President Barack Obama declared his belief that “same-sex couples should be able to get married” Wednesday, potentially elevating the polarizing issue of gay marriage to a new level for the 2012 election.

Obama’s previous position was support for civil unions but opposition to same-sex marriage. During the 2008 campaign he said that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. But in recent months, Obama said his views on gay marriage were “evolving.”

The announcement was the first by a sitting president, and Republican challenger Mitt Romney swiftly disagreed with it. “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said while campaigning in Oklahoma.

Gay rights advocates cheered Obama’s declaration, which they had long urged him to make.

“I think it shows what a bold leader he is,” said Steve Hildebrand, an openly gay Sioux Falls-based political strategist who helped manage Obama’s 2008 campaign. “I think he understands the country in a global way that all people should be included in having constitutional rights to marry.”

Obama revealed his decision after a series of events that made clear the political ground was shifting. In an interview with ABC in which he blended the personal and the presidential, Obama said “it wouldn’t dawn” on his daughters, Sasha and Malia, that some of their friends’ parents would be treated differently than others. He said he also thought of aides “who are in incredibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships who are raising kids together.”

Social conservatives condemned the move.

“Marriage is a fundamental bedrock of our society,” said Dale Bartscher, executive director of the Rapid City-based Family Heritage Alliance. “Marriage has been defined through history as that relationship and a union between a man and a woman who make a permanent, exclusive commitment to each other, the type that is naturally or inherently fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together… President Obama’s lack of respect for the definition of marriage is historically unbelievable.”

The president said he was taking a personal position. Aides said the president’s shift would have no impact on current policies, and he continues to believe that marriage is an issue best decided by states.

“I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient,” Obama said in the interview. He added, “I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.”

Now, he said, “it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

South Dakota’s Congressional delegation gave a muted response to Obama’s announcement.

Asked for a comment, Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., released a statement opposing Obama’s new position.

“I disagree with the President and continue to believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Noem said.

Senators Tim Johnson and John Thune were even more cautious.

A spokesman for Thune simply replied by email that the South Dakota Republican’s “position on this issue has not changed.”

Thune has opposed same-sex marriage. In 2006, he released a statement saying that “the fabric of our society is under attack by anti-family activists with a narrow agenda aimed at dissolving the definition of marriage that has existed since the birth of civilization.”

Johnson released a statement saying same-sex marriage wasn’t an issue for Congress.

“Marriage law is a state issue,” Johnson said in the statement. “It is up to each state to decide what its marriage laws are.”

Bartscher predicted Obama’s announcement would galvanize social conservatives to come to the polls and defeat the president.

“I think it is a rallying cry to support the sacred institution of marriage,” Bartscher said.

Don Frankenfeld, a Rapid City economist who is one of the founders of the pro-gay rights group Equality South Dakota, disagreed.

“If you look at raw political dynamic, it’s likely that most of those people who would be happy with the decision are already supporters of Obama, and more importantly, people who would be unhappy with the decision weren’t going to vote for the guy anyway,” Frankenfeld said.

Senior administration officials said Obama came to the conclusion that gay couples should have the right to legally marry earlier this year and had planned to make his views known publicly before the Democratic National Convention in early September.

Hildebrand said he has had discussions with Obama about same-sex marriage since the 2008 election.

“I believe it’s what’s been in his heart for many years,” Hildebrand said of Wednesday’s announcement.

As recently as eight years ago, conservatives in several states maneuvered successfully to place questions relating to gay marriage on the ballot as a way of boosting turnout for President George W. Bush’s re-election.

Now, nationwide polling suggests increasing acceptance of gay marriage. In a national survey released earlier this month, Gallup reported 50 percent of those polled said it should be legal, and 48 percent were opposed. Democrats favored by a margin of roughly 2-1, while Republicans opposed it by an even bigger margin. Among independents, 57 percent expressed support, and 40 percent were opposed.

Frankenfeld said those numbers showed a future where “most states… will allow gay marriage.”

Bartsher disagreed.

“The facts are, 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting marriage,” Bartscher said. “That’s where the people vote. That’s where the people speak. (Obama’s) on the wrong side of this issue.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Contact David Montgomery at 394-8329 or david.montgomery@rapidcityjournal.com

(68) comments

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Oh really? You are basing your argument on the Civil Rights Act, and yet you do not understand that it outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. "[/quote]

I have never mentioned the Civil Rights Act, just civil rights that you do not believe everyone is entitled to for some reason.

925

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Your questions make no sense. "Why respect others right to believe in a religion?" "And not other rights that you now have?" I have no idea what you are trying to write here. So, I will answer it like this: Individuals have the right to choose whichever religion fits into their belief system. "[/quote]

It is not that complicated, you expect others to respect your right to believe in your religion and to respect your right to marriage, but you do not respect the right of marriage for gays because of your religious beliefs.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "People of color? Who are these colored people you are referring to? What does that mean? I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So if someone is a Boricua, are they colored or just olive? Are you referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? What draws the line for someone to fall into your “people of color” category?Same sex marriage is a Civil Rights issue and the use of "people of color" is not politically correct!823"[/quote]

If you recall the above statement you made above. You didn't seem to understand why I was referring to people of color. So, I gave a legal definition from the Civil Rights Act that included "color". Which refers to the color of people's skin.

You are the one that needs to continue to study the Civil Rights Act and movement. Nowhere in that act does it mention same sex marriage. You want to believe that, but what you want to believe is not true.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "Why do you leave out age, disability, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation discriminations that are unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain legally-protected characteristics?801"[/quote]

Go study the Civil Rights Act.

RCFD Dad
RCFD Dad

"Everyone has the same rights, is that specific enough?"

Unless you are a conservative talk show host. Then your First Amendment rights do not apply. Is that correct?

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Oh really? You are basing your argument on the Civil Rights Act, and yet you do not understand that it outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. "[/quote]

Why do you leave out age, disability, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation discriminations that are unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain legally-protected characteristics?

801

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Oh really? You are basing your argument on the Civil Rights Act, and yet you do not understand that it outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. "[/quote]

You need to get up to speed on your knowledge of Civil Rights! Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

750

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "People of color? Who are these colored people you are referring to? What does that mean? I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So if someone is a Boricua, are they colored or just olive? Are you referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? What draws the line for someone to fall into your “people of color” category?Same sex marriage is a Civil Rights issue and the use of "people of color" is not politically correct!823"[/quote]

The civil rights movement began a long time ago, so you should read up on your history. It was basically a protest against racial oppression. You see at one time the only people allowed to vote or own property where white males.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "People of color? Who are these colored people you are referring to? What does that mean? I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So if someone is a Boricua, are they colored or just olive? Are you referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? What draws the line for someone to fall into your “people of color” category?Same sex marriage is a Civil Rights issue and the use of "people of color" is not politically correct!823"[/quote]

Oh really? You are basing your argument on the Civil Rights Act, and yet you do not understand that it outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Marriage is still based on a strong commitment of a man and woman to raise their children together and/or legitimizing their children/bloodline and or carrying the Fathers' name."[/quote]

So according to your theory, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Who is it that is pushing an agenda?

904

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "That was still between a man and a woman, right? Again, men and women have been getting married for thousands of years because of reasons beyond your comprehension or actually what you prefer not to accept. So, you can downplay marriage and simplify it all you want in your own mind, but your reasoning of being irresponsible or its the "money benefit" has nothing to do with marriage.Marriage is a commitment that is based on a lot more then, only money, sex or love. People have married for many different reason throughout the generations, but marriage is still based on a strong commitment of a man and woman to raise their children together and/or legitimizing their children/bloodline and or carrying the Fathers' name. And even that much is only part of the story.What you want to do is redefine marriage. No, thank you. Again, stop riding off the backs of people of color, to push your own agenda. "[/quote]

People of color? Who are these colored people you are referring to? What does that mean? I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So if someone is a Boricua, are they colored or just olive? Are you referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? What draws the line for someone to fall into your “people of color” category?

Same sex marriage is a Civil Rights issue and the use of "people of color" is not politically correct!

823

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "Why do you think that all people should respect each others right on the issue of religion but not other rights that you now have?Since when did the preservation of religious liberty require treating members of a minority like second-class citizens?451"[/quote]

Your questions make no sense. "Why respect others right to believe in a religion?" "And not other rights that you now have?" I have no idea what you are trying to write here. So, I will answer it like this: Individuals have the right to choose whichever religion fits into their belief system.

tacollection

And to think this all started by saying "One man One woman" like the Bible says and stateing "just dont use the Bible or a priest if you want to be married"...simply I was suggesting,go to a Judge and get it done if its for legal purposes and simple piece of paper with no Biblical meaning if you're Gay.Oh,and to clearify,thats 3 female gays and 2 male.Have you read on Ron Paul yet?Whats your negative take on him?Im registered to vote Independently,because I vote on the best qualified,prior military,and us citizenship,and ideas they have.I dont vote baseing it on race,sex or religion.If you wanted a first black president in office,they should have put Colin Powell (democratic/republican)in the running!Now that would have been AWESOME!!!If he would say accepting Gay marrage was going to be ok,Id still vote for him,because he has more going for him than an opinion on gay rights..but I still wouldnt want it done useing the Bible.See where Im going with this?Thats haveing an open mind and an opinion.

tacollection

Buldog,thanks for posting the original plan for this country with peoples rights...I think thats what Ron Pauls trying to resolve to going back to...better read up on someone of Great possibilities if you want some REAL CHANGE!

Kernall

[quote]Live Every Moment said: ""I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how gay marriage harms them."It harms the institution of marriage. Words mean things and the holy institution of matrimony is one man joining one woman. Once you redefine marriage for gays, what's next? I want you to specifically tell me what is next for marriage once we go down this road. Be specific."[/quote]

This is a religious argument to a legal question and I reject that wholeheartedly. Legal precedent should not be set by religious edict. Otherwise divorce would be illegal.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights? They wanted the same rights as other couples, but conservatives insisted they really wanted special rights. After all, no one was allowed to marry members of another race, so all were treated equally. Right? It is a profound insult to tell people that their desire to enjoy the same basic rights as other Americans is really a desire to have “special” rights unavailable to others. It’s possible that some Christians do consider housing, jobs, and medical care to be “unusual demands” — at least, when it comes to gays. According to the christian right, homosexuality is condemned by God, so perhaps they don’t deserve the ability to hold a job, to buy food, or to find shelter like other citizens, especially the christian right citizens.319"[/quote]

That was still between a man and a woman, right? Again, men and women have been getting married for thousands of years because of reasons beyond your comprehension or actually what you prefer not to accept.

So, you can downplay marriage and simplify it all you want in your own mind, but your reasoning of being irresponsible or its the "money benefit" has nothing to do with marriage.

Marriage is a commitment that is based on a lot more then, only money, sex or love. People have married for many different reason throughout the generations, but marriage is still based on a strong commitment of a man and woman to raise their children together and/or legitimizing their children/bloodline and or carrying the Fathers' name. And even that much is only part of the story.

What you want to do is redefine marriage. No, thank you.

Again, stop riding off the backs of people of color, to push your own agenda.


Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "So, you seem to have more a problem with Christians? Well, maybe you should study the Constitution and read the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.All people should respect each others rights on this issue. "[/quote]

Why do you think that all people should respect each others right on the issue of religion but not other rights that you now have?

Since when did the preservation of religious liberty require treating members of a minority like second-class citizens?

451

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]Kernall said: "Beyond that, I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how gay marriage harms them. Please, someone, tell me. "[/quote]

Good luck on that one, it ain't gonna happen cuz there is not a cogent argument!

448

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]Live Every Moment said: ""I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how gay marriage harms them."It harms the institution of marriage. Words mean things and the holy institution of matrimony is one man joining one woman. Once you redefine marriage for gays, what's next? I want you to specifically tell me what is next for marriage once we go down this road. Be specific."[/quote]

Everyone has the same rights, is that specific enough?

444

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Kernall said: "You're wrong on a couple of points here.As to point #1: Sure they can visit, but they don't have the generally accepted next of kin rights. So, this means if their significant other is incapacitated(Think coma), they are unable to make end of life and/or other care related decisions. Something a girlfriend/boyfriend in a hetero relationship would also be unable to do. This can be mitigated through power of attorney, but that's usually something that needs to be in place ahead of time. But, in life accidents happen, and that's not feasible.Your second point: Same issue, there's no automatic next of kin in place, so a will is absolutely necessary, but, again, people die unexpectedly and may not be prepared.Third point: I don't really think it's about kids. Though there are some murky legalities there as well concerning adoption and again next of kin issues for custody. Finally, and this is just in response to your attitude in general. You seem to think that it's all about sex, which is rather narrow minded. Is a hetero marriage just about the sex? No. So why do you assume gay relationships are the same? Beyond that, I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how gay marriage harms them. Please, someone, tell me. "[/quote]

1. There is such a thing as a living will. It is available to anyone.

2. Because one is unprepared does not mean they are being discriminated against. It simply means they need to act responsibly and get a will done.

3. Exactly my point in the earlier post and the message remains the same. Marriage is much more than what your agenda wants to simplify it out to be.

Buldog
Buldog

When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights? They wanted the same rights as other couples, but conservatives insisted they really wanted special rights. After all, no one was allowed to marry members of another race, so all were treated equally. Right? It is a profound insult to tell people that their desire to enjoy the same basic rights as other Americans is really a desire to have “special” rights unavailable to others. It’s possible that some Christians do consider housing, jobs, and medical care to be “unusual demands” — at least, when it comes to gays. According to the christian right, homosexuality is condemned by God, so perhaps they don’t deserve the ability to hold a job, to buy food, or to find shelter like other citizens, especially the christian right citizens.

319

Live Every Moment
Live Every Moment

"I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how gay marriage harms them."

It harms the institution of marriage. Words mean things and the holy institution of matrimony is one man joining one woman. Once you redefine marriage for gays, what's next? I want you to specifically tell me what is next for marriage once we go down this road. Be specific.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Again, this issue is so not a civil rights issue. How dare you compare people of color who were asking for rights to pass on their culture to their children, to people who have a different preference to sex. There is no culture, religious belief, language, etc. that you are trying to pass on to your children. No, you just want to have sex with a man and make the rest of us validate it for you. Well, go to therapy to learn to validate yourself. I need to have "special rights" because I am a man who wants to have sex with a man argument is ridiculous. Go have sex with whoever you want and whenever you want, but don't expect the rest of the nation to have to validate it. "[/quote]

You need to familiarize yourself with the definition of "Civil Rights" it does not only pertain to "people of color" as you say. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

Also, what gives you the right to say or even think that two gay men (it also appears that you only think gay people are men)only want to be together for sex? You seem to be way to hung up on "people of color and who is having sex.

300

Kernall

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "First, all men and women can visit their loved ones in the hospital. As a matter of fact, a man can visit his girlfriend in the hospital. vice versa. There isn't a married only rule to visit ones loved ones in a hospital. Second, make a will and leave whatever you want to whoever you want. Third, people don't have to be married to claim their children as dependents. Is this the "legal benefit" you are referring to? Again, I don't see why some men or women would need "special rights" because of the difference in the way they have sex. "[/quote]


You're wrong on a couple of points here.

As to point #1: Sure they can visit, but they don't have the generally accepted next of kin rights. So, this means if their significant other is incapacitated(Think coma), they are unable to make end of life and/or other care related decisions. Something a girlfriend/boyfriend in a hetero relationship would also be unable to do. This can be mitigated through power of attorney, but that's usually something that needs to be in place ahead of time. But, in life accidents happen, and that's not feasible.

Your second point: Same issue, there's no automatic next of kin in place, so a will is absolutely necessary, but, again, people die unexpectedly and may not be prepared.

Third point: I don't really think it's about kids. Though there are some murky legalities there as well concerning adoption and again next of kin issues for custody.

Finally, and this is just in response to your attitude in general. You seem to think that it's all about sex, which is rather narrow minded. Is a hetero marriage just about the sex? No. So why do you assume gay relationships are the same?

Beyond that, I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how gay marriage harms them. Please, someone, tell me.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "Ironically, there is a class of “special rights” in America — but for religious believers, not gays. If a person has a sincere religious belief, they can apply for — and are usually granted — exemptions from generally applicable and neutral laws. Employers, too, are required to accommodate people’s religious beliefs even if this means exempting them from generally applicable, neutral rules in the workplace.Religious believers enjoy a broad array of special rights and privileges unavailable to others who may want exemptions for non-religious reasons; yet some of these same religious believers whine about gays demanding “special rights” for themselves — rights which amount to no more than the same civil protections which everyone else enjoys. When Christians demand exemptions from laws everyone else has to follow, they are simply demanding the ability to freely exercise their religion; when gays simply want to be able to work and shop without being discriminated against, they are unjustly demanding "special" rights. "[/quote]

So, you seem to have more a problem with Christians? Well, maybe you should study the Constitution and read the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

All people should respect each others rights on this issue.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "Sorry but a lifetime democrat does not preach a very common Christian Right argument against protecting gays’ basic civil rights, is that gays are seeking “special rights" unavailable to others. Your argument is untrue, and it's also hypocritical because if any group in America is benefiting from and defending special rights for themselves, it’s you religious believers. Why do you favor restrictions on gays which you would never accept for yourself? "[/quote]

Again, this issue is so not a civil rights issue. How dare you compare people of color who were asking for rights to pass on their culture to their children, to people who have a different preference to sex. There is no culture, religious belief, language, etc. that you are trying to pass on to your children.

No, you just want to have sex with a man and make the rest of us validate it for you. Well, go to therapy to learn to validate yourself. I need to have "special rights" because I am a man who wants to have sex with a man argument is ridiculous. Go have sex with whoever you want and whenever you want, but don't expect the rest of the nation to have to validate it.

Buldog
Buldog

Ironically, there is a class of “special rights” in America — but for religious believers, not gays. If a person has a sincere religious belief, they can apply for — and are usually granted — exemptions from generally applicable and neutral laws. Employers, too, are required to accommodate people’s religious beliefs even if this means exempting them from generally applicable, neutral rules in the workplace.

Religious believers enjoy a broad array of special rights and privileges unavailable to others who may want exemptions for non-religious reasons; yet some of these same religious believers whine about gays demanding “special rights” for themselves — rights which amount to no more than the same civil protections which everyone else enjoys. When Christians demand exemptions from laws everyone else has to follow, they are simply demanding the ability to freely exercise their religion; when gays simply want to be able to work and shop without being discriminated against, they are unjustly demanding "special" rights.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Kernall said: "You know, I'm pretty liberal and this is one issue I just don't understand the opposition to. There is absolutely no impact on the conservative right if gays are getting married and living together. None whatsoever. Now, you don't want the religious implications, and I get that, but that's up to your faith leaders whether or not priests/pastors/imams/whatevers can marry two people.Now if that's where the benefits of marriage ended, I wouldn't care one bit if it was legal or not for gays to get hitched. But, married people get tax breaks and there are other legal ramifications(medical visitation, property remediation,etc.) that is built around "marriage" that need to be addressed. So, to the married conservatives, when you're ready to give up all your legal benefits of being married, I'm willing to back your assertion that marriage is moral issue and not a legal rights issue."[/quote]

First, all men and women can visit their loved ones in the hospital. As a matter of fact, a man can visit his girlfriend in the hospital. vice versa. There isn't a married only rule to visit ones loved ones in a hospital.

Second, make a will and leave whatever you want to whoever you want.

Third, people don't have to be married to claim their children as dependents. Is this the "legal benefit" you are referring to?

Again, I don't see why some men or women would need "special rights" because of the difference in the way they have sex.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "It is not a civil rights issue. Two men have decided to have sex with each other. Suddenly they deserve "special" rights. I don't think so. I am a lifetime Democrat and I will NOT be voting for Obama this time. "[/quote]

Sorry but a lifetime democrat does not preach a very common Christian Right argument against protecting gays’ basic civil rights, is that gays are seeking “special rights" unavailable to others. Your argument is untrue, and it's also hypocritical because if any group in America is benefiting from and defending special rights for themselves, it’s you religious believers. Why do you favor restrictions on gays which you would never accept for yourself?

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

[quote]Buldog said: "Contrary to what you believe, not all men and women that are married have children for what ever reasons, and not everyone gets married for just the "sex act".I am not sure just what you mean or are trying to say when you said, "I personally, am tiring of the gblt community using a person of color's rights to push their own agenda, which to me is to force on us to recognize a special interest group which is based on a sex act." Maybe you could explain "a person of color's rights to push their own agenda", are you referring to Obama of do you believe the only people that are gay are a "person of color"? Please explain what you think is "their own agenda" and just how it is "based on a sex act"? Do you also believe that gays are only marrying for the "sex act" and that gays are incapable of making a commitment?Will you not vote for Obama because of his stand on gay marriage but you will vote for romney even though he committed a hate crime by physically attacking and cutting the hair of one of his high school classmates who was gay. Based on your comments, I find it very hard to believe that you are a "life long democrat". I won't even get into romney's and the republican partys views on women."[/quote]

It is not a civil rights issue. Two men have decided to have sex with each other. Suddenly they deserve "special" rights. I don't think so.

I am a lifetime Democrat and I will NOT be voting for Obama this time.

BobJones
BobJones

Really, anyone can say anything on these blogs. Or, when original thought is in short supply, anyone can copy someone else's post.

Kernall

You know, I'm pretty liberal and this is one issue I just don't understand the opposition to.

There is absolutely no impact on the conservative right if gays are getting married and living together. None whatsoever. Now, you don't want the religious implications, and I get that, but that's up to your faith leaders whether or not priests/pastors/imams/whatevers can marry two people.

Now if that's where the benefits of marriage ended, I wouldn't care one bit if it was legal or not for gays to get hitched. But, married people get tax breaks and there are other legal ramifications(medical visitation, property remediation,etc.) that is built around "marriage" that need to be addressed.

So, to the married conservatives, when you're ready to give up all your legal benefits of being married, I'm willing to back your assertion that marriage is moral issue and not a legal rights issue.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]Glock10mm said: "Try to remember that your president is Obama, not Limbaugh or Hannity. I'm not sure I understand why they always come up in any discussion about Obama or his defeat this November. Everyone on the left, please repeat this three times: "Obama is President. He will have to take responsibility for something soon.""[/quote]

Really, anyone can say anything on these blogs. It doesn't have to be true...or even close to reality. Case in point.

748

Glock10mm
Glock10mm

Try to remember that your president is Obama, not Limbaugh or Hannity. I'm not sure I understand why they always come up in any discussion about Obama or his defeat this November. Everyone on the left, please repeat this three times: "Obama is President. He will have to take responsibility for something soon."

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]evanescent7077 said: "Marriage is more than this silly thing they call love. Marriage is a commitment. A commitment made by a man and a woman to become one. A commitment made to legitimize their children, which will eventually be born to them. Each child being a part of the man and the woman, which now allows the man and woman to become one again. As to pass along the family name; bloodline. A man and a woman always have a chance to produce offspring. Never has it been that a man and a man will produce this type of commitment. If this is the way it should be; than the Earth would have all males. Women are there for a reason. Men are there for a reason. It is not discriminatory to use common sense. I personally, am tiring of the gblt community using a person of color's rights to push their own agenda, which to me is to force on us to recognize a special interest group which is based on a sex act. There is much more to marriage than a sex act and "love". Although, my vote may not count all that much coming from a small state. I, as a lifetime Democrat and a woman, will NOT vote for Obama and although I am not that happy with Romney; I will vote for him. "[/quote]

Contrary to what you believe, not all men and women that are married have children for what ever reasons, and not everyone gets married for just the "sex act".

I am not sure just what you mean or are trying to say when you said, "I personally, am tiring of the gblt community using a person of color's rights to push their own agenda, which to me is to force on us to recognize a special interest group which is based on a sex act." Maybe you could explain "a person of color's rights to push their own agenda", are you referring to Obama of do you believe the only people that are gay are a "person of color"? Please explain what you think is "their own agenda" and just how it is "based on a sex act"? Do you also believe that gays are only marrying for the "sex act" and that gays are incapable of making a commitment?

Will you not vote for Obama because of his stand on gay marriage but you will vote for romney even though he committed a hate crime by physically attacking and cutting the hair of one of his high school classmates who was gay. Based on your comments, I find it very hard to believe that you are a "life long democrat". I won't even get into romney's and the republican partys views on women.

evanescent7077
evanescent7077

Marriage is more than this silly thing they call love. Marriage is a commitment. A commitment made by a man and a woman to become one. A commitment made to legitimize their children, which will eventually be born to them. Each child being a part of the man and the woman, which now allows the man and woman to become one again. As to pass along the family name; bloodline. A man and a woman always have a chance to produce offspring.

Never has it been that a man and a man will produce this type of commitment. If this is the way it should be; than the Earth would have all males. Women are there for a reason. Men are there for a reason. It is not discriminatory to use common sense. I personally, am tiring of the gblt community using a person of color's rights to push their own agenda, which to me is to force on us to recognize a special interest group which is based on a sex act. There is much more to marriage than a sex act and "love".

Although, my vote may not count all that much coming from a small state. I, as a lifetime Democrat and a woman, will NOT vote for Obama and although I am not that happy with Romney; I will vote for him.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]tacollection said: "Of course he would approve of it...he doesnt believe in what the Bible says...One man,one woman.If you dont believe in the Bible(what the country was built on originally)and your not from this country(that supports this country and everything about it)why wouldnt it be OK?This was a given answer from him wihout even asking him.I have no issues with people being gay,and if you want to be married,use another book and not a priest.I Have many gay friends and accept them for who they are(HILLARIOUS PEOPLE whos company I enjoy!)but I cant approve of marrage.Just my opinion,just like peoples opinion of not believeing in the Bible."[/quote]

Your opposition to gay marriage is based solely in religious dogmata, and by legislating against same-sex marriage, Republicans are sanctioning church-based discrimination laws that are unconstitutional.

From this country’s founding, equal rights for all citizens was an admirable goal that never materialized despite the sacrifices and hard work of various groups. It is astonishing, and shameful, that after 236 years, there has been progress to fulfill Jefferson’s ideal that “all men are created equal” and have “certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but more than half the population faces discrimination every day in every aspect of their lives and do not enjoy equal rights. It is unfortunate, but Republicans have not embraced equal rights for all Americans and their drive to subject women to inequality and discrimination is only matched by their punitive actions to restrict gays from marrying the person they love. President Obama has been tireless in advocating for equal rights for women, minorities and gays, but his historic announcement on Wednesday that he supports gay marriage defines him as a true advocate for equal rights for all Americans unlike you, most republicans and Obama's opponent in the upcoming election, willard romney, who brutally, mean-spirited and physically assaulted a gay person.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]tacollection said: "Of course he would approve of it...he doesnt believe in what the Bible says...One man,one woman.If you dont believe in the Bible(what the country was built on originally)and your not from this country(that supports this country and everything about it)why wouldnt it be OK?This was a given answer from him wihout even asking him.I have no issues with people being gay,and if you want to be married,use another book and not a priest.I Have many gay friends and accept them for who they are(HILLARIOUS PEOPLE whos company I enjoy!)but I cant approve of marrage.Just my opinion,just like peoples opinion of not believeing in the Bible."[/quote]

I would have to question if your "many gay friends" consider you to be much of a friend because of the fact that you do not believe they are entitled to the same rights you are just because they are gay and because of your "bible".

927

tacollection

Of course he would approve of it...he doesnt believe in what the Bible says...One man,one woman.If you dont believe in the Bible(what the country was built on originally)and your not from this country(that supports this country and everything about it)why wouldnt it be OK?This was a given answer from him wihout even asking him.I have no issues with people being gay,and if you want to be married,use another book and not a priest.I Have many gay friends and accept them for who they are(HILLARIOUS PEOPLE whos company I enjoy!)but I cant approve of marrage.Just my opinion,just like peoples opinion of not believeing in the Bible.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]BobJones said: ""It won't be to long before conservative GOP politicians will be losing in their own back yard..."I can tell someone hasn't been watching the polls. See you in November. It's shaping up to be even better than 2010."[/quote]

There are other polls out there than the limpbaugh hannity daily brainwashing ones.

Buldog
Buldog

[quote]BobJones said: ""Spoken in true Republican fashion..."I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. Secondly, Obama's war on traditional marriage is an excellent winning strategy for November. I encourage him and you to keep pushing that agenda. I want you to make it your number one priority."[/quote]

You do realize that the undisputed leader of your party, maha rushie limbaugh, has destroyed three times more "traditional marriages" than President Obama has with his support of same sex marriage.

BobJones
BobJones

"It won't be to long before conservative GOP politicians will be losing in their own back yard..."

I can tell someone hasn't been watching the polls. See you in November. It's shaping up to be even better than 2010.

BushLeague
BushLeague

If someone can honestly tell me how allowing gay couples to get married will adversley affect their lives I would love to hear it. Is it so wrong to allow two people who love each other to express that love and gain the legal protections that come along with it? Please tell me what is so wrong about being gay? peole that argue against gay marriage claim it's a war against "traditional marriage" but it's a war against homosexuals. Plain and simple if you don't like gays and feel they should be treated like scond class citizens come out and say it.

if it's all about defending traditional marriage then why not take Just Another Taxpayers advice:

"I would only say that "marriage" is a tradition that also involves religion. So why not get the government out of "marriage" and religion for that matter. Say that everyone has a civil union, and if you want to get "married" go to a church."
So what say ye defenders of "traditional marriage"? Would this satisfy your concerns? Give people that get civil unions the same legal rights and protections as a "married" couple but don't call it a "traditional marriage".

Buldog
Buldog

It won't be to long before conservative GOP politicians will be losing in their own back yard because they failed to evolve like the majority of their own constituency did.

326

BobJones
BobJones

"Spoken in true Republican fashion..."

I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. Secondly, Obama's war on traditional marriage is an excellent winning strategy for November. I encourage him and you to keep pushing that agenda. I want you to make it your number one priority.

Just Another Taxpayer

BobJones:

"It is the big government libs that gave us this situation. Dependence on (addiction to?) government has it's consequences."

I agree with you, and that's exactly my point. On this issue Republicans (conservatives) are acting like the Democrats. I am guessing you are an older conservative. Back in the day conservatism meant the government out of our lives. Or maybe it didn't. Maybe that's why most "newer" conservatives lean more towards libertarianism. And if the conservative movement keeps the social conservative side then it will die.

I just want to be left alone to do what I want, and I hope the government goes back in the direction. If the Democrats don't do it, and the Republicans don't do it. Then who will?

Chevitz

[quote]BobJones said: ""...leave your religious biases out of it."LOL! I generally don't abandon my religious biases (aka beliefs) for anyone or anything. But just for the point of debate, I will leave my religious biases out of it, if you leave your liberal biases out of it. Deal?"[/quote]

Spoken in true Republican fashion, just use the part of the quote you think will provide the best shock value.

I said, "If you want this to be a state or federal issue you need to leave your religious biases out of it."

As this country through many different decisions has decided to uphold the separation of church and state, if you think same-sex marriage is wrong on any other basis besides your own religious biases then please proceed. If the only reason you and your supporters can muster up is, "Because the Bible says its wrong", then move aside. Your religious beliefs are not enough of a basis to attempt to prevent equal treatment for all Americans.

BobJones
BobJones

"...but the government should not be dictating what I can do with another adult..."

I hate to break the news to you, but government dictates what you can and can't do all day long in just about every scenario you can imagine. It is the big government libs that gave us this situation. Dependence on (addiction to?) government has it's consequences.

Just Another Taxpayer

acebandage:

I didn't realize that killing someone is morally wrong. Here I thought it was because everyone was granted the same rights under the Constitution which includes the right to live. That has nothing to do with morality. In fact you could say the original Constitution was immoral because it allowed for slavery.

Prostitution is illegal and mainly because people think that is immoral. It may be, but should we stop letting two consenting adults decide what they want to do? People are saying homosexuality is immoral. Again, it may be, but should the law tell them what to do?

Again I ask if we all of sudden adopted the Koran. Should the government make us pray 5 times a day to Allah? Should the women have to wear burkas? Would you be ok with that?

Just Another Taxpayer

BobJones:

Politicians defined the law as marriage between a man and a woman. That's fine, but then allow civil unions. Call it something else, but the government should not be dictating what I can do with another adult whether I am straight/gay/lesbian/bi/whatever. I fail to see how it is intruding in your life. Is it stopping you from doing something? Is today different from yesterday? What is more intruding is smoking bans and raising cigarette prices because it doesn't like me smoking. That is actually something that affects my life.

BobJones
BobJones

"...leave your religious biases out of it."

LOL! I generally don't abandon my religious biases (aka beliefs) for anyone or anything. But just for the point of debate, I will leave my religious biases out of it, if you leave your liberal biases out of it. Deal?

acebandage

[quote]Just Another Taxpayer said: " The government should not pass "moral" laws. What is moral to you may not be moral to me.

I would argue that almost every law IS a moral law. For example--murder is illegal; 5th commandment--Thou shalt not kill. Burglary, theft--illegal. Seventh commandment-Thou shalt not steal. Etc., etc.

As an aside, how can anyone NOT see Mr. Obama's decision as a political move to garner votes?? Let's wait and see if, during the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama accuses Mr. Romney of changing his mind and flip-flopping. Romney will have an excellent excuse--his thinking has just "evolved." LOL

BobJones
BobJones

"I thought "conservatives" were supposed to be about free will and personal responsibility?"

That's why we "conservatives" despise big government intrusion into our lives, and its redefining marriage.

BobJones
BobJones

This is a non-issue. Everybody already knew Obama supports redefining marriage. He just never had the courage to state it publicly because it's not a winner at the ballot box. Almost everywhere this is voted on, states shoot down by a large margin. It's not even close. Obama will be judged by his utter inadequacy with the economy and national debt first and foremost. Other failures (especially with his leftist social engineering agenda) will be a distant second.

Chevitz

[quote]timal74 said: "You can quote polls if you like the fact of the matter is that over 30 states have voted to keep marriage as 1 man and and 1 woman (Noth Carolina being the most recent). Homosexuality is not a civil right. We can't pick and choice what we consider right and wrong moral values because of our own selfish lusts. This is clearly pointed out in the Bible. "If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under""[/quote]

Please enlighten us all where the Bible clearly points out that marriage is between one man and one woman. Many Biblical figures had multiple wives, and the good ole Leviticus argument is just an arcane argument. If you support the Levitical translation of abominating homosexuality I hope you don't wear cotton or trim your hair on the side of your hear or your beard, or eat your meat with any bit of blood in it. As these are listed in the same level of abominations.

If you want this to be a state or federal issue you need to leave your religious biases out of it.

Just Another Taxpayer

timal74 and any other social conservative:

"We can't pick and choice what we consider right and wrong moral values because of our own selfish lusts. This is clearly pointed out in the Bible. "If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under"

I consider myself a conservative if by conservative you mean limited/smaller government. The government should not pass "moral" laws. What is moral to you may not be moral to me. If you are a Christian would you want the government run by the Koran?

If you are against homosexuality because if religion that is fine, and I respect your opinion, but I thought "conservatives" were supposed to be about free will and personal responsibility? This social conservative stuff is doomed. You can't say "Let me do what I want" and then go say "Ban gay people from having sex".

timal74

You can quote polls if you like the fact of the matter is that over 30 states have voted to keep marriage as 1 man and and 1 woman (Noth Carolina being the most recent). Homosexuality is not a civil right. We can't pick and choice what we consider right and wrong moral values because of our own selfish lusts. This is clearly pointed out in the Bible. "If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under"

Adam

[quote]Inthemiddle said: "To the people that think this is a great gesture from the President are being fooled. It's a desperate attempt for votes in November. You would presume this support would already of been known. Take into consideration all of the issues he platformed in 2008 he didn't follow through with and I believe you'll get the point I'm trying to make here. "[/quote]

Sorry Inthemiddle, I believe that all of us that support equal rights, and marriage rights for all have and will continue to support President Obama. He has followed through with all of his platform issues, however because the republican representation blocks absolutely everything we have not seen the amount of change necessary. This next election will be a landslide, and we can only hope that all senators and representatives that have blocked change will be out.

SharpShtik

The only polls that matter are those done by honest pollsters taking a realistic sample asking clear questions. Since 42 states complied with voter sentiment to expressly define marriage to thwart further left-wing con law judges from trying to govern by fiat, while left-wing Democrats interfered with the wishes of voters in other states, e.g., California, it is completely dishonest to argue that a majority of Americans favor redefining marriage as including same gender couples. Arguing that your minority opinion is the majority opinion is merely a childish tactic to fabricate non-existent support and inevitability. So far in Democrats' War on Americans to "fundamentally transform" the America they hate so much, Americans are still winning.

jhunter246

Polls are never a clear indicator with any issue people find interest with. The only way to say these polls tell the accurate truth is you'd have to include every single adult in this country. Bob Jones is more than likely telling the truth if he's followed polls with a majority of 'like minded' individuals in the poll. Same would apply for the people saying the polls they have seen discredit BobJones. Either way, I think for myself and not what a small or large number of people think that take part in these silly studies.

Just Another Taxpayer

I don't understand why everyone says President Obama is "brave". VP Biden came out, said he was for it, and then the President had to follow suit. If he came out 2 weeks ago, and said "I am for same sex marriage" it would be a different story.

With that said, as a conservative I don't think the government should be interfering in our lives, or telling us what we can and can't do. I would only say that "marriage" is a tradition that also involves religion. So why not get the government out of "marriage" and religion for that matter. Say that everyone has a civil union, and if you want to get "married" go to a church.

ZAR
ZAR

As usual Bob, your facts aren't true, according to gallup 53% of americans believe that Gay couples should have the freedom to marry the person that they have fallen in love with. As far as Obamas war on marriage goes that is just plain drivel :)

Chevitz

Well BobJones, unfortunately American public opinion is not at a point of showing a CLEAR preference to NOT allow all loving monogamous couples to engage in the public statement of their love through marriage.

On May 8, 2012, A new Gallup poll showed support for marriage equality steady at 50 percent nationwide. Both Democrats (65-34) and Independents (57-40) want same-sex marriage to be legal, but as David Badash notes, Republicans are becoming increasingly anti-gay (22-74).

Between April 4-15, the Pew Research Center showed 47% overall support with 43% disapproval and 11% unsure on the issue of same-sex marriage. The approval numbers were up 16% from the same survey done in 2004 and up 8% from the same survey in 2008. On the flip side the disapproval numbers were down 16% and 8% from the 2004 and 2008 polls respectively.

The list goes on and on for growing approval of extending rights in full marriage to all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation. These are the same civil rights issues that other minority groups have faced in the last century. Remember there was a time in our country that African Americans and women were treated as second class citizens. We have moved away from that because of a growing awareness and public policy changes to embrace what was once seen as wrong or different. The tide is turning the same direction on marriage equality and I for one laud the President for taking the right step forward on the issue.

Jason
Jason

[quote]BobJones said: "In almost every poll across the United States (except for California), Americans have stated a clear preference for NOT allowing marriage to be redefined."[/quote] There are two problems with this. First, civil rights should not be defined by popular will. Second, this statement is actually wrong. Several recent polls have shown the general American population evenly divided within statistical margins, within some polls showing support (again within the margin of error). I would highlight Gallup and Pew as two recent, reliable pollsters who have these results in recent polls.

Chris Good Eagle

Actually BobJones what ever polls your referring to are about 5+ years old. Currently poll's (I'm referring the the PEW and Gallop polls, most resent gallop from 5-8) shows americans at 53% approving of marriage equality. Its a narrow margin but it is increasing.

SharpShtik

Constitutional Amendments to define marriage are required to stop incompetent, dishonest or worse judges from continuing to render “marriage” so meaningless that any relationship qualifies under it. Since marriage law equally recognizes each person has the exact same right to get married (i.e. to a person of age of the opposite sex), individual equal protection is clearly satisfied (as admitted even by the all-Democrat Vermont Supreme Court in 2003). Therefore, the issue presented by homosexuals is one of group rights, i.e., group A (male, female), group B (male, male), group C (female, female), whether these groups are similarly situated and whether they are treated differently without a rational basis in violation of equal protection law. Equal protection is satisfied because these groups are not similarly situated and they are treated differently with a rational basis. Only group A can reproduce & raise its own natural, biological children, which is impossible for groups B , C. Exceptions where married couples don’t or can’t have children doesn’t change the facts that (a) 100% of same-sex “couples” cannot reproduce & raise their own biological children & (b) homosexuality is different & deviant compared to heterosexuality. Biology/nature itself provides the rational basis for a dividing line between groups. Homosexuals are irrationally calling biology irrational. Whether a state should provide an additional contractual relationship called civil unions or expand the definition of marriage to expand the rights each person has (e.g. to “marry” one or more persons of the same sex) is a purely political decision where judicial opinions are irrelevant. States are not required to title or treat different kinds of contracts or groups-entities the same, e.g., corporations can be treated differently than partnerships and, likewise, marriage contracts can be treated differently than homosexual contracts. The same person could join either group, but can be treated differently depending on which group he/she joins. Thus, all along the homosexual argument has been and remains without merit. Constitutional amendments merely try to put an end to the damage being done by incompetent, dishonest or worse judges.

Inthemiddle

To the people that think this is a great gesture from the President are being fooled. It's a desperate attempt for votes in November. You would presume this support would already of been known. Take into consideration all of the issues he platformed in 2008 he didn't follow through with and I believe you'll get the point I'm trying to make here.

BobJones
BobJones

In almost every poll across the United States (except for California), Americans have stated a clear preference for NOT allowing marriage to be redefined. Thank you Biden for forcing Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage. I was hoping that the election in November would boil down to Obama and his war on traditional marriage.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.