U.S. President Barack Obama Says 'Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal'

[MrRealDeal]

Neither of those versions have any meaning in a Court ..... By LAW the defenition is "Two people legally joined together"

[Ulysses G.]

I just did a little research into Jingthing's claims. The Supreme Court can make it legal under the 14^th Amendment that every state grants civil unions to same sex couples. Problem solved.

[Colin Yai]

Yes. Congratulations. The UK is ahead of the US on this issue. Please don't gloat.

Gloat? who me? whatever gives you that crazy Notion?

[MrRealDeal]

The traditional defenition of marriage actually means to join together and is not even exclusive to humans which is why painters marry paint together, and cooks marry ingredients together, and construction workers marry sectional housing together ..... You might be confusing the word WEDDING with the word mariage.

[Colin Yai]

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/wescoappc.html It would appear that this link dove tails perfectly with your view

[Ulysses G.]

The traditional defenition of marriage actually means to join together and is not even exclusive to humans

Are you advocating for people who want to marry chickens and cats?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

The traditional defenition of marriage actually means to join together and is not even exclusive to humans which is why painters marry paint together, and cooks marry ingredients together, and construction workers marry sectional housing together ..... You might be confusing the word WEDDING with the word mariage.

Sorry, but that is not correct. "Marry" can mean to join together, but, as far as I can tell, marriage is between people and if you want to get modern it can be between any number of people of any sex.

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

[Colin Yai]

http://www.haaretz.c...rriage-1.433911 Comments, any one!, as an edition , I just wonder how this ruling affects the large Jewish population in America? Edited June 2, 2012 by Colin Yai

[koheesti]

You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions.

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

[koheesti]

One monster difference between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage I want to point out...

Inter-racial marriage more often than same-race marriage produces great looking offspring. Thank God for inter-racial marriage.

[koheesti]

For those who think marraige means a man and a woman joined together legally,,,,,,,,, they would be incorrect,,,,,,,,,, as defined by law Blacks Law dictionary marriage is "two PEOPLE legally joined together".

I wonder how an older dictionary defined it? One from a few decades ago before same sex marriage was even on anyone's radar? Did it mention man and woman? Was it even necessary to do so? I doubt 150 years ago the Oxford English Language Dictionary thought the need to include that distinction. Maybe they did though?

That said, there are countless words we use everyday that have meanings that changed over the years, or had new uses added to them. It's a characteristic of a living language.

[koheesti]

I wish we could trade some of our First Class Rights for something tangible. I'd be happy to give you my right to marry (not sure that really is one, but what the heck, if I can get something for it...) for a car or something.

What did you do to get that status for free when I can't even pay for that status?

Very good point. I hadn't thought about that. A car is ridiculous. My asking price just went up to at least a 4 bedroom, 5 bath house with swimming pool and three car garage on a nice piece of land with a view of the sea.

[Colin Yai]

One monster difference between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage I want to point out...

Inter-racial marriage more often than same-race marriage produces great looking offspring. Thank God for inter-racial marriage.

In many peoples expert opinion Joe Louis was the best Heavy weight boxer ever, he was mixed race, Negro/white/and Cherokee Indian ., and I believe a certain leading American politician falls into that category too Edited June 2, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Jingthing]

You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions.

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

YES!

The American way is NOT about hated minorities winning their basic civil rights by POPULAR vote. Our system is better than that. That's why this is a SUPREME COURT matter.

That said recent national polling shows only 39 percent of the entire nation thinks same sex marriage should be illegal.

Even lower among YOUNG people.

Yes there are pockets of more opposition: older people, black Americans (numbers have improved dramatically since Obama's comments), and the SOUTHERN states.

Jewish Americans, always along with gay Americans and usually black Americans (but not in this issue) being among the most LIBERAL Americans, and proudly so OVERWHELMINGLY support legal same sex marriage:

http://blogs.forward...k-gay-marriage/

It isn’t news that American Jews overwhelmingly support legalizing gay marriage. But a new survey out today puts that level of support at 81%, a few notches higher than previous polls.

...

“The American Jewish community has a long history of standing on the right side of history when it comes to civil rights legislation, and it’s not surprising that we’re seeing a similar pattern when it comes to equal marriage,” said Klein. “Our challenges … have always been more about creating internal change within Jewish communities, creating change that actually affects the climate and the culture and the politics within our synagogues and day schools and summer camps.”

Read more: http://blogs.forward.../#ixzz1wclvgStD

Interestingly, American Jews were ALSO heavily represented in the early days of the black civil rights movement, some even being murdered by the Ku Klux Klan while working for the cause. American Jews were on the right side of history for that civil rights cause and are so the right side of history for the cause of gay civil rights as well.

So yes, Virginia, there is good support out there. But we don't win on popular vote. We win in the supreme court so that ALL 50 states are compelled to stop discriminating against same sex couples.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I just did a little research into Jingthing's claims. The Supreme Court can make it legal under the 14^th Amendment that every state grants civil unions to same sex couples. Problem solved.

That's a cheap hit and run shot with NO credibility in the slightest.

That amendment is relevant to same sex MARRIAGE equality. It is not relevant at all to civil unions. The supreme court would NEVER take that action, there is no case you can imagine that would cause them to rule in that way, nor do I think they would even ACCEPT such a case. The supreme court is NOT going to MANDATE such a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL thing when there are ALREADY marriage laws in the 50 states that simply need to be adjusted with this one detail (some are already). You diss activist judges but such an action would be activist judges on crack! Simply ending discrimination against same sex couples applied to ALREADY EXISTING 50 states marriage laws would be a very CONSERVATIVE ruling in comparison! Your research was indeed quite superficial. I completely reject the problem is solved but maybe your problem was you felt the need for some kind of flimsy rationalization for your continued advocacy for DISCRIMINATION. But it isn't real and it will never happen. Prove me wrong with a link from a pro national civil union advocate explaining this non-existent tactic.

http://www.pbs.org/n...y_marriage.html

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

Exactly. Voters have rejected changing the traditional definition of marriage every time.

[Jingthing]

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

Exactly. Voters have rejected changing the traditional definition of marriage every time.

So far. But that is irrelevant. Hated minorities in America don't win civil rights by popular vote. When the interracial marriage bans were overturned by the supreme court on constitutional grounds, the popular view in those redneck states which had these racist bans was IN FAVOR of those racist bans. The majority is quite often WRONG on civil rights matters. That's what the SUPREME COURT is for, to do the right thing, even if it almost always takes too long. I am fully confident this will happen again. My view is on the right side of history. Those trying to lamely rationalize unfair DISCRIMINATION are on the wrong side of it.

BTW, there is a vote coming up in MARYLAND. Mark my words, I predict a VICTORY for gay rights in that vote. But again, the big battle here won't be won or lost by popular vote. The key stage MUST be the supreme court.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

After the disastrous jobs report today, Obama is out and President Romney will not be selecting any activist judges that will ignore the will of the electorate.

[Jingthing]

After the disastrous jobs report today, Obama is out and President Romney will not be selecting any activist judges that will ignore the will of the electorate.

Its not the job of the supreme court to follow the will of the electorate. Their job is to interpret the constitution to modern issues. Just as they did when they overturned interracial bans. I agree if Romney is elected and gets picks, that will mean a further delay in the inevitable supreme court victory for gay civil rights. I have said many times. It may take 2 years. It may take 50 or 100 years. For me, its about future generations of gay American young people never learning they are second class citizens under the law. Eyes on the prize. We shall overcome. It feel so much better to be arguing for fairness and equality rather than trying to rationalize bigotry and discrimination. Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

[koheesti]

After the disastrous jobs report today, Obama is out and President Romney will not be selecting any activist judges that will ignore the will of the electorate.

Its not the job of the supreme court to follow the will of the electorate. Their job is to interpret the constitution to modern issues.

Remember you said that after the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare for being unconstitutional.

[Jingthing]

After the disastrous jobs report today, Obama is out and President Romney will not be selecting any activist judges that will ignore the will of the electorate.

Its not the job of the supreme court to follow the will of the electorate. Their job is to interpret the constitution to modern issues.

Remember you said that after the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare for being unconstitutional.

I will. Off topic, but I never liked Obamacare. I see it is as better than nothing as at least it addresses the insurance access issue for people with preexisting conditions. I have always, my entire conscious life supported universal single payer health care, which I can assure you is completely constitutional. The funny thing right wingers never admit is that a lot of the unpopularity of Obamacare is from people like me who don't think its good enough! Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

What's that supposed to mean?

[koheesti]

What's that supposed to mean?

Relax, you'll approve. The source will help clear it up:

http://www.buzzfeed....iage-and-gay-ma

Edited June 2, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

I do like it. But be clear I am neutral on marriage in general. It's good for some people but it often ends in tears. My advocacy for same sex marriage equality is about equality and civil rights, not about promoting marriage per se. I reckon in countries with same sex legal marriage, gay people marry at lesser rates than straight people but I am just guessing. The issue is about having the same choices and rights as everyone else. In the American context, when marriage equality is finally won, whenever that is, it means gay people will no longer be second class citizens under the law. Opponents of gay marriage know that too. Another reason they oppose us so passionately.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

That is simply not true ... Sorry it is..... here is a dictionary defenition I guess yours didn't have LOL

:any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

That is from dictionairy . com but of course you would find the same in any deent dictionary because it's TRADITIONALLY how the word has been used...... Traditionally the word could be used for anything that was joined together right up until Gay people wanted to use it, and then it became a word for only a man and a woman but historicly that's just absolutely false , 100 year old dictionarys will have the same meaning because thats what it means !

It would not be tradition to say marriage means a man and a woman it would be an entirely new meaning to the word , by excluding part of the meaning , JUST to keep Gay people from using it correctly in the english language , NOT because traditionally it doesnt mean that. What you miss is it ALSO in the same defenition of the word traditionally uses it to speak of a man and a woman , but it should also point out marriage means "trial marriage" which is an illegal partnership , that could be a number of things. And a better dictionary thats not christian in nature would point out gay marriages go back in history to acient greek , rome and china. And yes were called marriages ! lol

To suggest that because words have more than one meaning your's in the only one that matters is obviuosly incorrect.

It looks to me like you must have spent a LOT of time to find such a horrible dictionary that it left out part of the meaning ...... Or you just left it out on purpose hopeing no one would know ! lol

If you don't believe me or him just google it yourself folks ... trust me TRADITIONALLY marriage has been applyed to a number of things and it's MODERN people who want to change that, just to exclude gays from using it.

[MrRealDeal]

One point that I hope is not lost in the post, is that historicly and traditionally when people wrote or talked about Gays joining together, in acient rome or china, it was always reffered to a a gay marriage. It wasn't until recent more modern times that people wanted to try and change the historic and traditional meaning of the word as it refered to gay people of the present, and aparantly the past needs to be we written for these people as well because you won't find an old encyclopedia talking about civil unions in acient greek culture ! lol

[Jingthing]

Thanks MrRealDeal, most instructional.

Anyway, we are talking about a US legal matter in the United States.

A country with 50 states and each state having their own unique STATE marriage laws.

Some of those states allow same sex couples to marry in their states under their marriage laws.

Most do not. No same sex marriages are yet recognized at the national level.

Our goal as seekers of truth, justice, freedom and the American way is to have all 50 states allow same sex couples to marry the same as opposite sex couples, and for those same sex marriages to be recognized at the national level.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I don't agree it needs to be the same at all ...... Gay's and hetrosexual people are different obviously , it's pretty sensible to not allow 1st cousins and I will even go the brother route..... but it's a little weird for me ..... not to marry, because the children are likely to have problems. What basis would you have to not allow gay 1st cousins to marry ? And weird as it might seem what medical basis for 2 brothers ? I could go on with other things, but my point is it needs to be based on what it is not based on something similar, but not the same , the differing aspects need to be taken into account when making regulations not just use the same hetrosexual ones.

My point is it should probabbly NOT be the same because the 2 groups are not the same.

[Jingthing]

I'm confused now. You're arguing against including same sex couples in US marriage laws, state and federal recognition? Fine. I passionately disagree and if you're talking about an alternative institution for "others" that is simply impractical and there is no constitutional argument to make that happen nationally for all 50 states. Frankly, I think you're twisting this too much. The path and tactics are crystal clear in America now for gay marriage equality. It's only a matter of time. We have excellent majority support among young people. And you want to talk about siblings having something like a civil union? Absolutely not. Leave me out of it. Not worried. You won't get any support for this diversion.