President urges court to overturn California gay marriage ban
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a historic argument for gay rights, President Barack Obama on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban and turn a skeptical eye on similar prohibitions across the country.
The Obama administration's friend-of-the-court brief marked the first time a U.S. president has urged the high court to expand the right of gays and lesbians to wed. The filing unequivocally calls on the justices to strike down California's Proposition 8 ballot measure, although it stops short of the soaring rhetoric on marriage equality Obama expressed in his inaugural address in January.
California is one of eight states that give gay couples all the benefits of marriage through civil unions or domestic partnership, but don't allow them to wed. The brief argues that in granting same-sex couples those rights, California has already acknowledged that gay relationships bear the same hallmarks as straight ones.
"They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death," the administration wrote.
Obama's position, if adopted by the court, would likely result in gay marriage becoming legal in the seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
In the longer term, the administration urges the justices to subject laws that discriminate on sexual orientation to more rigorous review than usual, a standard that would imperil other state bans on same-sex marriage.
The brief marks the president's most expansive view of gay marriage and signals that he is moving away from his previous assertion that states should determine their own marriage laws. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, signed off on the administration's legal argument last week following lengthy discussions with Attorney General Eric Holder and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
In a statement following the filing, Holder said "the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law."
Friend-of-the-court briefs are not legally binding. But the government's opinion in particular could carry some weight with the justices when they hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
Despite the potentially wide-ranging implications of the administration's brief, it still falls short of what gay rights advocates and the attorneys who will argue against Proposition 8 had hoped for. Those parties had pressed the president to urge the Supreme Court to not only overturn California's ban, but also declare all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
Still, marriage equality advocates publicly welcomed the president's legal positioning.
"President Obama and the solicitor general have taken another historic step forward consistent with the great civil rights battles of our nation's history," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the legal challenge to Proposition 8.
The president raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on Jan. 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."
"For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he added.
Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. He later said his personal views on gay marriage were "evolving."
When he ran for re-election last year, Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage, but said marriage was an issue that states, not the federal government, should decide.
Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years.
In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By last November, 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.
Gay marriage supporters see the Supreme Court's hearing of Proposition 8, as well as a related case on the Defense of Marriage Act, as a potential watershed moment for same-sex unions.
In a well-coordinated effort, opponents of the California ban flooded the justices with friend-of-the-court briefs in recent days.
Among those filing briefs were 13 states, including four that do not now permit gay couples to wed, and more than 100 prominent Republicans, such as GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Two professional football players who have been outspoken gay rights advocates also filed a brief in the California case. Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo urged the court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
One day after the Supreme Court hears the Proposition 8 case, the justices will hear arguments on provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
The administration abandoned its defense of the act in 2011, but the measure will continue to be federal law unless it is struck down or repealed.
In a brief filed last week, the government said Section 3 of the act "violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection" because it denies legally married same-sex couples many federal benefits that are available only to legally married heterosexual couples.
The Obama administration's friend-of-the-court brief marked the first time a U.S. president has urged the high court to expand the right of gays and lesbians to wed. The filing unequivocally calls on the justices to strike down California's Proposition 8 ballot measure, although it stops short of the soaring rhetoric on marriage equality Obama expressed in his inaugural address in January.
California is one of eight states that give gay couples all the benefits of marriage through civil unions or domestic partnership, but don't allow them to wed. The brief argues that in granting same-sex couples those rights, California has already acknowledged that gay relationships bear the same hallmarks as straight ones.
"They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death," the administration wrote.
Obama's position, if adopted by the court, would likely result in gay marriage becoming legal in the seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
In the longer term, the administration urges the justices to subject laws that discriminate on sexual orientation to more rigorous review than usual, a standard that would imperil other state bans on same-sex marriage.
The brief marks the president's most expansive view of gay marriage and signals that he is moving away from his previous assertion that states should determine their own marriage laws. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, signed off on the administration's legal argument last week following lengthy discussions with Attorney General Eric Holder and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
In a statement following the filing, Holder said "the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law."
Friend-of-the-court briefs are not legally binding. But the government's opinion in particular could carry some weight with the justices when they hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
Despite the potentially wide-ranging implications of the administration's brief, it still falls short of what gay rights advocates and the attorneys who will argue against Proposition 8 had hoped for. Those parties had pressed the president to urge the Supreme Court to not only overturn California's ban, but also declare all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
Still, marriage equality advocates publicly welcomed the president's legal positioning.
"President Obama and the solicitor general have taken another historic step forward consistent with the great civil rights battles of our nation's history," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the legal challenge to Proposition 8.
The president raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on Jan. 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."
"For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he added.
Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. He later said his personal views on gay marriage were "evolving."
When he ran for re-election last year, Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage, but said marriage was an issue that states, not the federal government, should decide.
Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years.
In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By last November, 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.
Gay marriage supporters see the Supreme Court's hearing of Proposition 8, as well as a related case on the Defense of Marriage Act, as a potential watershed moment for same-sex unions.
In a well-coordinated effort, opponents of the California ban flooded the justices with friend-of-the-court briefs in recent days.
Among those filing briefs were 13 states, including four that do not now permit gay couples to wed, and more than 100 prominent Republicans, such as GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Two professional football players who have been outspoken gay rights advocates also filed a brief in the California case. Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo urged the court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
One day after the Supreme Court hears the Proposition 8 case, the justices will hear arguments on provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
The administration abandoned its defense of the act in 2011, but the measure will continue to be federal law unless it is struck down or repealed.
In a brief filed last week, the government said Section 3 of the act "violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection" because it denies legally married same-sex couples many federal benefits that are available only to legally married heterosexual couples.
Mr. Obama, STOP TELLING ME WHAT MY VIEWS SHOULD BE!!!!  If you want to endorse this type of stuff fine, but I am NOT ok with it, so stop telling me that I should be.  This is precisely WHY people VOTE, and WHY there are judicial reviews.  You cannot simply do away with what is the RIGHT thing to do because it fits with your political agenda.  Gimme a break.
For the Executive branch to file an opinion is entirely normal. It is not "dictating" and the SCOTUS is under no obligation to pay any attention to the filing. they want to stuff it in a shredder, they can.
Look, here's the thing.... When the government (state, county, municipal) began accepting money for, and only affording legal recognition of, marriages, it became a government sanctioned institution. As such, it is governed by current discrimination laws. Couple that with the fact that the majority of 'reasoning' that is attached to denying the ability are derived specifically from theological doctrines, and I frankly don't see how the SCOTUS can find in favor of such bans.Â
All that being said....
I have to wonder if Mr Obama slept through his US Government courses. The Judicial branch of the government is intentionally seperate from the executive and representative branches for a reason. Impartiality. Now, we'll just forgo for a minute the reality that the SCOTUS has long ceased to be an impartial branch of the federal government. What the he11 is a sitting President of the United States (for those keeping score, that would be the executive branch of the government) doing dictating expectations or "hopes" to the SCOTUS on current cases before them (read:interfering, or attempting to influence the judicial branch)?Â
This is the second time this President Obama has done this, too.... Wow... I mean, just.... Wow.Â
Eh, well... I suppose. Cults of personality seldom self impose limitations of authority or influence. Between him and Lord Kitzhaber, I guess we should just get rid of the Judiciary branch, or at least replace it with some form of popularity polling. Perhaps something like American Idol (irony intended).Â
@MarkKpic Â
Let's get rid of the voters too because they have an irritating habit of getting in the way political agendas by passing laws like Prop 8 and such. I mean really, I don't know why those silly voters are allowed to think they should have any say in how the government is run. LOL. Do they think government is of the people and for the people or something?
@ormom @MarkKpic Yeah, there have been quite a few laws passed by the majority of people over the years that have turned out to not pass a Constitutional review. This will simply be the next one.Â
As I said, I'm not a legal scholar. And frankly, I (for quite some time) was in your court on the issue. A friend of mine and I spent a couple of hours hashing through it (you know, rational dialogue instead of innuendo and sarcastic sniping), and I have to say that the position that I've taken is pretty hard to get past if you remove the emotion and theology from the discussion.Â
@ormom @MarkKpic >'Marriage has ALWAYS been between men and women and about procreation and passing on biological lineage'
I look forward to the ballot measures changing the laws so that legally, only couples who have children are considered to be married. Until such laws are put in place, your ideas about what constitutes marriage are pretty worthless.Â
>', and even lands and money and titles and fortunes.'
and, as I pointed out above, in such circumstances the wife was frequently only just beyond puberty. They also had no say in the choosing of the groom, and were given along with material wealth (livestock, land, gold) in order to shore up alliances.Â
 Again, if this is what you consider to be an example of a 'valid' historical marriage, I'm glad that we've evolved as a society past that point.Â
@MarkKpic @noneofyourbizzness As a atheistI have no interest in what Christians believe about homosexuality but of course you are entitled to your beliefs.I do appreciate your very articulate explanation of how the constitution apples in this case.
@MarkKpic
What does any of your nice history lesson have to do with legalizing ssm? Marriage has ALWAYS been between men and women and about procreation and passing on biological lineage, and even lands and money and titles and fortunes. There's even some politics on occasion too.. It has been the same regardless of the religion or lack of religion of the culture. Sound familiar? It's still going on just like that all over the world today.
Biology doesn't have anything to do with religion but it's been around, unchanged, since day one and it sure supports traditional marriage, or more correctly, traditional marriage supports biology which is really the whole point.
@noneofyourbizzness @MarkKpic Hmmmm.... 'secular'.Â
Well, I guess I'll put it this way.Â
According to the Bible, the world is of the fallen angel. If you read Romans, it becomes pretty clear that God already knew just how bad things were going to get down here before the return of His Son. It is not up to me to judge or condemn people for the choices they make. As a matter of fact, the Bible tells me that I am to edify and encourage ALL people, even those living in sin. It also tells me that speaking the truth to them about those choices is Christ-like. Homosexuality is a sinful choice.  There is no law, SCOTUS ruling or popular vote that is going to change that. If two people choose to live in sin, that is their choice. God gave us free will. A part of that ability is to choose behaviors that are harmful to us. Drugs, vanity, love of the flesh, greed, etc.... And, yes, according to Gods law, that includes homosexuality.Â
But, again, that is not the issue. The issue is, should the United States Government legally recognize and afford all legal standing to, same sex couples?
Based strictly upon the US Constitution, I don't see how the answer can be anything other than 'yes'.Â
@ormom
>'Well, there is always a few millenia of marriage tradition regardless of religion. Nah, what did they know.'
Well, since you brought it up.Â
Millenia ago, marriages were commonly arranged as a means to shore up political alliances. In addition, there were required dowries exchanged. Using this model, daughters were little more than merchandise exchanged as a form of social bartering. And, let us not forget that often the "brides" Â were as young as 14. While it could not be considered to be 'law' or 'constitutional', as neither really existed yet, it was the common practice throughout the world.Â
No? Too ancient?
A few centuries or so ago, women were considered property and were 'taken' rather than courted. They were used essentially as vessels for populating countries, and were not allowed to have a say in most things, pregnancy and marriage among them. This was legal, and was sanctioned by most theological institutions. Even as recently as 250 years ago, in the US, women were not allowed to own property, vote or hold a job without the permission of their owner... er, rather, husbands.Â
Still to ancient?Â
Okay, less than 100 years ago, African Americans could not marry (heterosexually) anglos. This was law. It was overturned officially by the SCOTUS in 1967.
Now, insofar as the Biblical definition of marriage, I happen to agree with your apparent position. The problem is that we are not talking about Biblical tenants. We are talking about Constitutional law. The 1st amendment gets in the way of combining the two pretty quickly. For a practical example of what happens when you attempt to combine the two, please refer to Sharia law.
@MarkKpic @ormom Thank you for your will articulated explanation of the secular legal reasoning for lifting the ban on gay marriage.
@MarkKpic
Well, there is always a few millenia of marriage tradition regardless of religion. Nah, what did they know.
And I guess there is always biology. Nah, appealing to Mother Nature is too pagan and we're right back at religion again.
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Limiting marriage to a man and a woman couldn't possibly pass constitutional review.There's just no sound basis for it at all.
I hope they rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
I personally don't believe in it, but then I don't plan of marrying someone of the same sex.
So long as the LAW states that two consenting adults can marry, who cares? That kind of law does not in any way affect my religious beliefs nor anyone else's. Many people will think it does, because it offends their sense of feeling superior and self-righteous and we all know the ego is a very sensitive thing.
If a religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, they will not be required to perform such marriages, nor would anyone who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds, because the law cannot compel a person to do something that controverts their religious beliefs. (In theory, this is true...but history has shown that the good or desires of the many often overrides the good or beliefs of the one.)
When anyone is married they are required by law to obtain a marriage license. This is the secular state. All men are required to be subject to it, regardless of their religious beliefs. It is simply a legally binding contract according to the laws of the jurisdiction wherein they reside regarding legal rights and responsibilities of both parties for as long as the contract is in force. No part of it deals in any manner with the religious beliefs or lack thereof of the intended participants.
If, however, they choose to be married by the representative of a religious organization, they are STILL required to have that secular license before they can be joined as a couple. They are just adding a level of religiosity to the ceremony that makes them feel they are obeying the requirements of their beliefs. There is nothing legally binding about the religious ceremony above and beyond the secular license except for whatever comfort they believe their faith provides.
So, once the pomp and circumstance of religiosity is removed, it all boils down to a legal contract. Woohoo. And given the current divorce rate among religious and non-religious married couples, it's mostly a bunch of hooey anyway.
I think Obama should worry about bigger things at the moment. He seems to focus all of his energy on everything but the problem. Oh wait, he is the problem.
@Beergod  Oh, absolutely. And he's the cause of the price of HoHos and Ding Dongs going up. And roosters crowing in the morning. And I hear he killed Kennedy, too! It's a good thing we have our illustrious Congress working hard day and night to keep us safe from him!
Whenever a person that doesn't support same sex marriage (and that is a term coined by others, marriage has ALWAYS been between a man & a woman ALWAYS so homosexuals need to have a union of their own) but most sane people believe the NAMBLA sickos are NOT entitled to rights..
What about necrophiliacs?  People into bestiality?Â
Those that desire MULTIPLE wives and/or husbands? Is that ok? Â They're ALL adults that Looove each other..
A slippery slope DOES exist and it's getting greased by the homosexual community!Â
Polygamists are already screaming for THEIR rights to marry. I've heard it from the pedophiles too "You had to accept the gays, now you'll have to accept us, we're BORN THIS WAY."
BALONEY! If one divination of the NORM claims they are born that way and forces acceptance so will ALL THE REST OF THEM!Â
I believe the majority of this country would happily support a union created for same sex partners. Call it civil unions call it whatever you want.. They would have the very same rights & benefits as 'married couples' but it would not infringe on marriage as we've ALWAYS known it. The issue is with traditional marriage- commonly performed in churches.. Same sex marriage opens the door to sue churches that wont perform them.. It opens the door to sue ANY business that does not wish to participate due to religious convictions.. It's already happening here.. Christian businesses are being sued for NOT catering to same sex couples.
THAT is wrong.. Just flat wrong. Our freedom OF religion (not freedom FROM religion) is the FIRSTÂ amendment to the Constitution. Â A gay person's "right"Â to wed another of the same sex is NOT listed yeah, yeah I know the clause BUT it does NOT state "same sex marriage" and our founders could NEVER have imagined that clause would be used THAT way.Â
We can NOT allow a gay person's "right to marry" to take precedence over a person's right to follow their faith & religion! I know it's happening but it shouldn't be and it just shows wrong has become right and right has become wrong. Â
@cwpholder C'mon, dude. Your 'slippery slope' arguments are as weak as the pro sides attempts to link gay marriage to African Americans struggles for civil rights.Â
Necrophiliacs? One partner is dead, and therefore cannot consent. Besides, there are laws regarding the treatment of corpses.Â
Pedophilia? One partner (by definition) is below the age of concent.Â
Multiple wife/husbands.... Hmmmm.... I guess I say, if one pain in the arse isn't enough for some guys or gals, go for it. Most of the recent and historical examples of this practice have run afowl of age restrictions ( there's your pedophilia, in heterosexual plural marriages). Currently, all states have laws prohibiting Polygamy, and those laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS.Â
Look... I don't disagree with your position. Really I don't. And, frankly, I suspect that it's probably coming from the same place (theological idealism). BUT... There's a few things that you really need to consider here.Â
First, and foremost, the term 'marriage' may very well be a societal one (as in, defined by society), but it's also a legal one (creates a legal standing), and it is also a government sanctioned one (you pay the government for a 'marriage license'). As such, it is governed by anti-discrimination laws.Â
The real irony here is that this marks the second time that the original intent of 'marriage laws' (miscegenation laws) has come back to bite the hands that created them.Â
Second, the 1st amendment of the US Constitution has (on numerous occasions) been read to mean 'freedom from religeon' by the SCOTUS. The argument could be made that, since the majority of arguments in opposition to 'gay marriage' stem from theology, they are in fact in violation of the 1st amendment.Â
and finally, so long as there is no legal requirement for a member of clergy to perform a ceremony, or a requirement that a religeous organization must recognize a 'gay marriage' in it's official doctrines, there is no violation (IMO) of the 1st amendment.Â
@cwpholder "We can NOT allow a gay person's "right to marry" to take precedence over a person's right to follow their faith & religion!"
Sure we can. Not one single marriage between same-sex persons in any way affects an persons ability to follow their faith and religion. Not one.
Now if you are incapable of living your own religion without feeling the need to force YOUR beliefs onto others, then YOU are living in the wrong country.
If YOU don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.Â
Otherwise, mind your own religious business.
@Mikey
"Sure we can. Not one single marriage between same-sex persons in any way affects an persons ability to follow their faith and religion. Not one."
Tell that to the baker in Gresham.Â
 "Now if you are incapable of living your own religion without feeling the need to force YOUR beliefs onto others, then YOU are living in the wrong country."
Now if you are incapable of minding your own sexual business without feeling the need to force YOUR sexual relationship beliefs onto others, then YOU are living in the wrong country.
@Mikey @ormom I understand where you are coming from on this Mikey, but you are fooling yourself if you think for one minute that the LGBT community has no additional agenda that they want to push.  The point here is that they, in asking us to vote for this, ARE asking us to consent to being ok with gayness in general.  That is just not right.  They will push this and use it to their advantage and bully people into recognizing their gayness and/or condoning it.  That is bullstuff.  The baker in Gresham is a perfect example.  The issue that ormom has is, look.....Gay sex is just not the way things are supposed to be.  You don't put a square peg into a round hole.  The male connector will not fit into another male connector, nor will the female with a female.  That is not the correct nature of things, period. Stop trying to condone something that is just wrong.  You cannot.  There is zero logic in your argument.  If it starts out being wrong, it is always going to be wrong.
@Mikey
If this is about nothing but legal contracts then why are homosexuals making such a stink over getting married? Civil unions would have fulfilled their need just fine. And they would have far fewer people opposing them. It's because we all know what having the label means to them, even if the reality is nothing like.
Marriage is about sex and procreation and intact biological families. It is about bringing the next generation into the world and sticking around and raising it up, even to the second and third generation. It is about staying together even when you may not be 'in love' because you made a committment and kids need both parents and a stable home, not a stable of step-parents, step-siblings, 16 'grandparents', and a revolving door of 'significant others'. It's about living up to the committment of real love that puts the good of family ahead of self-interest and feelings. And when people approach marriage that way, they are a lot more likely to stay in love because it takes an unselfish person to do both.
We no longer know what real marriage is. That's why you think it can be re-defined to be whatever anyone wants it to be.Â
@ormom You seem to be mixing metaphors. This is about legal contracts between two people, not sexual practices. You are making it into something it's not.
If you take the religious and icky-sex froo-froo out of the equation totally, why shouldn't two adults, who happen to be of the same gender, who are totally committed to living together and sharing each others' lives, not be able to have all the same rights and responsibilities as any other two adults, who happen to be of different genders?
You keep bringing up SEXUAL relationships and SEXUAL practices. Is that all you think about? Get your mind out of the gutter. I'm talking about people, not sexual practices or relationships. After all, there is a whole lot more to marriage (one would hope) than scoring some nookie...right?
@Mikey @cwpholder  "Now if you are incapable of living your own religion without feeling the need to force YOUR beliefs onto others, then YOU are living in the wrong country."
The same could be said for ss marriage by changing religion to "queer life style", very well said.
@Janusfree Nope. Can't say it. Read my reply to "ormom" below. People keep making this into something it's not. If "marriage" was all about sexual practices or religious beliefs, then you might have a point. Marriage in the eyes of the law is a legal contract between two adults. Nothing more.
@cwpholderÂ
Well said.
Marriage should be about a man and a woman joining together to make offspring and raise up the next generation. The state should license and encourage marriage and stable biological families because itâs good for society and it protects the children.
No one needs a license to have sex. If you arenât making babies, you donât need a license to protect anything. In fact, licensing sexual relationships is darn close to having the government in your bedroom. Go to a lawyer and make a contract.Â
If you need biological material from a third or fourth party to make a baby, then you donât have a marriage between two people. We might as well bring back polygamy if that's what we're going to call marriage.
@ormom There's more to a relationship of a committed relationship of two gay people then just sex.The gay couples I know who are busy professionals raising families,like any other couple sometimes they are too tired or busy to have sex.The way the system is set upon order to recieve all of the same benefits as a heterosexual couple the only option is to have a civil marriage.I support full federal benefits for gay couples.The only way to achieve that is federal recognition of gay marriage.The ideal situation would be for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.All marriages can be legally called civil unions and that way the Christians can still have their weddings performed in a church and call it marriage.I also support a provision that churches or pastors should not be forced to perform same sex ceremonies.
@ormom @noneofyourbizzness "Heavily contracepting"? Some people simply don't wan't to reproduce.What if its a couple who are highly invested in their careers and they both travel all the time because of their jobs and don't have time to have children?.How about a couple that's smart enough to know that they aren't financially in a position to have children? I would say that contraception is a better option than abortion no?There will always be more than enough people to keep the earth populated.Almost every young heterosexual couple that I know has at least one child.
@noneofyourbizzness Â
Traditional marriage is about biological families. IÂ include adoption by a man and a woman in that definition because that is the normal model and children need both .
Heterosexuals f'd up the meaning of marriage when no-fault, easy divorce went into effect and step-families became the norm. Married couples also broke the social marriage contract when they began heavily contracepting and refusing to bring new life into the world as marriage was designed to do. People no longer saw marriage the same way it had been for millenia. And because hetero's messed it up and turned it into something it was never intended to be, now everyone thinks they can re-define marriage to be whatever THEY want no matter how ridiculous the reality is.
The slippery slope started with no-fault divorce and it's been going downhill since. I for one am not going to give my support to anything that makes it even worse and I will do everything I can to get marriage back to being what it always was.
@cwpholder I say let the pedophiles try to legalize pedophile marriage.I can guarantee it won't happen.As well as polygamist.Let them fight their own battles however.
@noneofyourbizzness How can you justifiably deny it if you are going to condone SSM?  I mean, if the two people love one another, regardless of their ages, or plurality, and they are both consenting, then where is your argument?  That one is not capable of logically making the determination to consent?  That is a whole different issue. This would be what is known as hypocrisy, and is something the LGBT population is very adept at exploiting to their favor.  You can't say one group that is immoral is wrong and another is right.......that is ridiculous.
@noneofyourbizzness Not so much for "tolerance" when it doesn't fit the agenda now, are we?
@Janusfree No koolaid affecting my brain.I just support same sex marriage.
@noneofyourbizzness Well, SOMEBODY needs to stay awake to point out that the kool-aide is affecting your brain and maybe its time to put it down.
@Janusfree @noneofyourbizzness What do you mean by tolerance? I'm very intolerant of people who sexually abuse children and animals as well as comervative christians poking around in my personal descions or the legal decsions of my gay friends.I also agree that you are more than entitled to think that gays are the most nasty perverted people on the face of the earth.Just don't be surprised when you find out that you are becoming the minority with your way of thinking.
The President should wait on this subject until he has a few more activist picks ensconced in the Supremes. Then the country's social ideologies would be his radical activist oyster to screw with. Â
This POTUS is a train wreck. He'll ignore state rights when it supports his view. He'll flip flop again, I'm sure. As recently as May 12, 2012 he said:
"What you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage....
Part of the reason that I thought it was important to speak to this issue was the fact that, you know, I've got an opponent on--on the other side in the upcoming presidential election, who wants to re-federalize the issue and institute a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. And, you know, I think it is a mistake to try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue."
@Bob McMasterson  He can't change the law, so he's in no better position to ignore state rights as anyone else.
The decision is up to the Supreme Court, not the President.
@Bob McMasterson Â
His polling told him to back the issue. Who knows what Barry actually believes - Barry doesn't know what he believes until Michelle or his handlers tell him.
@ormom @Bob McMasterson That's what they said about Romney.He flipped and flopped,went from moderate to conservative back to moderate.It all depended on which way the wind was blowing.The President is listening to the majority that re-elected him.And most of that majority supports marriage equality.
If Romney was in office not only would he issue a amicus brief as well,he would also be supporting a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.So much for "states rights"
@noneofyourbizzness If Obama was in office, he would support women in combat roles, but not have them sign up for SS. So much for equality.
@TreeWizard @noneofyourbizzness If Obama was in office, this country would be in deep sh.......... oh wait............. WE ARE!
@Ramsesthegreat My point is is a simple one actually. We had 4 yrs. of getting NOTHING positive accomplished with Oliar in office, we will never know if "Rmoney" couldn't have done any better. The only thing we know for sure is that he couldn't have done any worse.Â
@Janusfree as it would be had Rmoney won the election, what's your point. It took 16 years to recover from the Great Depression WITHOUT an objectionist party standing in the way of everything that would help grow the economy. Why do you think we could recover from this one in 4 years with said party?
@noneofyourbizzness If I saw Big Foot I'd be rich.
@TreeWizard I have big feet.
@TreeWizard @noneofyourbizzness Do you walk to work, or bring your lunch?
@noneofyourbizzness It was satire none, a play on words, not a question. It intentionally makes as much sense as your original post "if". Kudos to ya for watching the weight though, good luck w that.
@Janusfree @TreeWizard @noneofyourbizzness I work in a restaurant so I don't need to bring my lunch or dinner to work.One of the perks of being a manager is that I can eat anything I wan't on the menu for free.(it can get me in trouble if I eat too much rich food)
@Janusfree @TreeWizard @noneofyourbizzness Neither.Whats your point.
@noneofyourbizzness If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle too, but thats not how it is. What's your point?
@Janusfree @noneofyourbizzness My point is that you conservatives are screaming that the President has no right to even voice his opinion on this particular Supreme Court case when your guy would have done the same thing and you would be 100% supportive of it.