Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage

Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage

There are 168 comments on the wsj.com story from Mar 18, 2013, titled Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage. In it, wsj.com reports that:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the latest politician to come out in favor of same-sex marriage on Monday, echoing similar shifts by President Barack Obama and other potential White House hopefuls as the issue gains public approval.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at wsj.com.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#124 Mar 28, 2013
NoQ wrote:
Fck you ShitEating Ricky.
No thank you dear, you're not my type and not into your suggestions, but it's flattering, I think, that you keep me in your self-loathing homoerotic fantasies. You can reply if you want, but this is more than enough time to waste on you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#125 Mar 28, 2013
Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage:

She must be planning a presidential run in 2016.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#126 Mar 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage:
She must be planning a presidential run in 2016.
i bet every president elected from now on will support it.

the tide has turned, we are now a better nation...
bman

Commack, NY

#127 Mar 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While as individuals we have the right to be married, the state has the power to limit that right to us, IF it serves a compelling interest of the state to do so. The state has a compelling interest in protecting minors, so they can limit the individual's right to marry one. The state has a compelling interest in being able regulate marriages and divorces as being similarly situated, so they can limit the individual's right to marry to one spouse per person at a time. The state has the compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a contract, so they can limit the right to marry to those able to provide the required legal consent to one, no dogs, no lawn furniture. The state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a contract between legal strangers for the right to be each others next of kin, so they can limit the right to marry to those already your next of kin. Nowhere where same sex marriage has been legally approved in the world over the last decade has it yet to be followed by ANY of the marriages that would give you the serious willies. So limiting our right, where there is no compelling or any other interest served by doing so, just because that which hasn't happened yet and doesn't look like its ever going to makes you nervous is a pretty lame excuse if you ask me.
Bottom line, your "issues" with the concept of legally recognized same sex marriages, no longer our problem. Marriage is a right which can ONLY be limited when a compelling interest of the state is served by doing so, fear of your choice of bogeymen, not one. Think about this, our right to marry has been found to include pretty much any of the incarcerated felons of our dreams. Being in prison, even for life/death, not a basis for denying the right to marry to all prisoners. Tell me, what is the point in telling someone that they can't marry the recidivist felon of their dreams, just because they are the wrong sex?
So please tell me YOUR definition of marriage. Mine is between a man and a woman. Yours seems to be a little more complicated. Why not allow domestic partnerships between two gay people instead? Why all of a sudden, after hundreds of years, change the definition of something that has been the result of the continuing population of mankind? If we should change marriage just because the interests of the state, why have marriage anyway?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#128 Mar 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i bet every president elected from now on will support it.
the tide has turned, we are now a better nation...
You are so.....dum-b. They aren't worried about ssm, they just want votes.....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#129 Mar 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so.....dum-b. They aren't worried about ssm, they just want votes.....
Sure...keep telling yourself that.

every president from now on will support SSM. it will be the law of the land.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#130 Mar 28, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
So please tell me YOUR definition of marriage. Mine is between a man and a woman. Yours seems to be a little more complicated. Why not allow domestic partnerships between two gay people instead? Why all of a sudden, after hundreds of years, change the definition of something that has been the result of the continuing population of mankind? If we should change marriage just because the interests of the state, why have marriage anyway?
marriage has always changed, as all social constructs must.

you don't get your own definition of marriage. the current definition includes SSM.
bman

Commack, NY

#131 Mar 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>marriage has always changed, as all social constructs must.
you don't get your own definition of marriage. the current definition includes SSM.
Marriage has not always changed, it has always been between a man and a woman. Actually, according to DOMA you're wrong, SSM isn't included, sorry.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#132 Mar 28, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has not always changed, it has always been between a man and a woman. Actually, according to DOMA you're wrong, SSM isn't included, sorry.
Doma is history...and yes, the definition of marraige now includes SSM and has for a generation.

yes, marriage has always changed. it used to be between a man and woman of the same race. it is not tha anymore.

it used to mean that women entering into this legal contract lost their right to inherit property or wealth, it went to their husband instead...

you should research the issue you post on lest you look so foolish in the future....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#133 Mar 28, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has not always changed, it has always been between a man and a woman. Actually, according to DOMA you're wrong, SSM isn't included, sorry.
EXACTLY! He knows this...they always throw out that false 'marriage has always changed' argument....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#134 Mar 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Doma is history...and yes, the definition of marraige now includes SSM and has for a generation.
yes, marriage has always changed. it used to be between a man and woman of the same race. it is not tha anymore.
That's not true...man/woman marriage is the universal standard and always has been...we aren't talking about race...that's your false interjection you keep trying to bring up....it means nothing.
it used to mean that women entering into this legal contract lost their right to inherit property or wealth, it went to their husband instead...
you should research the issue you post on lest you look so foolish in the future....
Did it mean they married other women????

Whatever other 'technicalities' you try to throw at marriage...it still had stated with male/female components...that part is the HISTORY that defines marriage through the ages....

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#135 Mar 28, 2013
Defend marriage, the family and other African institutuions: http://caapus.org/

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#136 Mar 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
EXACTLY! He knows this...they always throw out that false 'marriage has always changed' argument....
and then, as always, i backed it up with the facts...

oh, that's right...you don't understand what facts are...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#137 Mar 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and then, as always, i backed it up with the facts...
oh, that's right...you don't understand what facts are...
OOoooooo...I'm soooooooo hurt...did you stand in front of your mirror and flex when you typed this cra-p??

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#138 Mar 28, 2013
Even the liberal CNN is coming to terms with the facts....

Sadly, Supreme Court Unlikely to Find Constiutional Right to Gay Marriage
By ddavidson13 | Posted 2 hours ago | New York City, New York


CNN
As the Supreme Court debates the merits of oral and written arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, I think of adjectives such as historic, courageous, and just to describe the potentially wide-sweeping decision that the Court may render to legalize same-sex marriage across the country. However, Iím not very optimistic about such a decision's chances.

Please keep reading....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#139 Mar 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true...man/woman marriage is the universal standard and always has been...we aren't talking about race...that's your false interjection you keep trying to bring up....it means nothing.
<quoted text>
Did it mean they married other women????
Whatever other 'technicalities' you try to throw at marriage...it still had stated with male/female components...that part is the HISTORY that defines marriage through the ages....
Sad that you can[t even face up the real world facts in front of your face. marriage is now defined as also between two members of the same gender. not up for debate, that is the fact.

yes, when it changed from people of the same race, that was anchange. a HUGE change.

why do you have to deny real world facts to support your prejudices and bigotry?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#140 Mar 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
OOoooooo...I'm soooooooo hurt...did you stand in front of your mirror and flex when you typed this cra-p??
no, i just shook my head at your purposeful denial of facts...

if you can't even recognize reality, how do you function in this world?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#141 Mar 28, 2013
....I worry that despite all the momentum there has been in advancing same-sex marriage rights, there hasnít been enough of it for the Court to jump on the bandwagon. The Supreme Court tends to be reactionary, preferring to solidify change toward the end of a social movement instead of being on the front line. It is an institution outside of the democratic process and works hard to avoid usurping power away from voters. Indeed, several justices were skeptical of even hearing the case this soon in the gay marriage experiment.

-----Justice Scalia in particular questioned when gay marriage became constitutional.------

Yes he did, and the answer was...'THERE IS NO TIMEFRAME'....meaning it isn't.....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#142 Mar 28, 2013
Abdurratln wrote:
Defend marriage, the family and other African institutuions: http://caapus.org/
that's what the SSM movement is doing.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#143 Mar 28, 2013
-----Many argue, and I agree, that gay marriage is a Constitutional issue that doesn't belong to the whims of voters, but I doubt the Court will easily see things this way. In the wake of a nationally divisive case like Roe v. Wade, which Justice Ginsberg describes as "mov[ing] too far too fast," the Court may be extremely reluctant to take the same kind of activist action again. Popular referendums in the last election that, for the first time, upheld or legalized same-sex marriage in 4 states after 29 states amended their constitutions to ban it may signal to the Court that this social movement is in its infancy and is best left in the hands of democratic mechanisms.

Very true! Let the people decide. They don't want that, because they know the hype behind this false sense of acceptance is all a big lie....

Keep reading....

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.

Hillary Clinton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Juan Williams: The pollution of politics 2 hr USaWarringIdiotSo... 18
News Hillary Clinton: Confederate Flag 'Shouldn't Fl... 3 hr Andrew 56
News Report: Bon Jovi Stiffed M'Town on O.T. 5 hr LA Fan 4
News Bernie Sanders, Vermont senator, calls Hillary ... 10 hr Calgary Union Worker 4
News A glimpse at Hillary Clinton's e-mails, from ce... 11 hr GoGrannyHillary 3
News Hillary Clinton accuses China of hacking U.S. c... 12 hr Le Jimbo 6
News Election 2016: Campaign run-ins on the July 4th... 15 hr Cat74 10
More from around the web