Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

No problem. Then no one who is incapable of producing children or who doesn't intend to produce children should be allowed to marry. Marriage for breeders only!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hes going to say its up to the states to decide and that the federal government should stay out of doing anything about it (which he is correct). he will then though say he RESPECTS the decision of north carolina voters despite not agreeing with the tenants of their decision.

he'll play both sides and parse his words to support gay marriage while respecting the decision of voters who dont allow gay marriage to happen.

basically, he'll look to have it both ways (no pun)

i dont take back what i said. oops hahaha

obama pretty much said what i outlines above minus the respecting NC for their vote.

hes for gay marriage but its up to the states to decide which is right i think.

funny how this is breaking news and im sure will be talked about like its some new wave form of progressive thinking just because its obama

Oh c'mon, no one believes that. We all know he was just avoiding taking a stand.

Anonymous wrote:Civil unions are fine gay marriage is an assault on christianity

Then why do so many Christians disagree with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:im a dem and a cynic so lets just say obama is waiting to be re-elected before deciding to speak on his "evolving" views on gay marriage.

he'll come out guns blazing in support if he gets re-elected.

sure he will

I think we know enough about this president and his personality to know that his guns don't blaze much period.

Obama just gave up on north Carolina ... Florida and Virginia. Hispanics hate gay marriage. So do Muslims (Michigan) . Go get em!

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

So what do those people think of the marriage of my father and stepmother, who married when they were both 70? Do they not deserve all the rights marriage bestows?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

Do you understand how representative democracy works?

When it comes to the DC Council, what one person may call a "representative democracy" others may call an entrenched, out of touch, corrupt kleptocracy.

The council is a good example of a lack of democratic process, in that just a few members (out of a council of 12 o3 13) are able to make such a fundamental change. Jurisdictions with smaller populations -- New Hampshire, Wyoming -- have larger legistlatures that are therefore more "democratic" and certainly have more representatives. All the more reason why DC should have had a referrendum. You don't think the proponents of gay marriage are afraid of democracy, do you?

Maryland is doing it right. The question was submitted to more rigorous scrutiny of a larger, more representative, bicameral legislature. And it is still subject to referrendum.

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

Do you understand how representative democracy works?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

What you call constitutional rights, others would call a radical change in legal norms and social policy (which actually it is, even if one favors it). (The use of "segregationist" is incorrect, by the way

Is there a fundamental right to polygamous marriage? What about marriage to a minor? Why would homosexual marriage be a fundamental right and not these? Who decides what is a fundamental right? You?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VP Biden and Arne Duncan voice support and then NC passes an outright ban. The convention is taking place in NC. What's a president to do?

This is an interesting point. Do you think there will be calls to move it?

Wow, I hate what NC has done - but you obviously have no clue how much planning has gone into pulling off this convention. We're at over a year of planning, several different law enforcement, state, local, federal organizations - and you don't even want to know about security, catering, jobs, funding, etc.

There is NO WAY to "move it" - even if we could find another place at this late a date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

Nobody is forced to get married. My marriage is not "shoved" down your throat. And nobody in America is forced to have kids, no matter what the "accords of nature". Democracy means we choose our government by majority vote, it does not mean dictatorship by the majority.

He's now on record supporting same sex marriage. During today's interview with Robin Roberts. Will air across tonight and tomorrow.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

Anonymous wrote:im shocked a muslim would support gay marriage.

a kenyan muslim at that too.

Well, he does want to destroy America and I guess destroying the institution of marriage (which otherwise is problem-free) is a good place to start.

im shocked a muslim would support gay marriage.

a kenyan muslim at that too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:im a dem and a cynic so lets just say obama is waiting to be re-elected before deciding to speak on his "evolving" views on gay marriage.

he'll come out guns blazing in support if he gets re-elected.

Just to play along with this game, how will he explain his "sudden" 180 on this topic?

He's never going to be running for another office, ever. Why bother explaining?