Posted on 07/19/2011 10:53:47 PM PDT by Cronos
President Obama will endorse a bill to repeal the law that limits the legal definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, the White House said Tuesday, taking another step in support of gay rights.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Obama was taking the additional step away from the Defense of Marriage Act — which the administration said earlier this year it would no longer defend in court — in order to “uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”
If the measure passes, it would make same-sex couples eligible for certain federal benefits that have previously been available only to heterosexual married couples.
The new legislation, which is being sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, is unlikely to pass Congress this year, but will nonetheless face its first committee hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“More and more people across this land know people who are gay, who want to have a lasting relationship, who look at marriage as an economic agreement as well as an emotional agreement,” Mrs. Feinstein said in remarks at the National Press Club. “I think eyes have opened.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Let’s start calling “gays” what they really are—perverts who are an abomination in the eyes of God and who are headed for Hell unless they repent. I’m so sick of seeing our English language hijacked to smooth over perversity.
That kenyan fag will burn in hell... that is assured.
LLS
Oh, good. As long as we’re redefining marriage, let me be the first to state that I want another husband. No, I don’t want to get rid of the one I have—I just want to add to my collection.
Also, I want to marry my cats. Let’s bring the term “crazy cat lady” to a new level.
Really, that whole idea of marriage being between one man and one woman is just SO outdated.
< /sarc >
The left, from Genesis 3 on, has always masterfully manipulated the language and the truth to suit their purposes.
Two items of note from another post ( Journal of the Federal convention July 20,1787. Mr.Randolf said “guilt wherever found ought to be punished.” Well said. Mr. Wilson suggested Senators who are to hold their places during the same term with the Executive ought be subject to Impeachment and removal”
Had these reasoned suggestions been honored under Bill Clinton — and the devil worse than Clinton (Obama ) what a breath of Patriotic fresh air we would see. As Dr.Franklin seems to have suggested back in 1787 “Violence may at times be an alternative to Impeachment.” Somethings to think about under this corrupt and Immoral Administration.
Has he ever told the truth to us —beyond his promise to “fundamentally change America”?
Muslims are really going to hate him now. I don’t think the Senate will repeal this and I know the House won’t.
but both groups continue in th emajority to vote for Democrats
WHY?
Maybe he has evolved form the Mass. supreme Court 2003 legal opine that they were “redefining— Marriage” Like the lawless ones in Mass. this President is Immoral and anti-Christian.
He also said that as a Christian, he sees God in the mix of marriage being a man and a woman.
Obama is afraid to say he supports homosexual marriage. He will split hairs here and say he supports repeal of DOMA so that homosexual couples in states which allow it get federal benefits and recognition. He will say that doesn’t mean he supports homosexual marriage, just that he wants federal recognition of states which allow it.
Of course we all know that as a good liberal, Obama wants 50 state homosexual marriage, but he will never get a Profiles in Courage award for his stand on same. He’s afraid to say he favors homosexual marriage, because he fears it being used against him in the 2012 election if he came out for it.
How is it constitutional for a person in one state to get federal money but a person in another state not get it?
CA voted for Prop 22 to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Courts struck it down and ordered homosexual marriages to begin forthwith. In the face of homosexual marriages taking place for months after court order, CA voted again, that time for a state constitutional amendment, Prop 8, against defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
The only eyes opened, madam senator, are those opened to the scam of elected officials refusing to defend lawfully enacted amendments and legislation before the courts.
Your side just won't take NO for an answer. For you it's all about the outcome. Whatever the means, the ends justify them.
Your question could be the springboard for more lawsuits on the subject of homosexual marriage.
And that’s what the liberals wants to see. They want to see unequal treatment based on marital status, so that a lawsuit can be filed on that very subject. And if they win the lawsuit, we get to 50 state homosexual marriage via court order.
“As far as the Constitution goes, it ain’t in there Barry.
Did they make Obama King while I was dozing?”
Well, the Senate Judiciary Committee met on the repeal of DOMA earlier today, so The One may get his way once again.
“but both groups continue in th emajority to vote for Democrats. WHY?”
Because they believe the Dems’ lies that they’re on their side and looking out for them.
That and they like the freebies and giveaways :-)
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.