Obama backs gay marriage

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[The True Adonis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[The True Adonis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[The True Adonis]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[chadstallion]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[kcballer]

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.

[Dos Equis]

Sounds just like the marriage amendments in the states.

Yep.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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."  
 

[MCWAY]

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!!!"

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[w8m8]

"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 ?

[Dos Equis]

has he renounced his christianity then ?

Quite the opposite.  He actually tried to use the Bible to justify support for homosexual marriage. 

[MCWAY]

has he renounced his christianity then ?






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).

[kcballer]

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.

[dario73]

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.

[dario73]

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.