The President comes out in support of gay marriage!
Big surprise there............
Do not worry, it just means the Rapture™ is soon, where the apocalyptic final battle between Jesus and Mohammed (the Antichrist) on top of Mount Rushmore (after it is relocated to Israel) will take place, while God's chosen ('Merica) move on to the Kingdom of Heaven, which will be a theocratic communist state with God and his son (who is also himself) as Dear Leader
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,936
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
I don't like judges deciding this, let the people decide and there is the legislative process that can be used too. As Sgt. Joe Friday said in "Dragnet 1967," "if you don't like the law as it is, work within the system to change it." Both side of the issue have access to that.
I think the Administration is trying the same tactic the old guy in the movie "Up," where he distracted the dogs by yelling "Squirrel!" and throwing the dogs off their path. IT is to distract us from our real problems.
I think we have more problems than this and, yes, I'm paleo-libertarian/conservative, which side I fall on depends on the issue, I really don't fit into labels. Really, if I lose on this issue, so be it, but I'm more worried about the economy, Iran, other foreign policy issues, putting food on the table, gas prices and generally don't like the direction our current leadership is taking us. I see this as an attempt by the current leader to divide us more and a diversion to the real issues mentioned above. Straight or gay and so on, we all face those same issues of trying to survive. Seriously, this is among the last things to worry about. We need to quit hurting each other and concentrate on our real problems.
I'm afraid I must disagree, as if civil rights for blacks were left up to the states, they would still be second class citizens - at least in the south. The rights of citizens should never be left up to popular vote, because unpopular groups will always be the losers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'll continue my recent lazy posting streak and let Radley Balko say what I was thinking:
It’s also about f*cking time. Basically, Obama announced to the country today that he, personally, is cool with gay marriage. It’s a position he has allegedly held all along, but didn’t have the political spine to state publicly prior to this afternoon. Even then, he only made his statement after carefully strategizing with his aides to make sure it wouldn’t damage him politically. Or I guess to put it more accurately, once his aides convinced him that his gutless silence was hurting him more than what he said today possibly could.
Obama’s statement doesn’t change a single policy. He has basically adopted a federalist approach to the issue. To my knowledge, gay marriage also happens to be the only issue in which Obama embraces federalism. Obama apparently believes the states should be able to discriminate when it comes to marriage benefits, but if they allow cancer and AIDS patients to smoke pot, he asserts the supremacy of federal law, and sends in the SWAT teams. What a twisted set of priorities.
Moreover, because the federal government is actively discriminating against homosexual couples based on whether or not the state where they reside recognizes their marriage, there’s actually a decent equal protection argument argument against letting the states decide this issue. Or, better yet, for the federal government to just stop conferring special benefits onto heterosexual couples. Or, still better yet, to stop conferring benefits onto married couples at all.* And I say that as someone who generally believes in federalism. (And, to be fair, who isn’t married.)
I’ve been happy to praise Obama on those unfortunately few occasions when there’s been reason to do so. But this? This is a president half-assing it while still keeping plenty of political cover, and on an issue in which he could have effected real change had he had the courage of his convictions years ago.
As leadership goes, it’s little more than acknowledging the direction the wind is blowing. It hardly merits a new chapter for Profiles in Courage.
(*Insert boilerplate libertarian disclaimer about how government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning relationships
in the first place.)
Bold is mine.
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/05/09/o ... -marriage/
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Delphiki
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 181
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality
I'm afraid I must disagree, as if civil rights for blacks were left up to the states, they would still be second class citizens - at least in the south. The rights of citizens should never be left up to popular vote, because unpopular groups will always be the losers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm afraid I got to disagree here.
I think the civil rights issues should have been handled differently than it was, because overall it is now being used to declare everything a civil right. I always believed that Martin Luther king should have taken more of a libertarian (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged) tack than a religious one where instead of character, a person has the right to keep what he/she earns through their own labors and merits no matter who they are. It's just me I guess.
I don't know, we do have the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to mitigate some of it to offer some protection. I know our system isn't perfect, but I'll take it over anything else. I think over time, things would have worked out. Also, I'm sure if people are not happy in their State, they'd move to one that is more friendly and/or closer to their views. I do like the State's Rights idea where the Libertarians focus on New Hampshire, the hippie types on Vermont, Born Again Christians on South Carolina and so on. I view the Federal System as more like a NATO setup, albeit with a little more power where the States are members and contribute resources for defense, a highway/water/air system, a court system to handle disputes between the States, handle foreign policy and a couple of sundry things like sending up a Space Shuttle or three.. I just see it that if it is not part of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, it should be left to the States to decide.
Well, off to bed.
Hmmmm, good one! There is a side of me that wonders if arranged marriages should be brought back, but then again, I would be afraid of who my parents would have matched me with. At least though, this poor ASer, me, would have a spouse, I suck at dating anyhoo. :p Cattle, well, don't have the place for them.
Delphiki
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 181
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality
Hmmmm, good one! There is a side of me that wonders if arranged marriages should be brought back, but then again, I would be afraid of who my parents would have matched me with. At least though, this poor ASer, me, would have a spouse, I suck at dating anyhoo. :p Cattle, well, don't have the place for them.
What I was saying in a joking way is why is heterosexual "tradional" marriage so much better? Giving cattle and marrying off your live stock, oops I meant daughters.
How does it effect you? If you think being gay is a sin then they are still going to hell. So you are good there.
(I don't think being gay is a sin, heard that from Tosh, like the show Tosh.0. I thought he used some good logic there)
_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.
Last edited by Delphiki on 10 May 2012, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,936
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
I'm afraid I must disagree, as if civil rights for blacks were left up to the states, they would still be second class citizens - at least in the south. The rights of citizens should never be left up to popular vote, because unpopular groups will always be the losers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm afraid I got to disagree here.
I think the civil rights issues should have been handled differently than it was, because overall it is now being used to declare everything a civil right. I always believed that Martin Luther king should have taken more of a libertarian (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged) tack than a religious one where instead of character, a person has the right to keep what he/she earns through their own labors and merits no matter who they are. It's just me I guess.
I don't know, we do have the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to mitigate some of it to offer some protection. I know our system isn't perfect, but I'll take it over anything else. I think over time, things would have worked out. Also, I'm sure if people are not happy in their State, they'd move to one that is more friendly and/or closer to their views. I do like the State's Rights idea where the Libertarians focus on New Hampshire, the hippie types on Vermont, Born Again Christians on South Carolina and so on. I view the Federal System as more like a NATO setup, albeit with a little more power where the States are members and contribute resources for defense, a highway/water/air system, a court system to handle disputes between the States, handle foreign policy and a couple of sundry things like sending up a Space Shuttle or three.. I just see it that if it is not part of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, it should be left to the States to decide.
Well, off to bed.
And I could not disagree more. A black man or woman could accomplish more than any white person, and still never achieve equality in the eyes of the white majority. And just to let you in on something - - I'm hardly a fan of that Christ hating witch, Ayn Rand. Because despite what she may have thought, everyone is of equal worth - even the least of us.
And as to your second point - the United States of America is not an alliance like NATO, but rather a solid, single nation. I think the Civil War settled that point.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well one thing is for certian, Marriage Equlity is something that also lifts other restrictions and Barriers besides Same Sex, Mixed Races can marry other races without restriction, including those of the Middle East and Asia would be happy to see this, also it limits the Restrictions for who you can Marry too,
But the Republicans and those of the Tea Party want the classic Traditional 1900s to 1960s type weddings that were more restricted and made sure they were in a Church, and not something like a Shrine or Temple as it is outside of the Christan Religion.
i'm glad obama has said he supports it but i cannot help but suspect that it isnt entirely sincere. he did spend all that time in office and did nothing to repeal doma. he shouldn't be praised for supporting it- it's like a basic human right, if you don't support it there is something wrong with you. it's a shame that our own leader still won't budge on her own views. there is support on both sides of the political spectrum for this. it isn't a left or right issue. don't know why she bothers. we'll get it in the end. even churches are coming out in support of marriage equality. it just bugs me that they keep saying tradition deems marriage to be between man and woman and it has always been so. tradition is a stupid reason to do anything and it hasn't always been so. hopefully obamas change of mind will translate into action otherwise its just him trying to score points.
I'm afraid I must disagree, as if civil rights for blacks were left up to the states, they would still be second class citizens - at least in the south. The rights of citizens should never be left up to popular vote, because unpopular groups will always be the losers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm afraid I got to disagree here.
I think the civil rights issues should have been handled differently than it was, because overall it is now being used to declare everything a civil right. I always believed that Martin Luther king should have taken more of a libertarian (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged) tack than a religious one where instead of character, a person has the right to keep what he/she earns through their own labors and merits no matter who they are. It's just me I guess.
I don't know, we do have the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to mitigate some of it to offer some protection. I know our system isn't perfect, but I'll take it over anything else. I think over time, things would have worked out. Also, I'm sure if people are not happy in their State, they'd move to one that is more friendly and/or closer to their views. I do like the State's Rights idea where the Libertarians focus on New Hampshire, the hippie types on Vermont, Born Again Christians on South Carolina and so on. I view the Federal System as more like a NATO setup, albeit with a little more power where the States are members and contribute resources for defense, a highway/water/air system, a court system to handle disputes between the States, handle foreign policy and a couple of sundry things like sending up a Space Shuttle or three.. I just see it that if it is not part of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, it should be left to the States to decide.
Well, off to bed.
And I could not disagree more. A black man or woman could accomplish more than any white person, and still never achieve equality in the eyes of the white majority. And just to let you in on something - - I'm hardly a fan of that Christ hating witch, Ayn Rand. Because despite what she may have thought, everyone is of equal worth - even the least of us.
And as to your second point - the United States of America is not an alliance like NATO, but rather a solid, single nation. I think the Civil War settled that point.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Sadly, not for everyone
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
I think I understand the timing of Obama's comment now.
His contacts at the Washington Post probably tipped him off they were working on this story:
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors...
Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
Hmmmm, good one! There is a side of me that wonders if arranged marriages should be brought back, but then again, I would be afraid of who my parents would have matched me with. At least though, this poor ASer, me, would have a spouse, I suck at dating anyhoo. :p Cattle, well, don't have the place for them.
Haha yeah, dating blows. Sucks women aren't chattel anymore brah.
_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.
So State's rights trump individual rights?
Many conservatives seem to be the first to sound the siren call of "Liberty!" when they see their own rights being infringed by government, but they are quite prepared to see government step in and trample on the individual liberty of another citizen who chooses to exercise rights in a way that the conservative disapproves of.
This "States' Rights," rhetoric is a cover for bigotry. It carries the clear implication that government, and the majority of voters are free to run roughshod over the rights of individuals. The United States long since established that this should not longer be true for women, racial minorities and religious minorities and it is high time that the same protection was extended on the basis of sexual orientation.
I am perfectly content to leave it to States, provided that the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection do not exclude gay and lesbian citizens.
Why don't you like judges deciding this? When legislatures and the electorate act unconstitutionally, who else but judges are there to stop them?
If Congress were to pass a law that said, "Black people may not vote," who would stop such a law from being enforced? So when a legislature passes a law that says, "Gay people may not marry each other," or the electorate passes a referendum that says, "the legislature may not recognize same-sex marriages," how then is that law to be tested for constitutional validity?
Legislatures are not infallible. They overreach themselves all the time. The Courts are a check on the tyrrany of the majority.
I think we have more problems than this and, yes, I'm paleo-libertarian/conservative, which side I fall on depends on the issue, I really don't fit into labels. Really, if I lose on this issue, so be it, but I'm more worried about the economy, Iran, other foreign policy issues, putting food on the table, gas prices and generally don't like the direction our current leadership is taking us. I see this as an attempt by the current leader to divide us more and a diversion to the real issues mentioned above. Straight or gay and so on, we all face those same issues of trying to survive. Seriously, this is among the last things to worry about. We need to quit hurting each other and concentrate on our real problems.
No, gay and straight don't face the same issues of trying to survive. In addition to "the economy, Iran, other foreign policy issues, putting food on the table, gas prices," and all the other issues of the day, gay and lesbian people also face the hardship of discrimination and intolerance.
_________________
--James
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Mexico elects first female president |
03 Jun 2024, 10:21 am |
Meet Kristi Noem: Our next Vice President |
26 Apr 2024, 9:55 pm |
so stressed need some support |
07 May 2024, 3:18 pm |
Feeling lack of support navigating financial aid |
03 Apr 2024, 6:38 pm |