^Alright, I'm guess you're not referring to Gay Rights and that's what this thread is about so I'm not going to respond about the whole 'lying to get votes', bit.
September 19th, 2009 at 02:53am
This isn't the proper thread to discuss lowering taxes. This is a Gay rights thread.
- lillyhardwood:
- I meant about not keeping SOME of his promises. I was not referring to gay rights. It does take time.
And what happened to lowering taxes? they've been through the roof.
Actually, he said he was for civil unions during the campaign.
- lillyhardwood:
- Ok let me state it clear,
he said he was for gay marriage during the campain
then, he said he was against it.
Just because he entered office doesn't mean he's going to take all the problems he was faced with right away. He had a recession, two wars (Afghanistan & Iraq, in case you didn't hear), high taxes, and basically the disapproval of a hell've a lot of countries.
- lillyhardwood:
- Yes true, very true but in some cases he completely does the opposite of what he said he would do during the election. He was just lying to get votes.
What's the proof that he's lying?
- lillyhardwood:
- Yes true, very true but in some cases he completely does the opposite of what he said he would do during the election. He was just lying to get votes.
A. Obama is for Civil Unions.
- forbbidenfruite:
- I want to know do you think the President should be spending so much more time on things have been worked on or work on gay rights wich isnt getting many of what was promised. ( I think this falls in to politics since it envoles the President and his laws.)
How is that better? Isn't it kind of unequal, to give people in one state a right and deny it to people in another state purely because of their address? I think if you give people a right in one state it should be granted to people in the other 49 too because you're all Americans at the end of the day. Then again, I'm not American, I don't live by a federal system so it's sort of alien to me.
- MatthewMagic:
- In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready.
The piece of paper is metaphorically meaningless but do you discount all of the rights and responsiblities that come along with it?
- MatthewMagic:
- The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.
It's better to do it state by state because then it will be legalized gradually one state at a time. If it was done nationally, as I stated previously, it wouldn't get legalized anywhere at all right now because many places aren't ready to do that. (And by ready, I mean the beliefs of the majority of those states haven't gotten to that point of acceptance yet. Should they? Yes. But that doesn't change that they haven't.) At least this way, there's that option and it's gradually growing more available. Also, the federal government IS working on legislation that would recognize those marriages in other states--like if you go to Las Vegas to get hitched at 17, you come back to a state where you have to be 18 and you're still considered married.
- Bloodraine:
How is that better? Isn't it kind of unequal, to give people in one state a right and deny it to people in another state purely because of their address? I think if you give people a right in one state it should be granted to people in the other 49 too because you're all Americans at the end of the day. Then again, I'm not American, I don't live by a federal system so it's sort of alien to me.
- MatthewMagic:
- In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready.
The piece of paper is metaphorically meaningless but do you discount all of the rights and responsiblities that come along with it?
- MatthewMagic:
- The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.
It's better because as the opinion becomes more popular in each state each state will legalize it. A blanket legalization would infringe on states rights and lead to protests, demonstrations and in some of the more radical states, modern day lynchings. This allows the states who are ready to legalize, while the states were it would cause radical public backlash to prepare themselves. It's not ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world.
- Bloodraine:
How is that better? Isn't it kind of unequal, to give people in one state a right and deny it to people in another state purely because of their address? I think if you give people a right in one state it should be granted to people in the other 49 too because you're all Americans at the end of the day. Then again, I'm not American, I don't live by a federal system so it's sort of alien to me.
- MatthewMagic:
- In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready.
The piece of paper is metaphorically meaningless but do you discount all of the rights and responsibilities that come along with it?
- MatthewMagic:
- The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.
I guess that would be somewhat better, going state by state. Places like Masschusetts would probably be more ready to accept gay marriage than in places like Texas, and such...
- MatthewMagic:
- B. The power to license marriage is solely with the sates. Obama could not do anything if he wanted to. In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready. I have no faith in humanity, and as a gay man I do not have a single finger crossed, Obama has bigger things to worry about. International relations, the economy, and health care just to name a few. The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.
Only if your state is one of the states that recognizes discrimination against sexual orientation. Not all states do.
- MatthewMagic:
- This is due to the equal protection clause in the 14nth amendment, I could sue the state, and win, if these rights were not given to me.
And if their unemployed significant other that would be their spouse if they could get married falls ill how are they supposed to help them without being able to add that personal onto their health insurance?
- Dark Insanity:
- If people who just so happen to be gay loose their jobs (hopefully not from discrimination), then how are they going to pay for their wedding and such. See what I mean?
Liberal states such as California? You do realize California passed Prop 8 which made it illegal for gay people to get married, right?
- margaretlegs:
- Let the states manage gay rights for now. We're currently undergoing enough problematic issues than homosexual rights. Besides, our laws have become exceedingly open minded. If a person wishes to flee discrimination, they merely have to go to liberal states such as California.
I fail to see that there's a single state in America that isn't a big state when it comes to Liberalism. Okay, maybe this is just me being incredibly picky, but there's a big difference between using the adjective 'liberal' and the connotations it creates and refering to the political ideology of Liberalism. The vast majority of America lives by some sort of Liberalism.
- kelseykillscliche:
- ^
I think she meant that the people in California were more liberal. I mean, California was the start of one of the most cultrally liberal movements ever, the hippie movement. So you can't really say they're not a big state when it comes to liberalism :shifty