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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25081 Jan 5, 2013
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:
Exactly......just as a woman can marry, enter into a legally recognized relationship of husband and wife
You mean "spouse" and "spouse".*Requiring* that someone marry someone of the opposite sex is discriminatory on the basis of sex.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25082 Jan 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's beeeeeeeee cuzzzzzzzzz.......they are marriages
Thank you for admitting that being able to reproduce is not a state requirement for giving legal recognition to a marriage, and therefore, the state has no basis on which to deny legal recognition to a *same-sex* marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A majority of U.S. state voters who voted for state constitutions defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman apparently share a view similar to mine. Guess you missed that.
Just as there were once constitutional amendments voted on by citizens that prevented interracial couples from marrying.

Those constitutional amendments were overturned by the Supreme Court.

Guess you missed that.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25083 Jan 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The institution of marriage is an institution of "husband and wife".
Not in the state where I got married. Nor in all of the other U.S. states where it is legally recognized, nor in all of the countries around the world where it is legally recognized.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The various "changes" that have taken place have primarily consisted of elevating the wife's status within the marriage.
You mean, making the two spouses legal equals, regardless of their gender. Therefore, gender is logically irrelevant to the legal recognition of the marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are you suggesting the state declare one member of the couple "the wife" , and the other, "the husband"?
No, I'm pointing out that the two people in the marriage are spouses, regardless of their gender.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What compelling state interest is there in declaring a personal intimate sexual relationship between two men, or two women, "marriage"?
I've addressed that previously. You chose to ignore it.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25084 Jan 5, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The state has no interest in creating legal next-of-kinship for two individuals who already have it.
The state really has no interest in creating a marriage for same sex couples either but what's the harm?

If it's the right thing to do for same sex and I think it is, it's right for poly and incest too.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#25085 Jan 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The purpose of legal marriage is the establishment of a next of kinship which would otherwise not exist in the eyes of the law, siblings already have such a legal kinship with one another, as do those siblings and other relatives you would not be marrying, but who would have an equal right to that already existing kinship you and the state would be taking away with said marriage and therein lies the governmental interest in maintaining the common law order.
You are just going to have to STOP using FACTS on these people...they are just not getting it. Just make up a bunch of SH!T like David does.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25086 Jan 5, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because cousins are rarely already legal next of kin.
They're kin and they could easily be next of kin and they are allowed to marry in NY. Why aren't siblings?

There's no reason for it except old prejudice and mistakenly believing there's danger of medical problems in offspring which has since proved not true.

And besides, procreation is irrelevant to marriage, right?

You'll have to do better than appealing to tradition and fear of confusing the government's kinship records.

Try again.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25087 Jan 5, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>You are just going to have to STOP using FACTS on these people...they are just not getting it. Just make up a bunch of SH!T like David does.
Too funny! Facts. He's a dope!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25088 Jan 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The purpose of legal marriage is the establishment of a next of kinship which would otherwise not exist in the eyes of the law, siblings already have such a legal kinship with one another, as do those siblings and other relatives you would not be marrying, but who would have an equal right to that already existing kinship you and the state would be taking away with said marriage and therein lies the governmental interest in maintaining the common law order.
Wha?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#25089 Jan 5, 2013
fr Drew Smith:

>Not in the state where I got married. Nor in all of the other U.S. states where it is legally recognized, nor in all of the countries around the world where it is legally recognized....<

The first PFLAG meeting that my wife and I went to after our wedding, on our name tags we wrote "Partner A" and "Partner B", which is what the marriage license had it as.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25090 Jan 6, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
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.
So then if woman is only allowed to marry, enter into a legally recognized relationship of husband AND wife, Mr. Brown, it stands to reason the reverse is true. Thus both men and women can do, at least in 31 plus U.S., legally, the same thing.
You mean "spouse" and "spouse".*Requiring* that someone marry someone of the opposite sex is discriminatory on the basis of sex.
Actually the opposite is true. If the state sanctions a same sex relationship as marriage, it is legally a party to both sex discrimination, and gender segregation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25091 Jan 6, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
You are just going to have to STOP using FACTS on these people...they are just not getting it. Just make up a bunch of SH!T like David does.
You can lead a wh*re to Vassar, but you can't make her think.....
Pietro Armando

Brighton, MA

#25092 Jan 6, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because cousins are rarely already legal next of kin.
So states that bar first cousin marriages, do so because....?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25093 Jan 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So states that bar first cousin marriages, do so because....?
Because, at that point in time, the thought was that 1st cousins were too closely related to one another to be making babies together. The laws changed as our scientific understanding changed.
Pietro Armando

Charlestown, MA

#25094 Jan 6, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Because, at that point in time, the thought was that 1st cousins were too closely related to one another to be making babies together. The laws changed as our scientific understanding changed.
Making babies?! Waitaminit here! Everyone knows that procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25095 Jan 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Making babies?! Waitaminit here! Everyone knows that procreation has nothing to do with marriage.
I offered no comment as to whether they were right or wrong in doing so, I merely explained why they did, what they did, at the time that they did it. Most of the 1st cousin marriage bans in this country were a product of that bizarre marriage of science and religion of its day, the eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th century. They were the ones who thought that you and your 1st cousin were too close for any children, not me.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25096 Jan 6, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I offered no comment as to whether they were right or wrong in doing so, I merely explained why they did, what they did, at the time that they did it. Most of the 1st cousin marriage bans in this country were a product of that bizarre marriage of science and religion of its day, the eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th century. They were the ones who thought that you and your 1st cousin were too close for any children, not me.
So why do you continue to support this inequality?

There is no reason incest marriage should be banned except prejudice and ignorance.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25097 Jan 6, 2013
1st cousins should be allowed to marry if they are otherwise legally eligible, the constitutional arguments to support such prohibitions really don't hold water. As for closer members of your family tree, sorry, the Constitution trumps you and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25098 Jan 6, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
1st cousins should be allowed to marry if they are otherwise legally eligible, the constitutional arguments to support such prohibitions really don't hold water. As for closer members of your family tree, sorry, the Constitution trumps you and you have yet to prove otherwise.
The Constitution bans incest marriage?

As for same sex marriage sorry, most states don't allow it and you have yet to prove otherwise.
Pietro Armando

North Billerica, MA

#25099 Jan 6, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for admitting that being able to reproduce is not a state requirement for giving legal recognition to a marriage, and therefore, the state has no basis on which to deny legal recognition to a *same-sex* marriage.
Lack of legal requirement to procreate does not change the orientation of marriage toward the procreative aspect of the male female sexual union, and the state's interest in the products, children, of that. There is no such orientation with a same sex union.

[QUOTE[
Just as there were once constitutional amendments voted on by citizens that prevented interracial couples from marrying.
Those constitutional amendments were overturned by the Supreme Court.
Guess you missed that.[/QUOTE]

I guess you missed the part where the Supreme Court did not question the validity of an interracial marriage as a marriage, but found to prohibit such based on the racial backgrounds of the husband AND wife as unconstitutional.

As with SSM, not all agree that a personal intimate sexual same sex relationship constitutes marriage.
Pietro Armando

North Billerica, MA

#25100 Jan 6, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
1st cousins should be allowed to marry if they are otherwise legally eligible, the constitutional arguments to support such prohibitions really don't hold water. As for closer members of your family tree, sorry, the Constitution trumps you and you have yet to prove otherwise.
Waitaminit Ricky Tricky, why should as first cousins b allowed to marry, but not brothers? Each pair are just as capable of living as spouses, as any other adult as pair. If we put aside the sexual aspect, and deal strictly with the other spousal aspects of the relationship, the brothers/first cousins, can just as easily b spouses to each other as can a SSC.

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 DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 2 min Cath League of Du... 401
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 21 min Respect71 44,250
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 35 min majority 5,058
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr carter county res... 24,150
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 3 hr June VanDerMark 12,719
News 'I am appalled and disgusted': Councillor accus... 3 hr Rainbow Kid 2
News Idaho man charged with federal hate crime in fa... 5 hr Frogface Kate 5
More from around the web