Obama Supports Gay Marriage Rights

[HYHYBT]

When the Supreme Court declares a law to be unconstitutional, that removes it from having any effect. There is no practical difference between that and actually removing the law from the books. If you wish to show there *is* such a difference, please, by all means, do so.

Meanwhile, how can you say marriage is strictly a state issue so long as federal law says that the federal government will ignore same-sex marriages no matter what the states say? Remove DOMA first. Only then will you have room to make that claim.

[Duelist925]

*snip*

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.

You're completely right. I let my bias through--the post has been edited to remove that particular bit of my own vitriol. I apologize.

[PepperElf]

When the Supreme Court declares a law to be unconstitutional, that removes it from having any effect. There is no practical difference between that and actually removing the law from the books. If you wish to show there *is* such a difference, please, by all means, do so.

Meanwhile, how can you say marriage is strictly a state issue so long as federal law says that the federal government will ignore same-sex marriages no matter what the states say? Remove DOMA first. Only then will you have room to make that claim.

such a difference? I posted it twice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-6627913.html

the supreme court has ruled that banning handguns is unconstitutional. but chicago still won't comply. neither will dc.


As for why state issue? Because marriage licenses are issued by states. It's going to be a hard battle to try to take this issuing power out of the hands of the states.

And I'm not sure it will be legal. others here may feel differently on it but i'm only looking at the issue on a "state jurisdiction" vs a "federal jurisdiction". I am separating my personal opinions from this part of the discussion.

(save for my anti-obama opinions of course. )

[Andara Bledin]

the supreme court has ruled that banning handguns is unconstitutional. but chicago still won't comply. neither will dc.

You might want to update your outrage.

As I already mentioned in this very thread, DC allows the owning of guns, including handguns, you just have to jump through a lot of hoops.

DC revised their laws last year and Chicago had revised theirs in 2010.

Your argument is weak, full of erroneous information, heavily biased, and shows no diligence whatsoever.

Then again, when has someone who was determined to be outraged ever let a little thing like facts get in their way?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

but chicago still won't comply. neither will dc.

Chicago and DC both DID comply.

Additionally, 'rules on the books' vs 'legally enforceable.' These are two different things. Gay sex and atheist politicians are illegal in Texas, but any attempt to enforce that wouldn't be.

[PepperElf]

depends... does chicago have gun ranges yet?

http://www.chicagogunowners.com/2011...of-gun-ranges/

at the time of this article the charges had to be dropped because the gun owner had no ability to comply with the laws since they had a ban on gun ranges.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...law-deception/
dc still doesn't even know it's own laws on guns anyway

You might want to update your outrage.

I'm outraged? Other than calling obama out I don't see what you're talking about.

i have seen others here very upset over things i say but... i don't see where you are getting any outrage from me.
I'm pretty even tempered. Although I do get annoyed when people like to act like i'm stupid as if they think that makes their point more valid. and you may see some sarcasm at those people, but other than that... um. ok. i'm outraged. i'm not sure over what but... i guess i am?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm outraged? Other than calling obama out I don't see what you're talking about.

That would be the thing about every post before you totally sidetracked it to gun issues being about how Obama broke a promise that he never even made (I don't even know where you came up with what you said he said, and you have yet to provide any citation for it) and how he's lied about everything he said about gay/lesbian issues despite the fact that he's actually kept as many promises as he's failed to keep and is about to tip the scales over to the keeping more than failed.

And then you failing to address any of the rebuttals regarding the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims and rather than provide any, you repeat yourself and provide more links that don't end up saying what you claim they're supposed saying about him.

If you're going to call someone out, you should call them out for something that actually happened in the world everybody else lives in.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

This seems like a good place for a bit of on-topic humor and the best thing I've heard said on the issue so far anywhere. From The Daily Show, text copied off the internet someplace:

"In five years the prime talking point from Republicans, on people who support gay marriage, has gone from 'It will destroy society via turtle-f-cking' to 'Oh of course you're for it, you'll say anything popular to get reelected.' And that is progress."

[PepperElf]

That's not outrage. It's just the best example I can come up with to show the difference between unconstitutional laws and whether or not they're on the books, or still being used.


At the most I've been somewhat... skeptical. Believe me, I know better than you do about what my emotions are. Right now my emotions are ... with a touch of frustration at my ISP for constantly correcting that emoticon into :roll eyes: And perhaps a touch of sadness for your sake.

Deciding my emotions are "xyz" when they're not... I guess it's a way to marginalize anything I say. Cos it's easy to ignore someone who holds to different ideas, or looks at something differently than you ... if you decide to look at that person negatively.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah. You go ahead and latch onto the "deciding your emotions" bit.

Keep ignoring the fact that your citations didn't support your statements in any sense of the word, that you claimed that Obama said something that neither he nor anybody in his administration said, and that you claimed that he's failed to keep a single promise he's made on LGBT issues, despite the fact that he's kept 40%, failed 40%, and is on the way to keeping the final 20%.

Do you have any support for your statements, or are they just wild accusations pulled from the ether of extreme bias?

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Yeah. You go ahead and latch onto the "deciding your emotions" bit.

Um... and someone else has better authority to "decide" what mine are? You perhaps?


I guess you can try dictating to me what I feel. It won't make you right but... it may make you feel better about ignoring any of my views you dislike. Easy to label different opinions as "extreme bias" if you try shoving someone into a label you make up for them.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't really care what you feel.

But go ahead and keep dodging the fact that your statements about Obama so far have been nothing but wrong.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

The point isn't whether you're outraged or amused or aroused by it.

The point is that you said things that were not true. Nobody cares WHY you do it.

[PepperElf]

so riddle me this... all the money obama's getting since his statement... is for what?

he made no promises as you have all said.
so why elect him for this stance? after all he can't change things.

or perhaps he's making people think he will change things. only to fall back on "well i made no promises" loophole if it doesn't work

[Nekojin]

so riddle me this... all the money obama's getting since his statement... is for what?

he made no promises as you have all said.
so why elect him for this stance? after all he can't change things.

or perhaps he's making people think he will change things. only to fall back on "well i made no promises" loophole if it doesn't work

You're definitely confusing claims. Obama HAS made promises with regard to marriage equality. He never made the claims that you said he made.

There's a significant difference between the two.