Comments on: Does Obama Support Gay Marriage?

National Review Online: The Senator's Response To Calif. Supreme Court Decision Is Telling

[cgallaway]

Another issue people throw out is that marriage is for the safety of children....yet to many heterosexual marriages are created with people who hurt children. Pedophiles, rapists, murderers, all able to be wed according to the churches and the states, but homosexuals? That''s too dangerous according to the right wing.

I suppose one could argue that a lot of people got married believing that marriage was between a man and a woman. Well, if that is the only reason someone got hitched to a member of the opposite ***, then they did it for the wrong reasons. If Bob and Jerry getting married makes you feel less love towards your spouse, then you have emotional issues that you need to deal with.

[cgallaway]

For those who believe that marriage is intended for the procreation of children...then why do we allow heterosexual couples to get married regardless of their intention of having children? Also why do we allow those people who have problems creating life on their own to get married? Simple, marriage by the law of the land is not defined by the couple having children or not.

[cgallaway]

sorry about the last two posts...checking to see if the registration worked.

First off, heterosexual couples that get hitched by a judge with the power vested in him/her by whichever state, are considered "Married" Atheists can get married. Satanists can get married. "Marriage" is not just a religious sanction. It is also a title held by those that are wanting the same legal rights as those that are religious. That said, the churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples, as that would be against their religious beliefs. That is something else that no one is pointing out. The ruling is not stating that churches must wed homosexual couples, only that the government (who can wed couples as well) must give equal rights to homosexual couples.

[cgallaway]

fg

[cgallaway]

sdf

[mike74576]

The author of this article contends that Obama''s stance on gay marriage is opposed to the will of the people of California. He fails to mention that the popularly elected state legislature of California passed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage (both were vetoed). Few critics of the California court ruling mention this fact when they attack the judges for overturning the will of the people.

[mike74576]

The author of this article contends that Obama''s stance on gay marriage is opposed to the will of the people of California. He fails to mention that the popularly elected state legislature of California passed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage (both were vetoed). Few critics of the California court ruling mention this fact when they attack the judges for overturning the will of the people.

[mike74576]

The author of this article contends that Obama''s stance on gay marriage is opposed to the will of the people of California. He fails to mention that the popularly elected state legislature of California passed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage (both were vetoed). Few critics of the California court ruling mention this fact when they attack the judges for overturning the will of the people.

[irliberal]

The author of this article, Rich Lowry, is worried. This article isn''t really about *** or the definition of marriage. This is an attempt by a partisan republican to spread misinformation, innuendo and encourage bigotry, it''s as simple as that.

It worked in 2000. It worked in 2004. Who''s to say it won''t work again?

You.

[mketaggart]

Idiot Republicnazis like this bozo have no understanding of the Constitution. He says that the court overturned the will of the people. Duh. That''s what the Bill of Rights REQUIRES them to do (along with the equal protection clause of the California constitution on which the California court relied) The rights estabished in the Constitution were designed specifically to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority (ie. the people''s will). These morons have absolutely no clue how that works. Thank God the founding fathers were smarter than them.

[ubrew12]

Lowry: "The [CA] court thus demands moral approval for these unions, and does what open-minded people everywhere are supposed to abhor: impose its morality on people who disagree. "

If you don''t like gay marriage, don''t have one. Do you honestly think you have to ''morally approve'' of gay marriage because of the CA court?

If they said *** had ''moral approval'' NOT to jump off a cliff, would you believe they were telling YOU to jump off a cliff?

Cuz, you know, I might be able to get them to say that..

[daenku32]

Interesting how he compares the decision to Scott, instead the one that this resembled more: Loving vs Virginia.

[noloyalisti]

Yeah, we would not want to join the rest of civilized society like in Scandanavia and most of the rest of the Europe. If you don''t like gay marriage, don''t have one.

[gkc99]

The precious Rick Lowry must be frustrated because nobody is listening to his tighty Whitey righty boolsheeyit any more.

[agog2]

Look up Larry Sinclair
http://www.youtube.com/user/larrysinclair0926

[mcvet]

It''s wild and quite funny watching these Nazi''s attempt to get a wedge issue going. Sieg Heil Bush

[hypnotoad72]

This is a dumb post. All the major candidates have stated an opposition to same-*** marriage. Why would you even give this madness legitimacy?

Posted by darrren12000
--------------------------

Viewership and ratings would be my main guess. When not parading mostly naked in public (or flashing their parts), they say it''s nobody''s business and want to be left alone. Conflicting viewpoints indeed... can''t wait for June to end.

[hypnotoad72]

"marriage" is a religious institution. "civil unions" are a government institution. Get the religious to change their minds on g@ys and then they can get married. Let the politicians decide who can have a union.

The way many people whine, marriage is pointless in the first place. :-S

[agog2]

Does Obama Support Gay Marriage? I guess you would have to ask Larry Sinclair about that. Look up Larry Sinclair on Google search!!!

[paris1969]

Also, interracial marriage would be illegal in this country if left to the popular vote ... at some point everyone needs to realize that not one of us has the right to vote on who anyone gets married to.