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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25620 Jan 12, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You don't marry a gender, you marry a person.
A person still has a gender.
Only two people can marry at a time.
Which is unfair, per the politics of sexual orientation, for bisexuals.
..at least until your precious polygamy becomes legal.
It's not MY precious polygamy, it belongs to the world.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25621 Jan 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Wasn't that once said about SSM?
Only by idiots that no one should be listening to in the first place.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet a few judges came up with constitutional arguments for it. Granted there are those that found constitutional arguments against it too, sooooo.......maybe some form of legally recognized plural marriage ain't that far fetched. The Brown family thanks you.
Sorry hon, but you have yet to overcome the state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage contracts and that alone ends the discussion.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's also no compelling interest in redefining marriage either.
Maybe you should read up on strict scrutiny and how it works. You clearly don't get it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What is the specific state interest in designating an intimate personal sexual relationship between two men/women, as marriage? Nothing....not a single thing.
Buttercup, there was no compelling state interest in recognizing interracial marriages, marriages to deadbeat parents and convicted felons either and neither did those demanding such rights have to prove one, because that is NOT how the strict scrutiny of infringements on individual rights works.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet redefining marriage is a constitutional right? There's a perfectly good definition of one man plus one woman equals marriage, already in place, yet some folks want to change that. Creating a legal plural marriage structure is not impossible
Marriage is a constitutional right of individuals, the only time it can be limited by the state when there is a compelling state interest being served by doing so in the narrowest possible way. The state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage is served by prohibiting any and all forms of plural marriage except sequential, because any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time is in itself arbitrary and unenforceable.

Your pink elephant remains nothing more than an unfortunate by-product of whatever you two have been drinking.
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25622 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, maybe you should have someone help you with what you claim to be reading in my posts, you obviously have a comprehension problem that I can't help you with from here.
The old "poly should not have equal rights because Mike has a comprehension problem."

Cute.
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25623 Jan 12, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You don't marry a gender, you marry a person. Only two people can marry at a time...at least until your precious polygamy becomes legal.
<quoted text>
In most states only opposite sex can marry...at least until your precious same sex marriage becomes legal.
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25624 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only by idiots that no one should be listening to in the first place. <quoted text>Sorry hon, but you have yet to overcome the state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage contracts and that alone ends the discussion.
<quoted text>Maybe you should read up on strict scrutiny and how it works. You clearly don't get it. <quoted text>Buttercup, there was no compelling state interest in recognizing interracial marriages, marriages to deadbeat parents and convicted felons either and neither did those demanding such rights have to prove one, because that is NOT how the strict scrutiny of infringements on individual rights works.
<quoted text>Marriage is a constitutional right of individuals, the only time it can be limited by the state when there is a compelling state interest being served by doing so in the narrowest possible way. The state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage is served by prohibiting any and all forms of plural marriage except sequential, because any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time is in itself arbitrary and unenforceable.
Your pink elephant remains nothing more than an unfortunate by-product of whatever you two have been drinking.
Wow! Long winded. You mad bro?

Same sex marriage in most states remains an unfortunate by product of whatever you two have been drinking.
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25625 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only by idiots that no one should be listening to in the first place. <quoted text>Sorry hon, but you have yet to overcome the state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage contracts and that alone ends the discussion.
<quoted text>Maybe you should read up on strict scrutiny and how it works. You clearly don't get it. <quoted text>Buttercup, there was no compelling state interest in recognizing interracial marriages, marriages to deadbeat parents and convicted felons either and neither did those demanding such rights have to prove one, because that is NOT how the strict scrutiny of infringements on individual rights works.
<quoted text>Marriage is a constitutional right of individuals, the only time it can be limited by the state when there is a compelling state interest being served by doing so in the narrowest possible way. The state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage is served by prohibiting any and all forms of plural marriage except sequential, because any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time is in itself arbitrary and unenforceable.
Your pink elephant remains nothing more than an unfortunate by-product of whatever you two have been drinking.
Three men are all deeply committed to each other. On what grounds do you dismiss their union as an alcohol induced delusion?

On what grounds do you insist upon the traditional, ARBITRARY and exclusionary number of two?
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25626 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only by idiots that no one should be listening to in the first place. <quoted text>Sorry hon, but you have yet to overcome the state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage contracts and that alone ends the discussion.
<quoted text>Maybe you should read up on strict scrutiny and how it works. You clearly don't get it. <quoted text>Buttercup, there was no compelling state interest in recognizing interracial marriages, marriages to deadbeat parents and convicted felons either and neither did those demanding such rights have to prove one, because that is NOT how the strict scrutiny of infringements on individual rights works.
<quoted text>Marriage is a constitutional right of individuals, the only time it can be limited by the state when there is a compelling state interest being served by doing so in the narrowest possible way. The state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage is served by prohibiting any and all forms of plural marriage except sequential, because any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time is in itself arbitrary and unenforceable.
Your pink elephant remains nothing more than an unfortunate by-product of whatever you two have been drinking.
Woops! I forgot to call you Fruitloops in my last posts, sorry Fruitloops!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25627 Jan 12, 2013
Five posts to say absolutely nothing really worth replying to, either individually or collectively. Congratulations?

I realize that you are that much of an idiot bro, but are you really already that drunk?

Ass dismissed.
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25628 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Five posts to say absolutely nothing really worth replying to, either individually or collectively. Congratulations?
I realize that you are that much of an idiot bro, but are you really already that drunk?
Ass dismissed.
In other words you concede.
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25629 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Five posts to say absolutely nothing really worth replying to, either individually or collectively. Congratulations?
I realize that you are that much of an idiot bro, but are you really already that drunk?
Ass dismissed.
Woops! Forgot to call you Fruitloops again. Sorry Fruitloops!
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25630 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Five posts to say absolutely nothing really worth replying to, either individually or collectively. Congratulations?
I realize that you are that much of an idiot bro, but are you really already that drunk?
Ass dismissed.
On what grounds do you insist upon the traditional, ARBITRARY and exclusionary number of two?

The answer is not "are you drunk already", Fruitloops.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25631 Jan 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only by idiots that no one should be listening to in the first place. <quoted text>Sorry hon, but you have yet to overcome the state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage contracts and that alone ends the discussion.
Why can't the state regulate a multiparty marriage, or other, contract?
Maybe you should read up on strict scrutiny and how it works. You clearly don't get it.>Buttercup, there was no compelling state interest in recognizing interracial marriages, marriages to deadbeat parents and convicted felons either and neither did those demanding such rights have to prove one, because that is NOT how the strict scrutiny of infringements on individual rights works.
The compelling state interest is in the nature of the sexual relationship, is it not? If human reproduction wasn't sexual would marriage, as we know it exist? An interracial marriage is still marriage, and has legally existed throughout American history at various times and places, can still beget children. A ss union cannot, thus the need to regulate such unions does not exist.
Marriage is a constitutional right of individuals, the only time it can be limited by the state when there is a compelling state interest being served by doing so in the narrowest possible way.
Exactly! That's why the conjugal view, husband and wife, of marriage is the compelling state interest in the narrowest possible way. It's worked since Jamestown, no need to change it now.
The state's compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage is served by prohibiting any and all forms of plural marriage except sequential, because any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time is in itself arbitrary and unenforceable.
Your pink elephant remains nothing more than an unfortunate by-product of whatever you two have been drinking.
Not necessarily, if the parties involved enter into a plural marriage contract. If the state can create multiparty corporations, it can create multiparty marriage contracts. Silly rabbit trix are for kids.

In vino veritable

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25632 Jan 12, 2013
That should have read "In vino veritas".
Micky DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25633 Jan 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
That should have read "In vino veritas".
It seems Ricky's whole argument is either we're drunk or we don't comprehend his superior intellect.

He has no argument against polygamy, but he soldiers on pretending that he does, it's just that we're too dumb or drunk to understand it so why bother tell us!

Priceless!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25634 Jan 12, 2013
Because no state may enter into a contract with an illegal basis, no state can enter into a polygamous contract until polygamy and bigamy laws are overturned.

State interest is in the stability of the relationship, not in the sexual aspect--which is why the genders of the spouses are irrelevant, as is their fertility.

BTW--it's "in vino, veritas."
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't the state regulate a multiparty marriage, or other, contract?
<quoted text>
The compelling state interest is in the nature of the sexual relationship, is it not? If human reproduction wasn't sexual would marriage, as we know it exist? An interracial marriage is still marriage, and has legally existed throughout American history at various times and places, can still beget children. A ss union cannot, thus the need to regulate such unions does not exist.
<quoted text>
Exactly! That's why the conjugal view, husband and wife, of marriage is the compelling state interest in the narrowest possible way. It's worked since Jamestown, no need to change it now.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily, if the parties involved enter into a plural marriage contract. If the state can create multiparty corporations, it can create multiparty marriage contracts. Silly rabbit trix are for kids.
In vino veritable

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25636 Jan 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why can't the state regulate a multiparty marriage, or other, contract?
Because any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time is arbitrary and unenforceable, making the regulation of such contracts impossible. The state cannot regulate what you have now made impossible to define.
<quoted text>
Pietro Armando wrote:
The compelling state interest is in the nature of the sexual relationship, is it not?
No. The state's sole interest is in the marriage contract, what you do with it is more or less up to you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If human reproduction wasn't sexual would marriage, as we know it exist?
Marriage came about because breeding with those you are closely related to by blood tends to be a really bad idea. Marriage extended the "family" to those who were not already a part of it (usually the female into the male's family).
Pietro Armando wrote:
An interracial marriage is still marriage, and has legally existed throughout American history at various times and places, can still beget children. A ss union cannot, thus the need to regulate such unions does not exist.
Dear, the state has no interest in whether the marriage contract will produce offspring or not, sexual reproduction is neither a prerequisite for, nor requirement of, recognition of a couple as married. If children are in fact produced during the contract's life, their rights are an entirely separate issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly! That's why the conjugal view, husband and wife, of marriage is the compelling state interest in the narrowest possible way. It's worked since Jamestown, no need to change it now.
Buttercup, while getting conjugal is a right of marriage, the ONLY time the state has an interest in whether you exercise that right or not is when one of you claims that you never got to and want the contract voided. Speaking of working since Jamestown, what happened to the law in the Virginia Colony which set the minimum age for marriage for girls at the ripe old age of 10?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not necessarily, if the parties involved enter into a plural marriage contract. If the state can create multiparty corporations, it can create multiparty marriage contracts. Silly rabbit trix are for kids.
In vino veritable
But you are not asking the parties to draw up this contract, you are asking the state to do it, not only for them, but any other possible marital combination that would not otherwise be prohibited at the same time. The state must offer all such contracts equal protection under the law, but that is impossible when the contracts themselves aren't equal.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25637 Jan 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
That should have read "In vino veritas".
That and believing in pink elephants is what happens when it takes that much alcohol for you to find your "truth", sweetie.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25641 Jan 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite analogous. Some gay folks support some form of legal recognition, but marriage should not be changed. Either you can vote or ya can't.
The analogy isn't dependent upon whether there are only two options or more than two.

If the fact that some women did not support the right of women to vote is not relevant as to whether or not women should have such a right, then the fact that some gay individuals do not support the right of same-sex couples to have their marriages given legal recognition is not relevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should have such a right.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25643 Jan 12, 2013
Micky DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems Ricky's whole argument is either we're drunk or we don't comprehend his superior intellect.
!
In the words of Admiral James T. Kirk, "I'm laughing at your (his) superior intellect"
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25644 Jan 12, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The analogy isn't dependent upon whether there are only two options or more than two.
If the fact that some women did not support the right of women to vote is not relevant as to whether or not women should have such a right, then the fact that some gay individuals do not support the right of same-sex couples to have their marriages given legal recognition is not relevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should have such a right.
There's is no "couples right".

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 Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 5 min neighbor 2,424
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min cpeter1313 56,148
News US Senate contender has history of provocative ... 34 min Sloan 6
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 40 min Sloan 19
News Movie's Ads Protest Rules Aimed at Gay Men Dona... 42 min Truth Hurts 6
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 44 min Just Think 182
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 53 min Wondering 59
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr old_moose 10,235
News Cake fundraiser supports gay marriage as Suprem... 2 hr Wondering 31
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 23 hr Chilli J 31
More from around the web