• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
President Barack Obama, who didn't support same-sex marriage until May 2012, now says the Constitution guarantees the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples.In an article in the October 27 issue the New Yorker, Obama shared with Jeffrey Toobin his thoughts on why the Supreme Court hasn't decided the issue yet :

​
Obama opposed marriage equality until May of 2012. He told me that he now believes the Constitution requires all states to allow same-sex marriage, an argument that his Administration has not yet made before the Supreme Court. "Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states," he said. "But, as you know, courts have always been strategic. There have been times where the stars were aligned and the Court, like a thunderbolt, issues a ruling like Brown v. Board of Education, but that’s pretty rare. And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting."
​
Up to this point, every federal appeals court that's issued a ruling on same-sex marriage has agreed with Obama. The unanimity among the circuit courts is one reason the Supreme Court dismissed appeals for multiple same-sex marriage cases earlier this month. But if a circuit court were to rule against marriage equality, it's very likely the Supreme Court would feel obligated to step in.
Click to expand...


Read more @: President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

I agree 100%! :applaud:applaud
 
"President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage"

Must have been in the fine print. I wonder why it took so long to find it.
 
tres borrachos said:
I thought he was a Constitutional scholar. He only thinks this now? Good timing on his part. He needs to get the base out to vote for (the likely losers in) his party.
Click to expand...

No, he was never one. He lectured on civil rights (as in black) only.
 
fmw said:
"President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage"

Must have been in the fine print. I wonder why it took so long to find it.
Click to expand...

Took a while for the polls to indicate a majority in favor.
 
apdst said:
Obama is replacing SCOTUS, now?
Click to expand...

So, if someone on this forum says same sex marriage bans are constitutional, or unconstitutional, that person has replaced SCOTUS? Any time someone expresses their opinion on a constitutional issue, they think themselves a federal judge?

Do you think you have replaced SCOTUS? You've expressed opinions too.
 
Just more proof of Obama's incompetence.
 
Deuce said:
So, if someone on this forum says same sex marriage bans are constitutional, or unconstitutional, that person has replaced SCOTUS? Any time someone expresses their opinion on a constitutional issue, they think themselves a federal judge?

Do you think you have replaced SCOTUS? You've expressed opinions too.
Click to expand...

The U.S. constitution's content is not intended to be so mysterious as to require interpretation by only our nine robed umpires. It was written by and intended for use by the common citizen representatives/executives elected by other common citizens. Often, rather than clarify the broader meaning of a constitutional clause or statement, the SCOTUS goes out of its way to make sure to leave the broader issue open and make its ruling limited to a specific (side?) issue on a specific case.

For example the constitution lists (enumerates) specific powers of the federal gov't, rights of the people and leaves all else up to the several states to decide. To call a state law permitting specific folks to be married (or carry a gun) unconstitutional because it denies "equal protection" to other folks means that only the least restrictive state law (currently in existence?) is then constitutional.

Note that a constitutional amendment, rather than a SCOTUS "interpretation", was deemed required to give women (and then blacks) the right to vote. While gender and race are specifically mentioned in the constitution "gender preference" is not. While the 2A gives the people the right to keep and bear arms many state laws are allowed to separate (sever?) the "and bear" part into a need for CCW permits for handguns.
 
apdst said:
Obama is replacing SCOTUS, now?
Click to expand...

He didn't make a legal declaration. Obama isn't even allowed to express his opinion? What ever happened to free speech?
 
29A said:
He didn't make a legal declaration. Obama isn't even allowed to express his opinion? What ever happened to free speech?
Click to expand...

The Libbos will use Obama's comments as prove of something, because he's The Messiah.
 
apdst said:
Obama is replacing SCOTUS, now?
Click to expand...

When you make a claim about what the constitution does and doesn't support, are you replacing the SCOTUS?

And before you respond with the insanely predictable "I'm not the President," the President is allowed to make commentary on what the constitution says without actually acting with the powers of the SCOTUS, just like all of us here can.
 
Cardinal said:
When you make a claim about what the constitution does and doesn't support, are you replacing the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

apdst isn't the leader of one of the three branches.
 
Cardinal said:
When you make a claim about what the constitution does and doesn't support, are you replacing the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Am I the president? Are my comments used as official evidence of a political idea?
 
clownboy said:
Which makes him either the nation's worst constitutional scholar or, a politician who will say anything.
Click to expand...

Does the phrase, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, " ring any bells?

The constitution hasn't changed, yet somehow his opinion of what is there has. Why would you want to celebrate this?
Click to expand...

Actually, its been revised/changed about 27 times.
 
apdst said:
Am I the president? Are my comments used as official evidence of a political idea?
Click to expand...

Thankfully not.

You said, "Is Obama replacing the SCOTUS?" Well, when Obama says "Such and such law is unconstitutional!" hits a gavel or something, and just like that a law is officially made unconstitutional, then yes, Obama will be replacing the SCOTUS. Until such time as that happens, then no, he is demonstrably not replacing the SCOTUS.
 
Cardinal said:
When you make a claim about what the constitution does and doesn't support, are you replacing the SCOTUS?

And before you respond with the insanely predictable "I'm not the President," the President is allowed to make commentary on what the constitution says without actually acting with the powers of the SCOTUS, just like all of us here can.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, it's bad form, but yes we have come to expect bad form from this POTUS. Not to mention he is purportedly a constitutional scholar and somehow, magically, what was in the constitution changed for him. Funny how that happens to politicians.
 
I think the constitution prohibits the government from interfering in the religious beliefs of its citizens.
 
29A said:
Does the phrase, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, " ring any bells?



Actually, its been revised/changed about 27 times.
Click to expand...

Bull****, not while Obama has been in office it hasn't. And I think my point eludes you. Just a few short years ago when he was a fresh constitutional scholar, at the top of his game, he didn't see any support for homosexual marriage in the constitution. But now the politics have changed, and so has his tune.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no, it's bad form,
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and one in which I'm not especially interested. I'm responding to apdst's original question, and I hope the explanation that Obama does not possess the powers to officially rule laws constitutional or unconstitutional settles both your and apdst's confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom