• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

President May be in Trouble

I think he means that the government shouldnt be the ones to define who should be allowed to marry. There shouldn't even be a debate. Same sex marriages should be considered the same as marriage between a man and a woman.
 
Actually, what clause of the US Constitution, or which of the Bill of Rights grants the US Government the authority to get involved in marriages between two parties, no matter what sex, anyway?
 
Nova_C said:
I don't get this. Marriage is a legal contract that has associated tax benefits and rules. So should the government drop marriage as a recognized status?

Or do you mean the government should just leave it as is? I'm not sure I get what you're saying.
Click to expand...
Below is the answer!!! No politicians involved. I realize some of this is harder for someone from 'a let the gov decide what's best for us country' to understand. Things like the second amendment and limited gov have to be pretty alien to nations that have been historically controlled by their gov far more.

beautifullywild77 said:
I think he means that the government shouldnt be the ones to define who should be allowed to marry. There shouldn't even be a debate. Same sex marriages should be considered the same as marriage between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Rich Z said:
Actually, what clause of the US Constitution, or which of the Bill of Rights grants the US Government the authority to get involved in marriages between two parties, no matter what sex, anyway?
Click to expand...
 
I don't think the ad hominem attack was necessary.

It just sounded like you were being critical of Obama for saying that there shouldn't be any laws against gay marriage. If you were agreeing with him, well, okay then.

Because the vast majority of the Republican party is a lot more interested in getting into your bedrooms and deciding what birth control is okay for you to use and who you should be marrying than the Democrats, and certainly than Obama is.

But I guess I just misunderstood. Glad to see at least you can find common ground with Obama on this one.
 
That article makes no sense. It was published Oct 19, 2010, but in May of 2010, Congress passed a measure to repeal DADT, which was then filibustered by John McCain.

So Congress had already decided to repeal DADT in the NDAA before Judge Philips had even ruled on a court case dating back to 2004, but McCain was having none of it and obstructed passing of the bill.

And suddenly Obama's at fault for it not passing?

Anyway, Obama signed the act that repealed DADT in December of 2010. That article is disingenuous at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADT
 
Just going to throw this out there but most professors and or teachers do not consider wikipedia a creditable source because anyone and everyone can add to it.

Obama did sign the act to repeal DADT but I know a lot of people that are in the military and who are gay and do not support Obama even with his flimsy support for gay and lesbian rights. Most feel they are being used for political gain. Granted that they have been getting more rights but its been a long road fight long before Obama came to office.
 
Well, if any of the information I relayed is incorrect, I'll be glad to revise it, but the sources linked on Wikipedia for that article all seemed pretty reputable.

And I'm sure there's plenty of people all over the spectrum that don't support Obama. And his motivations are complete unknowns and, to mind mind, are irrelevant. So long as he follows through if he wins re-election.

If gays are guaranteed the right to marry then who cares why he supports it? I'm just glad that there's progress being made.
 
Addendum: If Romney wins, you can be certain there will be no gay marriage in the next administration, and possibly the states that have permitted gay marriage may be forced to stop performing them. Not to mention the government may annul all gay marriages that have so far been performed. He is pretty vehemently against gay marriage.
 
Yep, because Wikipedia is a better source. Since 5th grade we've been told wikipedia is not a solid source.
 
Sorry didn't even relize the whole wiki thing had already been discussed. Anyway, Obama hasn't done a whole lot to show support of gay marriage, and has IMO tried avoiding it all together.
 
Nova_C said:
Addendum: If Romney wins, you can be certain there will be no gay marriage in the next administration, and possibly the states that have permitted gay marriage may be forced to stop performing them. Not to mention the government may annul all gay marriages that have so far been performed. He is pretty vehemently against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That would require a constitutional amendment. Never going to happen.
 
Man, I wish Wikipedia had been around when I was in 5th grade. The internet wasn't even available where I grew up until I was a teenager. And the bleeding edge modems were 14.4 kbit. :p

At this point, out of the two presidential candidates, Obama is the best bet to get gay marriage legalized across the US.
 
Nova_C said:
Man, I wish Wikipedia had been around when I was in 5th grade. The internet wasn't even available where I grew up until I was a teenager. And the bleeding edge modems were 14.4 kbit. :p

At this point, out of the two presidential candidates, Obama is the best bet to get gay marriage legalized across the US.
Click to expand...

It took Obama, 1 presidential election and 3 years before he said he was for same-sex marriage.

I doubt he does anything to change marriage in the US if he is re-elected.
 
I'll readily admit I'm not well versed in what's covered by the US constitution. It works very differently up here.

Anyway, if there's no danger of regression, great, but the states that are refusing to allow gay marriage need to be brought to the 21st century. Some times individual rights need to trump states' rights and this is a case where the federal government should make gay marriage legal across the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top