Best
259 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    Hmm Obama is all about supporting the Constitution on this issue, yet is trying his best to destroy the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc Amendments? Picky and choosey isn't he. Sure gays should be able to marry if they want, they deserve to be as miserable as straight married people! Now how about standing up for the RIGHTS of ALL Americans for a change mr Prez?!
  • #8
    !
    Please enlighten us. How is the president destroying the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments? By supporting the gay community Obama IS supporting our constitution in a very inclusive way. Since 2001 eleven countries allow same sex couples to marry. Many others have pending legislation. I see this as an equality/civil rights issue.
  • #10
    !
    @Clara007 Read what I wrote a little more carefully. He's against the Constitution on most all OTHER issues EXCEPT the one in this article. He picks and chooses what RIGHTS to defend, instead of doing what he swore to do when taking the oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution.
  • #20
    !
    @Clara007 Example: the right to bear arms. Defenseless is where this administration is taking us. Gay marriage is the least of our problems. Being homosexual is not a race or ethnicity...it's a life style choice. Let the gay activists fight their own cause just like other organizations do. Focus less on the rights of same sex people wanting benefits and instead on our middle and lower class families who are struggling and get denied benefits because they make $20 over the cut off.
  • #29
    !
    @dyoung2 you're pretty much all over the place here and it seems that you're trying to blame the president for everything.

    secondly, being gay or lesbian isn't a lifestyle, and it's certainly not a choice... that also has nothing to do with the issue.

    the issue of marriage equality is paramount to the nation right now.

    i realise that it's frustrating for you that your pay is $20 a week too high for you to qualify for food stamps, or medicare and i'm sorry, but there has to be a cutoff point somewhere, doesn't there? how do you think that it could possibly work if there were no guidelines. it'd be a book keeping nightmare.
  • #30
    !
    @dyoung2 btw... not one person in the administration, and especially the president, has even indicated that he is against the right to bear arms. not once.
  • R Load more replies

  • #35
    !
    At a time when so many Americans are struggling to pay the bills. When the national debt is on the verge of ruining our country. Taxes are unfair and misused. Our politicians are corrupted at the core. Should the president really be worrying about social engineering ? I think not.
  • #67
    !
    It's just a way to distract people from more serious issues...such as the deficit,
    unemployment, inflation, gas prices, foreign affairs, Benghazi, the looming 'cliff',
    the fact that he's made so many promises he's never kept, the list is endless. His
    key is to keep the 'subjects' attention diverted, so he can continue to dismantle the country...it seems to be working, and who said Americans aren't stupid?!!
  • #69
    !
    @mimi57 Perhaps it is some sort of deflection effort. But I lean more towards the fact that the President, as with most if not all professional politicians, owe a substantial debt to their supporters for getting him the job. In the presidents case, his supporters tend to look towards social engineering to provide their safety and security. In short, he's just paying back his liberal supporters for giving him the job.
  • #71
    !
    @FollowTheMoney Ahhhh the imagery of pigs at the trough and cats scratching each other's backs. Sums up politicians nicely.
  • #75
    !
    @FollowTheMoney No doubt, I've just never seen it done to this extreme. There
    is always 'politics'..but then there is deliberately changing the US. into something
    resembling Europe, it's not working there, he has a socialist agenda, it won't work
    here either. It never works...
  • #32
    !
    I'm not against two gay people having a civil union, I totally believe that two people who love each other should be allowed to join in a legal union with all the attendant perks of traditional marriage. But I do not believe we can constitutionally change the definition of a word. The word marriage, as pertains to people, has always been the legal union of one man and one woman. If we go that route then, in all honesty, why not plural marriages? After all those three or 20 people all love each other too. Go this route, then it will be unconstitutional for any 2 or 50 people to unite legally in marriage. I can see it now, an entire cult will "Marry" and receive the benefits of traditional marriage, legally and tax wise. As usual, the government has not looked into unintended consequences. Short sighted as always.
  • #56
    !
    You bring up some interesting points. Seems the best thing to do would be to get government out of marriage, and make it purely a private thing. No more marriage licenses, benefits or penalties, no more legalities, just purely a personal thing between the people who want to be married.
  • #64
    !
    @ZombieMedic Yes, problem solved. Then we can work on problems that effect all Americans. Like, I don't know, Taxes, the deficit and political corruption.
  • #66
    !
    @ZombieMedic Totally agree, marriage after all is a religious sacrament, not a legal requirement. Unions need to be regulated if only to assure inheritance, the well being of any children of that union and for any tax breaks that the union would apply for, ie.: deductions for dependents. We should do (arrgh!- Daddy will be rolling over in his grave at this!) as they do in Europe. Any, and I repeat ANY, union between two people will require a Civil Union - period. After that, if a religious ceremony is wanted and a religion willing to perform that sacrament is available, then go for it. End of problem. You are totally correct, the government has no business in our religious ceremonies.
  • #182
    !
    Sorry that ship has sailed. There was an opportunity to offer civil unions with the same rights as marriage, but the Christian Right wouldn't have that. No they had to have persecution, and start an all out war to get as many states as possible to ban any form of recognition. Well the tide has turned, enjoy the results bigots.
  • R Load more replies

  • #119
    !
    @AntiPorcheria-- Yep. Despite the best efforts of the Obama propaganda machine, Americans are starting to understand that President Obama is the source of all the partisan intransigence in Washington. They're starting to understand that four years of unprecedented party hostility is coming from him. Even Bob Woodward agrees.

    Bob Woodward: Obama owns sequestration
    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bob-woo...
  • #9
    !
    It is not a fight worth getting into for the Californians or the Republicans. The Supreme Court will eventually uphold gay rights for marriage and they probably should. Let it pass and let's move on. Civil union or marriage, whatever you call it as long as it is 2 consenting adults...not 3 ...not 4...let's just be happy people find love where they find it. Live and let live....it's what the freedom in this country is all about. And I am a Republican.
  • #11
    !
    Here here! I agree. It's a non-issue and should have been settled long ago. The religious zealots in the Republican party are what hold it back by trying to impose religion into laws, just like the anti-gun and politically correct crowd hold back the Democrats and make them look like Social Nazis.
  • #93
    !
    No no no you sir are a RINO! Real republicans don't believe in small government!!!(Sarcasm) You are a 100% right, I'm a libertarian but was republican for a while, they should be the same thing really.
  • #115
    !
    @Libertyiskey "I'm a libertarian but was republican for a while, they should be the same thing really."
    They aren't. Don't dirty our parties name with that insult please. The GOP has become rotten to the core, just like their adversaries. I say good riddance.
  • #116
    !
    @Fishbone345 I know they aren't thats why I said should. We're consistent with what Republicans claim to believe I don't think that dirtys our party name. But I'm sorry if I offended you with that.
  • #117
    !
    @Libertyiskey Republicans haven't believed what they "claim" to in a long long time. They aren't for smaller government, not really. DOMA is about as big as it gets huh? GOP legislation at its finest.
    They are just like their opposition. They are too big, with too much money, and too many interests. And sadly the American People have fallen for the ruse that there are only two choices out there. Nazi, or Communist.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    This is one of the few times I can actually see Obama trying to interfere with constitutionality. Despite how homosexuals have worked hard to frame it as. Despite that the public doesnt seem to quick to catch on, this is not a fight of gays vs God. There are many reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed. Civil unions, yes, equal rights, yes, but marriage would only be creating new and never before privileges exclusive to homosexuals on top of their existing rights to marriage.

    Neither love nor sex is a human right, but that is what they are fighting for and most likely about to win and every American will end up footing the bill for it when tax time comes.
  • #6
    !
    The GOP had the chance to do something other than force a push for marriage but they chose to ban any recognition at all. They turned what could have been compromise into a war. They did this on every issue.
  • #18
    !
    @Speedieg there is only one suitable response that anyone, including but not exclusively to, the gop, the churches, the democrats, the conservatives, the liberals... the boy scouts, and the international union of sunday school teachers and teabaggers, the AACSCBR&TA and the little old lady from pasadena to have given when the topic of marriage equality came up.

    'okay, fine.'
  • R Load more replies

  • #139
    !
    Oh, NOW he cares about the Constitution? When it comes to niche social issues, like marriage, he's a pillar of constitutional integrity. But when it comes to war, torture, domestic spying, gun rights, freedom of speech, prohibition, and everything else.... not so much.

    Bullshit. All of it.
  • #174
    !
    I agree, Seamus. If it is discrimination not to allow anyone to marry whomever they want , that means that they can marry their brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle or their goat.The laws against incest would be invalid. It also means that they can marry 2 or more since it is discriminatory to not allow them to marry whomever they want. Incest and polygamy, swell.
  • #176
    !
    @earl

    There's nothing morally reprehensible about letting people marry goats in a private church. If someone is going to be fucking a goat, they might as well put a ring on it.

    You totally missed the point.
  • #178
    !
    @earl

    My point was that Obama cites the Constitution when defending gay marriage, but actively ignores the Constitution on every other matter.
  • #179
    !
    @Seamus I agreed with you on that point and made an additional point that allowing people to marry whomever they wanted would result in incest and polygamy. My post should have probably been a stand alone post not a reply. Sorry.
  • R Load more replies

  • #52
    !
    The moron Obama continues his pandering to every group he can segregate and distance from mainstream America. The more the Liberals can claim 100% of certain groups, the less they need to win over mainstream America and the more leftist they can become. I am afraid that we may have to see the ultimate end that comes of every Liberal Socialist state - near total collapse from the effects of the loons from the left and their unsustainable policies. The country may right itself again by finding a good conservative leader, but if we let the Leftists take us that far then America will never be the great country and leader of the free world that we once were.
  • #34
    !
    Here is an idea , stop pandering and do what the American people have been telling you to do, cut the deficit. Enough deflection.
  • #25
    !
    He ignores congress and blames republicans all the time. Why doesn't King Obama just sign another executive order like he does on everything else?
  • #124
    !
    He's done it 148 times. 143 less than Dubyah, 215 less than Clinton, and 232 less than Reagan thus far. Acting like it happens all the time shows your ignorance of what actually happens in DC.
  • #158
    !
    @Fishbone345 No what it shows is that he signed 23 of them as a a match for his fellow cronies to take guns away from lawabiding citizens. He should just stay on vacation so he doesn't screw up anything else. Yes he's signed less, and everyone of them f**ked Americans!
  • #162
    !
    @MadAmerican Well, I don't think much of the ones Duhyah signed either. So I guess we're even. It seems any time it happens its not representative of the People.
    Or are you ok win I if its what you want and hate it any other time? I'd wager on that one.
  • #23
    !
    The questions I have regarding laws permitting homosexual marriage are in the future course. If a priest or a clergyman refuses to marry a homosexual couple can that person be sued for violating their civil rights? If the federal government chooses to allow civil unions that is their choice and I can see no difficulty on that basis. However, if religious institutions are to be mandated to perform one of their institution's rituals, there will be a time when religious freedom and homosexual rights will come into conflict. Certainly, one will say the couple can find another religious figure willing to perform the ceremony and that must be currently happening. But it is also clear that eventually, a person's refusal will be seen as an infringement of civil rights and may be litigated.
  • #14
    !
    Obama, the liar and chief who was against Gay marriage before his first election. The consummate corrupt politician from Chicago. There is not one word out of his mouth any person can believe. There are plenty of people who change their sexual preferences. There are bi sexual etc. The lies from the left when they twist anything to get their agendas passed is amazing.
  • #88
    !
    I kinda thought Obama was just blowing hot air when he said:
    "There's no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families -- which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood."
  • #96
    !
    It's so sad (and telling) that you, in this day and age, still believe that people can change their "sexual orientation" as if they were changing their shirt?!?!? Its unbelievable..that people still think like that...But, no matter...the country is moving away from that kind of ignorance and correcting the laws as needed.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    It's fine for DOMA to get struck down but the president's failure at almost ever turn makes his administration the last ones that should spend time on this.
  • #183
    !
    I have never saw anything in Our Constitution that says anything about it being for Man laying with man. Being good for the united States.
    Our founding fathers never had to deal with gays, and neither should we.
  • #216
    !
    @Clara007
    Are you saying that homosexuals didn't exist during the 1700s?? "Our founding fathers never had to deal with gays..." Are you seriously stating that?
  • #172
    !
    DOMA is in direct violation of the Constitution guarantee of equal rights to all citizens. It's a a pathetic law meant to oppress the rights of homosexuals based on their birth. Just as with laws limiting the rights of blacks and women, these laws are reversed with change by the Constitution or Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should nullify DOMA and congress should work on equal rights for all consenting adults wishing to be married.
  • #85
    !
    Obama can't lose on this issue. The majority of America is tired of seeing gays discriminated against. By filing this brief Obama stands up for the right thing and if the SC doesn't agree with him the dems have another strong talking point against electing another GOP President - the fact that they only put right wing extremists like Thomas and Scalia on the bench. Another smart move by a masterful politician. God Bless America.
  • #59
    !
    i didn't think anyone had the right to try and push the high court to do as they say. i do remember a slight threat made calling them all unelected judges.
  • #130
    !
    "i didn't think anyone had the right to try and push the high court to do as they say"
    You have just as much right to petition them as the White House.
  • #145
    !
    @Fishbone345 yet i do not have the power to threaten their jobs like the one who reminded them they are unelected judges.
  • #155
    !
    @tomincali It's an empty threat, because he can't pull them from their jobs. If they leave its their choice. The only thing he can do is appoint their replacement.
  • R Load more comments...
Post