Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: loco on May 09, 2012, 12:43:38 PM
-
In an exclusive interview, the president says same-sex couples "should be able to go ahead and get married."
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aor.ioBaz3GZd5JGNX3UPribvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVocmxncWVzBGEDMTIwNTA5IG5ld3Mgb2JhbWEgZ2F5IG1hcnJpYWdlIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZjYWg1BGNwb3MDMQRlZAMxBGcDaWQtMjI3NTA2MgRpbnRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBG1jb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BG1wb3MDMQRwa2d0AzEEcGtndgMzMgRwb3MDMwRzZWMDdGQtZmVhBHNsawNtb3JlBHRlc3QDNzAxBHdvZQMxMjc3MDc2NA--/SIG=12v3jpetb/EXP=1336678913/**http%3A//gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aor.ioBaz3GZd5JGNX3UPribvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVocmxncWVzBGEDMTIwNTA5IG5ld3Mgb2JhbWEgZ2F5IG1hcnJpYWdlIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZjYWg1BGNwb3MDMQRlZAMxBGcDaWQtMjI3NTA2MgRpbnRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBG1jb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BG1wb3MDMQRwa2d0AzEEcGtndgMzMgRwb3MDMwRzZWMDdGQtZmVhBHNsawNtb3JlBHRlc3QDNzAxBHdvZQMxMjc3MDc2NA--/SIG=12v3jpetb/EXP=1336678913/**http%3A//gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html)
Well, there goes the black vote. And this is after repeatedly saying that Marriage is only between one man and one woman. That was during the 2008 presidential campaign.
-
Did you see his adviser say that he'd be for it after the election? He has perfect flip-flopping.
-
The leftist fools on WaPo are already applauding him for "flip-flopping with dignity". I expect 180 to follow suit and do so while criticizing Romney down the road for flip-flopping.
-
Its all about the cash man!!!!
-
What a shock. The man is an outright liar.
-
Aren't all the black people who showed up just to vote for Obama in 2008 the same people who voted NO Gay Marriage to Preparation H? I mean...Proposition Eight? Not very smart of Obama team.
-
In an exclusive interview, the president says same-sex couples "should be able to go ahead and get married."
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aor.ioBaz3GZd5JGNX3UPribvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVocmxncWVzBGEDMTIwNTA5IG5ld3Mgb2JhbWEgZ2F5IG1hcnJpYWdlIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZjYWg1BGNwb3MDMQRlZAMxBGcDaWQtMjI3NTA2MgRpbnRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBG1jb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BG1wb3MDMQRwa2d0AzEEcGtndgMzMgRwb3MDMwRzZWMDdGQtZmVhBHNsawNtb3JlBHRlc3QDNzAxBHdvZQMxMjc3MDc2NA--/SIG=12v3jpetb/EXP=1336678913/**http%3A//gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aor.ioBaz3GZd5JGNX3UPribvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVocmxncWVzBGEDMTIwNTA5IG5ld3Mgb2JhbWEgZ2F5IG1hcnJpYWdlIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZjYWg1BGNwb3MDMQRlZAMxBGcDaWQtMjI3NTA2MgRpbnRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBG1jb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BG1wb3MDMQRwa2d0AzEEcGtndgMzMgRwb3MDMwRzZWMDdGQtZmVhBHNsawNtb3JlBHRlc3QDNzAxBHdvZQMxMjc3MDc2NA--/SIG=12v3jpetb/EXP=1336678913/**http%3A//gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html)
Well, there goes the black vote. And this is after repeatedly saying that Marriage is only between one man and one woman. That was during the 2008 presidential campaign.
I can assure you that Romney will not get the black vote....not even 1%.
-
I can assure you that Romney will not get the black vote....not even 1%.
ill take that bet...
and blacks dont have to vote for romney to effect obama, they simply have to not vote for him...
-
I can assure you that Romney will not get the black vote....not even 1%.
Bush got 11% in 2004. Romney doesn't need to get the black vote. All he has to do is chip a few percentages away from Obama. And, thanks to Obama, finally admitting what we've known for years, Romney will do just that.
-
Quite proud of my president for speaking out on gay marriage today.
Hate can only win for so long. We've seen it time and time again in America.
You all know how this will eventually end.
But don't worry, all you super-tough bigots can still anonymously post your hatred on the internet and call people names.
I'm sure you'll keep your mouths shut IRL.
-
Quite proud of my president for speaking out on gay marriage today.
Hate can only win for so long. We've seen it time and time again in America.
You all know how this will eventually end.
But don't worry, all you super-tough bigots can still anonymously post your hatred on the internet and call people names.
I'm sure you'll keep your mouths shut IRL.
This isn't about hate or bigotry. This is about Obama telling lies and flip flopping. What, are you saying now that Obama hated gays until today?
-
This isn't about hate or bigotry. This is about Obama telling lies and flip flopping. What, are you saying now that Obama hated gays until today?
Who made it a law that no one can ever change their position on something? You?
I hadn't even heard this term before Bush used it against Kerry in 2004.
Did Abraham Lincoln flip flop on slavery? I guess so, according to your criteria.
When a step is taken in the right direction, it should always be applauded.
Jesus Christ, is that really your stance on life in general? If you have an opinion at some point in your life, it cannot be changed for the rest of your life?
Do you see me going nuts that Romney "flip flopped" on his own healthcare plan? No, cause I could give a fuck less. If he feels that his opinion is somehow requiring of change, then so be it.
-
This isn't about hate or bigotry. This is about Obama telling lies and flip flopping. What, are you saying now that Obama hated gays until today?
Good question. I didn't really hear Obama supporters calling him or Biden a bigot or gay-haters when they were lying about their support for traditional marriage.
-
Gay marriage will be a passing "fad." It will NOT be a right in perpetuity. In the US, many of those that label themselves as progressives(and most of them being white) are not having children and are wrapped up in their materialism and efforts to "save the planet." They are being replaced by Catholic Central Americans moving here en masse(legally and illegally).....one should only look to California, the so-called liberal bastion of the US.....where it was forced to utilize a lone judge to override the overwhelming majority's wish to ban gay marriage. In Europe, where Islam is growing in record numbers, liberalism will be forced out and likely violently.
-
Good question. I didn't really hear Obama supporters calling him or Biden a bigot or gay-haters when they were lying about their support for traditional marriage.
There is such a thing as political pragmatism.
Lincoln himself would never have been elected had he just boldly proclaimed he would end slavery before he was elected.
Does this mean that Lincoln was pro-slavery? Of course not.
It is a slow process to wear down backward thinking and hate. It must be done incrementally and almost always against the bigotry of righteous mythology.
Say what you like, but you know it's true.
-
The Pres says that his thinking evolved.
Mitt Romney has said that his thinking on certain matters has evolved.
Romney's evolved thinking is referred to as flip-flops.
Did the Pres just flip-flop?
Please explain any difference.
-
Gay marriage will be a passing "fad." It will NOT be a right in perpetuity. In the US, many of those that label themselves as progressives(and most of them being white) are not having children and are wrapped up in their materialism and efforts to "save the planet." They are being replaced by Catholic Central Americans moving here en masse(legally and illegally).....one should only look to California, the so-called liberal bastion of the US.....where it was forced to utilize a lone judge to override the overwhelming majority's wish to ban gay marriage. In Europe, where Islam is growing in record numbers, liberalism will be forced out and likely violently.
I couldn't disagree with you more, at least here in America.
Once a form of bigotry has been abolished in the US, the evil of it tends to resonate louder with each passing generation.
Slavery, for instance, is an unspeakable proposition to re-introduce at this point.
Jim Crow laws will never go back on the books, although George Wallace was able to become a national candidate not too long after the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Now there is no way a person like that could run. It's just completely unacceptable.
-
yet another idiotic argument comparing gay rights to slavery....
-
Comparing slavery and Jim Crow to today's gay marriage is just fucking stupid...there is no real comparison. The pro gay-marriage people just like to link their arguments to a much more serious issue in an attempt to legitimize their concerns. It's fucking OFFENSIVE to those that actually had to contend with those issues(yes, slavery is still very real in many parts of the world and within the crime of human trafficking). In addition, most of the suckerpunches and stereotypical blanket statements are lobbed from the pro gay-marriage crowd such as calling those millions who attend church, temple, mosque, etc...and/or may disagree with their assessments as backwards, hayseed, inbred, ignorant, stupid, etc.....
How gay marriage went to the forefront of the issues the US currently faces is well beyond me. Soaring deficits, inflation, environmental concerns, prison population, and military engagements are all much more pressing issues. In addition, I'm a bit loath to equate what is considered to be the most financially well-off group in the United States(gays) being unable to legally marry to Jim Crow laws of the past. Give.....me.....a....... fucking......break.
-
Comparing slavery and Jim Crow to today's gay marriage is just fucking stupid...there is no real comparison. The pro gay-marriage people just like to link their arguments to a much more serious issue in an attempt to legitimize their concerns. It's fucking OFFENSIVE to those that actually had to contend with those issues(yes, slavery is still very real in many parts of the world and within the crime of human trafficking). In addition, most of the suckerpunches and stereotypical blanket statements are lobbed from the pro gay-marriage crowd such as calling those millions who attend church, temple, mosque, etc...and/or may disagree with their assessments as backwards, hayseed, inbred, ignorant, stupid, etc.....
How gay marriage went to the forefront of the issues the US currently faces is well beyond me. Soaring deficits, inflation, environmental concerns, prison population, and military engagements are all much more pressing issues. In addition, I'm a bit loath to equate what is considered to be the most financially well-off group in the United States(gays) being unable to legally marry to Jim Crow laws of the past. Give.....me.....a....... fucking......break.
Your racism is well-documented on here. I just saw another post where you made a bunch of stereotypical statements of black people, so it doesn't surprise me that you would try to distance the two. It's a neat little trick for your dissonance, but it doesn't work with me.
Rights are rights, and the fact is that some people are trying to deny them to others. Of course there are differences between the two, but, in essence, it is still about denying some people rights. So, try as you might, you cannot mask your bigotry. It may come within five years or twenty, but you already lost. This movement has the momentum of the nation behind, like it or not. Go visit some members from the next generation of voters and see what they have to say.
Anyway, I'm very happy with Obama's words today. About to go have a great workout with that in mind.
-
The Pres says that his thinking evolved.
Mitt Romney has said that his thinking on certain matters has evolved.
Romney's evolved thinking is referred to as flip-flops.
Did the Pres just flip-flop?
Please explain any difference.
Nope...it's always different when they do it.
-
Obama: Teachings Of Jesus Christ Helped Change My Mind on Gay Marriage
weeklystandard.com ^ | May 9, 2012 | JOHN MCCORMACK
Posted on May 9, 2012 7:43:59 PM EDT by Free ThinkerNY
In 1996, Barack Obama supported gay marriage. In 2004, while running for Senate in Illinois, Obama was against it, he said, because of his religious faith. But in his big interview today, President Obama cited the teachings of Jesus Christ as a reason for his decision to support gay marriage:
Roberts asked the president if First Lady Michelle Obama was involved in this decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith in responding.
“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, [the First Lady] feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
-
The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.
In his ABC interview, the president pretended that his much touted “evolution” had now led him, ineluctably, to speak out now, today; he simply could longer stay silent. ABC let him off the hook, but this is not a credible account. In March, the Washington Post was reporting the debate among his advisers on whether the issue would help or hurt the reelection campaign and what, therefore, Obama should say: “Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election.”
The same advisers told the Post that Obama would make the decision based on his gut, but that is an insulting way to refer to the vice president. There is no evidence that Obama planned to speak until Joe Biden said last weekend that he was for gay “marriage” and forced the issue.
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel:
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
The president, when he says, “at a certain point I’ve just concluded,” appears to refer to the point where Joe Biden smoked him out, unintentionally no doubt (as are most of Biden’s actions). And it is important “for me personally” to speak, the president says; this isn’t politics, you see, but some kind of testimony, a baring of the soul.
But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?
Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.
But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex “marriage.”
Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!
Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.
Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.
Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html
I so fucking hate this animal.
-
http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement
Ha ha ha ha !!!!! Sliced and diced!
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama: American Troops Are “Fighting On My Behalf”…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/09/obama-american-troops-are-fighting-on-my-behalf/ ^
Posted on May 9, 2012 8:04:29 PM EDT by dewawi
Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel:
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
(Excerpt) Read more at weaselzippers.us ...
-
There is such a thing as political pragmatism.
Lincoln himself would never have been elected had he just boldly proclaimed he would end slavery before he was elected.
Does this mean that Lincoln was pro-slavery? Of course not.
It is a slow process to wear down backward thinking and hate. It must be done incrementally and almost always against the bigotry of righteous mythology.
Say what you like, but you know it's true.
Hogwash. The man lied. He lied because he knew the majority of Americans support traditional marriage, that DOMA was a bipartisan law that overwhelmingly passed Congress, etc. You can call it pragmatism all you want. I call it exactly what it is: a bald faced lie.
-
Hogwash. The man lied. He lied because he knew the majority of Americans support traditional marriage, that DOMA was a bipartisan law that overwhelmingly passed Congress, etc. You can call it pragmatism all you want. I call it exactly what it is: a bald faced lie.
Obama is scamming gullible gays for campaign cash and little else. Hey, it worked in 2008 no?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail Religion
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama the Theologian invokes Christ while endorsing unnatural sexual acts, same-sex “marriage”...
What Does The Prayer Really Say? ^ | 9 May 2012 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Posted on May 9, 2012 8:31:57 PM EDT by markomalley
With the endorsement of the amendment for the State Constitution of North Carolina, I thought that the true “ground zero” for the same-sex debate would now be Minnesota. It will also now be every ballot in every state in November.
From FNC:
President Obama on Wednesday endorsed same-sex marriages, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to take that position following days of speculation about his “evolving” stance on the issue.
The president used a hastily called TV interview to make his position clear.
“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News.
[...]
BUT WAIT… THERE’s MORE.
In endorsing unnatural sex, Obama invoked Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross.
“This is something that, you know, [Michelle and I have] talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated…”
Christ’s Sacrifice? The “Golden Rule”?
Christians understand that both are reflections of sacrificial love, charity, the former the ultimate example of the God man, the later human and earthly which echoes the former (cf. Luke 10:25-28).
Obama instrumentalized the Lord’s Sacrifice, the ultimate act of the love which is charity, to promote unnatural sex and the overturning of one of our most important societal bonds.
We, according to charity, must act for the true good of the other. It is not for the true good of another person to help them to sin or to undermine Christian morals. But that is exactly what Obama is doing. This is an astounding example of both scandal and blasphemy. It is beyond absurd to to invoke the Lord’s Sacrifice in an attempt to violate our human nature and God’s laws.
Obama invoked the Sacrifice of the Cross for the sake of justifying the destruction of the definition of “marriage”, as if that is “good” for people. It is NOT for the good of anyone, because it promotes and condones a sin that cries to heaven.
We cannot wish that people sin.
We cannot help them sin.
We cannot tell them that sin is good.
We cannot give them the means to sin so that they will sin.
We cannot defend the sins of others.
In charity, we must treat people with the affliction of sex-sex attraction according to their God-given dignity. In charity, we can NEVER condone their sinful acts.
It is the sin that we repudiate, not the people.
It can NEVER… NEVER be an act of Christian charity to call evil acts good, or to condone them, or to say that they are acceptable, or publicly to undermine morals that stem from our human nature. It can NEVER… NEVER… be a matter of “Golden Rule”, which is rooted in the true sacrificial love which is charity, to promote a change in the definition of marriage so that “same-sex marriage” can be marriage’s equivalent in any way.
What the President did was vile. Even though everyone knew that was his position, how vile to hear it framed in that way, publicly given voice.
He is an embarrassment to the United States. He is actively tearing at one of society’s most important social bonds. What he did is harmful to our country and to every citizen of every age, even those of same-sex attractions. It was NOT a reflection of either charity or the Golden Rule in any Christian sense. The Golden Rule does NOT mean “you do what you want and I’ll do what I want”.
Pres. Obama MUST be voted out of office.
St. Augustine teaches about charity, about real love, in his commentaries on the First Letter of John. Augustine describes three kinds of love. He explains that the greatest way of earthly love is enemy love, true charity for those who wish you ill and harm you.
-
Pelosi Statement on President Obama’s Support of Marriage Equality
democraticleader.gov ^
Posted on May 9, 2012 8:00:07 PM EDT by Sub-Driver
Pelosi Statement on President Obama’s Support of Marriage Equality May 09, 2012
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after President Obama declared his support for marriage equality:
“Today marks progress for the civil rights of LGBT Americans and all Americans. With President Obama’s support, we look forward to the day when all American families are treated equally in the eyes of the law.
“Republicans are standing on the wrong side of history. Just yesterday, a Republican-backed amendment to ban same-sex marriage passed in North Carolina. Here in the House, Republican leaders refuse to bring up a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that includes critical domestic violence protections for the LGBT community, and they are using taxpayer funds to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act in court. These actions only serve to advance fundamental unfairness in our society.
“Throughout American history, we have worked to live up to our values of liberty and freedom, and to end discrimination in all of its forms. Today, we took another step forward in our march toward equality.”
-
Evangelical pastor tells Obama he's disappointed [but supportive]
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 5/9/12 | Rachel Zoll
Posted on May 9, 2012 10:24:45 PM EDT by madprof98
The evangelical pastor who President Barack Obama calls his spiritual adviser says he's disappointed in the president's decision to endorse same-sex marriage.
The Rev. Joel Hunter of Florida told The Associated Press that Obama called him before ABC News broadcast the announcement Wednesday.
Hunter says he told the president he disagreed with his interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage. Hunter says the president reassured him he would protect the religious freedom of churches who oppose gay marriage.
Hunter says the announcement makes it harder for him to support Obama, but he will continue to do so
::) ::)
-
Bush got 11% in 2004. Romney doesn't need to get the black vote. All he has to do is chip a few percentages away from Obama. And, thanks to Obama, finally admitting what we've known for years, Romney will do just that.
There was not a black president on the ballot in 2004....and Romney has made it crystal clear on how he feels about black people. The only chance he may have is get Gladys Knights and the Pips to campaign for him.....after all they are Mormons themselves. ;D
-
There was not a black president on the ballot in 2004....and Romney has made it crystal clear on how he feels about black people. The only chance he may have is get Gladys Knights and the Pips to campaign for him.....after all they are Mormons themselves. ;D
Blacks are irrelevant as a voting block.
-
There was not a black president on the ballot in 2004....and Romney has made it crystal clear on how he feels about black people. The only chance he may have is get Gladys Knights and the Pips to campaign for him.....after all they are Mormons themselves. ;D
There wasn't double-digit unemployment in 2004, either (as in what the unemployment rate ACTUALLY is, when Team Obama ain't fudging the numbers by not counting people).
In case you missed it, the GOP doesn't need black votes to win. Carter got nearly as much of the black vote (percentage-wise) as Obama; yet Reagan DESTROYED HIM in 1980. Obama needs every vote he can get; now, he's done the one thing that will cost him black voters. If he goes from 95% to 92% with the black vote, he's pretty much done.
His fundraising is WAAAAAY lower than expected; he's yapping to half-empty arenas; and he's tied or losing to the survivor of "the worst Republican field in American history" (who technically hasn't even won his primary yet, as Ron Paul insists on taking more beatings in the primaries).
Keep thinking Obama has this in the bag. But, as I've said repeatedly, don't bet your house on it (unless you have a cardboard box on standby).
-
There was not a black president on the ballot in 2004....and Romney has made it crystal clear on how he feels about black people. The only chance he may have is get Gladys Knights and the Pips to campaign for him.....after all they are Mormons themselves. ;D
so what are we betting vincent?
how about a 100 posts with the winners words in the losers sig?
-
Your racism is well-documented on here. I just saw another post where you made a bunch of stereotypical statements of black people, so it doesn't surprise me that you would try to distance the two. It's a neat little trick for your dissonance, but it doesn't work with me.
Rights are rights, and the fact is that some people are trying to deny them to others. Of course there are differences between the two, but, in essence, it is still about denying some people rights. So, try as you might, you cannot mask your bigotry. It may come within five years or twenty, but you already lost. This movement has the momentum of the nation behind, like it or not. Go visit some members from the next generation of voters and see what they have to say.
Anyway, I'm very happy with Obama's words today. About to go have a great workout with that in mind.
to make a long story short, what industry leads that thinking?
education, as in collegiant education.
ask yourself another question, what area is in demand and will be so for the next decade at a minimum?
big private businesses...
which way to big private businesses lean?
it aint the side that thinks slavery is the same as gay rights...::)
-
Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality [Obama Sez HE is smarter than Jesus, Moses, St. Paul]
Stand To Reason ^ | 2/9/12 | Alan Shlemon
Posted on May 10, 2012 5:19:06 AM EDT by SoFloFreeper
If you’ve ever said that homosexuality is a sin, there’s a good chance that someone tried to correct you with, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” It doesn’t matter what Bible verse you believe bolsters your claim, they believe that Jesus’ silence on the matter trumps all other considerations. But there are a number of reasons why this objection doesn’t work.
First, it’s not certain that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. The Gospel writers didn’t record everything that Jesus said – only what they thought was important to their audience. Indeed, most of what Jesus said (and did) was never written down. John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” It’s possible Jesus did talk about homosexuality, but the Gospel writers didn’t feel it was necessary to include it in their accounts.
Second, it’s clear what Jesus would say about homosexuality if asked. Jesus was an observant Jew who, like all Jews living under the Old Covenant, was bound by the Mosaic Law. That’s why He often referenced it (e.g. Jesus references the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22:37, 39). Therefore, if He was asked what He thought about homosexuality, He would have cited the Levitical prohibitions (Leviticus 18:20 and 20:13) that unequivocally state that homosexual behavior is a sin.
Third, Jesus did not speak about every immoral behavior. Should we infer that drunkenness, child sacrifice, and neglecting the elderly are appropriate since Jesus never said anything about them either? That’s absurd. Jesus addressed moral issues as they arose in conversation with His disciples and opponents. And even then, not every discussion was documented by the Gospel writers.
Fourth, the argument that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality presumes that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than the words of Scripture elsewhere. But it is the Holy Spirit – God Himself – who inspired all of the Bible, including epistles like Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy where homosexuality is addressed. Moreover, Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and have been in perfect and eternal communion from eternity past. Therefore, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with what the Holy Spirit revealed about moral issues in the Bible.
Jesus’ scriptural silence on homosexuality is not relevant to the moral question. It seems like people are unwilling to accept what the Bible teaches when it conflicts with their own sensibilities.
-
"But perhaps the president made the calculation that he was willing to risk the loss of a fraction of socially conservative swing voters in states like Ohio in order to guarantee the enthusiasm of his top fundraisers.(A Washington Post analysis found that almost 20 percent of Obama’s bundlers have publicly revealed that they are gay)."
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage--obama-and-the-fierce-urgency-of-now--why-did-he-do-it-this-week-.html
-
"But perhaps the president made the calculation that he was willing to risk the loss of a fraction of socially conservative swing voters in states like Ohio in order to guarantee the enthusiasm of his top fundraisers.(A Washington Post analysis found that almost 20 percent of Obama’s bundlers have publicly revealed that they are gay)."
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage--obama-and-the-fierce-urgency-of-now--why-did-he-do-it-this-week-.html
bingo - its all about money for gaybama.
-
.
-
ABC's Robin Roberts On Interviewing Obama: "I'm Getting Chills Again"
"Whatever people think about this issue, we know it's controversial, there's no denying when a president speaks out for the first time like that, it is history," co-host of ABC's "Good Morning America" George Stephanopoulos said to Robin Roberts.
And let me tell you, George, I'm getting chills again," "Good Morning America" co-host Robin Roberts said about her interview with Obama.
"When you sit in that room and you hear him say those historic words. It was not lost on anyone in there right there. You never know what he's going to say until you ask him," she added.
________________________ _________
For God's sake!!!! WTF is wrong w these turds in the media?
-
She gets chills; Matthews gets thrills.
What's next? A left-winged media type busting a nut on live TV?
-
"I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008.
-
Democratic sources: Obama aides annoyed with Biden
CNN ^
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2012 12:17:18 PM by Sub-Driver
Democratic sources: Obama aides annoyed with Biden Posted by CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin
Washington (CNN) - Multiple top Democrats said Thursday the president's senior aides are deeply annoyed with Vice President Joe Biden for forcing the conversation on same-sex marriage.
One source said Biden has, in the past, counseled the president against announcing support for same-sex marriage - making the circumstances that much more frustrating.
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
Biden made comments supporting such unions during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired Sunday, seemingly forcing the issue to the forefront of public debate.
Another source said the recent events gave renewed life to old jokes and flippant remarks like, "Hello? Does he know this is the Obama presidency not the Biden presidency?"
None of these sources said they believed it would create a lasting rift between the West Wing and the vice president's office – because Biden has gone off script before and will do it again.
The president's team said they were aware of the risk when they tapped Biden for the ticket. One source added that the president has a close personal relationship with the former senator and that trumps his advisers' frustrations. But there is a great deal of interest in keeping the vice president "on script."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cn n.com ...
-
Obama's seven states of gay marriage grief
By: Charles Mahtesian
May 10, 2012 04:45 AM EDT
If there’s been one constant over the course of President Barack Obama’s evolution on gay marriage, it’s this: The White House’s keen awareness of the radioactive politics of the issue.
Obama aides fretted that delay would dent his new-breed brand, and likewise that plunging in could weigh him down in battleground states. They even hatched a plan to announce his support just prior to the Democratic National Convention — a characteristically all-in-good-time solution that acknowledged the minefield he was walking through.
And the White House is right to be concerned.
No doubt, Obama gets some political pluses out of supporting same-sex marriage Wednesday — energizing LGBT voters and donors, adding a new line to his Mitt Romney’s-a-throwback brief, kick-starting college turnout or in simply reminding people that yes, he came to Washington to do big things.
But for all the polls showing movement toward greater public acceptance of gay marriage, for all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there’s one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.
(See also: 20 gay rights milestones)
Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it’s gone before the voters — often by large margins.
Here are seven states where Obama just bought himself headaches with his historic decision to back gay marriage:
North Carolina
A political rule of thumb: You don’t want to be on the wrong side of an issue supported by 6-in-10 voters. But that’s where the president is in North Carolina, where a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage passed Tuesday by 61 percent to 39 percent. Just seven of the state’s 100 counties opposed the ballot measure.
North Carolina is no ordinary state. In 2012, it occupies a central location in the political universe — it’s not only a key swing state, it’s the place that will host the Democratic National Convention this summer. Obama won it in 2008, arguably his biggest reach on Election Night, and hoped accepting his re-nomination there would keep it in his column.
But the state was a pretty shaky proposition for Obama this year already, and it just got shakier. After the constitutional amendment — and the backlash against it from gay rights activists — the Democratic National Convention Committee was forced Wednesday to confirm that the convention would remain in Charlotte. That’s not the convention messaging that Democrats are looking for this year.
Florida
One day, gay marriage might be enshrined in law across the map. But it won’t be until after the current generation of senior citizens passes away. Not only do they oppose it by lopsided margins, they also vote in disproportionately high percentages.
Consider this fact about Florida, a state with an unusually large population of seniors. Four years ago, Obama and an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment shared the Florida ballot. Obama won the state narrowly, the amendment won by a landslide.
And the amendment won 600,000 more votes than Obama.
The president can still win reelection without Florida’s treasure trove of electoral votes. But he’d prefer not to risk it, which could be the side effect of a public affirmation of support for gay marriage in a state as competitive as Florida.
Colorado
The new capital of evangelicalism? No, it’s not in the South. It’s Colorado Springs, according to Christianity Today magazine, which once described the city as having “more megachurches, megaseminaries, and mega-Christian activity than any other American city.”
After Denver, Colorado Springs is the largest city in the most important state in the Mountain West — the city is bigger than Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Gay marriage is an issue that resonates there among Christian conservatives and it’s the kind of issue that can get evangelical voters very enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for Romney.
The evidence of that came in 2006, when Colorado voters passed an amendment to outlaw gay marriage — a measure strongly supported by the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family. While the state voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, 55 percent to 45 percent, in Colorado Springs’ El Paso County the numbers were far greater — 66 percent voted for the measure. More pro-amendment votes were cast there than in any other county in the state.
Colorado is the kind of place that helps Team Obama sleep a little more soundly at night because it’s a hedge in case Florida flips back Republican, or Ohio or Virginia drifts back to red. Any leg up for Romney there would be bad news back in Chicago.
Nevada
Utah may be the LDS heartland but Nevada ranks among the top five states in terms of percentage of Mormon population. And the LDS church opposes gay marriage.
While Mormons aren’t a significant Democratic constituency — and especially not with Romney in the race — it’s best not to antagonize any constituency in a swing state like Nevada, where the presidential outcome in 2000 and 2004 was decided by less than 25,000 votes.
“Overall in Nevada, it hurts. To what degree is hard to determine,” said Pete Ernaut, a former GOP state legislator and a confidant of Gov. Brian Sandoval. “The issue here is about a tossup, with voters about evenly split. But that said, there are key constituencies affected by this, most notably Mormon voters — and specifically Democratic Mormon voters — and that is going to be a difficult issue for the president.”
Iowa
In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court made history with its unanimous decision to allow same-sex marriage.
One year later, Iowa voters made history again by ousting three of the justices who handed down that ruling.
The backlash was as extreme as it sounds: their removal from the high court was the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice wasn’t retained in nearly a half-century.
And the issue echoed through the 2010 governor’s race as well. Republican Terry Branstad argued that the court was wrong to strike down the state law banning same-sex marriage and advocated a constitutional amendment to re-institute the ban. His Democratic opponent, Gov. Chet Culver, disagreed on the idea of putting the court decision to a vote.
Culver lost his reelection bid, though not solely because of his position on same-sex marriage. Still, it didn’t help him, and that’s the risk Obama takes there. Obama and Iowa go way back — he’s president today because he dealt Hillary Clinton a third-place finish there in the 2008 caucuses — but it’s a state where just 1 percentage point divided the presidential nominees in 2000 and 2004.
Missouri
There are many Democrats who already concede Missouri is a lost cause for Obama in 2012, even though he only lost to John McCain there by a razor-close margin in 2008.
Wednesday’s announcement only makes the situation worse. In a state where there’s no room for error, the president has taken a position that places him at odds with 71 percent of the state — at least that’s the percentage that voted to ban gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004.
There’s a very good chance that number has eroded since then. But not enough for it to be an asset, in a state where Obama’s strength in St. Louis, Kansas City and some surrounding suburbs is counterbalanced by the parts of the state that sit squarely in the Bible Belt.
Ohio
It’s often said that the 2004 gay marriage initiative that passed in Ohio played a key role in lifting George W. Bush to victory over John Kerry. Whether that’s true or not — Bush strategist Matthew Dowd argued Wednesday that it’s not — it’s an issue that resonates outside of Democratic vote centers like Columbus and Cleveland.
In 2004, here’s how state GOP Chairman Robert Bennett framed it to The New York Times. “I’d be naive if I didn’t say it helped,” he said. “And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president.”
Recent polls continue to show that a majority in Ohio oppose gay marriage, compared with only about one-third of voters who support it. And, as POLITICO reported Wednesday, when Vice President Joe Biden privately argued for the president to refrain from expressing his support, he flagged two states where there could be a backlash — his native Pennsylvania and Ohio.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified former Iowa Gov. Chet Culver.
© 2012 POLITICO LLC
-
Democrats Having Second Thoughts About Charlotte
By George E. Condon Jr.
May 10, 2012 | 1:00 PM
Democrats who already were queasy about the site of their national convention could be excused after Tuesday's election in North Carolina if they asked, "Tell me again just why we're going to Charlotte this year?" In fact, many Democrats privately are asking exactly that after the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a measure outlawing not just same-sex marriage -- which already was illegal in North Carolina -- but also any form of civil unions. Almost immediately after the vote, more than 20,000 people signed a "move the convention" petition being pushed by a New York group called Gay Marriage USA. And Twitter accounts lit up with hundreds of angry tweets demanding the party pull out of Charlotte.
(RELATED: Obama's Risky Gay Marriage Gamble)
And it's not as if things were going swimmingly for convention organizers before Tuesday's vote. Fundraising was lagging with the Democrats' decision not to accept money from corporations, making it much more difficult to reach the needed $36.6 million. That led to more pressure on labor unions to pony up. But they would rather spend their money on grassroots efforts and are still miffed that the party decided to go to a "right to work" state and a city with few unionized hotels.
(RELATED: Where Democratic Senate Candidates Stand on Gay Marriage)
You can add to the mix an unpopular Democratic governor who has decided not to run for another term, likely handing the statehouse to the Republicans. And don't forget a messy sexual harassment scandal that has forced the state Democratic Party's executive director to resign and left the party chairman with no choice but to step down with a new chairman slated to be elected on Saturday.
(RELATED: Romney Apologizes for Hurtful High School Pranks)
And, oh yes, there is the fact that President Obama will be accepting his nomination with a speech at the unfortunately named Bank of America Stadium, an occasion that will lead to a run of stories about the $45 billion that the banking powerhouse received in the unpopular TARP bailout. And there will be mentions of the bank's inclusion on the list of mortgage companies where staffers signed foreclosure documents without verifying the information on them.
What's not to love about a Charlotte convention? When the city beat out the other finalists -- Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Louis -- it used the slogan "Charlotte in 2012: Reaching for Tomorrow." The challenge for Democrats now is to try to forget a pretty messy Today.
-
Obama Still Has Not Signed 'Nondiscrimination Executive Order'
12:00 PM, May 10, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
President Obama made what's being heralded as a big announcement on same sex marriage. "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC News in an interview broadcast this morning. Obama's the first sitting president to come out in favor of same sex marriage.
But what this might actually mean in terms of policy is a little murkier. Perhaps most pressing is the issue of a so-called "nondiscrimination executive order" that gay-rights groups have been pushing. The president has refused—and continues to refuse—to sign it.
"The order, which has been drafted for months awaiting the president’s signature, would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity," the Washington Post reported. "It has become a major focus for gay-rights groups, but in recent weeks activists began to worry that the White House might opt against approval."
Obama's announcement today gives no indication that he's changed his mind on this issue.
Before today's announcement, according to the Post, the president's idleness on the issue had been considered a "stinging setback for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement, a key piece of Obama’s political base that had scored major victories from this White House — namely the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and the administration’s reversal of its position on whether to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act." Those victories "were widely viewed as having triggered an outpouring of financial support from gay donors for Obama’s reelection campaign."
Moreover, "Activists have been portraying the White House decision as a broken promise. They point to a report last month by the gay news site Metro Weekly that, as a candidate in 2008, Obama told a Houston advocacy group that he would support a non-discrimination policy for federal contractors."
Again, today's announcement does not suggest that Obama will now sign that executive order.
This is not the only policy issue that Obama has steered clear of. Already Obama has indicated that while he believes "same sex couples should be able to get married," he also believes states should be able to ban gay marriages. This is particularly pertinent in light of Tuesday's vote in North Carolina to ban same sex marriage. The ban overwhelmingly passed.
-
so what are we betting vincent?
how about a 100 posts with the winners words in the losers sig?
You got yourself a deal. If you lose, your signature has to read that I fucked you in the ass like an episode of OZ on HBO
-
Pelosi Says Her Catholic Faith “Compels” Her To Support Same-Sex Marriage…
Even though it violates Church teachings?
(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that her Catholic faith “compels” her to “be against discrimination of any kind” and thus for same-sex marriage.
A reporter asked Pelosi: “Many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage cite their religion as the reason why they’re opposed. You’re a Catholic that supports gay marriage. Do you believe that religion and the idea that you can support gay marriage can be separated? And how do you grapple with the idea that you support gay marriage as a Catholic?”
Pelosi responded: “My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that. ”
Keep reading…
-
May 10, 2012
Obama's politics of distraction
Steve McCann
While Europe is inching ever closer to plunging into a financial abyss, there are moments of comic relief provided by the current President of the United States. He has not only become the butt of innumerable jokes but his re-election campaign tactics are the stuff of low-brow comedy. A case in point, his recent "evolution" in to supporting gay marriage.
Today Tim Stanley of the U.K. Telegraph writes:
The day after North Carolina voted 60-40 to ban gay marriage, Barack Obama did what any sane politician would do...endorse gay marriage. He told ABC that he felt compelled to by the gay interns he knew, his wife, his children and Jesus. Why did he do it? Sheer, naked opportunism. Like the contraception issue before it, this is an attempt to distract from how bad the economy is. What will Obama do next in his desperate bid for re-election? Make a claim on the Falklands?
It is unlikely that Obama is taking a principled stand for civil rights. In 1996, he said he was for gay marriage. In 2004, when he was running for the Senate, he said that Jesus told him it was wrong (Jesus apparently, changes his mind almost as often as the Prez). In 2008, he repeated that gay marriage was a step too far. Then I he started to "evolve" and, like the caterpillar, he turned into a beautiful pink butterfly.
Also, Mitt's reputation for flip-flopping is no longer a problem. Obama just flipped right over his head, did a 180 in the air, and landed on his backside on the other side of the political compass. Flopping is a dead issue in 2012.
There is little doubt that the geniuses in the Obama re-election campaign are hoping that this tactic will reach the same level of distraction that the so-called "war on women" achieved while enabling them to pull in millions of dollars from the gay and Hollywood crowd whose only interest is their unfettered lifestyle.
However, this is not a matter of who pays for contraceptives; it strikes to the very heart of society. Virtually every time the issue has been brought up to a popular vote the gay marriage propositions have been defeated -- in 32 states.
With this and his other many cynical tactics combined with an economy that will get worse as the year goes on, Mr. Obama has assured his defeat in November. All the Republicans need do is ignore this sudden transformation, reiterate their support for heterosexual marriage and then allow and rely upon the average voters in the various states to ban gay marriage. All the while Mitt Romney and all other Republican candidates must focus entirely on Obama's appalling economic record.
As for those on the left ecstatic about this endorsement, Tim Stanley cautions:
As for gay rights campaigners, I hope they won't be fooled by this empty, cynical gesture. Why did Obama wait until after the North Carolina vote to back gay marriage?
Cowardice, perhaps? Ladies and gentlemen, Obama is a politician. He'll take your money and your votes and give you nothing in return. At least Mitt Romney might cut your taxes.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/obamas_politics_of_distraction.html#ixzz1uVVR3aDn
-
You got yourself a deal. If you lose, your signature has to read that I fucked you in the ass like an episode of OZ on HBO
hahahah deal, Ill come up with a good sig for you when I win.
-
OBAMA'S GAY MARRIAGE HEAD FAKE
By Roger Stone
Once Gay Americans are through celebrating President Barack Obama's "personal" support of Gay marriage equality, they will learn that Obama's "evolution" changes nothing. Obama's new position is a bullshit cop-out.
This comes on the heels of an cynical Obama campaign pirouette where Team Obama trotted out first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then Vice President "Crazy" Joe Biden to say they support gay marriage and imply that the President would too--after the election.
Now, incredibly, Obama says Gay marriage is a state issue. That's what they used to say about abortion and before that, slavery. Now Obama tells us that gay couples should be able to marry but he doesn't believe they have a right to do so. Obama would leave the question to the states--in other words -the status quo. This is like saying that public schools ought to be integrated but if the people of Mississippi disagree, well he says, "let the states decide"
If Obama believes that marriage quality is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right, as former Governor Gary Johnson does, than it can't be abridged by the states. Forty-four states currently ban gay marriage. Under Obama millions of Americans in most states will continue be denied the right to marry the person of their choice.
The courts will soon address the issue of whether the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gays the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women as everyone else as Governor Johnson does-- including California's Proposition 8 case.
There is also a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay men and woman from receiving federal marriage benefits and allows states to refuse to recognize valid gay marriages performed in other states. Judge Andrew Napolitano called this 'settled law" because the Federal Courts have upheld the validity of interracial marriages when some states sought to ban them on FOX. He's right. Obama new position on Gay marriage undercuts the pro-marriage arguments in those cases.
,Team Obama knows that African Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage equality and fear that a more sweeping forthright stand by the President might put Ohio Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia out of reach. Obama could take a lesson in leadership from Governor Andrew Cuomo who brought Republicans and Democrats together to make same-sex marriage legal in New York State. Instead Obama tries to have it both ways.
Barack Obama is playing a cruel and cynical game with peoples lives and happiness. He did nothing to establish that gay marriage is a right yesterday.
share
Bingo!
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76191.html
Ha ha ha. Romney gaining support on this!
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage unites base
Politico ^ | 5/10/12 | By EMILY SCHULTHEIS
Posted on May 10, 2012 10:02:36 PM EDT by icwhatudo
Social conservatives who doubted Mitt Romney now have a reason to rally around him after President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage.
Despite the fact that very conservative and religious voters didn’t support Romney in the primary, their fierce opposition to the issue will give the presumptive GOP nominee a way to harness conservative enthusiasm in November.
----snip----
“President Obama just ‘evolved’ himself into a one-term president,” said Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage. “This is a disaster for the Democratic Party: the reality is that the exact states he needs to win are the states that have overwhelmingly passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's evolutionary leap on same-sex marriage is a historic advance in the nation's long march toward equality and justice. It is also a bold political gambit that sacrifices some votes in exchange for potentially renewing his image as a leader of vision and hope.
The truth is that it should not have taken Obama so long to recognize that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry. I'm one of the many observers who never understood how his former opposition to same-sex marriage could be squared with the worldview that emerged from his speeches and actions. It seemed incongruous to me that someone who so valued fairness and inclusiveness would have such a blind spot.
Nor do I understand Obama's criteria for deciding that his "evolving" view on gay marriage had finally completed its transformation. Was it only half-baked, say, a month ago?
Ultimately, however, history will care only that Obama was the first president to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is a national issue involving the civil rights of millions of Americans. The astonishment and joy expressed by so many gays and lesbians nationwide following Obama's announcement Wednesday showed what a big deal this is.
We all know where this is heading. Obama said that while he now supports same-sex marriage, the decision should be left up to the states. That would seem to bode ill, since 30 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage; on Tuesday, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved such an amendment, with 61 percent voting to ban same-sex marriage versus 39 percent who opposed the measure.
But polls show that public opinion on gay marriage has been shifting rapidly across the country. A Washington Post survey in March reported that 52 percent of Americans believe it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 43 percent believe it should be illegal. In a March 2004 poll, the Post found that only 38 percent believed gay marriage should be legal while 59 percent were opposed. That's almost a complete reversal in just eight years.
Moreover, polls show a clear generational divide: Americans under 40 approve of gay marriage by a big margin. This explains the rush to amend state constitutions, in what amounts to a King Canute-like attempt to hold back the actuarial tide.
But same-sex marriage is already allowed in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia. As more and more couples wed, courts around the country will have to rule on questions involving marriages that are recognized in some states but not in others. It may be a long, tangled process, but eventually a day will come when same-sex marriage is considered unexceptional and only historians appreciate that once upon a time it was controversial.
Obama's pronouncement hastens that day. It also has shorter-term implications.
It seems clear that his position on gay marriage will cost Obama some support in what promises to be a tough battle for re-election. The crucial impact will be in the swing states. North Carolina, for example, is a former Republican stronghold that Obama won in 2008. Will the people who voted so decisively against same-sex marriage be motivated to vote against Obama in November?
Some will, undoubtedly. But it was interesting that Obama's all-but-certain GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, reacted to the president's shift on gay marriage with a relatively subdued statement reiterating his opposition but acknowledging that the issue is a "tender and sensitive topic." The risk for Romney is that while his position -- he wants a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage -- is popular among Republican primary voters, it might be seen as mean-spirited and punitive by the independents who will ultimately decide the election.
Politically, Obama may have taken a big step toward reclaiming the future.
The magic of hope and change that suffused his 2008 campaign has dissipated after 40 grueling months in office. Obama's supporters could point to his accomplishments and cite the reasons why Romney would be a poor replacement, but the optimism and excitement were missing.
Obama could have kept silent on gay marriage, and frustrated progressives still would have voted for him. Instead, he spoke out when he didn't have to and took a stance that might hurt him in key states -- in the process reminding us of how he can surprise and inspire.
Did I just catch a whiff of that hopey-changey stuff in the air?
HAAHA!!!!!! What pathetic suckers you lbs are.
-
Obama's Unreal Gay-Marriage Moment
By Rich Lowry
President Obama insists that he didn’t announce his support for gay marriage out of political considerations. He’s right. He did it out of self-regard.
How it must have eaten away at him to be the first African-American president, yet not associate himself with what has been deemed the foremost civil-rights issue of the age. To be a progressive in favor of all things “forward,” but retrograde on marriage. To know that his stance was a transparent charade and see it treated as such by the lefty opinion makers he respects most.
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' TYPE='text/javascript' > document.write('<a href="http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aPmPom0qTp3tQCSsfA4PJZdodAnTH3b0bM91bFeXaIsRrMHWUQYWdv5mUfnRUJtYaMm5TUh4Er2nTjIYbB9TdFUomYImc7uptfG5EYi2dmq3AfIpF3EYVnU1c3TXGfunEZbQ5UvTTrZbCWPQ2REr0QVZbqPdJr1HvoVmfu4cZbYYFBJTPmw2SQSl64Gfn/http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/368254212/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/1216568726/" target="_blank"><img src="http://view.atdmt.com/MRT/view/368254212/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/1216568726/" /></a>');</SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF='http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aPmPom0qTp3tQCSsfA4PJZdodAnTH3b0bM91bFeXaIsRrMHWUQYWdv5mUfnRUJtYaMm5TUh4Er2nTjIYbB9TdFUomYImc7uptfG5EYi2dmq3AfIpF3EYVnU1c3TXGfunEZbQ5UvTTrZbCWPQ2REr0QVZbqPdJr1HvoVmfu4cZbYYFBJTPmw2SQSl64Gfn/http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/368254212/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/1216568726/' TARGET='_blank' > <IMG SRC='http://view.atdmt.com/MRT/view/368254212/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/1216568726/' BORDER='0' > </A> </NOSCRIPT>
To watch his sloppy, unserious second-in-command get all the credit for moral courage by forthrightly endorsing gay marriage on “Meet the Press” while he clung to his artful dodge.
As an act of personal catharsis, the president’s statement of support was in an appropriately first-person key: I, me and my. He had favored gay marriage back in 1996 when it was out on the fringe. He was one of the few people on the planet who flipped into opposition as gay marriage became more mainstream.
For a while, he invoked his faith in justifying his opposition, then he said he was “evolving,” which everyone understood to mean he would embrace gay marriage as soon as he wasn’t running for re-election anymore.
The Obama team likes to say Mitt Romney’s flip-flops show he lacks a core. Obama’s long spell of deception on gay marriage shows he has a core, but one that he has devoted much of his national political career to obscuring.
The president’s willingness finally to say what he believes increased the sense among gay-marriage supporters that final victory is inevitable. History with a capital “H” is on their side. The 21st century itself is practically synonymous with gay marriage.
Although this smug confidence will envelope Obama as he campaigns in such lucrative precincts as George Clooney’s living room, it badly overstates gay marriage’s prospects.
History is littered with the wreckage of causes pronounced inevitable by all right-thinking people. The failed Equal Rights Amendment looked inevitable when it passed Congress in 1972 and immediately 30 states ratified it. Opposition to abortion that was supposed to inevitably wither away is as robust as ever.
The forces favoring gun control seemed unstoppably on the march when Congress passed the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban in the 1990s, but there are more protections for gun rights now than two decades ago.
Gay marriage’s inevitability hasn’t been evident to the voters in 31 states who have written into their constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman. The latest is North Carolina, where 61 percent of voters embraced the traditional definition of marriage in a referendum. North Carolina isn’t Mississippi. Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and Democrats are holding their convention there.
Nationwide, no referendum simply upholding traditional marriage has ever lost, and even in Maine, voters in 2009 reversed a gay-marriage law passed by the legislature.
These state constitutional provisions constitute irreducible facts on the ground. Reversing them by democratic means will be the work of a generation. For the foreseeable future, the country will be largely traditional on marriage, with enclaves of same-sex unions as boutique blue-state institutions lacking full legitimacy.
Rather than waiting for the tide of history to do its inexorable work, advocates of gay marriage really want the Supreme Court to impose their new definition of marriage. Inevitability’s full name is Anthony McLeod Kennedy, the swing-vote justice who is perfectly capable of remaking marriage by judicial fiat.
There’s no doubt that supporters of gay marriage have made progress, but they shouldn’t congratulate themselves yet. Their cause is still subject to events, such as Obama’s fate this fall. If the president’s newly frank support for gay marriage costs him crucial swing states, his coming-out party will be seen — inevitably — as more a setback to the cause than a watershed.
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
-
There is such a thing as political pragmatism.
Lincoln himself would never have been elected had he just boldly proclaimed he would end slavery before he was elected.
Does this mean that Lincoln was pro-slavery? Of course not.
It is a slow process to wear down backward thinking and hate. It must be done incrementally and almost always against the bigotry of righteous mythology.
Say what you like, but you know it's true.
Therefore, by following your "logic", you can't label Mitt Romney or any politician a flip flopper.
-
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
-
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0506/ncf_g_brown_200.jpg)
Ron Brown: 'Views stand the same'Updated: May 8, 2012, 12:24 PM ETESPN.com news services Recommend438Tweet197Comm ents5K+EmailPrintNebraska assistant coach Ron Brown, the subject of recent national headlines after speaking out against an Omaha gay and transgender anti-discrimination law, won't attend a hearing Monday in which the Lincoln City Council will consider passing a similar ordinance.
But it's by no means because he regrets the public nature or vehement argument of his initial stance -- or because he has been discouraged by coaches or administrators to do otherwise.
Brown, who the university has said is within his rights as a citizen to express his religious and political views publicly, says he doesn't want his appearance to make news.
"A number of fellow Christians who have been working on legislation and working on the nuts and bolts of this issue told me, 'Look, there's going to be so much media attention over you, it's going to take away from the issue,' " Brown told the Lincoln Journal Star on Saturday.
"Everything inside of me said, 'I don't want the media to stop me from going.' Then I realized it was going to be a circus, and everybody already knows how I think. My views stand the same.
"As I prayed about it, I thought it was not in the Lord's will for me to testify."
In March, when the Omaha City Council held a hearing for the measure that added local protections against discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, Brown challenged ordinance sponsor Ben Gray and other members to remember the Bible does not condone homosexuality. He told council members they would be held to "great accountability for the decision you are making."
In the aftermath of the speech, Cornhuskers athletic director Tom Osborne and university chancellor Harvey Perlman defended the right of faculty and students to voice their opinions about public events and issues.
But he was reprimanded for listing Memorial Stadium in Lincoln as his address of record in the council register. According to the Journal Star, he has apologized to Perlman for that.
"Nobody has told me at the university that I couldn't go," Brown told the newspaper on Saturday regarding the Lincoln hearing. "I've gotten assurance from the chancellor that, as a citizen, I can express my views publicly. I mean, this is almost like voting.
"I appreciate the University of Nebraska allowing me to go to the hearing if I chose to do so."
Nebraska coach Bo Pelini reiterated to the Journal Star that Brown would not be discouraged from appearing and speaking before the Lincoln council.
"Would I tell him not to go to the hearing? Absolutely not," Pelini said.
Brown, 55, heads a Christian ministry called FreedMen Nebraska, hosts a show on a statewide Christian radio network, appears on a cable-access channel in Lincoln and writes a column for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes' magazine. Brown also has written books on Christian character and growth.
"The question I have for you all is, like Pontius Pilate, what are you going to do with Jesus?" Brown asked at his March appearance in Omaha. "Ultimately, if you don't have a relationship with him, and you don't really have a Bible-believing mentality, really, anything goes... At the end of the day, it matters what God thinks most."
Brown has been an assistant at Nebraska under three head coaches, starting with Osborne in 1987. He was let go when Bill Callahan replaced Frank Solich in 2004. Pelini, who took over for Callahan in 2008, rehired Brown.
"Everything inside of me wants to go to the hearing and be part of any type of issue such as this, if work permits me to do it," Brown told the Journal Star. "I could've gone."
However, "I don't want this to be about me," he said.
Brown acknowledges that he uses his position as a platform for his ministry. He sprinkles in football metaphors during his many speaking engagements and sometimes references the players he's coached.
"If people want to make implications about the football program, I can't stop that," Brown said, according to the newspaper. "I mean, think about it. If somebody wanted to look on our team web site and see that I'm a Christian, and that I represent certain Christian activities ... what am I going to do, cut that out, too?
"I'm not going to cut out everything about me. This is about the city ordinance and I'm trying to keep people (focused) on that and not on me. There are people on both sides of the equation that are trying to make the right decisions for the city."
Brown also wrote a letter to the newspaper, published in Sunday's editions, in which he said his Christian beliefs led him to express his opposition to homosexuality. The letter notes that while he is against laws that protect gay people, he would never discriminate against gay players.
"I have and will embrace every player I coach, gay or straight ... but I won't embrace a legal policy that supports a lifestyle that God calls sin," he wrote.
On Friday, Attorney General Jon Bruning issued an opinion that said Nebraska cities cannot adopt ordinances protecting people from discrimination for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender because the state's anti-discrimination laws don't extend to sexual orientation.
Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler said that wouldn't deter the city from putting the proposal to a vote.
-
Democrats Having Second Thoughts About Charlotte
By George E. Condon Jr.
May 10, 2012 | 1:00 PM
Democrats who already were queasy about the site of their national convention could be excused after Tuesday's election in North Carolina if they asked, "Tell me again just why we're going to Charlotte this year?" In fact, many Democrats privately are asking exactly that after the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a measure outlawing not just same-sex marriage -- which already was illegal in North Carolina -- but also any form of civil unions. Almost immediately after the vote, more than 20,000 people signed a "move the convention" petition being pushed by a New York group called Gay Marriage USA. And Twitter accounts lit up with hundreds of angry tweets demanding the party pull out of Charlotte.
(RELATED: Obama's Risky Gay Marriage Gamble)
And it's not as if things were going swimmingly for convention organizers before Tuesday's vote. Fundraising was lagging with the Democrats' decision not to accept money from corporations, making it much more difficult to reach the needed $36.6 million. That led to more pressure on labor unions to pony up. But they would rather spend their money on grassroots efforts and are still miffed that the party decided to go to a "right to work" state and a city with few unionized hotels.
(RELATED: Where Democratic Senate Candidates Stand on Gay Marriage)
You can add to the mix an unpopular Democratic governor who has decided not to run for another term, likely handing the statehouse to the Republicans. And don't forget a messy sexual harassment scandal that has forced the state Democratic Party's executive director to resign and left the party chairman with no choice but to step down with a new chairman slated to be elected on Saturday.
(RELATED: Romney Apologizes for Hurtful High School Pranks)
And, oh yes, there is the fact that President Obama will be accepting his nomination with a speech at the unfortunately named Bank of America Stadium, an occasion that will lead to a run of stories about the $45 billion that the banking powerhouse received in the unpopular TARP bailout. And there will be mentions of the bank's inclusion on the list of mortgage companies where staffers signed foreclosure documents without verifying the information on them.
What's not to love about a Charlotte convention? When the city beat out the other finalists -- Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Louis -- it used the slogan "Charlotte in 2012: Reaching for Tomorrow." The challenge for Democrats now is to try to forget a pretty messy Today.
How stupid is that? Two of the other three finalist cities ALREADY PASSED the same type of marriage amendment in 2004 (Ohio and Missouri). And Minnesota is on deck this November.
This appears to be yet more foot-shooting by the left, trying to suck up to gays and, in the process, THEY are bringing up the social issues, playing RIGHT INTO Romney's hand. Connecting with the social conservatives is Romney's big weakness. Yet, the libs are practically rallying the troops and gift-wrapping the social conservatives' vote for Romney.
-
POLL: Obama's Gay Marriage Endorsement Is Turning More Voters Away
Brett LoGiurato|28 minutes ago|451|9
Here's the first poll, from Gallup/USA Today, measuring the effect of Barack Obama's gay marriage endorsement on voters.
It has to be a little troubling that a quarter of Independents say they are less likely to vote for him now. It's also rather strange, considering this Gallup poll from this week that found that 57 percent of Independents think gay marriage should be legal.
Also, the endorsement does not appear, at least yet, to have had an overly energizing effect on Obama's Democratic base, with only 24 percent more likely to vote for him. Republicans showed a more passionate response, with 52 percent saying they would be less likely to vote for him.
Overall, though, gay marriage does not figure to be a major issue in the election, with 60 percent of those polled saying it would have no effect on their vote.
The poll does show, however, that 51 percent overall do approve of his endorsement. That runs in line with the 50 percent that said they supported it in the Gallup poll this week.
Gallup
Obama's endorsement did not come without political risk, especially in key swing states and key demographics that propelled him to win the 2008 election.
One school of thought on the issue suggests that it would be politically popular for Obama to make the move because of the national trend upward. The argument against that is that gay marriage bans have passed in 30 states on ballot referendums, including in North Carolina on Tuesday.
"It takes a tremendous amount of courage to do that following a huge loss in North Carolina," Fred Karger, the gay Republican presidential candidate, told Business Insider on Wednesday. "And I know they're doing a lot of internal polling looking at Ohio, Florida, New Mexico. This is a still a very controversial issue.
"But that's what a president does. That's why we elect a president: for bold leadership."
Tags: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, 2012 Election, Election 2012, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights | Get Alerts for these topics »
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gay-marriage-endorsement-turns-more-voters-away-2012-5#ixzz1ub3xyYnq
-
if he doesn't touch the law, who care what he thinks?
-
if he doesn't touch the law, who care what he thinks?
BECAUSE ALL HE FOCUSES ON IS CAMPAIGNING BIRTH CONTROL GAY MARRIAGE AND UTTER HORSESHIT
-
BECAUSE ALL HE FOCUSES ON IS CAMPAIGNING BIRTH CONTROL GAY MARRIAGE AND UTTER HORSESHIT
yep. and repubs have passed dozens of symbolic anti-abortion and other bills too. They all do it to kiss ass to the base. it's part of politics. both sides do it. Moderate (middle 20%) aren't where the $ comes from. It comes from the batshit 10% at the far left and right. The ones who believe their bible literally or believe the govt should be holding their hand to take a piss.
-
http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html
I wonder how much of this crap bay Vince andre straw lurker blacken bought this week.
-
yep. and repubs have passed dozens of symbolic anti-abortion and other bills too. They all do it to kiss ass to the base. it's part of politics. both sides do it. Moderate (middle 20%) aren't where the $ comes from. It comes from the batshit 10% at the far left and right. The ones who believe their bible literally or believe the govt should be holding their hand to take a piss.
Wow. Your so wise. Thank you for explaining to this captivated message board audience how politics work. However, I suppose your most recent moronic post beats the Trayvon Martin stupidity. ::)
-
POLL: Obama's Gay Marriage Endorsement Is Turning More Voters Away
Brett LoGiurato|28 minutes ago|451|9
Here's the first poll, from Gallup/USA Today, measuring the effect of Barack Obama's gay marriage endorsement on voters.
It has to be a little troubling that a quarter of Independents say they are less likely to vote for him now. It's also rather strange, considering this Gallup poll from this week that found that 57 percent of Independents think gay marriage should be legal.
Also, the endorsement does not appear, at least yet, to have had an overly energizing effect on Obama's Democratic base, with only 24 percent more likely to vote for him. Republicans showed a more passionate response, with 52 percent saying they would be less likely to vote for him.
Overall, though, gay marriage does not figure to be a major issue in the election, with 60 percent of those polled saying it would have no effect on their vote.
The poll does show, however, that 51 percent overall do approve of his endorsement. That runs in line with the 50 percent that said they supported it in the Gallup poll this week.
Gallup
Obama's endorsement did not come without political risk, especially in key swing states and key demographics that propelled him to win the 2008 election.
One school of thought on the issue suggests that it would be politically popular for Obama to make the move because of the national trend upward. The argument against that is that gay marriage bans have passed in 30 states on ballot referendums, including in North Carolina on Tuesday.
"It takes a tremendous amount of courage to do that following a huge loss in North Carolina," Fred Karger, the gay Republican presidential candidate, told Business Insider on Wednesday. "And I know they're doing a lot of internal polling looking at Ohio, Florida, New Mexico. This is a still a very controversial issue.
"But that's what a president does. That's why we elect a president: for bold leadership."
Tags: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, 2012 Election, Election 2012, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights | Get Alerts for these topics »
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gay-marriage-endorsement-turns-more-voters-away-2012-5#ixzz1ub3xyYnq
Bold leadership? PLEASE!! His gay bundlers basically gave him an ultimatum: Endorse gay "marriage" or you get no more $$$$$ from us!!
If Obama's so "bold", why did he give Biden a first-class @$$-chewing for spilling the beans, ahead of schedule. Obama didn't want to support this mess until shortly before or after the election, to play it safe.
That is the mark of a political COWARD.
-
and you know about this ass chewing from where?
-
and you know about this ass chewing from where?
Apparently, you're slow on the uptake.
This has been reported on several news stations over the last 2 days, that Biden and Obama had a private meeting, in which Biden apologized for his blabbing last Sunday.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation, said Biden apologized to Obama shortly before the president's interview on Wednesday.
Biden's office issued a statement: "The President has been the leader on this issue from day one and the Vice President never intended to distract from that."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/05/biden-apologizes-to-obama-over-gay-marriage-flap/1#.T66mUlJSTgp
If this is such a "bold" move or "evolution" by Obama (regarding his support of gay "marriage"), why is Biden APOLOGIZING to him and having private meetings?
Short answer: Biden got his @$$ chewed out, for blowing Obama's plan to bits.
-
.
-
Apparently, you're slow on the uptake.
This has been reported on several news stations over the last 2 days, that Biden and Obama had a private meeting, in which Biden apologized for his blabbing last Sunday.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation, said Biden apologized to Obama shortly before the president's interview on Wednesday.
Biden's office issued a statement: "The President has been the leader on this issue from day one and the Vice President never intended to distract from that."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/05/biden-apologizes-to-obama-over-gay-marriage-flap/1#.T66mUlJSTgp
If this is such a "bold" move or "evolution" by Obama (regarding his support of gay "marriage"), why is Biden APOLOGIZING to him and having private meetings?
Short answer: Biden got his @$$ chewed out, for blowing Obama's plan to bits.
Yep. This whole "thing" was probably going to be dropped around convention time.....oops!
-
Yep. This whole "thing" was probably going to be dropped around convention time.....oops!
23% of the independents and 10% of Democrats (according to Gallup) said that they're less likely to vote for Obama, because of his "evolution". If these pan out in certain swing states, OBAMA IS DONE!!!
The fact that the Democrats want to play on the social issue field, the ONE PLACE social conservatives are dying to go, is beyond absurd.
Obama has just done half of Romney's job: Firing up the social conservative base.
-
23% of the independents and 10% of Democrats (according to Gallup) said that they're less likely to vote for Obama, because of his "evolution". If these pan out in certain swing states, OBAMA IS DONE!!!
The fact that the Democrats want to play on the social issue field, the ONE PLACE social conservatives are dying to go, is beyond absurd.
Obama has just done half of Romney's job: Firing up the social conservative base.
What pisses me off more and more is that the economy is going into an even worse hole , and I feel it in my business and so do most I know, and Obama wants to focus on birth control. And abortion?
Oh go F yourself Obama!!!!
-
What pisses me off more and more is that the economy is going into an even worse hole , and I feel it in my business and so do most I know, and Obama wants to focus on birth control. And abortion?
Oh go F yourself Obama!!!!
Maybe you should start an Obama thread to express your feelings.
-
African-American Church Leaders Pose Strong Opposition To Gay Marriage
May 13, 2012 11:19 PM
BALTIMORE (WJZ)– Just days after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, pastors and priests around Maryland took to their own pulpits with their reaction– and in some cases– condemnation of the president.
Derek Valcourt explains the president’s comments have folks on both sides of the issue fired up.
Both sides hope the president’s position helps sway votes in their favor when the issue hits Maryland’s ballot this November.
“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” President Obama said.
When President Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.
“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts’,” Burns said.
He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.
He and many other leaders are pouring their energies into gathering the signatures needed to put Maryland’s same-sex marriage law on the November ballot.
“I think it might be a call to action for people to really express what they believe,” Father Erik Arnold of Our Lady of Perpetual Help said.
In Maryland, some of the strongest opposition to the law has come from the black community– about 30 percent of the population. Some African-American religious leaders are preaching about it
“God said in every home, there needs to be a representation of his glory through manhood and femininity,” Pastor Harry Jackson, Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, said.
“To me, this is an issue of the separation of church and state,” Pastor Delman Coates, Enon Baptist Church in Clinton, said.
Pastor Coates is one of the few black pastors who supports the current law.
“We should not allow our subjective theological understandings prevent other citizens of this country from having equal rights,” he said.
So far, voters in 30 states have rejected same-sex marriage
But equality advocates in Maryland believe the president’s comments are a sign of the changing tide.
“The momentum is shifting. I think things are definitely shifting in our direction here,” Ezekiel Jackson of Marylanders for Marriage Equality said.
Many African-American pastors say they will still support the president in November even though they may not agree with him on this particular issue.
The president’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage came just one day after voters in North Carolina banned same-sex unions.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/05/13/same-sex-marriage-supporters-opponents-gear-up-for-november-ballot
-
What a fng liar
________________________ ______
After Obama’s Decision on Marriage, a Call to Pastors
By PETER BAKER and RACHEL L. SWARNS
www.nyt.com
WASHINGTON — About two hours after declaring his support for same-sex marriage last week, President Obama gathered eight or so African-American ministers on a conference call to explain himself. He had struggled with the decision, he said, but had come to believe it was the right one.
The ministers, though, were not all as enthusiastic. A vocal few made it clear that the president’s stand on gay marriage might make it difficult for them to support his re-election.
“They were wrestling with their ability to get over his theological position,” said the Rev. Delman Coates, the pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md., who was on the call.
In the end, Mr. Coates, who supports civil marriages for gay men and lesbians, said that most of the pastors, regardless of their views on this issue, agreed to “work aggressively” on behalf of the president’s campaign. But not everyone. “Gay marriage is contrary to their understanding of Scripture,” Mr. Coates said. “There are people who are really wrestling with this.”
In the hours following Mr. Obama’s politically charged announcement on Wednesday, the president and his team embarked on a quiet campaign to contain the possible damage among religious leaders and voters. He also reached out to one or more of the five spiritual leaders he calls regularly for religious guidance, and his aides contacted other religious figures who have been supportive in the past.
The damage-control effort underscored the anxiety among Mr. Obama’s advisers about the consequences of the president’s revised position just months before what is expected to be a tight re-election vote. While hailed by liberals and gay-rights leaders for making a historic breakthrough, Mr. Obama recognized that much of the country is uncomfortable with or opposed to same-sex marriage, including many in his own political coalition.
The issue of religious freedom has become a delicate one for Mr. Obama, especially after the recent furor over an administration mandate that religiously affiliated organizations offer health insurance covering contraceptives. After complaints from Catholic leaders that the mandate undercut their faith, Mr. Obama offered a compromise that would maintain coverage for contraception while not requiring religious organizations to pay for it, but critics remained dissatisfied.
In taking on same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama made a point of couching his views in religious terms. “We’re both practicing Christians,” the president said of his wife and himself in the ABC News interview in which he discussed his new views. “And obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others.”
He added that what he thought about was “not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf but it’s also the golden rule, you know? Treat others the way you would want to be treated.”
After the interview, Mr. Obama hit the phones. Among those he called was one of the religious leaders he considers a touchstone, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida.
“Some of the faith communities are going to be afraid that this is an attack against religious liberty,” Mr. Hunter remembered telling the president.
“Absolutely not,” Mr. Obama insisted. “That’s not where we’re going, and that’s not what I want.”
Even some of Mr. Obama’s friends in the religious community warned that he risked alienating followers, particularly African-Americans who have been more skeptical of the idea than other Democratic constituencies.
The Rev. Jim Wallis, another religious adviser to Mr. Obama and the president and chief executive of Sojourners, a left-leaning evangelical organization, said that he had fielded calls since the announcement from pastors across the country, including African-American and Hispanic ministers. Religious leaders, he said, are deeply divided, with some seeing it as the government forcing clergy to accept a definition of marriage that they consider anathema to their teachings.
Mr. Wallis said that it was clear to him that the president’s decision was a matter of personal conscience, not public policy. But he said that some religious leaders wanted to hear Mr. Obama say that explicitly. “We hope the president will reach out to people who disagree with him on this,” Mr. Wallis said. “The more conservative churches need to know, need to be reassured that their religious liberty is going to be respected here.”
Mr. Obama has reached out to Mr. Wallis, Mr. Hunter and three other ministers for telephone prayer sessions and discussions about the intersection of religion and public policy.
Mr. Wallis would not say whether he heard from Mr. Obama as Mr. Hunter did. The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, another of the five and the senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, said he did not. “He doesn’t need to talk with me about that,” Mr. Caldwell said.
The other two pastors, Bishop T. D. Jakes, a nationally known preaching powerhouse who fills stadiums and draws 30,000 worshipers to his church in Dallas, and the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., did not respond to messages Friday.
Mr. Obama began reaching out within hours of his announcement on Wednesday. At 4:30 p.m., he convened the African-American ministers on the call.
“It was very clear to me that he had arrived at this conclusion after much reflection, introspection and dialogue with family and staff and close friends,” said Mr. Coates, who remains confident that the undecided pastors on the call will ultimately back the president in November. “There are more public policy issues that we agree upon than this issue of private morality in which there’s some difference.”
That is a calculation the White House is counting on. The president’s strategists hope that any loss of support among black and independent moderates will be more than made up by proponents of gay marriage. But Mr. Obama’s aides declined to comment and opted not to send anyone to the Sunday talk shows for fear of elevating it further.
Religious conservative leaders said the president’s decision changed the calculus of the election. “I think the president this past week took six or seven states he carried in 2008 and put them in play with this one ill-conceived position that he’s taken,” Gary Bauer, the former presidential candidate, said on the CNN program “State of the Union.” On the same program, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, “I’ve gotten calls from pastors across the nation, white and black pastors, who have said, ‘You know what? I’m not sitting on the sidelines anymore.’ ”
Establishment Republicans, though, were eager to shift the subject. “For those people that this is their issue, they have a clear choice,” Reince Preibus, the party chairman, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “But I happen to believe that, at the end of the day, however, this election is still going to be about the economy.”
Mr. Obama’s efforts to mollify religious leaders came after a tumultuous week as he lagged behind Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in advocating same-sex marriage. A senior administration official who asked not to be named said the White House contacted religious and Congressional leaders and Democratic candidates only after the president’s announcement.
Among those contacted was Cameron Strang, editor of Relevant magazine and a young evangelical leader, but he was on vacation. By contrast, the office of Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the Catholic archbishop of New York, said he had not heard from the president after publicly calling his decision “deeply saddening.”
Mr. Hunter’s cellphone buzzed shortly after the Wednesday interview. “I’m not at all surprised he didn’t call me before because I would have tried to talk him out of it,” Mr. Hunter said.
“My interpretation of Scriptures, I can’t arrive at the same conclusion,” he said. “He totally understood that. One of the reasons he called was to make sure our relationship would be fine, and of course it would be.”
-
This is why the nation is in the toilet. Because people vote against their conscience and vote against the facts that show Obama is a terrible president.
"Many African-American pastors say they will still support the president in November even though they may not agree with him on this particular issue."
-
This is why the nation is in the toilet. Because people vote against their conscience and vote against the facts that show Obama is a terrible president.
"Many African-American pastors say they will still support the president in November even though they may not agree with him on this particular issue."
Race over Religion
Shame on these idiots!
-
Race over Religion
Shame on these idiots!
Once you go black you never go back.
-
Race over Religion
Shame on these idiots!
I mean these are PASTORS. They are supposed to know scripture and what it CLEARLY states about homosexuality. That Rev. Coates is a joke. He supports this type of "marriage" and states that the other pastors are having a problem because it is against "their understanding of scripture". There is no "their understanding". Scripture does not allow for any other interpretation on this particular subject. The other pastors are "struggling" with this issue because the scriptures CLEARLY FORBID IT. It is Rev. Coates who clearly doesn't have a clue.
This is why a lot of people don't even go to church anymore. Because what's on the altars are people who don't have any principle, who don't really believe what they preach and who look for any way to fill their pockets by using any method to increase their church membership.
So much for obeying God before men.
-
I mean these are PASTORS. They are supposed to know scripture and what it CLEARLY states about homosexuality. That Rev. Coates is a joke. He supports this type of "marriage" and states that the other pastors are having a problem because it is against "their understanding of scripture". There is no "their understanding". Scripture does not allow for any other interpretation on this particular subject. The other pastors are "struggling" with this issue because the scriptures CLEARLY FORBID IT. It is Rev. Coates who clearly doesn't have a clue.
This is why a lot of people don't even go to church anymore. Because what's on the altars are people who don't have any principle, who don't really believe what they preach and who look for any way to fill their pockets by using any method to increase their church membership.
So much for obeying God before men.
How should they interpret slave-beating?
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
-
How should they interpret slave-beating?
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
See what I mean.
So being a fag is like being a slave? Nevermind that the judicial as well as the sacrificial/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law have been annulled by Jesus' sacrifice as stated by the apostle Paul in Romans 1-8 and Hebrews 8-10. The moral law is still, however, intact. Which means moral sins are still moral sins under the current dispensation of grace and that still includes homosexuality.
Now going back to ancient times of Moses, servitude was still a reality of life and part of that culture. Mosaic law wasn't going to change those attitudes, just like it didn't change their views towards divorce. Strangely enough you leave out the verses that made it illegal to abuse slaves (Exodus 21:26,27), that many Hebrews willingly became servants of others in order to escape hunger and poverty (Lev. 25:39-43) and that the Mosaic Law allowed for their closest relative to pay a price to free them from the bondage of foreigners (Leviticus 25:47-49).
But, it's hilarious, how people who don't know anything about scriptures try to bring up the Mosaic Law when clearly Jesus created a new pact that replaced that law. But, in that new pact, homosexuality is still a sin. Period. Romans 1:26,27 I Corinthians 6:9,10
I am not going to get into a theological discussion with people whose only concept of scripture is "what would Jesus do" and what their liberal leaders tells them to think.
-
Gay "marriage" advocates love citing polls about the majority of people supporting this mess.
Then again, the 2008 Detroit Lions were undefeated during the pre-season.
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Announces Plans to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act
Gawker | Monday, May 14, 2012 | Louis Peitzman
Posted on May 14, 2012 9:18:28 PM EDT by kristinn
Source link. Click at your own risk.
You spoke too soon, Rand Paul. It sounds like the President's views on marriage just got even gayer.
Somewhat buried in CNN's story on Barack Obama's fundraiser in New York is this little tidbit about his administration's plans for marriage equality—
He also outlined goals he hopes to accomplish under a second term, including the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, which the administration has already stopped defending.
This is the first time Obama has said that he wil actively work to repeal the law.
At the fundraiser, hosted by openly gay pop star Ricky Martin, Obama called same-sex marriage the "right thing to do." He also said that contrary to what many rightwing pundits have alleged, marriage equality will help families.
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Announces Plans to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act
Gawker | Monday, May 14, 2012 | Louis Peitzman
Posted on May 14, 2012 9:18:28 PM EDT by kristinn
Source link. Click at your own risk.
You spoke too soon, Rand Paul. It sounds like the President's views on marriage just got even gayer.
Somewhat buried in CNN's story on Barack Obama's fundraiser in New York is this little tidbit about his administration's plans for marriage equality—
He also outlined goals he hopes to accomplish under a second term, including the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, which the administration has already stopped defending.
This is the first time Obama has said that he wil actively work to repeal the law.
At the fundraiser, hosted by openly gay pop star Ricky Martin, Obama called same-sex marriage the "right thing to do." He also said that contrary to what many rightwing pundits have alleged, marriage equality will help families.
There goes another swing state.
Obama, groveling before the gays....you just have to love it. Four years ago, they're were riding his sack. Now, he's doing a Lewinsky on them to keep his job.
-
See what I mean.
So being a fag is like being a slave? Nevermind that the judicial as well as the sacrificial/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law have been annulled by Jesus' sacrifice as stated by the apostle Paul in Romans 1-8 and Hebrews 8-10. The moral law is still, however, intact. Which means moral sins are still moral sins under the current dispensation of grace and that still includes homosexuality.
Now going back to ancient times of Moses, servitude was still a reality of life and part of that culture. Mosaic law wasn't going to change those attitudes, just like it didn't change their views towards divorce. Strangely enough you leave out the verses that made it illegal to abuse slaves (Exodus 21:26,27), that many Hebrews willingly became servants of others in order to escape hunger and poverty (Lev. 25:39-43) and that the Mosaic Law allowed for their closest relative to pay a price to free them from the bondage of foreigners (Leviticus 25:47-49).
But, it's hilarious, how people who don't know anything about scriptures try to bring up the Mosaic Law when clearly Jesus created a new pact that replaced that law. But, in that new pact, homosexuality is still a sin. Period. Romans 1:26,27 I Corinthians 6:9,10
I am not going to get into a theological discussion with people whose only concept of scripture is "what would Jesus do" and what their liberal leaders tells them to think.
Stopped reading here. You're a bigot and not worth arguing with.
Were your parents bigots too?
-
Stopped reading here. You're a bigot and not worth arguing with.
Were your parents bigots too?
-
ok
-
Obama’s Gay-Marriage Gift to Romney? (Could O's position split minorities, rally conservatives?)
National Review ^ | 05/16/2012 | Katrina Trinko
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
No doubt Barack Obama did not intend to do Mitt Romney a favor when he announced his support for same-sex marriage last week.
But for Romney, the announcement provided a critical opportunity, both to energize the social conservatives in his base and to drive a wedge between Obama and certain key demographics. “There is a greater opening now [for Romney] with Hispanic voters and African Americans,” a GOP strategist says.
Some African-American pastors have indicated that they are concerned about the decision. Obama held a conference call with a group of top black religious leaders almost immediately after announcing his support for gay marriage, according to the New York Times, which reported that a “vocal few made it clear that the president’s stand on gay marriage might make it difficult for them to support his re-election.”
It’s not clear to what extent the president’s stance may erode his support among minority voters. Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, expects that they will continue to favor Obama. “But 70 percent of African-American voters voted for traditional marriage in California, and it seems to me this issue is an unnecessary cross-pressure on his support among blacks and Latinos,” he adds.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, dismisses the idea that black voters will turn to Romney and doubts that Catholics who don’t regularly attend mass will be swayed. He does, however, see a chance for Romney to perhaps knock Obama’s lead among Hispanics down by a few points. Hispanics, he observes, have been a group unusually loyal to Obama. “It’s the one portion of the electorate that Obama is doing better with than he did four years ago,” Sabato remarks, speculating that Romney’s views on immigration have won him few friends among Hispanic voters. But if the Romney campaign emphasizes Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, “this could be a way to bring some of them back.” For Romney, picking up even a small percentage of minority voters — or benefiting from minority voters’ being too discouraged by Obama’s positions to bother voting for him — would be a valuable help in what looks likely to be a close race.
The issue is also giving him a crucial boost among social conservatives, energizing them not just to vote for Romney, but also to consider donating to and volunteering for his campaign. As Family Research Council president Tony Perkins observed on Face the Nation on Sunday, Obama’s pro-same-sex-marriage position could unleash “that missing piece of intensity that Mitt Romney is going to need.”
In his commencement speech at evangelical Liberty University on Saturday, Romney stated his opposition to gay marriage. “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman,” he said, winning cheers from the conservative crowd. His speech also won an enthusiastic response from prominent social conservative Gary Bauer, who issued a statement calling it a “grand slam,” citing, among other things, Romney’s “compassionate defense of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Sabato sees other potential benefits, besides renewed enthusiasm, for Romney in his newfound status with social conservatives. “It probably gives him a little more flexibility, even with the ticket,” he observes.
And the issue isn’t likely to disappear. “It’s going to come up throughout the campaign. Both the president and the governor will be asked about it,” one Republican strategist predicts.
It’s an issue that will further define Obama as a candidate out of sync with many religious voters. Reed notes that support for same-sex marriage is just the latest in a series of decisions Obama has made that have rankled conservative religious voters, including his decisions to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and to force religious employers to offer health-insurance plans covering contraceptives.
“I expect a large turnout of conservative voters of faith,” Reed remarks. “Obama has given Mitt Romney an unanticipated gift.”
— Katrina Trinko is an NRO reporter.
-
See what I mean.
So being a fag is like being a slave? Nevermind that the judicial as well as the sacrificial/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law have been annulled by Jesus' sacrifice as stated by the apostle Paul in Romans 1-8 and Hebrews 8-10. The moral law is still, however, intact. Which means moral sins are still moral sins under the current dispensation of grace and that still includes homosexuality.
Now going back to ancient times of Moses, servitude was still a reality of life and part of that culture. Mosaic law wasn't going to change those attitudes, just like it didn't change their views towards divorce. Strangely enough you leave out the verses that made it illegal to abuse slaves (Exodus 21:26,27), that many Hebrews willingly became servants of others in order to escape hunger and poverty (Lev. 25:39-43) and that the Mosaic Law allowed for their closest relative to pay a price to free them from the bondage of foreigners (Leviticus 25:47-49).
But, it's hilarious, how people who don't know anything about scriptures try to bring up the Mosaic Law when clearly Jesus created a new pact that replaced that law. But, in that new pact, homosexuality is still a sin. Period. Romans 1:26,27 I Corinthians 6:9,10
I am not going to get into a theological discussion with people whose only concept of scripture is "what would Jesus do" and what their liberal leaders tells them to think.
Living his life according to scripteres written by people even less informed than yourself. Evolution going backward sad really sad :-\
-
Living his life according to scripteres written by people even less informed than yourself. Evolution going backward sad really sad :-\
Obama doesn't believe in evolution either, since he states he is a Christian and believes the Bible tells him to distribute other people's money and love homo sin. Why is this not computing in your little brain, fool? Should I draw you little pictures?
-
Obama doesn't believe in evolution either, since he states he is a Christian and believes the Bible tells him to distribute other people's money and love homo sin. Why is this not computing in your little brain, fool? Should I draw you little pictures?
Well then you and Obama are idiots, both of you.
I would draw you a picture but since you still believe in fairy tales im not sure how much effort is worth spending on you
-
Yup. You are special alright.
Time to draw you those little pictures, Sparky. ;D
-
Poll: 51% agree with Obama's endorsement of gay marriage
By Aamer Madhani and Jim Norman, USA TODAY
More than half of Americans say they approve of President Obama's stance that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry legally, but 60% say that his shift in position will have no bearing on how they vote in the November election, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll ...
The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted on Thursday with a random sample of 1,013 adults living in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
-
Poll: 51% agree with Obama's endorsement of gay marriage
By Aamer Madhani and Jim Norman, USA TODAY
More than half of Americans say they approve of President Obama's stance that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry legally, but 60% say that his shift in position will have no bearing on how they vote in the November election, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll ...
The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted on Thursday with a random sample of 1,013 adults living in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
0-32....ENOUGH SAID!!!
-
Agree. The public doesn't want it. At least not yet.
-
Agree. The public doesn't want it. At least not yet.
Its not that the public does want it so much as we are on the edge of a cliff, the economy is a disaster, and obama is out there on gay marriag, condoms, fluke, The View, partying all day, etc?
GMAFB ! ! ! !
-
Its not that the public does want it so much as we are on the edge of a cliff, the economy is a disaster, and obama is out there on gay marriag, condoms, fluke, The View, partying all day, etc?
GMAFB ! ! ! !
As McWay pointed out, 0-32 is an overwhelming repudiation of homosexual marriage by the majority of the country.
-
IMO, most of the people who WANT gay marriage are going to get behind obama 100% because of what he said.
IMO, anyone who is outright pissed obama backs it is already a bible thumpin' anti-obama voter.
IMO, most people just don't give a crap about this issue to let it affect their vote. it's a wedge issue that affects maybe 1% of people. But it sure did keep the shitty jobs numbers and forged UE rate out of the news for a week.
-
Agree. The public doesn't want it. At least not yet.
The Public also did not want to get rid of slavery or segregation. Keep that in mind.
-
IMO, most of the people who WANT gay marriage are going to get behind obama 100% because of what he said.
IMO, anyone who is outright pissed obama backs it is already a bible thumpin' anti-obama voter.
IMO, most people just don't give a crap about this issue to let it affect their vote. it's a wedge issue that affects maybe 1% of people. But it sure did keep the shitty jobs numbers and forged UE rate out of the news for a week.
We've said that repeatedly for the last two day, citing two polls from NYT and Gallup, respectively, that 57% and 60% of people questioned said that Obama's so-called evolution will have NO EFFECT on how they vote.
HOWEVER, in both polls, 26% said they're less likely to vote for Obama, because of this.
The economic problems are still there and, as I've told you multiple times, Obama CANNOT avoid them. The lousy unemployment numbers have been there for over THREE YEARS. Do you really think a week is going to make people forget about that? Those two polls I cited clearly suggest the opposite.
333386 and others here have been talking about this for MONTHS. Yet, it's the members of TK (including YOU), who like to dredge up all other manner of foolishness, to detract from Obama's futility.
So, you'll have to excuse some of us, if we ain't buying all this anger of yours about the UE numbers and the economy being ignored.
-
The Public also did not want to get rid of slavery or segregation. Keep that in mind.
They also didn't want women to vote or own property, etc., etc. And?
-
They also didn't want women to vote or own property, etc., etc. And?
Therefore "Public doesn`t want it" is not really a good argument to make.
-
Therefore "Public doesn`t want it" is not really a good argument to make.
Of course it is. The public decided to give women the right to vote. The public decided to end slavery. The public usually decides what we want, whether it's by city ordinance up through amending the U.S. Constitution.
And when we're talking about lifestyle choices, the matter should be put to a vote and the public should decide. The public has decided in 32 states that they want to preserve traditional marriage. Even arguably the most liberal state in the country (Hawaii) voted to preserve traditional marriage by about a 70 percent margin.
The public has decided to give "GLBT" people protection in a number of areas all around the country (employment, housing, hate crimes, etc.). That's the way our democracy works.
-
Of course it is. The public decided to give women the right to vote. The public decided to end slavery. The public usually decides what we want, whether it's by city ordinance up through amending the U.S. Constitution.
And when we're talking about lifestyle choices, the matter should be put to a vote and the public should decide. The public has decided in 32 states that they want to preserve traditional marriage. Even arguably the most liberal state in the country (Hawaii) voted to preserve traditional marriage by about a 70 percent margin.
The public has decided to give "GLBT" people protection in a number of areas all around the country (employment, housing, hate crimes, etc.). That's the way our democracy works.
The Public DID NOT decide to end Slavery or Segregation.
-
The Public DID NOT decide to end Slavery or Segregation.
Yes, the public did decide to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was only an EO. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by the people, through their representatives, in states around the country.
The courts helped end segregation, but we had a number of laws passed by the people, through their representatives, that helped end it too.
-
Yes, the public did decide to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was only an EO. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by the people, through their representatives, in states around the country.
The courts helped end segregation, but we had a number of laws passed by the people, through their representatives, that helped end it too.
Bullshit. It was not until the 17th amendment in 1913 that Senators were directly elected by the people. Before then, Senators were chosen by legislatures in their respective states and most were backroom deals. The people did not have any real control.
-
Of course it is. The public decided to give women the right to vote. The public decided to end slavery. The public usually decides what we want, whether it's by city ordinance up through amending the U.S. Constitution.
And when we're talking about lifestyle choices, the matter should be put to a vote and the public should decide. The public has decided in 32 states that they want to preserve traditional marriage. Even arguably the most liberal state in the country (Hawaii) voted to preserve traditional marriage by about a 70 percent margin.
The public has decided to give "GLBT" people protection in a number of areas all around the country (employment, housing, hate crimes, etc.). That's the way our democracy works.
LOL
-
Yes, the public did decide to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was only an EO. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by the people, through their representatives, in states around the country.
The courts helped end segregation, but we had a number of laws passed by the people, through their representatives, that helped end it too.
If we had let the states vote for desegregation the south would still be segregated today
-
Bullshit. It was not until the 17th amendment in 1913 that Senators were directly elected by the people. Before then, Senators were chosen by legislatures in their respective states and most were backroom deals. The people did not have any real control.
Nonsense. Legislatures were chosen by the people, and each state had to ratify the 13th Amendment, so it was not just appointed senators who ratified the Amendment.
People had just as much control as they do today. Money, power, influence, "backroom deals," etc. have always been--and will always be--a part of the system, unfortunately.
-
Agree. The public doesn't want it. At least not yet.
the public never got a chance to vote on slavery, either.
I'm sure that would have been a close election. it would be fun to have slaves.
women lost the right to vote in new jersey at first. the public [men] didn't want them to have that right.
-
the public never got a chance to vote on slavery, either.
I'm sure that would have been a close election. it would be fun to have slaves.
women lost the right to vote in new jersey at first. the public [men] didn't want them to have that right.
You are not a slave twink! Go find a woman and run to city hall and you can get married in the next 20 minutes if you want.
-
the public never got a chance to vote on slavery, either.
I'm sure that would have been a close election. it would be fun to have slaves.
women lost the right to vote in new jersey at first. the public [men] didn't want them to have that right.
Yes they did. The 13th Amendment was subject to numerous votes by the states. Wasn't close.
Same with the 19th Amendment. Ratified by all 48 states at the time.
-
Yes they did. The 13th Amendment was subject to numerous votes by the states. Wasn't close.
Sounds just like the marriage amendments in the states.
-
Of course it is. The public decided to give women the right to vote. The public decided to end slavery. The public usually decides what we want, whether it's by city ordinance up through amending the U.S. Constitution.
And when we're talking about lifestyle choices, the matter should be put to a vote and the public should decide. The public has decided in 32 states that they want to preserve traditional marriage. Even arguably the most liberal state in the country (Hawaii) voted to preserve traditional marriage by about a 70 percent margin.
The public has decided to give "GLBT" people protection in a number of areas all around the country (employment, housing, hate crimes, etc.). That's the way our democracy works.
Democracy has nothing to do with giving or taking rights away from others. The "Public" have no right to tell another person who they can and cannot marry. What you are talking about is mob rule. Whereby the tyranny of the majority deny rights to a minority.
-
Sounds just like the marriage amendments in the states.
Yep.
-
Democracy has nothing to do with giving or taking rights away from others. The "Public" have no right to tell another person who they can and cannot marry. What you are talking about is mob rule. Whereby the tyranny of the majority deny rights to a minority.
And what you're talking about is elitist rule, whereby the tyranny of the minority deny the rights to a majority.
As long as the US Constitution allows it (and, per the case of "Baker v. Nelson", defining marriage as one man and woman DOES NOT VIOLATE the constitution), the majority of the people DO have the final say.
And, yes, the "public" have the right to tell another person who they can and can't marry.
The "Public" says you can't marry more than one person at one time.
The "Public" determines the age that person has to be.
The "Public" says no marrying any relatives, closer than a first or second cousin.
And, for those who need to be told...
The "Public" says no marrying animals.
-
Democracy has nothing to do with giving or taking rights away from others. The "Public" have no right to tell another person who they can and cannot marry. What you are talking about is mob rule. Whereby the tyranny of the majority deny rights to a minority.
Democracy absolutely has everything to do with giving or taking away rights from others. How do you think we got the Bill of Rights, which both gives and takes rights away? That's the public speaking through elected representatives not only in Congress but in at least 2/3 of the states.
Here is the definition of "mob rule": "Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation." What we have seen in this marriage debate is the antithesis of "mob rule." The votes in 32 states were conventional, lawful, and did not involve violence or intimidation.
Actually, some of those opposed to the preservation of traditional marriage have used violence and intimidation. Remember the attacks against Mormons in others over Prop 8 in California? Did you ever see the clip I posted of the old lady who had a sign taken from her and destroyed? Throwing crap on people? Now that is arguably attempted "mob rule."
-
Democracy absolutely has everything to do with giving or taking away rights from others. How do you think we got the Bill of Rights, which both gives and takes rights away? That's the public speaking through elected representatives not only in Congress but in at least 2/3 of the states.
Here is the definition of "mob rule": "Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation." What we have seen in this marriage debate is the antithesis of "mob rule." The votes in 32 states were conventional, lawful, and did not involve violence or intimidation.
Actually, some of those opposed to the preservation of traditional marriage have used violence and intimidation. Remember the attacks against Mormons in others over Prop 8 in California? Did you ever see the clip I posted of the old lady who had a sign taken from her and destroyed? Throwing crap on people? Now that is arguably attempted "mob rule."
The "Occupy" foolishness is more of an example of mob rule. The "mob rule" routine is but another liberal excuse, when they lose at something.
What ever happened to that ditty, "Tell me what democracy looks like........THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!" Liberals will chant that all day.
But, once they get beat....."MOB RULE!! FASCIST!!! BIGOTS!!!! RACISTS!!!"
-
The "Occupy" foolishness is more of an example of mob rule. The "mob rule" routine is but another liberal excuse, when they lose at something.
What ever happened to that ditty, "Tell me what democracy looks like........THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!" Liberals will chant that all day.
But, once they get beat....."MOB RULE!! FASCIST!!! BIGOTS!!!! RACISTS!!!"
Sad but true. :-\
-
"I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008.
has he renounced his christianity then ?
(http://www.favecrafts.com/master_images/Wearable%20Crafts/Rainbow-Flip-Flops.jpg)
(https://store.barackobama.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/o/f/ofaxxxx_lgbt_car_magnet.jpg)
-
has he renounced his christianity then ?
(http://www.favecrafts.com/master_images/Wearable%20Crafts/Rainbow-Flip-Flops.jpg)
(https://store.barackobama.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/o/f/ofaxxxx_lgbt_car_magnet.jpg)
Quite the opposite. He actually tried to use the Bible to justify support for homosexual marriage.
-
has he renounced his christianity then ?
(http://www.favecrafts.com/master_images/Wearable%20Crafts/Rainbow-Flip-Flops.jpg)
(https://store.barackobama.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/o/f/ofaxxxx_lgbt_car_magnet.jpg)
Nope, at least not nominally. He's just doing the political Brokeback, for the cash (a sixth of his campaign bundlers are gay) and he's way behind in his fundraising (Bush had about 4 times as much money around this time in 2004).
-
And what you're talking about is elitist rule, whereby the tyranny of the minority deny the rights to a majority.
As long as the US Constitution allows it (and, per the case of "Baker v. Nelson", defining marriage as one man and woman DOES NOT VIOLATE the constitution), the majority of the people DO have the final say.
And, yes, the "public" have the right to tell another person who they can and can't marry.
The "Public" says you can't marry more than one person at one time.
The "Public" determines the age that person has to be.
The "Public" says no marrying any relatives, closer than a first or second cousin.
And, for those who need to be told...
The "Public" says no marrying animals.
Inter-species marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Why the idea of a slippery slope to inter-species marriage is used i'll never know. I've yet to meet a Canadian person married to a horse.
The constitution is applied wrongly in my opinion.
This is nothing more than denial of rights based on a false premise of democracy when it is little more than a mob mentality.
-
Democracy has nothing to do with giving or taking rights away from others. The "Public" have no right to tell another person who they can and cannot marry. What you are talking about is mob rule. Whereby the tyranny of the majority deny rights to a minority.
Therefore, lets wipe our rear ends with the Constitution and flush it down the toilet.
-
Inter-species marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Why the idea of a slippery slope to inter-species marriage is used i'll never know. I've yet to meet a Canadian person married to a horse.
The constitution is applied wrongly in my opinion.
This is nothing more than denial of rights based on a false premise of democracy when it is little more than a mob mentality.
Your opinion should be backed by something at least resembling common sense and that all important legal document call the Constitution.
Your "opinion" is just a stupid liberal emotion. Get the heck out of here with that junk.
-
Your opinion should be backed by something at least resembling common sense and that all important legal document call the Constitution.
Your "opinion" is just a stupid liberal emotion. Get the heck out of here with that junk.
Human rights aren't "opinions".
Or is it just someone's "opinion" that free speech should exist?
The idea that voters can and should decide the rights of others is absurd and as undemocratic as possible.
-
Human rights aren't "opinions".
Or is it just someone's "opinion" that free speech should exist?
The idea that voters can and should decide the rights of others is absurd and as undemocratic as possible.
some right wingers on this board believe that it's acceptable for the majority to vote on rights for minorities
If that applies to the rights given to all people in the constitution (equal protection) then states should be able to vote to take about peoples rights to free speech, the right to vote etc...
What if people in Alabama or Mississippi decided that Muslims should no longer have the right to vote or free speech in their state. If they can take away equal protection then why not free speech or the right to vote.
-
some right wingers on this board believe that it's acceptable for the majority to vote on rights for minorities
If that applies to the rights given to all people in the constitution (equal protection) then states should be able to vote to take about peoples rights to free speech, the right to vote etc...
What if people in Alabama or Mississippi decided that Muslims should no longer have the right to vote or free speech in their state. If they can take away equal protection then why not free speech or the right to vote.
Gay Marriage has never been considered a fundamental right under the USC sparky.
-
Gay Marriage has never been considered a fundamental right under the USC sparky.
yep, but it eventually will be and for now we can look at Californina for the example
Supreme Court determined they gay people had the right to marry (i.e. their right to marry had existed the entire time under the Equal Protection clause but was being denied) and then a simple majority in the state voted to take those rights away.
The majority voted to take away the rights of a minority group
by that same standard we should be able to vote to rescind any rights currently enjoyed by anyone as long as the majority agrees to do so.
Of course I don't agree with that but that seems to be the precedent
Maybe we should have a ballot measure to take away the voting rights of any registered Republican
-
Less Government intrusion into peoples lives=Marriage for everyone.
How this concept eludes people is beyond me. Religious morons can have their own pointless beliefs if they want, but the government should not regulate marriage.
-
yep, but it eventually will be and for now we can look at Californina for the example
Supreme Court determined they gay people had the right to marry (i.e. their right to marry had existed the entire time under the Equal Protection clause but was being denied) and then a simple majority in the state voted to take those rights away.
The majority voted to take away the rights of a minority group
And who gave this minority these "rights' in the first place?
by that same standard we should be able to vote to rescind any rights currently enjoyed by anyone as long as the majority agrees to do so.
Of course I don't agree with that but that seems to be the precedent
Maybe we should have a ballot measure to take away the voting rights of any registered Republican
The US Supreme Court has said no such thing. If anything it says the opposite (see "Baker v. Nelson" [1971]).
The California Supreme Court ruled, legalizing gay "marriage", based on its constitution, which got amended six months later via Proposition 8.
In an earlier case, the California Supreme Court ADMITTED that they could not rule that gay "marriage" violated the Federal constitution, because of "Baker v. Nelson". That case was "Lockeyer v. San Francisco" (2004).
Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does NOT violate the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of 279*279 the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (1971) 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal "for want of substantial federal question." (Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65.)
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court's decision on the issues of federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238, 53 L.Ed.2d 199; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223.) Summary decisions of this kind "prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238.) Thus, the high court's summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through "`doctrinal developments'" that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.
So far, a federal court (with a gay judge) and the 9th Circuit Court (that has more of its rulings REVERSED by the Supreme Court than nearly every other court in the nation) has sided with gay "marriage" supporters. Yet, until this case is completely resolved, Prop. 8 is still in effect.
If the case gets no further than the 9th Circuit court, it affects only California. But, that's not what the gay "marriage" bubbas want. They're looking for this case to overturn every other state marriage amendment.
But, given the US Supreme Court's history of not bucking the trend of the majority of states, I don't like their chances.
-
BOOOOOOM!!!
Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does NOT violate the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of 279*279 the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (1971) 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal "for want of substantial federal question." (Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65.)
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court's decision on the issues of federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238, 53 L.Ed.2d 199; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223.) Summary decisions of this kind "prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238.) Thus, the high court's summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
-
Less Government intrusion into peoples lives=Marriage for everyone.
How this concept eludes people is beyond me. Religious morons can have their own pointless beliefs if they want, but the government should not regulate marriage.
BOOOM
-
BOOOM
The same laws ban polygamy and marriage to underage children.
So much for your "BOOOM".
-
Less Government intrusion into peoples lives=Marriage for everyone.
How this concept eludes people is beyond me. Religious morons can have their own pointless beliefs if they want, but the government should not regulate marriage.
Right, we should go back to having the Roman Catholic Church regulate marriage, annulments and divorce for all. ;D
-
Quite the opposite. He actually tried to use the Bible to justify support for homosexual marriage.
I have more respect for someone who remains true to his opinions .. good or bad .. why bother voicing a dissenting opinion if you only back away from it when you find it necessary to do so ?
:-\
Nope, at least not nominally. He's just doing the political Brokeback, for the cash (a sixth of his campaign bundlers are gay) and he's way behind in his fundraising (Bush had about 4 times as much money around this time in 2004).
I find the way gullible contributors dole out money to politicians totally sickening .. I've never been one to agree with how much the campaigns cost .. each person who wants to run for any office should have set amounts to spend on adverts .. across the board fair and reasonable amounts
also I think time spent on campaigning should be limited and monitored .. all of it fully audited and total disclosure presented to the public on a monthly basis
if they want to have commercials on TV .. then place them on ONE channel and treat them as infomercials .. we can then have the choice to watch the mudslinging and circus acts
-
I have more respect for someone who remains true to his opinions .. good or bad .. why bother voicing a dissenting opinion if you only back away from it when you find it necessary to do so ?
:-\
Agree.
-
I have more respect for someone who remains true to his opinions .. good or bad .. why bother voicing a dissenting opinion if you only back away from it when you find it necessary to do so ?
:-\
Thats rather ignorant to do. That means whenever new evidence or fact comes to light, no matter what, you want that person to remain in the dark. Religious morons are the best at displaying this level of stupidity when it comes to anything Science related and evidence based.
Its very dangerous to have someone like a President who would be immune to new Facts and Evidence and instead relying on his "gut feeling".
-
Thats rather ignorant to do. That means whenever new evidence or fact comes to light, no matter what, you want that person to remain in the dark. Religious morons are the best at displaying this level of stupidity when it comes to anything Science related and evidence based.
Its very dangerous to have someone like a President who would be immune to new Facts and Evidence and instead relying on his "gut feeling".
Come on TA - you and I know know its always been all about votes and $$$$ for Obama on his various positions on this issue.
-
Come on TA - you and I know know its always been all about votes and $$$$ for Obama on his various positions on this issue.
I believe Obama always felt that way, but being the political animal that he is, never felt like he could say it. I think he also wants to say that he is not religious at all, but that will NEVER happen either. I think by him "coming out of the closet" it will not really help him in any way. It was a good thing to and the right thing to do, but it will not really get him any more votes significantly.
He is correct in that the Government should stay out of marriage. Less Government intervention in peoples lives is always a good thing. Let Gay people have tenancy by the entirety, tax benefits, health insurance benefits etc... without the government stepping in.
Marriage is not a big deal anyways and it certainly has NOTHING to do with religion. Nothing whatsoever.
-
I believe Obama always felt that way, but being the political animal that he is, never felt like he could say it. I think he also wants to say that he is not religious at all, but that will NEVER happen either. I think by him "coming out of the closet" it will not really help him in any way. It was a good thing to and the right thing to do, but it will not really get him any more votes significantly.
He is correct in that the Government should stay out of marriage. Less Government intervention in peoples lives is always a good thing. Let Gay people have tenancy by the entirety, tax benefits, health insurance benefits etc... without the government stepping in.
Marriage is not a big deal anyways and it certainly has NOTHING to do with religion. Nothing whatsoever.
In other words, Obama is a LIAR, which you condone as long as it furthers agendas to your liking.
He is trying to get the government to impose gay "marriage", via repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. That effectively legalizes this mess nationwide, because it takes away the law that says no state has to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.
And, he's trying to force chaplains to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies. So much for taking government out of it.
He is bending over for the gays for three simple reasons:
1) He's lagging in fundraising cash
2) Romney's beating him in the polls
3) His base has been lethargic
-
In other words, Obama is a LIAR, which you condone as long as it furthers agendas to your liking.
He is trying to get the government to impose gay "marriage", via repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. That effectively legalizes this mess nationwide, because it takes away the law that says no state has to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.
And, he's trying to force chaplains to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies. So much for taking government out of it.
He is bending over for the gays for three simple reasons:
1) He's lagging in fundraising cash
2) Romney's beating him in the polls
3) His base has been lethargic
The government should remove all restrictions for human being to get married. The government should then step completely away from marriage. The government should then never get involved on who can marry.
I hope this helps.
PS. Religion is for morons.
-
The government should remove all restrictions for human being to get married. The government should then step completely away from marriage. The government should then never get involved on who can marry.
I hope this helps.
PS. Religion is for morons.
You're not religious. What's your excuse?
-
You're not religious. What's your excuse?
Religion has Zero to do with Marriage. Whats your point?
-
Religion has Zero to do with Marriage. Whats your point?
Religion is a component of marriage, always has been. Not everyone subscribes to that component but most do. That is fact, despite your attempts at revisionist history.
Contrary to your baseless claims, Obama didn't "evolve" because of scientific facts. He did so because of FINANCIAL FACTS (he's behind in his fundraising) and POLITICAL FACTS (he's losing to Romney and bleeding independents).
-
Religion is a component of marriage, always has been. Not everyone subscribes to that component but most do. That is fact, despite your attempts at revisionist history.
That is not true whatsoever. Furthermore, anyone can get married without any religious connotations whatsoever, just as Jezebelle and I did at the Justice of Peace, all you need is a certificate and two witnesses. There was not a single mention of anything regarding any religion.
-
That is not true whatsoever. Furthermore, anyone can get married without any religious connotations whatsoever, just as Jezebelle and I did at the Justice of Peace, all you need is a certificate and two witnesses. There was not a single mention of anything regarding any religion.
What part of "Not everyone subscribes to that component but most do" don't you understand?
And, as I just stated by editing my previous post, Obama's so-called "evolving" has NOTHING to do with any scientific facts.
He did so because of FINANCIAL FACTS (he's behind in his fundraising) and POLITICAL FACTS (he's losing to Romney and bleeding independents).
Plus, you just shot yourself in the foot. A Justice of the Peace is part of the GOVERNMENT (at least at the state level). You just said that government should not be involved. Make up your mind here.
And that government agent simply enforced state and federal law. With about half a dozen exception, you can't marry "another" guy; nor could you have married Jezebelle, if she were a minor (at least not without parental consent, depending on where you live).
And, you can't have another wife, while you and Jezebelle are still hitched.
-
What part of "Not everyone subscribes to that component but most do" don't you understand?
And, as I just stated by editing my previous post, Obama's so-called "evolving" has NOTHING to do with any scientific facts.
He did so because of FINANCIAL FACTS (he's behind in his fundraising) and POLITICAL FACTS (he's losing to Romney and bleeding independents).
I don`t care what component anyone subscribes to. Marriage should be between anyone who wants to marry. I don`t see why this is such a tough concept for anyone to grasp. Stay out of peoples Personal Lives and lets make the Government stay out as well.
Its hilarious that the "Republican" position is all for Government intrusion and regulation in this case.
-
And who gave this minority these "rights' in the first place?
The US Supreme Court has said no such thing. If anything it says the opposite (see "Baker v. Nelson" [1971]).
The California Supreme Court ruled, legalizing gay "marriage", based on its constitution, which got amended six months later via Proposition 8.
In an earlier case, the California Supreme Court ADMITTED that they could not rule that gay "marriage" violated the Federal constitution, because of "Baker v. Nelson". That case was "Lockeyer v. San Francisco" (2004).
Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does NOT violate the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of 279*279 the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (1971) 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal "for want of substantial federal question." (Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65.)
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court's decision on the issues of federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238, 53 L.Ed.2d 199; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223.) Summary decisions of this kind "prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238.) Thus, the high court's summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through "`doctrinal developments'" that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.
So far, a federal court (with a gay judge) and the 9th Circuit Court (that has more of its rulings REVERSED by the Supreme Court than nearly every other court in the nation) has sided with gay "marriage" supporters. Yet, until this case is completely resolved, Prop. 8 is still in effect.
If the case gets no further than the 9th Circuit court, it affects only California. But, that's not what the gay "marriage" bubbas want. They're looking for this case to overturn every other state marriage amendment.
But, given the US Supreme Court's history of not bucking the trend of the majority of states, I don't like their chances.
no one gave just minorities rights. They were granted to everyone in the CA Constitution and were just being denied to a certain minority group
And in my post I said take California as an example since you seem have made gay marriage your life obsession you should have know full well what I was referring to
The CA Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection clause of the CA Constitution also applies to sexual orientation:
The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution
Now, as we know voters later voted to take away the rights of this minority class (funded in large part by religious kooks from outside the state)
I think now that we have a precedent for the removal of civil right we ought to look for ways to take away the civil rights of right wingers, fundies and anyone else that we can. Since CA is primarily a liberal/progressive state we should look for ways to take away rights of right wingers. I'm sure no right winger have a problem with this since they used the same process to take away the rights of people they don't agree with
-
What part of "Not everyone subscribes to that component but most do" don't you understand?
And, as I just stated by editing my previous post, Obama's so-called "evolving" has NOTHING to do with any scientific facts.
He did so because of FINANCIAL FACTS (he's behind in his fundraising) and POLITICAL FACTS (he's losing to Romney and bleeding independents).
so you think he lied when he said it was because of talking with his daughters and friends and family and thinking that gays deserve the same equal protection and respect as straight people?
-
so you think he lied when he said it was because of talking with his daughters and friends and family and thinking that gays deserve the same equal protection and respect as straight people?
I think he always supported Gay Marriage, but could not say so publicly because he is a Political Animal and Politics make true statements impossible given the stupidity of the public writ large. He didn`t have to "evolve" on this issue and never did. He is just saying that nonsense.
-
no one gave just minorities rights. They were granted to everyone in the CA Constitution and were just being denied to a certain minority group
And in my post I said take California as an example since you seem have made gay marriage your life obsession you should have know full well what I was referring to
Life obsession? Hardly!! Refuting your factually-challenged quips is just something I do well.
California's constitution was MODIFIED, courtesy of Prop. 8.
The CA Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection clause of the CA Constitution also applies to sexual orientation:
Now, as we know voters later voted to take away the rights of this minority class (funded in large part by religious kooks from outside the state)
I think now that we have a precedent for the removal of civil right we ought to look for ways to take away the civil rights of right wingers, fundies and anyone else that we can. Since CA is primarily a liberal/progressive state we should look for ways to take away rights of right wingers. I'm sure no right winger have a problem with this since they used the same process to take away the rights of people they don't agree with
Once again, WHO gives people these "civil rights", Straw?
In other words, in your mind, four judges can give people rights but millions of voters can't. ::)
Furthermore, as far as "out of state" kooks go, there were plenty of out-of-state activists and money ON BOTH SIDES. Or did you conveniently forget that. In fact, as is often the case, the gay "marriage" supporters outspent the Prop. 8 supporters. Although, in California, the difference in cash was somewhat smaller than normal.
Usually, the gays and their buddies outspent traditional marriage supporters by 2 to 1, which makes their losses even more frustrating (see North Carolina).
Kindly explain why California's attempt of a gay "marriage" amendment crashed and burned, if California is so "progressive".
-
I think he always supported Gay Marriage, but could not say so publicly because he is a Political Animal and Politics make true statements impossible given the stupidity of the public writ large. He didn`t have to "evolve" on this issue and never did. He is just saying that nonsense.
In other words, HE'S LYING. He looked Pastor Rick Warren DEAD IN THE EYE and said, in front of the audience in Warren's California church, that he believed marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He did the same on MTV, just days before the election, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage"
No matter how you spin it, Adonis, Obama is a flat-out LIAR, who "evolved" because he needed the campaign money. As of March, he had less than a quarter of the campaign cash that Bush did in 2004.
His record sucks, and he's en route to the same beating his fellow Democrats took in 2010.
-
In other words, HE'S LYING. He looked Pastor Rick Warren DEAD IN THE EYE and said, in front of an audience, that he believed marriage is a union between one man and one woman. He did the same on MTV, just days before the election, further adding "I am not in favor of gay marriage"
No matter how you spin it, Adonis, Obama is a flat-out LIAR, who only "evolved" because he needed the money. As of March, he had less than a quarter of the campaign cash that Bush did in 2004.
Of course he lied. Mitt Romney is a liar too. I know he doesn`t believe in the bullshit magic Underpants Religion either, but he won`t say it. He can`t possibly believe Joseph Smith in 1823, was visited at night by an angel named Moroni, who revealed the location of a buried book of golden plates as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of silver spectacles with lenses composed of seer stones, which had been hidden in a hill near his home.
IF he believes that, I have a bridge to sell you.
-
Life obsession? Hardly!! Refuting your factually-challenged quips is just something I do well.
California's constitution was MODIFIED, courtesy of Prop. 8.
Once again, WHO gives people these "civil rights", Straw?
Furthermore, as far as "out of state" kooks go, there were plenty of out-of-state activists and money ON BOTH SIDES. Or did you conveniently forget that. In fact, as is often the case, the gay "marriage" supporters outspent the Prop. 8 supporters. Although, in California, the difference in cash was somewhat smaller than normal.
Usually, the gays and their buddies outspent traditional marriage supporters by 2 to 1, which makes their losses even more frustrating (see North Carolina).
Kindly explain why California's attempt of a gay "marriage" amendment crashed and burned, if California is so "progressive".
my speculation is that it failed in Part due hispanics who are traditionally Catholic and in part because Yes on Prop 8 meant a No on gay marriage and I think many people were aso confused that Yes = No
As you know the measure was titled to say Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
Now that we know we can vote away a group of peoples rights in this state I think we should see how far we can go
As long as the majority agrees I assume you woud have no objection to the majority of voters elimininating ANY right
And when the majority of voters eventually rescind Prop 8 I assume you'll have no problem with that either
-
Of course he lied. Mitt Romney is a liar too. I know he doesn`t believe in the bullshit magic Underpants Religion either, but he won`t say it. He can`t possibly believe Joseph Smith in 1823, was visited at night by an angel named Moroni, who revealed the location of a buried book of golden plates as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of silver spectacles with lenses composed of seer stones, which had been hidden in a hill near his home.
IF he believes that, I have a bridge to sell you.
The issue isn't Romney's faith (don't tell me you're going to claim that Romney's a closet atheist, just as you did with Obama).
It's your preposterous claim that Obama switched his view on gay "marriage", based on so-called scientific facts and date. This was a political move, pure and simple, based largely on financial reasons (and the fact that Romney is ahead of him in the polls, especially among independents).
-
my speculation is that it failed in Part due hispanics who are traditionally Catholic and in part because Yes on Prop 8 meant a No on gay marriage and I think many people were aso confused that Yes = No
As you know the measure was titled to say Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
Now that we know we can vote away a group of peoples rights in this state I think we should see how far we can go
As long as the majority agrees I assume you woud have no objection to the majority of voters elimininating ANY right
And when the majority of voters eventually rescind Prop 8 I assume you'll have no problem with that either
That wasn't the original title of Prop. 8. Then-attorney-general-now-governor Gerry Brown changed the title AFTER HE APPROVED the amendment to go on the ballot.
That was done, hoping that Prop. 8 would be voted down, as he made that approval prior to the Court ruling that the previous law (Prop. 22) was unconstitutional per California's constitution. I suspect the California Court let gays have marriage licenses, even with Prop. 8 looming on the horizon, with the goal of influencing the vote on Prop. 8.
Had it been voted down, the court and Brown would likely have said, "See, the court's ruling was in line with the people." Just a few weeks before election days, polls were saying that Prop. 8 would lose and that Californians were in favor of gay "marriage". But, that ain't how it went down.
Who determines what people get "rights", again, judges or voters?
The court ruled based on the state constitution (or at least, how they interpreted it). So, the voters amended the constitution SO AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT as to how marriage should be defined. States have been doing that proactively, to keep state courts like that of California and Massachusetts from doing what they did within their borders, the most recent of which was North Carolina.
-
The issue isn't Romney's faith (don't tell me you're going to claim that Romney's a closet atheist, just as you did with Obama).
It's your preposterous claim that Obama switched his view on gay "marriage", based on so-called scientific facts and date. This was a political move, pure and simple, based largely on financial reasons (and the fact that Romney is ahead of him in the polls, especially among independents).
Romney is not a stupid person and his wife and her family were all atheists. Mormonism for Romney is more of an identity than a religion. Do you really think he believes in wearing Magical Underwear and that Joseph Smith was really an apostle in the 1800s? Joseph Smith is a known Fraud and Mountebank and nothing more. Romney is not stupid enough to believe otherwise.
-
The issue isn't Romney's faith (don't tell me you're going to claim that Romney's a closet atheist, just as you did with Obama).
It's your preposterous claim that Obama switched his view on gay "marriage", based on so-called scientific facts and date. This was a political move, pure and simple, based largely on financial reasons (and the fact that Romney is ahead of him in the polls, especially among independents).
Obama NEVER switched his view. He just lied about switching it in my opinion.
-
Romney is not a stupid person and his wife and her family were all atheists. Mormonism for Romney is more of an identity than a religion. Do you really think he believes in wearing Magical Underwear and that Joseph Smith was really an apostle in the 1800s? Joseph Smith is a known Fraud and Mountebank and nothing more. Romney is not stupid enough to believe otherwise.
More comedic gold. Now, we have all these politicians who are closet atheists. What are you smoking? I'm sure Snoop Dogg would love to get his hands on it.
Ann Romney was an Episcopalian, before becoming a Mormon. Her dad was said to oppose organized religion. That does NOT equate to being an atheist.
-
Obama NEVER switched his view. He just lied about switching it in my opinion.
that seems to be the case
-
More comedic gold. Now, we have all these politicians who are closet atheists. What are you smoking? I'm sure Snoop Dogg would love to get his hands on it.
There are more Atheists in the Closet than there are Gays in the Closet.
-
More comedic gold. Now, we have all these politicians who are closet atheists. What are you smoking? I'm sure Snoop Dogg would love to get his hands on it.
You wouldn`t vote for Romney if you knew he was an atheist, nor would most registered Republicans therefore you will NEVER hear Romney come out of the closet. There have been a few Atheist Republicans-Barry Goldwater-who today would probably be considered a liberal (despite being a REAL CONSERVATIVE). John Bolton also comes to mind and Karl Rove.
-
There are more Atheists in the Closet than there are Gays in the Closet.
Ann Romney wasn't one of them and neither was Mitt.
-
You wouldn`t vote for Romney if you knew he was an atheist, nor would most registered Republicans therefore you will NEVER hear Romney come out of the closet. There have been a few Atheist Republicans-Barry Goldwater-who today would probably be considered a liberal (despite being a REAL CONSERVATIVE). John Bolton also comes to mind and Karl Rove.
No, I wouldn't vote for Romney if he were an atheist, especially if he were of the stripe of atheists that tend to be flat-out JERKS.
Romney is no more of a closet atheist than Obama is. But, keep up this pitiful attempt to paint them as such. It's quite laughable.
-
I think he always supported Gay Marriage, but could not say so publicly because he is a Political Animal and Politics make true statements impossible given the stupidity of the public writ large. He didn`t have to "evolve" on this issue and never did. He is just saying that nonsense.
yeah, I think that is the case too
He made a political decision to pretend to be on the fence about it
He has to walk that tightrope to appeal to fundies and frankly I'm kind of amazed he finally took a stand
The one thing that has really disappointed me about Obama was how quickly he has caved in on stuff he bleive and how quickly he throught people under the bus (Shirly Sherrond, Van Joses, Bush Tax cuts, etc..) Though I also acknowledge I have no idea what he is really dealing with behind closed doors or the compromises that have to be made to get shit done
-
That wasn't the original title of Prop. 8. Then-attorney-general-now-governor Gerry Brown changed the title AFTER HE APPROVED the amendment to go on the ballot.
That was done, hoping that Prop. 8 would be voted down, as he made that approval prior to the Court ruling that the previous law (Prop. 22) was unconstitutional per California's constitution. I suspect the California Court let gays have marriage licenses, even with Prop. 8 looming on the horizon, with the goal of influencing the vote on Prop. 8.
Had it been voted down, the court and Brown would likely have said, "See, the court's ruling was in line with the people." Just a few weeks before election days, polls were saying that Prop. 8 would lose and that Californians were in favor of gay "marriage". But, that ain't how it went down.
Who determines what people get "rights", again, judges or voters?
The court ruled based on the state constitution (or at least, how they interpreted it). So, the voters amended the constitution SO AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT as to how marriage should be defined. States have been doing that proactively, to keep state courts like that of California and Massachusetts from doing what they did within their borders, the most recent of which was North Carolina.
I know
I remember that fundies bitched and moaned because the title was actually accurate as to exactly what was going on and your kind prefers deceoption in order to advance your ridiculous agenda of trying to get free people to live by your chosen standards
-
yeah, I think that is the case too
He made a political decision to pretend to be on the fence about it
He has to walk that tightrope to appeal to fundies and frankly I'm kind of amazed he finally took a stand
The one thing that has really disappointed me about Obama was how quickly he has caved in on stuff he bleive and how quickly he throught people under the bus (Shirly Sherrond, Van Joses, Bush Tax cuts, etc..) Though I also acknowledge I have no idea what he is really dealing with behind closed doors or the compromises that have to be made to get shit done
He had no choice. Biden spilled the beans. Besides, the ordering of the Justice Department not to enforce DOMA and the attempt to force chaplains to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies were a few subtle hints.
BTW, add Rev. Wright to the list of bus-flattened people.
-
He had no choice. Biden spilled the beans. Besides, the ordering of the Justice Department not to enforce DOMA and the attempt to force chaplains to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies were a few subtle hints.
BTW, add Rev. Wright to the list of bus-flattened people.
of course he has a choice
Biden speaks for himself and that's all the POTUS had to say, if even that
-
I know
I remember that fundies bitched and moaned because the title was actually accurate as to exactly what was going on and your kind prefers deceoption in order to advance your ridiculous agenda of trying to get free people to live by your chosen standards
There was no deception. The purpose of Prop. 8 was to return California's definition of marriage to what it had been, since the state's existence, what the voters stated it should be per the law (which was not afoul of the US Constitution). Four judges tried to squelch the will of the voters but they amended their constitution, which the judges grudgingly admitted they had to follow.
Brown changed the name, trying to sway the vote in his favor. But, it didn't work.
If any rights were taken, it was that of the people by four judges, trying to keep the voters from defining marriage as they saw fit, in lines with the state and federal constitutions
-
No, I wouldn't vote for Romney if he were an atheist, especially if he were of the stripe of atheists that tend to be flat-out JERKS.
Romney is no more of a closet atheist than Obama is. But, keep up this pitiful attempt to paint them as such. It's quite laughable.
Do you think that Romney believes Joseph Smith is an apostle?
-
There was no deception. The purpose of Prop. 8 was to return California's definition of marriage to what it had been, since the state's existence, what the voters stated it should be per the law (which was not afoul of the US Constitution). Four judges tried to squelch the will of the voters but they amended their constitution, which the judges grudgingly admitted they had to follow.
Brown changed the name, trying to sway the vote in his favor. But, it didn't work.
Brown changed the name to make it as accurate as possible
The ammendment intent was to take away the rights of gay people
thats' what it did
the one thing I don't undertand about Fundie and Repubs in general is that you seem to be ashamed of your agenda or maybe it's like Pat Robertson has said, that you have to be deceptive in trying to get your agenda through because if people really understood it they would be against it
-
Do you think that Romney believes Joseph Smith is an apostle?
Perhaps he does. BIG DEAL!!
-
Brown changed the name to make it as accurate as possible
The ammendment intent was to take away the rights of gay people
thats' what it did
the one thing I don't undertand about Fundie and Repubs in general is that you seem to be ashamed of your agenda or maybe it's like Pat Robertson has said, that you have to be deceptive in trying to get your agenda through because if people really understood it they would be against it
Brown did no such thing. He changed it, hoping to swing the election but failed to do so.
And, the agenda is hardly deceptive. It's spelled out in no uncertain terms. That may be among the reasons that gay "marriage" supporters are 0-32 at the ballot box. And, after this election, they'll likely be 0-35.
-
Perhaps he does. BIG DEAL!!
Its a direct contradiction to what you believe.
-
He had no choice. Biden spilled the beans. Besides, the ordering of the Justice Department not to enforce DOMA and the attempt to force chaplains to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies were a few subtle hints.
BTW, add Rev. Wright to the list of bus-flattened people.
btw -if you believe he had no choice than how can it be "all about the money"
-
Its a direct contradiction to what you believe.
He believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as do I. And, he believes that Christ died for our sins and to redeem mankind as do I.
Do all of our doctrinal philosophies match? NO! I never claimed they did.
But, enough of them match in the major social and political issues, for me to pick him over that goof Obama, any day of the week.
Romney wasn't my favorite of the GOP field. But, he is the survivor (and soon-to-be winner). I'm casting my vote for him, because we literally and figuratively can't afford anymore of Obama's foolishness.
-
btw -if you believe he had no choice than how can it be "all about the money"
Biden got his rump chewed for spilling the beans, because the plan was for him to keep "winking and nodding", until shortly before or after the election.
Plus, it didn't help that his press secretary keep citing his previous views on the matter.
As I said, he's way behind in his fundraising and I cited the article to support that. Not to mention that at least a sixth of his campaign bundlers are gay.
Plus, I listed multiple reasons for his convenient "evolution".
-
Brown did no such thing . He changed it, hoping to swing the election but failed to do so.
And, the agenda is hardly deceptive. It's spelled out in no uncertain terms. That may be among the reasons that gay "marriage" supporters are 0-32 at the ballot box. And, after this election, they'll likely be 0-35.
why is that fundies can lie so easily
Isn't lying still considered a sin?
this goes back again to how you fundies need deception to promote you agenda of forcing others to adopt your beliefs.
the really hilarious part is that title of the ballot came VERBATIM from the text of the measure
Basically you're objecting to having the title reflect the very words in text
This is a perfect example of how religious freaks need to use deception in order to trick the public into passing their bullshit
Why is that the more relgious someone is the more it seems they are ok with lying and deception ?
from Wiki (but not necessary for me since I remember it when it happened and have religious reason to pretend otherwise)
Proponents of the measure objected to the wording of the ballot title and summary on the grounds that they were argumentative and prejudicial. The resulting legal petition Jansson v. Bowen[25] was dismissed August 7, 2008, by California Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley, who ruled that "the title and summary includes an essentially verbatim recital of the text of the measure itself",[26] and that the change was valid because the measure did, in fact, eliminate a right upheld by the California Supreme Court.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown explained that the changes were required to more "accurately reflect the measure" in light of the California Supreme Court's intervening In re Marriage Cases decision.[27]
-
why is that fundies can lie so easily
Isn't lying still considered a sin?
this goes back again to how you fundies need deception to promote you agenda of forcing others to adopt your beliefs.
the really hilarious part is that title of the ballot came VERBATIM from the text of the measure
Basically you're objecting to having the title reflect the very words in text
This is a perfect example of how religious freaks need to use deception in order to trick the public into passing their bullshit
Why is that the more relgious someone is the more it seems they are ok with lying and deception ?
from Wiki (but not necessary for me since I remember it when it happened and have religious reason to pretend otherwise)
Wrong, Straw.
The title was plain and simple. In fact, it had that title BEFORE the CA Supreme Court made their ruling. Had the court ruled to uphold Prop. 22, this wouldn't have even been an issue.
The LYING is on Brown's part, because his entire purpose for changing the title was to influence the vote in his favor and that of gay "marriage" supporters.
Brown scrubbed Prop. 8 and said he found no constitutional issues with it. Then, pressured by gay activists, he changed his tune, railed against it, and changed the name of the amendment itself. After Prop. 8 passed, Brown said he would defend it; then changed his tune again and refused to do so.
Therefore, the lying would be on his part. Like Obama, he flip-flopped....ahem..."evolved" for political expediency.
So, you can cease with your pitiful attempt at revisionist history. Between Brown's actions and (in my view) those of the court, allowing gays to get marriage licenses before the vote on Prop. 8 occured, the goal was to steer the vote into putting Prop. 8 down.
But, of course, that didn't happen.
The state court answers to the state Constitution. Prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment. What part of that escapes your comprehension?
This basically boils down to your warped take that four judges should trump the will of the people of California. In other words, the "tyranny" of the minority vs. the majority.
-
Wrong, Straw.
The title was plain and simple. In fact, it had that title BEFORE the CA Supreme Court made their ruling. Had the court ruled to uphold Prop. 22, this wouldn't have even been an issue.
The LYING is on Brown's part, because his entire purpose for changing the title was to influence the vote in his favor and that of gay "marriage" supporters.
Brown scrubbed Prop. 8 and said he found no constitutional issues with it. Then, pressured by gay activists, he changed his tune, railed against it, and changed the name of the amendment itself. After Prop. 8 passed, Brown said he would defend it; then changed his tune again and refused to do so.
Therefore, the lying would be on his part. Like Obama, he flip-flopped....ahem..."evolved" for political expediency.
So, you can cease with your pitiful attempt at revisionist history. Between Brown's actions and (in my view) those of the court, allowing gays to get marriage licenses before the vote on Prop. 8 occured, the goal was to steer the vote into putting Prop. 8 down.
But, of course, that didn't happen.
The state court answers to the state Constitution. Prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment. What part of that escapes your comprehension?
This basically boils down to your warped take that four judges should trump the will of the people of California. In other words, the "tyranny" of the minority vs. the majority.
Why do you hate freedom?
-
Why do you hate freedom?
LOL. You were in favor of GhettoCare right?
-
LOL. You were in favor of GhettoCare right?
Why do you hate America?
-
African American leaders blast NAACP 'gay marriage' support
CNA ^ | 5/23/12 | Michelle Bauman
Posted on May 23, 2012 5:58:46 AM EDT by markomalley
The NAACP's recent endorsement of “gay marriage” drew harsh criticism from within the African American community for misrepresenting civil rights and undermining families.
Pastor Derek McCoy, executive director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, said that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's “unfortunate” stance on the issue will contribute to the “further demise of the family.”
McCoy told CNA on May 21 that the NAACP is “endorsing an epidemic” of fatherless households, a “tragic” phenomenon in the United States and particularly in the African American community.
On May 19, the association released a statement in support of redefining marriage to include gay couples. The announcement came ten days after President Barack Obama announced his unprecedented support for “gay marriage.”
McCoy said that despite its long record of important work, however, the NAACP's latest move does not reflect the views of its constituents.
According to an April 2012 survey by Pew Research Center, only 39 percent of African Americans are in favor of redefining marriage. Voters across the country have consistently affirmed measures to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
McCoy said that redefining marriage is redefining the family in a way that is “hazardous” for children.
“Gay marriage” teaches that fathers and mothers are both dispensable, he explained, and “this is absolutely going to harm the family.”
The absence of a father has been linked to higher rates of crime, poverty, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy throughout the U.S.
In his 2011 Father’s Day proclamation, President Obama noted the importance of fatherhood and said that his administration was making support of fathers a priority. “A father's absence is felt by children, families, and communities in countless ways, leaving a hole that can have lasting effects,” he said.
Statistics show that more than half of black children live in single-parent households, often lacking the presence of a father.
Support for “gay marriage,” McCoy underscored, reiterates the message that “one of the parents is no longer valid.”
Both fathers and mothers become “optional” in a society where having one father is viewed as no different from having two or none at all, he said.
The pastor explained that government has always recognized marriages in order to “look out for the best interest of the child.” Studies clearly show that a family with a mother and a father “is the best place for kids to be raised,” he noted.
McCoy also said that the effort to redefine marriage “does not compare to civil rights.”
He dismissed attempts to compare people who reject “gay marriage” to those who oppose interracial marriage.
“That’s not the same issue at all,” he said, reflecting that racial differences are irrelevant to marriage, but sexual complementarity is at the heart of marriage by its very nature.
“The core essence of a marriage is the two sexes coming together,” he said.
Other African American leaders have also criticized the NAACP’s endorsement of “gay marriage” in recent days.
Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that neither her grandfather nor her uncle “embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda.”
“We who marched with Rev. King did not march one inch or one mile to promote same-sex marriage,” agreed Rev. William Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African American Pastors.
He explained that redefining marriage is counter to Dr. King’s work because it is a political attempt to “declare that an act contrary to God's law and to the natural law is a civil right.”
“We call on all Americans to respect the legitimate civil rights of gay people to be free from violence, harassment, to vote, to hold jobs,” Owens said. “But none of us has a moral or civil right to redefine marriage.”
-
Farrakhan Slams Obama’s Gay Marriage Endorsement: ‘1st Pres That Sanctioned What Scriptures Forbid’
Yahoo ^ | 5/29/12 | Billy Hallowell
Posted on May 29, 2012 9:15:08 PM EDT by Libloather
Farrakhan Slams Obama’s Gay Marriage Endorsement: ‘He’s the First President That Sanctioned What the Scriptures Forbid’
By Billy Hallowell | The Blaze – 9 hrs ago
On Sunday, May 27, Minister Louis Farrakhan spoke in San Diego, California, where he delved into a plethora of subjects, ranging from Mexican heritage to Israel’s alleged “war-mongering.” Among the topics he weighed in on, Farrakhan also took the time to tackle homosexuality and President Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage.
The fiery Nation of Islam leader began by utilizing stories from both the Koran and the Bible to illustrate God’s views on same-sex attraction. He also made it overtly clear that, though he disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, he isn’t afraid of gays and lesbians. In addition to attempting to convince the audience that homosexuality is sinful in nature, Farrakhan seemed particularly irritated that critics would label him a homophobe.
“Now don’t you dare say, ‘Farrakhan was preachin’ hate. He’s homophobic.‘ I’m not afraid of my brothers and sisters or others who may be practicing what God condemned in the days of Lot,” he proclaimed. “That’s not our job to be hateful of our people. Our job is to call us to sanity. Our job is to call the people to righteous conduct.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
-
.
-
.
What did you do, smear yourself in water colors?
-
What did you do, smear yourself in water colors?
Your hate will lose.
-
.
What's ignorant about marriage being only between a man and a woman? And how is that even remotely the same as segregation?
Martin Luther King would never support gay "marriage".
-
Your hate will lose.
STFU you fagbear. You hate on people just as much as anyone else.
-
What's ignorant about marriage being only between a man and a woman? And how is that even remotely the same as segregation?
It's not. Garebear is simply engaging in his standard silliness.
Martin Luther King would never support gay "marriage".
Probably not! His family seems to be split on the issue. Dr. King's wife, Coretta, and oldest daughter, Yolanda, supported gay "marriage".
His son, MLK III, seems a bit on the fence.
Dr. King's youngest daughter, Bernice, and his niece, Alveda, are VEHEMENTLY against gay "marriage".
So, when it comes to invoking the King family on this issue, it's safe to say that the left use Correta and Yolanda, to argue their point.
The right use Bernice and Alveda, to make their case. Though she's a Democrat, Alveda King often shows up at Tea Party rallies. She was at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally nearly two years ago.
-
All about the Benjamins.
LGBT donors back President Obama, big time
By Jen Christensen, CNN
updated 9:48 AM EDT, Tue June 5, 2012
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120604094131-lgbt-obama-supporters-story-top.jpg)
Some of Obama's prominent LGBT supporters include Neil Patrick Harris, Suze Orman, Ricky Martin, Ellen DeGeneres, and Dustin Lance Black.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A CNN analysis of Obama's biggest fundraisers shows about one in every 16 is openly gay
Gay fundraisers have raised more than $8 million for the Obama campaign
Similar figures are not available for the Romney campaign
(CNN) -- After President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, a group organizing a fundraiser on his behalf suddenly had to find a bigger venue. The event, featuring the pop singer Pink, is one of two LGBT-organized fundraisers Obama is expected to attend on the West Coast on Wednesday.
A CNN analysis of President Obama's biggest fundraisers, known as bundlers, shows that at least 33 -- or about one in every 16 bundlers -- is openly gay. Together, they have raised at least $8 million for the campaign between January and the end of March.
By contrast, in the same period, bundlers from the television, movie and music industry, some of whom attended a recent high-profile fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney, raised $6.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
While campaign finance laws require donors to disclose their full names, addresses, occupations and employers, there is no box to check for sexual orientation. Nor does the law require candidates to release information about their bundlers. Under prodding from watchdog groups, presidential campaigns have released bundler data in past elections. Obama's campaign has released its list. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign has not.
In CNN's analysis, only bundlers who have disclosed their orientation in past CNN reporting or in trusted LGBT publications were counted as gay. The Washington Post has reported that as many as one in six bundlers supporting Obama are gay. The Advocate Magazine estimates one in five.
Glancing down the names on the bundlers list released by the Obama campaign for the first quarter, it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.
Tim Gill, a software entrepreneur who runs a large Colorado-based foundation that backs gay rights projects, has already contributed $672,800 with his partner Scott Miller to the Obama for America campaign. Fred Eychaner, who owns the Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., has donated $1,220,550 so far.
He co-hosted a $35,800-per-person LGBT organized fundraiser for Obama in February. Kathy Levinson, the former president and CEO of the Menlo Park, California-based Etrade, gave $202,150. The LA Gay and Lesbian Center Women's Night named Levinson a "Community Role Model" in 2000. She was instrumental in raising money to stop the anti-same-sex marriage law in California.
Donations made after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage May 9 won't be released until mid-June, when the campaign files its second-quarter reports with the Federal Election Commission.
Many LGBT bundlers have maintained a close relationship with the president throughout his first term. A state dinner in March was attended by bundlers Gill; Eychaner; Barry Karas, a former Human Rights Campaign board member; James (Wally) Brewster, senior vice president of General Growth Properties, a real estate investment trust that owns and operates shopping malls; Dana Perlman, a corporate lawyer who has served as co-chair of the Obama/DNC LGBT Leadership Council; Joseph Falk, a Miami mortgage broker and others.
Support for Obama from the LGBT community was challenged after the initial excitement of his first campaign, largely because of what was perceived as his lukewarm support on same-sex marriage. Some say a low point came during the election in 2008, when evangelist pastor Rick Warren asked Obama how he defined marriage and he called it "a union between a man and a woman." He added: "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." He further angered the community by picking Warren to deliver his invocation at the presidential inauguration.
Actor Alan Cumming wrote in 2010, "We keep hearing that Obama is an ally, that DADT [the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that kept LGBT people from openly serving in the military] will end under his watch, but what do we actually get? Diddly squat."
Dustin Lance Black, who won a best screenplay Oscar for "Milk," a movie biography of the gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk who was gunned down because of his sexual orientation, said last year that he had been an Obama supporter before but might sit out the upcoming election. When President Obama finally signed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and "evolved" in his position on marriage by saying he was in favor of it for the LGBT community, both Black and Cumming did more than just say they supported the president. They donated money. They also encouraged others to do the same.
David Mixner, who started one of the first LGBT-themed PACs in the late 1970s, said the community has come a long way in being accepted in electoral politics. "We had some candidates who wouldn't take our money back then because they didn't want to be associated with anyone who was gay," Mixner said. He said he believes that changed with the Clinton administration, which the PAC raised $4 million to support. "Now the community knows how to raise money and contribute on their own and we are more than welcome at the table."
The LGBT community is such an important part of this president's re-election effort that the Obama for America campaign hosts a special section for it on its website. It includes a video discussing the president's support for LGBT issues narrated by actress Jane Lynch, who is openly gay. It also offers Obama merchandise like T-shirts and drink koozies to bring to Gay Pride events this summer.
The president has already attended several LGBT-organized fundraisers, including one in New York hosted by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, the Futuro Fund, and Obama for America LGBT Leadership Council.
Another event in Washington, hosted by Karen K. Dixon and her partner, Dr. Nan Schaffer, was rumored to have raised more than a million dollars for the campaign, although the Obama team won't comment on the record about fundraising. Tickets for one of the California events were selling so well the campaign had to find a larger venue. There also is great interest in a Chicago fundraiser co-hosted by LGBT bundlers Brewster and Bob Satawake. The couple has already raised $288,663, according to the CNN analysis.
"I think there has always been a strong base of support from LGBT people for the president," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, whose incoming president Chad Griffin is a bundler. "He earned even more respect from the community -- from repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' to signing the hate crimes law giving the first civil rights protection for us in federal law, to coming out against DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for federal purposes as unions exclusively between a man and a woman. "Now, with his saying he believes in full marriage equality, we have another reason for people in our community to be generous with their time and money."
It is difficult to know if there are any openly gay bundlers for the Republicans, because Romney has not disclosed his bundler list.
The Republican candidate has, however, voiced his opposition to civil unions and supports a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
But some gay Republicans say Romney is not totally close minded on LGBT issues. "On gay issues, where Romney stands is not as black and white as it seems," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans. "One thing he has been consistent on, as governor and as a candidate for president, is he has spoken in broad terms about ending discrimination in the workplace. He has said there is no room for it."
Cooper said the Log Cabin Republicans haven't decided yet if they will endorse Romney. That announcement will come sometime this fall. He does believe, though, that there are gay donors to Romney's campaign. They just might not be as outspoken.
"We joke that at Pride (festivals), the question we most often ask other Republicans we see there is, 'Are you out?' Meaning 'out' about your politics yet."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/politics/lgbt-obama-donors/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
-
Like I said - gays, like every other group - are used like toilet paper for obama
All about the Benjamins.
LGBT donors back President Obama, big time
By Jen Christensen, CNN
updated 9:48 AM EDT, Tue June 5, 2012
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120604094131-lgbt-obama-supporters-story-top.jpg)
Some of Obama's prominent LGBT supporters include Neil Patrick Harris, Suze Orman, Ricky Martin, Ellen DeGeneres, and Dustin Lance Black.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A CNN analysis of Obama's biggest fundraisers shows about one in every 16 is openly gay
Gay fundraisers have raised more than $8 million for the Obama campaign
Similar figures are not available for the Romney campaign
(CNN) -- After President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, a group organizing a fundraiser on his behalf suddenly had to find a bigger venue. The event, featuring the pop singer Pink, is one of two LGBT-organized fundraisers Obama is expected to attend on the West Coast on Wednesday.
A CNN analysis of President Obama's biggest fundraisers, known as bundlers, shows that at least 33 -- or about one in every 16 bundlers -- is openly gay. Together, they have raised at least $8 million for the campaign between January and the end of March.
By contrast, in the same period, bundlers from the television, movie and music industry, some of whom attended a recent high-profile fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney, raised $6.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
While campaign finance laws require donors to disclose their full names, addresses, occupations and employers, there is no box to check for sexual orientation. Nor does the law require candidates to release information about their bundlers. Under prodding from watchdog groups, presidential campaigns have released bundler data in past elections. Obama's campaign has released its list. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign has not.
In CNN's analysis, only bundlers who have disclosed their orientation in past CNN reporting or in trusted LGBT publications were counted as gay. The Washington Post has reported that as many as one in six bundlers supporting Obama are gay. The Advocate Magazine estimates one in five.
Glancing down the names on the bundlers list released by the Obama campaign for the first quarter, it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.
Tim Gill, a software entrepreneur who runs a large Colorado-based foundation that backs gay rights projects, has already contributed $672,800 with his partner Scott Miller to the Obama for America campaign. Fred Eychaner, who owns the Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., has donated $1,220,550 so far.
He co-hosted a $35,800-per-person LGBT organized fundraiser for Obama in February. Kathy Levinson, the former president and CEO of the Menlo Park, California-based Etrade, gave $202,150. The LA Gay and Lesbian Center Women's Night named Levinson a "Community Role Model" in 2000. She was instrumental in raising money to stop the anti-same-sex marriage law in California.
Donations made after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage May 9 won't be released until mid-June, when the campaign files its second-quarter reports with the Federal Election Commission.
Many LGBT bundlers have maintained a close relationship with the president throughout his first term. A state dinner in March was attended by bundlers Gill; Eychaner; Barry Karas, a former Human Rights Campaign board member; James (Wally) Brewster, senior vice president of General Growth Properties, a real estate investment trust that owns and operates shopping malls; Dana Perlman, a corporate lawyer who has served as co-chair of the Obama/DNC LGBT Leadership Council; Joseph Falk, a Miami mortgage broker and others.
Support for Obama from the LGBT community was challenged after the initial excitement of his first campaign, largely because of what was perceived as his lukewarm support on same-sex marriage. Some say a low point came during the election in 2008, when evangelist pastor Rick Warren asked Obama how he defined marriage and he called it "a union between a man and a woman." He added: "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." He further angered the community by picking Warren to deliver his invocation at the presidential inauguration.
Actor Alan Cumming wrote in 2010, "We keep hearing that Obama is an ally, that DADT [the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that kept LGBT people from openly serving in the military] will end under his watch, but what do we actually get? Diddly squat."
Dustin Lance Black, who won a best screenplay Oscar for "Milk," a movie biography of the gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk who was gunned down because of his sexual orientation, said last year that he had been an Obama supporter before but might sit out the upcoming election. When President Obama finally signed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and "evolved" in his position on marriage by saying he was in favor of it for the LGBT community, both Black and Cumming did more than just say they supported the president. They donated money. They also encouraged others to do the same.
David Mixner, who started one of the first LGBT-themed PACs in the late 1970s, said the community has come a long way in being accepted in electoral politics. "We had some candidates who wouldn't take our money back then because they didn't want to be associated with anyone who was gay," Mixner said. He said he believes that changed with the Clinton administration, which the PAC raised $4 million to support. "Now the community knows how to raise money and contribute on their own and we are more than welcome at the table."
The LGBT community is such an important part of this president's re-election effort that the Obama for America campaign hosts a special section for it on its website. It includes a video discussing the president's support for LGBT issues narrated by actress Jane Lynch, who is openly gay. It also offers Obama merchandise like T-shirts and drink koozies to bring to Gay Pride events this summer.
The president has already attended several LGBT-organized fundraisers, including one in New York hosted by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, the Futuro Fund, and Obama for America LGBT Leadership Council.
Another event in Washington, hosted by Karen K. Dixon and her partner, Dr. Nan Schaffer, was rumored to have raised more than a million dollars for the campaign, although the Obama team won't comment on the record about fundraising. Tickets for one of the California events were selling so well the campaign had to find a larger venue. There also is great interest in a Chicago fundraiser co-hosted by LGBT bundlers Brewster and Bob Satawake. The couple has already raised $288,663, according to the CNN analysis.
"I think there has always been a strong base of support from LGBT people for the president," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, whose incoming president Chad Griffin is a bundler. "He earned even more respect from the community -- from repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' to signing the hate crimes law giving the first civil rights protection for us in federal law, to coming out against DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for federal purposes as unions exclusively between a man and a woman. "Now, with his saying he believes in full marriage equality, we have another reason for people in our community to be generous with their time and money."
It is difficult to know if there are any openly gay bundlers for the Republicans, because Romney has not disclosed his bundler list.
The Republican candidate has, however, voiced his opposition to civil unions and supports a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
But some gay Republicans say Romney is not totally close minded on LGBT issues. "On gay issues, where Romney stands is not as black and white as it seems," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans. "One thing he has been consistent on, as governor and as a candidate for president, is he has spoken in broad terms about ending discrimination in the workplace. He has said there is no room for it."
Cooper said the Log Cabin Republicans haven't decided yet if they will endorse Romney. That announcement will come sometime this fall. He does believe, though, that there are gay donors to Romney's campaign. They just might not be as outspoken.
"We joke that at Pride (festivals), the question we most often ask other Republicans we see there is, 'Are you out?' Meaning 'out' about your politics yet."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/politics/lgbt-obama-donors/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
-
Obama kicks off West Coast campaign fundraising swing in California
By Associated Press, Wednesday, June 6, 3:07 AM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is launching a two-day campaign fundraising swing in California.
The president will start Wednesday’s crusade for cash with two events in San Francisco, followed by a pair of appeals in Los Angeles. Among the evening events is a gala for gay and lesbian supporters where tickets cost up to $25,000 per couple.
Obama will wrap up his California drives in Los Angeles with an event Thursday morning before heading to Nevada. In a speech at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Obama will announce new steps his administration will take to help college students repay their loans.
California has been fertile fundraising territory for the president. He made two trips last month to the Democratic-leaning state to scoop up cash.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
He believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as do I. And, he believes that Christ died for our sins and to redeem mankind as do I.
Do all of our doctrinal philosophies match? NO! I never claimed they did.
But, enough of them match in the major social and political issues, for me to pick him over that goof Obama, any day of the week.
Romney wasn't my favorite of the GOP field. But, he is the survivor (and soon-to-be winner). I'm casting my vote for him, because we literally and figuratively can't afford anymore of Obama's foolishness.
So you want OBL back?
You want to fuck up the economy again?
You want kids to die because they are denied health coverage?
-
So you want OBL back?
You want to fuck up the economy again?
You want kids to die because they are denied health coverage?
::) ::)
-
It's not. Garebear is simply engaging in his standard silliness.
Probably not! His family seems to be split on the issue. Dr. King's wife, Coretta, and oldest daughter, Yolanda, supported gay "marriage".
His son, MLK III, seems a bit on the fence.
Dr. King's youngest daughter, Bernice, and his niece, Alveda, are VEHEMENTLY against gay "marriage".
So, when it comes to invoking the King family on this issue, it's safe to say that the left use Correta and Yolanda, to argue their point.
The right use Bernice and Alveda, to make their case. Though she's a Democrat, Alveda King often shows up at Tea Party rallies. She was at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally nearly two years ago.
Are you against interracial marriage?
-
Are you against interracial marriage?
Sexual preference is not the same as race.
I hope you far left extremists keep it up.
-
::) ::)
Fuck you AQ supporter and kid killer
-
It's not. Garebear is simply engaging in his standard silliness.
Probably not! His family seems to be split on the issue. Dr. King's wife, Coretta, and oldest daughter, Yolanda, supported gay "marriage".
His son, MLK III, seems a bit on the fence.
Dr. King's youngest daughter, Bernice, and his niece, Alveda, are VEHEMENTLY against gay "marriage".
So, when it comes to invoking the King family on this issue, it's safe to say that the left use Correta and Yolanda, to argue their point.
The right use Bernice and Alveda, to make their case. Though she's a Democrat, Alveda King often shows up at Tea Party rallies. She was at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally nearly two years ago.
I will not have my silliness deemed standard. Oh no, my brother, this I will not allow.
-
He believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as do I. And, he believes that Christ died for our sins and to redeem mankind as do I.
Do all of our doctrinal philosophies match? NO! I never claimed they did.
But, enough of them match in the major social and political issues, for me to pick him over that goof Obama, any day of the week.
Romney wasn't my favorite of the GOP field. But, he is the survivor (and soon-to-be winner). I'm casting my vote for him, because we literally and figuratively can't afford anymore of Obama's foolishness.
You forgot Snowwhite and Santa Claus
-
President Obama gets enthusiastic welcome at L.A. gay event
LA Times ^ | 6-7-12 | LA Times
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012
Before launching into his serious remarks, the president seemed briefly caught off-stride when the audience interpreted as off-color a joke he made about a push-up competition between DeGeneres and his wife, initiated by the talk show host in February.
DeGeneres, Obama said, is "a great friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about Michelle beating her in push-ups. I think she claims Michelle didn't go all the way down."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
________________________ ___________________
What a degenerate.
-
Iowa NAACP leader quits over same-sex marriage flap
http://qctimes.com/news/local/iowa-naacp-leader-quits-over-same-sex-marriage-flap/article_ce71937a-afec-11e1-96dc-0019bb2963f4.html
22 hours ago • Rod Boshart
(112) Comments
DES MOINES — A prominent leader in the Iowa/Nebraska branch of the NAACP — the country’s oldest civil rights group — announced today that he is resigning as branch president and a national board member in the wake of the national organization’s decision to endorse marriage between people of the same gender.
The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines issued a statement saying he was stepping down from the NAACP national board and as Iowa/Nebraska state conference president “due to the NAACP’s position and support of same-sex marriage.
“I want to thank the NAACP for the privilege to humbly serve in such an organization and thank all those I had the privilege to work with in the states of Iowa, Nebraska and throughout the country,” Ratliff said in the statement. He was unavailable for further comment.
Ratliff has been an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage rights and has spoken at Statehouse rallies seeking an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to undo a controversial, landmark state Supreme Court ruling in April 2009 that gave legal status to civil marriages involving same-gender couples. The proposed constitutional amendment would define marriage in Iowa as only between one man and one woman.
Earlier this year, the national board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People voted to support marriage equality.
During a Statehouse rally in March 2011, Ratliff said his support for traditional marriage was biblically based, adding, “This isn’t a private interpretation, a Burger King religion, and by that I mean a ‘have it your way’ religion.”
-
Julia Roberts, Cher fundraise with Obama
Politico44 ^ | 6/7/12 | BYRON TAU
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53:01 AM by ColdOne
President Obama concluded a star-studded evening of fundraising in Los Angeles Wednesday, appearing with singer Cher, actresses Ellen DeGeneres and Julia Roberts, and "Glee" stars Jane Lynch and Darrin Criss, among others.
In L.A. for two fundraisers (one for LGBT activists), Obama lauded the progress the country has made on gay rights — telling a story about a straight Marine who thanked him for ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy of the U.S. military.
“I could not be prouder of the work that we’ve done on behalf of the LGBT community,” said Obama in front of a crowd of about 600 at the Beverly Wilshire hotel.
Criss and DeGeneres introduced Obama, and the president was joined by L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Cher, actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson of Modern Family and others.
At a second, smaller fundraiser at the home of Fox's "Glee" creator Ryan Murphy, Obama joked that he would not be breaking into song.
He was joined at that fundraiser by Witherspoon Banana Republic/Gap Inc. president Jack Calhoun, Glee actress Jane Lynch, and HBO executive Michael Lombardo.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id=%7bF24FEDA9-B880-42AA-B78B-FC5EFC1D4AC9%7d&title=Dem-Rendell-Obama-Should-Man-Up
LOL.
Obama is such fag. Demoparty in meltdown.
-
-
The day gay issues and race issues are no longer important political issues is the day all voters become better off.
'course, that's why they'll stay issues for much longer than they ever should
-
Obama Hosting Gay Pride Month Reception at White House
Conservative Nation News ^ | June 15, 2012
(The Washington Examiner) -- Reelections are busy times for a chief executive, and President Obama’s last 24 hours have been unusually jam-packed, but one made easier by his best constituencies: movie stars, young immigrants and gay activists.
Obama didn’t return to the White House Friday morning until nearly 2 a.m. after attending two star-studded New York City fundraisers, including a stop at “Sex and the City” star Sarah Jessica Parker’s home where supporters paid $40,000 each and the Plaza Hotel where Mariah Carey sang and attendees paid $10,000 each.
Today, to the applause of labor unions, he planned to grant immunity to law-abiding children of illegal immigrants. That could essentially legalize 800,000 in a community that he is trying to woo in his reelection.
And before traveling to Chicago this afternoon, he is hosting a Gay Pride event at the White House where he will be cheered for his recent endorsement of same-sex marriage. At the LGBT Pride reception, he will be pressed to sign an executive order to end workplace discrimination based on sexual preferences, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativenationnews.b logspot.com ...
________________________ ________________________ ___________________
Gays, illegals, enviro marxists, etc -
-
Your obsession with faggotry is quite revealing.
What's a Log Cabin Republican meeting like?
-
Obama Hosts LGBT Pride Reception, Vows To Be ‘Advocate’ ["Panderer-in-Chief"]
YahooNews ^ | June 15, 2012 | Olivier Knox
Obama Hosts LGBT Pride Reception, Vows To Be ‘Advocate’ By Olivier Knox
President Barack Obama promised a roomful of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) activists on Friday that he would be their "fellow advocate" as long as he is in the White House.
Obama, hosting an LGBT Pride Month reception in the mansion's ornate East Room, thanked gay servicemen and —women for their service and alluded to the fitful process that led him to publicly endorse same-sex marriage.
"Americans may be still evolving when it comes to marriage equality," he said to laughter and applause. "But as I've indicated personally, Michelle and I have made up our minds on this issue."
Prior to his historic reversal on the issue, Obama had said he was "evolving" on whether to back same-sex marriage. Aides insisted he had always planned to come out in favor even before Vice President Joe Biden forced his hand.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
________________________ ________________________ __
Treats the average taxpayer like human toilet paper.
-
Obama Celebrates Anti-Police Riot Started at Mafia-Owned Bar for Transvestites
CNSNews ^ | June 16, 2012 | Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - At a White House reception held Friday evening in honor of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month, President Barack Obama celebrated a 1969 anti-police riot that started in what the New York Times reports was an illegal Mafia-owned bar for transvestites.
“Now, each June since I took office, we have gathered to pay tribute to the generations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans who devoted their lives to our most basic of ideals--equality not just for some, but for all,” Obama said.
“Together we’ve marked major milestones like the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, when a group of brave citizens held their ground against brutal discrimination,” said Obama. “Together, we’ve honored courageous pioneers who, decades ago, came out and spoke out; who challenged unjust laws and destructive prejudices. Together, we’ve stood resolute; unwavering in our commitment to advance this movement and to build a more perfect union.”
The “Stonewall Riot” that president Obama referred to started when police raided a New York City saloon called the “Stonewall Inn” that catered to transvestites. In a 2010 obituary for Seymour Pine, the police inspector who led the raid, the New York Times reported the basic facts of the incident, describing the inn as "an illegal club frequented by cross-dressers."
“The club, on Christopher Street near Seventh Avenue South, was owned by members of the Mafia,” the Times reported. “Inspector Pine later said he conducted the raid on orders from superiors.
“About 200 people were inside,” said the Times. “When the officers ordered them to line up and show identification, some refused. Several transvestites refused to submit to anatomical inspections. Word of the raid filtered into the street, and soon hundreds of protesters gathered outside, shouting ‘gay power’ and calling the police ‘pigs.’
“The turning point came when a lesbian fought with officers as she was pushed into a patrol car,” said the Times. “The crowd rushed the officers, who retreated into the club. Several people ripped out a parking meter and used it as a battering ram; others tried to set fire to the club. It took police reinforcements an hour and a half to clear the street.
“It was the start of several nights of rioting, during which the police used force to disperse crowds that sometimes numbered in the thousands,” said the Times. “Fewer than three dozen protesters were arrested, but hundreds were detained and released.”
At Friday's White House reception, Obama predicted the LGBT movement would achieve the additional goals it seeks--including waht he called "marriage equality"--because of what he perceives as their persuasiveness and the example they set.
"We’ll get there because of every man and woman and activist and ally who is moving us forward by the force of their moral arguments, but more importantly, by the force of their example," said Obama.
-
Southern Baptists: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SouthernBaptists/2012/06/20/id/442960
-
Imagine that. A religious group that seeks to deny the rights of others.
Now I've seen it all.
-
Imagine that. A religious group that seeks to deny the rights of others.
Now I've seen it all.
Like "freedom" loving republicans who are against minorities based on race, gender, immigrants, non-christians, political stands etc etc..? ;)
-
Like "freedom" loving republicans who are against minorities based on race, gender, immigrants, non-christians, political stands etc etc..? ;)
they take the 'christ' out of christians.
-
Like "freedom" loving republicans who are against minorities based on race, gender, immigrants, non-christians, political stands etc etc..? ;)
Those who continually play the race card, the Democrats, are the most racist people around.
If upholding immigration laws and respecting the sovereignty of the USA is racist, then so be it.
-
Those who continually play the race card, the Democrats, are the most racist people around.
If upholding immigration laws and respecting the sovereignty of the USA is racist, then so be it.
I didnt say they were racist, i said they were against diversity but claim to be for freedom which is like saying you are straight but dont like women
-
I didnt say they were racist, i said they were against diversity but claim to be for freedom which is like saying you are straight but dont like women
hey, i'm gay but if if have to, i'll fuck pussy.
if it's the only way to get to the ass of her husband or boyfriend.
-
Southern Baptists: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SouthernBaptists/2012/06/20/id/442960
It wasn't that long ago that Southern Baptists weren't in favor of civil rights either (and I'll bet there are plenty that still aren't)
-
:(
Sick.
hey, i'm gay but if if have to, i'll fuck pussy.
if it's the only way to get to the ass of her husband or boyfriend.
-
Wrong.
Obama "barebacks" gay marriage.
-
:(
Sick.
what? now you have something against bangin' pussy?