Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Read more: politix.topix.com 26,169

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Read more
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25033 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Which interracial mariage laws favored whites over blacks? Both races were forbidden to the same extent from the same institution.
Whatever social expectations might have been, inter-ethnic marriage ws never illegal.
<quoted text>
Exactly how was "white" defined? "White" as in of northwestern European origin? Why were only blacks and whites forbidden to marry each other? Could whites marry Asians? Negroes marry Asians....or was the "orientals" used?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25034 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You don't understand how national citizenship works? Yes--you are a citizen of whatever country you are born in. Some countries recognize joint citizenship, but the US is not one of them.
<quoted text>
This is what you said:
Nationalities aren't races. Black people born in greece are greeks; white people born in korea are koreans.
No where did you mention citizenship. I doubt, using the hypothetical example I used, that there's a blue eyed white Swiss Korean running around Seoul yodeling. Every country's citizenship requirements are different.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25035 Jan 3, 2013
"Greek" is a political demarcation, just like all nationalities. It's not genetic. It depends on place of birth or nationalization by application.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you said:
<quoted text>
No where did you mention citizenship. I doubt, using the hypothetical example I used, that there's a blue eyed white Swiss Korean running around Seoul yodeling. Every country's citizenship requirements are different.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25036 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"Greek" is a political demarcation, just like all nationalities. It's not genetic. It depends on place of birth or nationalization by application.
<quoted text>
Its all Greek to me. Is Italian a race, ethnicity. Citizen, and/or language?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25037 Jan 3, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, seeing as how she will not answer the second question, the 10 points goes away and she gets an incomplete.
Inalienable right comes from natural law. It is irrelevant as natural law is highly subjective and has not been codified.

Next

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25038 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"Greek" is a political demarcation, just like all nationalities. It's not genetic. It depends on place of birth or nationalization by application.
<quoted text>
"Greek" is what the girls in the old days called it when you asked them to flip over!

Yeah I'm that old. And yeah they did!

WOOHOO!
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25039 Jan 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Inalienable right comes from natural law. It is irrelevant as natural law is highly subjective and has not been codified.
Next
Thanks Wastie
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25040 Jan 3, 2013
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
"Greek" is what the girls in the old days called it when you asked them to flip over!
Yeah I'm that old. And yeah they did!
WOOHOO!
You dirty man!!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25041 Jan 4, 2013
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
"Greek" is what the girls in the old days called it when you asked them to flip over!
Yeah I'm that old. And yeah they did!
WOOHOO!
Now that's an old memory. lol

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#25042 Jan 4, 2013
HAPPY NEW YEAR folks! May it be the GAYEST ever!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25043 Jan 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's an old memory. lol
I thought it might wake up some other old geezer!

Kids these days think they invented everything.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25044 Jan 4, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR folks! May it be the GAYEST ever!!!
Wishing you a very gay New Year too! Flaming!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25045 Jan 4, 2013
Raul Dicktado wrote:
<quoted text>
You dirty man!!!!
Hubba Hubba!
1 post removed
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25047 Jan 4, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR folks! May it be the GAYEST ever!!!
*SPARKLE*

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25048 Jan 4, 2013
The USSC didn't find an exception when states had constitutional amendments, such as Alabama's, which read (until the year 2000): "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmm...still trying the ole "banning SSM is like banning interracial marriage" contention I see.
I'm addressing your point regarding whether the Supreme Court found an exception when a state had a constitutional amendment limiting legal recognition of marriage.

Clearly, the Supreme Court found no such exception in the case of Alabama.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25049 Jan 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I mean its in the state's interest to recognize equality of the sexes does not mean unisex.
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:
So even when a couple with no plans to reproduce, marry, pssst....here's a secret....it happens anyway.
For women past the age of menopause or men who are several months past their vasectomy?

No, it doesn't happen anyway.

***

Which is irrelevant, since even those heterosexual couples who produce no offspring are still engaged in a pair bond. And yet the state recognizes their marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's because they ARE marriages.
And the state recognizes those marriages because the state has no requirement that the couple are biologically capable of producing offspring. Same-sex marriages are marriages, too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh wait I think I see where the confusion is. Because you view your personal intimate relationship with another man as "marriage" you project that view onto others. No all share that view
A majority of Americans share that view. Guess you missed that.

Shall we likewise claim that you project your view onto others?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Protecting the wife, or elevating her status, WITHIN the marital relationship, doesn't change the institution of marriage as a union of husband AND wife.
It nonetheless changes the institution of marriage. You are arguing that the institution can't change. Clearly, it has changed. Therefore, you cannot argue that it can't also change, from a *legal* perspective, to include same-sex marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're proposing the wife be banished from the institution
I'm proposing that the law recognize spouses, regardless of gender.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I still assert there is no compelling state interest in designating a personal intimate relationship between two men or two women as marriage.
The compelling state interest is no different in recognizing same-sex marriages as it is in recognizing opposite-sex marriages where the spouses cannot (or will not) biologically produce children. The genders are irrelevant to the legal recognition.
Pietro Armando

Newton Center, MA

#25050 Jan 4, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
The USSC didn't find an exception when states had constitutional amendments, such as Alabama's, which read (until the year 2000): "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."
<quoted text>
I'm addressing your point regarding whether the Supreme Court found an exception when a state had a constitutional amendment limiting legal recognition of marriage.
Clearly, the Supreme Court found no such exception in the case of Alabama.
It is it not connected to the Loving case? Did the Court rule that racial discrimination in marriage laws was unconstitutional? Did they really find an exception?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25051 Jan 4, 2013
I'm addressing your point regarding whether the Supreme Court found an exception when a state had a constitutional amendment limiting legal recognition of marriage. Clearly, the Supreme Court found no such exception in the case of Alabama.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is it not connected to the Loving case? Did the Court rule that racial discrimination in marriage laws was unconstitutional? Did they really find an exception?
The point is, the Court found no exception in regards to marriage for the Loving case.

Wasn't it your claim that Courts found exceptions in the case of marriage when it was part of a state's constitution?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25052 Jan 5, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
For women past the age of menopause or men who are several months past their vasectomy?
No, it doesn't happen anyway.
***
Which is irrelevant, since even those heterosexual couples who produce no offspring are still engaged in a pair bond. And yet the state recognizes their marriages.
<quoted text>
And the state recognizes those marriages because the state has no requirement that the couple are biologically capable of producing offspring. Same-sex marriages are marriages, too.
<quoted text>
A majority of Americans share that view. Guess you missed that.
Shall we likewise claim that you project your view onto others?
<quoted text>
It nonetheless changes the institution of marriage. You are arguing that the institution can't change. Clearly, it has changed. Therefore, you cannot argue that it can't also change, from a *legal* perspective, to include same-sex marriages.
<quoted text>
I'm proposing that the law recognize spouses, regardless of gender.
<quoted text>
The compelling state interest is no different in recognizing same-sex marriages as it is in recognizing opposite-sex marriages where the spouses cannot (or will not) biologically produce children. The genders are irrelevant to the legal recognition.
Right. Procreation has nothing to do with marriage (Apologies to my cultural anthropology professor, please indulge me for a moment!)

Therefore there is no reason incest marriage should not be allowed.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25053 Jan 5, 2013
Incestuous marriages are no more a constitutional right than plural ones. Sorry. They violate the common law order of legal blood kinship which the government has an interest in maintaining. Then there is the rational basis question of just how valid is the consent to such a relationship.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min Chimney1 159,628
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 24 min Quirky 323,261
News Thought We had a Deal: Iran leaders blast Us, m... 25 min Shinichiro Takizawa 251
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 46 min jimi-yank 309,600
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 52 min Earthling-1 52,701
News Slaying of S.C. man was act of a racist officer... 1 hr joke 36
News U.S. corporations pressure two states accused o... 1 hr Brian_G 791
News Hillary Clinton has a new position on same-sex ... 1 hr Fa-Foxy 197
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 3 hr Bill Clinton 519
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr shinningelectr0n 1,216,683
More from around the web