• 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!

Obama Declares Support For Gay Marriage

Pirvaya said:
You're not suggesting that anyone--least of all Obama--believes this will result in a net gain in votes, are you?
Click to expand...

Do you think it will result in a net loss of votes? A prudent candidate wouldn't choose to do that.
 
I find this whole ploy interesting, and just realized maybe another side effect that Obama was hoping for was it would show how stupid the conservative media is. Apparently Rush Limbaugh and Fox is pegging this as "War on Marriage". How many wives has Limbaugh had again? Anyways, I take back what I said about Obama shouldn't have drawn attention to this, he should draw more attention to it so that conservatives do and I got something entertaining to watch.
 
ARealConservative said:
It's certainly easy to fear how the courts may rule based on the past, but this notion that one states license is automatically retroactively applied to all states doesn't make sense to me.

Is not how it works today? for example, with a drivers license. In Minnesota you can be licensed at 16. Many other states are 17. Can a 16 year old Minnesota teen cross state lines, and drive legally? Can he move and retain his license even while 16? I didn't think so, byt I'm now not sure.

Anybody know how this works?

My number # concern is that I want to preserve the republican form of government as this is the best way as a nation to remain unified. The more we have one central agency ruling on issues, the more likely we become divided.
Click to expand...

In answer to the question about driver's license recognition:
It is called the Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution— and it provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause was the primary reason for the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA gave each state the right to refuse recognition of a legal same sex marriage performed in another state. It will form the basis of the eventual SCOTUS challenge to anti-same sex marriage. IMO
 
Pirvaya said:
You're not suggesting that anyone--least of all Obama--believes this will result in a net gain in votes, are you?
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure -- it very well could. Courage, honestly and integrity are some of the most powerful forces in the universe. People are draw to a courageous leader.

Even the most anti-gay types are aware of the risk he took. Some have tried to spin it as a 'political' move. Given the sincerity of his comments yesterday (especially about Biden); I think the boldness may draw more people in.
 
Somerville said:
In answer to the question about driver's license recognition:
It is called the Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution— and it provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause was the primary reason for the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA gave each state the right to refuse recognition of a legal same sex marriage performed in another state. It will form the basis of the eventual SCOTUS challenge to anti-same sex marriage. IMO
Click to expand...

This didn't really satisfy my question.

Here is a link showing how radically different drivers license laws are from one state to the next.

U.S. GDL laws: Intermediate & unrestricted stage

If I get a license at age 16 in Minnesota, and move to Iowa - am I still legally allowed to drive with no restrictions? I know that you are required to get a new license, so why can't states require married couples get a new license in their state as well?
 
hazlnut said:
Don't be so sure -- it very well could. Courage, honestly and integrity are some of the most powerful forces in the universe. People are draw to a courageous leader.

Even the most anti-gay types are aware of the risk he took. Some have tried to spin it as a 'political' move. Given the sincerity of his comments yesterday (especially about Biden); I think the boldness may draw more people in.
Click to expand...


Well, there is the "Hope" we heard about.....And I think it will be clear that in Nov. the American people will bring about a "Change" from Obama.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, there is the "Hope" we heard about.....And I think it will be clear that in Nov. the American people will bring about a "Change" from Obama.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes. America will be one step closer to fulfilling its promise of "Freedom and Justice for ALL....not just for some".
 
ARealConservative said:
This didn't really satisfy my question.

Here is a link showing how radically different drivers license laws are from one state to the next.

U.S. GDL laws: Intermediate & unrestricted stage

If I get a license at age 16 in Minnesota, and move to Iowa - am I still legally allowed to drive with no restrictions? I know that you are required to get a new license, so why can't states require married couples get a new license in their state as well?
Click to expand...

Because a marriage license has never really been like a license. It is much more like a contract. Any other type of license is between a single person and the government, a marriage license is much more between the two people, with the government only really giving certain additional things for the two entering into the contract. Any other type of license you can merely put aside or turn in without extra legal paperwork or requirements of the government. Any other license the government can revoke, the marriage "license" is made null and void, like a contract would be, and for the government to do this with a marriage license, it requires proof that some fraud was committed.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Because a marriage license has never really been like a license. It is much more like a contract. Any other type of license is between a single person and the government, a marriage license is much more between the two people, with the government only really giving certain additional things for the two entering into the contract. Any other type of license you can merely put aside or turn in without extra legal paperwork or requirements of the government. Any other license the government can revoke, the marriage "license" is made null and void, like a contract would be.
Click to expand...


Things like this can not be put into a contract btwn two people:
3. Child Tax Credit
Taxpayers meeting income eligibility requirements are entitled to a credit against tax for qualifying children in their households. This provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship test set fourth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32(c)(3)(B). As set forth above, § 32 does not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic partner if the children are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through adoption.
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
 
roguenuke said:
Because a marriage license has never really been like a license. It is much more like a contract. Any other type of license is between a single person and the government, a marriage license is much more between the two people, with the government only really giving certain additional things for the two entering into the contract. Any other type of license you can merely put aside or turn in without extra legal paperwork or requirements of the government. Any other license the government can revoke, the marriage "license" is made null and void, like a contract would be, and for the government to do this with a marriage license, it requires proof that some fraud was committed.
Click to expand...

the marriage is the contract between two people, but the license (a somewhat new entity invented to prevent interracial unions) is something else entirely.

Legally speaking, I don't understand why a state couldn't require citizens moving to their state to get a new marriage license just as is done with drivers licenses, while also erecting different regulations pertaining to who is eligible.
 
winston53660 said:
Things like this can not be put into a contract btwn two people:
3. Child Tax Credit
Taxpayers meeting income eligibility requirements are entitled to a credit against tax for qualifying children in their households. This provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship test set fourth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32(c)(3)(B). As set forth above, § 32 does not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic partner if the children are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through adoption.
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
Click to expand...

Which is true, but that is why it is a government benefit for the contract, not an actual benefit within the contract. I see the marriage license as really being a contract between the two people. The government may force the people to agree on conditions if the two decide to break that contract, but the government isn't really a party in it Heck, the government requires people in other contracts to agree on conditions when they decide to get out of the contract.

With no-fault divorce, marriage really is just a contract between two people that the government gives benefits for because it wants to encourage that level of commitment. The rights are given as just a part of what legal family get anyway, for the most part.
 
ARealConservative said:
the marriage is the contract between two people, but the license (a somewhat new entity invented to prevent interracial unions) is something else entirely.

Legally speaking, I don't understand why a state couldn't require citizens moving to their state to get a new marriage license just as is done with drivers licenses, while also erecting different regulations pertaining to who is eligible.
Click to expand...

Because the problem is license is the misnomer in this case. It is no more a license than an employment contract is a license to work for that company. You don't need a new employment contract just because the company moves you to a different state.

It is stupid and a waste of paper, money, and time to require a new marriage <contract> between the same two people just for moving from one state to another. We are the United States of America. Hell, we recognize marriage contracts made in other countries, for the most part.
 
roguenuke said:
Because the problem is license is the misnomer in this case. It is no more a license than an employment contract is a license to work for that company. You don't need a new employment contract just because the company moves you to a different state.
Click to expand...

no, but if my contract is to cut hair, my license to cut hair in one state isn't valid in the other. the state is going to make me get a new license, while my private contract with the employer for employment remains in tact.

It is stupid and a waste of paper, money, and time to require a new marriage <contract> between the same two people just for moving from one state to another. We are the United States of America. Hell, we recognize marriage contracts made in other countries, for the most part.
Click to expand...

I agree that the license is a stupid waste of money, but it is an actual thing that exists, and differs wildly from state to state, and appears to be safe from the same types of fears that give us legislation such as DOMA
 
disneydude said:
Thanks. I took a look at the message and agree that it is somewhat disengenuous and comes across a little hypocritical and too strong. Although I do believe that some parts of the message are valid points. I think this ad was a mistake for the Obama campaign to put out.
Click to expand...
It seems they'd have a much better ad if they had concentrated on those other elements... so as to say "to some, it may seem like I've had the same position as Romney up until recently, but there are in fact longstanding differences. And, while we've both changed our views, we're moving in opposite directions...etc. etc."
 
Taylor said:
It seems they'd have a much better ad if they had concentrated on those other elements... so as to say "to some, it may seem like I've had the same position as Romney up until recently, but there are in fact longstanding differences. And, while we've both changed our views, we're moving in opposite directions...etc. etc."
Click to expand...

I agree. In watching the ad, my first thought was that this ad is strongly overstated and kind of a blunder. As I watched the rest of the ad, its message was toned down and actually was quite accurate in its depiction. That said....I think we are dealing with the politics of politics and the 5 second mentality of the average voter. I think Obama sought to capitalize on this and as a result I think the ad is a poor one overall.
 
Wake said:
Do you think it will result in a net loss of votes?
Click to expand...

Of course it will, and not just because taking a stand on any controversial issue costs a candidate votes. Contrary to what some pundits are trying to sell us, this isn't a zero sum equation involving egalitarians and traditionalists voting for Democrats and Republicans as they would otherwise. There is a significant group of religious swing voters for whom this may be a dealbreaker. Note how he reflected their concerns as he mentioned "evolving" past his own religious feelings to this position. This leads us to:

Wake said:
A prudent candidate wouldn't choose to do that.
Click to expand...

A good point, with which I would agree if this were as close as the news services and hustings hustlers indicate. However, both of the latter have a vested interest in showing us only those polls that suggest a tight, exciting election. Obviously, Obama has seen all the polls and knows he has some political capital to spend. Note that he is addressing this issue very early in the process, just as he did with his parentage and Reverend Jeremiah White in 2008. That he is getting this out of the way at the outset is, itself, an indication of what he thinks the net impact would be.

hazlnut said:
Don't be so sure -- it very well could. Courage, honestly and integrity are some of the most powerful forces in the universe. People are draw[n] to a courageous leader.

Even the most anti-gay types are aware of the risk he took. Some have tried to spin it as a 'political' move. Given the sincerity of his comments yesterday (especially about Biden); I think the boldness may draw more people in.
Click to expand...

I'd like to agree but if courage were decisive we might be watching Newt Gingrich, buttressed by his statement about right wing social engineering, squaring off against incumbent president John McCain, who had the cojones to stand up to birther nonsense. All too often we appreciate the courage of our allies only. As Wake intimates, one thing is clear: a few more such acts of courage and Obama could yet make a race out of a rout.

-o-
 
ARealConservative said:
no, but if my contract is to cut hair, my license to cut hair in one state isn't valid in the other. the state is going to make me get a new license, while my private contract with the employer for employment remains in tact.
Click to expand...

You are still trying to mix the two, a license with a contract. The license would be permission from the government to cut a person's hair. This is regulated by the laws of the state and a person could easily just decide to not cut someone's hair and no contract is being broken. While many private contracts come with a requirement to be legally licensed in the state where you work, that is not how a marriage contract works and it has never been deemed to work this way. The license is merely permission from the government to enter into the contract. That is the only reason it is called a license. The marriage itself is a contract between the two people.

ARealConservative said:
I agree that the license is a stupid waste of money, but it is an actual thing that exists, and differs wildly from state to state, and appears to be safe from the same types of fears that give us legislation such as DOMA
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why being able to enter into a marriage should be one of those things that doesn't vary widely from state to state. The only thing that should vary widely concerning marriage laws from state to state, is the laws and benefits that apply to marriage state to state.
 
roguenuke said:
You are still trying to mix the two, a license with a contract. The license would be permission from the government to cut a person's hair. This is regulated by the laws of the state and a person could easily just decide to not cut someone's hair and no contract is being broken. While many private contracts come with a requirement to be legally licensed in the state where you work, that is not how a marriage contract works and it has never been deemed to work this way. The license is merely permission from the government to enter into the contract. That is the only reason it is called a license. The marriage itself is a contract between the two people.
Click to expand...

I'm not mixing the two, I'm just pointing out how your analogy of an employment contract must still adhere to state requirements.

That we entered into this agreement in one state does not mean another state must allow me to cut hair. They can still refuse to grant me a license to cut hair, why can't they refuse to grant me a license to be married?

Which is exactly why being able to enter into a marriage should be one of those things that doesn't vary widely from state to state. The only thing that should vary widely concerning marriage laws from state to state, is the laws and benefits that apply to marriage state to state.
Click to expand...

This is what we are really talking about anyway. A state can't force the federal govenrment from recognizing the marriage and awarding federal benefits, but it sure seems like it can refuse to grant state benefits without a state license.
 
ARealConservative said:
I'm not mixing the two, I'm just pointing out how your analogy of an employment contract must still adhere to state requirements.

That we entered into this agreement in one state does not mean another state must allow me to cut hair. They can still refuse to grant me a license to cut hair, why can't they refuse to grant me a license to be married?
Click to expand...

Except the employment contract wouldn't really be adhering to the state requirements. The contract is to work for the other person. So, you have certain qualifications that you must meet to be able to work for that person. If those qualifications are not met, then the contract can be made null and void.

And other state licenses also aren't one time use things. They may expire after a certain date and require renewal, but they aren't like the marriage license where you get it signed and that basically turns it into the contract. The license part is purely about getting permission to enter into the contract.

ARealConservative said:
This is what we are really talking about anyway. A state can't force the federal govenrment from recognizing the marriage and awarding federal benefits, but it sure seems like it can refuse to grant state benefits without a state license.
Click to expand...

This is actually a bit confusing on what they can and can't do. And I think we might end up seeing this more than just on same sex marriage in the next few years. There are already some people who have marriages that they don't know if they are really recognized or not by the state they are living in, either because of a sex change for one of the parties or because of their blood ties being too close. Half the states allow first cousins to marry, the other half don't. Some states restrict step-siblings and even inlaws from being married. Others have restrictions that go further back in blood. All these marriages are recognized by the federal government. And there is even a good chance that many are being recognized in those states where they couldn't have actually gotten married because that isn't going to be something that is checked up on for every new couple moving into the state.
 
Arbo said:
I wonder how many that have praised him, realized he said that states should decide. Um, that kinda means he supports what NC did, for they decided. Hmm..
Click to expand...
Since Obama has always thought that marriage was a state issue then he hasn't really changed his opinion, but only clarified it. I think he found a compromise between his faith and his politics. He did stress that his Christian faith teaches "do unto others as you have them do unto you." Sounds like he still believes in equality as well.
 
disneydude said:
I agree. In watching the ad, my first thought was that this ad is strongly overstated and kind of a blunder. As I watched the rest of the ad, its message was toned down and actually was quite accurate in its depiction. That said....I think we are dealing with the politics of politics and the 5 second mentality of the average voter. I think Obama sought to capitalize on this and as a result I think the ad is a poor one overall.
Click to expand...
It's campaign season. Aren't the candidates supposed to state their positions so people can decide who to vote for? Helloooo. As it stands, the two candidates share a lot of the same ideas on many issues so in effect, Obama has just shown there actually is a difference between him and Romney. And too, he's getting this particular message on Gay rights out there early on in his campaign so he can move on to other more pertinent issues the closer it gets to election day rather than letting the GOP determine what and when he should do it. It sure has reved up the Gay community I can tell you that. lol So I guess I really don't understand your logic that the ad was a poor choice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom