Obama-Marriage Debate - Minneapolis, MN

jw in the grove wrote:

<quoted text>which aspect of marraige would that be?

we've already gone over them.

Rats are generally smart enough to scurry off a sinking ship. Obama's own party is ducking and covering over the prez's ill-advised, nakedly opportunistic folly. Voters -- notably independents -- are having no trouble seeing right through Obama's disingenuousness.

Dems Give Obama Feud for Thought --{FRC Update]

"If you want a seat on the same-sex "marriage" bandwagon, there are plenty available. The more the President digs in his heels on the issue, the lonelier he seems to become. This week, even the President's own party is running for cover, as more senators concede that his agenda is a losing one.[ http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227007-vul... ] For several of them, the White House's aggressive approach is a step too far. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D-Va.) can't distance themselves fast enough. Unlike most Republicans, who don't see the 67% support for marriage amendments as something to be leveraged, these leaders know a politically potent issue when they see it.

"A spokesman for Sen. McCaskill, one of the President's biggest cheerleaders, said, "Claire recognizes this is a very personal issue for many Missourians," and she thinks "states should take the lead in determining marriage." Her Montana colleague, Sen. Tester, agreed--explaining that his state had already staked out a position: " [I]n Montana, a marriage is defined as between a man and woman."

"Sen. Nelson wasn't far behind. "I believe marriage should be left to the states, and Florida voted on same-sex 'marriage' in 2008," he reiterated. Another swing state, Pennsylvania, may not have a marriage amendment, but its senator, Bob Casey, knows where his voters stand. While Sen. Casey supports civil unions, his office was clear that he "does not agree with the President's endorsement of same-sex marriage." Neither does former Governor-turned-Senate-candida te, Tim Kaine. In Virginia, another battleground state, Kaine tried to put some space between his campaign and the President's, "declining" to support same-sex "marriage" when asked. Of all the Democrats, Sen. Manchin was the most outspoken. And why shouldn't he be? A convicted felon was almost as popular as the President in last week's West Virginia primary![ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-574307... ] According to Sen. Manchin's office, his position remains unchanged. "He believes marriage is between one man and one woman."

"Adding to the President's problems, most voters think his announcement was calculated and insincere. Sixty-seven percent say he made the statement "mostly for political reasons," while only 24% believe he made it out of conviction. Independents were even more skeptical, with 70% insisting the President was politically motivated. And how is his decision paying off? Since the announcement, Gov. Mitt Romney is leading in the national polls--with an edge on women and Independents."

Liberal wishful thinking wrote:

Rats are generally smart enough to scurry off a sinking ship. Obama's own party is ducking and covering over the prez's ill-advised, nakedly opportunistic folly. Voters -- notably independents -- are having no trouble seeing right through Obama's disingenuousness.
Dems Give Obama Feud for Thought --{FRC Update]
"If you want a seat on the same-sex "marriage" bandwagon, there are plenty available. The more the President digs in his heels on the issue, the lonelier he seems to become. This week, even the President's own party is running for cover, as more senators concede that his agenda is a losing one.[ http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227007-vul... ] For several of them, the White House's aggressive approach is a step too far. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D-Va.) can't distance themselves fast enough. Unlike most Republicans, who don't see the 67% support for marriage amendments as something to be leveraged, these leaders know a politically potent issue when they see it.
"A spokesman for Sen. McCaskill, one of the President's biggest cheerleaders, said, "Claire recognizes this is a very personal issue for many Missourians," and she thinks "states should take the lead in determining marriage." Her Montana colleague, Sen. Tester, agreed--explaining that his state had already staked out a position: " [I]n Montana, a marriage is defined as between a man and woman."
"Sen. Nelson wasn't far behind. "I believe marriage should be left to the states, and Florida voted on same-sex 'marriage' in 2008," he reiterated. Another swing state, Pennsylvania, may not have a marriage amendment, but its senator, Bob Casey, knows where his voters stand. While Sen. Casey supports civil unions, his office was clear that he "does not agree with the President's endorsement of same-sex marriage." Neither does former Governor-turned-Senate-candida te, Tim Kaine. In Virginia, another battleground state, Kaine tried to put some space between his campaign and the President's, "declining" to support same-sex "marriage" when asked. Of all the Democrats, Sen. Manchin was the most outspoken. And why shouldn't he be? A convicted felon was almost as popular as the President in last week's West Virginia primary![ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-574307... ] According to Sen. Manchin's office, his position remains unchanged. "He believes marriage is between one man and one woman."
"Adding to the President's problems, most voters think his announcement was calculated and insincere. Sixty-seven percent say he made the statement "mostly for political reasons," while only 24% believe he made it out of conviction. Independents were even more skeptical, with 70% insisting the President was politically motivated. And how is his decision paying off? Since the announcement, Gov. Mitt Romney is leading in the national polls--with an edge on women and Independents."

they're leaving a sinking ship, as you say?(or as you parroted what someon else said...)

Are they leaving the Democratic party and refusing all support from them?

Again, you say it is politically motivated, yet anyone in the biz would say it would be a bad move politically...you are not making sense. as usual...

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>they're leaving a sinking ship, as you say?(or as you parroted what someon else said...)
Are they leaving the Democratic party and refusing all support from them?
Again, you say it is politically motivated, yet anyone in the biz would say it would be a bad move politically...you are not making sense. as usual...

Two rather lefty news sites -- CBS News and The Hill (see the links)-- are quoting these endangered Democrats' own words: they know the president's position is unpopular with the sizable majority of Americans. Any chance of their being re-elected depends on distancing themselves as far as possible from Obama's foolishness. When 32 out of 32 states -- including a whole lot of blue states -- have chosen to define marriage as between one man and one woman, it's not exactly a tough call for a politician who'd like to be re-elected.

Even the Washington Post is beginning to admit the liberal polling chicanery:

"How have liberals managed to inflate the numbers [on support for gay marriage] for so long? "For the most part," the Washington Post says, "the polling out there is combining the civil union and gay marriage responses together to get their 'majority' supporting gay marriage. There's a reason why the same-sex marriage ban passed in 32 states..." And those amendments (and a people's veto) haven't just passed--they've had overwhelming support.... an average of 67% of the vote in a supermajority of states.'

Liberal wishful thinking wrote:

<quoted text>
Two rather lefty news sites -- CBS News and The Hill (see the links)-- are quoting these endangered Democrats' own words: they know the president's position is unpopular with the sizable majority of Americans. Any chance of their being re-elected depends on distancing themselves as far as possible from Obama's foolishness. When 32 out of 32 states -- including a whole lot of blue states -- have chosen to define marriage as between one man and one woman, it's not exactly a tough call for a politician who'd like to be re-elected.
Even the Washington Post is beginning to admit the liberal polling chicanery:
"How have liberals managed to inflate the numbers [on support for gay marriage] for so long? "For the most part," the Washington Post says, "the polling out there is combining the civil union and gay marriage responses together to get their 'majority' supporting gay marriage. There's a reason why the same-sex marriage ban passed in 32 states..." And those amendments (and a people's veto) haven't just passed--they've had overwhelming support.... an average of 67% of the vote in a supermajority of states.'

Did you have a point to this post? What was it? Isn't it pretty much what I just said/

After reading all your posts on this thread i’ve come to the conclusion you’re female and havn't got the brains God gave geese, you’re welcome lol

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Did you have a point to this post? What was it? Isn't it pretty much what I just said/

Osmosis Jones wrote:

After reading all your posts on this thread i’ve come to the conclusion you’re female and havn't got the brains God gave geese, you’re welcome lol<quoted text>

And you could have tried to ahow why my posts led you to that conclusion, but then again, you probably can't...

Osmosis Jones wrote:

After reading all your posts on this thread i’ve come to the conclusion you’re female and havn't got the brains God gave geese, you’re welcome lol<quoted text>

That is a fact!
woodtick wouldn't make good goose poop.

I am in support of gay marriage as a civil right and in support of the President's decision. Inspite of still having conflicted fellings about the issue.

Not 'evolving' on this based on 'feelings'.
Obama' social agenda is in full stride.

Aint My America wrote:

<quoted text>
Or.. Bathhouse Barry

People who make comments like thisare just plain old IGNORANT...NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!

[QUOTE who="Robert J. Borriello"]I am in support of gay marriage as a civil right and in support of the President's decision. Inspite of still having conflicted fellings about the issue.[/QUOTE]

The civil rights of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gay marriage are nothing but liberal BS.

Sexual orientation is nothing but a liberal BS Theory. They have never discovered a gay gene. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Actually, marriage is a social construct and it is the purview of the state, as all legal, binding contracts are. Your religious rites may be what they are and they have no effect on our laws.
there are many aspects of marriage that a private legal contract cannot convey.

You have a mental disorder. Stop spreading your filthy mind accross the internet.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Actually, marriage is a social construct and it is the purview of the state, as all legal, binding contracts are. Your religious rites may be what they are and they have no effect on our laws.
there are many aspects of marriage that a private legal contract cannot convey.

Social constructs are sociological theories recently invented that liberals use to justify things like gay marriage. It's just more Liberal BS.

Social constructionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construct...

Hey conservatives, we have larger fish to fry in this country. Read a newspaper!

No discrimination

Obama 2012 wrote:

Hey conservatives, we have larger fish to fry in this country. Read a newspaper!

Yeah interesting, since it is the left that keeps it in the lime light.

goose wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah interesting, since it is the left that keeps it in the lime light.

So liberals put it on the MN ballet in Nov? Borrow some money and buy a clue moron.

Obama 2012 wrote:

Hey conservatives, we have larger fish to fry in this country. Read a newspaper!

Tell the First Gay President that.

Greg wrote:

<quoted text>
So liberals put it on the MN ballet in Nov? Borrow some money and buy a clue moron.

Appeals Court decision on Defense of Marriage Act expected

By Beth Hawkins | 01/23/12

This morning, the Minnesota Court of Appeals is scheduled to hand down a decision in a little-known, controversial lawsuit [PDF] filed by three same-sex couples claiming the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory.

The couples, who were all legally married elsewhere, filed suit in 2010 in state court after Hennepin County refused to issue them marriage licenses. After a trial court judge dismissed the suit, the couples, who comprise the nonprofit Marry Me Minnesota, appealed.

No matter its content, the decision released this morning will be controversial — particularly among gay-rights proponents, many of whom fear it will have a negative impact on the campaign to defeat a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to be decided by voters in November.

In 2008, nearly two years before the suit and more than three before statehouse Republicans created the ballot initiative, two leading Minnesota gay-rights groups took a formal stance opposing the use of lawsuits as a means of achieving marriage equality.

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/...