Tweet
What is he going to do about this mess that is building steam in California???
-
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
Nothing.
Why would he do anything? The path to the decision for gay marriage lies through the judicial system - specifically, the Supreme Courts of each state. Obama really plays no role in it.mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslav -
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
what do you think he should do?pillow humping rules.
Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
he doesn't play a role?? Ya right.. He could make it a federal issue.
I'm Roman Catholic.Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
^^this -- although actually, in this case, the voters voted to change the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which pretty much takes it out of the state supreme court's hands, too, since they are bound to follow the constitution in the absence of some procedural irregularity in the vote. At this point, the only avenues for relief -- at least as I see it -- are:
1. Another vote to undo the effect of Prop 8
2. SCOTUS invalidates the state constitutional provisions as being inconsistent with some component of the federal constitution.Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
he is the president. he owns the house. he owns the senate. he could pass a law requiring americans to wear blue hats if he wanted to.Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
look I want to state my position before people read into my Roman Catholic beliefs. I am all for Gays having a Union between them and allowed all the rights that every other couple gets. But I really take offense to them calling it marriage. Marriage was formed by the Church from holy martimony. That is why I think it should be called something else. Also I get disgusted by gays that say "equal but seperate" to a Union rather than marriage. It is one thing to get your rights to the land and another by disrespecting other religious people.Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
good question -- but between the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, I think it's pretty clear that it could.
Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Fourteenth Amendment (section 1):
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
People were "married" for eons before the church adopted it and it took on religious overtones. You can get married by a judge in the courthouse every Tuesday and Thursday around here with nary a mention of God or the church, and that marriage will "count" the same as a marriage that is performed by the Pope himself.
Do you get equally offended when non-religious people get "married" by a judge? Is the fact that that is also called "marriage" disrespectful to your religious beliefs? Serious question.Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
Your comparing apples and oranges. At least it is a man and woman getting married by a judge so marriage would still be fitting.
Marriage is also about pro-creation.
What is the big deal with Union? They still get the rights of the land. It just seems they are becoming difficult by acting like they are the same when it is obvious they aren't.
Everyone better be careful of not being anti-straight and anti-religion.Comment
-
Re: Obama and Gay marriage
I suppose that is the counter, but it the SCOTUS were to find that the right at issue was one that was created/guaranteed by the US Constitution or federal statute, the 10th amendment isn't really applicable because, by definition, it would not fall within its coverage.Comment
Comment