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,