Video: Obama: Same-sex marriage rulings "a victory for American democracy"

Jun 27, 2013 Full story: CBS News 236

President Obama hailed the recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage as a "victory for American democracy," and said his administration is still performing a "legal analysis" to determine how the change in federal law applies across states with differing statutes on same-sex marriage.

Read more
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#26 Jun 28, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
Is it just me or is there something terribly wrong when the President of the Greatest country in the world gets up on the podium and publicly and passionately defends butt lovahs?
Maybe HIS wife likes to take it that way??
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#27 Jun 28, 2013
Storm Warning wrote:
<quoted text>Obama is a typical non White Despot.
Aww, come on.

You think Obama could hold a candle to a despot like Mugabe??

I think not.

He may try to be a despot, but he's not very good at it.

Mugabe knows what he wants and does it.

Obama depends on his perception of what he thinks people want and then he changes his mind accordingly.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#29 Jun 28, 2013
To use one of Obama's phrases - I WANT A VOTE. The states should be able to VOTE to see if they want same sex marriage in their state.
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#30 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
To use one of Obama's phrases - I WANT A VOTE. The states should be able to VOTE to see if they want same sex marriage in their state.
When states voted about the civil rights issue of interracial marriage, MANY passed laws PROHIBITING mixed marriages.

Minority civil rights hardly ever get the popular vote.

In 1967 the Supreme Court invalidated such restrictions:

“Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

If civil rights depend upon a majority vote, mixed marriages and blacks sitting on the back of the bus, etc. would still be the norm today.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#31 Jun 28, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
When states voted about the civil rights issue of interracial marriage, MANY passed laws PROHIBITING mixed marriages.
Minority civil rights hardly ever get the popular vote.
In 1967 the Supreme Court invalidated such restrictions:
“Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...
If civil rights depend upon a majority vote, mixed marriages and blacks sitting on the back of the bus, etc. would still be the norm today.
You can not compare the civil rights movement with same sex marriage. The civil rights movement was great (man and woman) but the same sex marriage goes against the Churches and when the Catholic church is required to marry a couple of same sex there will be a lot of screaming going on - that is why I think the states should be able to vote on this same sex marriage issue.
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#32 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
You can not compare the civil rights movement with same sex marriage. The civil rights movement was great (man and woman) but the same sex marriage goes against the Churches and when the Catholic church is required to marry a couple of same sex there will be a lot of screaming going on - that is why I think the states should be able to vote on this same sex marriage issue.
The civil rights movement wasn't just about minority blacks. It was a movement to promote EQUAL OPPORTUNITY for all (including women).

Catholic churches don't have to marry ANYONE they don't want to. There was a time when people were EXCOMMUNICATED for getting a divorce.(One of the Kennedy's had their marriage annulled just so they wouldn't be excommunicated - and they ALREADY had children).

At any rate, churches can decide who they want to marry. They can decide to only marry persons in their congregations. They can kick out anyone they deem is not living their lives according to that particular religious tradition.

At any rate, church ceremonies are just FLUFF. What counts is the Marriage License that one obtains from their local government office.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#33 Jun 28, 2013
LOL wrote:
Gay marriages approve, immigration bill passed. Hey, America has changed-I suppose it's freedom!
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

James Madison

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/j...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
To use one of Obama's phrases - I WANT A VOTE. The states should be able to VOTE to see if they want same sex marriage in their state.
Sure, then we can have votes to see if we want inter-racial marriages or inter-faith marriages, or whether old people should be able to vote, etc ......

The civil rights of a minority group should never be put to a public vote by the majority.

That said, you do realize states HAVE been voting on this issue for over a decade now? And you anti-gays have lost the last 4 votes. With support over 75% among those under age 40, it's only a matter of time before all remaining bans are overturned.

Opposition to marriage for same-sex couples is literally dying out.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#35 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
You can not compare the civil rights movement with same sex marriage. The civil rights movement was great (man and woman) but the same sex marriage goes against the Churches and when the Catholic church is required to marry a couple of same sex there will be a lot of screaming going on - that is why I think the states should be able to vote on this same sex marriage issue.
Marriage IS a civil right.

No church can be forced to marry anyone; not gay couples or black couples or jewish couples or previously divorced couples- NO ONE.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#36 Jun 28, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
The civil rights movement wasn't just about minority blacks. It was a movement to promote EQUAL OPPORTUNITY for all (including women).
Catholic churches don't have to marry ANYONE they don't want to. There was a time when people were EXCOMMUNICATED for getting a divorce.(One of the Kennedy's had their marriage annulled just so they wouldn't be excommunicated - and they ALREADY had children).
At any rate, churches can decide who they want to marry. They can decide to only marry persons in their congregations. They can kick out anyone they deem is not living their lives according to that particular religious tradition.
At any rate, church ceremonies are just FLUFF. What counts is the Marriage License that one obtains from their local government office.
You know and I know there will be law suit after law suit on this with the Churches refusal to marry them. This is the FIRST time the marriage is a she/she and a he/he. Which is not one man and one woman so it is a lot different. The people in the states should get to vote to see if they want it in their state.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#37 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage IS a civil right.
No church can be forced to marry anyone; not gay couples or black couples or jewish couples or previously divorced couples- NO ONE.
And I have no voice in this civil RIGHT???

You know and I know there will be law suit after law suit on this with the Churches refusal to marry them. This is the FIRST time the marriage is a she/she and a he/he. Which is not one man and one woman so it is a lot different. The people in the states should get to vote to see if they want it in their state.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, then we can have votes to see if we want inter-racial marriages or inter-faith marriages, or whether old people should be able to vote, etc ......
The civil rights of a minority group should never be put to a public vote by the majority.
That said, you do realize states HAVE been voting on this issue for over a decade now? And you anti-gays have lost the last 4 votes. With support over 75% among those under age 40, it's only a matter of time before all remaining bans are overturned.
Opposition to marriage for same-sex couples is literally dying out.
It's not that they are for you, they just dont't care, and they aren't affilated with any real denomination.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#40 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
And I have no voice in this civil RIGHT???
You know and I know there will be law suit after law suit on this with the Churches refusal to marry them. This is the FIRST time the marriage is a she/she and a he/he. Which is not one man and one woman so it is a lot different. The people in the states should get to vote to see if they want it in their state.
Mich. ban on domestic partner benefits blocked
By ED WHITE— Jun. 28 2:37 PM EDT

DETROIT (AP)— A federal judge on Friday blocked Michigan's ban on domestic partner benefits for employees who work for public schools or local governments, saying state lawmakers simply wanted to punish gays and lesbians.

The state law is now being Overran by Obama and Holder. This is not what SCOTUS determined. They said the state was in charge not the federal government.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#41 Jun 28, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Mich. ban on domestic partner benefits blocked
By ED WHITE— Jun. 28 2:37 PM EDT
DETROIT (AP)— A federal judge on Friday blocked Michigan's ban on domestic partner benefits for employees who work for public schools or local governments, saying state lawmakers simply wanted to punish gays and lesbians.
The state law is now being Overran by Obama and Holder. This is not what SCOTUS determined. They said the state was in charge not the federal government.
Looks like Obama and Holder will generate another SCANDAL before he is done - he has to do something to keep the press and the people off of all his current scandals.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#42 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
You know and I know there will be law suit after law suit on this with the Churches refusal to marry them. This is the FIRST time the marriage is a she/she and a he/he. Which is not one man and one woman so it is a lot different. The people in the states should get to vote to see if they want it in their state.
Doesn't matter how many lawsuits are filed, the 1st amendment protects churches just like it always has.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
And I have no voice in this civil RIGHT???
You know and I know there will be law suit after law suit on this with the Churches refusal to marry them. This is the FIRST time the marriage is a she/she and a he/he. Which is not one man and one woman so it is a lot different. The people in the states should get to vote to see if they want it in their state.
No, not you nor anyone else has a voice in denying a civil right to someone. That's why we have a constitution; to guarantee the civil rights of ALL citizens, not just the straight ones or the white ones or the male ones.

No, you most definitely should not get to vote on my civil rights, just like I shouldn't get to vote on your civil rights.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#44 Jun 28, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Mich. ban on domestic partner benefits blocked
By ED WHITE— Jun. 28 2:37 PM EDT
DETROIT (AP)— A federal judge on Friday blocked Michigan's ban on domestic partner benefits for employees who work for public schools or local governments, saying state lawmakers simply wanted to punish gays and lesbians.
The state law is now being Overran by Obama and Holder. This is not what SCOTUS determined. They said the state was in charge not the federal government.
Actually, if you bothered to read the court decision rather than get the interpretation from FOX Noise, it's EXACTLY what the SCOTUS determined.

The dominos are starting to fall already!!

DOMA violated equal protection & due process, was based on animus toward gays, and harms our families.

Yep, this is EXACTLY what the experts expected would happen after the DOMA decision; including many very conservative constitutional experts.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#45 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not you nor anyone else has a voice in denying a civil right to someone. That's why we have a constitution; to guarantee the civil rights of ALL citizens, not just the straight ones or the white ones or the male ones.
No, you most definitely should not get to vote on my civil rights, just like I shouldn't get to vote on your civil rights.
Marriage is not a civil right, nor is it proper for Obama to assume power beyond his pay grade.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#47 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not you nor anyone else has a voice in denying a civil right to someone. That's why we have a constitution; to guarantee the civil rights of ALL citizens, not just the straight ones or the white ones or the male ones.
No, you most definitely should not get to vote on my civil rights, just like I shouldn't get to vote on your civil rights.
Sure - just like the Bill of Rights - 2nd Amendment that is being pushed to be voted on every other day. Double standard.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#48 Jun 28, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure - just like the Bill of Rights - 2nd Amendment that is being pushed to be voted on every other day. Double standard.
when is that being pushed to a vote? it can't be, it would have to be done through the constitutional amendment process.

restrictions on the 2nd amendment are as old as the amendment itself, check the history of it...

all of your civil rights have restrictions on them...

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.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Boise Immigration Rally Draws Hundreds, Call fo... (May '13) 9 min sandy 1 111
News Unions Are Increasingly Bargaining To Protect U... 16 min QUITTNER Mar 29 2015 8
News Memo: Illegals To Receive Social Security,... 1 hr Earl 116
News New Jersey's Christie Joins States' Obama Immig... 1 hr Earl 7
News Progressive Hispanics Slam Ted Cruz as 'Anti-Im... 2 hr tomin cali 6
Native Americans say "Mexicans are Indians, too" (Feb '08) 5 hr Cricket 23 2,410
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 10 hr X Crypsis X 137,785
More from around the web