Obama backs gay marriage

[kcballer]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[Straw Man]

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

[The True Adonis]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[dario73]

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.

[whork]

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

[MCWAY]

BOOOM

The same laws ban polygamy and marriage to underage children.

So much for your "BOOOM".

[loco]

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.   

[w8m8]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[The True Adonis]

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".

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[The True Adonis]

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.

[MCWAY]

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

[The True Adonis]

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.

[MCWAY]

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?

[The True Adonis]

You're not religious. What's your excuse?

Religion has Zero to do with Marriage.  Whats your point?

[MCWAY]

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).

[The True Adonis]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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?