Posted on 05/16/2008 11:38:25 AM PDT by Brilliant
Barack Obama is sticking by his defense of same-sex unions, despite the likelihood that it will flare up as a general election issue because of today's California Supreme Court decision legalizing it. Here's the Obama camp's response to the court decision:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage." The Republicans are likely to seize on Obama's respect for the court's decision as proof that electing Obama would bring about gay marriage across the country. Of course, it's also worth noting that Obama stops short of embracing gay marriage, putting him out of step with many on the left.
No statement yet from Hillary Clinton. John McCain's spokesman, however, has weighed in with this:
"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." Late Update: Here is the Clinton campaign's statement:
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Think the polygamists are feeling left out of this wildly widening definition of marriage?
Aren’t marriages supposed to be happy?
Oh, he meant homosexual. Why didn’t he say so?
Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.
If it is a "states rights" issue, then WHAT is Barack going to be "fighting for" as President? The President has no say in matters of state.
Scenario:
2 arsenokoits get married and then adopt a young child (male).
At the age of 18, they divorce with one of the “parents” entering into marriage with the adopted child. They adopt a child.
“What about those who wish to enjoy bestiality?”
Don’t even go there. That’s next on Obama’s list of Constitutional rights.
And who are we to judge such an arrangement? /sarc
“Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.”
On another board, I said the very same thing to an idiot liberal who responded, “Well that’s asinine. No one’s going to marry their dog.”
To which I responded:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html
No, children are next.
This is the next goal post. The APA has already paved the way with some study declaring “adult-child sex” can be beneficial to the child.
THAT’S WHAT i’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SINCE WHEN CAN A JUDGE MAKE LAW.
Not surprising since there’s a rumor that he’s been pole vaulting with Rev. Wrong.
Maybe the Larry Sinclair story did happen, and BO is keeping his options open?
Intermediate goal, Federal Age of Consent.
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg wrote a paper on just such a thing. Her conclusion was 11 years old.
At least you didn’t send him the story about the man forced to marry the goat.
Libs try to dismiss your argument as a false “slippery slope” argument.
It is in no way a slope, or a continuum, of acceptable arrangements.
There is traditional marriage, defined by God from the very beginning of the human race, then there is everything else.
Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.
He’ll marry Edwards so they can become the Presidential couple.
Since Roosevelt... That’s the fundamental philosophy behind the Dem judicial appointees. They’ve got to be willing to reinterpret the law in order to shift it to the left in order to eliminate the need for the liberals to push their agenda thru the legislature.
“Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.”
Exactly. 100 years ago no one in their right mind would EVER consider redefining marriage to include same sexes...whose to say years from now that marriage includes every freak show circumstance.
what a tangled web he weaves...
They'll try, but they won't be able to keep this bottled up. It's gonna be the gift that keeps on giving, all summmer long.
Will someone please explain to me once again how this man will win in November? In arnoldfornia 3 of 5 are against it and gay “marriage” will be just another log on the fire. barack mcgovern can bring down lots of rats with him IF the GOP can find a message.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
Have you seen his wife? Ouch!
The main reason Obama is going to win is that conservatives aren’t supporting McCain.
One of my partners approached me the other day about giving money to the McCain campaign. He says that the deadline for campaign contributions is approaching since McCain is taking public financing. You’ve got to give now if you want to give at all. But the only thing most conservatives are giving McCain is the finger.
So he’s for states rights “”..and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage...”” Yet is happy about a court overturning a law on the books supported by the people. Either you support the people in the state or not.
LOL, do you remember the CLOSE pics of Kerry and Edwards that got some buzz? Sounds about right, so maybe it won’t be Wright in Lincoln bedroom.
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain why government "leaders" like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics. In fact, the article referenced below shows that Obama is the #1 federal spending proposer in the Senate for '08; Clinton is #2.
Obama, a big-shot federal spenderThe people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. The people then need to wise up to the major problem that the federal government is not operating within the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned.
The bottom line is that the people need to send big-shot, Constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama home as opposed to trying to send people like him to the Oval Office. The people need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC.
Can’t discriminate now can we.
Saying no to anything is discrimination so everything is legal.
Yeah, like I said, homo sex with children is the next “frontier” for the left.
I am truly laughing out loud on that one :) I think Manning may be on to something.
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law,....
The Obama Edsel rolls on......
How can anyone enjoy a natural right, bestowed by "Nature's God," to engage in unnatural acts? The idea is self-contradictory, not that anyone believes in contradictions anymore.
“Same-Sex Unions”
This phrase is disturbing on so many levels...
Since citizens have allowed them to.
Sooo.... Have the Cal Supreme Court geniuses defined consumation for same-sex couples? If not, why not? Aren't same-sex marriages supposed to be equal to true marriages? If so, then what is the purpose of such a "consumation"? Is it subjective (perverse) pleasure? If so, then by this definition of marriage, any interpersonal act that begets pleasure is a "marital act."
The absurdities are endless. It takes years of schooling and never having worked to get this stupid. What complete and utter idiots.
Leftist, postmodernist, “mosaic generation” people are
“comfortable with contradiction”.
Meaning: they are impervious to logic
Bingo!
Note that his official statement mentions “same-sex unions,” while he commented approvingly of the CA decision supporting “gay marriage.” Apparently, while he tries to temper his support by calling it “same sex unions” he’s nevertheless supporting “gay marriage.”
Not that there is any difference.
women to dogs~~~~~~~think that’s already happened!
Huh! Like I need one more reason not vote for this ... fellow.
I am a bit behind the times. Just call me, not progressive. :)
Obama is lying as usual. He says he is personally against gay marriage but believes in civil unions for gays, which is a distinction without merit. He is for gay marriage just like every other liberal democrat.
California already had civil unions, Obama supports state courts’ making law usurping the will of the people through their voting process.
MSM is flat lying about Obama’s position, claiming he opposes “gay” “marriage.” See, e.g., msnbc’s article on the Californicatia ruling today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.