Add a Comment
- I am bummed my comment is deleted so I will rephrase.
Attacking people personally reveals the attacker's insecurities. It's cheap and rude. It is certainly not American because we have civil discourse in this country.
It is NOT bigoted to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how we roll here in CA and if you don't like it - tough.
Does not mean we are bigoted. We have civil unions for gay people.
We have a justifiable reason for it. - Reply to this comment
- Heterosexual behavior can be reproductive; homosexual behavior cannot (any children born to homosexuals result from genetic engineering, not from sexual conduct). The two forms of behavior have the opposite effect on demographics. Those are the logical and sufficient reasons for making legal distinctions between them. Read my essay "Law and Marriage: They Go Together Like a Horse and Carriage" <sober2ndthoughts@blogspot.com>.
- Reply to this comment
- by 1stlttightwad March 2, 2013 5:57 AM EST
Obama's plan for the downfall of the US colonial power.
Ignore congress.
Ignore the rule of law.
Ignore the founding principals of our nation.
Take wealth from those that earned it.
Destroy the family unit..No father in the home to get the freebies.
Take control of people by making them dependant on the gov. for the food in their mouth, clothing on their back and the roof over their head.
That in a nutshell is Obama.
__________________________________
This is probably the most intelligent summing up of obama I've ever read!
Outstanding comment! Here's an example of a major block of obama's voting base.
_________________________
http://youtu.be/KRgB2eeHZEw - Reply to this comment
- The President has done enough harm by agreeing to this in the first place...he said it to get votes and now has to keep it up. Who goes by what his chilfren say, and not by what's right. He has led us into harms way by agreeing to this and trying to influence the courts. I pray the courts of California keep the law as is...which is the Word of God.
- Reply to this comment
- It just appears to me, (been around a while), that this president is willing to take on all the controversial issues head-on unlike, previously (and cowardly) presidents who refuse to touch them. It refreshing. Keep rocking the boat, there have been very few presidents who understand the use of using their "cojones" in the workplace.
- Reply to this comment
- The White House has no business trying to influence the Supreme Court and that court should tell he and his cronies to mind their own business.
- Reply to this comment
- by MaxyRaddy March 1, 2013 10:51 PM EST
"...rights? Gays have always had the right to be gay..."
Wrong. Check your history, here are the facts.
Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.
In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy, however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.
So much for your assertion about always having the right to be gay.
"...What gives them the right to call it anything else?..."
First, no one is calling it anything else.
Second, you also miss the fact that English language evolves, the word "gay", which you yourself use, used to mean "happy". It used to be included as part of the term "sodomy".
The right of free speech gives everyone the right to call anything whatever they want, so long as they accept whatever legal social response ensues. - Reply to this comment
- by MaxyRaddy March 1, 2013 10:51 PM EST
"...rights? Gays have always had the right to be gay..."
Wrong. Check your history, here are the facts.
Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.
In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy, however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.
So much for your assertion about always having the right to be gay.
"...What gives them the right to call it anything else?..."
First, no one is calling it anything else.
Second, you also miss the fact that English language evolves, the word "gay", which you yourself use, used to mean "happy". It used to be included as part of the term "sodomy".
The right of free speech gives everyone the right to call anything whatever they want, so long as they accept whatever legal social response ensues. - Reply to this comment
- Bans passed in laws based on religious grounds are expressly unconstitutional.
A state marriage license is nothing more than a contract between two parties to share assets in all ways common to husband and wife, it is a contract between consenting adults, nothing more.
There is no way a law can forbid consenting adults from entering into contracts, so long as the terms of the contract are legal.
Since there are no valid laws forbidding alternate gender preference or identification, the terms of a marriage contract are legal, and as such cannot be forbidden by law.
Churches can indeed refuse to recognize marriages if they don't conform to their dogmas, that is legal, as they are separate from the state, but the state cannot refuse to recognize a valid contract between consenting adults.
Thus such bans are unconstitutional, regardless of how many consenting votes such laws have. - Reply to this comment
- I don't think Chief Justice Roberts cares what President Obama thinks about the constitutionality of any law. I hope his appointees are just as indifferent. They are supposed to be.
- Reply to this comment
