Despite Obama’s Divisive Speech, Gays and Lesbians Are ‘Treated Like Anyone Under The Law’
This year's presidential inauguration was an opportunity for President Obama to unite Americans who have recently been through a particularly difficult and heated election season and set us on a better path, one that would uplift all Americans.
Sadly, the President squandered this opportunity when he chose to proclaim that our journey as a people would not be complete until gay and lesbian people are "treated like anyone under the law," a not-so-veiled reference to his politically-motivated decision to endorse the radical movement to redefine marriage, one of our most sacred institutions.
First of all, gay and lesbian people are already treated equally under the law. They have the same civil rights as everyone else. They're free to live as they choose and love whom they wish.
What they don't have is the right to redefine marriage for society.
Indeed, six federal courts (including the Supreme Court in 1972) have rejected the radical idea that there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
Marriage as it has been defined throughout history - as the union of one man and one woman - is a great cause of unity for any culture, including our own. We know all too well what happens to society when marriage breaks down and government interferes with the rights of men and women to come together and form healthy, lifelong marriages. The President's obsession with redefining marriage has prevented him in his first term from doing anything of substance to support and advance the institution of marriage for the vast majority of Americans. That is where his emphasis should be.
Americans remain united in support of the commonsense definition of marriage. A poll taken after the most recent elections showed that 60% of Americans agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. Twenty percent of Americans in that same poll said marriage was one of their top three issues. The vast majority of states define marriage as the union of husband and wife and the vast majority of Americans who have been given a chance to vote on the question have supported that definition as well.
This spring and summer the Supreme Court will take up Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Proposition 8, which Obama opposed, defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was approved in 2008 by over seven million California voters. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
For me it's not . IMO it appears to be a title issue
Quoting cjsbmom:I think there are many issues he needs to take up, this being one of them. In what order he does it depends on him since he's the president. But I understand what you're saying.
I do not believe this should be a state issue. It's a civil rights issue, IMO.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
That he needs to not focus on this as his main issue. when the issues regarding financial issues of this country are so important. I believe if the courts have ruled this should be left at a state level at this time .
Quoting cjsbmom:
Which parts?
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
I agree with some of it
This just seems to me to be something that should be done at a federal level to ensure their rights are protected no matter where in the country they are.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
That he needs to not focus on this as his main issue. when the issues regarding financial issues of this country are so important. I believe if the courts have ruled this should be left at a state level at this time .
Quoting cjsbmom:Which parts?
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
I agree with some of it
Living will and so on.
I live in a state that voted and decided marriage is defined as one man one women if 70% ( example not fact ) voted and decided this then it's unreasonable to believe that there vote shouldn't matter because one man says so . Do I agree with it maybe maybe not . In my state they recognize partners and there are papers that they can file .
Quoting canadianmom1974:
My question if this is something that is left at a state level is, how does it work if a couple is legally married in one state, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, what happens when they move to another state where it's not legal? Or even if they're traveling through another state and they're in an accident or become ill? Do they still have the same legal rights as a married couple, or does that not happen because the state they're in doesn't recognise their marriage?
This just seems to me to be something that should be done at a federal level to ensure their rights are protected no matter where in the country they are.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
That he needs to not focus on this as his main issue. when the issues regarding financial issues of this country are so important. I believe if the courts have ruled this should be left at a state level at this time .
Quoting cjsbmom:Which parts?
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
I agree with some of it
I'm an atheist so whatever religious meaning you are probably talking about does not apply to me nor my atheist husband but still we are allowed to marry. So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married too? You can tell me I'm disrupting the sanctity of marriage or whatever and I can tell you what you can kiss because I don't care what you think.
It's Cassandra Cat!
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
Legal documents .
Living will and so on.
I live in a state that voted and decided marriage is defined as one man one women if 70% ( example not fact ) voted and decided this then it's unreasonable to believe that there vote shouldn't matter because one man says so . Do I agree with it maybe maybe not . In my state they recognize partners and there are papers that they can file .
Quoting canadianmom1974:
My question if this is something that is left at a state level is, how does it work if a couple is legally married in one state, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, what happens when they move to another state where it's not legal? Or even if they're traveling through another state and they're in an accident or become ill? Do they still have the same legal rights as a married couple, or does that not happen because the state they're in doesn't recognise their marriage?
This just seems to me to be something that should be done at a federal level to ensure their rights are protected no matter where in the country they are.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
That he needs to not focus on this as his main issue. when the issues regarding financial issues of this country are so important. I believe if the courts have ruled this should be left at a state level at this time .
Quoting cjsbmom:Which parts?
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
I agree with some of it
ITA-
Quoting rfurlongg:
Well that is not a biased poll at all. *cough, cough*
Times changes. Remember Dredd Scott? Because the Supreme court decided something, does not mean we cannot be a dynamic people and grow beyond mistakes made in the past.
The author claims the GLBT community is treated equally under the law. They are not. Period. That is not debatable. Just because he wants it to be so, does not make it so.
If you're gay and marry in the state of Vermont (legal) and move to Alabama (SSM ban) you lose your legal rights and benefits as a married couple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Quoting canadianmom1974:
My question if this is something that is left at a state level is, how does it work if a couple is legally married in one state, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, what happens when they move to another state where it's not legal? Or even if they're traveling through another state and they're in an accident or become ill? Do they still have the same legal rights as a married couple, or does that not happen because the state they're in doesn't recognise their marriage?
This just seems to me to be something that should be done at a federal level to ensure their rights are protected no matter where in the country they are.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
That he needs to not focus on this as his main issue. when the issues regarding financial issues of this country are so important. I believe if the courts have ruled this should be left at a state level at this time .
Quoting cjsbmom:Which parts?
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
I agree with some of it
Again, it looks like we are back to a lack of education...which drives fear and overrides critical thinking and reasoning.
Throw in a gun for good measure-
Quoting GLWerth:Marriage is a social construct and as such, it changes and evolves as society does.
Before 1967, the same arguments that are made today against gay people marrying were made against interracial marriage.
It would ruin the sanctity of marriage! OH NOES! And yet, marriage still exists, even though interracial couples marry. The world did not come to a screeching halt.
I'm in Iowa, gay couples have been marrying for several years and strangely, this has had ZERO impact on my marriage to my husband. No one has forced me to divorce him and marry a woman, no one has forced him to marry a man, the only difference is that the nice women I know in the next town over are now married.
They are also foster parents and have taken in seven kids from the foster care system, older kids who wouldn't have had a chance at a family otherwise. Yeah, that's some evil gay conspiracy, taking care of kids.
People need to just get over their fear of people who are different. Different is not always bad, sometimes it is just different.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
Legal documents .
Living will and so on.
I live in a state that voted and decided marriage is defined as one man one women if 70% ( example not fact ) voted and decided this then it's unreasonable to believe that there vote shouldn't matter because one man says so . Do I agree with it maybe maybe not . In my state they recognize partners and there are papers that they can file .
Quoting canadianmom1974:
My question if this is something that is left at a state level is, how does it work if a couple is legally married in one state, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, what happens when they move to another state where it's not legal? Or even if they're traveling through another state and they're in an accident or become ill? Do they still have the same legal rights as a married couple, or does that not happen because the state they're in doesn't recognise their marriage?
This just seems to me to be something that should be done at a federal level to ensure their rights are protected no matter where in the country they are.
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
That he needs to not focus on this as his main issue. when the issues regarding financial issues of this country are so important. I believe if the courts have ruled this should be left at a state level at this time .
Quoting cjsbmom:Which parts?
Quoting afwifeandmommy3:
I agree with some of it
Holy Cannibalism, Bat Man: Liberals Are Eating Liberals
Would you go topless if you could?
- candlegal
on Jan. 23, 2013 at 6:32 AM