Bravisimo

Whatever the political implications will be, I'm really pleased to hear this expression of support for same-sex marriage. 'Bout time.

I hope you didn't read that on Yahoo or some other nonsense. He got shit for it because of Biden.
Apparently Obama's views started out supportive, but are now "evolving".
Not sure what that means.

From today ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/9/obama-buckles-on-gay-marriage/

... and here's one that includes the video statement:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...arriage-today/1

Lol. Washington Times and USA Today. Great.
Everyone knows his views, they are as they were. And they are...changing?


How's that for a load of non-answering doublespeak.
If he really cared, he could have said something yesterday, before NC voted on a new constitutional amendment.
He knows he's not gonna get votes from the 'right', so he's going after LGBT.
He's a politician. Don't defend him.

No defense, just glad he said it.

Glad u enjoyed my Kat Dennings post

That's ok, but so what? He isn't making any moves...what good are words with no action? And vice versa, when he says he's all for change and does the same shit Bush did?
He's more than happy to sign legislation that allows for the arrest, detention and disappearance of American citizens without due process, and executive orders declaring martial law and federal government commandeering of private business and citizens "in times of emergency and other"...why not abuse power to do something good for once? Like recognize the inherent rights of gay people?
Why does anyone say one thing and do another?

...and Kat Dennings...uuuuhuhuhuh...smother me to death woman, and I go with a smile.

Agreed. I'm pleased for his statement and am looking forward to more acts that represent the opinion.

Marriage in a nutshell

ZING! lol.

I too am looking forward to additional 'moves' and 'actions' that this new statement expresses, in the same spirit as the following that have been invoked under the current administration:

- repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
- expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of those that work in the Executive branch
- signing the Hate Crimes Act into law
- clearing the way for hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples
- lifting the Travel & Immigration Ban for people living with HIV
- ordering the Federal Housing Authority to not consider the sexual orientation of people who apply for housing loans
- expanding the census to make sure that people in same-sex relationships get counted
- directing U.S. agencies who work with foreign countries to ensure that our humanitarian and diplomatic efforts abroad take into account the rights of gay and lesbian people in those countries
- supporting states that extend marriage rights to same-sex couples

And while these were put forward before the vote in NC, just like Feral has expressed, more has to be done ... and I stand with you steadfastly in that sentiment.

Easy there hoss. I'm viewing your list here, and while I may agree with the spirit and invocation, we have wildly different views on the process and implementation.


Agreed. But I think it needs to be extended further. Women in combat. There is very little hand-to-hand fighting going on anymore. With the right training, man, woman, gay and straight alike can stab and shoot and kill equally.
That being said, I am against a federalized standing army. Everyone that is able should know not only how to fight, but why to fight.

If they exist, sure. It doesn't occur to most, but I question the supposed powers of the executive, and often ponder the need for the branch at all.

A feel-good measure. It rings close to legislating intent, and we can't have that. If you assault or murder someone, it shouldn't matter what your thought process was when you did it. Everyone should be treated equally. Victims and perpetrators alike.

I think this would go without saying if everyone is treated equally.

Communicable diseases are tough, but I agree. But I also think if you have one, you should be held criminally and civilly liable for the consequences of you placing others in danger. That means failing to notify a tattoo artist that you have HIV, or breathing in a crowded room if you have TB. And etc.

I'm not sure this was an issue federally or even at the state level, but I agree. That being said, the FHA shouldn't exist.

No way. The census has gotten out of hand with questions. If it must exist, take a name, tab a number.

Absolutely not. If an agency exists, it shouldn't exist to meddle. Unfortunately, that is precisely the State Department's raison d'etre. It has to go. No aid. No joint military operations. Peaceful trade with all, entangling alliances with none, etc.

What do you mean by support? I hope you don't mean money.


If the covenant of the states is to exist, they all must abide.
For them to abide, they have to look at the intent and the history of the documents that bind them.
Which means equal rights for everyone. If the federal government is to exist, it should exist only to protect those rights.
I'm pretty much anti-state at this point; I see it as the biggest threat to people that currently exists. At every level it intrudes and invades and imposes.
It compels. It has devolved to and is complicit in theft, rape, and murder. But if it can be fixed, I'm willing to give it a shot.
I could go on and on with my thoughts, about individuals and armies and agencies and ideas about teaching children warfare, but I won't. For now.
Good talk though.

Marriage should be extended to gay people. Marriage is much more than just a religious unity of a man and woman. It also has consequences in terms of taxes and other financial circumstances that married people can utilize. It even doesn't have to be called a marriage, call it a domestic partnership with the same rights. It's 2012, not 1890.

You're right, it is the 21st century. But I'm not a fan of marriage in general, legally it's a fiction, like a corporation.
Except marriage is two people becoming one person in the eyes of the state, whereas a corporation is many people hiding behind a created and state-recognized entity.

All that said...marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, semantics.
Taxes?

Might be a throwback to agrarian society, but if it's your thing, should be legal. Why shouldn't LGBT folks have the chance to be as unhappy as everyone else?

You know, gays already have the right to marry and gain all of the legal benefits of that institution. In fact, they have EXACTLY the same right to marry as everyone else. A gay man has the right to marry any woman of legal age who he can persuade to agree, and vice versa. He may not particularly LIKE that that is his option, but it IS exactly the same as everyone else.

Just words.

The faux acceptance of gays by straight society is probably still the biggest obstacle. It's a fetish for a lot of people; that's not really acceptance. It's a kink.

Are you suggesting this is just a fad? Like it is a fashionable and trendy the "in" thing to do now with the acceptance of gays and lesbians?

I don't think so...

I believe it is a part of the continious change down the slippery rope of society's moral standards...not just accepting gays/lesbians but embracing all types of alternative lifestyles such as bisexuality, transgender, etc.

If same-sex marriages becomes law throughout the land you know full well that other groups like avocats for multiple partners, polygamy..even bestiality and pocession of child pornogaphy books and material are just waiting in the wings to push for thier rights and acceptance.

So how far as a society are we willing to go in the name of progession and enlightenment? How far are we willing to push the envelope of what is considered acceptable?

I thought marraige is a solemn declaration between two people who have commited to one another for better or worse, in sickness or health regardless what they can get out of it financially speaking.

Is this the real reason why straight couples as well as same-sex couples are rushing to get married these days?

No, it's not a fad. A fad might actually have some conviction behind it.

Have you ever noticed that much of the support for Gay equality from the hetero community appears to based on the sexual aspect of the relationship?
There is much, much more to any relationship than sex, but that is what it boils down to for straight folk. It's very rarely about the emotional connection, but about the
voyeuristic quality. Finding two women making out to be hot doesn't mean you support gay rights. Until society gets passed that Gaze aspect, it's all just wordplay and a political talking point.

A good solid sexual relationship is only a part of what makes a solid partnership even between same-sex couples...otherwise any relationship is not going to last on sexual relations alone.

I never understood the attraction of two women making out btw...but I do think that society is a lot more accepting towards alternate lifestyles not just homosexuality.

Of course it's important, but it's only a part of the whole. Look at it this way, when most people picture a happily married couple or in an advanced relationship, what do they picture? Most likely it's a form of connection beyond the sexual aspect--holding hands, being partners, supportive of each other. Sex is in the background, it's taken as a given.

Contrast that with the response to the same question in reference to gays and sex is at the forefront. When there's an advancement, you get things like this . Not two women (or two men) holding hands or displaying any deep emotional connection outside of a display of sexuality. The sexuality is all a lot of the straight community care about, though. It's a fetish. The couple isn't recognized as two people in love, it's a display for our own gratification. Almost like porn.

Until gays are seen as actual people like anyone else and not defined by how we perceive their sexual proclivities, nothing will ever really change.

Here's my Libertarian perspective.... while the political twisting of his loyal followers on this issue is funny and entertaining, the issue of gay marriage isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference in my life. Nor will it in anyone elses either. It's nothing but politics for Obama. He already has lost many of the "center" (or moderate voters). I know plenty of Democrat voters in my rural town here in Minnesota (a very liberal state, fyi) and they're turned off by this stance of his.

Point being... he's been a liberal his whole life and he could've took this position in 2008 but he didn't. I wonder why? Most liberals are and have been for legalization of gay marriage for years and years.

So.... Obama may have just sealed his fate. No telling till November though.

But the end result of him having this view now is moot except for politics because it makes no difference. He can't change the fact that any given state may or may not vote to legalize or not. Eventually, this will end up at the SCOTUS. They'll probably rule in favor via the 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Then people can bitch and moan.

Couldn't agree more!

Whose definition are you using? Because it sounds like quite a few cultures even in America would disagree.

What do you mean 'just words'? I'm not gay in any sense of the word. But I fully support their rights as well as yours.

That's because you equate "alternative lifestyles" with immorality. You are free to believe that, but you cannot impose that belief on others. Legislatively or otherwise.


I've heard this argument a hundred times, and not only is it getting old, it's a lame one. Damn near retarded. It's like believing a child, a dog, and an ice cream cone are the same thing as consenting adults.
And polygamy has been the standard for marriage throughout time. Why doesn't your definition equate to that tradition?


We, we, we. Treading on collectivist grounds. Like I said, you or me as an individual may disagree, but that does not mean we can help make laws against the rights of others.

It's not that way, at all, and saying so leaves me with much to be desired about your sociability.
Personally? I do enjoy seeing two women 'make out'. Most men are aroused by the prospect, because it is women being sexual. And in the same vein, I am disgusted by two men doing the same. Specifically because I am straight.
But do I think it should be illegal? Absolutely not. And like you said, there is more to a relationship than sex. No matter who is involved.
My conviction is to ensuring non-intrusion by the State.

He's signed statements when he was senator to that effect. But does he really believe it? Who knows. What I do know is that he is first and foremost a politician. Which makes every view he pronounces suspect.
Really makes every word out of his mouth suspect.

A fad?
Just sexual?
WTF?
I doubt these have anything to do with the people that vote against gay marriage. It seems more to do with protecting their old ways of marriage being about a man marrying a woman. It's no coincidence that gay marriage is banned in much of the conservative "red" states. Yet also many blue states as well.

Carlito, maybe I'm missing something, but your map appears to be out of date. Homosexual marriage has been legalized in more states than the graphic shows.

Funny...

When The Almighty Obama changes his stance on something, it's evolution of an advanced liberal mind that the whole country should celebrate and embrace.

When a Republican Presidential Candidate changes his stance, it's the shameless pandering of a flip-flopper that the whole country should fear and distrust.


Just a thought.

How about a more current map?

Bleh on the "red" state bullshit......

Depends on the context? And which media reports it
Everybody has changed their minds on many things in their lives.

Not so much with respect to context. However what media is reporting can make a difference in the coverage.

But as a general rule, the mainstream media are in the tank for Democrats pure and simple.

Just take the example of the story currently running on Mitt Romney - a story the MSM reached back to 1965 to find! Seems high school Mitt may have "bullied" someone FORTY SEVEN YEARS AGO!!!

Now you might think that if the MSM is willing to go digging THAT deep into a candidate's background, we might expect them to apply the same diligence to the opposing candidate. But NOOOOOO... not a freaking peep from the MSM who has access to the AUDIO version of Obama's autobiography where he says, IN HIS OWN FREAKING WORDS, that he drank heavily in high school as well as smoked dope and did DRUGS (the plural use is his) including cocaine!!!!

But the MSM has even batted an EYE at that revelation, or even bothered to follow up on Obama's MANY, MANY very questionable associations with Marxist radicals, domestic socialist terrorists, black liberation anti-American theologists, and outright CRIMINALS!

They've NEVER bothered to try and dig up ANYTHING on Obama, not his school transcripts, his work on the Harvard Law Review, NOTHING!

So I'd say the only "context" that matters to the MSM is WHO is making any given utterance... if it's a leftist - hands off; if it's a conservative - CRUCIFY THEM!

This is the sad fact of the matter today. We have an MSM that has utterly and totally ABANDONED their duty to provide objective and unbiased reporting on the events of the day and to serve as a watchdog over government. Now they are just LAP DOGS for the Democratic Party!

That is the most asinine statement and argument I've ever read.

Comparing the advocacy groups for human rights for consenting adults in same sex relationships and advocacy groups for people who want to screw animals and children is just ridiculous.

The difference is consenting adults but it still goes against nature whether you take your stand on religious grounds or evolution...male and female gender difference exists in the majority of lifeforms even in plants have male and female parts necessary for the continuing of the species. That is another separate reason why I don't support same-sex marriages..they may be sexually attracted to another of the same sex...indeed truly love one another but it is not a natural love even without basing this argument on religious grounds. It is against nature itself...not just against the laws of God which clearly state marriage is a solemn ordinance between a man and a woman.

The boundaries of morals/ethics and decency has been pushed further and further in the last several generations by interest groups such as the homosexual community.,,but they are not the only ones who have pushed for thier right to be accepted.

The only thing that is stopping beastiality and child pornography pocession from becoming the "accepted norm" is that society still considers rightly so... such practices an abomination and our morals has yet to degenerate to that point though I assure you that moral and ethics standards are eroding slowly but surely and it wouldn't suprise me that one day society does abandon all ethics and morals and such things like child pornography that are now considered wicked and evil becomes acceptable.

What part of nature have you been looking at?
In primates the norm is one male, many females. But there's also quite a bit of gayness happening. They have sex for no more than a greeting.
In hive insects it's one female, many males. Most are incestuous, and some are born impregnated with the young they will later use to procreate.
In many arachnids it's one huge female, one male, and when the male is finished he is food.
In lions it's one male, many females. But if that male is challenged by another male and loses, the winner kills and eats the loser's offspring. He isn't attacked by the mothers for this; in fact, they get aroused.
Some fish and amphibians spontaneously change sex. And in many fish and cephalopods, sex occurs outside the body; sometimes offspring are created without the mother and father ever meeting. In fact, that's the norm for pollinating plants, and it's the reason allergy sufferers have it so rough this time of year. Their sinuses are inundated with sperm.
I can go on and on.
This is what God has created. Are you saying that God is wrong?


So it's only a matter of time before sex handshakes, matriarchal polygamy, and cannibalism are commonplace? If you sneeze from hay fever, do you accuse grass of sexual assault as well?

Thank you for this. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. No one is being "denied rights." Every single person born in this country has the right, at legal age, to enter a marriage with one person of the opposite sex, according to the definition of marriage from time immemorial (with the occasional exception of polygamy-- gay marriage is entirely unprecedented).

What the gay marriage brigade is asking for is a special privilege. This is nothing like slavery, in which certain people were denied rights others had. This is nothing like segregation, in which certain people were denied rights others had. Those calling for "gay rights" are not asking for a right they are currently being denied; they are asking for the government to invent a right.

Gay marriage absolutely IS a civil rights issue. If two consenting adults with the desire to get married (and receive the legal advantages of marriage) are denied based on their gender, then their 14th Amendment rights are being violated. It is sex discrimination.

It does not open the door to bestiality, or child marriages ... Animals and children can not give consent. Those are desperate arguments and the same ones made by those who opposed interracial marriages in the past.

IF people were concerned with the sanctity of marriage, then why not outlaw divorce and make infidelity a felony with prison time? Those are much greater threats to marriage than allowing additional people to get married.

No, it's inventing a special privilege. No one is denied marriage under the historical definition of marriage. Consenting adults can receive the same legal advantages of marriage in a civil union without changing the definition of marriage.



But by that standard alone, it would certainly open the door to polygamy and incest.



I'm not exactly in the front lines of the "sanctity of marriage" brigade, so you'll have to ask someone else this. All I wonder is how gays could look at the modern state of marriage (which is atrocious) and conclude, yeah, this is worth getting into!

Thing is, he had two years and both houses to do something.

Did he? Not really. Repealing DADT, which wasn't much, really.

But now he needs to get reelected, so he changes his tune.

Like I said...whose definition are you using? Disney?
I'm assuming you aren't a 12 year old girl. You freely admit that marriage also includes polygamy, although your definition of the word 'occasional' is suspect. You also freely admit that if something can be denied, then it isn't a right, it is a privilege.
Can the state deny marriage? Can it do so for any reason? If that's the case, then it's a privilege, but it is so for all. Nothing special necessary.
What about common law? Quite a few straight folks out there have children, live together for decades, etc. without any help from the state. Used to be that that was the norm in this country. Were they and are they only really married if the state says so? If that's the case, and they need to prove citizenship of a state and file certain papers with courts in said state, is that not the State deciding who is what? Sounds to me exactly like slaves, not only for gays. State said blacks weren't really citizens. Does that make it so? Which is it?
Your only qualm seems to be the word.
Most seem to only argue semantics because they in fact disagree with with the sex aspect, for any number of reasons, no matter how stupid.
Interesting, because you personally seem to somewhat recognize the important distinction between a right and a privilege.
If the state has to be involved, it needs to recognize it as a right.
Personally, I wouldn't be asking for their blessing.

Again, if it's just the word, there's already quite a few people involved in polygamy, without any help from the state. Ask any woman that has children from more than one man, and vice versa.
That being said, I don't see brother and sister couples lining up for their chance to get recognized.

What is he going to do? He says it up to the states. What he thinks isn't exactly what he wants to do. People can have opinions without actions.
Not for nothing, but gay marriage is not a big deal compared to the economy and getting our troops home. Those are things the houses need to concentrate on.
And to bring it up again, he said it's up to the individual states. That's what I hear from many conservatives in this section about other issues, yet when Obama says it there is no mention of it. Yet Romney wants to do a Federal Amendment

That's what I was waiting for, thank you.
These are divisive things that always seem to be rolled out, right on schedule. People painting a burning house.
There has been zero action on the cause and consequences of the 2008 financial crisis. People continue to go unemployed, continue to lose their homes; banks continue to 'lose' money and fill the ranks of the executive while virtual and literal fences go up around the people...
and the cover of Time magazine? A woman breastfeeding a 3 year old kid.
10,000 articles and hundreds of thousands of comments.
It's easy to argue beliefs...what's difficult is to argue facts.

I agree; the right has been making hay off of gay marriage / abortion issues for a long time: anything to distract people from the more pressing need to fix the economy and the growing disparity between the very rich and the rest of the population. It's a little hypocritical for certain right-wingers to now claim Obama is trying to score political points on gay marriage, when that has regularly been one of their tactics.

Well the ecomony should take pecedence over the issue of same-sex marraige at this time I agree but the media has decided take issue with Mitt Romney over his stance against same-sex marraige and the incident he did as a youth which btw he has regreted concerning a homosexual.

Romney has repeatedly has tried to get the media to focus the issues concerning the economy and jobs since his statement on his personal stance concerning the sanctitity of marraige between a man and woman but they decided to hammer him about gay marraige instead the economy.

So whose fault is that?

Common-law marriage if it may called that are pretty much the norm these days. Nowadays people consider lawful marraige is just a piece of paper and common law makes it much easier for couples to separate without the legal and emotional hassle of going through the legalities of a separation and divorce process.

So why the need for same-sex couples to get legally married in the first place? Straight couples are not getting legally married nowadays they have chosen simply live together.



There are people who practice polygamy who are trying to get the government at the state and provincial level (as in the case in British Columbia)to recognize thier right to have multiple spouses. And that is the whole issue concerning what is recognized as a legal marraige by the laws of the land.

If same-sex marraige becomes legally recognised thoughout America as it is now in Canada it will undoubtedly the open the doors for polygamist avocats and other interest groups to redefine what is lawful marriage.

It is not inventing a special privilege, it is correcting an unjust discrimination. There is no reason to deny same sex marriage other than bigots and religious fundamentalists like it that way. Civil unions do not grant the same legal advantages, and even if they did, the "separate but equal" argument has been declared unconstitutional many times.




What's wrong with polygamy if all involved are consenting? I don't see a problem with it. If there is abuse or other crimes involved, then prosecute those crimes, but the act in itself is harmless to those involved and society.

Incest has medical reasons to justify denial.

But what if they are two consenting adults?

If you are going to allow homosexual couples and multiple husbands/wives then why discriminate 1st cousins and even sibling couples solely for medical reasons ... if they are 2 consenting adults who happen to love each other?

They need not to have biological children..they can always adopt or choose to be childless right?

Little Off topic, but While Bestially Incest and pedophilia make sense for being illegal, how is it that polygamy got drafted into the same boat as those? why doesn't it go into the same category as same sex marriage so long as all involved consent to it?

For the Record I'm for allowing homosexuals to marry. A) it effects some that i know and would gladly die for, B) would rather not have it in the news... so long as they are happy, and agree with whats going on, and doesn't effect my pursuit of happiness,

It's oldminer's boat, he'll have to answer. He has a list of immoral things, but includes homosexuality. I'm not sure what his views on polygamy are, considering he's Mormon, but he's been very selective in his answers recently.
Miner?

I don't support polgamy and it has banned since Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto in October 1890 but I aknowledge it was common practice among the pioneer members of the church.

There was a reason why polygamy was practiced at the time..the early mormon pioneers were greatly persecuted and many of its brethern were killed leaving so many fatherless families nearly destitute those brethern remaining were asked to take those widows as thier wives and provide love and protection and finiacial support.

Many members were not too keen on the idea of plural marraige including Joseph Smith whose wife Emma especially did not like the idea of plural marraige but the prophet explained to her it was a direct commandment from the Lord who foresaw the persecution would become great enough for the need of plural marraige...as it was the case in biblical times when of the prophets of old had a number of wives.

God also foresaw that the church would continued to be persecuted and its temples conficated or destroyed and the ordinanece for the living and the dead would be lost...if the practice of plural marraige continued.

Here is the link to the manifesto issued by President Woodruff issued on October 6 1890.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Sounds like the Lord is fickle, when necessity calls for it.

Can you comprehend the eternities Feral? Niether can I...nor do I pretend to...

Now you may think God acts fickle or immoral according the the worldly laws and morals of men according to the times we live in... there is a lot of things I don't understand including many of the things he has commanded to the ancient isrealites for example...however people judge God from a limited human perspective.While we see things at face-value and make a judgement call we can only see things from a limited mortal perspective therefore we judge the actions of God from that limited narrow perspective whereas God can see things and judges from an eternal perspective which is so far beyond our capacity to understand.

Here we are, as Rome burns we are fiddling.

Obama, in a crass political move, made his support of gay marriage public. What a shocker since he'd come out in support of it in the late 90's only to change his position upon seeking a national office. Bottom line, his position means less than squat as there's nothing he can do to inhibit or advance the cause.

On the list of things we should be concerned about given our current national prediciment, gay marriage is way, WAY down the list of things to worry about for any sane individual paying attention.

But perhaps that's just me.

That wasn't my meaning, but it is interesting to me that you say so. I don't judge. There's the difference between myself and folks who write 'The Word' and those who inevitably follow it second and third hand. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Smith.
I don't pretend to know God's will.

Hello my friend, DBL. Gr8 to see you as always.

I'm grateful for this latest expression in the category of equality. During recognition of a positive expression, it hasn't distracted me from attention to additional issues that are important.

Good grief...another disaster of cut-and-paste...where are you getting your stuff?

Gay marriage is legal in at least six states....New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. For crying out loud, in Iowa alone it's been legal for three years....meaning your map is at least that far out of date.

Hey, hey Boones buddy! Great to see you as well!

I trust all is well with you and yours?

I got it on Wikipedia.

Odd...Wikipedia appears to have a quite different map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

I'll be damned, you're right. Apparently, it was changed. Heck, the image I uploaded even has a Wiki address on the damn thing.