Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No 3. The Obamas have no right to even go there with this stuff. Afterall they sit and allowed hate crimes to be committed in their own church for 20 years and did nothing.
Name one single hate crime committed at their church.
You should be embarrassed for spouting such total idiocy.
Michelle Obama: Obama will fight for gay marriage and anti-free speech in re homosexuality.
That is not how the Obama camp has sugar coated the whole thing. They are saying Obama will fight for "gay equality" and end their suffering.
But in the end, it will mean two things:
1. Nationalize gay marriage. Override the will of voters and force gay marriage.
2. Appoint judges who will create laws allowing gay marriage and overturning the will of voters. Examples: Mass-a-Chew-Sits and California judges have over-rulled the rights of voter and JUDGES, NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THE PEOPLE create gay marriage in these states.
3. Pass federal legislation making it a CRIME to say inside a church that homosexuality is a sin. Nancy Pelosi tried that, with her sugar coated, "Anti-Hate Crimes" bill, which Bush vetoed.
Here is the highly liberal and very pro-Obama article, from Yahoo news: Obama's wife says he'll fight for gay equality - Yahoo! News (broken link)
Isn't it nicely packaged? Sounds wonderful.... equality.... wonderful terms and loving support for the Obama plan to override the rights of the people.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_el_pr/michelle_obama - broken link)
It is rejected by the majority because it is seen as a slippery slope. When will the discrimination of polygamy, pornography, pedophilia, incest and bestiality be overturned?
Nonsense. No logic in your statement whatsoever. Not to mention it's insulting to equate homosexuality with pornography, pedophilia, incest and bestiality--all of which exist without legalized gay marriage. Go figure.
Our constitution is made to protect the minority from the passions of the majority. Does no one ever read the Federalist Papers or even Civics books anymore. Name me one single civil right that was ever voted upon....just one. All civil rights were settled by law...through court or congress or both. To think that the masses should now vote on whether their fellow citizens have civil rights or not is unAmerican and, I believe, unconstitutional.
I understand that. Do you understand that when an issue has been put to a popular vote, and I am referring to ANY ISSUE, not only gay marriage, the results of the voting process should be respected? The outcome of Brown vs. Board of Education was that the Supreme Court reversed its own 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson "separate but equal" decision. The difference here is that the court reversed its own decision, not the decision of the voters.
Do you not understand that this viewpoint is unconstitutional? The constitution's purpose is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. Please, please people....READ THE CONSTITUTION.
I am for gay marriage. Couldn't you have just left it that? No! You have to add the "Judges should make up laws as they go, the voters don't know better."
I cant believe this trashy thread has 4 pages of replys. Obama was VERY clear about where he stands on this issue WAY BEFORE CALI VOTED ON PROP 8--- he supports civil unions. Everyone knows that. Civil Unions are different than Marriage. Even if he does support actual marriage and I hope he does.. GOOD.
I understand that. Do you understand that when an issue has been put to a popular vote, and I am referring to ANY ISSUE, not only gay marriage, the results of the voting process should be respected? The outcome of Brown vs. Board of Education was that the Supreme Court reversed its own 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson "separate but equal" decision. The difference here is that the court reversed its own decision, not the decision of the voters.
The Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of a law. If the law is unconstitutional, it is overturned, regardless of popular vote. If it is ruled Constitutional it stands. The arguement between liberals and conservatives is whether the Constitution should be literally interpreted or should include implied rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
