President May be in Trouble

I think he means that the government shouldnt be the ones to define who should be allowed to marry. There shouldn't even be a debate. Same sex marriages should be considered the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

Actually, what clause of the US Constitution, or which of the Bill of Rights grants the US Government the authority to get involved in marriages between two parties, no matter what sex, anyway?

Exactly Rich!

Originally Posted by Nova_C

I don't get this. Marriage is a legal contract that has associated tax benefits and rules. So should the government drop marriage as a recognized status?

Or do you mean the government should just leave it as is? I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

Below is the answer!!! No politicians involved. I realize some of this is harder for someone from 'a let the gov decide what's best for us country' to understand. Things like the second amendment and limited gov have to be pretty alien to nations that have been historically controlled by their gov far more.

Originally Posted by beautifullywild77

I think he means that the government shouldnt be the ones to define who should be allowed to marry. There shouldn't even be a debate. Same sex marriages should be considered the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Actually, what clause of the US Constitution, or which of the Bill of Rights grants the US Government the authority to get involved in marriages between two parties, no matter what sex, anyway?

I don't think the ad hominem attack was necessary.

It just sounded like you were being critical of Obama for saying that there shouldn't be any laws against gay marriage. If you were agreeing with him, well, okay then.

Because the vast majority of the Republican party is a lot more interested in getting into your bedrooms and deciding what birth control is okay for you to use and who you should be marrying than the Democrats, and certainly than Obama is.

But I guess I just misunderstood. Glad to see at least you can find common ground with Obama on this one.

The sad part is Obama doesn't even really care. He is supporting it only to get votes. IMO

Originally Posted by beautifullywild77

The sad part is Obama doesn't even really care. He is supporting it only to get votes. IMO

That really is the sad part. It took him 3 years to come out and say anything, and of course, during an election year.

Other than repealing DADT, you mean.

No, I don't.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...egitimate.html

That article makes no sense. It was published Oct 19, 2010, but in May of 2010, Congress passed a measure to repeal DADT, which was then filibustered by John McCain.

So Congress had already decided to repeal DADT in the NDAA before Judge Philips had even ruled on a court case dating back to 2004, but McCain was having none of it and obstructed passing of the bill.

And suddenly Obama's at fault for it not passing?

Anyway, Obama signed the act that repealed DADT in December of 2010. That article is disingenuous at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADT