Obama Supports Gay Marriage Rights

[Andara Bledin]

His sudden "support" is ONLY because it's an Election Year.

First off, it's not very sudden unless you've had your head buried in the sand. It's a declaration whose time had come and it's still considered to be a very risky move by everybody who knows anything about how politics work; he's likely to lose more votes than he gains, so saying he's doing it for the votes is just plain ignorant.

And in all honesty his support is meaningless anyway. Regardless of personal opinions on gay marriage, marriage licenses fall under the realm of STATE RIGHTS.

Except that marriage equality is already included as part of the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act; it just hasn't been taken all the way up the chain to the point where the Supreme Court has ruled that sexuality is as protected as race and religion.

Note that both Biden and Obama spoke about marriage equality, not "gay marriage" as if it were somehow separate from "heterosexual marriage."

Actually you're wrong. The other states DON'T have to accept your license. The fact that they do does not imply any federal law, but that the state in question doesn't care to make an issue out of it.

It's called reciprocation, and it's not whether a state wants to make an issue out of it. This is codified in the laws of the states in question.

All states reciprocate valid state-issued driver's licenses, and often state-issued non-driver photo ID as well. Other, less-common or less homogenous statutes are likely to have more variance, and thus, have varying levels of reciprocity. Gun laws, for example, are a notable case; some states that have carry permits will recognize the permits from other states, while others have specific restrictions and some will only accept those from a specific other state.[/quote]

But beyond that, Obama is full of shit on this. Remember his promise to refuse to do business with any country that didn't have gay rights? What ever became of that one?

Because he's omnipotent and can force the rest of the government to bend to his will and do as he commands 'cause he's the President, damn it, and there's no checks to his power!

Remember his promise to refuse to do business with any country that didn't have gay rights? What ever became of that one?

No, no I don't. I couldn't find it, either. Citation?

It's easy to make pretty promises when you have no intention - or ability - to actually make them come true.

Because nobody else in the history of politics has ever done that before... Oh, wait.

Seriously, he's managed to keep over 1/3 of the promises he made, with another 1/10 compromised, and about 1/4 still being worked on. Only 1/7 were actually broken with another 1/8 stalled. Together those don't even add up to how many have been fulfilled, and a lot of his failure to keep promises stems more from the other side being more interested in seeing him fail than in doing anything for the good of the country.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

It's called reciprocation, and it's not whether a state wants to make an issue out of it. This is codified in the laws of the states in question.

Yes. You pretty much just repeated me, only you used the word reciprocation. This applies to all licenses issued in every state. Other states have the freedom to honor or refuse to honor the license. whether it's a CCW, Driver's license, or marriage license.

The power still lays in the realm of state's rights.


14th amendment - http://tinyurl.com/73rlnfm (had to tiny url it cos the original link has [] marks in it)

Part 1 - voting rights. Part 2 - establishes the numbers for the house of representatives. Part 3 - Establishes guidelines for taking office in the senate, house, and elected office. Part 4 - debts & bounties. Part 5 - congress can make laws to enforce the previous parts.

Marriage is not listed in this. Some may want to say that it's included but it's not in the text.

Because he's omnipotent and can force the rest of the government to bend to his will and do as he commands 'cause he's the President, damn it, and there's no checks to his power!

Yet he promises as if he can. Fault lies in him again for promising what he KNOWS he can't make good on.

No, no I don't. I couldn't find it, either. Citation?

Wow. Seriously?
http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/12...-world-reacts/

“If the U.S. government were to cut foreign aid on the basis of the violation of LGBT rights, then this would be a wise measure only if it was applied consistently both to Iran and to Saudi Arabia,” says Renato Sabbadini, Co-Secretary-General of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, quoted on Radio Free Europe.

there go you.

[Andara Bledin]

Wow. Seriously?
http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/12...-world-reacts/

Yes, seriously. And you put up the story I thought you would (not site-specific, but event specific).

You said:

Remember his promise to refuse to do business with any country that didn't have gay rights?

He didn't promised that.

In fact, it doesn't appear that he, personally or through his administration, ever said anything about it at all.

The quote you provided in your last response was from someone else, entirely, and it and the article talks about weighing who gets foreign aid based on human rights matters. It doesn't say anything about not giving it to those places that are extreme; it talks about providing aid to those who aren't.

In fact, further down the article, someone is criticizing the announcement specifically because the withholding of aid is notably not part of it.

And nowhere does it mention not doing business with anyone. Business and commerce weren't even on the agenda.

^-.-^

[Anthony K. S.]

PepperElf, in the linked New York Times article, it specifically stated :

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton specified how to give the initiative teeth. Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council's deputy spokeswoman, said the administration was "not cutting or tying" foreign aid to changes in other nation's practices.

In the quote you provided, Renato Sabbadini never said that the U.S. was going to cut foreign aid on the basis of gay rights.

He said that if they did, it would only be worthwhile if they did it consistently, with nations that have close ties to the U.S. (Saudi Arabia) as well as nations that don't (Iran).

The article you linked to only stated that Obama and Clinton had said that they would use foreign aid to promote gay rights. It never specified how. It certainly didn't say anything as specific as Obama promising to stop doing business with countries that don't have gay rights.

I have no idea if he made such a promise or not, but so far, you haven't provided any citation that he has.

[linguist]

14th amendment - http://tinyurl.com/73rlnfm (had to tiny url it cos the original link has [] marks in it)

Part 1 - voting rights.

part 1 is about more than just voting rights. it also establishes equal protection under the law for all citizens. this was interpreted by the supreme court to include marriage rights in loving v. virginia.

unless of course you think the supreme court got it wrong.

[PepperElf]

The article you linked to only stated that Obama and Clinton had said that they would use foreign aid to promote gay rights. It never specified how. It certainly didn't say anything as specific as Obama promising to stop doing business with countries that don't have gay rights.

All of this... actually validates my point.


Every promise he makes on this is empty.

If you want to believe he's supporting this because "it's time to"... go right ahead. Believe him. That's where he's got you. People will pay him money to run because they think he'll change things.


Really it's a great plan for him. It costs him nothing to open his mouth and talk. Not when he knows he can't really back it up with anything legislative.



As for the supreme court... keep in mind the SC can only rule on whether or not a law is constitutional. They have no jurisdiction in creating or removing laws.

That's why you can still get arrested in DC for owning a handgun. The SC already declared the law unconstitutional, but DC refuses to remove it. Because the supreme court CANNOT make them take the law off the books. They're judicial, not legislative.



This is another reason why Obama cannot promise anything. The STATES themselves will still have jurisdiction over whether or not they keep their laws on the books. Maybe the federal government can threaten to withdraw federal aid, but they cannot rewrite state laws.

[linguist]

again this isn't about my views but about the fact that the federal government cannot control state licensing.

.

loving v. virginia established that they can, when it's a civil rights issue.

again, unless you think states should have the right to ban interracial marriage, or refuse to recognize those legally allowed in other states.

[Andara Bledin]

Every promise he makes on this is empty.

So, you're saying that him not making a promise you said he made proves that the promises he actually has made are empty?

That's completely left the realm of the rational and moved fully into the delusional.

How about we leave behind the anti-Obama rage and move back to the realm of verified reality, shall we?

PolitiFact Page on his gay/lesbian promises

Of the five promises that he actually did make (as opposed to those he only made in some fevered fantasy world), he's actually broken 2. He's also kept 2 and is on the road to keeping the last.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

See? I told you he'd have an escape hatch.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...nds-for-obama/

He's already collected 21 million since his endorsement. But as you said, he isn't actually promising to force gay marriage to the states.

Which is why this is empty. So when things don't actually change he can say "well I never really promised anything, but thanks for paying me money for it!"

loving v. virginia established that they can, when it's a civil rights issue.

There's a problem with that. I too once though that "once it goes to the supreme court, that's it!" and that any laws that were unconstitutional had to be removed from the books.

What I found out is that... no, they don't have to be. The supreme court's jurisdiction ONLY lies in deciding whether the constitution upholds a law or doesn't. They CANNOT create laws. They CANNOT remove laws.

Rulings mean nothing - except whether or not a court case is won.

A state is COMPLETELY within its legal rights to ignore the supreme court rulings. They may face other punishments such as loss of federal funding. But they may also just be ignored on it.

As I said earlier in my example, you can be arrested for possession of a handgun in DC. The law prohibiting handgun possession is unconstitutional, as decided by the court (link here) but they refuse to take it off the books anyway. and they have yet to face any real consequences for it.

[Gravekeeper]

Alright, wow.

Me thinks you should look up the term "Partisan". It may even have your picture. >.>

[PepperElf]

of course i'm partisan.
anyone who doesn't follow liberal politics is partisan, doncha know?

if liberals refuse to go along with conservatives though... that's ok.

[Andara Bledin]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...nds-for-obama/

Using Fox News as a reference falls somewhere notably below Wikipedia for accuracy.

He's already collected 21 million since his endorsement.

Completely and utterly irrelevant unless you can provide how much he would have collected without having made his statement.

Which isn't possible for anybody to do, so it's not even worth bringing up unless you're looking for a distraction.

As I said earlier in my example, you can be arrested for possession of a handgun in DC. The law prohibiting handgun possession is unconstitutional, as decided by the court (link here) but they refuse to take it off the books anyway. and they have yet to face any real consequences for it.

You can be arrested for all sorts of shit. But what you can be arrested for is totally meaningless, it's just a tool for the cops to get people off the street for a couple of hours or a couple of days while they try to find out if they have enough to actually charge the person.

It's convictions that matter, not arrests.

Also, unless I and a lot of lawyers are woefully mistaken, DC allows for gun possession, but has hoops. You can't be a felon or on drugs and you have to have a license, but you can absolutely legally carry a gun in Washington, DC.

Perhaps a bit less vitriol and a bit more research would make this discussion rather less one-sided.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

of course i'm partisan.
anyone who doesn't follow liberal politics is partisan, doncha know?

if liberals refuse to go along with conservatives though... that's ok.

Way to completely prove my point.

[Duelist925]

of course i'm partisan.
anyone who doesn't follow liberal politics is partisan, doncha know?

if liberals refuse to go along with conservatives though... that's ok.

Of course. I mean, it was those damn liberals who shut down congress over the whole debt issue, and just might do so again, like whiny petulant child-oh, wait. no. that was conservatives.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05...debt-showdown/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...AQU_story.html


Gee, it's almost like it's the conservatives who've been acting rather....partisian. And being downright vicious to anyone who implies that they are. Or that liberals are anything but a pack of partisian wolves.

And, really....fox news? Fox news, as a source? Thats almost funny.


*edited to remove my own bit of partisian idiocy. My apologies*

[Hyena Dandy]

A state is COMPLETELY within its legal rights to ignore the supreme court rulings. They may face other punishments such as loss of federal funding. But they may also just be ignored on it.

...Not really, no.

The court can find a law not legally enforceable. Which also means that they can fine the state if it continues to enforce it.

The court can't enforce a decision, but the President can, and is in fact obligated to. So, I really don't get where you got this idea of "The States don't have to listen to the Court."

Oh, but surely it's the liberals who are threatening armed violence if they don't get their way in novem--Oh. No. It's the conservatives again.

Though THAT is pretty damn partisan. It's not 'the conservatives' as a movement. It's members of the Republican party in one county in one state.

There are over 3,000 counties in the United States. It'd be ridiculous sensationalism to act like that article proves that "The Conservatives" are threatening armed violence because a party newsletter in one county mentioned it. They also site, as proof that the Republicans have a tendency to do this kind of thing, a candidate for Senate who did not win, and a candidate for the house who did not win.

The Republicans are being obstructionist assholes in the house. You can call that "The Conservatives."

But two candidates who don't win their elections are not something that you can pin on a whole movement

And honestly, using a source which cites "The Republican Party" to refer to the editor of a county newsletter and says "The Republican Party seems to already be sensing that they will be miserably defeated on Election Day this November" about an election that even the most optimistic liberal analysis would call "Pretty damned close..."

Well, that's almost as 'funny' as using Fox News.