Romney running as the most anti-American president ever

[Bigfoot]

President Barack Obama’s decision to back gay marriage has shaken black churchgoers’ faith in the Democratic Party, Bishop E.W. Jackson told The Daily Caller.

“I am now sensing, hearing, talking to people — for the first time in 40 years, the black community is having a discussion about whether they ought to be Democrats, whether they ought to vote Democrat,” the Virginia minister said. “That’s never happened.”

Read more: Bishop Jackson: Black churchgoers shaken by Obama backing gay marriage [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

 

[Seawytch]

Florida Constitution says it is man / woman.

And it will be struck down by the SCOTUS. The US Constitution takes precedence.

Doubt it.

You doubt the SCOTUS will strike it down? Then you haven't been paying attention to the DOMA challenges in Federal Courts. Your "side" has nothing and keep losing as a result.

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

“If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from” “You make a big election about small things.” - Barack Obama​

 

[Freewill]

Whose right to marriage is being threatened?????

Marriage isn't a right.

According to the SCOTUS it is.

Loving v Virginia - Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.

Turner v Safley - The right to marry is mentioned over a dozen times

Yes, it is a right.

Thank you for pointing out that all the rulings involved marriage between man and a woman. Now, when did you get a license for your right to free speech? A licence for your right to religious freedom? You did not. What right people do have is a right not to be discriminated against due to gender, race, color or creed which is proved by the examples you have given. A change in defintion of marriage is not a right. No more so then I think you will argue that marriage between a 10 year old and a 50 year old is a right.

Anyone has the "right" to get married under law today. If governments has to change the law to accommodate someone that means it was not a right in the first place. Calling marriage a right then restricting it is just pure political BS and I don't care if some judge somewhere did so.

 

[beagle9]

Yeah, Americans have been brainwashed for so long that they think a return to the original intents and purposes of the Constitution is anti-American. I keep saying, we force people to take classes, pass an exam and get a license to paint someone's toe nails or cut their hair, but we let alomst any moron that shows up cast a vote for the leader of the free world and then we wonder why we have leaders that have led this nation to the very brink or destruction.

Go into many of these fast food joints these days, and get served by their staff, and your point will be understood whole heartedly and better by anyone with at least half a brain. It's simply amazing what is taking place in this nation anymore.

 

[Freewill]

Further more, what right does the state have to limit who gets married at all? Why do they have the right to say brother and sister can't marry? What gives the government the right to say a 10 year old can't marry a 50 year old? Well of course common sense tells us that and majority rule tells us that. Laws were passed, by the majority, to limit who can and can not marry. Thus marriage is not a right but is an institution as defined by law. The defintion of marriage has always been between a man and a woman of legal age and not closely related. Nothing has changed. Now the minority wants that defintion changed and the majority is fine right where the law exists today. Every time the people get to decide the majority has decided for the traditional definition of marriage.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

So you've never come across a Pres that was against the right to bear arms, right to privacy, right to free speech?





yeah, you could be wrong, and are.

 

[Nova78]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire[/QUOte


So what !

 

[Freewill]

really? on what planet?

read....

learn...

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

That decision was a decision that supported marriage between a man and a woman. It didn't make it a right what it decided was if it was discrimination to enforce laws on skin color alone. I sure would be mad if I were a black person with the left always equating being black to being gay.

If marriage were a right then it would have been legal for first cousins to marry.

learn how to read a damn case...it doesn't work that way

again... read...learn...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia

it being a right doesn't mean it can't ever be abridged...it means the state must have an overriding interest in abridging the right.

in terms of first cousins, there are health and genetic issues. in terms of minors there are consent issues. (if that was going to be your next comment).

there is no interest in discriminating against bi-racial couples or homosexual couples.

now you know.

READ THIS: restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

The case had NOTHING to do with redefining the defintion of marriage. Why do you keep equating being black to being gay?

So instead of you interjecting BS into the argument let's do this the way all of our laws are passed. by majority vote. Oh right, that won't work for you.

 

[Seawytch]

Whose right to marriage is being threatened?????

Marriage isn't a right.

According to the SCOTUS it is.

Loving v Virginia - Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.

Turner v Safley - The right to marry is mentioned over a dozen times

Yes, it is a right.

Thank you for pointing out that all the rulings involved marriage between man and a woman.

Irrelevant. It sets precedence.

Now, when did you get a license for your right to free speech? A licence for your right to religious freedom? You did not.

No, but I got one for my gun.

What right people do have is a right not to be discriminated against due to gender, race, color or creed which is proved by the examples you have given. A change in defintion of marriage is not a right. No more so then I think you will argue that marriage between a 10 year old and a 50 year old is a right.

Anyone has the "right" to get married under law today. If governments has to change the law to accommodate someone that means it was not a right in the first place. Calling marriage a right then restricting it is just pure political BS and I don't care if some judge somewhere did so.

And yet that isn't how the rulings are coming down. Now why can that be? Oh, I know...because you have to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing two non-familial consenting adult couples the fundamental right to marry. Go ahead and try. Lawyers haven't been able to, best of luck to you.

 

[beagle9]

Further more, what right does the state have to limit who gets married at all? Why do they have the right to say brother and sister can't marry? What gives the government the right to say a 10 year old can't marry a 50 year old? Well of course common sense tells us that and majority rule tells us that. Laws were passed, by the majority, to limit who can and can not marry. Thus marriage is not a right but is an institution as defined by law. The defintion of marriage has always been between a man and a woman of legal age and not closely related. Nothing has changed. Now the minority wants that defintion changed and the majority is fine right where the law exists today. Every time the people get to decide the majority has decided for the traditional definition of marriage.

And this is what the minority on the issue can't stand, but they are willing to go against everything that they have accomplished within the rights of voting (women voting, blacks voting etc.) and all in order to affect change in America, just because they know that this vote will continue to go against them.

How is it that they want the whole cake, and they want to eat it all to, even though they know that this rolls back what they have stood for and did fight for when they do this foolishness as they do? Talkin about sticking your neck on the chopping block for someone elses cause, I say wow.....

 

[OODA_Loop]

And it will be struck down by the SCOTUS. The US Constitution takes precedence.

Doubt it.

You doubt the SCOTUS will strike it down? Then you haven't been paying attention to the DOMA challenges in Federal Courts. Your "side" has nothing and keep losing as a result.

What State did SCOTUS strike it in ?

10th Amendment.

What States voted to allow it ?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

ya sorta amazing ain't it that gays wanna copy Christian principles but Christians don't wanna copy gay principles
Rather interesting paradox

 

[Rocko]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

I sincerly hope that you're betting your USMB membership on Obama getting re-elected, you unsufferable troll!

 

[Seawytch]

Doubt it.

You doubt the SCOTUS will strike it down? Then you haven't been paying attention to the DOMA challenges in Federal Courts. Your "side" has nothing and keep losing as a result.

What State did SCOTUS strike it in ?

10th Amendment.

What States voted to allow it ?

The SCOTUS will likely be hearing DOMA challenges next year. DOMA has been challenged, and lost, twice now in Federal Court. DOMA will not, necessarily, challenge each state's Constitutional ban on gay marriage. I doubt they will rule that broadly.

This is the main text of DOMA:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

When DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, what will happen is that my legal marriage license in CA will have to be recognized in AL, just like yours is. AL won't have to marry a gay couple, that will happen in later challenges or, unfortunately, through the ballot box. It will also mean that the Federal Government has to recognize my marriage as legal...meaning my partner of 17 years can receive my survivor benefits from SS and the military and be able to be on my TRICARE policy along with our kids. It means we'll be able to all fly to HI on a MAC flight instead of having to fly her commercial. It means she can do the grocery shopping on base every once in a while. It means we get to file joint taxes for both state and federal. It means that I don't get taxed differently for the health care I get for her.

 

[Ravi]

I have been mistaken for a very long time as it seems I have misunderstood the constitution. I thought it ensured our rights and limited powers of government. Guess I had it backwards.

No, you have it right.

 

[Ravi]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

Bush ran on the same thing. Thread title is a little harsh. It makes them bigoted assholes, but not anti-American. Sadly, bigotry is very American...

You could be right about Bush though I don't ever remember him saying he would support a constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage.

I think perverting the constitution to deny people rights is about as un-american as it gets.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yet the numbers are trending within the margin or for Romney.

"Comfy zone" as JoeB131 likes to put it for an incumbent.

 

[Seawytch]

Yet the numbers are trending within the margin or for Romney.

"Comfy zone" as JoeB131 likes to put it for an incumbent.

Nationwide or battleground? We don't elect the president by popular vote, remember? It's all about the Electoral College.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet the numbers are trending within the margin or for Romney.

"Comfy zone" as JoeB131 likes to put it for an incumbent.

Nationwide or battleground? We don't elect the president by popular vote, remember? It's all about the Electoral College.

Currently even the most favorable polls for Obama shows Romney leading in electorial votes. 204-201