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.

no big O

Romeoville, IL

#6746 Jun 3, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what he cares about. You have a crystal ball?
Let's assume he cares. He needs to get re-elected in order to do the things he cares about doing.
Waste water
If he cared, how come he has not done anything about DOMA?... you would think that he would have by now introduced legislation to repeal it...
And the fact that in 08 he was against it,,, now he is for it... but it is a states rights issue.... i.e. hey dont blame me.. nothing I can do about it...

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#6747 Jun 3, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would tend to agree with you.....it matters not what you post or how much information is out there.....she is like a lot of other anti-gay folk.....not willing to see anything but their own ideas and beliefs!!!
she's sounding more and more like david moore of pukin, ill

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6748 Jun 3, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
Waste water
If he cared, how come he has not done anything about DOMA?... you would think that he would have by now introduced legislation to repeal it...
And the fact that in 08 he was against it,,, now he is for it... but it is a states rights issue.... i.e. hey dont blame me.. nothing I can do about it...
1. Presidents must offer the bill to a congressperson for introduction. Just how far would such a bill get in a Republican controlled Congress?

2. The President had a change of heart.

3. He could have done so during the Democratic controlled Congress but was doing the Health Care Reform.

4. Political opinion polls have moved much further toward marriage equality in recent years.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6749 Jun 3, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
Waste water
If he cared, how come he has not done anything about DOMA?... you would think that he would have by now introduced legislation to repeal it...
And the fact that in 08 he was against it,,, now he is for it... but it is a states rights issue.... i.e. hey dont blame me.. nothing I can do about it...
... and

5. DOMA was in the way.

6. The tenth amendment issues are far from resolved.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6750 Jun 3, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please be specific. Two adult sisters heading a household could be defined as a "same sex family".
<quoted text>
No BS. Actually they are in the states that recognize such. All other states marriage, is still viewed as an opposite sex union, and thus those who enter into one, receive the repective legal protections.
<quoted text>
Agreed, where we differ is a matter of gender composition.
<quoted text>
Nothing has changed so significantly, except in a few states, that has altered the basic composition of the marital relationship, one male and one female.
<quoted text>
It is very relevant, and you know it is. Polygamy is marriage, by definition, and certainly a form of marriage that has been, and is, practiced by a number of societies around the globe. It is far older than SSM, and more widely accepted and/or tolerated, even in North America, to a degree. "Poly" obviously means more than two.
I understand why, from a strategic point, why SSMers don't want to connect their cause with polygamy, "oh we're not like them", "we're not asking for any major changes in the law", "We're about love and commitment", etc. That's all well and good as long as its the polygamy of the underage brides, and cult compounds, that SSM wishes to distances themselves from. However, the consensual polygamy of the Mr. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. Brown, is different. Their, and their supporters, argument, goes something like this. "The gay marriage movement wishes to eliminate the 'opposite sex' requirement, yet retain the number two. We however wish to keep it male female, simply eliminate the number two. Ours has the virtue of maintaining the conjugal aspect of marriage, acknowledges the historic practice of polygamy yet requires it be a relationship of consenting adults, and links children to their biological mother and father. If the law can change for them, why not us"?
Please, for the sake of intelectual honesty, explain why SSMers can't support polygamous marriage equality?
The only thing on the table is marriage between two unrelated consenting adults. Nothing else is relevant. All is a separate issues which may or may not involve specific court actions. Therefore such issues are not open to discussion.
no big O

Romeoville, IL

#6751 Jun 3, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Presidents must offer the bill to a congressperson for introduction. Just how far would such a bill get in a Republican controlled Congress?
2. The President had a change of heart.
3. He could have done so during the Democratic controlled Congress but was doing the Health Care Reform.
4. Political opinion polls have moved much further toward marriage equality in recent years.
1) So what if it would not have gotten far... It still would make him look stronger in his conviction... Would this have been the first bill he introduced that was doomed?.... or is it just ANOTHER ELECTION YEAR?

2) He didn't have a change of heart.... If he did he wouldn't have said "its a states rights issue". Do you believe this is a civil rights issue?... How come he doesn't... oh that's right it is ANOTHER ELECTION YEAR

3) So his obamacare took precedence over civil rights... Is that what you are saying?.... or is it that he couldn't focus on two things at once... or could it be that in 09 IT WASN'T AN ELECTION YEAR

4) So are you saying that the big O is swayed by the polls... which leads me back to my original point.. He is playing both sides against the middle... I am for ssm (that should bring in the homo. community along with supporters of ssm), however it is a states right issue (that should lessen the blow to my constituents who are anti ssm....) great strategy to use IN AN ELECTION YEAR
no big O

Romeoville, IL

#6752 Jun 3, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
... and
5. DOMA was in the way.
6. The tenth amendment issues are far from resolved.
DOMA was what he could have repealed.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#6753 Jun 3, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA was what he could have repealed.
presidents don't repeal laws. that's up to congress.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6754 Jun 3, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
I understand why, from a strategic point, why SSMers don't want to connect their cause with polygamy, "oh we're not like them", "we're not asking for any major changes in the law", "We're about love and commitment", etc. That's all well and good as long as its the polygamy of the underage brides, and cult compounds, that SSM wishes to distances themselves from. However, the consensual polygamy of the Mr. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. Brown, is different. Their, and their supporters, argument, goes something like this. "The gay marriage movement wishes to eliminate the 'opposite sex' requirement, yet retain the number two. We however wish to keep it male female, simply eliminate the number two. Ours has the virtue of maintaining the conjugal aspect of marriage, acknowledges the historic practice of polygamy yet requires it be a relationship of consenting adults, and links children to their biological mother and father. If the law can change for them, why not us"?
Please, for the sake of intelectual honesty, explain why SSMers can't support polygamous marriage equality?
So, you are okay with polygamy, right? Are you also okay with Polyandry marriages and relationships?

Personally, if those folks want to fight for their right to multiple-person marriages......they don't need to wait and see how the laws are going to change to allow Same-Sex Couples the right to marry......they can start their fight now....I mean they have to get it decriminalized first and then do what Same-Sex Couples are doing......file lawsuits......and we didn't hook our trail to their fight. The fact is that it is still a fight and it probably will never happen...but it could.......the folks who have problems with it will blame the GLBTQI Community, but it's not our fault. I have no issues with either polygamy or polyandry......neither relationship has any affect on me, my wife or our marriage:-)
no big O

Romeoville, IL

#6755 Jun 3, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
presidents don't repeal laws. that's up to congress.
Correct (though I wouldn't say the big O wouldn't try)
Howeever what I wrote b4 and meant now is introduce legislation to repeal doma

“Open your eyes, people”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#6756 Jun 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Honor and survival are not mutually exclusive. Would you save yourself if you knew the only way to do so would be to shoot up a bus full of children?
<quoted text>
It DEPENDS!

If there was also a mad man on that bus with a briefcase nuclear bomb, I think I would have no choice!

So, like I said - It DEPENDS! And most people would think that was the right thing to do, under those circumstances.

“Open your eyes, people”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#6757 Jun 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't counter my argument.
BTW, stupid, this is a public message board.
Want something private? Try the "messages" function.
Your so-called argument is stupid to me, and I never even try to counter stupidity.

BTW, I am well aware that it is public message board. Otherwise, I would not be exchanging posts with a pea-brained clown like you.

I'd bet a Millon dollars that you are fat and ugly, AREN'T YOU?

:)

“Open your eyes, people”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#6758 Jun 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Before Loving v VA, ALL Americans had the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized conjugal relationship of husband and wife of the same race.
Wrong again. The states where those laws existed only pertained to couples where one person was white. The fact that it only pertained to marriages that involved white people is what made it unconstitutional.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Yes it is.
A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman should have that same right. A woman has the right to marry a man, a man should have that same right.
Then the fair thing to do would be to present the question as an Amendment to the Constitution - and let the issue pass or fail on it own merits - or lack thereof. And not try to ride into legitamcy on the blood, sweat, the tears of people who simply wanted to be included in the human.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Why are you against equal rights?
Everybody in America, including illegal aliens, ALL have the same rights - the EXACT same rights. And that's EXACTLY how it SHOULD BE.
1 post removed

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6760 Jun 4, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are okay with polygamy, right? Are you also okay with Polyandry marriages and relationships?
To each his own. If that what floats one's boat......
Personally, if those folks want to fight for their right to multiple-person marriages......they don't need to wait and see how the laws are going to change to allow Same-Sex Couples the right to marry......they can start their fight now....I mean they have to get it decriminalized first and then do what Same-Sex Couples are doing......file lawsuits......and we didn't hook our trail to their fight. The fact is that it is still a fight and it probably will never happen...but it could.......the folks who have problems with it will blame the GLBTQI Community, but it's not our fault. I have no issues with either polygamy or polyandry......neither relationship has any affect on me, my wife or our marriage:-)
Actually I believe the Browns have filed suit for if not legalization of their relationship, then decrmininalization of polygamous arrangements. I do think it is tied into SSM. All those state marraige ammendments, not only banned SSM but poly marriage as well, and yet they're often referred to as strictly SSM bans.

Its interesting that some women will share one "baby's daddy", and society at large has accepted this to a degree, and yet scratch its head as to why several women would willingly share a husband. Somehow it doesn't fit into our notions of "equality". Maybe therein lies the objection. Not everything is "equal". Somethings are what they are.
1 post removed

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#6762 Jun 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus is a mythical character.
It's been proven that a man called Jesus did walk this earth in Biblical times. Whether you believe He was the son of the ever living God, is a walk of faith. Which clearly you have none.

Reading is fundamental.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6763 Jun 4, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
To each his own. If that what floats one's boat......
<quoted text>
Actually I believe the Browns have filed suit for if not legalization of their relationship, then decrmininalization of polygamous arrangements. I do think it is tied into SSM. All those state marraige ammendments, not only banned SSM but poly marriage as well, and yet they're often referred to as strictly SSM bans.
Its interesting that some women will share one "baby's daddy", and society at large has accepted this to a degree, and yet scratch its head as to why several women would willingly share a husband. Somehow it doesn't fit into our notions of "equality". Maybe therein lies the objection. Not everything is "equal". Somethings are what they are.
You keep talking about one, but not the other.....and yes, I believe the Browns are trying to get polygamy decriminalized because that has to happen first......but I wonder then if people will be upset and add this fight to counter as well.

Well, you also have to understand that there are women who are willing to share many husbands, are you okay with that as well?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6764 Jun 4, 2012
SSM and polygamy are entirely different issues. Civil marriage is designed to create a single legal unit of two people, creating specific responsibilities and protections. All laws governing marriage depend on this two-person model. Adding more to the unit would eliminate the entire concept of primary kinship as well as eliminate the protections of guardianship and probate.

More to the point, it would be illegal based on the extant bigamy laws in this country. You cannot base a legal contract on an illegal premise. Absolutely no one is looking to repeal bigamy laws, so polygamy is not going to be legal any time soon.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please be specific. Two adult sisters heading a household could be defined as a "same sex family".
<quoted text>
No BS. Actually they are in the states that recognize such. All other states marriage, is still viewed as an opposite sex union, and thus those who enter into one, receive the repective legal protections.
<quoted text>
Agreed, where we differ is a matter of gender composition.
<quoted text>
Nothing has changed so significantly, except in a few states, that has altered the basic composition of the marital relationship, one male and one female.
<quoted text>
It is very relevant, and you know it is. Polygamy is marriage, by definition, and certainly a form of marriage that has been, and is, practiced by a number of societies around the globe. It is far older than SSM, and more widely accepted and/or tolerated, even in North America, to a degree. "Poly" obviously means more than two.
I understand why, from a strategic point, why SSMers don't want to connect their cause with polygamy, "oh we're not like them", "we're not asking for any major changes in the law", "We're about love and commitment", etc. That's all well and good as long as its the polygamy of the underage brides, and cult compounds, that SSM wishes to distances themselves from. However, the consensual polygamy of the Mr. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. Brown, is different. Their, and their supporters, argument, goes something like this. "The gay marriage movement wishes to eliminate the 'opposite sex' requirement, yet retain the number two. We however wish to keep it male female, simply eliminate the number two. Ours has the virtue of maintaining the conjugal aspect of marriage, acknowledges the historic practice of polygamy yet requires it be a relationship of consenting adults, and links children to their biological mother and father. If the law can change for them, why not us"?
Please, for the sake of intelectual honesty, explain why SSMers can't support polygamous marriage equality?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6765 Jun 4, 2012
Maybe because PRESIDENTS CAN'T INTRODUCE LEGISLATION...the house and senate have to do that.

On the other hand, he is no longer defending DOMA from lawsuits, mostly because it IS a state's issue.
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
Waste water
If he cared, how come he has not done anything about DOMA?... you would think that he would have by now introduced legislation to repeal it...
And the fact that in 08 he was against it,,, now he is for it... but it is a states rights issue.... i.e. hey dont blame me.. nothing I can do about it...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6766 Jun 4, 2012
And space aliens! What if space aliens were controlling the bomb guy? And what if the kids were alien/human hybrids?

Introducing hysterical elements shows you can't answer the question as presented.
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
It DEPENDS!
If there was also a mad man on that bus with a briefcase nuclear bomb, I think I would have no choice!
So, like I said - It DEPENDS! And most people would think that was the right thing to do, under those circumstances.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6767 Jun 4, 2012
The civil rights act should also have been set up as an amendment as well, I guess. How do you think THAT would have gone?
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The states where those laws existed only pertained to couples where one person was white. The fact that it only pertained to marriages that involved white people is what made it unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
Then the fair thing to do would be to present the question as an Amendment to the Constitution - and let the issue pass or fail on it own merits - or lack thereof. And not try to ride into legitamcy on the blood, sweat, the tears of people who simply wanted to be included in the human.
<quoted text>
Everybody in America, including illegal aliens, ALL have the same rights - the EXACT same rights. And that's EXACTLY how it SHOULD BE.

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 Up To 40 Percent Of Obamacare Website Hasn't Be... (Nov '13) 5 min C Kersey 5
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 10 min bad bob 2,196
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min Crow 269,713
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Well Well 1,534,355
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 314,301
News VA cuts ribbon on new clinic in Greenbrier County 18 min Well 3
News James Comey fired as FBI director 24 min Quirky 2,332
News Notre Dame graduates walk out on Pence as he to... 40 min Doctor XXX 41
More from around the web