I don't know about that. I'm assuming obviously as I can't recall him specifically saying it (and I hope/trust EW will correct me if I assume incorrectly), but from various of EW's posts, I pick up a strong libertarian (very limited government) viewpoint. My guess is that's what leads to his opinions.

Can you imagine if one was kicked out of their home, and cut off from family, built a life anyway with people who love them and was happy, and then those who cast you out start running your life? I am sure that doesn't happen as often as it used to, but hell yeah I'd be pissed off and really upset by that. I say again people over 18, make your wishes known in a legal document, just in case. I want to not be on a machine if my brain is dead, I want my organs harvested, and then I want to be cremated and sprinkled, that's it. My family is into that as well, but having it in writing helps the process along.

Because that isn't GOD'S WAY, and OMFGWTFBBQMSNBC they will make our churches marry them, and what's wrong with a civil union, marriage is sacred!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I still have yet to hear an argument against non related, single, same gendered/sexed, adults marrying that doesn't involve religion or slippery slope beastiality.

I have had this convo with my family as well. Is it pleasant? Nope. But it is so important.



It's interesting when people pull the "sacredness of marriage" card because marriage in this country hasn't been 'sacred' in a looooong time (and it has nothing to do with gay people).

I have heard one. Basically, the argument goes that legalizing gay marriage will make it harder for people to bring up their children with the belief that gayness is evil and sick, and thus it's an infringement on the rights of parents to bring up their children as they see fit. In essence, the people making this argument were in the mainstream of American thought 40 years ago, and they liked being in the mainstream and never having to explain to their kids why they stood outside of it. Now they see the mainstream moving away from them. Rather than moving along with it, or staying where they are and making peace with the fact that they disagree with the mainstream, they're demanding that the mainstream stay put. And that's just not how the world works.

I have no doubt that the parents who make this argument are right about gay marriage making their job of instilling bigotry more difficult -- it's a lot harder to raise KKK-believing children in this country than it was when interracial marriage was illegal. But KKK parents are still able to teach their belief system to their children, and homophobes will be able to in the future, regardless of how far the mainstream moves away from homophobia.
________
Recall paxil

Let me be more specific...

I'm not sure that the DHHS should have any power. Unless you take a rather wide view of the Constitution, I'm not sure it's mentioned in there.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
--U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 1

I don't read President anywhere in there. Do you?

Granted, I'm not sure what he did was considered a law (but if you didn't consider it as a law, then you could easily say that many of the Civil Rights acts weren't laws, basically a similar issue) but it certainly changed human action. I don't know it seems like a rather grey area.


Will you remind me again of what was said during the State of the Union address?

They do. Will they? No.

I don't care the ends, I care about the means.

:D I'm literally snickering. Love it!

SSHHHHH!!! Who cares we have health care!

YEP, Mr. Obama is just throwing a few crumbs to the gay voters as opposed to feeding them the main course (Equal rights). He'll be moving on and doing the same to the next special interest group.

Oh snap.

What he did was request that an executive agency promulgate rules (regulations). The courts have held that regs, or administration laws, are as binding as statutory laws as long as they reasonably interpret and apply statutory law. In other words, agencies can only issue regs to the extent authorized by statute, and the regs must be consistent with the statutes the apply.

I realize many people may not like doing things this way and may see it as being at odds with the Constitution, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.

Since the discussion was on exective orders, I took you to mean that the executive orders to which you linked condemned other branches of government. Meanwhile, presidents bashing the courts generally and bashing particular decisions specifically is as old as the Republic.

And yet they have, as recently as the last week or two.

Which groups would those be?

LULZ to you seeing people wanting equality as a special interest group, like GLBTQ people are equivalent to the NRA or MADD.

But I guess that requires one to accept that being GLBTQ is not a choice, like owning a gun or saving the whales.

ETA: It isn't just GLBTQ people, this would go as well for unmarried, partnered heterosexual couples. Unmarried people of opposite genders who are committed to another can now have our partners visit us, YAY!

Plenty of politicans see them as interest groups.

I guess I just find that kind of patronizing as I don't believe the gay as a choice, and most other special interest groups involve a choice, like Greenpeace , PETA, or AAA. I also realize the anything that helps GLBTQ people, helps me as an unmarried hetero. Straight privilege is alive and well, but a lot of people don't realize how in jeopardy their rights are when they aren't legally married, but partnered, in regards to adoption and health care coverage. Recent examples include adoption in Arkansas, and the Catholic Charities health care in DC.

Such is life.

There are 4 categories:

1) People who don't give a shit.
2) People who give a shit.
3) People who don't give a shit but will use it as a platform.
4) People who give a shit and will use it as a platform.

I don't really care what category people are in as long as they are honest, which politicians rarely are.

redundant/
A big lesson in life is not to assume that what you eat (read: believe or care about) makes everyone else shit. Also, while we all hold our beliefs based on whatever they are based on and are pretty confident and assertive in them, none of us hold the key to objective truths. Power dynamics and protecting group interests (what social inequalities are based on) are the issue and not information. That's one reason why I see no point in discussing whether sexual orientation is a choice. As with other inequalities, it doesn't really matter whether people are educated and individual opinions are altered.
/redundant

I'm not talking about politicians, inasmuch as regular people who don't realize how things affect them, and let their elected officials make choices for them, without realizing the ramifications (positive or negative) of those choices. About sexual orientation being a choice, I only mentioned that since I can't really have a discussion with someone who believes it is one, as they can equate that choice with any other choice one makes to align with a special interest group. Well except AARP, we can't really chose to not get older and fall in that category, but we can choose to be members. ;)

While it has, that doesn't make it right nor Constitutional even if it's no longer argued.

Whats the Thomas Paine quote "A long standing tradition of thinking something right, it becomes right." (that's absolutely not verbatim)

No, absolutely not. I'm not sure why he would condemn a branch through an executive order, I was more speaking in reference to his pseudo-dictatorial persuasion. And I'm not sure bashing the courts in such a public forum with such animosity is as old as the Republic.

Sorry, I was thinking of the courts. The Congress has alot more audacity. The courts have only overturned two.