Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,178

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Full Story

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#17011 Aug 22, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you put the wolf in charge of the hen house and the wolf says the hens are secure, they're secure. He should know, he's in charge. Duh.
Okay...that telling little piece of logic actually explains a lot.....

Since: Mar 07

United States

#17012 Aug 22, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Regnerus study is so biased against same sex parents it is obviously funded by a group who of course is kept secret, because it's a known hate group! Duh!
The "study" has already been completely discredited, by the very criteria it used. It's not really relevant to anything at this point.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#17013 Aug 22, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're just getting silly just because you can't counter my arguments.
What argument?? I didn't say they are funded by some 'secret' hate group. You did. I'm asking if it's a secret, how do you know it's a hate group????
All legitimate studies prove that same sex couples are the best parents. The very few that suggest otherwise are biased and were funded by hate groups with the intention of falsely creating results against same sex parenting.
There is not ONE reputable study that says what you are saying...you are just out there.....and repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true, Cinderella....

Since: Mar 07

United States

#17014 Aug 22, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're just getting silly just because you can't counter my arguments.
All legitimate studies prove that same sex couples are the best parents. The very few that suggest otherwise are biased and were funded by hate groups with the intention of falsely creating results against same sex parenting.
Actually there is not a single study that has EVER shown that.

Why lie?

If you really want to make a logical argument, always start from a verifiable truth.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17015 Aug 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
Who determines the credibility of the SPLC on "hate group" labeling?
As with any other opinion on any other subject, such a determination is in the eyes of the beholder. The SPLC bases its opinion on the words of the groups it lists using the criteria that they must be defamatory and provably false.

This is why the SPLC lists the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelli...

Judge for yourself.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#17016 Aug 22, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The "study" has already been completely discredited, by the very criteria it used. It's not really relevant to anything at this point.
Discredited by whom????

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#17017 Aug 22, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is not a single study that has EVER shown that.
Why lie?
If you really want to make a logical argument, always start from a verifiable truth.
Wow! We actually agree on something...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#17018 Aug 22, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Dear, you evidently need a little help with your own reading comprehension,

The First Circuit ACTUALLY ruled that Baker was irrelevant to the case at hand:
"We conclude, without resort to suspect classifications or
any impairment of BAKER,.
no impairment to the precedential value of Baker!
talk about poor reading...

yah, the court specifically stated that Baker is binding on them and negates any claim of a right to gay marriage...

what does this mean to you?
"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

so, in short, YOU ARE WRONG. no grey about it, you are flat wrong.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17019 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
no impairment to the precedential value of Baker!
talk about poor reading...
yah, the court specifically stated that Baker is binding on them and negates any claim of a right to gay marriage...
what does this mean to you?
"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
so, in short, YOU ARE WRONG. no grey about it, you are flat wrong.
Once again, since you seem to have arrived late on the short bus. The paragraph you cut and pasted is NOTHING MORE than a restatement of the BLAG's claim that Baker was binding on the Court's ruling in Gill. The Court ruled that Baker was irrelevant to the claims of Gill, et al, because Baker only applies in cases of a right to same sex marriage, as Gill and her fellow plaintiffs are ALREADY LEGALLY MARRIED. You evidently didn't notice but your own quote just proved my own point, "Baker does not resolve our own case...". If Baker HAD BEEN BINDING in Gill it would have resolved the case, that is how precedent works, it resolves cases.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#17020 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
based on the state's rights to define marriage...as they have overwhelmingly done to ban ssm...
so we both cheer the DOMA cases...
excellent.
My opinion of you IS nothing.
Thought you might like to know that.
I don't care about your worthless opinions.

States can't deny fundamental rights. Ultimately bigotry will lose.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17021 Aug 22, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
Discredited by whom????
Social Science Research, the journal which published it and is now regretting that they did:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controv...

No decision has been reached yet, but the good professor's employer seems none too happy with it either:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-invest...

It's incredibly rare that a university announces publicly that they are conducting such an investigation, but there does seem to be a great deal of credibility to these allegations:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/opinion-...

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#17022 Aug 22, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, since you seem to have arrived late on the short bus. The paragraph you cut and pasted is NOTHING MORE than a restatement of the BLAG's claim that Baker was binding on the Court's ruling in Gill. The Court ruled that Baker was irrelevant to the claims of Gill, et al, because Baker only applies in cases of a right to same sex marriage, as Gill and her fellow plaintiffs are ALREADY LEGALLY MARRIED. You evidently didn't notice but your own quote just proved my own point, "Baker does not resolve our own case...". If Baker HAD BEEN BINDING in Gill it would have resolved the case, that is how precedent works, it resolves cases.
Right on.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#17023 Aug 22, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
well, maybe once modern medicine catches up to tennessee there won't be any need for women to rely on their brothers and fathers to knock them up.
it'll also reduce the need worldwide for women to have to shop for a mate in sleazy bars and biker clubs in order to get pregnant. sometime in the future there may even be do it yourself kits available for women to buy over the counter in drug stores everywhere.
Maybe they'll be sold in the frozen food section. A freeze pop is a freeze pop.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#17024 Aug 22, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is not a single study that has EVER shown that.
Why lie?
If you really want to make a logical argument, always start from a verifiable truth.
Congratulations! In my two days of posting wild ridiculous pro homosexual nonsense, you are the ONLY same sex marriage supporter to call me on it.

Interesting eh?

I heartily agree. Tell the truth.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#17025 Aug 22, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What argument?? I didn't say they are funded by some 'secret' hate group. You did. I'm asking if it's a secret, how do you know it's a hate group????
<quoted text>
There is not ONE reputable study that says what you are saying...you are just out there.....and repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true, Cinderella....
Let's not forget, "same sex parents" can describe any two same sex parental pairs, to include , same sex siblings, mother adult daughter, father adult son, etc.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#17026 Aug 22, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, since you seem to have arrived late on the short bus. The paragraph you cut and pasted is NOTHING MORE than a restatement of the BLAG's claim that Baker was binding on the Court's ruling in Gill. The Court ruled that Baker was irrelevant to the claims of Gill, et al, because Baker only applies in cases of a right to same sex marriage, as Gill and her fellow plaintiffs are ALREADY LEGALLY MARRIED. You evidently didn't notice but your own quote just proved my own point, "Baker does not resolve our own case...". If Baker HAD BEEN BINDING in Gill it would have resolved the case, that is how precedent works, it resolves cases.
actually, you are far off base...
okay, we have a federal statute that defines marriage to ban ssm...
if there was a right to gay marriage, that alone would resolve the case.(you need to grasp a constitutional right is not the same as a benefit offered by the STATE legislature)
The court found a fedreal right to gay marriage does not exist (citing Baker), but that alone does not resolve the case as the court then addresses FEDERALISM concerns! It resolves the case under STATE's rights....how can you not see that Baker kicked out any claim gay rights and the decision was thusly based on the state's police power?

"Baker does not resolve our own case ******but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage*****.

I wouldn't get punchy on this if i were you, on this, I know I am correct. The short bus took me to my advanced placement school...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#17027 Aug 22, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>

States can't deny fundamental rights.
good thing gay marriage isn't one.

See, you learned all about Baker from me, and all I learned from you is that you have nothing to offer...

didn't you just post about how silly it is to call people bigots back and forth?
I helped you and deleted it from your post so you are not so obviously a hypocrite....
you're welcome!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#17028 Aug 22, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Right on.
you know you have issues when WW agrees with you...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#17029 Aug 22, 2012
Getting into a car can result in dying in a car crash, but that doesn't mean they choose death. The actual percentage of pregnancies that result from copulation is pretty small, otherwise we would have a huge increase of population every year. The gametes meet and fuse or don't fuse; there is no choice involved.

What protection? Child support works whether the parents are married or not. Spousal support varies from state to state; many have no such policy.

Marriage protects couples who want to stay together; it means jack to those who don't.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Really??? You mean people don't know that copulation without protection often ends up in a baby among those able to reproduce??
<quoted text>
The don't 'skip' out...they limp....protection of the woman and children from such an event is one of the most important societal benefits of traditional marriage.....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17030 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
actually, you are far off base...
So you claim, but let's see how well your proof goes.
Jane Dough wrote:
okay, we have a federal statute that defines marriage to ban ssm...
if there was a right to gay marriage, that alone would resolve the case.(you need to grasp a constitutional right is not the same as a benefit offered by the STATE legislature)
Um dear, there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry, but that has never been at issue in ANY of the challenges to Section 3. In each and every one of those cases(there are 10 at various levels of the federal system, ALL have ruled it unconstitutional), the plaintiffs right to marry has already been recognized under their state's constitution, the question is whether or not Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by defining marriage for the states and their role in dispensing federal rights, benefits, protections, obligations and responsibilities to couples who they recognize as legally married.
Jane Dough wrote:
The court found a fedreal right to gay marriage does not exist (citing Baker), but that alone does not resolve the case as the court then addresses FEDERALISM concerns! It resolves the case under STATE's rights....how can you not see that Baker kicked out any claim gay rights and the decision was thusly based on the state's police power?
The BLAG argued, as you quoted, that Baker precludes challenge to DOMA, the Court found such a claim to be irrelevant; simply because the plaintiffs aren't claiming a right to be married under the US Constitution, but their right to have their state's recognition of their marriage recognized by the federal government, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Jane Dough wrote:
"Baker does not resolve our own case ******but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage*****.
I wouldn't get punchy on this if i were you, on this, I know I am correct. The short bus took me to my advanced placement school...
They only told you that you were being taken to "advanced placement" so you wouldn't be so down on yourself for being a badly informed useful idiot. The First Circuit Court of Appeals UNANIMOUSLY ruled that the Baker case does not interfere with the plaintiffs claims and that Section 3 of DOMA is an unconstitutional interference with their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, just as EVERY other Judge who has ruled in the assortment of challenges to it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ACLU sues to allow gay club in Indiana school 2 min Wondering 99
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 4 min cancer suxs 5,399
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 18 min Wondering 6,177
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 23 min Rainbow Kid 82
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 23 min WasteWater 27,116
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 25 min PopeIsDemon 219,639
Supreme Court Has 'Tipped Its Hand' In Favor Of... 31 min WasteWater 58
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 41 min WasteWater 3,167
More from around the web