Video: Obama: Same-sex marriage rulings "a victory for American democracy"

Jun 27, 2013 Full story: CBS News 236

President Obama hailed the recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage as a "victory for American democracy," and said his administration is still performing a "legal analysis" to determine how the change in federal law applies across states with differing statutes on same-sex marriage.

Read more
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#2 Jun 27, 2013
"This ruling is ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh a great achievement ahhhhhhhhhh for..........American Democracy ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yeah that's it."

"Be it for ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the justices to come to ahhhhhhhhhhhhh this ahhhhhhhhhh conclusion. Is a milestone. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, however, ahhhhhhhhhhhh, my administration will ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh continue it's ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh spying program."
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#3 Jun 27, 2013
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

This legal decision was made NOT by the citizens, but by a collection of NON-ELECTED 'appointees'.
Bluntforce

Ashburn, VA

#4 Jun 27, 2013
If homosexual activity is a "victory" for democracy, the we are all doomed. But it's no big shock that our first bi-sexual president would make that comment, I'm sure he's looking forward to getting back to Chicago and celebrating the SCOTUS decision with some of his "special friends."
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#5 Jun 27, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
"This ruling is ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh a great achievement ahhhhhhhhhh for..........American Democracy ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yeah that's it."
"Be it for ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the justices to come to ahhhhhhhhhhhhh this ahhhhhhhhhh conclusion. Is a milestone. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, however, ahhhhhhhhhhhh, my administration will ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh continue it's ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh spying program."
You can always tell when Obama is telling a LIE by listening to his ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - the more ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the bigger the lie. Just watch when he goes to make a speech without his teleprompter and count the ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
lolol

Rio Rancho, NM

#6 Jun 27, 2013
bathhouse barry would know what the ruling means, he's a constitutional bathhouse lawyer ya know.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#8 Jun 27, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
This legal decision was made NOT by the citizens, but by a collection of NON-ELECTED 'appointees'.
It does look like SCOTUS is now on a quid pro quo basis

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 Jun 27, 2013
Eighthman wrote:
YAWN
WH Touts Kenyan Program to Obtain National ID Cards for Voter Registration. hahahahahaha What's good for Kenya is good for America.
LOL

San Jose, CA

#10 Jun 27, 2013
Gay marriages approve, immigration bill passed. Hey, America has changed-I suppose it's freedom!
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#11 Jun 27, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>WH Touts Kenyan Program to Obtain National ID Cards for Voter Registration. hahahahahaha What's good for Kenya is good for America.
Identity papers please ....

Ya vol Commandant Obama!!!

<LOL>

“Proud To Be An American”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#13 Jun 27, 2013
It's all about the benefits butt buddies and lintlickers are not currently entitled to.
Dequin

Zerbst, Germany

#15 Jun 27, 2013
It is unconscionable to let a court decide matters
which aught to be decided by public opinion. So-
apparently the president doesen´t seem to know what
progress or what democracy are. O.K., these are harsh words, but what I´d like to see is a preceding debate and opinion from various experts, what homosexuality actually is-in essence, you know.
Among other things I myself am an astrologer, and I could hold my own in such a debate by proving how homosexuality mostly is a cultural disease: It has no essence-no inner being, although it can be predicted astrologically:
The likelihood by which a person with a certain horoscope may be homosexual can be explained to
people who know something about astrology.
Whether or not a person actually does become homosexual then depends on if these triggers are
actually triggered: It is just the same as with
cancer. Diagnosable by a competent astrologer
(such as the school of the Munich Rythm theory which has valid theorems for this)-predictable
by means of astrology.But not necessarily a given.
So- by approving of homosexuality just like that,
this would be the same as if I as an astrologer
were to say: Oh yes: That person is almost as
good as dead! Or: Quick-cut those breasts off-
for the love of god! Only a lawyer
could be as naiive to let a court decide such a matter- and thus violate the opinion of others
who may know better:Are lawyers gods?Or is this
Supreme-Court trick -We all remember the Supreme Court decided in favor of Obamacare, and after
that, Mitt Romney was toast-or is this trick
nothing but a form of blatant political fundamentalism?
If someone is homosexual-of course this must be
accepted as well as tolerated. Nevertheless
, this is not a legal, but a spiritual matter.
the very act of intending to decide this by virtue
of legal recognition is very unwise. It is like
saying." O.k.:Usually cars drive on the right side of the road. But guess what: Here´s a bunch of
people who want to drive on the left side of the road: Let´s just have pity on them and allow it."
I´d say: "NO!" to this, because there could be
some serious accidents: For example : A little
boy has two fathers. What the bleep is he to think
of love?If he is normal, he may get used to something which his mind categorizes as: Very
odd.At any rate: He will not be observing a loving relationship between the two sexes, as is needed
in order to function properly as an adult.
So: This is why being against complete recognition
of homosexual marriages and relationships does in
fact make an awful lot of sense.
Unfortunately though, we have a president who talks
with Taliban, encourages homosexuality, and lets
some "Gang" (of eight) hijack the entire discussion
on immigration by writing a huge tome and shove it
down peoples throats: All of this does not make
sense at all. It doesen´t make common sense.
For example: If I were a pedophile, and I went to
the Supreme Court and said:" Honest to god, believe
me-it feels so right to me! Would you please change
the law for me?" Supreme court ought to say say:
" Hell no- maybe you should get your head examined!" The only difference is: With homosexuals
there is mutual consent. For S&M there´s also
mutual consent (remember the song "Feel This Moment"). Are these things normal though?
Do people enjoy spanking each other and tying each
other up every day? Or is such behavior an indication that something may have gone wrong with
that person at some point in their lives?
When things go wrong, and pure and simple love
seems to be out of reach-that is sad. It is also becoming more and more common-place for love to fail in various ways. But to
legally recognize such failure is to encourage
it- and I do not care what on earth the Supreme
Court thinks about this, but the fact is, that
they are plain wrong on this one: Recognition
of homosexual marriage is recognition of the fact
that deviations from now on shall be rewarded:
And that,ladies and gentlemen.CAN ONLY BE WRONG!.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jun 27, 2013
Dequin wrote:
It is unconscionable to let a court decide matters
(shhhhhhhhh).......
Take your meds and go back to the loony bin.
Kelly

Rochester, NY

#17 Jun 27, 2013
Obama promised change. He didn't tell us he was a liberal nut case that is for all minorities and to hell with the majority.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Jun 27, 2013
Kelly wrote:
Obama promised change. He didn't tell us he was a liberal nut case that is for all minorities and to hell with the majority.
Obviously you slept through the last 2 presidential elections.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#19 Jun 27, 2013
Dequin wrote:
It is unconscionable to let a court decide matters
which aught to be decided by public opinion. So-
apparently the president doesen´t seem to know what
progress or what democracy are. O.K., these are harsh words, but what I´d like to see is a preceding debate and opinion from various experts, what homosexuality actually is-in essence, you know.
Among other things I myself am an astrologer, and I could hold my own in such a debate by proving how homosexuality mostly is a cultural disease: It has no essence-no inner being, although it can be predicted astrologically:
The likelihood by which a person with a certain horoscope may be homosexual can be explained to
people who know something about astrology.
Whether or not a person actually does become homosexual then depends on if these triggers are
actually triggered: It is just the same as with
cancer. Diagnosable by a competent astrologer
(such as the school of the Munich Rythm theory which has valid theorems for this)-predictable
by means of astrology.But not necessarily a given.
So- by approving of homosexuality just like that,
this would be the same as if I as an astrologer
were to say: Oh yes: That person is almost as
good as dead! Or: Quick-cut those breasts off-
for the love of god! Only a lawyer
could be as naiive to let a court decide such a matter- and thus violate the opinion of others
who may know better:Are lawyers gods?Or is this
Supreme-Court trick -We all remember the Supreme Court decided in favor of Obamacare, and after
that, Mitt Romney was toast-or is this trick
nothing but a form of blatant political fundamentalism?
If someone is homosexual-of course this must be
accepted as well as tolerated. Nevertheless
, this is not a legal, but a spiritual matter.
the very act of intending to decide this by virtue
of legal recognition is very unwise. It is like
saying." O.k.:Usually cars drive on the right side of the road. But guess what: Here´s a bunch of
people who want to drive on the left side of the road: Let´s just have pity on them and allow it."
I´d say: "NO!" to this, because there could be
some serious accidents: For example : A little
boy has two fathers. What the bleep is he to think
of love?If he is normal, he may get used to something which his mind categorizes as: Very
odd.At any rate: He will not be observing a loving relationship between the two sexes, as is needed
in order to function properly as an adult.
So: This is why being against complete recognition
of homosexual marriages and relationships does in
fact make an awful lot of sense.
Unfortunately though, we have a president who talks
with Taliban, encourages homosexuality, and lets
some "Gang" (of eight) hijack the entire discussion
on immigration by writing a huge tome and shove it
down peoples throats: All of this does not make
sense at all. It doesen´t make common sense.
For example: If I were a pedophile, and I went to
the Supreme Court and said:" Honest to god, believe
me-it feels so right to me! Would you please change
the law for me?" Supreme court ought to say say:
" Hell no- maybe you should get your head examined!" The only difference is: With homosexuals
there is mutual consent. For S&M there´s also
mutual consent (remember the song "Feel This Moment"). Are these things normal though?
Do people enjoy spanking each other and tying each
other up every day? Or is such behavior an indication that something may have gone wrong with
that person at some point in their lives?
When things go wrong, and pure and simple love
seems to be out of reach-that is sad. It is also becoming more and more common-place for love to fail in various ways. But to
legally recognize such failure is to encourage
it- and I do not care what on earth the Supreme
Court thinks about this, but the fact is, that
they are plain wrong on this one: Recognition
of
you promote the proven lie of astrology and you think you can have a serious debate about this subject?!?!

“MONEY IS THE ROOT TO ALL ”

Since: Mar 09

HAPPINESS...BE RICH, BE HAPPY

#20 Jun 27, 2013
Is it just me or is there something terribly wrong when the President of the Greatest country in the world gets up on the podium and publicly and passionately defends butt lovahs?
Storm Warning

De Forest, WI

#21 Jun 28, 2013
Kelly wrote:
Obama promised change. He didn't tell us he was a liberal nut case that is for all minorities and to hell with the majority.
Obama is a typical non White Despot.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#23 Jun 28, 2013
Dequin wrote:
It is unconscionable to let a court decide matters
which aught to be decided by public opinion. So-
apparently the president doesen´t seem to know what
progress or what democracy are. O.K., these are harsh words, but what I´d like to see is a preceding debate and opinion from various experts, what homosexuality actually is-in essence, you know.
Among other things I myself am an astrologer, and I could hold my own in such a debate by proving how homosexuality mostly is a cultural disease: It has no essence-no inner being, although it can be predicted astrologically:
The likelihood by which a person with a certain horoscope may be homosexual can be explained to
people who know something about astrology.
Whether or not a person actually does become homosexual then depends on if these triggers are
actually triggered: It is just the same as with
cancer. Diagnosable by a competent astrologer
(such as the school of the Munich Rythm theory which has valid theorems for this)-predictable
by means of astrology.But not necessarily a given.
So- by approving of homosexuality just like that,
this would be the same as if I as an astrologer
were to say: Oh yes: That person is almost as
good as dead! Or: Quick-cut those breasts off-
for the love of god! Only a lawyer
could be as naiive to let a court decide
Our republic is set up in a way that the court doesn't decide matters they decide the constitutionality of legal suits brought to them in the case of DOMA and chose not to decide the matter that was left to the state of California. If 51% of the state wants a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman when the states constitution already states no one can deprive anyone else of a privilege like marriage, its unconstitutional. And the superior court judge who decided that prop 8 was unconstitutional under California law (hate to break it to you) was elected democratically like all Superior court justices are elected by the people in California. If everything were decided on public opinion there would be a tyranny of the majority, it would be like being in 1940 Germany and you should know how well that ends up. How many homosexuals did the Nazis kill in the holocaust again? I believe Hitler himself was very active in Astrological forecasting. Really you can tell from what exactly in a persons chart will make them homosexual? There will be triggers along the way. For the oldest science on earth you would think such transits and aspects would be cause for preventative actions regarding changing into a homosexual? Maybe there is too much mars in a scorpio, squaring a venus in cancer with the archer ascending and a fifth house Aries moon waning last quarter 4 houses away from a Leo Sun. Maybe you don't know what you're even talking about. This is a victory for Californian democracy shining through in our American Republic. Its how the USA works. Don't like it, move.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Jun 28, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
Is it just me or is there something terribly wrong when the President of the Greatest country in the world gets up on the podium and publicly and passionately defends butt lovahs?
It's just you.
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#25 Jun 28, 2013
JohnInLa wrote:
It's all about the benefits butt buddies and lintlickers are not currently entitled to.
Guess you have not seen any porn films.

Gays aren't the only humans that participate in the activities you described.

<eewwww!> <LOL>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Indiana lawmakers try to quiet firestorm surrou... 4 min cancer lost 134
News Arkansas governor urges changes to religious ob... 6 min cancer lost 11
News Indiana backlash: What you need to know 9 min American1 115
News Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party? (Jan '08) 12 min Big Murph 29,302
News Governor Cuomo bans non-essential state travel ... 23 min nickbo13 3
News Indiana religious objections law slammed on soc... 37 min barefoot2626 115
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 38 min Paul Porter1 155,418
More from around the web