 - 24,080 of26,178
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24976
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24977
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24978
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24979
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24980
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24981
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24982
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24983
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24984
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24985
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24986
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24987
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24988
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24989
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24990
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24991
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24994
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww...a birther stumbled in! How cute!
I thought they were extinct...
That poster who made the comment about the President couldn't be a birther........he's to much of an idiot.......which would be even scarier if it had children......yikes!!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24996
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24997
Jan 2, 2013
 
Raul Dicktado

Scotts Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24998
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 24,061 - 24,080 of26,178
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••