Obama Ready To Sign Gay and Lesbian Marriage Act In Federal Constitutional Amendment

[maggiemay2u]

and yet you go on about abortion. maybe you should get over it then, huh? let people murder all the babies they want. suck it up lady, you lost.
and obama won by much, much more than 54%. mccain and the non-wit palin were crushed.

On and on? I don’t believe I made one reference here. I merely asked for your sources for information that seemed exaggerated.

Oh, I went to CNN, it was 53%, not 54%. Again, following your logic, if 53% is “crushing”, then 61% would be…

cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

ive tried not to say this, catholics loyal to rome 1) believe in an invisible magician in the sky, who makes things happen by thinking them, but wont change a single bad thing in the world. yes, of course, common sense. 2) you cant, havent, and will never prove that homosexuality isnt genetic in nature, and that it does the body any harm by being, therefore, it cant be a defect.
yours is the kind of person who drives people away from god, and should be ashamed of yourself.

The jury on nature or nurture is still out. There has been no conclusive data on other side. Many genetic defects are never seen, and many “don’t harm the body”. There are legions of deaf who refuse surgery to provide hearing, as they do not want to lose that which they feel defines them.

Your mocking the belief of others is not uncommon, but always curious to see in this forum. Some say Hubert Humphrey first coined the phrase, “resentment is a poison one takes in the hopes of killing another”, regardless of whom said it, it’s good to remember, nonetheless.

There are many things in my life that I regret. Defense of my God and country are not two of them…I’m not angry in the least at you, despite your repeated insults. My kids get angry at me too when I tell them no. God bless you

.

 

[iamme]

maggiemay2u:
ashamed of yourself!

 

[maggiemay2u]

Back to the topic. While I believe Mr Obama has demonstrated his support of homosexual marriage, he will have a difficult road to hoe to get to a constitutional amendment. I believe the activists will do what they have always done to circumvent the will of the people, they’ll wait until they’ve got the votes in SCOTUS and force a case forward.

 

[Corki]

just like, if a church rents out the building for weddings, it has to rent for all weddings, regardless of religion race participants, or it could lose its tax exempt status…

Where do you get this stuff? A chuch does not have to rent out its buildings to anyone who asks. Most churches only do weddings for parishioners or family of parishioners. There are some very bearutiful or historic churches that will take reservations from others but they have to come with proper releases from their home Catholic parish.

This has nothing to do with tax exemption. You are mixing up several different legal conceps into one erroneous statement to prove your more erroneous point.

As much as I disapprove of so-called “gay” marriages, statements like this fuel the anger since if such a thing were true, legalized “gay” marriage would force Catholic parishes to allow them in their Churches. That ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Corki]

iamme:

and obama won by much, much more than 54%.

maggiemay2u:

Oh, I went to CNN, it was 53%, not 54%. Again, following your logic, if 53% is “crushing”, then 61% would be…

And if 53% is “much, much more than 54%” we have a big problem 'cause evidently the laws of mathematics were turned aound in this election too.

 

[Robert_Bay]

GENERAL REMINDER

Please discuss the issues and not each other

Please post charitably

 

[williamric]

Hi,

1. If you are using a source please cite it otheriwse you might get in trouble with the mods… (Note: before you start, I don’t care whether you cite other then for reference purposes, but I don’t want you to get banned because of carelessness [fancy that])
2. You are making the mistake of assuming that I am against gay marriage… On the contrary I couldn’t care less whether gays get married. If two woman (men) love each other then all-power to them. On the other hand, if this was about religious marriage (i.e. a sacrament) I would be against gay marriage…

what reality do you live in?

On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court’s ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.[2] On June 4, 2008 the court denied the request for rehearing by the same 4-3 majority while unanimously denying a petition for a stay, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The Writ of Mandate directing the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and all County Clerks to comply with the ruling was issued by the Superior Court on June 19, 2008.[4]

there, in california, where prop 8 passed, it was 100% legal and a constitutional right for gays to marry PERIOD. you cannot argue with that.

Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases.[1] The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.[2][3][4] California’s State Constitution put the measure into immediate effect on November 5, the day after the election.[5] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California.

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage and claimed that failure to reverse a California Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 that recognized a right of same-sex couples to marry (In re Marriage Cases) would damage society, require changes to what was taught in schools about marriage, and threaten the free exercise of religion. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong (see Equal Protection Clause).

those are scare tactics. all gay marriage did, was allow two people who loved each other to get married, they just happened to be of the same sex. as far as i know, they dont teach marriage in school, so i dont know how thats applicable, unless they change it to say you can marry whoever you want, which is probably what they would teach anyways. i dont see how love damages society in any form, unless its the kind of love that comes with a bomb, and i dont think gay marriage shuts down churches.

now, im sure you can come up with all sorts of reasons about how gay marriage would destroy the world, kill god, turn children into murderers, but thats what ive come to expect from the majority of posters on this subject, so forgive me if i dont buy into any of it.

in conclusion, im absolutely correct. gay marriage was a constitutional right, and proposition 8 took away the rights of the people.

ummm… no you were not absolutely right…

I will admit that I didn’t take the time to properly clarify my position and that has caused a bit of confusion… I didn’t mean that gay people have never been able to marry because as you pointed out, they have been… What I meant, and didn’t explain, its not like they have always had this right… i.e. its not like the right to own a gun which has always been a right in the US…This has been around for 6 months (and most of the populace have disagreed with it from he start). The is really what I was trying to illustrate…

So yes, gay marriage was technically a “constitutional right”, however, at the same time, you are implying that Prop 8 is un-constitutional? But Prop 8 was voted for in accordance with the mandates of Californian constitution…Therefore they haven’t had their “rights” striped from them, because as per the amendment they don’t have the right anymore…

You are saying that because a supreme court ruled that the ban on gay marriage was not constitutional, that this now means gay marriage will ALWAYS be a constitutional right… But you’re wrong, because the constitution of California has been changed…Thats the nature of the beast, the constitution can be changed, and in this case the change means that marriage is now defined as a union between a man and a woman…

We will see how the amendment/revision thing goes, personally I think its more of an amendment then a revision but anyway…

Maybe, gay marriage will again become a constitutional right, but currently (in Cali) it isn’t…and as I have said, maybe they have “lost” a right, but to say their “rights have been stripped from them” is not fair…

 

[iamme]

Where do you get this stuff? A chuch does not have to rent out its buildings to anyone who asks. Most churches only do weddings for parishioners or family of parishioners. There are some very bearutiful or historic churches that will take reservations from others but they have to come with proper releases from their home Catholic parish.

This has nothing to do with tax exemption. You are mixing up several different legal conceps into one erroneous statement to prove your more erroneous point.

As much as I disapprove of so-called “gay” marriages, statements like this fuel the anger since if such a thing were true, legalized “gay” marriage would force Catholic parishes to allow them in their Churches. That ain’t gonna happen.

if a church (and this is ANY church, not just your catholic church, not everythings just about you, yknow ) rents out any of its building, or land, to the general public, for general use, be it weddings, family reunions, etc, it CANNOT discriminate against who they do business with, or they can lose their tax exempt status, as has happened before. the specific story i was thinking of was this. it was awhile ago, so i didnt find the story proper.

• In 2006, a Methodist group in New Jersey that rented out its boardwalk to the public for weddings lost tax exemptions after refusing to allow a same-sex commitment ceremony.
csmonitor.com/2008/0617/p01s03-usju.html

so where do i get this stuff? its from this tiny place i like to call reality.

Hi,

1. If you are using a source please cite it otheriwse you might get in trouble with the mods… (Note: before you start, I don’t care whether you cite other then for reference purposes, but I don’t want you to get banned because of carelessness [fancy that])
2. You are making the mistake of assuming that I am against gay marriage… On the contrary I couldn’t care less whether gays get married. If two woman (men) love each other then all-power to them. On the other hand, if this was about religious marriage (i.e. a sacrament) I would be against gay marriage…

ummm… no you were not absolutely right…

I will admit that I didn’t take the time to properly clarify my position and that has caused a bit of confusion… I didn’t mean that gay people have never been able to marry because as you pointed out, they have been… What I meant, and didn’t explain, its not like they have always had this right… i.e. its not like the right to own a gun which has always been a right in the US…This has been around for 6 months (and most of the populace have disagreed with it from he start). The is really what I was trying to illustrate…

So yes, gay marriage was technically a “constitutional right”, however, at the same time, you are implying that Prop 8 is un-constitutional? But Prop 8 was voted for in accordance with the mandates of Californian constitution…Therefore they haven’t had their “rights” striped from them, because as per the amendment they don’t have the right anymore…

You are saying that because a supreme court ruled that the ban on gay marriage was not constitutional, that this now means gay marriage will ALWAYS be a constitutional right… But you’re wrong, because the constitution of California has been changed…Thats the nature of the beast, the constitution can be changed, and in this case the change means that marriage is now defined as a union between a man and a woman…

We will see how the amendment/revision thing goes, personally I think its more of an amendment then a revision but anyway…

Maybe, gay marriage will again become a constitutional right, but currently (in Cali) it isn’t…and as I have said, maybe they have “lost” a right, but to say their “rights have been stripped from them” is not fair…

i grabbed that stuff from wiki cause i was painting and tired, and apparently, ill more like be banned for disagreeing with someones opinion, as its a personal attak, but i can be called an abomination 5 times in one week. but sincerely, thanks for the concern, no bs.

also, thats not what im saying at all. i think in the states people have voted on it (i dont think texas is one of them), and banned gay marriage, then so be it, i sincerely doubt that thats where gay folks want to make their home. do i find their general reasons for wanting to ban it disgusting? absolutely. the problem with state to state regulation is im not sure that another state is forced to recognize another states authority or not, i just dont know. but in the case of california, its not like they just decided to give the gays their way, they effectively said “this is your constitutional right, and always has been, and it wasnt anyones place to take it away” which then incited the mormon church to take it away. im hoping the decision will be appealed, but unfortunately, in a time when christians scream about being a persecuted minority, you cant get into office without kowtowing to said minority, so you cant rock the boat. im also curious if the us recognizes canadas authority about their gay marriages. im sure people think that as a gay guy, i should know all this stuff, but up until porp 8 i was totally apathetic. flamers (still) got on my nerves, and i couldnt for the life of me understand why they couldnt be like me, which is to say, be a normal guyu, who just happens to like guys, but now i understand, you dont get attention without fire and controversy. i have heard theres much speculation about the mormon church losing its tax exempt status for entering the political arena, and youd think that would be something catholics support. i dunno…

i just dont know about a lot of things anymore.

 

[Corki]

•

In 2006, a Methodist group in New Jersey that rented out its boardwalk to the public for weddings lost tax exemptions after refusing to allow a same-sex commitment ceremony.
csmonitor.com/2008/0617/p01s03-usju.html

This is indeed troubling and, if true, it is one more reason we have to fight hard against gay marriage.

There was no link or citiation, just a passing reference to the NJ situation but I am guessing it was Ocean Grove. OG is a small city on the beach which is entirely run by the Methodist Church. In NJ, beach access is private, not public and OG has had numerous legal issues over the decades in trying to control the boardwalk since it belongs to OG but connects seamlessly with the towns north and south of it.

That being said, the boardwalk is an open transit area. I shudder to imagine the day when Catholic parishes are forced to allow “gay” marriages in their Churches or halls.

I expect that marriages would be moved to private venues such as homes and/or the Church would give up on the tax exemption status altogether. For the homosexual militants the latter would be a case of “be careful what you ask for” since the Church, without the tax exempt sword hanging over her head would be a formiddable foe.

 

[maggiemay2u]

•

This is indeed troubling and, if true, it is one more reason we have to fight hard against gay marriage.

There was no link or citiation, just a passing reference to the NJ situation but I am guessing it was Ocean Grove. OG is a small city on the beach which is entirely run by the Methodist Church. In NJ, beach access is private, not public and OG has had numerous legal issues over the decades in trying to control the boardwalk since it belongs to OG but connects seamlessly with the towns north and south of it.

That being said, the boardwalk is an open transit area. I shudder to imagine the day when Catholic parishes are forced to allow “gay” marriages in their Churches or halls.

I expect that marriages would be moved to private venues such as homes and/or the Church would give up on the tax exemption status altogether. For the homosexual militants the latter would be a case of “be careful what you ask for” since the Church, without the tax exempt sword hanging over her head would be a formiddable foe.

Corki–bookmark the citation. It will be invaluable the next time the homosexual activists try the lie about how creating a right for them to marry won’t change anything, and we’re being religious alarmists and intolerant…

 

[c659smith]

There are many things I disagree with Obama and his politics but i doubt if Obama is going to sign a federally mandated law to guarantee marriage between Gays and Lesbians.

It may be civil Unions but not marriage.

Remember this incoming administration likes the word Unions

That would not be polically advantageous to Obama and the Democrats but rather political suicide to use the wording marriage.

That would ignite the religious right and center aganist any and all other future endeavors they may have.

Many States have had constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages by 60 % or more of the populace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There are many things I disagree with Obama and his politics but i doubt if Obama is going to sign a federally mandated law to guarantee marriage between Gays and Lesbians.

It may be civil Unions but not marriage.

I tend to agree. He has much bigger concerns on his plate: Israel/Gaza, The Economy, Iran.

And he has an instinct for survival.

 

[Elizabeth502]

For the homosexual militants the latter would be a case of “be careful what you ask for” since the Church, without the tax exempt sword hanging over her head would be a formiddable foe.

Agree with this as well, and have advocated for release of tax-exempt status in areas not associated explicitly with religious activity or the providing of social services such as healthcare and education and social work. It would be cleaner both for the non-Catholic public and for the church.

However, I will reiterate as I have in the past on CAF, that the state has a legitimate social interest in who can marry whom (broadly) insofar as it affects the raising of dependent children. It is both and civil and religious issue.

 

[c659smith]

Agree with this as well, and have advocated for release of tax-exempt status in areas not associated explicitly with religious activity or the providing of social services such as healthcare and education and social work. It would be cleaner both for the non-Catholic public and for the church.

However, I will reiterate as I have in the past on CAF, that the state has a legitimate social interest in who can marry whom (broadly) insofar as it affects the raising of dependent children. It is both and civil and religious issue.

I am a little confused?? Are you saying to remove the tax emempt status of the Catholic Church for instance when it comes to the church working within the public forum?

If so that would be a nightmare on the secularist side. I do not believe it would be much of a problem for the Catholic Church or religous sector that has this exemption.

It would also plainly be a violation of the true meaning of the constitution. “govt. shall make no law in regards to religion” Seperation of Church and State is a lettter from Thomas Jefferson and is written no where in the constitution.

Massachussetts tried this with the Catholic Church on forcing same sex adoptions from the Church and when the church was ready to get out of the adoption areas and ophanges in Massachussetts. That State realized the immense costs involved by the State having to fill the vacuum that they quickly changed their mind.

Can you image hospitals, charitable organizations, schools,etc…

Not to mention the Catholic Church clergy being able to run for public office. It would definitely change the make up of the Govt.

Also when dealing with the Catholic Church they could probably easily and quickly trump tax exemption through going to court and force the foreign Govt. / Embassy issue. Remember the Roman Catholic Church is run by Rome a Goverment recognized by the United Nations and the United States.
The vatican is a country along with all it’s properties if it should so choose.

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

[centurionguard]

There are many things I disagree with Obama and his politics but i doubt if Obama is going to sign a federally mandated law to guarantee marriage between Gays and Lesbians.

It may be civil Unions but not marriage.

Remember this incoming administration likes the word Unions

That would not be politically advantageous to Obama and the Democrats but rather political suicide to use the wording marriage.

That would ignite the religious right and center against any and all other future endeavors they may have.

Many States have had constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages by 60 % or more of the populace.

…
Civil Unions is just a nice and easy cushy euphemistic word to define marriage as far as the gay agenda who lobby to have the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman redefined.

Make no mistake; President Obama has never made it evidently clear that he would NOT differentiate between such grammar distinction.

Check Out:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012109.html

whitehouse.gov/agenda/

whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.​

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried​

 

[c659smith]

…
Civil Unions is just a nice and easy cushy euphemistic word to define marriage as far as the gay agenda who lobby to have the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman redefined.

Make no mistake; President Obama has never made it evidently clear that he would NOT differentiate between such grammar distinction.

Check Out:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012109.html

whitehouse.gov/agenda/

whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.​

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried​

But make no mistake with all the states that have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage and rights it would take a constituional amendment to put same sex marriage into law. Even with Obama as Pres. congressionally there is little support on this issue.

 

[rossum]

Strong Rumours are setting the stage for Obama officially signing a federal constitutional amendment for legalizing marriages for all gays and lesbians in the Marriage Act which will super-cede all 50 State laws on January 22ond, 2009.

You might wish to make a note that the sources of those rumours were inaccurate. It might be a help to you in future to avoid rumours from those sources.

rossum

 

[BobCatholic]

Here is the process for amending the US Constitution:

Or five Supreme Court justices vote.