Obama approves of same sex marriage

[ecinicola]

Tell me, is it really so hard to figure out why he supports same sex marriages??? huh.

 

[Katzndogz]

Now that obama has come out as being personally for same sex marriage but not quite enough to include a plank in his platform, do gays feel like they have been hornswoggled? He's not actually going to DO anything, just sit around and think great thoughts.

Of course he's not going to take a position of actually advancing the cause of same sex marriage, that would cost him votes. Too bad, because it has already cost him votes. To obama, gays are like the Russians reelect him and he'll have more flexibility to do what he dictates. Too bad, the public is wise.

 

[Peach]

chicken's aren't sentient beings capable of consent.

though in your case, i can see where you might confuse their level of intelligence with your own.

Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?

It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

 

[SniperFire]

Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?

It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

This is where Lefty says 'yes', Bob can marry and breed with his mother and 6 sisters, and any traveling salesman can marry 85 wives and leave them stranded all across the nation if they so choose. But sheep cannot enter into a contract.'

But as we know, people decide contracts for animals, as any slaughterhouse in America proves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?

It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.

 

[jillian]

It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.

you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.

if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.

the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?

It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

No it didn't. After Loving v. Virginia we moved on to same sex marriage. After same sex marriage, we'll move on to other forms of marriage.

 

[BDBoop]

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.

you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.

if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.

the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.

Oh, would you look at that. Post #666 as well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.

You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.

you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.

if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.

the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.

You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speaking of Mildred loving she just passed away in 2008

 

[rightwinger]

chicken's aren't sentient beings capable of consent.

though in your case, i can see where you might confuse their level of intelligence with your own.

Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?

Because you insist on ignoring the other failures of your marriage is a 'human right' argument when it comes to incest and polygamy?

I have no problem with polygamy. If it is a mutual relationship between consenting adults, it is none of my business

 

[WillowTree]

What obama said is that Personally he supports gay marriage but that the decision should be left up to the states to decide..


Which of course is what I've been saying all along.. STATES RIGHTS..

 

[jillian]

You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.

you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.

if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.

the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.

You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.

once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.


just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

THAT is the point of Loving.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.

if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.

the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.

You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.

once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.


just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

THAT is the point of Loving.

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.

just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.

once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.


just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

THAT is the point of Loving.

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.

just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.

Homosexuality is now legal in all states and Homosexuals are a protected class against discrimination. The legal precedent of Loving applies to all marriage, not just those you approve of

 

[ducks102]

What obama said is that Personally he supports gay marriage but that the decision should be left up to the states to decide..


Which of course is what I've been saying all along.. STATES RIGHTS..

if this was case for civil rights you whites would still not let blacks into certain places or vote.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.


just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

THAT is the point of Loving.

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.

just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.

There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.

Homosexuality is now legal in all states and Homosexuals are a protected class against discrimination. The legal precedent of Loving applies to all marriage, not just those you approve of

Again some are using a case that was about race to fit their argument about same sex marriage. When this case was heard homosexual acts were illegal and would not fit in the argument for same sex marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.


There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.

Homosexuality is now legal in all states and Homosexuals are a protected class against discrimination. The legal precedent of Loving applies to all marriage, not just those you approve of

Again some are using a case that was about race to fit their argument about same sex marriage. When this case was heard homosexual acts were illegal and would not fit in the argument for same sex marriage.

Actually, when the case was heard a black woman marrying a white man was illegal. That is why the case was filed. The legal precedent applies to the right of the state to restrict marriage and carries over. It is up to the courts to decide

 

[mudwhistle]

Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?

Because you insist on ignoring the other failures of your marriage is a 'human right' argument when it comes to incest and polygamy?

I have no problem with polygamy. If it is a mutual relationship between consenting adults, it is none of my business

Especially if Obama's Dad practiced it.

Problem is, the left never avoids an chance to throw it in our face when they're talking down the MORMONS.

 

[rightwinger]

Because you insist on ignoring the other failures of your marriage is a 'human right' argument when it comes to incest and polygamy?

I have no problem with polygamy. If it is a mutual relationship between consenting adults, it is none of my business

Especially if Obama's Dad practiced it.

Problem is, the left never avoids an chance to throw it in our face when they're talking down the MORMONS.

It is the rights views on Mormons you have to worry about. The left is not going to vote for Romney anyway. It is in the Bible Belt that Romneys Mormonism will come into play