Obama Announces Support For Eliminating BSA Ban On LGBT Participation

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think ssm is????
<quoted text>
First of all, anti-ssm is not anti-gay and certainly not discrimination, that is what they will come to realize...
<quoted text>
You've hit your peak...you know it and "I" know it...the Chick-fil-a demonstration was a sound wake up call for you folks, your 'support' is 'fragile' at the very most......

When ssm is legal in all 50 states what will you do...SHOOT YOURSELF THE WORLD IS OVER THE SKY HAS FALLEN??????????

I bet your life will go on as before and your marriage will be no different then before....SSM WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR LIFE ONE BIT....BUT IT WILL GIVE FREEDOM AND EQUALITY TO SAME SEX PEOPLE......

ToManyLaws wrote:

<quoted text>
When ssm is legal in all 50 states what will you do...SHOOT YOURSELF THE WORLD IS OVER THE SKY HAS FALLEN??????????
I bet your life will go on as before and your marriage will be no different then before....SSM WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR LIFE ONE BIT....BUT IT WILL GIVE FREEDOM AND EQUALITY TO SAME SEX PEOPLE......

My individual marriage has nothing to do with how we as a country define marriage for all of us....ss people have the same rights to marry as I do.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you've ALREADY lost, because there's ALREADY marriage between same-sex partners. There's no such thing as unicorns or dragons or mermaids, but same-sex marriage is a reality. It's not EVERYWHERE yet, but it exists in many places, undeniably.

You do whatever you have to do to convince yourself you are correct...we both know better...

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You do whatever you have to do to convince yourself you are correct...we both know better...

Wow! Adamantly denying reality.... look at you.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage serves many useful and necessary purposes. It's a shame you were never taught that.

Like what? Oh, you mean those tax breaks you get? That's not a useful purpose for the state or country, just for yourself. So tell me what the useful purpose is? You don't have to be married to love someone. You don't have to be married to live w/someone. You don't have to be married to have kids. So what exactly is the purpose of this holier than thou institution? Is the purpose to show why NOT to get married, as seen by the dismal rate of divorce?

Obama needs only to look at plunging membership roles of the Canadian Boy Scouts when they opened its doors to gays. They are a private organization and have the right to set their moral standards just like any church would.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
My individual marriage has nothing to do with how we as a country define marriage for all of us....ss people have the same rights to marry as I do.

So having SSM will not effect you or anyone who is againt it at all....Ok so you just dont wnat it because your a HATE FILLED BIGOT....Ok got it....

SSM DO NOT HAVE SAME RIGHTS....NICE LIE..........

flbadcatowner wrote:

Obama needs only to look at plunging membership roles of the Canadian Boy Scouts when they opened its doors to gays. They are a private organization and have the right to set their moral standards just like any church would.

"moral standards?"

ahhahahahaha
ahahahahahah

"Just like any church"???

hahahahaha
ahahahahah

Sounds eerily familiar to the racist claptrap from last century.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
"moral standards?"
ahhahahahaha
ahahahahahah
"Just like any church"???
hahahahaha
ahahahahah
Sounds eerily familiar to the racist claptrap from last century.

Tsk tsk tsk what rage you show as election day nears closer. Don't worry dear we ALL benefit with a republican in the oval offce.

"The Race-baiter-in-Chief and His Court Jesters"

IT’S REALLY TOO BAD THAT BARACK OBAMA HAS CHOSEN TO PLAY THE RACE CARD AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THIS ELECTION SEASON. OH, HE HAS NOT DONE IT DIRECTLY, BUT REMAINING SILENT WHILE HIS JESTERS LIKE SHARPTON AND JACKSON SPEW THEIR HATE HE IS CONDONING THEIR ACTIONS. SO MUCH FOR UNITING AMERICANS—ITS NOT ABOUT THAT ANYMORE WITH THIS PRESIDENT ITS ONLY ABOUT HIS REELECTION.

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2012/07/the-ra...

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right, they didn't decide the case on the traditional rational basis test. I admit I erred on that point.
But they also didn't use intermediate basis either and didn't see it necessary to create a new suspect class.
They essentially applied a hybrid review status somewhere between rational & intermediate.
The end result is the same; DOMA was ruled unconstitutional without creating a new suspect class for gays & lesbians, which would have been problematic before the SCOTUS.

not that you should care, but my estimation of you just jumped by a factor of ten...
you read my post, understood, it, looked at it yourself, saw I was right and admitted it. I do not think there are 3 other posters that would/could do that.

Kudos to you.

I agree with your estimation of the standard which the curt says is rational with "a federalism extra look"...
" Although our decision discusses equal protection and federalism concerns separately, it concludes that governing precedents under both heads combine--not to create some new category of "heightened scrutiny" for DOMA under a prescribed algorithm, but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage. Our decision then tests the rationales offered for DOMA, taking account of Supreme Court precedent limiting which rationales can be counted and of the force of certain rationales."

This is on board with the new trend that will start gearing powers back to the states. THE SOCTUS is limiting federal power these days and this is a soft set for the SOCTUS spike on state's rights...(see the notation of the end of commerce clause powers?)

its conservatives that dig this decision, not liberals...

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow! Adamantly denying reality.... look at you.

Reality??? How did your Chick-fil-a 'kiss-in' go???

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
How do these cases prevent us from overtuning state marriage bans?
What prevents us from repealing the bans through the state legislature, the state courts, or a vote of the people in those states?
One step at a time.
We are successfully overtuning Prop 8 in California without a federal constitutional right to marriage and without suspect classification.
Judges change, people change, precedents are overturned, etc.
One step at a time.

good point, but these decisions empower the states...
and gays have been looking for father federal govt to step in, and this is a signal they will/can not...

wedjat wrote:

<quoted text>Like what? Oh, you mean those tax breaks you get? That's not a useful purpose for the state or country, just for yourself.

Sorry, you have me confused with the ssm supporters.....

So tell me what the useful purpose is? You don't have to be married to love someone. You don't have to be married to live w/someone.

Here we go with satans lies. We have been attacking the American family with these same lies for going on 60 years, and our nation has steadily declined ever sense......

You don't have to be married to have kids. So what exactly is the purpose of this holier than thou institution? Is the purpose to show why NOT to get married, as seen by the dismal rate of divorce?

More lies. A child needs both parents in the home. A child does best when his/her parents are married and in a secure relationship. I hope you don't have kids, since you obviously couldn't care less what happens to them...

Get That Fool wrote:

You do whatever you have to do to convince yourself you are correct...we both know better...

Yes, we sure do.

Connecticut
Iowa
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
Washington DC
The Coquille tribe of Oregon
The Suquamish tribe of Washington State.
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
South Africa
Sweden

You can pretend that all of those places don't exist, but your globe is going to look pretty silly. Like it or not, same-sex marriage is a growing reality.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm responding to the portion which outlines the old argument that gays should be happy with the same rights under another name. "go and get yourself a civil union, be happy...but call it a civil union and not a marriage". People who make this argument are showing that they don't really care about the benefits that are granted, they're not actually concerned about the government involvement or sanctioning of same-sex relationships, they just don't want to share the title "marriage". This is a superficial focus which makes it clear that there are no objections of substance, only a call for "separate but equal".
<quoted text>
If we were to implement a nationwide "civil union" program, which rights would you suggest to be held back? Which of marriage's 1000+ rights should not be extended to same-sex couples, specifically? How would you like to see "marriage" kept structurally different from "civil unions"? Beyond the people involved, how would they NOT be identical?
<quoted text>
This is why we'll eventually win this. You have a TERRIBLE idea of what a citizen is, and how they serve their society. There's more to serving the state than just cranking out babies (which we have PLENTY of, thank you very much, you can stop for a while).

My argument is that when gay marriage is legalized in a state it gives the impression that homosexuality is normal. The public elementary school in Lexington Massachusetts that forced gay books on elementary school kids without parental notification used gay marriage as a reason that notification was no longer needed. Mr. Parker was told that opt out isn't required because gay marriage was legal here now.

Then there was Judge Wolf:
"The parents have never tried to suggest what the school can or cannot teach. All they're seeking is the right to opt out." That right had been denied them by Judge Wolf, a Reagan appointee, who wrote that "an exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students."
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp...

An exodus from class? It seems the judge knew that no one is interested in homosexuality being pushed in public schools so instead he wants the majority to be forced to listen to a wrong message that could have a damaging effect on those students. The wrong message, of course, is that your family and your church are wrong and the gay teacher pushing his/her agenda is right. Oh, and this message will be pushed on these children regardless of the number of gay kids in these classrooms or no matter how much their parents object.

ToManyLaws wrote:

<quoted text>
So having SSM will not effect you or anyone who is againt it at all....Ok so you just dont wnat it because your a HATE FILLED BIGOT....Ok got it....
SSM DO NOT HAVE SAME RIGHTS....NICE LIE..........

The statements you are throwing out have absolutely no reason to do with why "I" object to ssm. I'm not required to agree with, nor do I care for your 'logic' on why I have to agree with you.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, we sure do.
Connecticut
Iowa
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
Washington DC
The Coquille tribe of Oregon
The Suquamish tribe of Washington State.
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
South Africa
Sweden
You can pretend that all of those places don't exist, but your globe is going to look pretty silly. Like it or not, same-sex marriage is a growing reality.

...how did the Chick-fil-a 'kiss-in' go????

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
The statements you are throwing out have absolutely no reason to do with why "I" object to ssm. I'm not required to agree with, nor do I care for your 'logic' on why I have to agree with you.

You object because of your religion I bet..........1ST AMENDMENT..........NO RELIGION IN LAW.....GOT IT? yes you can disagree like your kind did when we freed the slaves and when we let blacks vote and marry white people...Your kind hates FREEDOM AND EQUALITY FOR ALL....Typical nazi...

wedjat wrote:

Your hetero marriage is no different than a gay marriage.

Can a gay couple create a family? No.
Can my marriage create a family? Already did.

Is gay marriage recognized in every state? No, in fact, most state constitutions ban it.
Is my marriage recognized in every state? Yes.

Is gay marriage recognized by the federal government? No. In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act says there is no such thing.
Is my marriage recognized by the federal government? Yes, we meet all of DOMA's requirements.

Feel free to list all of the similarities if you like.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, we sure do.
Connecticut
Iowa
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
Washington DC
The Coquille tribe of Oregon
The Suquamish tribe of Washington State.
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
South Africa
Sweden
You can pretend that all of those places don't exist, but your globe is going to look pretty silly. Like it or not, same-sex marriage is a growing reality.

Hmmmmmmmm....

There are 50 states in the U.S. 6 of them currently allow same-sex marriage. That means 44 of them don't. Although Maryland purportedly recognizes same-sex marriages. That makes 43.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_states_don 't_allow_same-sex_marriage#ixz z24CvxFmxq