"I have some sympathy for the lady who got stuck with the larger tax bill upon the death of her partner and I think it was a good case to bring before the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting opinion to here and i've no prejudices or opinions on the outcome."

Me too. I am not for gay marriage, but support civil partnerships with most of the same rights as marriage between a man and a woman. I am not sure how the Supreme Court can rule on this and satisfy both positions.

It might be better if you boned up on the cases then. They are not about civil union equality they are about MARRIAGE equality. The over ONE THOUSAND rights gays are seeking equality on are related to MARRIAGE, not civil unions. What you suggest is basically not a legal option as there are no straight civil unions recognized FEDERALLY that gays can seek to have equal rights to. How convenient. Against marriage equality. For something that can't happen.

Civil partnerships were brought in to give same-sex couples the rights that they said they badly needed. These rights are virtually identical to those of married couples. Being equal does not mean being the same.

Are you talking about the UK? If you're talking about the USA, state gay marriages and civil unions are almost worthless compared to opposite sex marriages at the FEDERAL LEVEL. You're advocating leaving a disliked minority group out of the over ONE THOUSAND rights that you would have if married. That quite simply is not fair.

You know having opinions is cool but having your own FACTS is not so cool when they are blatant falsehoods. State civil unions don't offer equality. State gay MARRIAGES don't either, but that is likely soon to be fixed in the supreme court.

Technically the supreme court has the power to FORCE the states offering gay civil unions to convert those to marriages but they won't do that because of the dominant interpretation of state's rights.

Why don't you point out the "false facts" that I've posted? Probably because I have not posted any.

I'm advocating gay civil unions with all the same rights as marriage between a man and a woman, but with a different name.

Why don't you point out the "false facts" that I've posted? Probably because I have not posted any.

I'm advocating gay civil unions with all the same rights as marriage between a man and a woman, but with a different name.

Sure:

Civil partnerships were brought in to give same-sex couples the rights that they said they badly needed.

Your wording implies these "civil unions" were "brought in" and are now available to all gay Americans.

In reality these "civil unions" are only offered in a small number of U.S. states.

See map:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx

These rights are virtually identical to those of married couples.

No they are not identical. NONE of the state civil unions or marriages available to gay people are included in the OVER ONE THOUSAND rights of heterosexually married under FEDERAL LAW. For example, taxation, immigration, social security survivor's rights. That's what the DOMA case is about. Stopping this outrageous and unfair discrimination. It's the civil rights battle of the current generation.

DOMA cases are about the feds recognizing state MARRIAGES as the same as any marriage. The cases are not about the feds recognizing state civil unions in any way as there are legal complications with that (states rights).

Just to note in case you'd like to state the truth in future. If you had said under STATE laws you would have been posting true information.

Being equal does not mean being the same.

That's a matter of opinion. I'm with the black people on this. Separate but equal is NEVER equal.

If I have learned anything in all this banter it is that JT is dogmatic on what is fair and just and those who believe differently are simply cruel, backward thinking cave dwellers.

If I have learned anything in all this banter it is that JT is dogmatic on what is fair and just and those who believe differently are simply cruel, backward thinking cave dwellers.

So typical. I'm the bad guy for wanting equal civil rights for ALL minority groups, including my own. This is a George Bush moment. Civil rights: you're either for them or agin' em.

Making absurd assertions that gays ALREADY enjoy equal civil rights in America is not going to cut it these days except in Fox News Fake Right Wing Universe.

Do I think people who fight against civil rights for all their fellow citizens are mean spirited? Yes, I most certainly do. How are they not? Apathy I can understand. Actively fighting against others having the same rights as you freaks me out to my very core!

If I have learned anything in all this banter it is that JT is dogmatic on what is fair and just and those who believe differently are simply cruel, backward thinking cave dwellers.

When all your information comes from sources like "Slate" and "Salon" you tend to lose any kind of perspective. When your attention and belief system is driven by whatever the next news cycle coughs up you become a tool for others to use. Such is the state of the media addicted public..

Getting back to gay marriage, which I know isn't the topic here and probably should be its own topic, I have a this opinion. The argument gays make for marriage is largely to benefit the principals in the marriage, while the institution was create to benefit the descendents. IMO that is in complete correlation with the self centeredness and hedonism one so often sees amongst gays. No, not all of course

I fight for gay rights for the gay youth of today and the future and the FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN that many gay people have and wish to have. Not myself anymore, I'm older now. I'm not marrying anybody, thank you very much, and I hope to never live in America again. Yes I started the fight for myself and my peers (WOULDN'T YOU if you were treated as a second class citizen!) when I walked with Harvey Milk and Franklin Kameny ... literally. Typical to trash gay people as selfish. Retro digs that we are all about sex. The same kind of trash which was used to rile up people to hate Jews. Who is selfish? In my view, the narrow minded people who fight like mad to deny a TINY minority the same civil rights they enjoy. If you think gay people are too sexual for your tastes, wouldn't you WANT them to marry ... which is the death of sex for so many?

It's no coincidence at all that the majority of important gay civil rights leaders in America have been gay Jews any more than it was a coincidence how so many white Jews (a TINY minority in America in similar numbers to gays) were actively involved in the early days of the black civil rights movement. Antisemitism, racism, homophobia have a LOT in common.

This thread is supposed to be about Obama, not about Israel, so I won't take this any further. I will, however, remind you of one line in my post

" Will Israel fade away? That would be a sad end to a noble aspiration."

Any state formed on the basis of religion is flawed in my opinion.

This thread is supposed to be about Obama, not about Israel, so I won't take this any further. I will, however, remind you of one line in my post

" Will Israel fade away? That would be a sad end to a noble aspiration."

Any state formed on the basis of religion is flawed in my opinion.

Do they ever sing God Save The Queen at the Church Of England?

This thread is supposed to be about Obama, not about Israel, so I won't take this any further. I will, however, remind you of one line in my post

" Will Israel fade away? That would be a sad end to a noble aspiration."

Any state formed on the basis of religion is flawed in my opinion.

Israel was formed for the Jewish PEOPLE. Not the Jewish RELIGION. Yes many Israelis are religious. Orthodox (the funny clothes) are only NINE PERCENT. Most are SECULAR.

I fight for gay rights for the gay youth of today and the future and the FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN that many gay people have and wish to have. Not myself anymore, I'm older now. I'm not marrying anybody, thank you very much, and I hope to never live in America again. Yes I started the fight for myself and my peers (WOULDN'T YOU if you were treated as a second class citizen!) when I walked with Harvey Milk and Franklin Kameny ... literally. Typical to trash gay people as selfish. Retro digs that we are all about sex. The same kind of trash which was used to rile up people to hate Jews. Who is selfish? In my view, the narrow minded people who fight like mad to deny a TINY minority the same civil rights they enjoy. If you think gay people are too sexual for your tastes, wouldn't you WANT them to marry ... which is the death of sex for so many?

It's no coincidence at all that the majority of important gay civil rights leaders in America have been gay Jews any more than it was a coincidence how so many white Jews (a TINY minority in America in similar numbers to gays) were actively involved in the early days of the black civil rights movement. Antisemitism, racism, homophobia have a LOT in common.

Personally, I don't think consider marriage a civil right. As an agnostic I find my thoughts perfectly congruent with this guy:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/04/the-difficulty-with-engaging-gay-marriage.html

Not only on the gay marriage issue, but also pre nuptial agreements and gay adoption by desire rather than necessity.

Your wording implies these "civil unions" were "brought in" and are now available to all gay Americans.

Are you ever honest? Stop all the spin. I never said or implied that these rights were available to all gays right now, but they are already the law in some places. I said that I support them and that many other people would support them, but changing the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to two men or 3 men and one woman or 3 woman and two men, no way.

The civil rights battle we are talking about is for equal marriage rights between COUPLES. Scare tactics asserting it is about opening up marriage to anything else don't wash. No, Virginia, it is not about marriages of more than two people, it is not about men marrying pencils, it is not about pederastic marriages, it is not about bestiality marriages. It is about two consenting adults of the same sex having the same civil rights as their heterosexual brothers and sisters: PERIOD.

Here is why the civil union excuse is so ridiculous and unjust in the USA. It's well and fine to say OK to civil unions, not OK to gay marriage, but there is NO WAY that civil unions are ever going to have the same FEDERAL rights as marriage in the USA. (Just read up about the current supreme court cases to understand why. You can't fight for equality for something that doesn't EXIST for straight people! That is the American system.) So it's a trick and a trap and an excuse. Basically now its a STALLING tactic; the right wing knows they have lost this issue and it's one of the desperate measures to try to convince people to focus on this dead legal end civil union path that can't possibly get equality results for gay Americans. I know this, I've seen the Fox News heads pushing this same BS meme now. We're not fooled.

I've been advocating gay civil rights for 40 years now. I don't want the gay kids today to have to wait another 40 years. We've waited long enough. It's time for REAL equality. Marriage equality is the ONLY path for this in the USA and that's what we're going to get. Thankfully, the young people get it. 80 percent support now. Be clear I would be FINE with gay civil unions in the USA if that was a viable practical solution that could be done within 10 years and that these civil unions included the OVER ONE THOUSAND federal rights of marriages. But anyone who understands the basics of the USA government system understands that can't happen. The ONLY practical path is MARRIAGE equality.

Personally, I don't think consider marriage a civil right. As an agnostic I find my thoughts perfectly congruent with this guy:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/04/the-difficulty-with-engaging-gay-marriage.html

Not only on the gay marriage issue, but also pre nuptial agreements and gay adoption by desire rather than necessity.

Thanks for sharing your unusual obviously FRINGE opinion. Interesting discussion I suppose for academics. But it doesn't matter. 80 percent of young Americans agree with my position of supporting equal civil rights for gay Americans. So my side has ALREADY WON. Now the only question is: how much longer must we wait?

Not yet, but it WILL be. There are already groups preparing briefs to legalize polygamy if gay marriage is allowed and if two men are allowed to marry each other, other groups will have to be granted their "rights" too.

The civil rights battle we are talking about is for equal marriage rights between COUPLES. Scare tactics asserting it is about opening up marriage to anything else don't wash. No, Virginia, it is not about marriages of more than two people, it is not about men marrying pencils, it is not about pederastic marriages, it is not about bestiality marriages.

Personally, I don't think consider marriage a civil right. As an agnostic I find my thoughts perfectly congruent with this guy:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/04/the-difficulty-with-engaging-gay-marriage.html

Not only on the gay marriage issue, but also pre nuptial agreements and gay adoption by desire rather than necessity.

Thanks for sharing your unusual obviously FRINGE opinion. Interesting discussion I suppose for academics. But it doesn't matter. 80 percent of young Americans agree with my position of supporting equal civil rights for gay Americans. So my side has ALREADY WON. Now the only question is: how much longer must we wait?

I don't think mine is a fringe opinion and i would include myself in that 80% supporting equal civil rights for gay persons. I just don't think marriage is a civil right for gay people. I think most countries have a ways to go on human rights, which are universal, before they selectively focus on what is a "civil" right.

Taking a break from the homosexual marriage thing, Obama needs to be impeached for no reason other than gross incompetence:

"Even as the Obama White House prepares
for a star-studded White House concert featuring Queen Latifah, Cyndi
Lauper, and Justin Timberlake, figures from the U.S. Census Bureau
reveal that roughly 50 million Americans—one in six—now live below the
poverty line."

Simply Appalling

This thread very much underlines the demographics of regular TVF posters.

To most Americans under 30 gay marriage is about as controversial as female voters, Catholic presidents, black quarterbacks, or mixed racial couples. All of these would gave been deemed Impossible or undesirable only a few generations ago. Cultures and nations evolve and adapt constantly....a very healthy state of affairs.

Not everyone agrees with these changes but they happened irrespective of the hold-outs.

On a more practical note it seems that hard electoral statistics is highlighting change re both gay marriage and immigration reform, and both main US parties need to face facts. Have a read of this from a very non-partisan source:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21574479-parallels-between-gay-marriage-and-immigration-reform-empathy-not-enough

Personally, I don't think consider marriage a civil right. As an agnostic I find my thoughts perfectly congruent with this guy:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/04/the-difficulty-with-engaging-gay-marriage.html

Not only on the gay marriage issue, but also pre nuptial agreements and gay adoption by desire rather than necessity.

Thanks for sharing your unusual obviously FRINGE opinion. Interesting discussion I suppose for academics. But it doesn't matter. 80 percent of young Americans agree with my position of supporting equal civil rights for gay Americans. So my side has ALREADY WON. Now the only question is: how much longer must we wait?

I don't think mine is a fringe opinion and i would include myself in that 80% supporting equal civil rights for gay persons. I just don't think marriage is a civil right for gay people. I think most countries have a ways to go on human rights, which are universal, before they selectively focus on what is a "civil" right.

The 80 percent figure supports legalizing gay MARRIAGE. Yes I think that is included in civil rights for gays. You don't.

Not yet, but it WILL be. There are already groups preparing briefs to legalize polygamy if gay marriage is allowed and if two men are allowed to marry each other, other groups will have to be granted their "rights" too.

The civil rights battle we are talking about is for equal marriage rights between COUPLES. Scare tactics asserting it is about opening up marriage to anything else don't wash. No, Virginia, it is not about marriages of more than two people, it is not about men marrying pencils, it is not about pederastic marriages, it is not about bestiality marriages.

You suggest denying gay people civil rights because some other group might seek civil rights later? Where is the logic? Where is the fairness? I've waited 40 years. You suggest gay young people wait forever over your red herring.

If other groups wish marriage rights, such as the previously successful case making discrimination against INTERRACIAL couples unconstitutional and now the soon end of DOMA, then they have every right to file any bloody brief they would like. That doesn't mean they will succeed and that doesn't mean it is justified to deny yet ANOTHER generation of American gay people their rights based on irrational fear mongering about other possibilities that will probably NEVER HAPPEN anyway.

You know your POV is so retro that it wasn't even used in the current supreme court arguments by the anti-gay side.

I don't know what all this has got to do with impeaching Obama, but it all seems to have got a bit silly to me.

If gay people get the rights they're fighting for, does that mean pederasts and bestialists will get legal recognition? Where on earth is the logic in that? Yes, everybody can ask for their 'rights', cannibals, sun-worshippers, flat-earthers, you name them, but that doesn't mean they'll get them.

If this is the standard of argument raised against Obama, he's quite safe from impeachment.

I don't know what all this has got to do with impeaching Obama, but it all seems to have got a bit silly to me.

If gay people get the rights they're fighting for, does that mean pederasts and bestialists will get legal recognition? Where on earth is the logic in that? Yes, everybody can ask for their 'rights', cannibals, sun-worshippers, flat-earthers, you name them, but that doesn't mean they'll get them.

If this is the standard of argument raised against Obama, he's quite safe from impeachment.

All of this has nothing to do with the upcoming impeachment of Obama. All this talk about same sex marriages, immigration reform and gun control are merely smoke screens to keep the main stream media from reporting about the miserable job Obama is doing.

Change the subject and nobody looks at he unemployment figure, the economy or Obama's lack of approval ratings, which by the way he is currently underwater on...46% approve - 47% disapprove.

He will violate the Constitution one time too many and will get what he needs. I still think his lies on Benghazi are bordering on the High Crimes and Misdemeanors requirement but the MSM has it effectively covered up.

Impeachment may not happen but I will not be surprised if it does.

Impeachment won't happen. There are no grounds for it. Disliking Obama's policies doesn't quality. The entire premise of this thread was bogus from the start.

There was no premis to the thread it was just an open question that certain people have morphed into a platform to preach from. IMO the odds are in favor of an empeachment effort being made.

Impeachment

What a farce this administration is becoming.

Losing repeatedly can be emotionally painful.

Agreed - Obama can't even score any baskets (against girls!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9965886/Barack-Obama-has-an-off-day-on-basketball-court.html

Barack Obama managed to shoot just two hoops out of 22 as he tried to show off his basketball skills at the White House Easter festivities.

I particularly liked this part of your link.

"He then handed the ball to a boy and asked for help. "He couldn't make one. I had to help him out," said Kahron Campbell, 10."

He handed this off to a child just like he is handing off the national debt to them

Walking away from basket cases is nothing new for Obama.

Impeachment won't happen. There are no grounds for it. Disliking Obama's policies doesn't quality. The entire premise of this thread was bogus from the start.

It is not disliking his policies that is the problem - it is several other things - such as the non-implementation of promised policies (e.g. the dismantling of Guantanamo 'within a year'), the lying about people, policies and projected actions, the concealing of information, the appointment of corrupt officials, the sheer incompetence of the man.

He probably will not be impeached, after all, the media still appear to like him (they can never admit to their errors) and thus those who would impeach him will be reluctant to have the media opposing them at the next election.

It is not disliking his policies that is the problem - it is several other things - such as the non-implementation of promised policies (e.g. the dismantling of Guantanamo 'within a year'), the lying about people, policies and projected actions, the concealing of information, the appointment of corrupt officials, the sheer incompetence of the man.

on.

Using these grounds for impeachment would have meant almost every US President would have faced impeachment.

What has Obama done that is so different to his predecessors?

There was no premis to the thread it was just an open question that certain people have morphed into a platform to preach from. IMO the odds are in favor of an empeachment effort being made.

Well, too bad there isn't an IQ test for politicians:

: Obama: Fully Automatic Weapon Used In Newtown.

Here’s the White House transcript.

Makes George W. Bush look like Albert Einstein he does...