Obama Responds To 10-Year-Old's Letter About Her Gay Dads

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Nov 05, 2012 9:01 PM GMT
    Obama Responds To 10-Year-Old's Letter About Her Gay Dads


    http://www.buzzfeed.com/stacylambe/obama-responds-to-10-year-olds-letter-about-her-g


    enhanced-buzz-7625-1352144598-12.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 9:23 PM GMT
    Absolutely amazing.
  • Sportsfan1

    Posts: 479

    Nov 05, 2012 9:49 PM GMT
    This is truly exceptional. It shows what a great man our president is. This little girl's dads should be very proud of her. It proves that a family with two fathers can be every bit as loving and caring as a "traditional" family.
    Thank you again for bringing a wonderful topic to RJ. Keep up the great work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 9:49 PM GMT
    That's pretty friggin cute.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:03 PM GMT
    And now a dose of reality.

    The President has finished "evolving" and has declared that the "basic human right of marriage" is something that the Federal government should not legislate. Rather, it should be up to each state to decide.

    So Obama's position is that it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize "gay marriage" but legal for the Federal government to recognize "straight marriage."

    Pretty bold statement, no?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:04 PM GMT
    GUSH!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:05 PM GMT
    that is absolutely adorable!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:07 PM GMT
    icon_razz.gif D'aaawwwwww...How cute...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:08 PM GMT
    DontQuoteMe saidAnd now a dose of reality.

    The President has finished "evolving" and has declared that the "basic human right of marriage" is something that the Federal government should not legislate. Rather, it should be up to each state to decide.

    So Obama's position is that it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize "gay marriage" but legal for the Federal government to recognize "straight marriage."

    Pretty bold statement, no?


    Here's what's boldly obvious about your statement:

    You're blind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:09 PM GMT
    DontQuoteMe saidAnd now a dose of reality.

    The President has finished "evolving" and has declared that the "basic human right of marriage" is something that the Federal government should not legislate. Rather, it should be up to each state to decide.

    So Obama's position is that it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize "gay marriage" but legal for the Federal government to recognize "straight marriage."

    Pretty bold statement, no?


    *waves away at odours of dog-shit coming from DQM* Did you step in something, or is that you?

    No, he'd have to take such a proposal to the Supreme Court to see if such a bill presented to Congress was legal, which is what happened up here.

    Unless of course he's Mitty, who will, like a Monarch, wave his sceptre and decree gays less than straights, as well as pack the Supreme Court with biased judges, if his magic powers aren't strong enough.

    Neener neener. icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:09 PM GMT
    imasrxd saidThat's pretty friggin cute.


    Indeed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:10 PM GMT
    Not_Superman saidEven cuter than Stephen Harper with a kitten ...
    stephen-harper-kitten.jpg?w=630



    Er, I believe that's lunch. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:12 PM GMT
    BlkMuscleGent said
    DontQuoteMe saidAnd now a dose of reality.

    The President has finished "evolving" and has declared that the "basic human right of marriage" is something that the Federal government should not legislate. Rather, it should be up to each state to decide.

    So Obama's position is that it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize "gay marriage" but legal for the Federal government to recognize "straight marriage."

    Pretty bold statement, no?


    Here's what's boldly obvious about your statement:

    You're blind.


    Yep, blind to gay spin. But what I wrote is true. Perhaps it's just the first time you're hearing about it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    Gay-Marriage-Who-Am-I-To-Stop-True-Love.

    i vote OBAMA
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    DontQuoteMe saidAnd now a dose of reality.

    The President has finished "evolving" and has declared that the "basic human right of marriage" is something that the Federal government should not legislate. Rather, it should be up to each state to decide.

    So Obama's position is that it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize "gay marriage" but legal for the Federal government to recognize "straight marriage."

    Pretty bold statement, no?


    Isn't that exactly where you would expect the battle for marriage equality to be fought, at the state level?

    To set the scene the same as Loving v. Virginia. I am pretty sure that is what most LGBT groups are hoping for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:18 PM GMT
    Stuttershock said
    DontQuoteMe saidAnd now a dose of reality.

    The President has finished "evolving" and has declared that the "basic human right of marriage" is something that the Federal government should not legislate. Rather, it should be up to each state to decide.

    So Obama's position is that it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize "gay marriage" but legal for the Federal government to recognize "straight marriage."

    Pretty bold statement, no?


    Isn't that exactly where you would expect the battle for marriage equality to be fought, at the state level?

    To set the scene the same as Loving v. Virginia. I am pretty sure that is what most LGBT groups are hoping for.


    No I wouldn't. And here's why:

    1) The Federal government has laws in place that only recognize same sex couples. Examples of this: the tax code, immigration.

    2) Many on here have proclaimed gay marriage to be "a basic human right" and as such, to leave it up to the states is in direct violation of the idea that this is a "nationally recognized right."

    So even if all 50 states legislated for gay marriage, it wouldn't affect the legislation in place at the Federal level.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:30 PM GMT
    Cute letter icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    And this is one of the many, many, many reasons I will be voting for President Obama. What an awesome thing he did. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 11:09 PM GMT


    OK DQM, where and when did Obama say he would make federal laws allowing gay marriage if he got in?
    The only one declaring making laws about gay people on a federal level is...Mitty.

    (and to everyone else, yes I know what a dimwit DQM is, but humour me this once)

    " After longstanding personal opposition to gay marriage, Obama in an exclusive interview with ABC News in May announced he believes gay couples should be allowed to wed. Has long said he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and has called for its repeal. His Justice Department ceased defending the law in legal battles, an unprecedented move. Despite his stated support, Obama says he has no plans to push federal legislation compelling the states to recognize same-sex marriages."

    ...and Mitty,
    "Says he will “champion” a constitutional amendment “defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” He has also promised to appoint an attorney general who will “defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),” a law the Obama administration has stopped backing in court."

    icon_lol.gif






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 11:18 PM GMT
    DontQuoteMeNo I wouldn't. And here's why:

    1) The Federal government has laws in place that only recognize same sex couples. Examples of this: the tax code, immigration.

    2) Many on here have proclaimed gay marriage to be "a basic human right" and as such, to leave it up to the states is in direct violation of the idea that this is a "nationally recognized right."

    So even if all 50 states legislated for gay marriage, it wouldn't affect the legislation in place at the Federal level.


    Hmm, You say 'the federal government has laws that only recognize same sex couples' I am not sure what you mean here. icon_confused.gif

    I am assuming this is a typo, because I didn't think there were any special treatment for same-sex couples, unless you mean negative laws that 'recognize' couples by discriminating against them. Or did you mean something else?

    Anyway, on a frederal level there is already a bill (the Respect For Marriage Act) being proposed to congress to repeal DOMA and make it so the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages.

    And prior to DOMA marriage was never defined by the federal government and has always been left up to the states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 11:25 PM GMT
    Stuttershock said
    DontQuoteMeNo I wouldn't. And here's why:

    1) The Federal government has laws in place that only recognize same sex couples. Examples of this: the tax code, immigration.

    2) Many on here have proclaimed gay marriage to be "a basic human right" and as such, to leave it up to the states is in direct violation of the idea that this is a "nationally recognized right."

    So even if all 50 states legislated for gay marriage, it wouldn't affect the legislation in place at the Federal level.


    Hmm, You say 'the federal government has laws that only recognize same sex couples' I am not sure what you mean here.

    I am assuming this is a typo, because I didn't think there were any special treatment for same-sex couples, unless you mean negative laws that 'recognize' couples by discriminating against them. Or did you mean something else?

    Anyway, on a frederal level there is already a bill (the Respect For Marriage Act) being proposed to congress to repeal DOMA and make it so the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages.

    And prior to DOMA marriage was never defined by the federal government and has always been left up to the states.


    Ooops, I meant "straight" - so used to typing "same sex" on this website. :-)

    Anyway, marriage was always recognized as "straight marriage" by the Federal government. There's not one case of an American citizen bringing a non-citizen of the same sex to immigrate in the USA on the basis of marriage. Same with the IRS - they've never recognized a same sex couple as being "married" with regards to the tax code. This goes back to the founding of the country.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 11:29 PM GMT
    Cute letter and whatever you say about Obama he is the lesser of two evils so I'd vote for him if I were an American.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2012 11:45 PM GMT
    DontQuoteMe SaidAnyway, marriage was always recognized as "straight marriage" by the Federal government. There's not one case of an American citizen bringing a non-citizen of the same sex to immigrate in the USA on the basis of marriage. Same with the IRS - they've never recognized a same sex couple as being "married" with regards to the tax code. This goes back to the founding of the country.


    I'm sorry, but I don't think that is true.

    Marriage has not always been defined as heterosexual by the federal government, not prior to DOMA in 1996. If it did, then there wouldn't be much point to an amendment like DOMA, would there? icon_wink.gif

    The only reason there are no cases of an American citizen bringing a non-citizen of the same sex to immigrate is because DOMA was put in place before any of the states recognized same-sex marriages, Massachusetts was the first in 2004.

    Had any of the states legalized same-sex marriage before the introduction of DOMA then you would have seen same sex immigration.

  • monet

    Posts: 1093

    Nov 06, 2012 12:07 AM GMT
    I'd like to know how Mitt would respond if little Sophia wrote the same letter to him?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2012 12:08 AM GMT
    Stuttershock said
    DontQuoteMe SaidAnyway, marriage was always recognized as "straight marriage" by the Federal government. There's not one case of an American citizen bringing a non-citizen of the same sex to immigrate in the USA on the basis of marriage. Same with the IRS - they've never recognized a same sex couple as being "married" with regards to the tax code. This goes back to the founding of the country.


    I'm sorry, but I don't think that is true.

    Marriage has not always been defined as heterosexual by the federal government, not prior to DOMA in 1996. If it did, then there wouldn't be much point to an amendment like DOMA, would there?

    The only reason there are no cases of an American citizen bringing a non-citizen of the same sex to immigrate is because DOMA was put in place before any of the states recognized same-sex marriages, Massachusetts was the first in 2004.

    Had any of the states legalized same-sex marriage before the introduction of DOMA then you would have seen same sex immigration.



    Nope. (But I do appreciate your respectful tone and that you're not calling names).

    The fact that no same-sex couples have ever immigrated to the USA using their married status, along with the fact that the IRS has never allowed a same-sex couple to file "married" is prima facie evidence.