facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

No secret about where president stands on same-sex marriage



Published: Thu, April 12, 2012 @ 12:00 a.m.

No secret about where president stands on same-sex marriage

The point of an Associated Press story in the March 31 Vindicator seems to be that the Obama administration has so far not endorsed same-sex marriage, concerned about the election fallout from conservative voters. Where the president stands may not be clear to AP, but to anyone actually watching what he does, there can be little doubt of his intentions.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Clinton. It is part of the law of the land. DOMA prescribes that on the federal level and on federal installations, marriage is between a man and a woman. The law has of course been challenged in court.

Though he is the chief executive officer and responsible for seeing that the law is enforced, Mr. Obama has refused to defend the law in court. There is more. Late last year, pursuant to the implementation of “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal in the military, his Defense Department cleared the way for same sex unions to be solemnized in military chapels by chaplains, as long as local law is not violated. What about the federal law, DOMA, that this seems to violate?

This last development illustrates a few other things besides the president’s support for “gay marriage.” One, the lawlessness of this government; and, two, the intent to drive traditional religious belief from the public sphere. Chaplains concerned that they may be pressured into violating their beliefs have been given assurances of protection of conscience. Ask the Catholic bishops what those are worth.

Patrick J. Lally, Youngstown


Comments

1FormerRes(39 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

I am in my early 50s. In that time, I've met and worked with gay people, Islamic people, Jewish people, uneducated people, PHDs, lawyers...... , white people, black people, Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Europeans from almost EVERY country in Europe. Read all kinds of history, read the Christian bible twice, and consider myself fairly well educated. Trying to LIMIT what others do to conform to what YOU BELIEVE is right or moral simply LOWERS YOU. Try living your own life and letting others do as they feel they need to do, so long as they are not hurting you. A wise man once told me "It takes all kinds to make the world". He's dead now, yet he seems wiser to me every day.

Suggest removal:

2HonestAbe(274 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

Of all the things I worry about in our country and abroad, gay marriage is personally the least of my concerns. Murder and rape are against the law. In a civilized society, who am I to judge who is allowed to love/commit themselves to another person? In 50 years, this will be a non-issue, just like interracial marriages are today.

Suggest removal:

3greene(167 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

You dopes, BO can't endorse Same Sex Marriage, because of the Black vote; as a Muslim, he can't support it.

Suggest removal:

4city_resident(513 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

Well said, FormerRes.

I can't believe I have to say this, but the difference between same sex marriage and rape, robbery, or killing, is that one party--the victim--didn't give consent, and that's why those acts are illegal.

Suggest removal:

5city_resident(513 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

"I and most of society don't give consent to have the union between a man and a woman known as marriage defiled."

That logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either. I hear that, in some middle-eastern countries, "society" has determined that rape is OK, if they are married. It wasn't that long ago that parts of our own society felt that interracial marriage was not OK.

Suggest removal:

6busyman(239 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

Who cares about a same sex marriage. I would like a some times sex marriage. All kidding aside. I am sure glad that I am at the last 20 years of my life cycle. Ya think the kids are screwed up now. Maybe same sex marriage will get rid of all of the babies being born out of marriage. Without the babies being born because same sex couples can not produce offspring. Thus the future decline of mankind as we know it. Is that really God's plan?

Suggest removal:

7Jerry(498 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

First, let me say that I have respect for anyone’s right to have any relationship they choose with any person they choose, and I would work with anyone to defend that right (Freedom of Association). This includes the right to publicly proclaim the relationship and seek the sanction of clergy or church, if that is what they choose. What we are discussing, however, is the LEGAL definition of what constitutes a marriage as recognized by the State. A legal marriage carries with it benefits (financial and other) that SOCIETY determines should be bestowed on a special relationship that SOCIETY defines.

I believe that the traditional one-man-one-woman marriage relationship (family unit) has value and provides benefit to society over and above any other relationships; and is therefore worthy of special status and benefits, and also worthy to hold that status alone. Please note that I distinguish between freedom of association (which is a right) and the legal benefits bestowed on marriage (which are privileges bestowed by society, not rights).

I pose two questions:

One - If you reject the male-female 2 distinct genders premise, what reasonable argument can be made for limiting a marriage to 2 people?

Two - I believe the text of the actual law in Ohio reads in part, "...marriage shall be a union of two consenting adults not nearer of kin than second cousins, ...". Obviously the second cousin provision was put in place to avoid the potential outcome of genetic defect in the off-spring that might result from a marriage relationship. By rejecting the male-female premise for marriage and allowing members of the same gender to legally "marry", however, one makes a stark and irrefutable statement that marriage is no longer about procreation of off-spring. This then leads to the question....What reasonable argument could be made to retain the second cousin rule? Please note that I am not asking anyone to respond about incest; which is illegal on its own. What if someone wanted to "marry" their cousin, or sibling, or child for the sole purpose of extending financial benefits; what reasonable argument would limit this?

My point with my questions is that I feel altering the definition of legal marriage in the manner proposed by same-sex-marriage proponents effectively throws out the rules. That may not be your goal, but I think it will be the result anyway. I suspect, however, that it is the goal of some on the pro-same-sex-marriage side of the issue.

If we discard the one-man-one-woman family unit premise, there will ultimately be no limits and no definition of legal marriage left, making it impossible to continue to recognize a legal marriage. This would be, in my opinion, a loss to our society (perhaps inevitable at this point). You may call this a slippery slope argument, but it is apparent to me that the slope is in front of us. Can anyone provide a reasonable (legally viable) answer to my questions??

Suggest removal:

8MaryDinda(2 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

Why should Obama worry about what he passes? It does not affect him or his family, same true for Joe Biden. Wake up America! They and their families are not going to mix or live in a gay community, but push this depravity on others, and laugh about it. Let's fix up the Obama girls and Bidens' grandchildren with some gays. Same for Clintons' too! Both Hillary & Bill Clinton represent depravity to the truest form. Just look & listen to them converse!

Suggest removal:

9FormerRes(39 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

I can't believe people are so obtuse as to take a comment that was meant to describe dealing with the desire for many to have freedom in personal relationships and stretch the subject out to encompass rape and murder, as well as thievery. These things have no relationship to the original topic AT ALL. That is either a juvenile tactic perhaps learned on a high school debate team, or an unintelligent simplistic one. Neither has any merit.

Suggest removal:

101loaf(100 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

The "Ruler" will decide this issue after he gets re-elected and has more" flexability". If we elect Obama again it could well be the last election day as we know them we will ever see. Look at Cuba and several South American countries. Even Hitler was elected once.

Suggest removal:

11DwightK(1256 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

"Don't ask, don't tell" was responsible for putting service members lives at risk. Arabic translators were discharged for being gay at a time when Arabic translators were in short supply and desperately needed. Does this letter writer think it's acceptable for service members to be put at risk because our intelligence services couldn't properly supply good data? Is who people have sex with that important?

Suggest removal:

121loaf(100 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

To some folks the Christian faith is important and my bible defines acceptable sexual activities. I don't think anyone can claim to be a believer in the bible and same sex couples at the same time. Like the US Constitution the bible is not a living evolving document some liberal folks would try to make them.

Suggest removal:

13DwightK(1256 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

1Loaf, you ever watch The West Wing? I love 'ol Jed Bartlett:

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?"

Suggest removal:

14Jerry(498 comments)posted 2 years, 5 months ago

FormerRes - Nothing about rape, murder or thievery in my comment

DwightK - Nothing about religion or the bible in my comment.

Is there any interest in reasonable discussion???

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport