Judge: "What harm in permitting same sex marriage?"

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: shira

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

I always forget, whenever Obama says something against my liberal views, it's not that he's against it, it's that he doesn't mean what he says.

let's ignore the fact that Obama's maintaining the "laws must be upheld" stance while telling the justice department to actively fight against any challenges to DA/DT while simultaneously telling the justice department not to enforce marijuana laws.

This is a silly argument. Law enforcement always picks and chooses which laws it will enforce more or less aggressively. Even you probably agree with Holder's decision on medical marijuana.

As to defending DADT: See my previous post. I have no doubt that you'll be among those criticizing Obama when he repeals it next year.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira
As to defending DADT: See my previous post. I have no doubt that you'll be among those criticizing Obama when he repeals it next year.

I doubt that.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

Where did I mention President Obama?

you seemed to be implying that the objections to gay marriage were coming from the religious right and "keepers" of morality on the right.

And you got president Obama out of that?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: shira

I have no doubt that you'll be among those criticizing Obama when he repeals it next year.

that's like the dumbest thing I've read on AT all day.

edit: as to the actual post... you don't see any hypocrisy in saying "well, I'm opposed to DA/DT personally, but the law is the law so we're going to vigorously fight all legal challenges to it" when it comes to one law while making it official policy not to even execute another law?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: shira
As to defending DADT: See my previous post. I have no doubt that you'll be among those criticizing Obama when he repeals it next year.

I doubt that.

You doubt that Loki will be criticizing him? Or you doubt repeal will occur in 2010?

I acknowledge that I could be off on the timing - it depends on whether higher-priority issues are competing for political capital. But I have no doubt that Obama will repeal DADT - probably in 2010, possibly as late as 2011.

Edit: Third possibility: You doubt that I have no doubt.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: shira

I have no doubt that you'll be among those criticizing Obama when he repeals it next year.

that's like the dumbest thing I've read on AT all day.

It's early. There's another truther thread on the front page, stop by there for 30 seconds.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jonks National support for interracial marriage was only 20% when SCOTUS threw out those laws. The law doesn't care what you feel, it cares about consequences and equal rights. Your aversion to men kissing (and likely heightened awareness and approval of women kissing) has no bearing on the issue. GOP will go down as having fought against equality tooth and nail, and lost.

Blacks being compared to homosexuals is a reason they oppose homosexual marriage so thoroughly. They take it as an insult and quite rightly.

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

 

[Ausm]

Looks like the Army is getting ready for the repeal of DADT

http://www.armytimes.com/news/...0/army_mchugh_102409w/

 

[Ausm]

They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not.

HAHAHA I can't believe some of the peeps on this forum this statement blows me away

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else.

On their 1040 tax form, what do they check?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else.

On their 1040 tax form, what do they check?

umm Spawn of Barrysotero


:laugh:


You might have to cut the dude some slack from the looks of his posts I doubt he has ever had to fill one out

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: shira

I have no doubt that you'll be among those criticizing Obama when he repeals it next year.

that's like the dumbest thing I've read on AT all day.

edit: as to the actual post... you don't see any hypocrisy in saying "well, I'm opposed to DA/DT personally, but the law is the law so we're going to vigorously fight all legal challenges to it" when it comes to one law while making it official policy not to even execute another law?

The federal marijuana laws don't distinguish between medical and other use - the same law applies to both. Holder made clear that the change in enforcement applied only to legitimate distributors of medical marijuana. So your statement that the Justice Department has made a decision "not to even execute another law" is just false.

 

[piasabird]

Just start looking at all the laws and regulations that base a person's legal status on the fact that they use the term Married and you will come to the conclusion that a lot of things are based on the fact that a man and a woman have a legal status of Married. This applies to both benefits and responsibilities. Tax law is entrenched with certain things that are based on the term married. Laws clearly are structured with the concept that married means a union between a Man and a Woman and the resulting offspring of that union.

For the law's sake it is easier to call the same sex union something else and just add laws using that term. It would surely make things easier on lawyers and judges and the courts.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Because reelection is more important than doing the right thing.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Because reelection is more important than doing the right thing.

Hence Bludog Democrats

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Because reelection is more important than doing the right thing.

No. Because getting elected is a prerequisite for doing the right thing.

 

[jackschmittusa]

BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just start looking at all the laws and regulations that base a person's legal status on the fact that they use the term Married and you will come to the conclusion that a lot of things are based on the fact that a man and a woman have a legal status of Married. This applies to both benefits and responsibilities. Tax law is entrenched with certain things that are based on the term married. Laws clearly are structured with the concept that married means a union between a Man and a Woman and the resulting offspring of that union.

For the law's sake it is easier to call the same sex union something else and just add laws using that term. It would surely make things easier on lawyers and judges and the courts.

how would that be easier than just giving same-sex couples access to all the rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Because reelection is more important than doing the right thing.

No. Because getting elected is a prerequisite for doing the right thing.

the fierce urgency of well, maybe someday we'll get around to it.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jonks National support for interracial marriage was only 20% when SCOTUS threw out those laws. The law doesn't care what you feel, it cares about consequences and equal rights. Your aversion to men kissing (and likely heightened awareness and approval of women kissing) has no bearing on the issue. GOP will go down as having fought against equality tooth and nail, and lost.

Blacks being compared to homosexuals is a reason they oppose homosexual marriage so thoroughly. They take it as an insult and quite rightly.

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

The story of how I project my inadequacies onto others, by BarrySotero.

It shouldn't matter if most people are against same-sex marriage, it isn't their business.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Why do you think he hasn't done anything on that yet?
He is just going to throw the gays under the bus to get re-elected.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Why do you think he hasn't done anything on that yet?
He is just going to throw the gays under the bus to get re-elected.

I doubt that would help with his re-election considering most of the people that have a problem with gay people reside on the right.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Why do you think he hasn't done anything on that yet?
He is just going to throw the gays under the bus to get re-elected.

I doubt that would help with his re-election considering most of the people that have a problem with gay people reside on the right.

Patranus apparently thinks that if a President believes something, he should go full speed ahead on that thing from his first day in office, even if in the long run that approach will reduce the President's overall effectiveness at getting his full agenda passed.

Patranus also apparently believes that if a President doesn't do something right now for a particular constituency, it means that the President is throwing that constituency under a bus.

What we can learn from Patranus is that mental midgets see black and white, and all of the black and white in between.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just start looking at all the laws and regulations that base a person's legal status on the fact that they use the term Married and you will come to the conclusion that a lot of things are based on the fact that a man and a woman have a legal status of Married. This applies to both benefits and responsibilities. Tax law is entrenched with certain things that are based on the term married. Laws clearly are structured with the concept that married means a union between a Man and a Woman and the resulting offspring of that union.

For the law's sake it is easier to call the same sex union something else and just add laws using that term. It would surely make things easier on lawyers and judges and the courts.

You want Congress to enact "separate but equal" laws regarding heterosexual unions and homosexual unions?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: shira

Patranus apparently thinks that if a President believes something, he should go full speed ahead on that thing from his first day in office, even if in the long run that approach will reduce the President's overall effectiveness at getting his full agenda passed.

Patranus also apparently believes that if a President doesn't do something right now for a particular constituency, it means that the President is throwing that constituency under a bus.

What we can learn from Patranus is that mental midgets see black and white, and all of the black and white in between.

"This 'wait' has almost always meant 'never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'"

maybe Obama has a master plan, but in 28 years, all I've ever heard from the DNC is "wait," so you'll have to excuse my cynicism.