Obama backs gay marriage - Page 15

On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.

On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.

On March 02 2013 21:53 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion.

The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is
and

This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections?

What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote?

My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity.

On March 03 2013 05:36 Mindcrime wrote:


The Catholic Church isn't even the loudest opponent of gay marriage in the United States.

On March 03 2013 05:29 McBengt wrote:


Sure I'm hoping for that too. I am also hoping for a blowjob from Scarlett Johanssen. I have a hard time figuring out which one is more likely.

On March 03 2013 05:36 Mindcrime wrote:


The Catholic Church isn't even the loudest opponent of gay marriage in the United States.

On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues.

On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:


He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved.

+ Show Spoiler +

On March 02 2013 22:05 Myles wrote:

A vote by a majority of people doesn't mean you can make a law for anything - that leads to the tyranny of the majority. People should be guaranteed certain rights, and even if a lot of people don't agree that those people should have rights that doesn't make it legal(see the civil rights movement). This isn't about the supreme court deciding on any law, of which many of the things you spoke of would require constitutional amendments, only ones which affect peoples' right, such as Roe vs Wade or Brown vs The Board of Education. And while Obama is asking it to be overturned, in reality the discrimination between gays and straights under marriage would be examined under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and not simply overruled because Obama asked for it.

And by saying you can't forbid gay people to marry doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Gay people should have the same legal marriage as straight people, but Churches shouldn't have to marry them. I would hope that would be the change, but UK did/is trying to go the other route.

On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:

anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age....

On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:

Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington.

On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:

Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington.