Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,178

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

Full Story

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25022 Jan 3, 2013
Uhh...fuckwit? Racial "purity" is not the same thing as white supremacy. Many blacks opposed interracial marriage too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Serious? That's your claim?! It doesn't take an SSMer Einstein to see that barring interracial marriage was part of an overall objective to maintain a state's policy of white supremacy. Man oh man.....and here we thought you were a smart fella.....so sad

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25023 Jan 3, 2013
Nationalities aren't races. Black people born in greece are greeks; white people born in korea are koreans.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm...still trying the ole "banning SSM is like banning interracial marriage" contention I see. Nice try. It doesn't work with Loving, and it won't work here. Good thing I'm not a "white person or a negro". Did the Alabama amendment mention Italians? Greeks? Indians? Chinese? Koreans? Poles? Swiss? Brazilians? None of these? Talk about selective racial targeting. Good thing there's only two sexes. Before ya know it sine knucklehead will be proposing gender segregated marriage.
Raul Dicktado

Santa Cruz, CA

#25024 Jan 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooooo......until such time and/or if it occurs....marriage as a fundamental right is defined by......?
14th amendment and Bill of Rights
Pietro Armando

Woburn, MA

#25025 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Uhh...fuckwit? Racial "purity" is not the same thing as white supremacy. Many blacks opposed interracial marriage too.
<quoted text>
You seem to have gotten lost somewhere. Let's back track. State laws barring interracial marriage were part of an over all policy of maintaining white supremacy. Yes it is true that some blacks opposed interracial marriage, but when that is put into proper perspective of maintaining group identity through intra group marriage, that view is not unique. Italians were expected at one time to only marry other Italians, Chinese other Chinese, etc.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25026 Jan 3, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, 10 points, now for your next question.
What is the difference between a "fundamental right" and an "inalienbale right?
I wouldn't give her 10 points for that quickie cut and paste Google job, maybe 5.
Pietro Armando

Woburn, MA

#25027 Jan 3, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nationalities aren't races. Black people born in greece are greeks; white people born in korea are koreans.
<quoted text>
Seriously? Mike r u reading this? I have to agree with you paisan, he's not very bright after all. So white folks.....not quite sure how "white" is defined....but anyway...who are born in Korea are Korean. Hmmmmm.....Sven and Helga move to Korea from Switzerland. There they give birth to Sven Jr. He's now Korean? Is it any wonder why this whole marriage is a union of husband and wife definition is confusing to you?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#25028 Jan 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Mike r u reading this? I have to agree with you paisan, he's not very bright after all. So white folks.....not quite sure how "white" is defined....but anyway...who are born in Korea are Korean. Hmmmmm.....Sven and Helga move to Korea from Switzerland. There they give birth to Sven Jr. He's now Korean? Is it any wonder why this whole marriage is a union of husband and wife definition is confusing to you?
Liberal correct-speak gets very confusing. For example I have a friend from Nigeria visiting the USA and he wonders why he's called an "African American" here. It amuses him. He jokes that I wouldn't be called a "European Nigerian" in his country!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25029 Jan 3, 2013
The Loving case is important because it established that as individuals, we have the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to enter into a state sanctioned marital relationship. The issue of race is merely a matter of fact which sets the level of scrutiny that right is going to be judged by. Since this was a question of race, their right to be married had to be seen through the lens of strict scrutiny and thus, there had to be a compelling state interest served in its denial. The far more important cases here are the ones which followed in the Loving's wake, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley.

In Zablocki, the Court held, "When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." In Turner, the Court held that this could not even be proved by those arguing that those doing serious even fatal jail time should have their right to be married severely restricted.

As it stands right now, we have the fundamental right to marry the bank-robbing, spree killing pedophile of our dreams, who by the way is behind on their child support for their other spawn, regardless of race or other suspect classification protected under the Constitution, as long as they are of the approved sex, depending on where we live at the moment.

PS. For those of you on the poly bandwagon, if you can't figure out how those bans are going to make it through that gate, when it managed to trip up marrying a murderer and is going to trip up what you folk did with same sex marriage, you have my sympathy.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#25030 Jan 3, 2013
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't give her 10 points for that quickie cut and paste Google job, maybe 5.
Well, seeing as how she will not answer the second question, the 10 points goes away and she gets an incomplete.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25031 Jan 3, 2013
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.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have gotten lost somewhere. Let's back track. State laws barring interracial marriage were part of an over all policy of maintaining white supremacy. Yes it is true that some blacks opposed interracial marriage, but when that is put into proper perspective of maintaining group identity through intra group marriage, that view is not unique. Italians were expected at one time to only marry other Italians, Chinese other Chinese, etc.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25032 Jan 3, 2013
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.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Mike r u reading this? I have to agree with you paisan, he's not very bright after all. So white folks.....not quite sure how "white" is defined....but anyway...who are born in Korea are Korean. Hmmmmm.....Sven and Helga move to Korea from Switzerland. There they give birth to Sven Jr. He's now Korean? Is it any wonder why this whole marriage is a union of husband and wife definition is confusing to you?
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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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

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
The Senate's back-channel in Cuba deal 2 min Foster 3
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Bluestater 1,153,599
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min ChromiuMan 132,217
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min positronium 293,330
The uncomfortable truth about racism in America 6 min Le Jimbo 206
Not much chance of Congress stopping Cuba policy 7 min Foster 25
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 9 min Le Jimbo 618
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 16 min Uncle Sam 2,344
Cheney again defends interrogation techniques 33 min Le Duped 310
US and Cuba move to normalize ties, open embassy 40 min GOP-FOX-y-Fiends 81
More from around the web