Obama backs gay marriage measures in 3 states

Good ! It's a move in the right direction lets hope Romney and doesn't win and ruin it.

 

I still think it's very cool that this time they are leaving it to the voters. Not that I think the previous votes in which the House and Senate decided for same-sex marriage weren't any less great, but now if they win, NOM for example can't say "people had no say" cause then we can really say "yes actually they did and they voted for equality".

 

The problem is that this is a civil rights issue involving a minority population. It shouldn't be decided by majority rule. And so far in the 32 times this issue has been voted on, every state so far has voted against marriage equality.

 

No. The people should never be allowed to vote on this ever. Considering our abysmal record, and considering that we're not a direct democracy.

 

I don't think anyone should say gay marriage is right or wrong, it should be a given like straight marriage

 

It needs to be from a federal level , if it's left up to the states all we can hope to have is maybe 10 states that make it legal,( that's uncluding the 6 where it already is legal) so many republican and bible belt states will never pass it, that's why it needs to come from the federal level .

 

So what's with his interview on MTV then? /confused/ :S

 

marriage is and has always been a states issue. the federal goverment doesn't set laws on who can and cannot marry. it has always been the states responciblity to set their own marriage laws.

Obama is promoting marriage equality in the forum of the states because the federal goverment cant.

 

Makes sense, but you're looking at it as though 'normal' people don't support LGBT; there are a lot of non-LGBT who fight very strongly for those who are and their rights.

 

True...I mean I know I said it's cool but in reality...it's still kinda ridiculous the public should decide for the minority..because clearly that always worked in the case of segregation...

 

Depending how you interpret the Constitution, the federal government could.

I'd say that restricting marriage to different-sex couples is abridging their privileges and immunities, and that Congress should enforce marriage equality by appropriate legislation.

 

The problem is, there are 1,138 federal rights endowed upon a couple that specifically depend on the word marriage.

It's also quite silly to adopt the view that a couple could get married in one state but take a trip over the state border and suddenly they are unmarried.

The federal government already took charge over the states in terms of marriage when the courts struck down laws against interracial marriage in the 60s. Marriage is and must remain a federal issue. "States' rights" is not a solution here.

 

nope. your dead wrong. there was no federal law against interracial marriage. there were STATE LAWS. marriage is the sole responciblity of the state! the courts overturned unconstitutional STATE LAWS.

the federal goverment does not have the constiutional authority to interfer in the process of the handling and creation of marriage liecenses.

marriage, and marriage rights technically are seperate. DOMA cannot prevent the states from allow same-sex marriage, and was a last ditch effort of trying to keep gay's downtrodden, since it was becoming evident that states were soon going to allow gay marriage under their own constitutional authority in marriage.

The federal goverment HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL SAY! All obama can do is promote it as a states issue, because a federal marriage equality law would be denying states their constitutional authority.

that is why you dont see serious marriage equality groups pushing for a federal ammendment these days, instead pushing for state initatives.

 

Um, wut? You just admitted that the FEDERAL government INTERFERED with the states and their laws and FORCED them to drop their STATE laws against interracial marriage.

Then in the next line you claimed the federal government has no authority to interfere with state policies on granting marriage licenses...I'm sorry, but there's a clear disconnect going on there...

 

NO I DID NOT. I stated that the court system overturned UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS. you clearly dont know how the american system of goverment functions. The state cannot pass a law that is in defiance of the constitution, and the courts removed the laws becuase they did not pass the constitutional test. That is VASTLY different to the federal goverment overriding the constitutional authority of the states to oversee those things that are their, the states, sole jurisdiction.

 

Lol all i have to say to straight people is... i didn't vote on your marriage.

 

No, it really isn't. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is no less unconstitutional than denying interracial couples the right to marry.

The federal government has on plenty of occasions run roughshod all over this "states' rights" nonsense when it comes to civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 demolished all the state laws mandating segregation and making it difficult or impossible for African-Americans to vote. To this day the Justice Department has veto power over how Southern states apportion their Congressional districts to assure fair representation. The states failed to execute their rights in a fair and just manner, and the rights were taken away.

I'm not sure what your motive here is other than to defend the record of Barack Obama, but your "states' rights" approach would prove harmful to generations upon generations of LGBTQ people growing up in states that would NEVER legalize marriage equality no matter how long we waited.

There are 1,138 FEDERAL rights associated with marriage. As long as those rights exist, it's a federal issue, and it's the federal government's prerogative to interfere when people in certain states are being denied equal access to these rights.

 

when you list things, you need to UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between those things that are the responciblity of the state, and those that are the responciblity of the federal goverment.

THE STATES ARE IN CHARGE OF THE PROCESSING OF MARRIAGE LICENSES, AND THE LAWS WITHIN THE STATE THAT GOVERN THEM. That is the STATES purview!

The civil rights act of 1964 was not an issue of STATES RIGHTS.

The voting rights act was not a STATES RIGHT issue.

both examples are nothing more than the federal goverment stepping up to protect that which it has authority over.

again.... marriage has NEVER been the under the authority of the FEDERAL GOVERMENT. Only STATES can set its rules and regulations on the process of attaining a legally recognized marriage license.

the tax deductions, finacial protections, and other rights granted by the federal goverment are only administered by the federal goverment becuase the federal goverment has AUTHORITY over the entities and processes that handle those rights.



marriage is a STATES responcebility.

There was never a constitutional authority granted to states on the matter of segregation, slavery, or the rights of citizens to vote. The federal goverment had authority on those issues, and acted.

but, and let me repeat this: marriage is a STATES responcebility.


and let me repeat it again to make sure the message sinks in: marriage is a STATES responcebility.

 

I'm sorry, that post is exceedingly difficult to read. And I'm also sorry to have to say that I strongly disagree with you. While I greatly hope for the defeat of Mitt Romney on election day, I am not inclined to therefore argue in the defense of every policy position of Mr. Obama, however wrong it is. In fact, Obama is more wrong than right on most issues.

The idea of having a patchwork of different states offering different access to marital rights under the law is absurdity. The idea that you could be married in one state, and move across the border to another state within the same country and yet instantly be unmarried is insanity. The idea that 51% of the people in a state have the right to vote away the civil rights of a small minority of 5-10% of the population, to deprive them of 1,138 FEDERAL rights...that's complete lunacy.

Sorry, but I do not accept your world in which we must simply concede that millions of LGBTQ youth in this generation, and the next, and the next, will grow up in societies knowing they are unequal and deprived of civil rights because of who they are. You live in Oregon, which passed one of those awful marriage amendments enshrining such hate into its state constitution, that you are defending so earnestly. But OR is a generally liberal state, perhaps things will turn around there within this decade. The same is not true for a majority of American states. I don't believe you have the right to tell the gay kid born in Alabama or Kansas or Utah that they should just suck it up and deal with the fact that their states will NEVER legalize marriage equality or any other legislation advancing LGBTQ rights.

States' rights take a distant back seat to the civil rights of real human beings.


"There are those who say to you -we are rushing this issue of civil rights. I say we are 172 years late. There are those who say -this issue of civil rights is an infringement on states' rights. The time has arrived for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights."
--Hubert H. Humphrey, 1948 Democratic National Convention