Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Openly Backs Gay Marriage  
User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 607 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3320 times:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...obama-backs-same-sex-marriage?lite

I am somewhat surprised but pleased by this. For the first time in my (granted short thusfar) life, I feel as if I have a president who actually will fight for my rights and recognizes me as an equal citizen.

I fear that this may turn into a 2004 election all over again, but I feel that in the 8 years since '04, the country's views on gay marriage has substantially evolved. With a majority of Americans supporting it (50% in '12, down from 53% in '11, versus 42% in '04 http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Ha...-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx), and the economy such a huge issue, I don't think it will be as useful of an issue to motivate the far right base.


Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Awesome.

Always makes me happy when a prominent politician has the balls to actually say something like that. Even better that it's the President.

Now granted, maybe he's pandering to his supporters....but anyway, still awesome.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7140 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

I would not get too excited about this. I can see the significance of it, being the first sitting president to say it. That's not a bad thing, but.....

One until a case goes to the supreme court if one ever does this is a state issue.

Second this is the same President Obama who for the last few years has said over and over again he is NOT for same sex marriage. This is a purely political move coming from the master politician.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
Now granted, maybe he's pandering to his supporters....but anyway, still awesome.

Same reason why he didn't state such a position previously. But hey, he's a politician, so I expect him to be political. Everyone knew that if push came to shove he would not have opposed it.

When you get right down to it, there is no real reason to not support same-sex marriage. If I ever care to get into the (what turns out to be, endless, unresolvable, and silly) discussion, I ask: "Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex partners. Why does it make any sense, what does it affect?" and it ALWAYS comes down to religion/belief and "what they are used to/raised with". It is never based on anything real or valid. Just "they don't like it".

So bring it on.

I support marriage and understand the fact that a society needs people that will commit to a loved one to thrive, and the more that do that the better (and decrease the burden/cost on government).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):

One until a case goes to the supreme court if one ever does this is a state issue.

Agreed 100%. He cannot unilaterally force the issue on anybody, which is fine - that is the nature of the rule of law that we have.

It still good to hear  
Quoting flymia (Reply 2):
Second this is the same President Obama who for the last few years has said over and over again he is NOT for same sex marriage.

Ugh really? since you brought it up.. want to list some of Romney "flip flops"? Do you know that he is taking credit for the auto industry turn-around?

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
Same reason why he didn't state such a position previously. But hey, he's a politician, so I expect him to be political. Everyone knew that if push came to shove he would not have opposed it.

Of course - he is a politician. You don't get where he is at by not being one.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
When you get right down to it, there is no real reason to not support same-sex marriage.

Sure there is (civil unions... for gay and straight).

If you choose to have a religiously recognized "marriage" beyond a state sanctioned civil union, that's fine. I think that the "civil union only" approach (at least within the bounds of government) serves to establish equality and to dissociate religion from government.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

/looks at poll numbers
//realizes needs another distraction from the economy and the disaster of a presidency
///sticks fingers in air

////SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE AFTER HAVING WAFFLED AND VACILLATED FOR YEARS

Such a great election ploy, Obama....and transparent. yawn.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slider (Reply 6):

Such a great election ploy, Obama....and transparent. yawn.

And this is what? - not an election ploy?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...s-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
Sure there is (civil unions... for gay and straight).

If you choose to have a religiously recognized "marriage" beyond a state sanctioned civil union, that's fine. I think that the "civil union only" approach (at least within the bounds of government) serves to establish equality and to dissociate religion from government.

  
Can't argue with that really. Because if people are arguing that "marriage" is religious then government should not be involved (though I don't think it exclusively is). So quite frankly a "civil union" is fine by me.

Many religion's have no problem at all with same-sex marriage so those that do support it will perform the marriages and those that don't still won't and those people that just "don't believe in" marriage at all can also at least be recognized by the state and receive the benefits of such a union. And the "nature" (oooo horror) of marriage then will not be affected by those that claim it will be (let me say that again: "Oooo the horror!!!").

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
Sure there is (civil unions... for gay and straight).

If you choose to have a religiously recognized "marriage" beyond a state sanctioned civil union, that's fine. I think that the "civil union only" approach (at least within the bounds of government) serves to establish equality and to dissociate religion from government.

  

Absolutely the best plan, in my opinion.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Cute. Kudos to Husseien.

I'm still voting for Romney in November.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25086 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Agreed 100%. He cannot unilaterally force the issue on anybody, which is fine - that is the nature of the rule of law that we have.

It still good to hear

  

As Andrew Sullivan writes:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....2012/05/obama-lets-go-of-fear.html

"I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.

So let me simply say: I think of all the gay kids out there who now know they have their president on their side.

Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may. That's why we elected him. That's the change we believed in. The contrast with a candidate who wants to abolish all rights for gay couples by amending the federal constitution, and who has donated to organizations that seek to "cure" gays, who bowed to pressure from bigots who demanded the head of a spokesman on foreign policy solely because he was gay: how much starker can it get?"


mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
If you choose to have a religiously recognized "marriage" beyond a state sanctioned civil union

Why does religion get to own marriage?

Fred


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

Quoting akiss20 (Thread starter):
I am somewhat surprised but pleased by this. For the first time in my (granted short thusfar) life, I feel as if I have a president who actually will fight for my rights and recognizes me as an equal citizen.

If this was so important to Obama, why did he not address the issue when he had a filibuster-proof majority in both the House and Senate? That Obama is now backing gay marriage makes it seem like:

1. It was a low priority or non-priority, which makes Obama's 2008 campaign promises seem hollow
2. It's only being floated out now as an election year campaign issue after the other campaign initiatives failed to engage the public
3. It's still only being floated after Biden was used to test the waters in the talk show circuit, so how strong is Obama's actual resolve?

It screams pandering. Realistically, Obama will not have the legislative majority he had in 2008-2010, so nothing is going to happen one way or another.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25086 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3045 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
It screams pandering.

Probably only to those who want it seem like pandering.

For some people, it means something quite other:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...-off_n_1504061.html?ref=gay-voices

"Iowa student Zach Wahls -- whose impassioned marriage equality speech became the most-viewed political video on YouTube after going viral twice in 2011 -- noted, "As the son of asame-sex couple from Iowa, and one of the first children born to an openly lesbian parent in the Midwest, it is with a sense of awe-struck bewilderment that I realize I am now represented by a sitting U.S. president who publicly supports the marriage shared by my two moms, Jackie and Terry.""

Why would the President need to "pander" to him? He would already have that vote.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 13):
Why does religion get to own marriage?

Exactly, if the US really believes in the separation of church and state they should do what Belgium does... there, if people want to have a religious "wedding ceremony" recognised by the church that is up to them... but the only marriage which has any legal validity is the civil one done at the town hall which is open to all couples regardless of religious beliefs or gender.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineswissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
Exactly, if the US really believes in the separation of church and state they should do what Belgium does... there, if people want to have a religious "wedding ceremony" recognised by the church that is up to them... but the only marriage which has any legal validity is the civil one done at the town hall which is open to all couples regardless of religious beliefs or gender.

Agree with you... why cant we accept marriage by law is a commitment between two people... got/should have nothing to do with gender... its time to move in to the new millennium and give them the same rights and protection... so simple

Cheerios,


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 13):
Why does religion get to own marriage?

It doesn't.

Religion specifically does not "own" the word at all, and if it did then based on religious freedom the US would have to recognize those marriages that are performed by religions that accept and support same-sex marriage. Because they already recognize marriage in other religions and to otherwise deny such recognition would be (and quite frankly I think it is) to favor one religion over another.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
Sure there is (civil unions... for gay and straight).

If you choose to have a religiously recognized "marriage" beyond a state sanctioned civil union, that's fine. I think that the "civil union only" approach (at least within the bounds of government) serves to establish equality and to dissociate religion from government.

You're in a word game.

"Marriage" is the word used for secular legal unions in this country. Religious officials are allowed to conduct legal marriages, but so are judges. You can get married at City Hall.

We are NOT going to get rid of civil marriage and replace it with universal civil unions. It will not happen. The word for a legal civil union is "marriage." The fact that some states do not allow it is a clear violation of the "Equal Protection" clause. The SCOTUS has ruled eight times that marriage is a fundamental civil right. There is absolutely no logical or legal argument against gay marriage and recent court cases in which the anti-gay sides (and let's not pretend that it's anything other than anti-gay sentiment) have been able to present NOT ONE SINGLE legal or secular argument against gay marriage is proof of that.

So it's "gay marriage."


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):

Second this is the same President Obama who for the last few years has said over and over again he is NOT for same sex marriage. This is a purely political move coming from the master politician.

I think the guy always thought that same sex marriage should be legal, he just couldn't voice it for fear of screwing over his election chances. This was absolutely a move calculated to be taken at the most politically-opportune time--but I'm glad he said it anyway.


User currently offlineplaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1244 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

I understand people's excitement about the President's statement today; however, I would have been more excited is he came out in support of the government ending "legal" recognition of marriage. The love and dedication of two people declared to each other is a beautiful thing, but the gov't should not be involved.


I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
That Obama is now backing gay marriage makes it seem like:

Support for gay marriage is significantly stronger today than it was four years ago.

Political candidates rarely openly support issues the majority of their constitutes support, regardless of their party affiliation.



Hypocrisy: "US airlines should only buy Boeing... BTW, check out my new Hyundai!"
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 21):
I understand people's excitement about the President's statement today; however, I would have been more excited is he came out in support of the government ending "legal" recognition of marriage. The love and dedication of two people declared to each other is a beautiful thing, but the gov't should not be involved.

The whole reason why government recognizes it and supports it (tax status, benefits for partner, etc) is because it saves the government an enormous amount of money and supports a strong society.

Plain and simple, you want to encourage two people to be together and commit to each other (beyond that is not needed as "two together" is the basic building block of all society - as the song goes "one is the loneliest number"   ) so that you can afford to have a society, a city, a nation, a civilization.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
You're in a word game.

I think Obama is too. When the transcripts come out and the full interview is revealed you'll see he twisted words for votes. Plain and simple. He said he thinks they 'should' not have the 'right'. It's silly to point out but he is double dipping trying to preserve the vote that got him elected and still go after another demographic. He is getting killed in every poll against Romney. If Obama wants to steal some votes this early in the season dump Biden and take a new running mate. Comical what that guy said about Iran.   


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2935 times:

Quoting fxramper (Reply 24):
He is getting killed in every poll against Romney.

Odd. You must be watching Fox.

Obama was put under pressure and he finally gave. Of course he backs gay marriage. He flat-out lied up until now. It's something I can forgive, but I won't forget.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 15):
Probably only to those who want it seem like pandering.

If 6 months out from the general election, the GOP took-up prayer in school as an election issue, the howls from the left would be deafening. Both parties play to social issues when they need to drum up the base. I'll ask my key question again: since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

Maybe I answered my own question given the cap-and-trade debacle.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 26):
I'll ask my key question again: since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

What's that got to do with gay marriage? Even with a Democratic majority, Congress couldn't do anything meaningful regarding gay marriage.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2984 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 26):
I'll ask my key question again: since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

First of all, the Southern Democrats would not have allowed it. Second, gay marriage was less popular in 2009 than it is in 2012. Now that a true majority of Americans support gay marriage, it's a safer bet.

I'm not arguing that Obama is 100% sincere (or rather, that he had been sincere prior to this announcement), that this is an apolitical move, or that this has nothing to do with the elections. That would be completely indefensible

But this is a line in the sand that I am glad to see drawn. Now I want to see it on the DNC platform.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 26):
I'll ask my key question again: since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

We can ask the same question about the GOP from 2000-2006.

Many polls are now showing that about half of Americans support same-sex marriage. That's a significant climb from polls conducted just four years ago.

As long as the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose mandatory, school-led prayers, no serious GOP presidential contender will every support the issue. If those trends change, you can bet they'll be all over it.



Hypocrisy: "US airlines should only buy Boeing... BTW, check out my new Hyundai!"
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2939 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
You're in a word game.

"Marriage" is the word used for secular legal unions in this country. Religious officials are allowed to conduct legal marriages, but so are judges. You can get married at City Hall.

We are NOT going to get rid of civil marriage and replace it with universal civil unions. It will not happen. The word for a legal civil union is "marriage." The fact that some states do not allow it is a clear violation of the "Equal Protection" clause. The SCOTUS has ruled eight times that marriage is a fundamental civil right. There is absolutely no logical or legal argument against gay marriage and recent court cases in which the anti-gay sides (and let's not pretend that it's anything other than anti-gay sentiment) have been able to present NOT ONE SINGLE legal or secular argument against gay marriage is proof of that.

So it's "gay marriage."

This.

What you Europeans like to call a "civil union", we call marriage. It is the same thing. We get confused when people talk about abolishing marriage and instituting civil unions, because they are the same thing to us.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 24):
He is getting killed in every poll against Romney.

Must be the same poll that said that the NC amendment wouldn't pass. The only poll that matters is on November 6th.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting swissy (Reply 17):
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 16):Exactly, if the US really believes in the separation of church and state they should do what Belgium does... there, if people want to have a religious "wedding ceremony" recognised by the church that is up to them... but the only marriage which has any legal validity is the civil one done at the town hall which is open to all couples regardless of religious beliefs or gender.
Agree with you... why cant we accept marriage by law is a commitment between two people... got/should have nothing to do with gender... its time to move in to the new millennium and give them the same rights and protection... so simple

Ditto.

This is still a very small step. An important but still small one. What is needed is for the Federal Government to recognize in tax laws, Social Security, Disability, Discrimination laws and many other benefits and obligations, to accept state sanctioned civil unions and marriages of same-gender couples. Here in New Jersey, where Civil Unions are legal, the state income tax forms clearly recognize them for example. Federal income tax forms don't. Only a few states recognize same-gender unions and very few same-gender marriage - most state have laws or state Constitutional amendments that clearly ban same sex marriage or civil unions.

Based on some others opinions and my thinking, there may be several reasons for President Obama to 'come out of the closet' on same sex marriage now. No doubt VP Biden and other top party/executive officials openly supporting gay marriage - perhaps intentional to open the way - presented the opportunity to come out. Perhaps it is better to get it out long before the elections, removing it from the campaign. The vote yesterday in North Carolina by a significant margin for a State Constitutional Amendment on only man and woman as marriage partners may have been another trigger. The need for support from the more liberal wing of the party in a relatively cheap way and perhaps attract their money for the campaign. It also presents a major difference to Romney that may attract socially moderate independent voters as well as younger voters more likely to vote for Democrats.

Whatever and whenever this was going to happen, at least a step has been taken in the correct direction.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25086 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 26):
I'll ask my key question again: since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

I assume that neither he, nor a number of his party had evolved to this position then. Even four years ago, support of marriage equality was scarcely a majority position.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Just for reference, in '08 support for gay marriage was 40% according to Gallup. Even halfway through '10, it was only at 46%


Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 27):

What's that got to do with gay marriage? Even with a Democratic majority, Congress couldn't do anything meaningful regarding gay marriage.

They could have repealed DOMA and they did not.

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 33):

Just for reference, in '08 support for gay marriage was 40% according to Gallup. Even halfway through '10, it was only at 46%

Which is irrelevant because civil rights are not decided by majority vote.


User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
Quoting akiss20 (Reply 33):

Just for reference, in '08 support for gay marriage was 40% according to Gallup. Even halfway through '10, it was only at 46%

Which is irrelevant because civil rights are not decided by majority vote.

I understand that Mike, I am just demonstrating that if you want to view it as Obama shifting because of shifting views in the country, there is evidence for that.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 401 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

About damn time. Now do something to change the federal immigration policy that bars same-sex marriages equal rights.

User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

I am actually very mad at obama for announcing this right now. he should have waited until after the election. call em a cynic but he can kiss his southern electoral votes goodbye now and will be in trouble in the midwest too.

User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Quoting akiss20 (Thread starter):
I am somewhat surprised but pleased by this. For the first time in my (granted short thusfar) life, I feel as if I have a president who actually will fight for my rights and recognizes me as an equal citizen

I'm not, he supported it all along regarding civil unions. Obama was pandering in 08 and now he is doing and saying what he thinks.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
Now granted, maybe he's pandering to his supporters....but anyway, still awesome.

I think he was pandering before.

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
When you get right down to it, there is no real reason to not support same-sex marriage.

Us hetero-sexuals have ruined marriage anyway, it really has no significance when the divorce rate it over 50%. Let the gays have a go with it to see if they can do a better job I say.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 13):
Why does religion get to own marriage?

They don't really, just because you are married in a church means nothing legally. You still have to register the union with the government.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Obama was put under pressure and he finally gave. Of course he backs gay marriage. He flat-out lied up until now. It's something I can forgive, but I won't forget.

Times change and a lot of the opinion on gay marriage is lifting due to shows like Glee. Also he is a politician and his opinion unfortunately can cost him his job (it still might).

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 26):
since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

He wouldn't have had this passed with a dem congress because a lot of them are still as religious as the GOP and probably don't agree. All Obama did was state his opinion, not pushing for legislation.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
We are NOT going to get rid of civil marriage and replace it with universal civil unions. It will not happen. The word for a legal civil union is "marriage." The fact that some states do not allow it is a clear violation of the "Equal Protection" clause.

Yes it is and civilly it a "marriage" as you say should be allowed for anyone.
Churches can do whatever they want according to the first amendment and disagree with the now majority opinion or deny to wed a gay couple.

It stops there though, no church should be allowed to have any political influence on lawmakers regarding the status of a same-sex marriage bill in any legislature. If they do like the Mormon church did in California in 2008 putting $20 million into defeating Prop 8 then they should have their tax-exempt status pulled because they are violating the first amendment.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

He did not openly support it. He caved to pressure for cash. He did it under duress because his donors held his campaign hostage.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 26):
Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

Bingo

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Of course he backs gay marriage. He flat-out lied up until now. It's something I can forgive, but I won't forget.

He has prettty miuch lied about everything until now.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

Quoting akiss20 (Thread starter):
I feel as if I have a president who actually will fight for my rights and recognizes me as an equal citizen.

Don't get too excited. As we've seen, the man does not have a magic wand.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
Now granted, maybe he's pandering to his supporters....but anyway, still awesome.

Bingo!!

Quoting slider (Reply 6):
Such a great election ploy, Obama....and transparent. yawn.

Yup, even if I do agree. He's still a politician. Most apropos here, my father and grandfather both say/said that "the only thing more crooked than a preacher is a politician." Right now we're watching a dance between them.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 13):
Why does religion get to own marriage?

Because somebody, somewhere, decided that someone (usually a man) attached to a church held more authority than non-clerical peons. Never mind that the point of Jesus was that salvation was for ALL. But that's a separate issue for a separate thread.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 39):
He did not openly support it. He caved to pressure for cash. He did it under duress because his donors held his campaign hostage.

He was pandering in 08 IMO. He always was pro gay marriage, I also think he thinks religion is a crock of crap but he isn't coming out with that one.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 40):
Yup, even if I do agree. He's still a politician. Most apropos here, my father and grandfather both say/said that "the only thing more crooked than a preacher is a politician." Right now we're watching a dance between them.

To jab the catholic's, politicians (unless Republican*) cheat with their secretaries or Interns. They don't molest children, what could be more crooked than that.

* Larry Craig wide stance joke

Quoting luckyone (Reply 40):
Because somebody, somewhere, decided that someone (usually a man) attached to a church held more authority than non-clerical peons. Never mind that the point of Jesus was that salvation was for ALL. But that's a separate issue for a separate thread.

Jesus = Pinko Commie

Signed,

The Tea Party  



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):
One until a case goes to the supreme court if one ever does this is a state issue.

It is not a state issue. Equal rights under the US Constitution has been a federal issue ever since the 14th Amendment made it so.

I'm going to assume everyone here is ready to defend the Constitution, which says this. Right?

RIGHT?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
Kudos to Husseien.

This comment is beneath you, Supe.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
Cute. Kudos to Husseien.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. Very cute Barack. If he was so passionate about gay marriage then why didn't he come out and say it before? He just plain sucks.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2535 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
Cute. Kudos to Husseien.

So that's what he's going by these days? I hadn't realized  

And I know your spelling is better than that, Superfly...

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 43):
If he was so passionate about gay marriage then why didn't he come out and say it before? He just plain sucks.

What makes you think he's "so passionate"? The guy just said he believes same-sex couples should be able to marry.

If Romney comes out tomorrow with an addition or two to his platform that he hadn't previously publicized, will he "just plain suck" for not announcing so earlier?



Flying refined.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

You usually don't see this from Gawker, but it's an intriguing take on Obama's announcement.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-oba...bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement

Note how carefully he crafted his statement and the states' rights issue. I wonder if any of the mainstream news outlets will research this as well as this piece actually seems to have...it's a curious slant on it and only exposes the purely political motives of Obama (if there was any doubt, anyhow).


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Only three words: About freaking time!

It's about time a president took a clear stand on the issue. I wonder how this will affect the campaigns and elections.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

This debate of Gay Marriage has been manipulated to be a diversion, so that we forget the important issues: issues like our economy, the international failures of Obama, the acquisition of an American commercial and retail bank by the Chinese government, the fact that we have no budget, the massive ego of the current leadership (“when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained”, or "Suppose the navy Seals had gone in there and it hadn't been Bin Laden. Suppose they'd been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him"), the fact that we have a corrupt and racist Justice Department. This whole issue should be WAY down the list of priorities.


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
This debate of Gay Marriage has been manipulated to be a diversion,

Are you channeling Karl Rove in 2004? Forget the wars - its "traditional families" whats important.

Of course its political, just like its political for Romney to come out an express his objection.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 38):
Us hetero-sexuals have ruined marriage anyway, it really has no significance when the divorce rate it over 50%. Let the gays have a go with it to see if they can do a better job I say.

LOL, best comment of this thread so far!

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 43):
Yeah my thoughts exactly. Very cute Barack. If he was so passionate about gay marriage then why didn't he come out and say it before? He just plain sucks.

So unless obama did something as soon as he came into office then it doesn't count as what he really wants? Maybe there should be an election every 4 years but the president is only in office for the first because after that its just pandering.

Fred


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

To all those conservative posters complaining that Obama is being politically opportunistic, pot, meet kettle.



Romney in 1994: "The Gay Community Needs More Support from the Republican Party"
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romn...eeds-more-support-republican-party



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
This whole issue should be WAY down the list of priorities.

Civil Rights is ALWAYS and ALWAYS the FIRST priority. This could be solved in five minutes if the Right would just let it happen. For free.

"Gays want to get married."
"OK, doesn't affect me."

That's what SHOULD have happened. And yet whether it's race, sex, religion, when it comes down to rights, the right ALWAYS puts up a fight. It is frustrating beyond belief to read history books.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 50):
To all those conservative posters complaining that Obama is being politically opportunistic, pot, meet kettle.

Romney in 1994: "The Gay Community Needs More Support from the Republican Party"
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romn...party

And the sad thing that I would vote for "that" Mitt Romney.

But with the pandering that is going on now and the extreme requirements that are imposed by the supposedly "big tent" Republican party (Really? A big tent? Where there is room for just one viewpoint? Sad.) causes most of the Republican candidates to pander and to disclaim their ideals and values (definitely can't say that about all of them).

It's the same thing that sank McCain for me in the last election, he became a false, lying politician, dying to be president and willing to sell his "past self" his authentic "maverick self" down the river and deny much of what he had previously been. And that always make me sick. Be who you are, and run on the record of your successes or what you attempted to do for your constituents. Don't be so damn fake, I understand they are politicians and will say things they don't mean (really) and will make promises that they won't/can't keep. I'm not stupid, I know how the world works. But damn it, don't throw your entire self under the bus. At least show some leadership (and not the "I am their leader, I must follow them" type).

WTF is wrong with my Republican party? And that it took President Obama this long to "come out" is pretty sad though.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
And the sad thing that I would vote for "that" Mitt Romney.

That Mitt Romney is electable.

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
But with the pandering that is going on now and the extreme requirements that are imposed by the supposedly "big tent" Republican party (Really? A big tent? Where there is room for just one viewpoint? Sad.)

So true, but let's not pretend like the Democrats aren't starting to add litmus tests to their candidates as well. I firmly believe that if Obama loses this election, it will be because liberals did not support him because he wasn't liberal enough.

Blame the two-party system. We have primaries where the extremes of a party choose a candidate, so the candidates have to pander to the extremes. Then when they become the nominee, they have to recant what they said to have appeal to the middle. Get rid of political parties, and this schisse goes away.

[Edited 2012-05-10 10:44:40]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
This whole issue should be WAY down the list of priorities.

You're probably right, but it's the RIGHT who loves to wade into the social issues. It was Santorum and his crusade on social issues that brought this gay marriage debate forward. Obama is just using the issue as an opportunity to contrast himself with conservatives.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
the acquisition of an American commercial and retail bank by the Chinese government,

Sorry to go off topic, but what's the problem? In a capitalist world anyone with money can buy anything they want for the right price, so conservatives should have no problem with this purchase. Capitalism will always be at odds with any drawn political boundaries.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 13):
Why does religion get to own marriage?

Religion doesn't really own marriage - they just own the politicians who will block "non-traditional" marriage.

I have nothing against traditional marriages - I've been in one for 43 years.

This traditional marriage deal is big business in America. Start with the rings. That engagement ring probably isn't the first bit of jewelry the gal got. Now look at prices of "White Wedding Dresses". That WWD can be $2,500 with ease. Now start looking at the very long list of things to buy for the wedding, and maybe even a Wedding Consultant.

So we get through the showers and parties, go through the ceremony and then there is spending for a Honeymoon.

So now the new couple move in to their first pace (well, maybe their FIRST place) and the spending shifts to IKEA, or similar store.

Total it up and you have some major business activity there.

And for about half of those new couples there is the costs of a divorce attorney down the road.

Considering our economic times even the Holy Rollers should be pushing marriage of any type just t support the economy.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
If this was so important to Obama, why did he not address the issue when he had a filibuster-proof majority in both the House and Senate?

Obama has delivered a lot in the first 3 years, especially when considering the economic crisis that was at the top of his list of things to do. Opening up the military, especially for those who have served in silence for so many years, was a huge step.

I think part of the current announcements is the need to counter-balance the Red Necks in NC who went to the polls to demonstrate their ignorance and bigotry.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 50):

Romney in 1994: "The Gay Community Needs More Support from the Republican Party"
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romn...party

But before "that" Romney:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...-revealed-20120510,0,3734346.story

"A Washington Post investigation into Mitt Romney’s years at the Cranbrook School in Michigan, which included a disturbing account of Romney bullying a student who later turned out to be gay, earned an unusual apology from the presumptive GOP presidential nominee this morning.

Its all very comical really.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2319 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 42):
This comment is beneath you, Supe.

Ok I'll play nice.
Again, kudos to him for speaking out in favor of gay marriage.  

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 43):
If he was so passionate about gay marriage then why didn't he come out and say it before? He just plain sucks.

Sounds like he was for the ban before he was against the ban.
I wonder if he can be considered a flip-flopper on the issue.
Nah the mainstream press is so in-love with him to do that.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 57):
I wonder if he can be considered a flip-flopper on the issue.
Nah the mainstream press is so in-love with him to do that.

Sort of yes, and sort of no. Do you really honestly believe that he was firmly against same-sex marriage before hand? Regardless of what he had said? Do you think anyone really believe that he was steadfast against it and an "ally" in the the war against marriage?

I chalk this kind of stuff up to what I was thinking when I said that I know that politicians say things that they don't really mean. I never thought of President Obama as REALLY against same-sex marriage, that he would support measures limiting marriage or fight against measures the allowed it. I just understood that he was holding a political position. All politicians do this. Hell EVERYONE does this.

So to me, do I consider it flip-flopping? No. Is it? Ehh, yeah, sure, if you believed him previously.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
WTF is wrong with my Republican party?

I really do not know? It is sad that we cater to certain groups when it comes to this. This is a no-brainer when it comes to social issues. Being a practicing Catholic and a far right winger this is one subject that does not bother me. Let them have the same opportunities as everyone else and be like me...keep your religion to yourself.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 59):
Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
WTF is wrong with my Republican party?

I really do not know? It is sad that we cater to certain groups when it comes to this. This is a no-brainer when it comes to social issues. Being a practicing Catholic and a far right winger this is one subject that does not bother me. Let them have the same opportunities as everyone else and be like me...keep your religion to yourself.

If only everyone from your side thought the same way...



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 58):
Do you really honestly believe that he was firmly against same-sex marriage before hand?

I don't think he gives a rat's @$$ about the issue one way or the other. Same for Romney.
They're only concerned about winning elections as any other politician.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 59):
Let them have the same opportunities as everyone else

That, of course, means access to marriage. The relationship, the benefits & responsibilities and (for some) the costs of divorce somewhere down the road.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 59):
be like me...keep your religion to yourself.

Great idea, except when religions work hard to deny "others" the rights and privileges you can enjoy.

Quoting tugger (Reply 58):
Do you really honestly believe that he was firmly against same-sex marriage before hand?

I believe Obama understands politics as the art of the possible. Considering all of the red necks in this country I believe he has moved at a pretty good clip. There is no doubt that the gay and lesbian community is far better off after the Obama Years then they ever were under a Republican Administration. (Even when the VP in a Republican Administration has a daughter who happens to be a lesbian.)


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
There is no doubt that the gay and lesbian community is far better off after the Obama Years then they ever were under a Republican Administration. (Even when the VP in a Republican Administration has a daughter who happens to be a lesbian.)

Even when Cheney came out supporting gay rights formally and publicly long before?

I think it's unfair, inaccurate and inappropriate to brand all of Republicans--or the "right" in general, as some homophobic rednecks (in your words there the latter).

In fact, most of the Repubs I know don't give two shits either way, taking more of a libertarian position on the matter. Butthere is also a fatigue about having to hear about it 24/7 when there are FAR more pressing and legitimate issues for Americans.

Talk is cheap--we'll see if Obama signs the executive order of nondiscrimination. You know, the one he promised to sign several times but still hasn't?  


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 63):
I think it's unfair, inaccurate and inappropriate to brand all of Republicans--or the "right" in general, as some homophobic rednecks (in your words there the latter).

You're right. There are two kinds of Republican office holders:

1) those who are on a mission to ban gay rights and
2) those who allow their brethren to pursue such mission.

You almost never hear about a Republican (when he actually has power) chastise other Republicans on this issue.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 13):
Why does religion get to own marriage?

Fred

Because the social construct of a life-long, monogamous contractual binding of a man and a woman derives directly from religions. It's not something innate to human nature. But as it is an established custom in our today's society, the only logical way to deal with it politically is..

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
Exactly, if the US really believes in the separation of church and state they should do what Belgium does... there, if people want to have a religious "wedding ceremony" recognised by the church that is up to them... but the only marriage which has any legal validity is the civil one done at the town hall which is open to all couples regardless of religious beliefs or gender.

or

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 21):
I would have been more excited is he came out in support of the government ending "legal" recognition of marriage. The love and dedication of two people declared to each other is a beautiful thing, but the gov't should not be involved.

Don't accept it at all, or accept it for everybody equally. Everything else is a breach of the concept of separation of church and state.

Quoting us330 (Reply 20):
I think the guy always thought that same sex marriage should be legal, he just couldn't voice it for fear of screwing over his election chances.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Obama was put under pressure and he finally gave.

His sidekick Biden said a little too much in a TV interview, the speaker of the party then commented that Biden's views are consistent with those of the President, the responses very overwhelmingly positive and then Obama thought he might as well endorse it publically.

Personally, I don't think it was a very prudent move. On the one hand, he hasn't kept many of his campaign promises; on the other hand though, this is not going to win him any votes but it might cost him votes and mobilise the conservative opposition. Tactically, this will hurt Obama more than it'll help him.

But then again, maybe I should be happy that politics are actually about politics and not about self-marketing, elections and money.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 42):
It is not a state issue. Equal rights under the US Constitution has been a federal issue ever since the 14th Amendment made it so.

I'm going to assume everyone here is ready to defend the Constitution, which says this. Right?

RIGHT?

Wrong. It does not say that. A reinterpretation by a judge years after it was written may say that but the politicians who wrote the 14th amendment did not. It is a states right issue. I actually agree with Obama.

My conceal carry that is not allowed in other states is covered by that equal protection in those states. Right..



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

Quoting something (Reply 64):
Because the social construct of a life-long, monogamous contractual binding of a man and a woman derives directly from religions. It's not something innate to human nature.

Nonsense. It is the predominant form of relationship with all humans, completely regardless of any religions.

Religions have merely co-opted an instinctive institution after the fact.

Including, I might add, the other variations that exist in minority form, and even in some christian sects.

So no, marriage has never "belonged" to any religion. Religions have merely imposed themselves on the formal control of what people had been having all along.


User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Where's Karl Christian Rove? This smells like a "turd blossom", as George W used to call Rove.

The tightening of abortion laws and the ENTIRE gay marriage issue debate are called political WEDGE issues and are designed to bring out bored, unengaged Republican voters to the polls on election day so that Republican candidates (like Mittens) will win the election. People, look DEEPER than what the lame-stream American media (and their Wall Street corporate owners) spoon-feeds you. Sand-box politics, folks....

Bigger story - JPMorganChase is in big financial trouble - they lost $2 billion!



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 65):
Wrong. It does not say that.

Yes, it absolutely does.

Equal protection under the law. We've been over this many many times.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2010 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50):
Civil Rights is ALWAYS and ALWAYS the FIRST priority. This could be solved in five minutes if the Right would just let it happen. For free.

Correct, America was never founded with the intention of being the economic powerhouse that it is. It was founded on freedom and equality and they still need to ensure the latter.

Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
Blame the two-party system. We have primaries where the extremes of a party choose a candidate, so the candidates have to pander to the extremes. Then when they become the nominee, they have to recant what they said to have appeal to the middle. Get rid of political parties, and this schisse goes away.

Why isn't the leader chosen internally, that would seem to make much more sense. The party puts forth the candidate that they see most fit to win the job.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
You're probably right, but it's the RIGHT who loves to wade into the social issues. It was Santorum and his crusade on social issues that brought this gay marriage debate forward. Obama is just using the issue as an opportunity to contrast himself with conservatives.

He is throwing it out there as the red meat the GOP can't resist because he is a politician. If he can get the GOP to talk about this over the economy he has a better chance of winning.

Also the GOP is doing a pretty brilliant job of alienating half of the electorate, no one mentions that Romney is trailing in the women vote by about 20 points.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 56):
Ok I'll play nice.
Again, kudos to him for speaking out in favor of gay marriage.  

He's a basketball man.
But him supporting the white sox over the Cubbies that is unforgivable   .

Quoting Superfly (Reply 56):
Sounds like he was for the ban before he was against the ban.
I wonder if he can be considered a flip-flopper on the issue.
Nah the mainstream press is so in-love with him to do that.

Just like Romney saying he had a huge hand in saving Detroit this week when he wrote an op-ed in 2009 saying let them go bust. If you going to play the flip flop card the GOP nominated the wrong guy.

Quoting tugger (Reply 51):
WTF is wrong with my Republican party? And that it took President Obama this long to "come out" is pretty sad though.

In the days of old it would be the GOP that would be in front of the rights of the citizens and the ones that would protest religious based governing.

Now they are behind every piece of legislation that suppresses freedom. Such as the patriot act, SOPA etc.

To quote Seth MacFarlene, I would vote republican if they would act like Republicans.

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 67):
The tightening of abortion laws and the ENTIRE gay marriage issue debate are called political WEDGE issues and are designed to bring out bored, unengaged Republican voters to the polls on election day so that Republican candidates (like Mittens) will win the election. People, look DEEPER than what the lame-stream American media (and their Wall Street corporate owners) spoon-feeds you. Sand-box politics, folks....

But its backfiring what it is going to do is make women vote for the democrats to ensure that they can keep their rights. Women are more than half the population and it is a terrible strategy by the GOP.

Also people at large don't look deeper, you might but a lot of people are very shallow when voting.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1172 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1999 times:

Why do people keep implying that everyone who classifies themselves as being part of a certain religion automatically are against gay marriage? Plenty of liberal Christians such as myself support it. That said, the timing issue is interesting; five years or so ago I was very much against it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
I support marriage and understand the fact that a society needs people that will commit to a loved one to thrive, and the more that do that the better (and decrease the burden/cost on government).

  

Quoting swissy (Reply 16):
Agree with you... why cant we accept marriage by law is a commitment between two people... got/should have nothing to do with gender...

Some Mormons won't be happy with that?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 25):
Since the Democrats had their blank check to pass anything from 2008-2010, how can any unfulfilled aspirations of the left be seen as anything other than insincerity or incompetence?

Um what? Last time I looked the Republicans spent a significant portion of Obama's first two years filibustering so that legislation couldn't get through congress.

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 67):
The tightening of abortion laws and the ENTIRE gay marriage issue debate are called political WEDGE issues and are designed to bring out bored, unengaged Republican voters to the polls on election day so that Republican candidates (like Mittens) will win the election. People, look DEEPER than what the lame-stream American media (and their Wall Street corporate owners) spoon-feeds you. Sand-box politics, folks....

  



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1988 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
Um what? Last time I looked the Republicans spent a significant portion of Obama's first two years filibustering so that legislation couldn't get through congress.

Not just that but a lot of blue dog democrats didn't vote with the caucus and would not support gay marriage legislation.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
Why do people keep implying that everyone who classifies themselves as being part of a certain religion automatically are against gay marriage? Plenty of liberal Christians such as myself support it. That said, the timing issue is interesting; five years or so ago I was very much against it.

Times change and people are more accepting of it than they were 5-10 years ago.

I'm probably inaccurate on this, but when civil rights was being debated it was Kennedy or LBJ who said that they agreed with civil rights and that the public had to make him do it. This seems kind of similar in way, it should be the people pushing change and not the government.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1965 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 65):

My conceal carry that is not allowed in other states is covered by that equal protection in those states. Right..

You're confusing the 14th Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause, the latter of which is far weaker than most people would believe.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
Why do people keep implying that everyone who classifies themselves as being part of a certain religion automatically are against gay marriage?

Well:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
five years or so ago I was very much against it.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 69):
He's a basketball man.
But him supporting the white sox over the Cubbies that is unforgivable  

We don't know if he was a good basketball player. After-all, he claimed to have been a Constitutional law professor but we're finding out that he is clueless about what's in the Constitution and ignorant of our system of checks & balances in our government.
As far as supporting the White Sox, it makes sense. The community he organized is on the South Side of Chicago and represents the South Side. The Cubs is the North Side team.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 69):
Just like Romney saying he had a huge hand in saving Detroit this week when he wrote an op-ed in 2009 saying let them go bust. If you going to play the flip flop card the GOP nominated the wrong guy.

Nope.
He said that GM & Chrysler should go through a managed bankruptcy which they ended up doing any AFTER they received government tax dollars.
Mitt was right all along.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32702 posts, RR: 72
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

I support gay marriage and I'm glad he said it, but just as glad because he just gave all the southern swing state to Rommney.

The liberal media loves to paint the anti-gay marriage crowd as Christian whites. While its absolutely true that they are funding many of the ridiculous attempts to ban gay marriage, Latinos and blacks are just as opposed to gay marriage, as Californians saw in 2008.

I'm not exactly sure why he said this - it won't get him extra votes because pro-gay marriage side votes for him anyway, he loses the Southern swing states because a large contingent of anti-gay marriage, otherwise apathetic voters, will now vote, and he loses crucial Latino and black votes because they will not vote out of apathy (they won't vote red either, they just won't vote).



a.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 74):
I support gay marriage and I'm glad he said it, but just as glad because he just gave all the southern swing state to Rommney.

The liberal media loves to paint the anti-gay marriage crowd as Christian whites. While its absolutely true that they are funding many of the ridiculous attempts to ban gay marriage, Latinos and blacks are just as opposed to gay marriage, as Californians saw in 2008.

I'm not exactly sure why he said this - it won't get him extra votes because pro-gay marriage side votes for him anyway, he loses the Southern swing states because a large contingent of anti-gay marriage, otherwise apathetic voters, will now vote, and he loses crucial Latino and black votes because they will not vote out of apathy (they won't vote red either, they just won't vote).

I wholeheartedly agree with your post!
I support gay marriage as well but those who have very strong opinions about the issue are either extreme left and extreme right. You are correct that it is unfair how the media likes to paint those who are anti-gay as White Christian conservatives. Just go to any inner-city ghetto that is predominately Black, predominately Latino and predominately Democrat and see how tolerant they are to gays. I'm willing to bet that a openly gay male is far more at risk of being violently attacked in the community that Obama organized than in any Mormon town in Utah.


If Romney picks Susana Martinez as his VP, that could be bigger problems for Obama. She is of Mexican American heritage which carries more weight among Latino voters than a Cuban American such as Rubio. Although, Rubio brings 29 electoral votes that Romney wouldn't have to fight for as much compared to Martinez 6 electoral votes.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 66):
Nonsense. It is the predominant form of relationship with all humans, completely regardless of any religions.

Religions have merely co-opted an instinctive institution after the fact

Correct.

Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
Yes, it absolutely does.

Equal protection under the law. We've been over this many many times.

No it does not. The 14th amendment was strictly for giving the Slaves/African Americans rights they did not have before. It on no way was meant to override everything else in the constitution9Amd cannot due that) and take away states rights. The equal protection was strictly for slaves. Sorry but read what the men that wrote it said not what judges and profesors re-interpreted it as. Original inent..what a concept.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):
Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
Yes, it absolutely does.

Equal protection under the law. We've been over this many many times.

No it does not. The 14th amendment was strictly for giving the Slaves/African Americans rights they did not have before.

Dude, have you ever read the 14th Amendment? You really need to. Start with section 1. Note that it does not mention slaves.

"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."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You've been wrong before, but never more wrong than this time.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):
It on no way was meant to override everything else in the constitution
ALL amendments to the constitution override what was previously there. Every last one of them.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):
read what the men that wrote it said not what judges and profesors re-interpreted it as. Original inent..what a concept.

Pretty ironic that you would say that, considering that the concept of "original intent" is a judge's interpretation.

I'm going by Clarence Thomas's rule: the TEXT is all that matters.

ANYWAY, I'm not going to say anything more on this. I don't want to steer the conversation too far afield. Suffice it to say, Obama is wrong that this is a state's rights issue. I doubt he privately believes this.

(Besides, EVERY legal case dealing with the issue has correctly noted that it is an equal protection issue, not a states' rights issue.)

[Edited 2012-05-11 05:37:18]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Now, one thing I like here is how people say this is Obama playing politics. Come on, you guys know he took a gamble by coming out in support of gay marriage. Why protest the decision if you are still sure this will not affect the elections and will lose? Unless you're worried that this actually puts him in a good standing with many Americans and that he now has a chance to be reelected...


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 78):
Why protest the decision if you are still sure this will not affect the elections and will lose?

I'd say most of the people on this thread complaining that he is playing politics are people who have said things to suggest they usually vote for the other team.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Newsflash: Rush Limbaugh and Bristol Palin have both come out in favor of "Traditional Marriage." (No joke)

The rest of the world (including Rush's first, second, third, and fourth wives and Bristol's illigitimate son) was too busy laughing to comment.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 77):
Dude, have you ever read the 14th Amendment? You really need to. Start with section 1. Note that it does not mention slaves.

"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."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Sorry but if you read what the framers of this amendment said and what was put into the civil rights acts of the time and previous to this you will find that this citizen is non white citizens. Congressional intent was to provide non citizens with the same fundamental rights as de jure state Citizens who in that day where pretty much white.

Read the amendment, the precursor the Civil rights act of 1866, the Enforcement Act, and the Freedman's Bureau Act. What the defintition of citizen was in the original portion of the constitution and what it was in the 14th amendment. Because the Congressional Acts were merely intended to protect the non citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified, their intent is significant in determining the intent of the 14th Amendment. Once again read everything and what the original intent was. it is easy because there are many records of what they said and what their intent was or not. No judges interpretation is needed. Why did judges feel the need to later re-interpret what was so clearly the original intent? The word is politics plain and simple. As is with the rest of the constitution they clearly ignore the plain black and white records left behind that clearly leave the intent of the law there for people to see. Activist political judges have literally destroyed the intent of these laws.

Sorry about going off topic. My last post on this...



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1172 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
Why do people keep implying that everyone who classifies themselves as being part of a certain religion automatically are against gay marriage?

Well:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
five years or so ago I was very much against it.

Back then I was hardly a christian.... not that I made that clear in my previous post. My point might be somewhat invalid anyway because New Zealanders tend to be quite a bit more liberal than americans.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
Newsflash: Rush Limbaugh and Bristol Palin have both come out in favor of "Traditional Marriage."

   haha, you just can't make this stuff up.



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12426 posts, RR: 25
Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
Newsflash: Rush Limbaugh and Bristol Palin have both come out in favor of "Traditional Marriage." (No joke)

The rest of the world (including Rush's first, second, third, and fourth wives and Bristol's illigitimate son) was too busy laughing to comment.
Quoting zkojq (Reply 82):
haha, you just can't make this stuff up.

From a FB friend:




Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
Newsflash: Rush Limbaugh and Bristol Palin have both come out in favor of "Traditional Marriage." (No joke)

OMG you cannot make up sh*t like this:

Qouting one non-traditional-famly Bristol Palin.

”While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage,” wrote Palin, a single mother. “Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview. In this situation, it was the other way around. I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/...sex-marriage/?mod=google_news_blog

PS. Levi Johnston is still hot. Unfortunately hot doesn't cure this:

Johnston said he and girlfriend Sunny Oglesby would name their baby “Breeze Beretta,” after the Italian handgun.

In an interview set to air tonight on Inside Edition, 21-year-old Johnston and Oglesby confirmed the baby would be named Beretta, “like the gun.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...to-name-baby-daughter-after-a-gun/



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1713 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
From a FB friend:

Such a valid point.

As I said before straight people have stuffed up marriage enough so let the gays have a go. The concept of a marriage and a wedding are becoming outdated anyways, especially in this economy.

Save the $10,000 for something useful and just throw a party with an open bar and some catering for a fraction of the cost.

For the men who agree with me keep this opinion to your self unless you know your girl has the same opinion because if they find this out you might not get as much action.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 86, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1626 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 85):


Such a valid point.

It is 100% proof that prejudice and hatred (and perhaps downright sadistic delight in causing harm to others) is the justification for the opposition to gay marriage. You can't be "for traditional marriage" and be an out-of-wedlock mother, or a divorcee (multiple times). No, you can only be "against" gays.

Even Rick Santorum is more credible.


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5240 posts, RR: 25
Reply 87, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
Kudos to Husseien.

I see you're still perpetuating the lie that he's a Muslim. Classy.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
I'm still voting for Romney in November.

Ah, so the transformation to Republican is now complete.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 74):
The liberal media loves to paint the anti-gay marriage crowd as Christian whites. While its absolutely true that they are funding many of the ridiculous attempts to ban gay marriage, Latinos and blacks are just as opposed to gay marriage, as Californians saw in 2008.

Without even bothering with the "liberal media" bs, the reason Christian Whites are portrayed as the anti-gay group is because they are the ones funding the vast majority of the anti-gay messages out there today, as well as the ones funding the "re-education" centers such as Evergreen in Utah. Many blacks and latinos are anti-gay marriage (and many are not), but that doesn't change the fact that Christian whites are the ones leading the charge. It's not just about the "liberal media" making this up.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):

With all due respect, you really have no idea what you're talking about, and you really need to stop telling attorneys what the law does and doesn't say. As I recall you're an aircraft mechanic. That doesn't mean you don't know the law, but I'm going to trust the judgement of an attorney. Besides, what he says about the 14th amendment is correct.

Quoting D L X (Reply 79):
I'd say most of the people on this thread complaining that he is playing politics are people who have said things to suggest they usually vote for the other team.

Precisely.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 75):

Now you're making excuses for the religious right?  



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1172 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
Newsflash: Rush Limbaugh and Bristol Palin have both come out in favor of "Traditional Marriage." (No joke)

The rest of the world (including Rush's first, second, third, and fourth wives and Bristol's illigitimate son) was too busy laughing to comment.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
From a FB friend:

To paraphrase what Jon Stewart said a while back: 'Rush Limbaugh believes so strongly in the sacred institution of marriage that he has completed three of them and is onto his fourth'.



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 89, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

Did you guys see the new cover of Newsweek Magazine?
The title is provocative and I couldn't help but get a chuckle.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/n...first-gay-president-144158226.html

Quoting OA412 (Reply 87):
I see you're still perpetuating the lie that he's a Muslim. Classy.

It's his middle name. It's like calling the previous President Dubya or "W". You know, the guy who caused all of this mess...

Quoting OA412 (Reply 87):
Ah, so the transformation to Republican is now complete.

Nah I'm still a registered Democrat.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 87):
Now you're making excuses for the religious right?

By pointing out the electoral clout of potential VP nominees?   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3412 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 73):
We don't know if he was a good basketball player.

I actually did see a video of him playing b-ball in the Hawai'i State Championship game (Which his school won). He seemed to be a good baller.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 74):
I'm not exactly sure why he said this -
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 78):
Now, one thing I like here is how people say this is Obama playing politics. Come on, you guys know he took a gamble by coming out in support of gay marriage. Why protest the decision if you are still sure this will not affect the elections and will lose? Unless you're worried that this actually puts him in a good standing with many Americans and that he now has a chance to be reelected...

As in all politics follow the money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y/2012/05/09/gIQASJYSDU_story.html

"Some liberal gay donors had threatened to withhold contributions over Obama's stance on gay marriage as well as his administration's decision to shelve an executive order banning sexual-identity discrimination by federal contractors."



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 91, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 90):
I actually did see a video of him playing b-ball in the Hawai'i State Championship game (Which his school won). He seemed to be a good baller.

Glad to know that he is good at something.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1347 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 87):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):


With all due respect, you really have no idea what you're talking about, and you really need to stop telling attorneys what the law does and doesn't say. As I recall you're an aircraft mechanic. That doesn't mean you don't know the law, but I'm going to trust the judgement of an attorney. Besides, what he says about the 14th amendment is correct.




I will trust what the people who actually wrote the amendment said not some modern day lawyer who is just tossing in his political opinion. Do you trust the judgement of all attorneys or just the ones that agree with you?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 89):
Did you guys see the new cover of Newsweek Magazine?
The title is provocative and I couldn't help but get a chuckle.



Even gave him the Halo to make him more messiah like. One of the most disgusting pieces of left wing propaganda that I have seen in a long time.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 90):
As in all politics follow the money



That is what it is about. they are way behind in what they thought they would have in the war chest so they had to cave to bring in more cash. Smells like desperation.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 93, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 89):
It's his middle name. It's like calling the previous President Dubya or "W". You know, the guy who caused all of this mess...

The obvious reason for that was to distinguish him from his father who had an otherwise identical name, and the "W" had no judgmental connotation by itself.

So which other president Barack Obama do you need to distinguish him from?

Quoting primarily his second name "Hussein" has almost exclusively been done by people insinuating that he was "really" a "muslim" from the extreme right without actually daring to say it out loud.

Not remotely the same thing.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 92):
That is what it is about. they are way behind in what they thought they would have in the war chest so they had to cave to bring in more cash. Smells like desperation.

Simply aligning completely with the oil industry's interests (unchecked waste and pollution) does of course provide much easier campaign financing, particularly with the recent campaign finance "reform" with basically put the presidency up for sale to the highest bidders.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 94, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 92):
That is what it is about. they are way behind in what they thought they would have in the war chest so they had to cave to bring in more cash. Smells like desperation.

And Romney's stance in the issue not political?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11268 posts, RR: 52
Reply 95, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

And I thought you were going to leave this topic alone.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 92):
I will trust what the people who actually wrote the amendment said not some modern day lawyer who is just tossing in his political opinion.

This is the problem of modern media politicizing everything. The FACTS that I gave you to counteract your absolute fiction were not my political beliefs. They were textbook answers from someone who has actually studied this stuff. You have not. (Sorry for the arrogance, but you don't give me much room to be polite.) But since your political beliefs rely on rewriting history, and the modern media encourages such, anyone that presents you with actual history is branded (1) a liberal and therefore (2) incorrect.

That is your failing, not mine.


Furthermore, if you think hard about your position, you'll realize how ridiculous it is. These people who you say you trust have been dead over 100 years. They're not telling you about their opinion of the amendment. In fact, they've already told you all the things they wanted the nation to know about the Amendment in the text itself. Second, they didn't all agree with each other, so the language used in the Constitution and the Amendments are compromises that were agreed to. It is absolutely absurd to throw this agreed upon language out the door, and rely instead on what you think the drafters meant to say but didn't say, especially when the voters that ratified the Amendment did so based on the text, not what you think the drafters meant to say but didn't.


I hope this explanation can put this silly argument to rest.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 96, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 89):

Did you guys see the new cover of Newsweek Magazine?
The title is provocative and I couldn't help but get a chuckle.

On liberal blogs, a lot of people realize this as a facepalm moment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002682035

Not a great couple of weeks for the Bamster. His attempts to divert attention away from the main issues have tended to backfire in his face - the dog issue, the bullying issue, "Forward" as a campaign slogan, and now the gay marriage issue, which has tee'd off a lot of black baptist congregations. He didn't need to announce it - the gay vote was his anyway, but he was forced into it by his boob of a VP.




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 97, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1250 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96):
He didn't need to announce it - the gay vote was his anyway, but he was forced into it by his boob of a VP.

More accurately, he had been planning on announcing his support closer to the Convention, irrespective of Biden. What Biden did was to basically force Obama into accelerating his agenda.

And yes, he's "playing politics." He's a politician. That's what politicians do. Yanno, like, for a living...and stuff.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19515 posts, RR: 58
Reply 98, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):
The 14th amendment was strictly for giving the Slaves/African Americans rights they did not have before. It on no way was meant to override everything else in the constitution9Amd cannot due that) and take away states rights. The equal protection was strictly for slaves

Can you back that statement up with references?


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 76):
The 14th amendment was strictly for giving the Slaves/African Americans rights they did not have before. It on no way was meant to override everything else in the constitution9Amd cannot due that) and take away states rights. The equal protection was strictly for slaves. Sorry but read what the men that wrote it said not what judges and profesors re-interpreted it as. Original inent..what a concept.

First: Nothing in the United States Constitution grants rights. It and all of its amendments PROTECT rights, and the document itself explicitly states as such by using a plethora of "shall not"s. A seemingly simple but fundamental concept.

Second: "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." -- ANY person. It does not specify which person (s). If the lawmakers had fully intended for this to apply solely to blacks it would've explicitly said so.

[Edited 2012-05-14 16:06:13]

User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1120 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 74):
I support gay marriage and I'm glad he said it, but just as glad because he just gave all the southern swing state to Rommney.

Southern swing states? Huh? You mean Florida (the only southern state truly in-play, and nothing Obama said changed that)?

Winning NC and VA in 2012 was always a long-shot for the Democrats. (The Democrats may say they think NC's still in play, but in recent weeks there's been a push to move the DNC from Charlotte, although at this point it's impractical.)



Hypocrisy: "US airlines should only buy Boeing... BTW, check out my new Hyundai!"
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 101, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 100):
Southern swing states? Huh? You mean Florida (the only southern state truly in-play, and nothing Obama said changed that)?

Looks like some people are saying that this move might cost Obama the election, by alienating black voters, which are a far more important part of his base than gays.

Black Pastor Tells CNN His Church Won’t Support Obama, ‘Plan To Stay Home’

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/black-pas...t-support-obama-plan-to-stay-home/

The issue is not important to me. If you want to marry your pet rock, more power to ya (make sure to stock up on lube). He sucked up to the 5% of the population who care about gay marriage, and tee'd off those who not only disagree with that position but also those who don't appreciate having a president who seems to care more about sucking up to a special interest group rather than talk about the real issues.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 102, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1046 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 100):
Southern swing states? Huh? You mean Florida (the only southern state truly in-play,

Virginia has been shifting leftwards before Obama winning the state in 2008.
Although it's a conservative state, the suburbs of Washington D.C. are expanding southward further in to Virginia bringing more liberal minded voters. Clinton almost won the state in both elections and Dubya didn't run away with the state either. His victory over Kerry in 2004 was in the single digits.
Romney will still have to fight for Virginia and North Carolina as well as Florida - even if Rubio is on the ticket.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 101):
Black Pastor Tells CNN His Church Won’t Support Obama, ‘Plan To Stay Home’

They have every right to be angry. Not for his stance on gay marriage but for arresting two Black Pastors and 4 other Christians including a Priest in front of the White house for simply praying. Obama had ignored all National Day of Prayer events but celebrated and attended Ramadan events, hosted Ramadan dinners and lectured from the Qu'ran. These Christians that were peacefully praying outside of the White House was handcuffed and taken away like criminals. Yet Occupy Wall Street protesters have been occupying federal property for months.
Dreadnought Obama will still win the Black vote but the enthusiasm for Obama will not be the same as in 2008.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 948 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 101):
Looks like some people are saying that this move might cost Obama the election, by alienating black voters, which are a far more important part of his base than gays.

In general, there's not as much enthusiasm for this election as there was in 2008. While Obama may have alienated a small faction of deeply religious blacks, the perception among blacks that he didn't do enough to help their community (e.g. reparations) will ultimately hurt him more. That said, I'd be surprised if Obama didn't sweep the black vote with significantly higher-than-average turnout. I firmly believe that if Clarence Thomas were running for president, he'd win the black vote as well (though not as great of margin as Obama).

Quoting Superfly (Reply 102):
Romney will still have to fight for Virginia and North Carolina as well as Florida - even if Rubio is on the ticket.

I don't disagree, but I'd be surprised if VA and NC remained blue. The conservative base will be significantly more energized than the liberal base, and that alone should be enough to give the states to Romney. Think TX, in which recent population shifts have been dominantly liberal, yet traditionally liberal demographics fail to show at the polls -- likely because they know the state will remain red, so they don't bother voting.

There's a lot of resentment toward the Democratic Party within NC (the Edwards scandal, the first-term governor not seeking re-election etc.) Obama barely (literally) took the state in 2008 despite projections he'd win it by several points. I firmly believe his stance on gay marriage will energize portions of his base outraged by the recent gay marriage ban. Thus, an example of a situation that will help him. But he needs A LOT more help than that in NC...

[Edited 2012-05-15 19:00:21]


Hypocrisy: "US airlines should only buy Boeing... BTW, check out my new Hyundai!"
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 104, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 841 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 103):
In general, there's not as much enthusiasm for this election as there was in 2008. While Obama may have alienated a small faction of deeply religious blacks, the perception among blacks that he didn't do enough to help their community (e.g. reparations) will ultimately hurt him more.

Do you know any black people outside of some nuts that actually thought they would get reparations.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 102):
His victory over Kerry in 2004 was in the single digits.
Romney will still have to fight for Virginia and North Carolina as well as Florida - even if Rubio is on the ticket.

I think Romney will get Florida but he has to be careful, if he goes with what Paul Ryan wants and wants to mess around too much with medicare. He risks losing Florida because the state has a lot of old people who might be hesitant to vote for a candidate that will screw with their entitlements. Also old people tend to be some of the most loyal voters IIRC.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 105, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 827 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 104):
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 103):
In general, there's not as much enthusiasm for this election as there was in 2008. While Obama may have alienated a small faction of deeply religious blacks, the perception among blacks that he didn't do enough to help their community (e.g. reparations) will ultimately hurt him more.

Do you know any black people outside of some nuts that actually thought they would get reparations.

That's what I was thinking. Only the militant types talk about this. It's not an issue most Blacks are concerned with.
Black unemployment under Obama is at it's highest in over 30 years.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 104):
old people

That is a politically incorrect term!   
The proper term to use is 'senior citizen'.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 106, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 753 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):
That is a politically incorrect term!   
The proper term to use is 'senior citizen'.  

I'm not a politically correct person   .

I believe it will enslave us all!!



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage! posted Thu Jul 15 2010 05:45:14 by Doona
Pope Blasts Gay Marriage posted Thu May 13 2010 14:59:04 by TheCommodore
John McCains Wife Supports Gay Marriage posted Thu Jan 21 2010 02:20:48 by TheCommodore
Ted Olson: The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage posted Tue Jan 12 2010 04:55:09 by Aaron747
Gay Marriage OK'd In Mexico City posted Mon Dec 21 2009 18:55:06 by Airstud
Washington DC To Have Gay Marriage By End Of 2009 posted Tue Oct 6 2009 17:52:25 by RJpieces
Dallas Judge Rules Against TX Gay Marriage Ban posted Fri Oct 2 2009 07:15:51 by Texan
Sally Kern: Gay Marriage Caused Bad Economy posted Sat Jul 4 2009 12:14:31 by UAL747
New Hampshire Legalizes Gay Marriage posted Wed Jun 3 2009 15:03:54 by Iflyatldl
Dick Cheney Offers Support For Gay Marriage posted Mon Jun 1 2009 17:33:15 by FreequentFlier