E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA day after his administration formally weighed in on an upcoming Supreme Court case on gay marriage, President Barack Obama said he felt the issue required a response that reflected "what I believe."
"I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for," he said during a press conference at the White House.
After first indicating that it would not get involved in the case, the Justice Department on Thursday filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case over the constitutionality of California's "Proposition 8," which banned same-sex marriage in the state after thousands of gay couples had already legally tied the knot.
Obama, who publicly changed course and embraced same sex marriage last year, said that he hopes that the court rules to strike down not just California's ban on gay marriage but equivalent restrictions in other states.
"The court may decide that if [a ban on same sex marriage] doesn't apply in this case, it probably can't apply in any case. There is no good reason for it," he said. "If I were on the court, that would probably be the view that I'd put forward."
"But I'm not a judge. I'm the president," he added. "The basic principle, though, is let's treat everybody fairly, let's treat everybody equally, and -- and I think that the brief that's been presented accurately reflects our views."
Leave a Comment:
Oh, goody...because yesterday's stories on this subject didn't dredge up enough bad commentary.
"Let's have a sane, rational conversation on the subject of marriage inequality in this nation," said nobody on this blog ever.
We are equal absolutely, and deserve equal chances to live like decent human beings.
We have a President who is willing to stand up for that truth.
It is astounding to hear a basic premise pushed that there somehow exist statistical data showing that gay marriage somehow destroys straight marriage and therefore needs laws to keep it from doing such harm, but that no statistical data exist showing what a high powered weapon society does to a non high powered weapon society and thus we need no laws because of course, we have no problem.
Backhouse stated: We have a President who is willing to stand up for that truth. Is this the same Person who, when debating Hillery in 2008, that he "believed marriage was between a man and woman only?
sfcret
Backhouse stated: We have a President who is willing to stand up for that truth. Is this the same Person who, when debating Hillery in 2008, that he "believed marriage was between a man and woman only?
sfcret, you have just validated the reason I say the numb nuts on the right are going the way on the dinosaur.
Evolve , do you know what change means?
Don't know of your quote - but over time our views change.
"Over the last four years, President Obama has led the way on significant advancements in equality for the LGBT community. From his historic endorsement of marriage equality, to repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," to hospital visitation for same-sex partners and numerous other administrative changes throughout the government, President Obama has done more to improve the lives of LGBT people than any president in our nation's history." (The Human Rights campaign)
If you cannot say that your own views change in the light of experience - you may well be ossifying like the dinosaur.
Hey sfc-cheap shot-ret, is that anything like Laura Bush who was against gay marriage until she was for it, or Dick Cheney who was against gay marriage before he was for it?
This is why we the electorate, well most of it, sees a visionary President. Our Presdident not only sees the human aspect; but also the effect DOMA could have on the economy when a partner dies.
sfcret
Maybe the President is still learning the whole "equal rights" thing.
Have you ever changed your mind?
nothing wrong with someone changing their mind due to better insight, more maturity, more knowledge, etc. In fact, that's usually a good thing.
what would be bad are politicians who change their views strictly for political reasons. Since obama isn't running again, and gay rights is probably a neutral-ish issue overall, or at best a small positive, it seems like this could be a genuine change of mind. It is very consistent with his record over the past 4 years.
...and ultimately, regardless of what the President believes either now or in 2008, it is up the the Supreme Court to determine if Prop 8 and DOMA (Windsor v United States is also being heard this term) violate the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause.
So the idea is that we can call it a Civil Union and not a marriage and that satisfies the right? Civil Union is okay, but marriage is not? Because "Marriage" in Spanish is Matrimonio. In German, it's Ehe. French is Mariage. In Dutch it's Huwelijk.
What we call marriage - and what we've always called marriage - is not dependent upon the word you attach to it, but rather to the love two people have for each other. You can play word games all you want. In the end, gay marriage will be upheld, and no stupid word game can change that.
Rick: I am not sure if this is the same in all states, but there is legal differences between Marriage and Civil Union. An example would be the distribution of property upon one partners death. The surviving partner unless stated in the Will may be left out of the estate.
Beverly - no, sfcret has no concept of anything "evolving." Still has the same beliefs he/she had as a child. Still believes children are delivered by the stork; that Sants exists (I hated learning the truth about that one); that lying will make your nose grow; you know, things that most of us learned are not true.
The concept of people taking another look at an issue and seeing they were wrong is beyond sfcret's comprehension!
Thank you for copying Feisty Redheads comment from yesterday...
Da Noid is so original.
-Said No One Ever
I am not in favor of gay marriage for religious reasons. But as a matter of state any to people should be allowed to join in a civil union. Marriage is a religious institution. If the government wants to be involved call it what you will. A church can choose to acknowledge the marriage or not. Now i am not going to get into the moral issues of gay rights as i will trumpet that horn the day I achieve perfection. I am a sinner and in the eyes of god all sins are equal. Make all people under law equal give them the same benefits and allow God to judge them as I am not qualified.
the problem is that "marriage" is not "a religious institution", what we are talking about is the secular, legal contract of marriage between consenting adults.
"if" the gov't is involved? lol, it already is. Maybe they should never have gotten involved..but that horse has left the barn long ago.
"call it what you will"? ok, we'll call it marriage. :) Feel free to call the religious side of marriage "sacrament of holy matrimony". :)
Changing your mind....
Left = Evolving?
Right = Pandering?
Haters going to hate...
Actually echoing my own sentiments from this morning, but thanks for your suport and have a nice day.
I honestly believe that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. My argument regarding the church aspect of marriage is this. On a religious level I am against it. But this country although founded on Judeo Christian principles is not controlled be religion. Two people (man, woman or any combination) should be allowed to "marry" and receive the benefits therein. Maybe the way to get past all these people who are dead set against providing equal rights for people is to rename all civil marriages civil unions. Whatever the name just get it done. If a church doesn't recognize gay marriage then it doesn't have to. Separation of church and state allows that. There is no such clause that allows us to stop people from being together
LOL, I only threw that out there to see how many left wing nuts heads would explode.
BTW, on changes ones mind according to the left wing nuts: Republicans, "flip-flop" and Democrats, "revolve."
My views on Gay Marriage have also changed over the past 5 years, so what? It just shows that the President is human like the rest of us, which is more than can be said about other politicians.
I don't consider myself left wing so figured I'd let you know just about everyone in the political spectrum finds your comment pointless immature, follow the President's example and make a change for yourself too.
Mr. "Drama" Obama flip flopping AGAIN ??
Wow, he changes his points of view like a Camellia changes color.
Yep, that is Mr. Obama's game.
In the case of John McCain, who was for immigration reform, then against it, and now for it again, I guess that would evolve, devolve, and then "revolve".
Also, Dick Cheney was against H.W. Bush invading Iraq, but then was FOR junior invading. The reasons he gave when he was originally against it, are exactly the reasons that opponents gave for being against it in 2003.
When I was younger, I was against gay marriage too. Then I realized that it would have no effect on my marriage if two male florists were legally able to inherit property from each other.
I also realized that if the government could force "Christianity" on me, then freedom of religion is dead, and that in the future, they would be able to force some other religion on me, like Islam.
Chris -- I've kind of gotten put down for my comments on this but I don't believe that we do, as a society, need to change everyone's opinion on gay marriage. I don't think anyone should be FORCED into approving of it ... or disapproving of it. Our opinions are our business as long as we don't force them onto others.
Now personally. I have no religious predisposition against it and it matters not to me if a gay couple is married. It doesn't affect me. I also fail to see how it affects anyone else except the people involved. I believe that a gay couple has the same right as a heterosexual couple to enjoy all the same "married" benefits.
Not everyone agrees with that. That's OK. You can't change everyone's attitude .. you can change the law. Then, when people see the world isn't coming to an end, attitudes will begin to change. That's exactly what happened with interracial marriage.
So what we need to do is change the law.
I think the best way to accomplish this is exactly your point ... take the government out of "marriage". This is done in many European countries and works well. There is the "legal marriage" which gives a couple all the rights and legal standing. That is accomplished in a courthouse before a judge (or similar setting). There is nothing religious about it and the couple is now "legally married".
If they wish to have it sanctified in a house of worship, they can do so. I also agree with the laws already on the books that a house of worship cannot be forced to marry a gay couple if it is aganist the tenents of their religion.
To me, this seems to be a totally simple solution.
Ido - as usual, showing your complete lack of knowledge. A Camillia is a flower and it doesn't change color. My guess is you meant chameleon but, maybe not! Since you don't usually know what you're posting you might have meant Camillia!
The "president" should be arrested and charged, with trying to influence the Supreme Court.
Once the court was hearing this case The "President" had no RIGHT to tell them how to vote.
NO ONE has that right, but this so called "president" doesnt have any RESPECT for whats right and wrong, only what will make make him look good.
Apparently you teabaggers were too dumb to notice that Obama came out in full support of marriage equality in 1996, vocally opposed Prop h8, and ran on a campaign pledge of repealing DADT and DOMA.
You might want to add these names to your arrest warrant ... after all, they too signed an amicus brief in support of gay marriage.
Kenneth B. Mehlman, chairman, Republican National Committee, 2005–07
Tim Adams, undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, 2005–2007
Cliff S. Asness, businessman, philanthropist, and author
David D. Aufhauser, general counsel, Department of the Treasury, 2001–03
Charles Bass, member of Congress, 1995–2007 and 2011–13
John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to the Department of State, 2005–09
Katie Biber, general counsel, Romney for President, 2007–08 and 2011–12
Mary Bono Mack, member of Congress, 1998–2013
William A. Burck, deputy staff secretary, special counsel, and deputy counsel to the president, 2005–09
Alex Castellanos, Republican media adviser
Paul Cellucci, governor of Massachusetts, 1997–2001, and ambassador to Canada, 2001–05
David C. Chavern, business association executive
Mary Cheney, director of vice-presidential operations, Bush-Cheney 2004
Thomas J. Christensen, deputy assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs, 2006–08
Jim Cicconi, assistant to the president and deputy to the chief of staff, 1989–90
James B. Comey, U.S. deputy attorney general, 2003–05
Jeff Cook-McCormac, senior adviser, American Unity PAC
R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. alternative representative, United Nations Security Council, 2007–09
Julie Cram, deputy assistant to the president and director, White House Office of Public Liaison, 2007–09
S.E. Cupp, author and political commentator
Michele Davis, assistant secretary for public affairs and director of policy planning, Department of the Treasury, 2006–09
Tyler Deaton, secretary, New Hampshire Young Republicans, 2011–present
Alicia Davis Downs, associate political director, White House, 2001–03
Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House chief of staff and assistant to the president, 1981–84 and 1987–89
Janet Duprey, New York state assemblywoman, 2007–present
Clint Eastwood, producer, director, actor, and mayor of Carmel, California, 1986–88
Christian J. Edwards, special assistant to the president and director of Press Advance, 2005–07
Lew Eisenberg, finance chairman, Republican National Committee, 2002–04
Mark J. Ellis, state chairman, Maine Republican Party, 2005–06 and 2007–09
Elizabeth Noyer Feld, public-affairs specialist, White House Office of Management and Budget, 1984–87
Charles Freeman, assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs, 2002–05
David Frum, author and special assistant to the president, 2001–02
Reed Galen, director of scheduling and advance, Bush-Cheney 2004
Richard Galen, communications director, speaker’s political office, 1996–97
Mark Gerson, chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group, and author of The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dispatches from an Inner-City School that Works
Benjamin Ginsberg, national counsel, Bush-Cheney 2000 and 2004
Josh Ginsberg, national field director, Romney for President, 2007–08
Juleanna Glover, press secretary to the vice president, 2001–02
John Goodwin, chief of staff to Raul Labrador, member of Congress, 2011–13
Adrian Gray, director of strategy, Republican National Committee, 2005–07
Richard Grenell, spokesman, U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, 2001–08
Mark Grisanti, New York state senator, 2011–present
Patrick Guerriero, mayor of Melrose, Massachusetts, and member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, 1993–2001
Carlos Gutierrez, secretary of Commerce, 2005–09
Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president and national security adviser, 2005–09
Richard Hanna, member of Congress, 2011–present
Jill Hazelbaker, communications director, John McCain for President, 2007–08
Israel Hernandez, assistant secretary of Commerce for international trade, 2005–09
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director, Congressional Budget Office, 2003–05
Margaret Hoover, adviser to the deputy secretary of Homeland Security, 2005–06
Michael Huffington, member of Congress, 1993–95
Jon Huntsman, governor of Utah, 2005–09, and ambassador to China, 2009–11
David A. Javdan, general counsel, U.S. Small Business Administration, 2002–06
Reuben Jeffery, undersecretary of State for economic, energy, and agricultural Affairs, 2007–09
Greg Jenkins, deputy assistant to the president and director of presidential advance, 2003–04
Coddy Johnson, national field director, Bush-Cheney 2004
Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico, 1995–03, and Libertarian Party nominee for president, 2012
Nancy L. Johnson, member of Congress, 1983–2007
Robert Kabel, special assistant to the president for legislative affairs, 1982–85
Neel Kashkari, assistant secretary of the Treasury, 2008–09
Theodore W. Kassinger, deputy secretary of Commerce, 2004–05
Jonathan Kislak, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture for small community and rural development, 1989–91
David Kochel, senior Iowa adviser, Mitt Romney for President, 2007–08 and 2011–12
James Kolbe, member of Congress, 1985–2007
Cyrus Krohn, e-campaign director, Republican National Committee, 2007–09
Jeffrey Kupfer, chief of staff and acting deputy secretary, Department of Energy, 2006–09
Ed Kutler, assistant to the speaker of the House, 1995–97
Kathryn Lehman, chief of staff, House Republican Conference, 2003–05
Thomas A. Little, Vermont state representative, 1992–2002, and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 1999–2002
Daniel S. Loeb, businessman and philanthropist
Alex Lundry, director of data science, Romney for President, 2012
Greg Mankiw, chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003–05
Catherine Martin, deputy assistant to the president and deputy communications director for policy and planning, 2005–07
Kevin Martin, chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2005–09
David McCormick, undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, 2007–09
Mark McKinnon, Republican media adviser
Aaron McLear, press secretary to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2007–11
Bruce P. Mehlman, assistant secretary of Commerce, 2001–03
Susan Molinari, member of Congress, 1990–97
Connie Morella, member of Congress, 1987–2003, and U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2003–07
Michael E. Murphy, Republican political consultant
Beth Myers, Romney for President campaign manager, 2007–08, and senior adviser, 2011–12
Michael Napolitano, White House Office of Political Affairs, 2001–03
Ana Navarro, national Hispanic co-chair, John McCain for President, 2008
Noam Neusner, special assistant to the president for economic speechwriting, 2002-2005
B.J. Nikkel, Colorado state representative and majority whip, 2009–12, and district director for Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, 2002–06
Susan Neely, special assistant to the president, 2001–02
Meghan O’Sullivan, deputy national-security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, 2005–07
Richard Painter, associate counsel to the president, 2005–07
Ruth Ann Petroff, Wyoming state representative, 2011–present
Nancy Pfotenhauer, economist, presidential transition team, 1988, and President’s Council on Competitiveness, 1990
Gregg Pitts, director, White House Travel Office, 2006–09
J. Stanley Pottinger, assistant U.S. attorney general (Civil Rights Division), 1973–77
Michael Powell, chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2001–05
Larry Pressler, U.S. senator from South Dakota, 1979–97, and member of Congress, 1975–79
Deborah Pryce, member of Congress, 1993–2009
John Reagan, New Hampshire state senator, 2012–present
Luis Reyes, special assistant to the president and deputy assistant to the president, 2006–09
Tom Ridge, governor of Pennsylvania, 1995–2001, and secretary of Homeland Security, 2003–05
Kelley Robertson, chief of staff, Republican National Committee, 2005–07
Mark A. Robbins, general counsel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2001–06
Brian Roehrkasse, director of public affairs, Department of Justice, 2007–09
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, member of Congress, 1989–present
Harvey S. Rosen, member and chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003–05
Lee Rudofsky, deputy general counsel, Romney for President, 2012
Patrick Ruffini, e-campaign director, Republican National Committee, 2005–07
Corry Schiermeyer, director for global communications, National Security Council, 2005–07
Steve Schmidt, deputy assistant to the president and counselor to the vice president, 2004–06, and senior adviser, John McCain for President, 2008
Adam Schroadter, New Hampshire state representative, 2010–present
Christopher Shays, member of Congress, 1987–2009
Faryar Shirzad, deputy assistant to the president and deputy national-security adviser for international economic affairs, 2004–06
Ken Spain, communications director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2009–10
Robert Steel, undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance, 2006–08
Nancy Stiles, New Hampshire state senator, 2010–present
David Stockman, director, Office of Management and Budget, 1981–85
Jane Swift, governor of Massachusetts, 2001–03
Richard Tisei, Massachusetts state senator, 1991–2011, and Senate minority leader, 2007–11
Michael E. Toner, chairman and commissioner, Federal Election Commission, 2002–07
Frances Fragos Townsend, Homeland Security adviser to the president, 2004–08
Michael Turk, e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney 2004
John Ullyot, communications director, U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, 2003–07
Sally A. Vastola, executive director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2003–06
Jacob P. Wagner, chairman, New Hampshire Federation of College Republicans, 2012–present
Mark Wallace, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, representative for U.N. management and reform, 2006–08
Nicolle Wallace, assistant to the president and White House communications director, 2005–08
William F. Weld, governor of Massachusetts, 1991–97, and assistant U.S. attorney general (criminal division), 1986–88
Christine Todd Whitman, governor of New Jersey, 1994–2001, and administrator of the EPA, 2001–03
Meg Whitman, Republican nominee for governor of California, 2010
Robert Wickers, Republican political consultant
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of Defense, 2001–05, and president of the World Bank Group, 2005–07
Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming state representative, 2005–present
- See more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/28/the-pro-freedom-republicans-are-coming-131-sign-gay-marriage-brief.html#sthash.qbJx0WBy.dpuf
Your comment seems contradictory. All EU countries regulate marriage as a civil legal contract, just like the US does. That means the government is involved. France is good at the separation of church and state and thus prohibits any marriage from being formalized in a church, while others like England are still a bit confused about where the state ends and the official state religion begins, but even there a marriage is still just a legal contract.
The state has always been involved in marriage and marital law, even if state licensing of marriages is a relatively recent invention.
America could reduce the confusion between a legal contract and an irrelevant religious rite if we did it the way France does, and require all marriages to be formalized at a government office.
Wrong! in this country, marriage is strictly a civil institution under the perview of the law. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial with no legal weight. Besides, marriage predates religious involvement by thousands of years.
It's called marriage, plain and simple.
Yes they can. but it's otherwise irrelevant and has no legal bearing. A marriage only needs to be acknowledged by the governemnt to be legally valid. A church or religious acknowledgement is unneccessary and irrelevant!
You're half right. While this country cannot be controlled by religion, as per the separation of church and state, it is founded on the Constitution and most certainly NOT founded on judeo-christian principles, or any other religious ideology. I defy you to prove otherwise!
I believe in separation of church and state. I do not condone gay marriage, but if gays wish to marry, then that is their business between themselves and God, not my business.
And to gordy327, although it is true that this country was not founded on Christian principles, it WAS founded on godly principles. That cannot be disputed. Too many mentions of God throughout the founding documents to say otherwise. Still, freedom of religion is a huge thing, and that includes freedom NOT to believe or practice any religion.
And just as a side comment, not all of President Obama's supporters approve of everything that the President says and does. I am a great fan of his, but disagree on certain issues.
Yes, it can be disputed, because that is false! This country was founded based on the Constitution and not on any religious ideology. You still haven't proved otherwise!
Specify where god is mentioned in the Constitution as a "founding principle!"
The principle of separation of church and state, which is in the Constitution, contradicts the notion that this country is based on godly principles.
That's why I put "marriage" into quotation marks ... to avoid that as there is really no other current wording to suffice. Government SHOULD control the "contractual" or "legal" aspects of the union between two people ... kind of wordy, right? Frankly, we do need two separate terms ... an in many respects actually do ... "Marriage" for the civil/legal and "matrimony" for the religious.
I agree with most of what you say ... but I can't agree with this part. The bottom line is, whatever other documents are out there, when it came to writing the most important one, the Constitution (the law of the land), the founding fathers left out any mention of "God", "Jesus", and/or "Christianity". As many other documents did mention God, it's obvious this was done on purpose.
The only mentions of religion are the ones that prohibit a state religion while guaranteeing free exercise of religion and stating that religion cannot be used as a "test" for public office.
Since those who believe one can marry someone of the same sex, would these same people think polygamy is also o.k. as long as it is between consenting adults? Where is the difference?
That's why we have a separation of "marriage" from "holy matrimony". Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference between a legal contract and an irrelevant religious rite......in particular, ask him how he was able to divorce or remarry.
Actually that's an issue between gays and the state, just like driver's licenses are an issue for the state and not an issue for your imaginary sky wizard. If gays want to be "holy matrimonied", that's an issue between gays and their church. If gay Christians are smart they'll belong to an enlightened church like the Episcopal church or ELCA, rather than a racist, misogynistic and homophobic church like the Southern Baptists or Mormons.
John Adams completely disagrees with you, as do most of the other founders. This is what he said about how the constitution was written, from his publication "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America":
Sounds like Lockean "age of enlightenment principles", and definitely not "Christian principles" or "godly principles". Otherwise we'd still be having religious wars and burning witches.
sfcret
ahhhh yes.. let the slippery slopes begin ! would you like to use the slippery slope arguments of animals or relatives or inanimate objects as well ?? or would you like to actually just stick to the topic ?
it seems to me, it's best you stick to the topic and in case you didn't know, the topic is same-sex marriage. its not polygamy, its not marrying inanimate objects, its not marrying multiple people, its not marrying relatives. so if you are going to comment on same-sex marriage - stick to ONLY same sex-marriage since that is the topic of the article :)
reading comprehension is fun :)
Phoenyx - What part of my post didn't you understand? I specifically mentioned CONSENTING ADULTS, and because you can't give a logical answer you rant and rave about animals or inanimate objects.
BTW, if you don't like what I post, or can't answer the question logically, don't reply. BTW, I believe you lack in reading comprehension in that you brought up thinks I didn't even mention which means you couldn't grasp what I wrote.
No surprise that sfcret is using the exact same argument racists used to deny mixed-race marriage.
Here's the proof:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
Pretty much what I just said, right? There ya go again, arguing again for the sake of arguing, which why for a while, I simply didn't bother with you. (Seems like that was a good policy.) No wonder you can't persuade anyone who DISAGREES with you, you irritate those of us who AGREE with you.
Here's what I said:
Try picking up my ENTIRE post next time.
The problem is, right now, people don't see the difference ... and thus the separation of TERMS does not really exist. They might for a catholic, as in your example, but not for many others.
No, what you've been saying all along is that we need a different term so that the bigots can be appeased. Since we already have a separation between marriage and holy matrimony, there's no need to change anything other than to allow gays the same right to marriage straights already have.
sfcret,
*yawn* do i have to explain it to you ?
you DID specify consenting adults, that part is true :) BUT -- you MENTIONED POLYGAMY WHICH IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THE POST ! get it ?
do you understand my response now ? do i have to draw pictures for you and use one syllable words ? ITS A SLIPPER SLOPE ARGUMENT AND NOT A VALID COMPARISON NOR IS IT THE TOPIC OF THE STORY !! geez ! how hard is it to stick to the topic ?
(and in case you *still* don't understand my response - you mentioned a slippery slope argument - polygamy - and i cut you off at the pass, this way you can't use your slippery slope argument or the various others that people try to employ.. do us all a favor and stick to the topic or don't comment :) thanks !)
if you have any further problems, please see an adult to help you
yes, please don't reply if you can't actually stick to the topic of the story. if that is too hard for you to do, obviously you lack reading comprehension and the educational system failed you - try to get your money back.
thanks :)
What I have been saying all along is that gays have the right to be married ... legally ... and it's up to the individual churches/religions to determine if they want to sanctify it. And that the term MARRIAGE should be reserved for the LEGALITY and MATRIMONY for the religious.
Two separate terms are needed, because they are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. And no, we don't currently have a separation between the two terms ... not a legal one only a societal one and a great majority of people don't recognize the difference. They consider the terms synonymous.
Kindly STOP putting "words in my mouth" ... and I do believe it is now time to return to my former policy ... any "discussion" with you is pointless.
One hundred and fifty years prior to the Constitution, the Mayflower Compact state, "Having undertaken, for the glory of GOD, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together..." Later, the founders of the Constitution moved away from the perspective of one religion, such as Christianity, as some of them were Deists (believed in one God) and rightly considered that freedom of religion should be one of the new country's greatest rights.
Although some claim that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist, he was unquestionably a Deist. In his own handwriting, there exist documents where Jefferson refers to God as "our Maker."
And Benjamin Franklin wrote that he enjoyed life in America better than Europe because a person was not confronted often by atheists.
Then we're in agreement.
It's true some people are confused, although most Catholics and Jews are not. That's why we should do what France does and prohibit marriages from being formalized in a church. Everyone should have to go to a government office to get married, just like everybody goes to a government office to get a driver's license.
FYI, the Pilgrims viewed marriage as a secular legal contract and didn't allow marriages to be performed in a church.
Yes, silverton, atheism was rare back then. So? Freedom is freedom.
I agree, jock. Freedom is freedom.
Freedom of religion (or no religion) is one of our country's greatest rights.
And does that not include freedom to marry whoever I want to regardles of what someone else's religion says?
Yes, and I believe I stated that in my first post above. #1.32
It also means that everyone is free to practice their chosen faith without harrassment from those who choose not to believe or believe differently.
The main reason that most of us who disagree with calling a gay civil union a marriage is that if it were law, it would then be taught as "normal" in school. I should have control over what my children are taught in school. For me and my family a marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. Period. End of discussion. I am so glad that my children are out of school now but I have grand children, and their parents will be force to home school if these laws take effect.
Sorry but I’m having trouble understanding what the fight is all about. Is it about semantics, i.e. “marriage” vs. “civil unions”? I’m not familiar with the particulars of California’s Proposition 8 but in New Jersey the state recognizes civil unions. I don’t know if California has an equivalent but in essence New Jersey’s civil union law provides benefits that are indistinguishable from marriage:
“A New Jersey civil union automatically includes you in the myriad legal rights and responsibilities under state law conferred on a married couple. In the words of the civil union legislation, a New Jersey civil union grants "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."
I keep hearing that same sex couples bonded in “civil unions” are being deprived of the same benefits afforded “married” couples. In New Jersey at least that assertion is false. Nevertheless there is a brouhaha here in New Jersey about both terms that at the end of the day can be described as a distinction without a difference in terms of benefits. It seems however that after having acquired equal benefits there are some in the gay rights crowd who are insisting that equal benefits are no longer enough. They now insist that there be no difference in terms.
I do not oppose civil unions nor the rights guaranteed thereunder. I do oppose the notion that civil unions should be deemed equivalent to traditional marriage that recognizes the importance of a man and a woman bonding in the rearing children. To decree that all things being equal, two men or two woman can provide the same nurturing to children as a man AND a women is preposterous. In an ideal world, children should have a father and a mother because men and women are DIFFERENT and most children need exposure to both in order to thrive. Mankind has prospered under that dynamic for centuries. I see not a reason to muddle that reality now.
Linda Peterson,
I understand what you are saying. My sons are in college now, but we always taught them that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't particularly care for homeschooling (have known many parents who have done it), but you can send your kids to public schools and still teach them according to your own beliefs at home. We did.
Wow...some of you are so caught up in your own hatred that you really just don't get it. What the administration filed, through the Department of Justice, is called an "Amicus Brief". The administration does so in the position of an "Amicus Curiae", a Latin phrase meaning "Friend Of The Court"...that is a third party that will not directly have a stake in a case but has either concerns on how a ruling will affect that third party or wishes to offer an legal opinion on a case.
The administration has the right to file an Amicus Brief. We all have the right to file an Amicus Brief...and the administrations Amicus Brief in Hollingsworth v Perry.
Out of curiosity, if you were to arrest the President for filing this Amicus Brief, what crime would he have committed?
It is not just about semantics.
Proposition 8 in California, the basis of Hollingsworth v Perry, says that marriage shall only be recognized when between a man and a woman. The term "marriage" in this case is definied as the legal term of a contract between consenting adults and not as the religious ceremony. So, whether you call them "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or whatever, California voters approved a ballot proposition saying that same-sex couples are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples woule be entitled to.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution has what is called the "Equal Protection" clause...
...and so the question is this...does Proposition 8 amending the Constitution of the State of California violate the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause by denying same-sex couples the right to enter the legal contract of marriage...whether it's marriage performed by a church, or a civil ceremony performed by a judge?
It's funny you should mention that...the Supreme Court will hear a separate case this term in the case of United States v Windsor.
Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer, both residents of New York, were partners for over 30 years. In 2007, when the State of New York still did not recognize same-sex marriage, Windsor and Spyer went to Canada and were legally married by a judge in a civil ceremony. When Spyer died in 2009, New York recognized same-sex marriage performed in other jurisdictions. However, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, Windsor was held liable for an additional $363,000 in federal estate taxes that a heterosexual couple would not have had to pay because DOMA did not recognize same-sex marriage.
Again, the 14th Amendment question of the "Equal Protection" clause is going to be asked...and for those who suggest that the administration filing the Amicus Brief in Hollingsworth v Perry is the federal government trying to get involved in a "States' Rights" issue, United States v Windsor is a case that will determine if this really is a "States' Rights" issue or not.
It isn't a crime to "try to influence the Supreme Court", in fact, there is legal process for it, filing an "Amicus Curia" (friend of the court) brief. That's what the President did. It would be silly to be arresting and charging someone for a non-crime.
But he didn't tell them "how to vote", he simply stated his opinion - something everyone has a right to do.
Backhouse (funny enough with the name right there, but shouldn't it be Backdoorhouse?), you can LIVE all you want, but don't expect to hijack and redefine marriage (a Christian institution, legally protected) for your own perverse and economic benefit. Call it "union" or whatever, but it is NOT a Marriage, since that is ONLY between ONE man and ONE women, period. Silly homosexuals.
You don't own the word marriage and marriage itself is not uniquely or exclusively christian. Marriage is a civil institution under the perview of the law. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial with no legal weight. Besides, marriage has been a civil function long before religious involvement.
It's a marriage! Deal with it!
Merely your opinion, period!
Silly bigots!
@Linda Peterson,
Were your children to marry and divorce, and marry again, would you claim their second marriage is NOT marriage? According to many churches, it's not.
Just like racist Southern Baptists have a right to prevent their children from being taught that mixed-race marriage is legal? And Catholics have a right to prevent their children from being taught that divorce is legal?
LOL.......good luck with that. If you bigots want to shield your children from reality you're free to home school them.
Funny too that you'd like to treat other Americans as 2nd-class citizens just because you want your kids to learn how to be fragile little bigots.
Is Obama attempting to once again intimidate the Supreme Court justices? Marriage is not a right guaranteed under the constitution for anyone. This is left to the individual states to define and to establish rules.
For example:
States define minimum ages for marriages
States establish rules for marriages between relatives.
States have established rules for limiting marriage to two people only.
Individual states may, with the concurrence of their voters, prohibit or allow gay or any other form or marriage. The federal government is prohibited from interference in states rights. Somebody should tell that to the two bit dictator wannabe.
But equal protection of the law is.
I guess that's why mixed-race marriage is still prohibited throughout the south, right?
No wonder you bigots have lost every single court case on this issue, because you don't have an effing clue how the constitution works.
The SCOTUS disagrees! They deemed marriage to be a "basic civil right."
But the government, including state governments, must abide by the US Constitution, including qeual protection under the law!
I'm not sure why a simple federal bill that says "Those in Civil Unions shall have the same rights and duties as Married couples" would not satisfy the Gay peoples concerns over "Equal Protection".
Why do they insist that it be called a 'Marriage'?
Roy,
you DO realize that its been ruled that "separate is NOT equal", correct ?
please tell me you do know this already and you aren't showing off your low IQ and 5th grade education.
Phoenyx13 "Roy, you DO realize that its been ruled that "separate is NOT equal", correct ?"
Apparently you don't see a difference between educational opportunities based on race and demanding that the term 'marriage' be used by gays and lesbians. Nobody is trying to force gays and lesbians into a substandard living arrangement, and granting them the 'same rights and duties' as a married heterosexual couple should suffice in granting 'equal protection under the law'.
By the way - My IQ (145+) and 4 university degrees, including a Masers Degree from a top ranked California University, makes your feeble attempt to denigrate me childish. Usually, when people like you try to resort to childish personal attacks, it reflects your inability to formulate a rational argument.
"Denigration is the last refuge of the ignorant" - I'll take credit for that saying.
Roy,
define your correlation between the education opportunities based on race and marriage being used by gays and lesbians. they seem to be two completely different subjects unless you can show me the commonality.
granting them the same rights and duties as a married heterosexual couple is great, why do you have to call it something else ? what's your issue with the word "marriage" ?? marriage is only a secular legal contract and the word is not owned by the religious in any way, shape or form.
i think that's great for you, now do everyone a favor and act like it - instead of acting like a 5 year old who stamps their foot and says "no ! i think its icky !".
thanks :)
you are rather arrogant for thinking you are so great that there will be quotes stated by you that go down in history. a bit prideful, don't you think ?
Don't tell me GOP-ers don't have LBBT family members - or were they born on Pluto after all?
Backhouse, it seems many on the right have trouble translating this biblical passage. We all know when men get together, they beat women hands down at being gossip queens. Just look at their big fish stories. The reason it is ok or men to lie with their women friends is because women have the uncanny ability to call bull@!$%# on those lies.
The Constitution guarantees me the right to ignore the Bible.
The Bible is irrelevant to the gay marriage argument. This is about secular, legal, marriage contracts.
"It's a lifestyle choice", and "It's genetically inherited" is also irrelvant. Doesn't matter. The Constitution guarantees you the right to make your own "choices' without religious interference. The "choice or genetics" issue will not even be brought up by the Supremes because it's irrelevant.
If you sue a gay couple because they "destroyed your marriage" by getting married, you will get tossed out of court.
I don't know why people have trouble with the idea that the President's views on same sex marriage have evolved. I know that my own views on the subject have changed over time, as have the views of most Americans.
What troubles me is the idea of putting people's rights up for a vote. Either they are rights or not---can't vote on them.
Steeler Fan-380417
Steeler Fan, So have mine. I had an interesting conversation with a 19 year old man last night who seems to think welfare and modern day trends for women wanting to be independent is the reason women have decided to be attracted to the same sex.
Worst, he is a psyche major at Northwestern. I had to probe his mind. He thinks as long as women have a source of income; they shut men out of their lives; thereby establishing a clan of their own which allows them to become sexually and emotionally dependent on each other.
Then, we got into the biblical reason why same sex is forbidden. I tried to explain to him , first of all, homo sexuality has been going on since the dawn of time; in addition to the possibility of a person's genetic make up and its acceptance , even back then, of homosexuality.
I hope I made a dent in head for him to not be xenophobic.
President Obama needs to stay out of it. This is a State's Rights issue. Not a Federal issue. I'm a white republican from the south, and if two women or two men want to get married then so be it. It's not my place to tell someone how to live their life, but let the state laws dictate the issue. Not federal laws.
Beverly, it sounds like he has been listening to Pat.
"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson
dawgfan: scotus already ruled in "loving vs virginia" that the right to marriage is a federal right, not state, based on the 14th amendment of the constitution.
Are you familiar with something we affectionately call "DOMA"?
That's what they said about slavery, too.
Neither the states nor the federal government has a right to impose someone else's religious or cultural values on me in a discriminatory way.
Steelerfan, we get it "evolve" is just another political synonym for "flip-flop". Bad if one is republican but good if one is democrat.
Gotta luv that LW bias!
Just because we humans can change our minds doesn't make a wrong into a right!
well, that's true, but just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. :)
So you would prefer we go back to banning interracial marriages to appease those that see them as wrong? Hell, why not re-institute slavery? The neo-Nazi skinheads believe in enslaving all non-Aryans. According to you, our laws should be catered to their views.
Why are we even thinking about debating this topic in 2013.
Equality for all or none have equality.
But William, we do not have equality for all on the issue of marriage. Parents cannot marry their children, siblings cannot marry. We have set age limits for marriage. We have said you can only have one spouse. So there has never been equality on this issue.
Chris, it sounds like you don't have a clue how equal rights work,. or what a rational basis is for a law.
Obama thinks he has influence over the Supreme Court and now wants to use his press lacky's for a PR op. This is a complete PR push for the newly found gay rights advocate. Quite frankly, I am glad to see this issue go in front of the Supreme Court and once and for all put this issue behind us one way or the other. I look at Roe v Wade as similar in that we all have to live with it agreed or not including our illustrious farce of a leader.
I pity the fool that thinks Hannibal Smith is a farce.
More like "It is important for us to try to influence the Supreme Court. After all some of them are beholden to me".
Justice Kennedy's concurrence in a 2001 Supreme Court case begins with a great observation:
"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or
hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused
by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive
mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some
respects from ourselves."
We should also think of Thomas Jefferson:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816
Great quotes, and exactly on point.
In a thousand years, its not going to matter, we will see who was right. Being mortal is just that, the blind leading the blind. Eat drink and be merry!
I just don't get the opposition to gay marriage, I mean, even if you HATE gays, what do you care if they call their relationship a marriage? That gay couple down the street? They have yucky gay sex almost every night and if they get married they won't be having MORE yucky gay sex, if anything, they'll have LESS gay sex. Maybe you anti-gay bigots should ENCOURAGE gay marriage if you hate the idea of people having gay sex so much.
Marriage cannot exist between homosexual couples. For the Liar-in-Chief to be focusing on this issue when he cannot effectively lead government just shows his ineptness.
He is truly becoming the worst president this country has every had!
Oh, and by the way: Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
obama is "focusing" on this issue? lol. hardly. he supports it. Doubt he spent more than 10 minutes on it.
maybe you should 'focus' on reality.
you are truly becoming the most hateful poster this forum has ever had! :)
Lonesome Rhoades is an ignorant troll using religion to justify his bigotry.
Enjoy it while you can, Lonesome. There will be fewer and fewer of you as we go along, so it's just a matter of time before your hate is no longer tolerated in national discussions.
nine states (and counting), as well as various cultures theoughout history, disagree with you!
Because equal rights is never important umtil it's your rights being denied, right?
By the way, who cares? Your bible or god has no place or say in our secular laws!
Lonesome:: And whose opinion is it that marriage cannot exist between homosexual couples? The main idea of marriage is LOVE-- so why can't a homosexual couple have the same kind of love and companionship that you seem to think belongs only to straight couples. And don't give me that crap about marriage is only for procreation. If that were so, then I guess my husband and I (a straight couple) weren't in a marriage-- we chose not to have children so we didn't. And what about people who procreate outside of marriage-- and produce children for the country to support. Guess it is OK according to your way of thinking-- after all, they are a man/woman couple.
Hey just use the Bible you put your hand on Mr. President that will help the court in deciding how the God of the Bible feels about the subject.
Chris - the Bible does not condemn homosexuality when it is put in historical and cultural context and is read using reason, as Jesus did. If you disagree, please cite a verse.
hey chris, put your hand on the constitution and read it if you want to see how the court should rule.
Thankfully Chris' imaginary friend and bizarre sharia laws are irrelevant to our secular government.
Your bible does not make or have say in our secular laws.
An office holder in the US of A puts their hand on a bible or other book (or none at all if they so wish) and swears to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.
pmdww2...Been there. Done that. Obviously you prefer to ignore the truth, already posted on other threads. Verses have already been cited. Jesus did not "read" the Bible....he inspired it.
Some of us prefer to ignore the BS you spew, evenon other threads!
Shakespeare was inspired. J.K Rowling was inspired. What's your point?
If you are ignoring me, why do you feel the need to respond with your garbage answers?
We already know you ignore proof, facts and truth. You didn't need to tell us.
Becasue your garbage posts and "truth" needs to be shown as the erroneous and hateful tripe that it is!
That's hilariuous coming from you, especially since I have yet to see you support any of your supposed "facts" or "truth" with anything more substantial than your beliefs or opinion. But then, your arguments usuall devolve into a "I know you are but what am I" format, such as your post above.
Here I had always thought SCOTUS and all courts ruled based on law. Now POTUS tells me that we have a vote, that we can influence court decisions. Now that being said, I have no oar in this water, don't care one way or the other. I had a uncle who was gay, back in time when many states tried to "cure" them. I felt very bad for what he went through. Still, a court decides on the points of the law. That is why they are appointed.
the judges on scotus are human. to think that they can't be influenced by a variety of factors is silly. In theory "the law is the law", but pragmatically that isn't the case.
If they cannot agree with the "Law is the Law" then they should be impeached. Legislators enact Law..Judges interpret that law. Judges do NOT make, legislate, modify law nor decide on it's correctness! Judges who legislate should be removed...quickly!
An after thought; I don't think that Justice Scalia nor Sotomayor cares what you think!
So can we ban some people from voting by voting on it?
This is why our system is flawed, and cannot last. People cannot rule themselves.
Obama is going to give an oral argument at the Chicago bath house
you are obsessed with men and gay sex, aren't you? :)
Now that Barack no longer cares what the electorate thinks, he is working on his "legacy". Barack the "great emancipator" He made homosexualism a right.
News flash: Obama renames his butt hole the Presidential Love Canal.
Liberals evolve....Republicans flip flop??
The Blamer-in-the-White House can't seem to solve any small problems in this country like 16 going on 17 trillion in national debt or an unemployment rate that's still a conservative 8% . But he sure can find time to campaign for REALLY important issues in this country like same sex marriage. The guys problem is he has no friends, doesn't know the meaning of cooperation or compromise. All he knows is how to create division and confrontation. And then bitch, blame and threaten if he doesn't get his way. The worst excuse for a national leader the country has had in my lifetime.
So why exactly does the White House feel the need to control the supreme court.
Uh.. Just because?
So if Gays can marry then can gay siblings marry?
If heterosexuals can marry, can heterosexual siblings marry?
No, it is important for you to articulate to your American citizens how you propose to draw corporations to return to the United States to bring jobs.
Your people are facing a severe lack of cash flow, Mr. Obama.
You say you are not a dictator. But, your conduct isn't impeaching that assertion.
Dictators do as they please and suffer not whilst the peasants labor and go hungry.
Isn't it more important to get the economy and people back to work.
Why are we worrying what a bunch of worthless homo's want.
I'll fix there problem, send them all to the Arab nations they can whine there stupid ideas there
These people are mentally sick and need some sort of medical help.
Stop pampering them they will want until the cows come home.
They are children of Satan that is a fact
Obama articulating his current views on gay marriage. What insufferable arrogance! He should say "It is none of my business and it is none of government's business!"
Why the heck does the government get to say anything about marriage? There are areas, like defense, or measurement standards; in which government is uniquely able to fill a vital role. There are others in which, no matter how "good" the intention, or how many people support it; government has no business meddling! The government should say nothing about whom we may marry, what foods we eat, which profession we choose, or anything else that is purely a matter of personal choice.
Because it's a legal contract involving property and kinship rights. If you don't want those rights or legal protections you're free not to get a marriage license.
So a 30 year old pedophile should be allowed to marry a 5 year old girl, and the state cannot interfere? A brutal assailant can marry his comatose victim, and the state cannot interfere?
Nonsense skrekk! "Legal contracts" are part of civil law and are purely at the discretion of the parties to the contract.
There are plenty of laws against pedophilia, rape, incest, etc. We are just talking about marriage here.
Marriage is, at its core, a religious practice. Therefore, the First Amendment says that it is strictly "hands off" for the Government.
Correct, legal contracts are part of civil law. Marriage and its related body of law regarding divorce, debt, inheritance, etc, are all part of civil law.
My question still stands. If the government isn't regulating the legal contract of marriage, can a 30 year old convicted pedophile marry a 5 year old girl, and can brutal assailant marry his comatose victim? If not, why not? Since you don't want the state to interfere in marriage what's to prevent either situation?
Mine sure wasn't. You've obviously confused marriage with holy matrimony. In America all marriages are just legal contracts as far as the state is concerned. The state doesn't give a @!$%# what your silly cult does, but you're free to have a religious wedding to celebrate your state-issued marriage license.
If marriage is a religious practice, how can a Catholic divorce or remarry?
Government has a long sad history of telling us whom we may marry and whom we may not marry.
Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967.
Skrekk, I suppose you approve of those laws too ...
I repeat: The government should say nothing about whom we may marry, what foods we eat, which profession we choose, how many children we may have, or anything else that is purely a matter of personal choice.
So you agree that a 30 year old convicted pedophile can marry a 5 year old girl and a brutal assailant marry his comatose victim, and the government should not be able to prohibit either marriage even though in both cases one of the parties lacks the ability to consent.
Good to know.
No skrekk a 30 year old convicted pedophile can not marry a 5 year old girl and a brutal assailant can't marry his comatose victim. The first is child molestation and the second is rape under legitimate protective statutes that have nothing to do with marriage.
That's assuming, of course that you are implying that these "marriages" can be consummated.
Kannin:: You said that marriage is a religious practice? Is everything "religious". My first husband and I went to the courthouse with a marriage license that was issued by THE GOVERNMENT and were married by a JP-- no religious stuff there. But we had the paper saying that we were married.
Oh, and I guess religion is based on the Bible? Who wrote the Bible? Were they present at the time that all the things supposedly happened that they wrote about? MORTAL MAN wrote the Bible and they WERE NOT present at that time-- sounds to me like you are describing a book of stories, fiction. The guy in the sky didn't write it.
I'm talking about marriage, not sex. You've obviously confused sex with marriage, yet neither one is necessary for the other. Just assume that no sex at all is involved in these cases, and then answer my question.
The issue is whether a 5 year old or a comatose person can provide legal consent to enter a marriage. And if you agree that they cannot, who exactly do you imagine makes that determination if not the state?
Ummm........"consummation" is a Catholic religious concept and not a legal concept in this context. No state today requires (or even can require) "consummation" for a marriage to be valid, nor can it require sex of any sort. The only place where the silly notion of consummation is remotely relevant is in the context of contract fraud and misrepresentation of intent, but in all states a marriage is 100% formalized when the license is signed and properly officiated and witnessed by a state official (or proxy), and the license fee has been paid.
Meanwhile... everyone is ALL riled up over this gay marriage issue, added fuel by Obama this week on His "opinion" to the Judiciary branch....
Obama failed to negotiate a fix for the economy and signed sequestration's budget reductions "in low-key."
ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................
Obama: muhahahahahaha! DANCE puppets! DANCE!!!!!
Well, I shouldn't complain. I do the same thing with my dog. When I want her out of the house, I throw a cookie treat out the door. After she runs out to get it, i close and lock the patio doors.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lower life forms are so cute when they're dumb.
"I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for,"
So says I-was-against-it-before-I-was-for-it Obama.
Against it until last May when it became evident to the Democratic Party that pandering to the pro-gay-marriage voter block would be necessary for Obama to win re-election.
That's strange......I heard he first endorsed marriage equality in 1996, opposed Prop h8 in 2008, and ran for President on a platform of repealing DADT and DOMA.
Apparently the dumb bigots weren't paying attention.