Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Where did you hear anyone say "Obama is going to pursue gay marriage in his second term"? At the most, it was and has always been all about the supreme court.

You do know liberal supreme court justices tend to tell the states to "go fuck themselves" in favor of federal power.

Of course that doesnt apply to the right to bear arms, which is actually in the consitution.

Justices Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy will be surprised to learn they’re ‘liberals.’

Otherwise the states have only themselves to blame, they should be familiar with privacy rights case law and refrain from enacting legislation they know to be un-Constitutional.

Last, nowhere in the Constitution does it reference the right to self-defense, or the individual right to own a handgun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And I said Im hoping for liberal SC justices.... Where?

When you pulled the lever for obama asswipe.

Maybe if your party didn't run such a terrible candidate they would have earned my vote. Don't whine when it's your own damn fault.

And FYI, I voted 3rd party.

Their candidate was the least of the GOP’s problems.

And as a third party voter you’re more to blame for Obama than the democrats.

 

[WillowTree]

Robmoney (R-MASS)? The Grandfather of Obamacare? THAT Romeny (R-MASS) Siriusly?

Gov. Romney did not steal 716 Billion dollars from the old people.

Neither did President Obama, but don't let facts get in your way. Keep repeating that "pants on fire" lie.

Yes he did.

 

[Seawytch]

Gov. Romney did not steal 716 Billion dollars from the old people.

Neither did President Obama, but don't let facts get in your way. Keep repeating that "pants on fire" lie.

Yes he did.

And I was right...you won't be dictated by facts.

First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.

Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.

What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.

Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.

Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.

Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget.

Mitt Romney said Barack Obama robs Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for Obamacare

I do apologize...that was a "Mostly False".

Now it is 100% true that the Budget Munster Ryan's "budget" used the same savings.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama is already refusing to enforce DOMA

He will fight for gay marriage with his Supreme Court appointments. That is where the issue belongs anyway

 

[JoeB131]

Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s the gay community.

On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

Here’s the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states’ rights, asserting, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”
Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term

Laughing at liberals all the way!

Here's the thing. He doesn't need to.

Either the Courts will uphold the Perry Decision in California, finding marriage to be a constituational right, or they will strike down DOMA, effectively forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize marriages conducted in states that do.

Either way, Gay marriage is coming to the whole country, and you guys are just going to have to learn to deal.

 

[rightwinger]

Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s the gay community.

On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

Here’s the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states’ rights, asserting, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”
Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term

Laughing at liberals all the way!

Here's the thing. He doesn't need to.

Either the Courts will uphold the Perry Decision in California, finding marriage to be a constituational right, or they will strike down DOMA, effectively forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize marriages conducted in states that do.

Either way, Gay marriage is coming to the whole country, and you guys are just going to have to learn to deal.

Obama is correct in not wanting to get involved in a State by State battle for gay marriage. It creates a hodge podge of individual rights that are not transferable between states. We had the same thing with interracial marriage. Some states had it and some didn't. It created problems as people moved between states

The courts will ultimately decide the issue....and it will not please those who object to gay marriage

 

[martybegan]

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Where did you hear anyone say "Obama is going to pursue gay marriage in his second term"? At the most, it was and has always been all about the supreme court.

You do know liberal supreme court justices tend to tell the states to "go fuck themselves" in favor of federal power.

Of course that doesnt apply to the right to bear arms, which is actually in the consitution.

Justices Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy will be surprised to learn they’re ‘liberals.’

Otherwise the states have only themselves to blame, they should be familiar with privacy rights case law and refrain from enacting legislation they know to be un-Constitutional.

Last, nowhere in the Constitution does it reference the right to self-defense, or the individual right to own a handgun.

It also doesnt say abortion, or gay marriage in the consitution, but you manage to find it in there by extrapolation. Meanwhile, it does say "arms" in the consitution, but people like you feel free to ignore it.

You are a hypocrite, plain and simple.

 

[TNHarley]

Hell, the only reason he said he supported it was because of bidens dumbass. Of course he wont let soemthing he didnt even care for get in the way of communist agenda

 

[martybegan]

Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s the gay community.

On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

Here’s the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states’ rights, asserting, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”
Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term

Laughing at liberals all the way!

Here's the thing. He doesn't need to.

Either the Courts will uphold the Perry Decision in California, finding marriage to be a constituational right, or they will strike down DOMA, effectively forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize marriages conducted in states that do.

Either way, Gay marriage is coming to the whole country, and you guys are just going to have to learn to deal.

Obama is correct in not wanting to get involved in a State by State battle for gay marriage. It creates a hodge podge of individual rights that are not transferable between states. We had the same thing with interracial marriage. Some states had it and some didn't. It created problems as people moved between states

The courts will ultimately decide the issue....and it will not please those who object to gay marriage

It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.

 

[JoeB131]

[

It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.

In principle, I agree.

But the legislatures have had ample time to act on this issue and haven't.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's the thing. He doesn't need to.

Either the Courts will uphold the Perry Decision in California, finding marriage to be a constituational right, or they will strike down DOMA, effectively forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize marriages conducted in states that do.

Either way, Gay marriage is coming to the whole country, and you guys are just going to have to learn to deal.

Obama is correct in not wanting to get involved in a State by State battle for gay marriage. It creates a hodge podge of individual rights that are not transferable between states. We had the same thing with interracial marriage. Some states had it and some didn't. It created problems as people moved between states

The courts will ultimately decide the issue....and it will not please those who object to gay marriage

It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.

We already have an Amendment, the 14th Amendment. It is up to the courts to define the scope

Individual rights should not be decided by popular vote nor by individual states

We already saw that prior to the Civil War

 

[martybegan]

[

It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.

In principle, I agree.

But the legislatures have had ample time to act on this issue and haven't.

Its not a question of time, its a question of respect for the consitution, and the erroneous use of courts to create law.

If people see gay marriage as a right, they need to convince enough people of that, and get amendments into state and the federal consitutions. Remember, to get racial equality in the consitution it took amendments as well as time, since the courts of the day perverted the intent of the reconstruction amendments.

 

[martybegan]

Obama is correct in not wanting to get involved in a State by State battle for gay marriage. It creates a hodge podge of individual rights that are not transferable between states. We had the same thing with interracial marriage. Some states had it and some didn't. It created problems as people moved between states

The courts will ultimately decide the issue....and it will not please those who object to gay marriage

It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.

We already have an Amendment, the 14th Amendment. It is up to the courts to define the scope

Individual rights should not be decided by popular vote nor by individual states

We already saw that prior to the Civil War

The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?

 

[Seawytch]

Hell, the only reason he said he supported it was because of bidens dumbass. Of course he wont let soemthing he didnt even care for get in the way of communist agenda

I want to take the time to personally thank you for driving more and more moderate conservatives away from the far too far right faction of it's party.

Well done, sir!

 

[Gadawg73]

You do know liberal supreme court justices tend to tell the states to "go fuck themselves" in favor of federal power.

Of course that doesnt apply to the right to bear arms, which is actually in the consitution.

Justices Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy will be surprised to learn they’re ‘liberals.’

Otherwise the states have only themselves to blame, they should be familiar with privacy rights case law and refrain from enacting legislation they know to be un-Constitutional.

Last, nowhere in the Constitution does it reference the right to self-defense, or the individual right to own a handgun.

It also doesnt say abortion, or gay marriage in the consitution, but you manage to find it in there by extrapolation. Meanwhile, it does say "arms" in the consitution, but people like you feel free to ignore it.

You are a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Where is straight marriage or any marriage mentioned in The Constitution.
The Constitution specifically LIMITS the power of government and tells government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Banning gays from marrying is the exact opposite of that. It takes rights away from folk, a first in American history.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.

We already have an Amendment, the 14th Amendment. It is up to the courts to define the scope

Individual rights should not be decided by popular vote nor by individual states

We already saw that prior to the Civil War

The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they wanted this to apply only to the rights of blacks, they could have. As written, it applies to all citizens of the United States.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens that happen to be gay and lesbian. Most citizens I have no clue who they are.
What kind of real defender of The Constitution am I if I do not fully support their rights to equal protection under the law?

 

[Gadawg73]

Friend of mine, Vike, retired Army officer.
His sister is married to an African American here in rural Georgia. Get the picture? But things have changed dramatically on that over the last 20 years.
"One day 40 years from now everyone is going to sit down and talk about how utterly ridiculous it was to oppose gay folk from getting married. We will laugh and then cry over that absurd fight" Vike 2002
Thanks Vike for being the great influence you have been on me in this matter as 20 years ago I had those same prejudices against gay folk.

 

[Neurotika]

so NOW the teabag taliban wants to defend gays against obama?

funny how the right turns into 'concern trolls' for the gay community when it suits their agenda to manipulate anothers right to marry..if you would get the fuck out of the bedroom and start legislating something beside vag and gay marriage you might actually get something done.

you only care about gays if you can use them against obama..

and you should know..IF YOU WERENT CREEPIN IN GAY BEDROOMS ACROSS AMERICA AND DEFINING ANOTHER'S MARRIAGE..THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH.

so fuck anyone 'concern trolling' the gay community. marriage isnt your word or you right to give and take or 'defend' when it suits your fucked up political agenda.

and in fact please do not pretend you defend the gays..it is a detriment to them..but you already knew that, yes?