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

#25038 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"Greek" is a political demarcation, just like all nationalities. It's not genetic. It depends on place of birth or nationalization by application.
<quoted text>
"Greek" is what the girls in the old days called it when you asked them to flip over!

Yeah I'm that old. And yeah they did!

WOOHOO!
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25039 Jan 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Inalienable right comes from natural law. It is irrelevant as natural law is highly subjective and has not been codified.
Next
Thanks Wastie
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25040 Jan 3, 2013
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
"Greek" is what the girls in the old days called it when you asked them to flip over!
Yeah I'm that old. And yeah they did!
WOOHOO!
You dirty man!!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25041 Jan 4, 2013
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
"Greek" is what the girls in the old days called it when you asked them to flip over!
Yeah I'm that old. And yeah they did!
WOOHOO!
Now that's an old memory. lol

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#25042 Jan 4, 2013
HAPPY NEW YEAR folks! May it be the GAYEST ever!!!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25043 Jan 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's an old memory. lol
I thought it might wake up some other old geezer!

Kids these days think they invented everything.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25044 Jan 4, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR folks! May it be the GAYEST ever!!!
Wishing you a very gay New Year too! Flaming!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25045 Jan 4, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
You dirty man!!!!
Hubba Hubba!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25047 Jan 4, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR folks! May it be the GAYEST ever!!!
*SPARKLE*

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25048 Jan 4, 2013
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."
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmm...still trying the ole "banning SSM is like banning interracial marriage" contention I see.
I'm addressing your point regarding whether the Supreme Court found an exception when a state had a constitutional amendment limiting legal recognition of marriage.

Clearly, the Supreme Court found no such exception in the case of Alabama.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25049 Jan 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I mean its in the state's interest to recognize equality of the sexes does not mean unisex.
Correct, it means that everything that a woman is legally allowed to do, a man is also legally allowed to do, and vice versa. If a woman is legally allowed to marry Mr. Jones, then a man is also legally allowed to marry Mr. Jones. If a man is legally allowed to marry Ms. Brown, then a woman is legally allowed to marry Ms. Brown.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So even when a couple with no plans to reproduce, marry, pssst....here's a secret....it happens anyway.
For women past the age of menopause or men who are several months past their vasectomy?

No, it doesn't happen 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.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's because they ARE marriages.
And the state recognizes those marriages because the state has no requirement that the couple are biologically capable of producing offspring. Same-sex marriages are marriages, too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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
A majority of Americans share that view. Guess you missed that.

Shall we likewise claim that you project your view onto others?
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
It nonetheless changes the institution of marriage. You are arguing that the institution can't change. Clearly, it has changed. Therefore, you cannot argue that it can't also change, from a *legal* perspective, to include same-sex marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're proposing the wife be banished from the institution
I'm proposing that the law recognize spouses, regardless of gender.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I still assert there is no compelling state interest in designating a personal intimate relationship between two men or two women as marriage.
The compelling state interest is no different in recognizing same-sex marriages as it is in recognizing opposite-sex marriages where the spouses cannot (or will not) biologically produce children. The genders are irrelevant to the legal recognition.
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#25050 Jan 4, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
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."
<quoted text>
I'm addressing your point regarding whether the Supreme Court found an exception when a state had a constitutional amendment limiting legal recognition of marriage.
Clearly, the Supreme Court found no such exception in the case of Alabama.
It is it not connected to the Loving case? Did the Court rule that racial discrimination in marriage laws was unconstitutional? Did they really find an exception?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25051 Jan 4, 2013
I'm addressing your point regarding whether the Supreme Court found an exception when a state had a constitutional amendment limiting legal recognition of marriage. Clearly, the Supreme Court found no such exception in the case of Alabama.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is it not connected to the Loving case? Did the Court rule that racial discrimination in marriage laws was unconstitutional? Did they really find an exception?
The point is, the Court found no exception in regards to marriage for the Loving case.

Wasn't it your claim that Courts found exceptions in the case of marriage when it was part of a state's constitution?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25052 Jan 5, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, it means that everything that a woman is legally allowed to do, a man is also legally allowed to do, and vice versa. If a woman is legally allowed to marry Mr. Jones, then a man is also legally allowed to marry Mr. Jones. If a man is legally allowed to marry Ms. Brown, then a woman is legally allowed to marry Ms. Brown.
<quoted text>
For women past the age of menopause or men who are several months past their vasectomy?
No, it doesn't happen 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.
<quoted text>
And the state recognizes those marriages because the state has no requirement that the couple are biologically capable of producing offspring. Same-sex marriages are marriages, too.
<quoted text>
A majority of Americans share that view. Guess you missed that.
Shall we likewise claim that you project your view onto others?
<quoted text>
It nonetheless changes the institution of marriage. You are arguing that the institution can't change. Clearly, it has changed. Therefore, you cannot argue that it can't also change, from a *legal* perspective, to include same-sex marriages.
<quoted text>
I'm proposing that the law recognize spouses, regardless of gender.
<quoted text>
The compelling state interest is no different in recognizing same-sex marriages as it is in recognizing opposite-sex marriages where the spouses cannot (or will not) biologically produce children. The genders are irrelevant to the legal recognition.
Right. Procreation has nothing to do with marriage (Apologies to my cultural anthropology professor, please indulge me for a moment!)

Therefore there is no reason incest marriage should not be allowed.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25053 Jan 5, 2013
Incestuous marriages are no more a constitutional right than plural ones. Sorry. They violate the common law order of legal blood kinship which the government has an interest in maintaining. Then there is the rational basis question of just how valid is the consent to such a relationship.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25054 Jan 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Incestuous marriages are no more a constitutional right than plural ones. Sorry. They violate the common law order of legal blood kinship which the government has an interest in maintaining. Then there is the rational basis question of just how valid is the consent to such a relationship.
Hogwash! And bigotry. There is no reason not to allow incest marriage.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25055 Jan 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Incestuous marriages are no more a constitutional right than plural ones. Sorry. They violate the common law order of legal blood kinship which the government has an interest in maintaining. Then there is the rational basis question of just how valid is the consent to such a relationship.
There is a "rational basis question" (wow!) of just how valid the consent is in ALL marriages.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25056 Jan 5, 2013
You can call it what you want sweetie, but what you evidently can't do is refute a word of it. The common law order of who your legal next of kin is has been around for centuries and the government has an interest in maintaining it, in spite of an individual's desires to the contrary. That solves the problem of strict scrutiny and leaves you and your sister just shacking up I'm afraid.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25057 Jan 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
You can call it what you want sweetie, but what you evidently can't do is refute a word of it. The common law order of who your legal next of kin is has been around for centuries and the government has an interest in maintaining it, in spite of an individual's desires to the contrary. That solves the problem of strict scrutiny and leaves you and your sister just shacking up I'm afraid.
"Sweetie"? Whoa easy there tiger! I'm not gay.

Hogwash! Your attempts at justifying your prejudices against incest marriage are as lame as attempts at justifying prejudice against same sex marriage. Actually more lame.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25058 Jan 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
You can call it what you want sweetie, but what you evidently can't do is refute a word of it. The common law order of who your legal next of kin is has been around for centuries and the government has an interest in maintaining it, in spite of an individual's desires to the contrary. That solves the problem of strict scrutiny and leaves you and your sister just shacking up I'm afraid.
We notice the appeal to tradition.("been around for centuries")

Priceless!

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) 2 min DebraE 38,869
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 12 min Strel 16,063
News Man charged after lubricant dispenser filled wi... 22 min Mite Be 17
My bf and my straight friend 22 min Help 1
News Parade kicks off Erie's pride festival 31 min Gremlin 16
News Kentucky Has a Gay Senate Candidate - Does Anyb... 43 min Religion is insanity 5
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 44 min June VanDerMark 11,328
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 116
More from around the web