OBAMA/BIDEN ticket against gay marriage..Biden cleary defining that tonight at the debate

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

    Oct 03, 2008 3:06 AM GMT
    As a Republican, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are

    So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?

    I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage

    Oh..by the way this issue is low on my agenda. I am more concerned about cutting taxes, cutting spending, war of terror
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    To me it is totally irrelevant under which label I get the same rights and privileges are straight couples. Whether it is marriage, civil union, common law..doesn't matter to me. To me, the battle is more about equal rights across the board rather than just those pertaining to marriage, plus I have very little faith in the gay community when it comes to long-term relationships. I am not saying that there aren't many committed couples who have been together for years and even decades. To me, the definition of marriage is the union between two INDIVIDUALS, regardless of gender, who care about each other and who are in a MONOGAMOUS, committed relationship. The whole "yeah let's get married but still screw around with others" does not appeal to me one bit. But again, I do believe in equal rights across the board for SINGLES and couples.

    I honestly do not agree with your definition of marriage. Why should it only be between a man and a woman? Whose definition is that anyway?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 5:42 AM GMT
    Look at the gay republicans all up in arms about gay marriage.

    And all it took was something to make their egos swell.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 10:38 AM GMT
    If you'd have cleared the repugnican wax from your ears just before that discussion came up, you'd have heard and hopefully understood what they both said. Unfortunately, I imagine, there wasn't a Q-tip nearby.
  • mustang22

    Posts: 4

    Oct 03, 2008 2:16 PM GMT
    Does anyone think there is anything more important than just your own self interest? Is being GAY the only important issue to you? How about America, the next generation, our fighting men and women, our values and morals, what's best for the country as a whole? Do you really know what Obama and the Dems stand for?

    Obama's pastor Wright has close associations with Farakan, who is as anti-Semitic and Anti-Gay as they come.

    Obama probably could not obtain a security clearance for a Pentagon job because of his past Anti-American associations (specifically William Ayers, et all) http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/120499

    Obama talks of his helping the "least among us", but has not sent his half brother in Kenya a dime. Obama's met him twice, so he's certainly aware of him. His brother's got to live on $1/month. http://www.suntimes.com/news/1119352,CST-NWS-brother21.article

    Obama is closely allied with Acorn, a very discreditted group which has commited all sorts of voter fraud and intimidation tactics. Obama was their lawyer and a trainer in these tactics. Also, this Acorn and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mentality of everybody should be able to get a home loan, whether they got a down payment or a job, or lied on an application, is a major reason for this recent $700 billion bailout. Obama is knee deep in his endorsing of this policy. Also, James Johnson was on Obama's VP committe and made 10s of millions in Fannie Mae was released for unethical dealings with Country Wide. Franklin Raines also made 10s of millions at Fannie Mae, and is under investigation for fraud when he was CEO. He's an advisor to the Obama campaign.

    Obama was way to the left during the primaries, now has given lip service to make himself appear more centrist. He's the most liberal (left wing) member of the Senate, to the left of even Bernie Sanders (VT), the self described socialist (akd communist).

    Before the Surge, Obama (and most all Dems) wanted to leave Iraq. They really didn't care if Iraq fell into civil war, they wanted America to surrender (which would have emboldened our enemies). They were much more interested in winning the next election than losing a war. Obama now says were adopting his plan of drawing down troops (2 years later). Well, yeah. NOW we can withdraw troops now that we're winning the war. Duh.

    Obama voted in Illinois to not allow a baby born alive in a botched abortion to be given medical assistance. He thought it would make a premature baby seem too much like a person, and would upset the pro-abortion crowd. Think about that, a baby which is no longer a concern to the mother (outside her body) must now be allowed to die, given no medical assistance.

    Obama also supports partial birth abortion. Do you really know what that is? That is when the baby (7-8 months old) is delivered, but the head must remain in the birth canal. Then the doctor sticks a probe into the back of the baby's scull and sucks out its brains. Yeah, we need more of that.

    I could go on and on. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. (Sorry for not getting links for all points, but Google them.)

    And I don't want to hear about Gay Marriage. My partner and I have been together for 29 years with no piece of paper. We're very well accepted in this Republican suburb.

    Are you Dems really ready to sell your soul to elect this complete "empty suit" (well tailored, but empty)? There's much more to life than being gay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 2:44 PM GMT
    I also believe that America ought to drop export and import barriers for African countries that comply with principles of good governance. I also think America should drop agricultural subsidies (funny how Republicans never seem to be too concerned about this one!). But nobody, regrettably, is saying this. I also think that Nuclear power is a far too problematic solution to Global Warming. I also think that Clean Coal is a dangerous distraction. So nope, I don't agree with them on everything. So what is one supposed to do? Not vote?

    Are the Democrats doing everything possible for the LGBT community? No. But LGBT people have political power within the Democratic party, and the fact that Ms Palin was forced to make some empty gesture of "tolerance" is entirely because of that political power. We are mature enough to recognize that in order to achieve what is politically possible now we have to compromise so long as the roadmap to our final goal is clear. Obama/Biden believe in Civil Partnership, which is clearly an unsatisfactory end, but as a metastable point on the road to equality, it is far better than what is on offer from the other side: Absolutely nothing!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 3:08 PM GMT
    He simply doesn't believe that all churches should be forced to perform marriages as religious institutions unless they want to. The Gay republicans simply want to confuse the issue and vehemently propose that Obama is against gays, etc because their own candidates are are woefully inadequate and when it comes to the rights of gay people.

    2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church
    Q: You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. What place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?

    A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.


    So it is simple, the government confers the legal rights, churches confer the religious title. His views are consistent with his stand on civil rights and his belief in separation of church and state.

    More importantly he wants to:
    Repeal DOMA
    End DADT and allow gays to serve in the military without discrimination.
    Establish ENDA
    Establish at LEAST strong civil union (same as marriage in the eyes of the government)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 3:15 PM GMT
    2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007 We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions
    It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.

    That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.

    When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.


    Obama has publicly opposed proposition 8 ( no on 8 ) which would take away gay marriage in California, McCain is the opposite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 3:15 PM GMT
    I'm as Republican as one can get but; I support same sex marriage. I don't have to check my opinions at the door. I do support drilling ANWAR.

    Biden and Palin agree on the issue, I disagree with both of them. I am pleased that they both support lifting some of the oppression on the issue but nothing short of same sex marriage should be the goal.

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

    Oct 03, 2008 3:20 PM GMT
    Saying that Biden and Palin agree on the issue is absurd and a lie.

    Biden attempted to trap her into agreeing with the position he held, unsuccessfully. She, unsucessfully, tried to say that she agreed with Biden in her non-support of gay marriage. Her position is no recognition (other than contracts, fuck you very much, because we can do that today and the contracts still are subject to federal and state laws) for gay couples and the Dems position is equality without the use of the term "marriage". While the Dems position is not 100% perfect, it is a far cry from the homophobic repug position.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 3:24 PM GMT
    2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007 Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage
    Q: The laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

    A: We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

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

    Oct 03, 2008 3:26 PM GMT
    This country has much bigger problems than the GAY MARRIAGE Issue.

    Mustang22.

    Site your source regarding Obama's stance on Partial abortions where did you read that?

    Reverend Wright is nolonger Obama's pastor he has not been for while.
    Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the nation of Islam and just because someone he knows has an association does not mean that he does.

    Lastly,

    I support our troops but the WAR in Iraq was a huge error! Iraq was will never be the same. We invaded that country under the guise of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"! Hmmmm I don't think they were ever found.

    To answer you question! Yes I would sell my soul to an empty suit because anything is better than what we have now.

    When Clinton left office we had a SURPLUS! In the twilight of the Bush admistration we have anything but!

    Here Obama's actual view on Partial Abortion.

    This is a clip. It was reported by "Fox News. It is clearly diffrent from what MUSTANG 22 wrote.





    Barack Obama on Abortion
    Democratic Jr Senator (IL)




    Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion
    On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
    Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

    As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

    Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008









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

    Oct 03, 2008 3:43 PM GMT
    McCain
    Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
    Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996) LLater voted opposite but look at latest statement about Prop 8
    Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
    Supports CA Prop. 8: one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2000 )

    Obama
    #Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
    # Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 200icon_cool.gif
    # Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
    # Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
    # Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
    # Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
    # We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
    # Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
    # Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
    # Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
    # Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
    # Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
    # Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
    # Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
    # Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1990 )
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 3:49 PM GMT
    nycusa05 saidAs a Repubilcan, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are

    So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?

    I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage




    We would still be treated as second class citizens if we were to be given 'unions' instead of full marriage. even if all the rights afforded were the same, the title itself brings with it meaning in society. And there is no way to guarantee we would be given all the same rights unless it is under the title of marriage.
    Giving us anything else would create a Separate but Equal institution, and we all know how that works out...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 3:54 PM GMT
    Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that he was just as uncomfortable as Sarah Palin discussing the matter on record.
    Yes, we know what they both feel but seeing it in action is somewhat different. I wanted a Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther moment. I wanted one of them to transcend the rhetoric and actually SPEAK TO ME as a voter and not insult me.
    I don't know why it hit me like a ton of bricks last night. Yes, we were playing a drinking game centered around Palin's use of words like "heck" "darn" daggonit" etc. so I was feeling those effects by the time the question came up .. but, seriously, watching them both stumble and bumble around to try and find words that won't offend but won't support either was disappointing. The "maverick" wont suggest that it is not the role of washington to mandate to states what constitutes marriage and that they have no business passing laws to discriminate against any minority. Biden refused to acknowledge that treating us as second class citizens is a disgrace and America needs to keep the religious right from interfering with policy. Then , at the end, knowing damn well there are other proposed ideas for equality, to say they feel the same was disgusting. Pandering. Without bravery there is nothing to aspire to and frankly, I felt like we were invited to sit in the back row instead of with everyone else.
    I have watched people on here work tirelessly to get Obama elected and yes, there are bigger issues here. But in all sincerity, are we worth so little that he can't even say the way we are barred from marriage is shameful? He couldn't voice his support of prop. 8. He couldn't suggest that states like CA represent his future hope of an equal America? I believe that is what he feels in his heart but he is being a coward. I think people respond to sincerity and one of these days it would be amazing to see a sincere and earnest candidate make it to the top.
    It isn't a wedge issue, it is a human rights issue that won't go away until we have equality.
    I will still vote democratic because I believe in sharing with those who have less, but my excitement and fantasy of real change has definitely left the building.

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

    Oct 03, 2008 4:05 PM GMT
    youngaugust saidWe would still be treated as second class citizens if we were to be given 'unions' instead of full marriage. even if all the rights afforded were the same, the title itself brings with it meaning in society. And there is no way to guarantee we would be given all the same rights unless it is under the title of marriage.
    Giving us anything else would create a Separate but Equal institution, and we all know how that works out...
    That is NOT how it has worked out here in California. The court actually recognized that the ban on marriage for gays was "second class" and thereby threw out the ban. Why did the court throw it out? because California's constitution recognizes that minorities (like gay) cannot be treated "unequal" .. This is why Obama has cleverly said, go for your civil rights first. He knows that once equality is established then the courts can step in if necessary. He knows this because he was a civil rights attorney and yes he knows what happened to "separate but equal" very well .. the courts stepped in and squashed it .. i.e. Brown vs. the Board of education

    As far as the whole "there are no guarantees" .. we can also say there are no guarantees that McCain will not appoint Supreme Court justices that will roll back gay rights (even sex as Scalia and Thomas, etc opposed) even worse than what they are now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 4:06 PM GMT
    mustang22 said
    Obama's pastor Wright has close associations with Farakan
    Obama...William Ayers, et all)
    Obama..half brother in Kenya a dime.
    Acorn...voter fraud and intimidation tactics. Obama was their lawyer and a trainer in these tactics.
    $700 billion bailout. Obama is knee deep in his endorsing of this policy.
    Franklin Raines...an advisor to the Obama campaign.
    He's the most liberal (left wing) member of the Senate, to the left of even Bernie Sanders (VT), the self described socialist (akd communist).
    Before the Surge, Obama (and most all Dems) wanted to leave Iraq.
    Obama voted in Illinois to not allow a baby born alive in a botched abortion to be given medical assistance.
    Obama also supports partial birth abortion.

    Mustang...you've hit every point I hear on Michael Savage's radio show. So good job on being such a tool.

    Let's start from the top: Rev Wright/Farrakhan association: Obama dumped Wright. Personally decried Farrakhan. Farrakhan appeared on a church flier cover at the same time Obama appeared. Pictures of people on a cover of a flier is not the same thing as "being associated" with.
    Ayers: barely knew him. Served on a committee in Chicago.
    Dime: doesn't want Obama's money.
    Acorn: this get-out-the-vote organization helped people who were disenfranchised. It did not encourage them to vote more than once or vote as a dead person.
    Bailout: McCain supports the same bailout. I don't like it at all, but this is a wash.
    Raines: not an advisor.
    Liberal: Feingold, Boxer, Sanders and Clinton are more liberal. Biden is more liberal. In my opinion, he's not liberal enough.
    Surge has not worked. Other factors including Sunni/Shia ceasefire have had greater (and earlier impact) than the surge.
    Botched: utter bullshit. The bill you (don't) cite never said that. Besides, do you really think that he would vote for such a bill? Ann Coulter does. I respect her opinion.
    Partial birth abortion: again, nobody on the planet supports this. A hideous procedure--yes. That's why it's never been performed and having a law to prohibit it is redundant (although nobody has voted against this law).

    I agree, it's not all about Gay Marriage, but making shit up is not making your case well. Congrats on being a tool.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 4:09 PM GMT
    Put it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it?

    Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.

    The religious zealot ticket on the other side would be far more active in defeating gay marriage.

    If you cannot see this, you're selectively blind, which makes you kinda dishonest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 4:16 PM GMT
    XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it?
    Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.

    .


    Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington.
    Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 4:19 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidyou've hit every point I hear on Michael Savage's radio show.
    Is that the neo-nazi guy that all the white supremacists follow?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 4:26 PM GMT
    Jdunn1973 said
    XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it?
    Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.

    .


    Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington.
    Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.


    I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.

    We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.

    It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.

    After the elections, he can change his mind ... icon_wink.gif ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the epiphany that gay marriage should be legal ... icon_biggrin.gif

    Realize that we are getting closer to the goal...the Dems are publicly saying our relationships are constitutionally protected and the Repubs are saying they are tolerant. It wont be long now til a court challenge brings all the state bans down.

    Digressing...

    I just finished reading a very good book on the "Mother of All Legislating from the Bench," Marbury v. Madison, by the Father of All Conservative Jurists, John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The whole power of judicial review is made up by Marshall and, under a strict constructionist view, is bogus, yet, even Justice Scalia recognizes the power of judicial review...can you say "hypocrisy"?

    I love learning about stuff like this so that when conservatives start in on "activist judges legislating from the bench," I can whip the info out and beat their heads in with it.

    The Activist: Marshall, Marbury, and the Myth of Judicial Review

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

    Oct 03, 2008 4:27 PM GMT
    Caslon7000 said
    Jdunn1973 said
    XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it?
    Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.

    .


    Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington.
    Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.


    I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.

    We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.

    It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.

    After the elections, he can change his mind ... icon_wink.gif ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the ephiphany that gay marriage should be legal ... icon_biggrin.gif



    You are absolutely right. I am coming at this from a surprisingly emotional place. I'll get over it soon enough.
  • NorCalJD

    Posts: 23

    Oct 03, 2008 4:55 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?[/quote]

    I certainly can't speak for the gay community, but I can speak for myself. There are other "gay" issues of importance to me that Obama/Biden support, which McCain/Palin and most Republicans do not: adoption by same sex couples, hate crimes legislation, protection against job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Putting the gay marriage issue aside, which ticket do you believe would give a more sympathetic hearing to any issue dealing with sexual orientation? To me, it would clearly not be the party that is beholden to the evangelical right, no matter how much the candidates of that party try to portray themselves as "mavericks."

    But I don't just vote based on gay issues. There are other issues of importance to me where I agree with Obama/Biden's position more than I do with McCain/Palin's: education, the environment, the economy and energy, to name a few.

    One issue I'm surprised no one has raised yet is the Supreme Court. With the current justices, the Court is leaning to the right. The oldest justices and the justices most likely to retire in the next four years are to the left of center on the Court. The next president is likely going to have the opportunity to appoint one, perhaps two, justices. McCain has already voiced his admiration for the most recent Bush appointees (both young, far right leaning, "strict constructionist" justices) and has stated his desire to appoint similar justices if given the opportunity during his presidency. This could tip the balance of the Court to the far right far beyond a McCain presidency, potentially for decades. The effects could extend far beyond overturning Roe v. Wade, to repealing other decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down sodomy laws and found a constitutional protection in the due proces clause of the 14th Amendment for private, consensual sex ). I would think that even the most Republican among us would not want to risk going back to the days when one could be arrested, in one's own home, for having sex with one's partner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 5:03 PM GMT
    Caslon7000 said
    Jdunn1973 said
    XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it?
    Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.

    .


    Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington.
    Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.


    I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.

    We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.

    It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.

    After the elections, he can change his mind ... icon_wink.gif ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the epiphany that gay marriage should be legal ... icon_biggrin.gif

    Realize that we are getting closer to the goal...the Dems are publicly saying our relationships are constitutionally protected and the Repubs are saying they are tolerant. It wont be long now til a court challenge brings all the state bans down.

    Digressing...

    I just finished reading a very good book on the "Mother of All Legislating from the Bench," Marbury v. Madison, by the Father of All Conservative Jurists, John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The whole power of judicial review is made up by Marshall and, under a strict constructionist view, is bogus, yet, even Justice Scalia recognizes the power of judicial review...can you say "hypocrisy"?

    I love learning about stuff like this so that when conservatives start in on "activist judges legislating from the bench," I can whip the info out and beat their heads in with it.

    The Activist: Marshall, Marbury, and the Myth of Judicial Review

    the_activist.jpg


    Thanks Caslon. You handled that better than I would have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2008 5:04 PM GMT
    NorCalJD said[quote]One issue I'm surprised no one has raised yet is the Supreme Court. With the current justices, the Court is leaning to the right. The oldest justices and the justices most likely to retire in the next four years are to the left of center on the Court. The next president is likely going to have the opportunity to appoint one, perhaps two, justices. McCain has already voiced his admiration for the most recent Bush appointees (both young, far right leaning, "strict constructionist" justices) and has stated his desire to appoint similar justices if given the opportunity during his presidency. This could tip the balance of the Court to the far right far beyond a McCain presidency, potentially for decades. The effects could extend far beyond overturning Roe v. Wade, to repealing other decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down sodomy laws and found a constitutional protection in the due proces clause of the 14th Amendment for private, consensual sex ). I would think that even the most Republican among us would not want to risk going back to the days when one could be arrested, in one's own home, for having sex with one's partner.
    Actually I did mention that. It has also been in some of the other threads .. icon_biggrin.gif
    ActiveandFitAs far as the whole "there are no guarantees" .. we can also say there are no guarantees that McCain will not appoint Supreme Court justices that will roll back gay rights (even sex as Scalia and Thomas, etc opposed) even worse than what they are now.