Skip to comments.Obama Urges Illinois Lawmakers To Legalize Gay Marriage
Posted on 12/30/2012 12:20:45 PM PST by Nachum
President Obama issued a statement Saturday urging the Illinois General Assembly to legalize gay marriage as state lawmakers prepare to take up the issue this week.
White House spokesman Shin Inouye highlighted the rare nature of the presidents move, telling the Chicago Sun-Times the while the president does not weigh in on every measure being considered by state legislatures, he believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect. He went on,
As he has said, his personal view is that its wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. Were the President still in the Illinois State Legislature, he would support this measure that would treat all Illinois couples equally.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
ROTFL! I read a story here about a month ago about an illegal alien who was in a "loving, committed relationship" with a donkey. When he got caught the second time, they threw him in jail.
Communist Agenda for Takeover of the USA
Goal #26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
PS They have accomplished quite a number of their list of 45 goals.
Why is Herr Obama sticking his arrogant snout into the business of a state? David Brooks, who is an Obama groupie but even so appears to have noticed his offensive attitude, said Obama interacts with the US like “a visitor from some morally superior universe.” He sees these PC positions as morally superior, and believes that he has every right to float down from his heaven and correct us bumbling imbeciles out there.
He makes me sick to my stomach. I can’t even stand to look at his condescending, prissy, arrogant face.
Why? Who does he want to marry?
But, it is likely irrelevant as I am afraid that the SCOTUS will overturn Prop 8 and take down all Pro Family marriage laws in the nation.
Doesn't Rahm Emmanuel live in Illinois?
[[[[I read a story here about a month ago about an illegal alien who was in a “loving, committed relationship” with a donkey. When he got caught the second time, they threw him in jail.]]]]
Hey, no fair! You beat me to it. :-)
How can he do this and not defend DOMA?
Yea, like this is the most pressing issue facing Illinois.
yeah, but as long as the donkey is a US citizen, the guy can't be deported ... right?
> Why? Who does he want to marry?
My thoughts exactly. Maybe Moochie will catch 0dumbo with a Wang in his mouth in the Oval Office and pull a Lorena Bobbitt on him. Hey it would make great TV for the MSM!
Word on the street...he’s still got a thing for Kal Penn.
I want one more person to tell me how Obama is a Christian. I want one more pastor to “refrain” from saying anything negative about Obama and not call him out. I am so tired of people who claim to follow Jesus and say things like, “Yes, Obama has done some things that disappoint me.”
All the while Obama and the Left work hand-in-glove with Satan to carve up Western society. Pathetic.
“But, it is likely irrelevant as I am afraid that the SCOTUS will overturn Prop 8 and take down all Pro Family marriage laws in the nation.”
Prop. 22 passed by 61.5% in 2000. Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008. If the guys in black robes deem to uphold prop.8, I bet they will simply try to repeal it with another popular vote. For their purposes all they need is 50% +1. Of course they would rather the SC nixes it like you say, with enough scope that it affects the amendments in other states.
If the SCOTUS does not overturn Prop 8, the Anti Families’ Plan B would be to go back to the California voters in 2014 and attempt to overturn the current Prop 8.
With additional younger voters in the voter pool in 2014, I would guess that the people of California would go against tractional marriage.
I tend to take a different view -the battle is not political but rather moral. In essence, truth is not defined by a majority vote but rather recognized by a moral people. Freedom without faith leads to immoral license and subsequently to tyranny...
By analogy lets say that a regional judge issued a ruling that legalized euthanasia -the ability to take the life of another. As a result of and in response to the ruling, the citizens of the region voted on and passed an amendment to overturn the erroneous ruling and prevent euthanasia.
In the above analogy, the absolute truth regarding the inalienable right to life ALWAYS existed regardless the ruling from the judge or the majority voted proposition supporting. The inalienable truth was never derived by majority vote but simply recognized and defended.
Now, some would suggest that a majority vote can change self evident and absolute truth -it can not.
Yeah, it doesn’t look too good. Time seems to be on their side when it comes to these popular votes. Think about this, Hawaii passed its amendment by 69% in ‘98 in the begining of the amendment voting, while NC passed one this year by 61% and was hailed by many as a great victory. Fairly conservative NC basically tied Ca’s prop. 22 results 12 years later. Not a positive trend in my opinion.
“I tend to take a different view -the battle is not political but rather moral. In essence, truth is not defined by a majority vote but rather recognized by a moral people. Freedom without faith leads to immoral license and subsequently to tyranny...”
Exactly right. But with the state involved, at least in the modern era, the definition it uses to recogize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public thinks it can be at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it can be. It can coincide with the actual definition or it can’t.
“Now, some would suggest that a majority vote can change self evident and absolute truth -it can not.”
Many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from the state, so they accept whatever impossibility the state considers marriage at the time. It was always a danger, Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum