Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married

MuyLocoNC · May 9, 2012

UncleBuck said:
read the 14th amendment, dickface.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And your argument falls flat on its face. Any man or woman, straight or homosexual may marry a person of the oppposite sex and receive the benefits afforded to married couples. It is perfectly equal to every individual and discriminates against no one. Just because they don't want to do so, doesn't automatically make every other option a "right" which has to be afforded the same benefits and legal classification. We want to change the law to include marrying people of the same sex, redefining marriage. That does require the will of the people, not just the claim of "fundamental rights". I'm sorry, you're wrong on this one.

Total Head · May 9, 2012

i fail to see how this is going to get him more votes. i'm all for gay marriage but a lot of people aren't. just look at the state by state votes. where are these unicorn voters that will turn out in droves to vote D because prez is suddenly ok with gay marriage?

if anything it's an attempt to put a stamp on the D ticket to point out that there's actually a difference in the fundamental ideas between the candidates. up until today a lot of people didn't believe there was much of a difference at all. it's an interesting strategy.

dontexist21 · May 9, 2012

MuyLocoNC said:
And your argument falls flat on its face. Any man or woman, straight or homosexual may marry a person of the oppposite sex and receive the benefits afforded to married couples. It is perfectly equal to every individual and discriminates against no one. Just because they don't want to do so, doesn't automatically make every other option a "right" which has to be afforded the same benefits and legal classification. We want to change the law to include marrying people of the same sex, redefining marriage. That does require the will of the people, not just the claim of "fundamental rights". I'm sorry, you're wrong on this one.

Marriage has been around LONG before any religion, and in some cultures marriage between people of same sex was common. The dinition of marriage has been changed so many times in history it can be changed again. At what point does changing it so that any one can marry hurt anyone else. Am I taking away your right to marry? And yes you are taking away fundental rights, such has the right to visit your spouse in the hospital. So sorry YOUR wrong on this one.

dontexist21 · May 9, 2012

IMO you can't really come against same sex marriage without sounding like bigot. What reason and rational does some have to say that two people who love and care about each other should not have the same rights as everyone else?

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

MuyLocoNC said:
And your argument falls flat on its face. Any man or woman, straight or homosexual may marry a person of the oppposite sex and receive the benefits afforded to married couples. It is perfectly equal to every individual and discriminates against no one. Just because they don't want to do so, doesn't automatically make every other option a "right" which has to be afforded the same benefits and legal classification. We want to change the law to include marrying people of the same sex, redefining marriage. That does require the will of the people, not just the claim of "fundamental rights". I'm sorry, you're wrong on this one.

only if you use michelle bachmann logic and ignore that homosexuality exists.

if you acknowledge that homosexuality exists and that men want to marry other men and women want to marry other women, then you see that states are denying equal protection under the law to homosexuals.

my dear god, are you so retarded as to use michelle bachmann logic?

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

Total Head said:
i fail to see how this is going to get him more votes. i'm all for gay marriage but a lot of people aren't. just look at the state by state votes. where are these unicorn voters that will turn out in droves to vote D because prez is suddenly ok with gay marriage?

if anything it's an attempt to put a stamp on the D ticket to point out that there's actually a difference in the fundamental ideas between the candidates. up until today a lot of people didn't believe there was much of a difference at all. it's an interesting strategy.

independents side with obama on this one by around 15-20% or so. last poll i saw, independents supported marriage equality 57-41 or so.

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

dontexist21 said:
IMO you can't really come against same sex marriage without sounding like bigot. What reason and rational does some have to say that two people who love and care about each other should not have the same rights as everyone else?

according to conservative loons like muyloco, gay people don't exist. any person can marry any person of the opposite gender so we have already achieved marriage equality and re behaving constitutionally.

unfortunately for conservative loon scumbags like muyloco, who want to put minority rights to a majority vote, gays do exist and are being denied equal protection under the law.

beenthere · May 9, 2012

UncleBuck said:
tax rates are a question of policy.

same sex marriage is a question of rights.

policy can be debated, put to a vote, changed, and so forth.

rights are to be guaranteed.

before you say it is your right to not pay taxes, refer to the 16th amendment. that pesky constitution. always cockblocking freeloading republican mooches.

What would a progressive rag like yourself know about the constitution, you people tread on it daily.
There is no such thing as the right of marriage in the US constitution, be it a man and a woman or a man and a man.
Since you've learned a little of our constitution via Wikipedia, you might want to go back and browse the tenth amendment. You'll learn that the powers not delegated by the US Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.
Since the constitution does not guarantee the right of marriage, it is reserved to the states.

These powers were put to the ballot in thirty two different states (the people) and the people spoke!
So unless 2/3 of the states ratify a same sex marriage amendment, it will always be a states rights issue, and that policy can be debated and put to a vote!

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

beenthere said:
What would a progressive rag like yourself know about the constitution, you people tread on it daily.
There is no such thing as the right of marriage in the US constitution, be it a man and a woman or a man and a man.
Since you've learned a little of our constitution via Wikipedia, you might want to go back and browse the tenth amendment. You'll learn that the powers not delegated by the US Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.
Since the constitution does not guarantee the right of marriage, it is reserved to the states.

the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying equal protection under the law. go read it.

straights can get married under the law, but gays can't. that's not equal protection.

beenthere said:
These powers were put to the ballot in thirty two different states (the people) and the people spoke!
So unless 2/3 of the states ratify a same sex marriage amendment, it will always be a states rights issue, and that policy can be debated and put to a vote!

again read the 14th amendment and quit bragging about how minority rights fail when put to a majority vote.

that's why they call them rights, they are not subject to any vote.

beenthere · May 9, 2012

UncleBuck said:
according to conservative loons like muyloco, gay people don't exist. any person can marry any person of the opposite gender so we have already achieved marriage equality and re behaving constitutionally.

unfortunately for conservative loon scumbags like muyloco, who want to put minority rights to a majority vote, gays do exist and are being denied equal protection under the law.

The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment refers to the equal rights of state governments.
I'd like you to show us all where the constitution delegates the right of marriage, your use of the term rights is unfounded. Should all Americans be awarded equal protection under the law when it comes to tax rates, they are laws you know?

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

beenthere said:
The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment refers to the equal rights of state governments.

are you mental? really? is that why it says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction"?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

with a mental retardation level that high, nothing else that you write is even remotely worth considering.

wow. just wow. way to expose yourself there as a complete empty-headed scholar.

Carne Seca · May 9, 2012

beenthere said:
The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment refers to the equal rights of state governments.
I'd like you to show us all where the constitution delegates the right of marriage, your use of the term rights is unfounded. Should all Americans be awarded equal protection under the law when it comes to tax rates, they are laws you know?

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

MuyLocoNC · May 9, 2012

UncleBuck said:
only if you use michelle bachmann logic and ignore that homosexuality exists.

if you acknowledge that homosexuality exists and that men want to marry other men and women want to marry other women, then you see that states are denying equal protection under the law to homosexuals.

my dear god, are you so retarded as to use michelle bachmann logic?

So now simply "wanting" to do something requires equal protection? "Wanting" something now deems it a fundamental right? Your arguments are getting weaker by the moment.

I don't give a flying fuck if Bachmann has espoused the same thing or not, if she said the same thing, she was correct. Your argument is laughable at best.

Yeah, I'm a conservative loon who supports gay marriage, but not for any of the reasons you supply. I personally support gay marriage because I find nothing wrong with it and I'm an atheist, so no religious doctrine sways my opinion.

But that isn't the argument we're having, this is about trying to force the public to accept a redefinition of marriage that they aren't prepared to do at this time.

beenthere · May 9, 2012

UncleBuck said:
are you mental? really? is that why it says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction"?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

with a mental retardation level that high, nothing else that you write is even remotely worth considering.

wow. just wow. way to expose yourself there as a complete empty-headed scholar.

LMAO Read the 14th amendment, I want to see you spin this one.

BTW, your immature name calling makes you look, well, immature.

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

beenthere said:
LMAO Read the 14th amendment, I want to see you spin this one.

BTW, your immature name calling makes you look, well, immature.

it's not name calling, it's an accurate description.

i posted the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment just for you since you thought it applied to states, not people.

honestly, not even worth talking to someone who thinks that the line "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction" refers to states, not persons.

laughable.

dontexist21 · May 9, 2012

MuyLocoNC said:
So now simply "wanting" to do something requires equal protection? "Wanting" something now deems it a fundamental right? Your arguments are getting weaker by the moment.

I don't give a flying fuck if Bachmann has espoused the same thing or not, if she said the same thing, she was correct. Your argument is laughable at best.

Yeah, I'm a conservative loon who supports gay marriage, but not for any of the reasons you supply. I personally support gay marriage because I find nothing wrong with it and I'm an atheist, so no religious doctrine sways my opinion.

But that isn't the argument we're having, this is about trying to force the public to accept a redefinition of marriage that they aren't prepared to do at this time.

Again your argument fails when you define marriage as between a man and woman which can not be changed. Marriage at its core is the joining of two families, and same sex marriages as been around before, long long before the USA. You allow one group to engage in an act yet you deny the other group for no other reason but they are different I am sorry that is discremination, how else can you spin it? You are not only denying them marriage but also all the percs that go along with it, i.e. tax percs, health care, and many other things. So the public can't accept it, FUCK EM. People are being discreminated against, this is not a issue they have a say it. The people were not ready to accept desegregation, but it happened not because it was easy but because it was RIGHT.

beenthere · May 9, 2012

Carne Seca said:
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

I know well, that is why I stated it refers to the equal rights of state governments.

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

MuyLocoNC said:
So now simply "wanting" to do something requires equal protection? "Wanting" something now deems it a fundamental right? Your arguments are getting weaker by the moment.

read the 14th amendment "nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws"

you are aware that married people have lots of special protections under the law, right? like not having to testify against their spouse and so on, right?

and that these rights are being given to heterosexual people who marry, but denied to homosexual people since they can't marry? you are aware of this, right?

the michelle bachmann argument you parrot is pure idiocy. it's frankly below even a scumbag like you who thinks that minority rights should be submitted to majority votes.

UncleBuck · May 9, 2012

beenthere said:
I know well, that is why I stated it refers to the equal rights of state governments.

it refers to the persons under the jurisdictions of those state governments. read again.

"nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law"

you are either purposely misconstruing this for some odd reason, making you seem rather dumb, or you actually are that dumb. one of the two.

dontexist21 · May 9, 2012

Unless someone can tell me how redefining marriage is going to effect them in a negative they can take they bigot opinions and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member