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.

Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26250 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Different foundation there Janey..we both know that.
<quoted text>
Uhhhh....noooooo.....but some gay folks are finding out, after the intitial hoopla...being married isn't what they thought it would be...so with gay marrige comes gay divorce.
<quoted text>
Seriously? That's your answer? Granted this case dates back to 1971, and SOME don't agree with the opinon expressed here, but it does illustrate the function and purpose of marriage.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/"
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
<quoted text>
Not at all...I think it will continue...and it will provide others, namely plural marriage practictioners, encouragement, and legal grounds to pursue their vision of marriage.....after that who knows maybe the state will get out of the marriage business all together. Now why don't you find the opposite of what ever sex you claim to be, settle down, have a few kids, and add to the tax base. The Feds need all the taxpayers they can get.
Not too hip on the concept of a "free society," eh? Now ain't that a shame....
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26251 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Support for polyamorists being permitted to marry.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are ya?

Like I said, WHAT support for polyamorists? There isn't any. Goddam you're such a dullard.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26253 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not too hip on the concept of a "free society," eh? Now ain't that a shame....
Ohhhhhh....so you did pick up on the purpose of marriage......very good Do. Do

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26254 Jan 23, 2013
Heart and mind wrote:
7. marriage law is contract law. once same sex couples can enter into the same contract of choice that heterosexual couples may enter into then it is the same contract. only the names change that are signed on the document. the purpose of any marriage is defined by those that choose to enter into the union. no one else.
The foundation is different, the function is different, and so is the purpose. The state and/or society defines marriage as it relates to the population at large. Culturally, historically, religiously, and at least in 31 states, legally marriage is a union of husband and wife.That is our collective concept of marriage, along with the expectations that accompany it. SSMers are attempting to graft onto that, not one but two same sex intimate personal relationships, one gay male, the other lesbian female, onto that concept of marriage. The dynamics of the respective relationships will be different, as is the foundation it is built upon. No, the contract is not the same, nor is the state interest in the respective relationships the same.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26255 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Heart and mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The foundation is different, the function is different, and so is the purpose. The state and/or society defines marriage as it relates to the population at large. Culturally, historically, religiously, and at least in 31 states, legally marriage is a union of husband and wife.That is our collective concept of marriage, along with the expectations that accompany it. SSMers are attempting to graft onto that, not one but two same sex intimate personal relationships, one gay male, the other lesbian female, onto that concept of marriage. The dynamics of the respective relationships will be different, as is the foundation it is built upon. No, the contract is not the same, nor is the state interest in the respective relationships the same.
How is the "state's interest" in the new civil marriage of an elderly or infertile couples any different than its "interest" in the marriage of a same-sex couple?

Why does the "state's interest" override the right of a same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage when there is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry harms anyone and no evidence that prohibiting marriage on the basis of sex benefits anyone?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26256 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are ya?
Like I said, WHAT support for polyamorists? There isn't any. Goddam you're such a dullard.
Are you really going to now try and tell us there is NO support for legalizing polygamy? None? "There isn't any"? PAH_Leeze Miss Thing! Of course there is. See how silly you get?

Maybe you have decided on your own that too few people want equal rights for poly therefore they don't deserve them? What happened to equal protection you swishy goose?

Mona Lott's Law. If there is little support for someone's equal rights. They shouldn't have them. Priceless!

P.S. The Constitution.

P.P.S. Holy sh!t you're stupid!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26257 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> Because he's not stupid.
You believe supporting marriage equality for polyamorists is stupid.

Why is it stupid?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26258 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
I said the PRESIDENT wouldn't say it because he's not stupid. God damn. You really have shitty reading comprehension skills!
You do realize that the President had just taken the oath of office, right? Why would he then voice support for something that is illegal in all 50 States? The GOP would start impeachment proceedings so fast........ You think the President should advocate that people commit a crime??????
I know you like to think the arguments for gay marriage and polygamous marriage are the same. You forget one thing: polygamy is illegal. If you do it anyway, you go to jail. Gay marriage is not illegal. If you do it anyway, you don't go to jail.
I have said from the very first time I ever replied to one of your silly posts that until polygamy is decriminalized, you don't stand a chance. It was true then and it is true today.
The appeal to tradition. Poly is illegal and it should be illegal because that's the way it's been for a long time. Heard it. It's bogus.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#26259 Jan 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Deflection? Sad. The FACT is that the vatican protected pedophile priests as an institutional norm for decades, and the current pope used to hold the position that ARRANGED such cover-ups.
<quoted text>
Say it ain't so?! Do you mean that there are people on these threads that actually DEFEND that position by the Catholic Church?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26260 Jan 23, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>Say it ain't so?! Do you mean that there are people on these threads that actually DEFEND that position by the Catholic Church?
It ain't so.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26261 Jan 24, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
How is the "state's interest" in the new civil marriage of an elderly or infertile couples any different than its "interest" in the marriage of a same-sex couple?
The state's interest in marriage is what specifically? The emotional happiness of the couple? Removing the stigma of living in sin? What is the fundamental state interest in marriage, and how does the couple, ss or opposite sex, correspond to that interest?
Why does the "state's interest" override the right of a same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage when there is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry harms anyone and no evidence that prohibiting marriage on the basis of sex benefits anyone?
Neither you nor I can know the the long term consequences of redefining marriage, of codifying in law a fundamental institution crucial to societal stability. We've seen the negative effects of "no fault divorce" after a few decades of its enactment. Before we alter marriage further we need to think long and hard. Besides there are other ways, legally, of addressing the needs of SSCs.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26263 Jan 24, 2013
Makedon Hellas wrote:
Gays don't deserve equal rights. They should not be aloud to get married in a church.
They stink
You should not have been "aloud" to pass the 3rd grade.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26264 Jan 24, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
You should not have been "aloud" to pass the 3rd grade.
Okay that was cute. "Chuckle".

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#26265 Jan 24, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>You should not have been "aloud" to pass the 3rd grade.
You should change your ways and stop being a disgusting gay asspacker. Get a life retard

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26266 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The state's interest in marriage is what specifically? The emotional happiness of the couple? Removing the stigma of living in sin? What is the fundamental state interest in marriage, and how does the couple, ss or opposite sex, correspond to that interest?
<quoted text>
Neither you nor I can know the the long term consequences of redefining marriage, of codifying in law a fundamental institution crucial to societal stability. We've seen the negative effects of "no fault divorce" after a few decades of its enactment. Before we alter marriage further we need to think long and hard. Besides there are other ways, legally, of addressing the needs of SSCs.
I see that you simply avoided answering my question, and deflected to questions or unsubstantiated associations and claims of your own.

If the "state's interest" is apparently tantamount to all interests, based on your understanding of the purpose of marriage what is the state's interest in the new civil marriage of an elderly or infertile couple?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#26267 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The state's interest in marriage is what specifically? The emotional happiness of the couple? Removing the stigma of living in sin? What is the fundamental state interest in marriage, and how does the couple, ss or opposite sex, correspond to that interest?
<quoted text>
Neither you nor I can know the the long term consequences of redefining marriage, of codifying in law a fundamental institution crucial to societal stability. We've seen the negative effects of "no fault divorce" after a few decades of its enactment. Before we alter marriage further we need to think long and hard. Besides there are other ways, legally, of addressing the needs of SSCs.
The state's interest is basic: to support an enterprise between two people that has a statistical profile of iliciting behavior that works to a community's benefit. A married couple is more likely to become home owners for instance and contribute to the tax base and support community needs. A couple settled in a community is more likely to be interested in the quality of life in that neighborhood, its safety. None of this is engraven in stone nor mandatory but historically shown to be more likely in the legality of marriage scenario. So the interest of the state in the promotion of community benefit is equivalent for gay or straight couples, and to add the potential for raising children- and again the genesis isn't important but its existence. As to the later, there has not been offered yet an alternitive that has the same inviolability of a marriage, domestic partnership are still very much at the whims of politics both in its content and implementation, you and I both know it can be amended or revoked at any given time. And if what we are to accomplish aready has a legal existence to which a gay couple already accomplishes in the fulfillment of the basic qualifications, does absolutely nothing to redfine YOUR marriage or for that matter marriage at all before the insidious insertion of DOMA, which in fact redefined marriage by defining particulars that didn't exist before except by assumption, and allows both of us to define for ourselves what our individual marriage consist of. IT also takes away the power you want most but isn't your right to have: to create a social message that infers the necessity of the separate catagories because of the lack of equvalency, with the inference that my relationship is inferior to yours-Bull.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#26268 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The state's interest in marriage is what specifically? The emotional happiness of the couple? Removing the stigma of living in sin? What is the fundamental state interest in marriage, and how does the couple, ss or opposite sex, correspond to that interest?
<quoted text>
Neither you nor I can know the the long term consequences of redefining marriage, of codifying in law a fundamental institution crucial to societal stability. We've seen the negative effects of "no fault divorce" after a few decades of its enactment. Before we alter marriage further we need to think long and hard. Besides there are other ways, legally, of addressing the needs of SSCs.
well, gee. except for the fact that the attornies in the prop 8 case couldn't convince a seated judge that that state HAD an interest in preventing homosexual couples from marrying. if there wasn't a state interest in having legal marriage contract laws in the first place, then marriage, or contract law, wouldn't have evolved. many things roll up into that area of laws - taxation, property and inheretance rights and those nasty divorce laws.

i've never been nosy enough about those around me to even ponder about their marriages or relationships. what interest is there to peer into someone's private life - other than to pass judgement and sit smugly with that judgement. sorry pal. modern society doesn't work that way. we don't live communally any longer. we've evolved as a human race. america is based upon freedom - enough freedom to allow adults to do what they want without intereference from either the state or their neighbors as long as they aren't physically harming someone else or harming their property. and someone else's personal relationship has nothing to do with either of those caveats.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26269 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh....so you did pick up on the purpose of marriage......very good Do. Do
You get THAT from my comment, do ya? Mkay....
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26270 Jan 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really going to now try and tell us there is NO support for legalizing polygamy? None? "There isn't any"? PAH_Leeze Miss Thing! Of course there is. See how silly you get?
Maybe you have decided on your own that too few people want equal rights for poly therefore they don't deserve them? What happened to equal protection you swishy goose?
Mona Lott's Law. If there is little support for someone's equal rights. They shouldn't have them. Priceless!
P.S. The Constitution.
P.P.S. Holy sh!t you're stupid!
Who says polygamists have equal rights? Have you even read the Constitution?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26271 Jan 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The appeal to tradition. Poly is illegal and it should be illegal because that's the way it's been for a long time. Heard it. It's bogus.
Appeal to tradition??????

[email protected]

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 Rose_NoHo 368
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min Terra Firma 24,125
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min TomInElPaso 44,218
News Secret Service chief praises gay spies for putt... 25 min Anita Bryant s Jihad 2
News Gayborhood racism is long-standing, Philadelphi... 26 min Farididdle 2
News Idaho man charged with federal hate crime in fa... 27 min Farididdle 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 28 min Rosa_Winkel 5,015
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 4 hr June VanDerMark 12,702
More from around the web