Obama Denounces MN Marriage Amendment

Apr 10, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Patch.com

Monday morning, President Barack Obama weighed in on one of the most divisive issues in Minneapolis politics today-the marriage amendment.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of1,318
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inference that everyone who votes for this hates gay people is a bit on the absurd side. The idea that a government sanctioned marriage is a civil right is equally absurd. Gay, straight or otherwise.
But the government DOES offer sanctioned marriage as a civil right to heterosexuals.

That is a fact.

So by not offering the same right to gays-- who have every legal and moral right to be in romantic relationships-- the government is discriminating.

It's not about "special rights". It never has been. It's about equal rights.

Which is why the pendulum on public opinion on this issue is swinging so quickly.

Public opinion mows shows a majority supports gay marriage, or at least civil unions.

Do you think that will magically reverse itself sometime?
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Now you add LIAR to your moniker! You have no fricking idea how I will vote.
How will you vote?
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Consistent wrote:
When do you suppose that Bob and Bob will share the discharge of fecal matter and semen onto the sheets of the Lincoln Bedroom?
I know that I will feel that Amerika has finaly become a more just country when they can do so as Husband and Husband....
Isn't Love a beautiful thing!
The technical term for that discharge is "Santorum".
You can look it up!! lol
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Judged:
"We all know that the only reason people will vote for the amendment is hate. No other reason. Says a lot about the character of people in MN. Of course, they also applaude the suicide of high school kids. Great place to live. "
This is the real quote. So you left it out to make me look like a liar. Now what does this say about you???
This does set a precedent. If they can vote on the rights for one group, then shouldn't we be able to vote on the rights of any other groups? How about a law that says all registered republicans must be placed in prison? They have proven they cannot live peaceably in society, so they cannot have the rights of movement.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Apr 10, 2012
 
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
But the government DOES offer sanctioned marriage as a civil right to heterosexuals.
That is a fact.
So by not offering the same right to gays-- who have every legal and moral right to be in romantic relationships-- the government is discriminating.
It's not about "special rights". It never has been. It's about equal rights.
Which is why the pendulum on public opinion on this issue is swinging so quickly.
Public opinion mows shows a majority supports gay marriage, or at least civil unions.
Do you think that will magically reverse itself sometime?
I don't disagree that most people support it or at the very least, just don't care.
Which is precisely why the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely. It is at best an archaic form of licensing and sanctioning something that requires none of those things. As a loving bond and commitment between two people, there is really no need for government approval.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get me wrong. I don't care who marries whom. I just don't believe the government should be involved in any way shape or form. The Supreme Court has been wrong before and will be wrong again. Decisions have been overturned. Nothing it absolute. There is nothing in the constitution that specifically guarantees someone the right to get married and have that marriage recognized by law. Maybe I am using the wrong terminology here. And I still think your statement that anyone against your belief hates you. That is just absurd and frankly, quite selfish. Many people who oppose SSM do not hate anyone and never will. In this belief, you are indeed the uneducated one.
For the umpteenth time, who else but our government would have the purview of a legal, binding contract?

you are correct that marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution, but then neither is the right to vote, but it is a right and we even added amendments to support that right for all. marriage is a basic civil right for US citizens. This fact is not up for dispute. Marriage is the purview of the government, this fact is also not up for dispute.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Apr 10, 2012
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>For the umpteenth time, who else but our government would have the purview of a legal, binding contract?
you are correct that marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution, but then neither is the right to vote, but it is a right and we even added amendments to support that right for all. marriage is a basic civil right for US citizens. This fact is not up for dispute. Marriage is the purview of the government, this fact is also not up for dispute.
In it's current state as a legal binding contract, I agree that it should not exclude anyone of legal age. And that should probably include polygamous relationships as well. And I don't believe we should modify the state or federal constitution to deny anyone group any rights or to grant any special rights to any one group.

However, if you really need a legal binding contract for that you should probably stay single. As evidenced by the 51% divorce rate.
Woodtick57

Green Bay, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Who cares if these freaks get married. It doesn't mean jack. Just don't let them adopt! Studies have shown that 77% of kids turn gay due to environmental factors.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
In it's current state as a legal binding contract, I agree that it should not exclude anyone of legal age. And that should probably include polygamous relationships as well. And I don't believe we should modify the state or federal constitution to deny anyone group any rights or to grant any special rights to any one group.
However, if you really need a legal binding contract for that you should probably stay single. As evidenced by the 51% divorce rate.
what does the divorce rate have to do with it.

polygamy would involve whole new sets of laws regarding sharing of benefits and inheritence. SSM does not.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get me wrong. I don't care who marries whom. I just don't believe the government should be involved in any way shape or form. The Supreme Court has been wrong before and will be wrong again. Decisions have been overturned. Nothing it absolute. There is nothing in the constitution that specifically guarantees someone the right to get married and have that marriage recognized by law. Maybe I am using the wrong terminology here. And I still think your statement that anyone against your belief hates you. That is just absurd and frankly, quite selfish. Many people who oppose SSM do not hate anyone and never will. In this belief, you are indeed the uneducated one.
Well, indeed, there can be no other reason. We are tax-paying American citizens. We are your doctors, your lawyers, your teachers, your grocery clerks, your police, your firefighters, your sanitation workers, your neighbors,.....we are people deserving the same rights as you are. What possible reason could there be but hatred???

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree that most people support it or at the very least, just don't care.
Which is precisely why the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely. It is at best an archaic form of licensing and sanctioning something that requires none of those things. As a loving bond and commitment between two people, there is really no need for government approval.
If you can get the married heterosexuals to give up all the $$$$ and benefits they currently get from the government, more power to you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, indeed, there can be no other reason. We are tax-paying American citizens. We are your doctors, your lawyers, your teachers, your grocery clerks, your police, your firefighters, your sanitation workers, your neighbors,.....we are people deserving the same rights as you are. What possible reason could there be but hatred???
Fear?

Since: Aug 10

Here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, indeed, there can be no other reason. We are tax-paying American citizens. We are your doctors, your lawyers, your teachers, your grocery clerks, your police, your firefighters, your sanitation workers, your neighbors,.....we are people deserving the same rights as you are. What possible reason could there be but hatred???
You might nor believe in God.. and that's not the issue. It's against the laws of nature. We are at the top of the food chain in the animal kingdom and there are no gay bears or beasts of burden...etc.. In the wild they eliminate those that are inferior to keep their own strains pure.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aint My America wrote:
<quoted text>
You might nor believe in God.. and that's not the issue. It's against the laws of nature. We are at the top of the food chain in the animal kingdom and there are no gay bears or beasts of burden...etc.. In the wild they eliminate those that are inferior to keep their own strains pure.
if it's against the laws of nature why do heterosexual couples keep making homosexual kids?

Since: Sep 11

Champlin, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Fear?
Absolutely fear which is usually a product of ignorance, not hatred.

Since: Aug 10

Here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if it's against the laws of nature why do heterosexual couples keep making homosexual kids?
Woody.. they don't. There hasn't been a gay discovery.. right? And gays had better hope medical science never discovers one because the majority of them are pro-abortion.. right? That would leave a decision to be made by hetero's who bear them.. right? The agenda of the GLBT is convince everyone that gays are born gay.. right? There are many men who exhibit a limp wrist in their voices and mannerisms that marry and have children and raise them just like macho men.. are you suggesting they all are refusing to come out and refusing to admit they're gay?

A good example is and old rocker named Little Richard who "thought" he was gay for decades and finally realized it was because of what other gays told him. He married a woman had children and knows, now he speaks about how the gay propaganda had him convinced he was gay.

Why do you think the GLBT targets children..? How sick is that?

Since: Sep 11

Champlin, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can get the married heterosexuals to give up all the $$$$ and benefits they currently get from the government, more power to you.
That would be the "catch 22" of the issue. I just think it would be the most equitable way to deal with this issue since there is an argument to be made that by offering these extra privileges and tax benefits to those who are "officially" married, the government then discriminates against those who choose to remain "legally" single.
Stogie Salesman Clinton

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

IF everyone were gay 100 years ago there would be no-one alive today.

Being gay is a mental disorder that should not be encouraged by providing support or recognition of any kind.

There has never been a subculture that practices an abnormal sex act and has been recognized for their perversion!

Never!!
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what does the divorce rate have to do with it.
polygamy would involve whole new sets of laws regarding sharing of benefits and inheritence. SSM does not.
Right. Polygamy would result in a whole new set of laws, of dubious moral value, whereas ssm is merely the extension of existing laws to include all Americans.
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Apr 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Woodtick57 wrote:
Who cares if these freaks get married. It doesn't mean jack. Just don't let them adopt! Studies have shown that 77% of kids turn gay due to environmental factors.
Huh??

Can you link to these 'studies'?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of1,318
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

70 Users are viewing the US News Forum right now

Search the US News Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Lawmakers face long to-do list, uncertain success 4 min Cat74 7
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min j rocker 1,078,356
Chick-fil-A Vallejo Location Faces Opposition 5 min Frankie Rizzo 100
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min DemocRATS 146,052
Border Patrol agent can be sued in fatal shooti... 7 min Imperial Chicano 10
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min UidiotRaceMakeWorldPeace1 243,330
Bachmann says she may make another presidential... 9 min Cat74 2
•••
•••