Posted on 05/16/2008 11:38:25 AM PDT by Brilliant
Barack Obama is sticking by his defense of same-sex unions, despite the likelihood that it will flare up as a general election issue because of today's California Supreme Court decision legalizing it. Here's the Obama camp's response to the court decision:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage." The Republicans are likely to seize on Obama's respect for the court's decision as proof that electing Obama would bring about gay marriage across the country. Of course, it's also worth noting that Obama stops short of embracing gay marriage, putting him out of step with many on the left.
No statement yet from Hillary Clinton. John McCain's spokesman, however, has weighed in with this:
"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." Late Update: Here is the Clinton campaign's statement:
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Think the polygamists are feeling left out of this wildly widening definition of marriage?
Aren’t marriages supposed to be happy?
Oh, he meant homosexual. Why didn’t he say so?
Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.
If it is a "states rights" issue, then WHAT is Barack going to be "fighting for" as President? The President has no say in matters of state.
Scenario:
2 arsenokoits get married and then adopt a young child (male).
At the age of 18, they divorce with one of the “parents” entering into marriage with the adopted child. They adopt a child.
“What about those who wish to enjoy bestiality?”
Don’t even go there. That’s next on Obama’s list of Constitutional rights.
And who are we to judge such an arrangement? /sarc
“Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.”
On another board, I said the very same thing to an idiot liberal who responded, “Well that’s asinine. No one’s going to marry their dog.”
To which I responded:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html
No, children are next.
This is the next goal post. The APA has already paved the way with some study declaring “adult-child sex” can be beneficial to the child.
THAT’S WHAT i’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SINCE WHEN CAN A JUDGE MAKE LAW.
Not surprising since there’s a rumor that he’s been pole vaulting with Rev. Wrong.
Maybe the Larry Sinclair story did happen, and BO is keeping his options open?
Intermediate goal, Federal Age of Consent.
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg wrote a paper on just such a thing. Her conclusion was 11 years old.
At least you didn’t send him the story about the man forced to marry the goat.
Libs try to dismiss your argument as a false “slippery slope” argument.
It is in no way a slope, or a continuum, of acceptable arrangements.
There is traditional marriage, defined by God from the very beginning of the human race, then there is everything else.
Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.
He’ll marry Edwards so they can become the Presidential couple.
Since Roosevelt... That’s the fundamental philosophy behind the Dem judicial appointees. They’ve got to be willing to reinterpret the law in order to shift it to the left in order to eliminate the need for the liberals to push their agenda thru the legislature.
“Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.”
Exactly. 100 years ago no one in their right mind would EVER consider redefining marriage to include same sexes...whose to say years from now that marriage includes every freak show circumstance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.