Obama: 'I Think The Equal Protection Clause Does Guarantee Same-Sex Marriage' In All

[Pernicious]

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/obama-gay.jpg

Obama seems to have changed his tune on gay marriage, saying he believes same-sex couples in all 50 states should be allowed to marry under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/obama-gay-marriage_n_6014116.html?icid=maing-grid7|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D548925

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/obama-gay.jpg

Obama seems to have changed his tune on gay marriage, saying he believes same-sex couples in all 50 states should be allowed to marry under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/obama-gay-marriage_n_6014116.html?icid=maing-grid7|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D548925

Is that a picture of his gay lover before he hooked up with Michelle from hell?

[fj1200]

Obama seems to have changed his tune on gay marriage, saying he believes same-sex couples in all 50 states should be allowed to marry under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

That was the basis for the SCOTUS ruling IIRC.

[Thunderknuckles]

We had a long discussion about this before with Gunny. Under the Equal Protection clause how do you deny marriage, a binding contractual agreement, between members of the same sex yet allow it for members of the opposite sex?
There is no good legal argument to deny same sex marriage currently despite my personal feelings about it.

Upon further reflection, I have concluded that much of what is put into law is based on "cultural acceptance" and "societal norms". Both are entirely subjective, slippery, and open ended. Meaning, nothing is really off the table. Thus, we may find ourselves following in the steps of those degenerate Brits where people actually start marrying animals!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-marries-dog-totally-b-h-article-1.1717772
:)

Funny, but give it a couple of decades and we'll probably be there. Is there a "red line" that we are unwilling to cross?
In the words of our DP, Obama hating friends: No! It's all Obama's fault: something, something "traitor" something, something "impeach the bastard" :p

[fj1200]

Upon further reflection, I have concluded that much of what is put into law is based on "cultural acceptance" and "societal norms". Both are entirely subjective, slippery, and open ended. Meaning, nothing is really off the table. Thus, we may find ourselves following in the steps of those degenerate Brits where people actually start marrying animals!

No argument here but she didn't have the endorsement of the State. Besides, she's just crazy. But isn't any law based on acceptance and norms? IMO the problem stems from the State creating involvement and benefits based on a definition in the first place.

[revelarts]

Poor Dog looks like a whipped husband.
But the dogs even female.
So it not just an animal human marriage it's a homosexual animal human marriage.
so it's must be legal right?:(

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1717768.1394556209!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/sheba12n-3-web.jpg?enlarged

[revelarts]

We had a long discussion about this before with Gunny. Under the Equal Protection clause how do you deny marriage, a binding contractual agreement, between members of the same sex yet allow it for members of the opposite sex?
There is no good legal argument to deny same sex marriage currently despite my personal feelings about it.

Upon further reflection, I have concluded that much of what is put into law is based on "cultural acceptance" and "societal norms". Both are entirely subjective, slippery, and open ended. Meaning, nothing is really off the table. Thus, we may find ourselves following in the steps of those degenerate Brits where people actually start marrying animals!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-marries-dog-totally-b-h-article-1.1717772
:)

Funny, but give it a couple of decades and we'll probably be there. Is there a "red line" that we are unwilling to cross?
In the words of our DP, Obama hating friends: No! It's all Obama's fault: something, something "traitor" something, something "impeach the bastard" :p


No argument here but she didn't have the endorsement of the State. Besides, she's just crazy. But isn't any law based on acceptance and norms? IMO the problem stems from the State creating involvement and benefits based on a definition in the first place.

Judges 17:6
"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

from George Washington's Farewell address:
...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? ....

[fj1200]

Poor Dog looks like a whipped husband.
But the dogs even female.
So it not just an animal human marriage it's a homosexual animal human marriage.
so it's must be legal right?:(

Of course not but the dog is probably thinking, "I could have gotten the milk for free with this one." :eek:

[fj1200]

Judges 17:6
"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Wouldn't it be right to grant them the stability of marriage and monogamy?

[gabosaurus]

WTF does gay marriage have to do with animals? I have yet to figure this out.
Allowing any two adults to marry has nothing to do with children, dogs or refrigerators. Leave the government and the Bible out of it.

Many of you believe the government should have less control over individual citizens. Why is this an exception?

[fj1200]

Why is this an exception?

I'm sure it has something to do with Muslims.

[gabosaurus]

I'm sure it has something to do with Muslims.

Radical gay Muslims? That would surely be a sign that is Apocalypse is near.

[revelarts]

WTF does gay marriage have to do with animals? I have yet to figure this out.
Allowing any two adults to marry has nothing to do with children, dogs or refrigerators. Leave the government and the Bible out of it.
Many of you believe the government should have less control over individual citizens. Why is this an exception?
If I say allowing man and a woman to marry makes sense ans to same sex folks, children , dogs and refrigerators have NOTHING to do with it.
i'm called a bigot.

change one word and you're some how reasonable?

You say leave the gov't OUT of It but then want to the gov't to back all the lawsuits against Christians for refuseing to provide flowers or wedding services.
Want the gov't to force companies and law to recognizes insurance and inheritance and children's rights.
and basically want the gov't to make it all LEGAL!.

you folks are kinda fulla crap.

[Gunny]

Radical gay Muslims? That would surely be a sign that is Apocalypse is near.

There are other kinds of muslims?:laugh: