"BREAKING: Obama admin. may urge Sup Ct to recognize gay marriage nationwide"

BREAKING: Obama admin. may urge Sup Ct to recognize gay marriage nationwide
http://americablog.com/2014/09/brea...sup-ct-recognize-gay-marriage-nationwide.html

-----------------------------------------------
The Obama Administration is apparently moving to issue a statement to the United States Supreme Court to recognize Gay marriages Nationwide. Attorney General Holder has also spoken to this issue and is in favor of this move by the administration. It is high time that two adults who love each other but who happen to be Gay or Lesbian are afforded the SAME rights that their Heterosexual counterparts have and enjoy. There must be Equality under the Fourteenth Amendment for All Americans and this move by President Obama can assure that the justices of the nation's highest court are aware that the hundreds of thousands of same-sex oriented individuals who have married in their respective states where it is allowed can be afforded the happiness and justice that they rightfully deserve.

 

In other news, the sun may rise tomorrow.

 

How soon before single people figure out they contribute just as much to society as married gays and desire the same benefits and privileges? That's when this little charade ends...

 

You sound so dEspondent, despite your cute kitty.

 

Good equal rights for everyone that only took 200 plus years

 

The Obama Administration is free to issue any statement that it likes, but that doesn't mean the SCOTUS is going to recognize gay "marriages" nationwide by fiat.

 

If a Supreme Court found the right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution then I suppose they can find anything the liberals want.

 

Yeah...I'm sure that the USSC is all about whatever Obama "urges".

We ALREADY have equality under the law; gays seek SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, from the same rules that govern everyone equally, gay or not.

 

Would be nice if he did but don't hold breath.

 

Whether you agree with Roe v. Wade or not, at least there was a legitimate legal process involved with that decision. Rubber-stamping White House statements is an entirely different matter...

 

What special exception?

 

Equal rights for everyone would involve extending marriage to any two consenting adults while "gay marriage" is inequality by design, for the benefit of the gays.

 

To marry one of the same gender, which all persons, of BOTH GENDERS, regardless of sexuality, are prevented from. "EQUAL".

 

l

Ohhh so you believe in allowing polygamous and adult incestuous couples to marry. Right?

Or did you ACTUALLY mean to say that, "There must be Equality under the Fourteenth Amendment for All Americans Whose Behavior that *I* Agree With"?

 

Firstly, when same sex marriage bans are overturned everyone will have the same right to marry someone of the same gender, so your argument fails there. Secondly, your same line of reasoning was tried with interracial marriage bans and it didn't work there either. So you fail twice!

- - - Updated - - -

Except that removing same sex marriage bans makes marriage more equal, not less.

- - - Updated - - -

Red herring.

I have no problem with it though.

 

I'm actually ecstatic about this news. We actually have a conservative supreme court. And when the vote for homosexual marriage came up, the vote was 5-4 with Conservative Justice John Roberts voting with the liberals. But John Roberts and the rest of the judges do not like ultimatums from the president.

I feel this actually might backfire on Obama and the homosexuals. By attempting to manipulate the judges into voting how the President wants them to, it may cause the ONE conservative judge that voted with homosexuals the first time to vote against them the second time.

I look forward to this. All we need is for Roberts to take offense at the president's "urging" and for him to vote with the conservatives. If he does it will be 5-4 against homosexual marriage. And all of those court cases that you folks have been winning, will be completely and utterly irrelevant. This is what I kept warning the homosexuals about. The beautiful thing about judicial activism... is that all it requires to reverse it is more judicial activism.

 

It's not a red herring genius. It's calling into question his claim which was, and I quote, "There must be Equality under the Fourteenth Amendment for All Americans". Is that actually true or not? How about Americans who are under a certain ARBITRARY age limit. Do you still believe in equality under the fourteenth amendment for ALL americans or just the ones that you don't consider abhorrent?

Of course you wouldn't have a problem with it. Incest is far less disgusting or abhorrent than homosexuality and you don't have a problem with that.

Do you ACTUALLY believe in equality? Or do you only believe in equality when it's beneficial to your argument?

 

Are you just trying to be funny or are you actually daft? And do you actually understand what the Fourteenth Amendment actually says?

If you have an argument to pick concerning the Fourteenth Amendment you'll need to take it up with the writers of the Constitution.

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
​

Now, what part of "All persons born or naturalized ...." do you not understand? And what part of "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, ...." do you not understand? And what part of "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." do you not understand? The writers did not make exceptions with reference to any group of individuals you must remember.

 

First of all, the writers of the constitution didn't include the Fourteenth Amendment. The fourteenth (13th and 15th) amendment was unconstitutionally forced upon the people. In fact, the 14th, 15th and 13th amendments are not constitutional.

Second... So you believe a 10 year old should be allowed to have sex with and marry whom he/she so chooses?

 

Here in the US, discrimination is judged by its relation to the legitimate governmental interest served, not by the numbers. Marriages limitation to men and women has a rational relation to improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples create. Limiting marriage to heterosexual and homosexual couples has no rational relation to the stated governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. MORE discriminatory.

- - - Updated - - -

That would apply to ANYONE excluded from marriage, not just the gays.​

 

Most marriage rights assume the involvement of 2 people. I don't think, for example, that a single person ought to have the right to sponsor his foreign girlfriend he met 2 day ago for immigration benefits, do you?

As for taxes, I say give singles a break too, don't you?

 

point being, there is no states interest in marriage anyway .

Marriage of any type costs the government money.........

 

Of course not and you should know better. But again, the Fourteenth Amendment has been codified and is now the law of the land as it stands.

 

What rights are restricted from anyone, that a simple "Last Will" or legal contract cannot replace? Most rights granted male/female couples are already available to all people and in most States certain rights are already afforded male/female couples, even if their not married, under common law. To my knowledge, there are no laws PROHIBITING loving another person, but I seriously doubt anyone here thinks their Aunt Bessy is entitled to anything from Government, because she loves her brother or sister.

This said, Holder/Obama are playing politics, hoping some voters next month will vote to keep the Senate under their control and couldn't care less about where they spend money. If you really think otherwise and whether or not they keep the Senate, wait until they 2016 Presidential Elections....

 

So not ALL americans. Right? And if it's not ALL, then perhaps you should clarify.

The 14th amendment was ratified under duress. Those amendments were forced upon the people through violent suppression and the north extorted the south and the people the south represented into ratifying those amendments by making it a requirement for representation in the government.

In short, they are no more constitutionally valid than a contract that one party forces another party to sign with the barrel of a gun shoved in their face.