lennavan: Oh, it is a states issue. Got it. So you are not familiar with the Defense of Marriage Act? Because the federal government absolutely believed it was a federal issue when it came to banning the icky gays from marrying. But now that we are talking about allowing the icky gays to marry, well thats a states issue.

Okay, thanks for that mix of unnecessary wharrgarrbl, condescension and ignorance. It was a good reminder that I'm wasting my time. However, let me take another crack at this because you appear to be confused by what I wrote, and I'm humble enough to take that as a sign that I am not presenting my argument with the necessary clarity.

Do you know why DOMA passed? It wasn't for any out-of-nowhere reason. It was because marriage has a unique position of being determined by state, rather than federal, law. This is a power reserved to the states. in 1993, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex marriage rights violated the Hawaii constitution. DOMA, in 1996, was a response to that: it was a law passed to force the federal government not to recognize any same-sex marriages and to allow other states to similarly deny the recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in other states. You can read DOMA here. DOMA does not ban gay marriages. It states that the federal government will only recognize marriages between a man or a woman for the federal government's purposes, which involve a substantial number of things, but does not ban gay marriage at a state level.

A political determination at the federal level of who can marry whom is a significant overreach into the role of the states in writing their own marriage laws. It is also completely unnecessary. DOMA should be repealed or struck down, whichever happens first. And the Supreme Court should strike down discriminatory marriage amendments at the state level, as they did in the case of Loving v. Virginia. It's not the role of the executive branch or Congress to strike down unconstitutional laws. That's up to the courts.

lennavan: You do know Obama thinks it is a choice for the states to make, right? That's why I disagree with Obama, right?

I didn't realize Obama had the power to make gay marriage legal. By executive order perhaps?

Oh wait. Congress or the judicial system would have to do it.

lennavan: Nrokreffefp: lennavan: thamike: lennavan: thamike: lennavan: One of us is apparently drunk, that's for sure.

Something's for sure.

^^^ This. For sure.

You are pissing and moaning about the only president in history who has openly supported gay marriage. The only one. In an election year. In an election season.

... the only farking opinion that actually matters, is it is a states issue....

Obama has done a lot of good things for gays. This is not one of them.

Wrong. Equal Protection is not a choice for the states to make. The Ron Paul style of bigotry is bullshiat. Gays are equal to you, sorry.

Why are you posting this to me? You do know Obama thinks it is a choice for the states to make, right? That's why I disagree with Obama, right? You completely agree with me. I'll happily accept your retraction.

I do not agree with you. I disagree that Obama's statement was worthless. Regardless of his beliefs, he has stopped and reversed the trend previously undertaken. His statement has led to widespread conversation and debate, and perhaps most importantly has forced the black community to face its own bigotry in this regard. This outspoken statement seems to be a reversal of his position. Obama cannot create legislation, or create SCOTUS decisions. What else could he have personally done?

lennavan: because my reason and second point was "why the hell wont Obama come out and say civil rights is not a states iss

Because what does it matter if in the end same-sex marriage does become legal? Why bring up a sh*tstorm worthy of a second Civil War?

Damn, now I'm sorry to have responded. Three posts a minute almost always = trolling.

Gee, I wonder why he couldn't get anything done...

lennavan: Nrokreffefp: I do not agree with you.

Yes you do. I'm saying gay rights is not a states issue.

Nrokreffefp: Equal Protection is not a choice for the states to make. The Ron Paul style of bigotry is bullshiat. Gays are equal to you, sorry.

So did you. We agree! Let's be friends.

Sure, quote my Boobies again instead of reading the rebuttal. You are disingenuous and pathetic, and apparently thoroughly ignorant of our political system. What makes you think that Obama has the power to determine whether or not civil rights are a State's issue again? His power to author SCOTUS decisions, or his power to make royal decrees with the power of federal legislation.

We only agree on the surface argument, one which is a matter of Constitutional interpretation, not on the actual argument which is Obama's position and actions. You seem to think Obama has abilities that the president is not granted, and that his opinion in one way (states rights) is incredibly important and bad, and his opinion another way (that gay people should be able to marry) is incredibly useless and detrimental. Both are simply personal opinions that he lacks the power to legislate on. You are a moron.

lennavan: whidbey: lennavan: You do know Obama thinks it is a choice for the states to make, right? That's why I disagree with Obama, right?

I didn't realize Obama had the power to make gay marriage legal. By executive order perhaps?

Oh wait. Congress or the judicial system would have to do it.

So what you are saying is because Obama cannot make an executive order legalizing gay marriage, he must therefore declare it is a states issue?

I don't know that you're right but I respect your opinion.

I'm not sure why he's going the States Rights angle. I'm guessing that the scholar in him feels that we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt, even if we can guess what their answer would be, and then bring in the Federal power.

At any rate, I don't know if you've noticed, but ANY suggestion from the White House is heavily scrutinized and trampled by the right-wing.

This is clearly a calculated move, and unlike Ron Paul's approach to the issue, Obama clearly states his own personal approval.

I get the feeling he knows the States are going to make themselves look like bigoted homophobes all over again.

Waste of time and money IMNSHO, but I can understand the tactic. It might work better than our history of direct Executive Branch coercion.

lennavan: See what do I do with this? You just asked me: "Do you know why a federal law that defines what marriage is was passed? Because it has a unique position of being determined by state, rather than federal."

And again, you fail to recognize the distinction between federal and state powers and what marriage recognition at the federal level actually means. LOL. Please go read DOMA, ok?

lennavan: Right, it didn't ban it. It just defined marriage as between man and a woman, making gay marriage illegal. It is up to the states to decide if they want to legalize gay marriage. A great amazing distinction you make here.

No, gay marriage is not illegal. Facepalm. If gay marriage was made illegal by DOMA how could any state make it legal? DOMA affects recognition of existing marriages at the federal level. This is where I type "Please go read DOMA, ok?" again.

lennavan: If a state does absolutely nothing, can gays marry in that state?

You think this is some powerful argument? It depends on how the marriage law was already defined at the state level. Some states allow gay marriages, some don't.

I award you an F and assign you remedial reading:
Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution

dehehn: Gee, I wonder why he couldn't get anything done...

So what's your excuse for the two years that democrats had control of everything?

lennavan: Nrokreffefp: Sure, quote my Boobies again instead of reading the rebuttal.

HOW DARE I QUOTE THE VERY FIRST THING YOU POSTED. I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY.

Nrokreffefp: You are disingenuous and pathetic, and apparently thoroughly ignorant of our political system.

Seriously though, you are Newt Gingrich aren't you? I knew this sounded familiar. Nice to meet you! Gahh, you almost got me there Newty, I almost bit on your line. How's the book selling?

Good luck then. Let me know how 8th grade civics works out. Who are you voting for to be King of America this time? Hopefully they can dominate all three branches and fulfill your desires.

9beers: dehehn: Gee, I wonder why he couldn't get anything done...

So what's your excuse for the two years that democrats had control of everything?

HURDEE HURRDEE HERP Them Democrats should have DONE EVERYTHING THEY WERE IN POWER AFTER ALL WHEEEEE

lennavan: Wait, that is Obama's reason for laying off on it? Because he can promote gay equality state by state? You do know how well that is working out, right?

Obama's reason for "laying off on it" is his having read the U.S. Constitution before.

bobbette: lennavan: Wait, that is Obama's reason for laying off on it? Because he can promote gay equality state by state? You do know how well that is working out, right?

Obama's reason for "laying off on it" is his having read the U.S. Constitution before.

There is no way he's actually this stupid. It seems like he's impossible to have a productive conversation with on the subject, because any time someone points out factual evidence that makes his opinion look juvenile and ignorant he simply ignores it and quotes something unrelated, or calls you names. Just respond in kind.

9beers: dehehn: Gee, I wonder why he couldn't get anything done...

So what's your excuse for the two years ~six months that democrats had control of everything?

FTFY. They had the MAJORITY for two years, but only had a filibuster-proof one for a few months. Not surprised you're conveniently forgetting that...Probably conveniently forgetting the records the Republicans broke whilst in the minority, too.

lennavan: whidbey: I'm not sure why he's going the States Rights angle.

Here's the thing. Here is the difference between you and me. Indeed, here seems to be the difference between me and people defending Obama on this one.

I am taking Obama at his word.
You are all reading between the lines.

You are projecting beliefs onto Obama and are therefore unsure why he is "going the States Rights angle." I'm not. I believe he is taking a "states rights angle" because he actually believes it is a states issue. He has been saying it for years. He played that angle before he was POTUS. Is it like the Republicans tell us, some big conspiracy where he campaigned on something, followed through on exactly what he campaigned on but in his second term is totally going to surprise change? I don't think so. I am taking him at his word. What a shock, I know, right?

So we agree it cannot be cured by executive order. You have no idea why he might say it is a states issue but you're sure it's totally not because he thinks it is a states issue. And something is therefore forcing him, or some super awesome political tactic is why he is saying it is a states issue. And has been doing so for over 4 years.

I'm super stoked for your explanation there.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm

Here is my final gift to you. Obama considering it a state's right is because of the assertions of the other two branches of government thus far. He has no ability to change that. Please keep the derp up though, its getting funnier as you continually piss into the wind of reality.

lennavan: So we agree it cannot be cured by executive order. You have no idea why he might say it is a states issue but you're sure it's totally not because he thinks it is a states issue. And something is therefore forcing him, or some super awesome political tactic is why he is saying it is a states issue. And has been doing so for over 4 years.

I'm super stoked for your explanation there.

I don't agree with his opinion, but I can see that he believes that the "right" thing to do morally would be to face your own bigotry and approve the concept.

He's giving the States a chance before Congress or the SCOTUS brings in the big guns. Big guns that many complain are being used de facto at every possible opportunity (see=complaints about the Commerce Clause usage).

Personally I'm not sure if it's going to actually eliminate bigotry, but I can't really condemn him for proposing handling it from the state level.

And that's saying a lot, seeing as how I've had the tendency to trounce every argument where someone suggests we let Ron Paul do the same thing.

Because it isn't.

lennavan: Nrokreffefp: Obama considering it a state's right is because of the assertions of the other two branches of government thus far. He has no ability to change that. Please keep the derp up though

No no, you're doing just fine. You think because the other two branches of government say it is true, that forces Obama to agree. That's nice.

I honestly can't believe that either of us have to remind you that this is not a totally Federal country, that it is in fact made up of 50 states + territories and that they also share power in what we call the United States of America.

lennavan: You and I both know there isn't a chance in hell Congress does anything on this during an Obama presidency. Cross your fingers on the SCOTUS, I'm not so sure there.

They managed to repeal DADT. But how?

lennavan: It's going to be handled by the SCOTUS. He's not letting anything happen, he really has no say. We both know Congress isn't going to do shiat, which means it is left to the states.

No I don't know that. Congress also passed the CRA when everyone was clamoring for the SCOTUS to act.

Saying "civil rights should be left up to the states" is kinda a stupid thing to say, especially from a black POTUS

I'll admit I haven't considered the angle that perhaps Obama is trying to strongarm Congress by pushing the States rights issue, but that's another possibility, and honestly, far more likely given his previous mindset when dealing with Congress.

lennavan: I honestly can't believe I have to remind you of the first amendment that guarantees Obama protections for stating his opinions on the matter. The first amendment means Obama would not have been put in jail for saying during the interview he thought the federal government via Congress should legalize gay marriage. I guess you guys think otherwise?

If I were Obama, I wouldn't be saying that.

The Republicans make hay out of bullsh*t like putting brown mustard on his burgers and the Queen's iPod.

This isn't a time to be some kind of loudmouth loose cannon shaking down the Republicans and telling it like it is. All it's going to do is piss people off and even more shiat will go untended.

You know what though? I understand Obama. I'm totally going to start phoning it in after I win my Nobel Prize, too.

lennavan: quatchi: I think he's laying it off right now as being a states right for a similar reason to why the GOP are.

He has been laying it off as a states issue since he was running in 2008.

Do you think the POTUS can just tell the SCOTUS to rule something unconstitutional or something?

quatchi: Which is to say, they can win battles on a state by state basis.

Wait, that is Obama's reason for laying off on it? Because he can promote gay equality state by state? You do know how well that is working out, right?

quatchi: There may have been over 30 anti-gay marriage bills passed in the last few years by the GOP

Yeah. That would be a pretty stupid plan if that's what Obama is doing. Good thing I don't think that is what he is doing. I actually take him at his word, he has been saying it is a states issue for years.

Way to disingenuously cut off the point I was making there. Classy, is that.

Full quote in context was...

There may have been over 30 anti-gay marriage bills passed in the last few years by the GOP but there are also 6 states that grant now gay Americans marriage licenses outright and several others that do civil unions.

Some movement on the issue is better than no movement on the issue.

Learn this at some point.

quatchi: You can only legislate morality so far ahead of public opinion

WTF are you talking about?

Your Gallup poll thingy was nice and all but look at this and read it.

Link

According to surveys included in the PollingReport.com database, an average of 50 percent of American adults support same-sex marriage rights while 45 percent oppose it, based on an average of nine surveys conducted in the past year.

This is a reversal from earlier periods: support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004.

It should be remembered that support for same-sex marriage in polls has not necessarily translated into support at the ballot booth. On Tuesday, North Carolina became the latest state to adopt a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and did so by a margin of about 20 percentage points, somewhat larger than polls forecast.

TL,DR?

Your "Obama gets no credit on this" rant was one of the most sophomoric and politically naive things I've read on this site in a while.

lennavan: I don't think Obama is a liar, you do. It is what it is

No, actually I've got to go with I'm pleased to finally hear a President has come out in favor of same-sex marriage, and that he doesn't want to be a dictator about it, that in fact there are several political avenues where he as President would allow the people charged to do the job to make the tough decisions..

There. I even bolded the last part for you per your posting style. :)

Got to do some long-procrastinated weed-eating outside now. I'll check back later, but I don't think we're really arguing. I hadn't realized until this thread that Obama believes that it should be a states rights issue, and it is somewhat disappointing, but indicative of our time.

Ricardo Klement: vpb: Ricardo Klement: Good to see that the expectations of unicorns and rainbows wasn't limited to the US.

It kind of sad when a government that looks after the interests of it's people is equivalent to unicorns and rainbows in the minds of some people.

The question, my friend, is not that the goals are unicorns and rainbows, but that the expectations of his being able to bypass the hurdles of his own party and circumvent the objections of Republicans were grossly out of touch with reality.

He had a "supermajority" in the Senate and a clear majority in the House if you simply counted the members on each side. However, a significant portion, enough to lose the House and about 10% of their number in the Senate, were Democrats sitting in vulnerable seats who were scared to vote with their party on many issues, hoping that moderation would save them, when the opposite will always be true, no matter which party you belong to.

Independents who want to punish the party for its national agenda will always vote out their local office-holder to express their disapproval of the national initiatives. Many of the Democrats who lost their jobs over Obamacare or the Stimulus or closing Gitmo etc actually voted to prevent those things.

It's nigh impossible for Obama to do almost anything he wants without the support of the legislature. It is a unicorn and rainbow outlook to think he could.

And now the liberal end of the spectrum, in its typical naivete, is turning against him. People think conservatives are their own worst enemy. Liberals, too, are their own worst enemy.

The problem is that it shouldn't be a unicorns-and-rainbows ideal that Conservatives would actually help Obama govern properly. They're paid to help keep the country running, not tear it down for their own gain.

I voted for Obama because I wanted Universal Healthcare in America. Whatever happens, it is now part of this country's lexicon. So I am quite pleased and will vote for him again.

Nrokreffefp: bobbette: lennavan: Wait, that is Obama's reason for laying off on it? Because he can promote gay equality state by state? You do know how well that is working out, right?

Obama's reason for "laying off on it" is his having read the U.S. Constitution before.

There is no way he's actually this stupid. It seems like he's impossible to have a productive conversation with on the subject, because any time someone points out factual evidence that makes his opinion look juvenile and ignorant he simply ignores it and quotes something unrelated, or calls you names. Just respond in kind.

I think you're underestimating the amount of amusement I get from this. And from wasting his time!

Obama signed the order to close Gitmo. So why don't you blame the people who blocked it, Republicans. Stupid Daily Fail.

This is the Daily Mail. The same Daily Mail that have favourable editorials about Hitler, and which just last month said the only sensible vote in the French election was for the far-right national front

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2132611/French-elections-20 1 2-Marine-Le-Pen-responsible-vote-France.html

intelligent comment below: Obama signed the order to close Gitmo. So why don't you blame the people who blocked it, Republicans. Stupid Daily Fail.

The vote to transfer the prisoners out of Gitmo was 90-6 against. Who blocked it?

bobbette: lennavan: Oh, it is a states issue. Got it. So you are not familiar with the Defense of Marriage Act? Because the federal government absolutely believed it was a federal issue when it came to banning the icky gays from marrying. But now that we are talking about allowing the icky gays to marry, well thats a states issue.

Okay, thanks for that mix of unnecessary wharrgarrbl, condescension and ignorance

Oh, he does that to everybody.

Who cares what the rest of the World thinks on this? Obama with a stronger approval rating didn't get us anything beyond what Obama with a weaker approval rating gets us.

MrEricSir: You know what though? I understand Obama. I'm totally going to start phoning it in after I win my Nobel Prize, too.

I think you started too early.

Call me when the folks in the rest of the world are allowed to vote in US elections.