Obama FlipFlops on gay marriage

[Gunny]

well, but it does cover equality...and since our government provides special benefits to those who are married, why shouldn't people who choose a same sex partner, receive equal benefits?

because God said so? what about separation of church and state? and certainly, given the current rate of infidelity and divorce, the whole social stability argument is laughable, no?

The Constitution also states that those powers not specifically delegated to the Fed falls to the states. Marriage is not a Constitutional Right.

If states choose to enact legislation that denies a privilege, not a right, it is within their power to do so. At least on paper.

You're projecting. When have you ever seen me use God as a basis for any argument other than one that pertains to religion? You haven't because I haven't.

 

[Steerpike]

The Constitution also states that those powers not specifically delegated to the Fed falls to the states. Marriage is not a Constitutional Right.

It has been since at least Loving and Zablocki, at least according to the Supreme Court. So for legal purposes it is one. But that doesn't necessarily mean that restrictions on gay marriage are violative.

 

[Glori.B]

The Constitution also states that those powers not specifically delegated to the Fed falls to the states. Marriage is not a Constitutional Right.

If states choose to enact legislation that denies a privilege, not a right, it is within their power to do so. At least on paper.

You're projecting. When have you ever seen me use God as a basis for any argument other than one that pertains to religion? You haven't because I haven't.

i didn't mean to direct the God part at you...just in general, that is usually the attitude in the opposite argument...

btw, social security is not a state issue.

 

[greenpartyaz]

The more gay dudes there are. The more ladies for me! Woo Hoo! Yes to gay rights!

 

[My Winter Storm]

If McCain can change his mind on everything, so can Obama.

Good on him, I say. At least he isn't as blatently homophobic as that McCain dude.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

well, but it does cover equality...and since our government provides special benefits to those who are married, why shouldn't people who choose a same sex partner, receive equal benefits?

because God said so? what about separation of church and state? and certainly, given the current rate of infidelity and divorce, the whole social stability argument is laughable, no?

How about Plural marriages? I mean whats wrong with them if your argument is just one of choice? Or marriage of human and animal? How about the right to marry and keep your dead loved one? Not to mention the desire by adults to marry children?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How about Plural marriages? I mean whats wrong with them if your argument is just one of choice? Or marriage of human and animal? How about the right to marry and keep your dead loved one? Not to mention the desire by adults to marry children?

Exactly, if people allow gay marriage they're opening the flood gates for more potentially sexuallly aberrant type marriages, soon people will be saying, "So what if that man wants to marry his sister and have sex with, they should have the same rights as two unrelated people in a marriage", thats the direction things are headed for if gay marriage is allowed. Liberals sometimes don't realize how much they're deteriorating morals and society when they support such nonsense.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

If McCain can change his mind on everything, so can Obama.

Good on him, I say. At least he isn't as blatently homophobic as that McCain dude.

One thing the Bass doesn't get and hates with a passion, how come people like myself who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle are automatically labelled "homophobes"? Please quit labelling people that term who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, whats next, bestialphobia for those of us who find bestiality disgusting and wrong? Liberal Jew media and its terms.

 

[Ravi]

How about Plural marriages? I mean whats wrong with them if your argument is just one of choice? Or marriage of human and animal? How about the right to marry and keep your dead loved one? Not to mention the desire by adults to marry children?

RGS, are you stupid or just a hateful prick? Because I know you already know the answer to these asinine questions of yours.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, are you stupid or just a hateful prick? Because I know you already know the answer to these asinine questions of yours.

Really? The plural marriage one is nothing more than personal choice between consenting adults. And what if the dead person puts in their will that they WANT the other person to keep their dead body?

The others are just down the road from the list of perversions you do not mind.

 

[Jeepers]

Why should the state regulate wives at all... one, two, three, Dogs, cats.. seriously.. as long as they stay away from minors or family members (medical reasons). Seriously.. If you like it do it if not then dont.

Now when the state laws recognize one marriage type over another, then the feds need to intervene.. isnt that actually what the supreme court did in California?

By the way.. I dont think any particular group has room to take the highground on moral purity...

 

[Ravi]

Why should the state regulate wives at all...

Or husbands. You make a good point, though. A contractual agreement that covers all the benefits of marriage is something that I don't see how can be denied to any one couple. Let the churches decide whom they wish to marry.

 

[Shogun]

RGS, are you stupid or just a hateful prick? Because I know you already know the answer to these asinine questions of yours.

Why don't you offer a reason that APPARENTLY Loving validates gay marriage but not polygamy instead of talking shit? Jillian cant do it. Maybe you can offer something worthwhile for once. He's got a valid point. Polygamy was STILL illegal after Loving. Interpreting the first ten words in the Loving verdict to apply to gays despite polygamists pretty much falls on it's face.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Why don't you offer a reason that APPARENTLY Loving validates gay marriage but not polygamy instead of talking shit? Jillian cant do it. Maybe you can offer something worthwhile for once. He's got a valid point. Polygamy was STILL illegal after Loving. Interpreting the first ten words in the Loving verdict to apply to gays despite polygamists pretty much falls on it's face.

This sawed off nut with abusive posts invades another thread, yuck!

 

[Shogun]

This sawed off nut with abusive posts invades another thread, yuck!

fuckoff, sambo.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

fuckoff, sambo.

Pale face, you made the Bass your target, now the table are turned, consider yourself a marked person.