Best
206 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    Here he goes again. The Moron in Chief thinks he is a dictator and can just tell the Supreme Court (and Congress) what to do. I fully expect him to try to dismiss both of the other two branches of government before the end of this term, cancel the Constitution, and name himself Emperor.
  • #5
    !
    Please keep in mind---that the phrase "tell the court to overturn gay marriage ban"...is the headline and statement from the Politix writer here...and did not come from the Obama Administration.....There is no "emperor" here, just bad writing.
  • #7
    !
    Fantasy is fun to play in but not a good place to live. Mr. Obama will not be "canceling the Constitution." In fact, if he files a brief with the court he will be supporting our Constitution's insistence that all citizens are equal under the law.
  • #10
    !
    As you should know, the President can't "tell" the Supreme Court what to do. He's deciding whether to add his own friend of the court brief to the many who have already done so. I applaud him for this. It is the morally correct approach.
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. If people want to marry, shouldn't be anyone's business but their own. No marriage licenses needed, that's just another money making scheme.
  • #8
    !
    Then no more legal rights for spouses? Married couples treated as strangers as they would no longer be next of kin. Multiple marriages okay? I would be on board, but I bet you lots of married folk do not want to give up their "special privileges".
  • #17
    !
    @jamie91 With government out of the business of licensing marriages, marriage would revert to the church where it has always belonged. Then, thanks to the "separation of church and state', the government would not be able to dictate who the church chooses to marry.
  • #28
    !
    @Realthinker Marriage goes back to before churches. It was a way to bind tribes by blood and set up trade. It has ALWAYS been a contract, it was the church who stole it and now wants to claim a monopoly on the term.
  • #34
    !
    @Realthinker yes, but how are you going to tell all those married folks that marriage is no longer legal? That their husbands and wives have no more rights to them as next if kin? No more joint tax forms, when their spouse dies the no longer automatically inherit? If they do inherit they now how to pay tax of the things accumulated together in life. As I say, I'm fine with that.... Now just sell it to the rest of the country.
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    I don't like Obama trying to tell the court what to do. Or overturning what voters in their states voted for. But gay marriage is going to happen no matter what. So I wish Obama would stay out of it and let the states work it out
  • #30
    !
    Second term & he's doing everything but his JOB!
    Keep America safe, Bring jobs back to the U.S., Lower taxes by not spending money we don't have. stop giving to companies that use it overseas. Stop giving your selves raises for doing a crappy job. GIT TO WORK! "We The People" need a good leader not someone to pad his friends pockets!
  • #33
    !
    Just a small point -- most of the things you mentioned are not within the powers of a U.S. president. Most of them are Congress' responsibility.
  • #111
    !
    Perhaps a remedial civics class is in order. Bills are proposed by congress. The house is currently controlled by republicans and is sitting around do nothing. The senate has a goodly number of republicans also doing nothing. If one is going to clam they can do a better job they should do it. Nothing is stopping them.
  • #27
    !
    Isn't there better things he could be spending time doing??? His opinion isn't more important than anyone else's stick to fixing the economy!!!
  • #77
    !
    You think the president--ANY president--does nothing but focus on one subject, all day every day? That would make them a very bad president. They have to react to many situations. His opinion isn't any more important than--but is JUST as important as--the others' who have filed similar briefs.
  • #26
    !
    OMG...the country is on the brink of having to shut down, and this administration is
    once again, completely 'changing subjects'...Is he thinking about the entire country?
    No, once again, he will go off on a rabbit trail and now attempt to overturn the gay
    marriage ban?...Doesn't he have 'bigger fish to fry', ever?.. And we wonder why the
    country is in the shape it's in. This is pathetic!
  • #31
    !
    In this country, the rights of one are the rights of all. So yes, this is an issue that's important for every single citizen. Now it's gays who are being subjected to oppressive, inappropriate laws just because they are a minority. But tomorrow? It could be you. Or me. It is vitally important that all of us are equal under the law. It's essential.
  • #133
    !
    @MolonLabe Not if you want to vote against the Constitution which defines our nation. You also cannot vote in slavery, vote to suspend elections or vote to have a king. This place has rules that are sound and well-reasoned; you will find them in our Constitution. You should read it some day. It's quite a famous document.
  • #16
    !
    The Pres has the same rights to free speech as any citizen.

    The Court, as always, is free to ignore him, or anyone else.

    That's why we call it 'checks and balances'.

    What a wonderful thing, our Constitution.
  • #6
    !
    So how is the Federal government going to involve itself in California's bailiwick? Perhaps the interstate commerce clause? Perhaps the civil rights act of 1964? Maybe it's in the "Affordable" [LOL] Care act (don't know haven't read it).
  • #9
    !
    It would be the 14th Amendment -- every citizen must be treated as equal under the law. A majority is not allowed to vote itself rights that others don't have. (And in Loving vs Virginia, the SCOTUS already ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.)
  • #39
    !
    @Zazziness Considering straits do not have a right that gays do not your point is mute. They have the right to marry a mate of the opposite sex for reproductive purposes. what you are wanting is to create a special law for a minority. Markedly we maybe should.
  • #42
    !
    @Arumizy I'm sorry but procreation is NOT the only reason that people get married. People get married for all sorts of (personal reasons)...And those reasons are no ones business except the two people getting married. So your reasoning is not correct, here, Arumizy. And a "special law" is not needed or requested...Just equal rights and laws on par with everyone else.
  • #43
    !
    @Arumizy No. marriage is American culture is not strictly for reproduction. That's easily refuted. No one must take a fertility test before marrying and if marriages produce no offspring, they are still marriages. People past the age of reproduction may marry. In the U.S., marriage is the formation of a family partnership between adults with a loving bond. Homosexuals are just as capable of forming families and loving relationships as you are.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    Well first of all this headline is very misleading. One major branch of government can not just "tell" another branch of government to do or not do something. The Obama Administration can certainly offer an "Amicus Curiae Brief" and/or testify, if invited by the Supreme Court to do so....And make its legal opinions known.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #175
    !
    It was my understanding there was suppose to be a separation of government and religion. The only reason same sex marriage is an issue in the first place is because of religious reasons. Christians believe it to be wrong. Are we a Christian nation or a Democratic nation? That's a redundant question cause I know the answer. Our government officials have allowed their individual preferences to bleed into governing decisions. If we were an actual free nation then our people would be allowed to do as they chose so long as what they do does not harm another soul.
    On a personal note, I say ewww....but hey, to each his or her own, that's what freedom is all about. Right ?
  • #174
    !
    Let me preface this by saying I fully support SSM. However, the president should not have a say in the dealings of the SCOTUS.
    This is really a moot point considering the body of the article. The title is kind of inflammatory.
  • #147
    !
    What part of not a king or dictator does he not understand. He does not tell the supreme court what to do or not to do. Division of powers. 3 branches of government. NOT WhAT OBAMA Says!!!!!!!!!!
  • #138
    !
    he can stand in line and wait his turn to speak just like everyoen else, he has no authoirty to TELL the SC anything. Does anyone in the media that print this stuff study how our government is built?
  • R Load more comments...
Post