82 replies to this topic

[gregoir]

Yay Obama

[TakeAStepBack]

It's an election year.

[gregoir]

It's an election year.

Which makes it an even ballsier move.

[TakeAStepBack]

Potentially. He's gonna seal it up in November anyway. That said, as you might guess, the government has no constitutional role in marriage. All people should have freedom of religion, whatever religion that might be. Marriage was a faith based practice until it was usurped by the state under license.

Anyway, I get the debate on it today, and fully advocate for all to marriage (consenting, of course) for all people regardless.

[alsoa]

Which makes it an even ballsier move.

[gregoir]

[Joker]

Sadly it looks like it was Biden speaking out in support of it that pretty much forced him into it. Now the question is will he stand up and do something about it or is it just more lip service?

[TakeAStepBack]

But he can't pass any laws on it. This fight is way too twisted up in politics, religion, revenue and the tax exempt churches and all that.

Still, it's a good thing he advocates for equal rights for all.

[gregoir]

Sometimes words can be more powerful then actions.

[Jabadoodle]

If you didn't actually watch the clip, I suggest doing it. I think he gives a very credible, reasoned, and practical approach to his thinking on this topic.

[Joker]

Daily Show was pretty good on this last night

http://www.thedailys...012-ivo-daalder

[TakeAStepBack]

I watched it earlier. It's good that he advocates for it Solutions are a different matter of course.

[Jwheelz]

I'm glad he finally came out firmly in favor... funny because he felt that way already when he was in Illinois, but then suddenly became unsure when he was running for president the first time, views evolving as it were... the daily show did a pretty good segment on it last night

[HABIT]

Its a smart move, appease the right by saying you oppose gay marriage until election year then after the Repub's pick their man, and he really does appose it, you do the opposite.

Smart move Obama 1 Romney 0

[KittyRocks]

i was just arguing w someone on facebook about why gays/lesbians should have equal rights to marriage and her reply was "Well...like the kid in kidergarden cop said "boys have penis's and girls have vaginas" I don't think that happened by chance."

..... how do you even argue with that kind of um... logic? a quote from kindergarten cop, really??? thats how you justify denying equality?

[TakeAStepBack]

That's sort of where I was coming from post 2. But it will have a bit of backlash from the religious independent crowd. Perhaps beyond.

Anyway, if no Ron Paul.

Obama 2012!

[TakeAStepBack]

i was just arguing w someone on facebook about why gays/lesbians should have equal rights to marriage and her reply was "Well...like the kid in kidergarden cop said "boys have penis's and girls have vaginas" I don't think that happened by chance." ..... how do you even argue with that kind of um... logic? a quote from kindergarten cop, really??? thats how you justify denying equality?

You don't.

[KittyRocks]

hilarious!

[KittyRocks]

You don't.

ya i dont know how i would even go about it if i wanted to. it does sadden me tho, that some ppl have their minds so made up and it seems to be based on nothing. whats wrong w humanity.

[TakeAStepBack]

Central planners.

[HABIT]

i was just arguing w someone on facebook about why gays/lesbians should have equal rights to marriage and her reply was "Well...like the kid in kidergarden cop said "boys have penis's and girls have vaginas" I don't think that happened by chance." ..... how do you even argue with that kind of um... logic? a quote from kindergarten cop, really??? thats how you justify denying equality?

IDk why does it need to be an argument, I don't believe in the term marriage for people who consider themselves gay, I mean I believe in the fact that they should have the same rights, the same benefits but they shouldn't have the term marriage.

So if someone believes its wrong and your trying to prove them right aren't you just as wrong as they are for trying to prove your wrong?

This coming from a guy who's god father, mother and sister are all gay.

[PeaceFrog]

Potentially. He's gonna seal it up in November anyway. That said, as you might guess, the government has no constitutional role in marriage. All people should have freedom of religion, whatever religion that might be. Marriage was a faith based practice until it was usurped by the state under license. Anyway, I get the debate on it today, and fully advocate for all to marriage (consenting, of course) for all people regardless.

Central planners.

Letter to James Madison

Thomas Jefferson (September 6, 1789)

DEAR SIR,-I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it, because a subject comes into my head, which I would wish to develop a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches .
The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here, on the elementary principles of society, has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted, I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society .has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants, and these will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to its creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor, takes it, not by natural right, but by a law of the society of which he is a member, and to which he is subject. Then, no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle.

What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of. the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals . To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age, all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of twenty-one years, and their period of life thirty-four years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons of twenty-one years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come and go of the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. At twenty-one years of age, they may bind themselves and their lands for thirty-four years to come; at twenty-two, for thirty-three; at twenty-three, for thirty-two; and at fifty-four, for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at the respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted, between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation . Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent, to his creditor, rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society, dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors; beyond their faculties of paying.

What is true of generations succeeding one another at fixed epochs, as has been supposed for clearer conception, is true for those renewed daily, as in the actual course of nature. As a majority of the contracting generation will continue in being thirty four years, and a new majority will then come into possession, the former may extend their engagement to that term, and no longer. The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time, that is to say, within thirty-four years of the date of the engagement.

To render this conclusion palpable, suppose that Louis the XIV. and XV. had contracted debts in the name of the French nation, to the amount of ten thousand milliards, and that the whole had been contracted in Holland. The interest of this sum would be five hundred milliards, which is the whole rent-roll or net proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produces them, and ceded it to the Dutch creditors? No; they have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from them, but from nature. They, then, and their soil are, by nature, clear of the debts of their predecessors. To present this in another point of view, suppose Louis XV. and his cotemporary generation, had said to the money lenders of Holland, give us money, that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of thirty-four years, you shall then, forever after, receive an annual interest of fifteen per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the people, eaten, drunk and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labor, to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing, habitually, in private life, that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his predecessor; without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral, flowing from the will of the society, which has found it convenient to appropriate the lands of a decedent on the condition of a payment of his debts; but that between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature.

The interest of the national debt of France being, in fact, but a two thousandth part of its rent-roll, the payment of it is practicable enough; and so becomes a question merely of honor or of expediency. But with respect to future debts, would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming, that neither the legislature nor the nation itself, can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of thirty-four years? And that all future contracts shall be deemed void, as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of thirty-four years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing, too, the faculty of borrowing within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding.

On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to thirty-four years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment . But this is true of no form: The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

This principle, that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead, is of very extensive application and consequences in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions, whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail; whether they may change the appropriation of lands given anciently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity; whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue, ecclesiastical and feudal; it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions, to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations, to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences, with a long train of et ceteras; renders the question of reimbursement, a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases, the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they or their ancestors have purchased, are in the case of bona fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey.

Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir, and particularly as to the power of contracting debts, and develop it with that cogent logic which is so peculiarly yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity of producing it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be laughed at, as the dream of a theorist; but examination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; and it will exclude, at the threshold of our new government, the ruinous and contagious errors of this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means which nature does not sanction, for binding in chains their fellow-men. We have already given, in example, one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of declaring war from the executive to the legislative body, from those who are to spend, to those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held out by us also, in the first instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts, so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which will not be paid, principal and interest, by the measures you have taken, within the time of our own lives. I write you no news, because when an occasion occurs, I shall write a separate letter for that.

I am always, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and servant.

http://classiclibera...rson/mad02.html

[PeaceFrog]

people only lived to be 56 years old when the Constitution was first written, and it wasn't written in stone.

[syd_25]

people only lived to be 56 years old when the Constitution was first written, and it wasn't written in stone.

It also wasn't written on a chalk board.

[TakeAStepBack]

That has nothing to do with the price of a flagon of rice in this thread either.

[TakeAStepBack]

Shockingly.

[PeaceFrog]

just saying that because it wasn't in the constitution has nothing to do with anything, either.

we're 100s of years (at least) past this debate. You like to rehash the past over and over again. It's an obstructionist tactic.

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes. Yes, it does.

[moed_over]

Potentially. He's gonna seal it up in November anyway. That said, as you might guess, the government has no constitutional role in marriage. All people should have freedom of religion, whatever religion that might be. Marriage was a faith based practice until it was usurped by the state under license. Anyway, I get the debate on it today, and fully advocate for all to marriage (consenting, of course) for all people regardless.

Actually, the federal government can have a constitutional role in marriage, in that it can expand the Civil Rights act to include sexual orientation discrimination. The Supreme Court used it originally to strike down state laws against white/black marriages, and it could be used again against same sex marriage bans.

[PeaceFrog]

ok, my mistake... we're only 50 years past this debate...

[PeaceFrog]

it's like someone pulled the last few chapters right out of his history book and he never got a chance to finish.

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually, the federal government can have a constitutional role in marriage, in that it can expand the Civil Rights act to include sexual orientation discrimination. The Supreme Court used it originally to strike down state laws against white/black marriages, and it could be used again against same sex marriage bans.

Like I said, the states motive is profit. They should not be involved.

[TakeAStepBack]

Why do people sign a personal matter in a contract between the state and the two parties involved?

[TakeAStepBack]

It's like you're trying to say something without saying it and most of all without saying it coherently in the context of history. Then blaming me. Shocking.

[Tim the Beek]

I'm glad he did it.

But I ain't gonna vote for him.

[PeaceFrog]

It's like you're trying to say something without saying it and most of all without saying it coherently in the context of history. Then blaming me. Shocking.

"The Earth belongs to the living, not to the dead"

Thomas Jefferson knew that life changes and problems that you could never imagine pop up... he didn't intend the constitution to bind people down and hold them back from progress.

[deadheadskier]

Regardless of it being an election year or your opinion of whether government should be in the marriage business or not, it is pretty awesome that the sitting president of our nation feels that love is love and same sex couple deserve all the rights and freedoms of heterosexual couples.

[Smiles]

A facebook friend of mine posted this today:

BREAKING NEWS: Obama supports gay marriage! Also supports: assassinating them, bombing their wedding party, spying on them, denying their 4th amendment rights, and politically appropriating them. Welcome to the party, folks!

kind of took the good feeling wind out of my sails, all 15 minutes of it.

American presidents

[TakeAStepBack]

Regardless of it being an election year or your opinion of whether government should be in the marriage business or not, it is pretty awesome that the sitting president of our nation feels that love is love and same sex couple deserve all the rights and freedoms of heterosexual couples.

I agree. Which I stated. I'm simply pointing out that it's the state license which is given to establish the legal contract between two people 9and the state), that has caused the issue to be political instead of simply social. I don't understand how a state, or the fed, can curtail the rights of some over others lawfully. It was done for the purposes outside of the sacred grounds of love and involved other motives. As i said, everyone should be granted equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race, etc...but i have my doubts that govt. is the one that makes these social decisions properly for all. Instead, uses them for political advantage. Just my .02. After that, yay Obama.

[TakeAStepBack]

And that photo is great.

[Joker]

Despite Marriage Equality Shift, Obama Still Won’t Sign LGBT Anti-Discrimination Executive Order




I think that the President’s announcement yesterday on marriage equality is worthy of praise. Yet I alsosee John Cole’s point that, at the end of the day, the President merely expressed an opinion. Presidents expressing an opinion matters more than, say, me expressing one, but we can judge on actions and not words. And there is a list of advances over the last four years on gay rights.

That’s why it’s so puzzling that, on the same day as this expression of opinion, the Administration reiterated that they will not sign the executive order banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation at federal contractors. That nugget is buried at the bottom of this Sam Stein piece chronicling the evolution:

The senior administration officials declined to say whether the president would now push for gay marriage to be part of the Democratic Party’s platform at the convention. They also said they were not changing positions on an Executive Order that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against federal contractors. The president has said he would not sign that order.

Keep in mind that the boycott by LGBT donors had nothing to do with the President’s position on marriage equality. It was because of the executive order. I suppose that now, the campaign feels they will reignite LGBT fundraising with the marriage equality shift, so they don’t have to lift a finger on something tangible.

It’s a weird thing to hold out on. Nobody doubts that the President could do this tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. It would not change in any way the need for legislation like ENDA to ensure protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace, but it wouldn’t inhibit it either. During the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal, the Administration and the Defense Department passed a number of executive orders and administrative rule changes to limit the damage from DADT. That had no impact on the repeal process. The idea that a lasting piece of legislation would be needed to ensure workplace protections for gays and lesbians is not a good excuse here. The point is that nobody doubts this is within the President’s power, he’s already made himself more than clear that he’s on the side of greater equality and civil rights, and yet the Administration just doesn’t want to perform this gesture, which would add protections for untold thousands of gay and lesbian Americans. Is the political risk of offending swing-state voters in North Carolina less potent than the risk of offending federal contractors who would not be allowed to fire somebody because they are gay? Is that the point here?

I’ve been trying to find out whether the donor boycott is still operative at this point, and haven’t yet been successful, but I’m still working on it. Certainly, we know that nothing has changed with respect to the impetus for the boycott.



http://news.firedogl...xecutive-order/

[Bone Daddy]

IDk why does it need to be an argument, I don't believe in the term marriage for people who consider themselves gay, I mean I believe in the fact that they should have the same rights, the same benefits but they shouldn't have the term marriage. So if someone believes its wrong and your trying to prove them right aren't you just as wrong as they are for trying to prove your wrong? This coming from a guy who's god father, mother and sister are all gay.

Until all laws and federal and state forms referring or using the word marriage are changed the term must be used for any couple joining same or different sex.

[vic]

A facebook friend of mine posted this today: BREAKING NEWS: Obama supports gay marriage! Also supports: assassinating them, bombing their wedding party, spying on them, denying their 4th amendment rights, and politically appropriating them. Welcome to the party, folks! kind of took the good feeling wind out of my sails, all 15 minutes of it. American presidents

i had to repost this on my FB page...brilliant

voting for obama based on this issue alone is like taking back a physically abusive husband because he bought you flowers.

[SunshineDrummer]

Regardless of it being an election year or your opinion of whether government should be in the marriage business or not, it is pretty awesome that the sitting president of our nation feels that love is love and same sex couple deserve all the rights and freedoms of heterosexual couples.

My guess is he's far from the first sitting President to feel this way, just the first who has said it publicly. Think about it.... there was a time not so long ago where saying something like that was akin to political suicide (just like coming out in favor of mixed race marriages would have been anathema to many voters voters in the 50's and 60s). Its another example of how much we've evolved as a society and how we continue to evolve.

[deadheadskier]

yeah

ole Bill with his getting his freak on with cigars prolly was/is cool with gay marriage.

[SunshineDrummer]

yeah ole Bill with his getting his freak on with cigars prolly was/is cool with gay marriage.

Him and probably several others. And my point isn't to take anything away from him, I think its great he said this publicly. But I also know that a politician won't fart until he makes sure its not going to impact his poll numbers. There were probably many closed door meetings held before this announcement was made. Hopefully, more will get their heads out of their asses and realize that this shouldn't be a political issue. If two people love each other & want to get married, that's all that should matter. Period.

[deadheadskier]

Hell, JFK the good Roman Catholic he was, used to like watching one of his mistresses suck off other dudes.

[Joker]

Him and probably several others. And my point isn't to take anything away from him, I think its great he said this publicly. But I also know that a politician won't fart until he makes sure its not going to impact his poll numbers. There were probably many closed door meetings held before this announcement was made. Hopefully, more will get their heads out of their asses and realize that this shouldn't be a political issue. If two people love each other & want to get married, that's all that should matter. Period.

Apparently he was going to put it off until the DNC but Biden opening his mouth in support of it forced him to come out early.

Gay money and votes is what it's all about

[JBetty]

Gay money and votes is what it's all about

Money is gay?
Is that why there are only boys' faces on each denomination?

[Joker]

Mine still doesn't want to come out of the wallet