Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Because it provides a legally binding mutual support system between two unrelated adults who would otherwise have no legal obligations to each other.

".....legally binding mutual support system..."? Interesting....so this system needs state sanction? People can't take care of each other without it? Why would strangers need this? Where are their relatives? Shouldn't they be tasked with the mutual support?

cpeter1313 wrote:

It stops when the desired marriage format either violates independent laws or creates conditions incompatible with the LEGAL basis for marriage, such as multiple "primary" kinship.
<quoted text>

What? The state can create whatever LEGAL relationship entity, or structure it wishes. It can grant it, and it can take it away. What is the "legal" basis for marriage? The state can easily craft legislation to create whatever legal "kinship" it so chooses. So at what point does it become meaningless? Is SSM the end? Or is there more on the horizon?

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

Obama will probably get 70% of the gay vote this Nov but lose as much of his base due to his gay agenda so it was a bad political move.

I guess you haven't bothered looking at the polls lately, have you?

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

I for one am elated because the illegal kenyan must be voted out.

You mean, the quite legal American? Because that's what the birth certificate says, as do the newspapers in Honolulu at the time of his birth.

Because it provides a legally binding mutual support system between two unrelated adults who would otherwise have no legal obligations to each other.

Pietro Armando wrote:

".....legally binding mutual support system..."? Interesting....so this system needs state sanction? People can't take care of each other without it?

You seem to keep missing the fact that it's a *contract*. It has legal ramifications.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Why would strangers need this?

Excuse me? Who here said that they were "strangers"? Or were you blissfully unaware that many people who marry have known each other for *years*?

Pietro Armando wrote:

Where are their relatives? Shouldn't they be tasked with the mutual support?

Their parents are older and will likely to die before the married couple. Their siblings may be busy with households of their own. Or they may be only children.

Drew Smith wrote:

Because it provides a legally binding mutual support system between two unrelated adults who would otherwise have no legal obligations to each other.
<quoted text>
You seem to keep missing the fact that it's a *contract*. It has legal ramifications.
<quoted text>
Excuse me? Who here said that they were "strangers"? Or were you blissfully unaware that many people who marry have known each other for *years*?
<quoted text>
Their parents are older and will likely to die before the married couple. Their siblings may be busy with households of their own. Or they may be only children.

Well what are friends for?.....so goes the saying....

Pietro Armando wrote:

Well what are friends for?.....so goes the saying....

Friends are always free to abandon you.

Spousal partners have legal commitments, unless and until they are willing to go through divorce proceedings.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Friends are always free to abandon you.
Spousal partners have legal commitments, unless and until they are willing to go through divorce proceedings.

Can any pairing have a "spousal partner" contract?

cpeter1313 wrote:

We already have SSM in several states, and not one of them reports any problems whatsoever. The biggest change was redesigning the license form to a gender-neutral form, which took all of 2 minutes to accomplish.
I could link to several sites where married people get together to do all kinds of "unnatural" acts.
<quoted text>

==========
>>>I could link to several sites where married people get together to do all kinds of "unnatural" acts.<<<

That is no reason to try to legitimize the unnatural under the term Marriage.

WMCOL wrote:

That is no reason to try to legitimize the unnatural under the term Marriage.

Then it's a good thing that homosexual behavior is quite natural for homosexuals.

Spousal partners have legal commitments, unless and until they are willing to go through divorce proceedings.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Can any pairing have a "spousal partner" contract?

No. For instance, pairings that involve individuals incapable of understanding and being in a position to exercise the rights and responsibilities of the contract would not be eligible for such a contract.

Drew Smith wrote:

Spousal partners have legal commitments, unless and until they are willing to go through divorce proceedings.
<quoted text>
No. For instance, pairings that involve individuals incapable of understanding and being in a position to exercise the rights and responsibilities of the contract would not be eligible for such a contract.

Okay....being of sound mind is a requirement to freely enter into a contract. Other than that......

The bottom line is the State can craft whatever relationship contract agreement it wishes, and amend and/or eliminate laws that could be in conflict with said agreement. It doesn't have to be one size fits all. This movement of ssm, or bust, is too smart for its own good, and has created the backlash that exists. I sometimes think even if ssm was the law of the land, and it was actually called "same sex marriage" on the books, some would still bitch and moan.

Good ol Left wing shameless,disgraceful,traitoro us media!!!

By Frances Rice

The American people would not knowingly elect a man to be our president who was mentored by an avid Communist. However, due to the shameful efforts by the liberal media to help Barack Obama hide his past, Americans did, indeed, elect a man with Communist roots to be our president.

The new book by Paul Kengor, The Communist - Frank Marshall Davis: the untold story of Barack Obama's mentor, provides the startling details about the impact Davis had on Obama. Davis instilled in Obama a deep-seated hatred of America and fueled his quest to destroy our country from within.

Listen to an interview with Kengor by John J. Miller posted on the National Review Online's website.

Below is a review of Kengor's book that every American should read, as well as the book itself.

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association!!!!!!

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Then it's a good thing that homosexual behavior is quite natural for homosexuals.

==========
But not natural for what society allows through law for marriage.

Corporate America is nowhere near ready to accept queers as peers for job related marriage benefits, and it is their money that runs this country.

Razors Edge wrote:

Good ol Left wing shameless,disgraceful,traitoro us media!!!
By Frances Rice
The American people would not knowingly elect a man to be our president who was mentored by an avid Communist. However, due to the shameful efforts by the liberal media to help Barack Obama hide his past, Americans did, indeed, elect a man with Communist roots to be our president.
The new book by Paul Kengor, The Communist - Frank Marshall Davis: the untold story of Barack Obama's mentor, provides the startling details about the impact Davis had on Obama. Davis instilled in Obama a deep-seated hatred of America and fueled his quest to destroy our country from within.
Listen to an interview with Kengor by John J. Miller posted on the National Review Online's website.
Below is a review of Kengor's book that every American should read, as well as the book itself.
Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association!!!!!!

==========
Mr. Rice,
What was the political persuasion of the Party founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?[] a. Conservative .[] b. Liberal. 2. What was the political persuasion of the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?[] a. Liberal
[] b. Conservative

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
?

Well I gave you some reading to do about the differences between civil unions and marriage..... Well do you still support limiting the rights of LBGT?

Pietro Armando wrote:

The bottom line is the State can craft whatever relationship contract agreement it wishes

No, it can't. For example, it can't say things like "We'll offer this contract to two white people, or two non-white people, but not to a white person and a non-white person". In other words, it can't discriminate on the basis of race.

Now, why should it be able to discriminate on the basis of gender?

Then it's a good thing that homosexual behavior is quite natural for homosexuals.

WMCOL wrote:

But not natural for what society allows through law for marriage.

Really? Have you checked the laws in 6 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, and the laws in 11 other countries?

I'm pretty sure that they have "society" there, too.

WMCOL wrote:

Corporate America is nowhere near ready to accept queers as peers for job related marriage benefits

I guess you forgot to notice that more than half of the Fortune 500 offers domestic partnership benefits.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
".....legally binding mutual support system..."? Interesting....so this system needs state sanction? People can't take care of each other without it? Why would strangers need this? Where are their relatives? Shouldn't they be tasked with the mutual support?

okay, then why should straights get married... can't their families take care of them?

and no, people cannot legally take care of each other without it. withiut it partners cannot legally make end of life decisions, visit or stay in an icu ward with their partner, or even settle a will and inheritance rights, or keep co-owned property without it being contended by the 'family' of the deceased partner... and that's just the beginning.