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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26353 Jan 24, 2013
From Pietro's link-

A July 2009 Newsweek story entitled “Polyamory: the next sexual revolution” estimates that there are more than half a million “open polyamorous families” living in America.
“It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it. Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving continents in nearly every major city.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07...

I wonder if half a million is enough for Jane Dodo?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26354 Jan 24, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that on all of these threads I haven't seen one person say they wanted to marry more than one person speaks volumes for the amount of interest there is in polygamy in this country. Many people are barely managing to be married to one person!
Kody Brown, and Mrs.Brown, and Mrs.Brown, and Mrs.Brown, and, let's not forget Mrs. Brown, have gone on national TV expressing their support for SSM. All they ask in return is you watch their TV show "Sister Wives", which has been on a a few years now.
I don't support polygamy -- there, I said it. I think it would create a legal nightmare in regard to next of kin, taxes, benefits, insurance, etc. However, having said that, if the government made it legal it wouldn't affect me. I doubt that it will ever happen.
SSM was once thought of that same way, "never happen", and yet here it is .
I believe that marriage is a full commitment of yourself to another person, and you cannot give yourself fully to more than one person.
Historically polygamy was, and still is a valid form of marriage across the globe. Even, albeit, without legal recognition, in this country too.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26355 Jan 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that anything like the "Frankie is unteachable" fallacy?
Nope.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26356 Jan 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
From Pietro's link-
A July 2009 Newsweek story entitled “Polyamory: the next sexual revolution” estimates that there are more than half a million “open polyamorous families” living in America.
“It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it. Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving continents in nearly every major city.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07...
I wonder if half a million is enough for Jane Dodo?
Now tell me you don't know the difference between polyamory and polygamy. You're dumber than I thought.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26357 Jan 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good current link. Thanks.
Logic always enrages Jane Dodo!
Logic? From YOU???????

hahahahah

THAT'S a good one!
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26358 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The iinstitution 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.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute "operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife," 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives *** is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship," 381 U.S. 485, 85 S.Ct.1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of "the traditional relation of the family--a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization." 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688,14 L.Ed.2d 522./3/
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./4/
<quoted text>
Did u not read what the court stated?
I'm too busy laughing at what YOU wrote.
1 post removed
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26360 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>I'm too busy laughing at what YOU wrote.
no time to type out a few rows of laughs you idiot?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26361 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
different posters, but the same ole from Mona/Frankie/Ida/Jane...
do you think we don't know what you are trying to do here you bullying pile of turd?
I am really enjoying this...
I will be seeing you EVERYWHERE you post...
you got a "friend" in me!
Wow! Your desperation is showing.....

Why not go get a CU?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26362 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Now tell me you don't know the difference between polyamory and polygamy. You're dumber than I thought.
Polygamy is what happens when polyamorists marry, Miss Thing.

But even if I was a stupid as you wish you could deceive others into believing I was, what's that have to do with your bigotry and hypocrisy?

Why don't you give polygamy the same respect as same sex marriage?

Don't say "When did I say I that?" You didn't, but we can tell you don't by your hostility to the very idea!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26363 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no time to type out a few rows of laughs you idiot?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah

ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha h!!!

I know, it ain't the real insane thing, but maybe it'll warm Janey Doody up!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26364 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic? From YOU???????
hahahahah
THAT'S a good one!
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26365 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>I'm too busy laughing at what YOU wrote.
No you aren't.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26366 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Is it like the Frankie doesn't know the difference between polyamory and polygamy one?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26367 Jan 24, 2013
"...with thriving continents in nearly every major city”?

It's pretty hard to fit a continent in a city.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
From Pietro's link-
A July 2009 Newsweek story entitled “Polyamory: the next sexual revolution” estimates that there are more than half a million “open polyamorous families” living in America.
“It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it. Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving continents in nearly every major city.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07...
I wonder if half a million is enough for Jane Dodo?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26368 Jan 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"...with thriving continents in nearly every major city”?
It's pretty hard to fit a continent in a city.
<quoted text>
So you don't think polygamy deserves the same respect as same sex marriage because the English was poor in that article?

If the English was exemplary would you agree polygamy deserves at least the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage?

What a dummy!
1 post removed

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26370 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
nonsense snipped... Allowing the elderly or infertile to marry does not contradict the state's understanding of marriage as a male female union orientated toward the sexual procreative aspect of that union.
Circular argument. You define marriage solely by an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for its legal establishment, and then allow others to obtain a marriage despite being unable to procreate.

That's just flat-out animus against the group you don't like in order to prevent them from enjoying the benefits of a civil right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
irrelevant Baker v Nelson decision from Minnesota
Minnesota case whose REASONING the Supreme Court of the US NEVER adopted. Dismissed by the SCOTUS for want of a federal question.

When dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[17] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[18]
The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[19]
The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[20]
Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[21]
Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Baker is dead as precedent. The facts of current cases have significant differences from Baker; the reasoning in the state case is NOT binding; and clear subsequent developments have intervened between 1971 and today (Romer and Lawrence, plus Congress passed DOMA, which negates the very reason that the SCOTUS dismissed Baker in the first place -- for want of a substantial federal question).

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26371 Jan 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The iinstitution 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.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute "operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife," 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives *** is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship," 381 U.S. 485, 85 S.Ct.1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of "the traditional relation of the family--a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization." 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688,14 L.Ed.2d 522./3/
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./4/
<quoted text>
Did u not read what the court stated?
This is what a state court said 40 years ago. NOT RELEVANT.

The REASONING was never adopted by the Supreme Court of the US. Even if it had been, it would still be incorrect.

Defining the right to obtain a civil marriage solely on the basis of an attribute that is neither necessary or sufficient for its legal establishment simply begs the question -- why deny civil marriage solely on the basis of sex?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26372 Jan 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"...with thriving continents in nearly every major city”?
It's pretty hard to fit a continent in a city.
<quoted text>
Who is the old auntie in that picture?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26373 Jan 24, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what a state court said 40 years ago. NOT RELEVANT.
The REASONING was never adopted by the Supreme Court of the US. Even if it had been, it would still be incorrect.
Defining the right to obtain a civil marriage solely on the basis of an attribute that is neither necessary or sufficient for its legal establishment simply begs the question -- why deny civil marriage solely on the basis of sex?
Who is the picture of? You've already said it's not you. Who is it?

Is it just generic? Just to show you're good at chess? Therefore good at Topix posts?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#26374 Jan 24, 2013
God damn the world we live in today this is just sad.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Julia 1,600,963
News Trump hypes mock video of golf ball seen striki... 2 min memez mcgee 135
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Freedomofexpression 9,842
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 4 min Mr Wiggley 30,993
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 12 min Freedomofexpression 317,475
News Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... (Aug '14) 21 min grammer slammer 6,472
News The Latest: Trump targets North Korea in new ex... 23 min poi pounder 10
News Trump, the 'America First' president, goes to t... 25 min youll shoot your ... 219
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 27 min Injudgement 289,304
More from around the web