[One_of_us]

More EVOLVING gay issues:

One of the most prominent psychiatrist in recent times has reversed his position on reeducation of gays, removing support for any ideas of "curing" gays:

Quote

Dr. Robert Spitzer: "I Owe the Gay Community an Apology" for "Gay Cure" Study
By Craig Malisow Fri., May 18 2012 at 1:00 PM

More bad news for the "pray the gay away" crowd.
Eleven years after his profoundly flawed study of "reparative therapy" to "cure" gay people of their rampant gayness, psychiatrist Robert Spitzer has written a letter apologizing to the gay community.
Spitzer had already distanced himself from the study in 2004, when we interviewed Houston-area men who'd gone through reparative therapy, but the touching story in The New York Times illustrates how the study never stopped haunting Spitzer, who now suffers from Parkinson's.

Spitzer's study was a bit of a surprise, given that he fought with the American Psychiatric Association in the early 1970s to drop homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. That he'd later find himself conducting a poorly conceived and executed study in which he asked reparative therapy clients if they'd "changed" must have caused some in the gay community to scratch their heads.

As we wrote, "Spitzer did not claim his study proved that reparative therapy was a cure-all, but he said the volunteers' responses indicated that some gay people can definitely change."

The study fueled the pseudoscience of groups like NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and "ex-gay" groups like Exodus Ministries.

Last month, Truth Wins Out ran a draft of Spitzer's letter, in which he writes, "I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some 'highly motivated' individuals."

Better late than never, we guess.

[One_of_us]

The powerful group in the US that represents black people has come out in support of gay marriage. This is in contrast to the opinion that a majority of blacks are against gay rights.

Quote

NAACP Supprts Same-Sex Marriage As Civil Right
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The NAACP passed a resolution Saturday endorsing same-sex marriage as a civil right and opposing any efforts "to codify discrimination or hatred into the law."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's board voted at a leadership retreat in Miami to back a resolution supporting marriage equality, calling the position consistent with the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution.

"The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social and economic equality of all people," Board Chairwoman Roslyn M. Brock said in a statement. "We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law."

Same-sex marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia, but 31 states have passed amendments to ban it.

The NAACP vote came about two weeks after President Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage, setting off a flurry of political activity in a number of states. Obama's announcement followed Vice President Joe Biden's declaration in a television interview that he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay couples marrying.

"Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people" said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous, a strong backer of gay rights.

Gay marriage has divided the black community, with many religious leaders opposing it. In California, exit polls showed about 70 percent of blacks opposed same-sex marriage in 2008. In Maryland, black religious leaders helped derail a gay marriage bill last year. But state lawmakers passed a gay marriage bill this year.

Pew Research Center polls have found that African Americans have become more supportive of same-sex marriage in recent years, but remain less supportive than other groups. A poll conducted in April showed 39 percent of African-Americans favor gay marriage, compared with 47 percent of whites. The poll showed 49 percent of blacks and 43 percent of whites are opposed.

The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, applauded the step by the Baltimore-based civil rights organization.

"We could not be more pleased with the NAACP's history-making vote today which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community," HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a statement.

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 15 May 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

As the queen you are, to be so anti-gay as you are could be the primary ground for your psychosis, probably developed in your youth as child prostitute. Poor jetz!

As the foul-mouth queen you are, to be such an ignorant clueless -gay as you are could be the primary ground for your psychosis, probably developed in your youth as child prostitute. Poor "OOU"...tsk...tsk...

One_of_us, on 15 May 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

But Obama is not asking gays to marry. He wants to see the benefits of marriage extended to ALL Americans regardless of their gender.

As I have said, and I repeat...what is he doing to give gays the "benefits of marriage", other than just "reluctantly" open his mouth to support gay marriages just becos his VP have a big mouth too?

One_of_us, on 15 May 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

One more of your stupid questions result of your ignorance.

DADT was repealed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by Obama in December 2010.

Such stupidity coming from you...duh!
If OBama did not put into action to repeal the DADT, you think Congress would passed the legislation?

How idiotic can you be...huh?
You think just by declaring he support "gay marriage", Congress would suddenly pass the legislation...izzit?

One_of_us, on 15 May 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Yes, we all recognize your foot you constantly stick in your mouth

The only foot you recognize would be your own stinking foot...lah!

Oh wait!
You are so clueless and stupid that I am sure you would not even realize that you have YOUR own decaying foot in your mouth...huh!?
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 15 May 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

So did Obama do something about it other than sprouting political crap to score political points in the Election year, and expect the gay community to soak in his bull-shit...izzit?

If he is really sincere, he would have compel all states to legalize gay marriage thru legislation. (he is famous for bypassing Congress...isn`t he?)
So by just claiming to support gay marriage and then doing nothing about it...what kind of hypocrite bullshit is that?

As the queen you are, to be so anti-gay as you are could be the primary ground for your psychosis, probably developed in your youth as child prostitute. Poor jetz!

But Obama is not asking gays to marry. He wants to see the benefits of marriage extended to ALL Americans regardless of their gender.

Quote

If Obama can repealed the DADT, then why couldn`t he repeal the DOMA?

One more of your stupid questions result of your ignorance.

DADT was repealed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by Obama in December 2010.

Quote

Recognize my foot!

Yes, we all recognize your foot you constantly stick in your mouth

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 14 May 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

In some societies, "traditional" marriage required the mother to have sex with the groom to see if he is good enough for his daughter. In other societies, "traditional" marriage entitled the lord to have the first fuck with the future wife of his serfs. So much for "traditional" marriage...

YOu are not saying you would like to have sex with the mother of your troll husband...are you?
So who are you to criticize other people`s traditional marriages and cultures?
Given that you are known to held racist prejudice religious bigotry views, not to mention your constant posting of sleazy homosexual behaviors with strangers in dark saunas and corridors, at least those traditional marriage cultures are held by those who strongly believe in their faith, as oppose to you who seek to hide your shame under several anonymous nicks.

One_of_us, on 14 May 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

You are totally ignorant of the issue, duh!

What is at stake here is the recognition by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of marriages regardless of the gender of the participants. This is a VERY important factor in the nationality, immigration status of the participants in a marriage and in their federal taxes. What Obama stated is simply that these important factors should be independent of the gender of the persons, and not be influenced by the dogmatic bullshit of some religious groups. After all, the government should not force females to dress in black burkas and males to cover with some white bedsheets either

So did Obama do something about it other than sprouting political crap to score political points in the Election year, and expect the gay community to soak in his bull-shit...izzit?

If he is really sincere, he would have compel all states to legalize gay marriage thru legislation. (he is famous for bypassing Congress...isn`t he?)
So by just claiming to support gay marriage and then doing nothing about it...what kind of hypocrite bullshit is that?

In fact, the Government SHOULD force ALL females NOT to wear the burkas, (hello?...security risks, terrorism, ,,etc...) ...duh!
I am sure Obama would not dare to force all males to cover themselves with white bedsheets, cos that might result in him being tied on a wooden cross and being burned alive....lor.

One_of_us, on 14 May 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

What a stupid comment by a guy who recently wasted everybody's time with his nonsense from his ignorance about constitutionality and separation of powers.

What a stupid idiotic comment by "OOU" who recently wasted everybody's time with his nonsense from his ignorance and stupidity about constitutionality and separation of powers...duh!

One_of_us, on 14 May 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

It is not the President's call to repeal the DOMA. This is up to the Supreme Court to do (if they were not a bunch of politickers) or to Congress to override (if it were not infected by a bunch of GOP, "tea party" traitors).

If Obama can repealed the DADT, then why couldn`t he repeal the DOMA?
After all, he has instructed the DOJ to not enforce the DOMA when constitutionally, as president he has the responsibility to enforced the laws passed by Congress!

As I have said, isn`t he cunning at bypassing Congress when implementing policies. so why can`t he bypass the Supreme Court on DOMA when the Supreme Court are infected by his corrupt cronies` judges and sleazy Democrat traitors.

One_of_us, on 14 May 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

What the President has done is to recognize an individual right all Americans should have, and even religious people with integrity should recognize that religious dictates should not be imposed by secular law but should be left to the individual's free will.

Recognize my foot!
If not for VP Joe Biden big mouth, Obama would not have make the hypocrite declaration that he "support gay marriages"..duh!
If not for his falling polls ratings, he would be content to keep silent on the gay marriages as he did for 3 years as president!

So pray tell..how can an individual claim his right to gay marriage in any States when there is nothing from Obama except the crap-nonsense from his mouth reading the teleprompter?
Is Obama expecting the 50 States to suddenly implement and pass the gay marriage act just becos he says so...izzit?
Such delusional mental derangement coming from the president of the USA....tsk...tsk...

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 13 May 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

The traditional religious wedding (not exclusively the Church) dated far back before there is government involvement and the civil union..duh!

In some societies, "traditional" marriage required the mother to have sex with the groom to see if he is good enough for his daughter. In other societies, "traditional" marriage entitled the lord to have the first fuck with the future wife of his serfs. So much for "traditional" marriage...

Quote

If it is UNIQUELY defined, then shouldn`t Obama compel all States to be pro-gay marriage instead of just "farting" thru` his mouth and not doing anything to legislate it?

What is he "supporting" when different States in America have different takes on the gay marriage issue?
Anyone can say they support gay marriage...but it is all bull-crap hot-air when there is no concrete actions taken to make it happens....duh!

You are totally ignorant of the issue, duh!

What is at stake here is the recognition by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of marriages regardless of the gender of the participants. This is a VERY important factor in the nationality, immigration status of the participants in a marriage and in their federal taxes. What Obama stated is simply that these important factors should be independent of the gender of the persons, and not be influenced by the dogmatic bullshit of some religious groups. After all, the government should not force females to dress in black burkas and males to cover with some white bedsheets either

Quote

But for a president to declare he "support" gay marriage, then he should repeal the DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) and compel all States to legalize gay marriages...duh!

What a stupid comment by a guy who recently wasted everybody's time with his nonsense from his ignorance about constitutionality and separation of powers.

It is not the President's call to repeal the DOMA. This is up to the Supreme Court to do (if they were not a bunch of politickers) or to Congress to override (if it were not infected by a bunch of GOP, "tea party" traitors).

What the President has done is to recognize an individual right all Americans should have, and even religious people with integrity should recognize that religious dictates should not be imposed by secular law but should be left to the individual's free will.

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

What stupidity! In a "religious marriage" what is usually relevant is the wedding dress of the woman, the bank account of the groom, and for the priest, the nice monetary comission and exposure the church gets.

Only a stupid money grabbing trans-gender (are you one?)would focus on the wedding dress and the bank account of the groom...instead of the vows of the newly-wed....duh!

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

True, civil unions have to do with "civil". And so should marriage too. Churches have no business in marriages, they only get involved for their convenience. The Catholic church added the "sacrament of marriage" later on, and the church itself is still just a "witness" to the union (at least in theory)

The traditional religious wedding (not exclusively the Church) dated far back before there is government involvement and the civil union..duh!

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

A very important requisite for an official state of marriage is that it is UNIQUELY defined. This is why for the purpose of law, marriage has nothing to do with religions or churches, because different religions have different rules of marriage.

If it is UNIQUELY defined, then shouldn`t Obama compel all States to be pro-gay marriage instead of just "farting" thru` his mouth and not doing anything to legislate it?

What is he "supporting" when different States in America have different takes on the gay marriage issue?
Anyone can say they support gay marriage...but it is all bull-crap hot-air when there is no concrete actions taken to make it happens....duh!

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

This is the opinion of a pseudo-sanctimonious hypocrite like you. I say "pseudo", because religions condemn lies and deceptions while you are all for lying and deceiving.

This is the ranting and raving of a pseudo-sanctimonious hypocrite like you....duh!
Of cos Religions condemn lies and deceptions...so is that why you are anti-religion becos you are a deceptive liar and a unethical imbecile?

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

You persist with your lunacy of religious marriage... The government IS NOT INVOLVED WITH RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE (how will you understand this?)

Obviously the Govt is not involved with religious marriage...duh!
Are you that dumb and stupid to believe they are?

But for a president to declare he "support" gay marriage, then he should repeal the DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) and compel all States to legalize gay marriages...duh!

By doing that, he would have compel religious organizations to accept the LEGAL FACT that gay marriages are legal in America, regardless of whatever religions or faiths.

Otherwise, all Obama has is crap hot-air about "supporting gay marriages", and religious organizations and States would just continue defend the DOMA and ignore gay marriages.
So what`s change...then?
LPPL (lan Pa Pa Lan).....duh!

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

I couldn't care less what different religions require from me to marry me. A rabbi will ask that I embrace Judaism, a Catholic priest will ask that I am a practicing Catholic. A Mormon priest will ask me to become a Mormon, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You have stated your religious bigotry often enough, so I am sure no one will ask you to join their religion, nor will anyone want to "marry" such a racist religious bigot...mah!

One_of_us, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Seems that the only one here worrying about "religious" marriage is you. Interesting, because you would never be able to marry in your life (because nobody would make the sacrifice, hahaha)

And why should I worry when I am not a stupid American who voted for an unconstitutional deceitful corrupt president...duh!

Of cos, idiotic homosexual like yourself do not worry becos you would never be able to marry in your life because nobody would make the sacrifice, unless of cos those old troll clients of yours took pity on you....huh!
WAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 13 May 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

YOU IDIOTIC RELIGIOUS BIGOT DUMMKOPF!
Religious marriage requires very certain moral duties and meanings. The vows are very clear; the definitions of a wife (or husband) and a husband and their contract or compact are clearly defined in religious texts and doctrines.

What stupidity! In a "religious marriage" what is usually relevant is the wedding dress of the woman, the bank account of the groom, and for the priest, the nice monetary comission and exposure the church gets.

Quote

Civil unions, however, are not governed by religious doctrine, faith or belief - they are governed by State institutions and offer specific legal benefits for the parties entering into the contract.
Thus civil union is "just a contract of benefits" between 2 people and the State.....

True, civil unions have to do with "civil". And so should marriage too. Churches have no business in marriages, they only get involved for their convenience. The Catholic church added the "sacrament of marriage" later on, and the church itself is still just a "witness" to the union (at least in theory)

A very important requisite for an official state of marriage is that it is UNIQUELY defined. This is why for the purpose of law, marriage has nothing to do with religions or churches, because different religions have different rules of marriage.

Quote

Whilst religious marriage is THE vows which bind 2 people spiritually together with "very certain moral duties and meanings and the blessing of their God".
It provides the frame for a holy sanctification of a union between two people. The Church process is what we traditionally call "marriage," and is none of the State's business.

This is the opinion of a pseudo-sanctimonious hypocrite like you. I say "pseudo", because religions condemn lies and deceptions while you are all for lying and deceiving.

Quote

Therefore, YOU DUMMKOPF!
It is relevant that Obama specify if he support gay religious marriage or gay civil union and what is he going to do to if the Church deny LGBT community the process of religious marriage...duh!
Otherwise, it is just another hot-air hypocrisy coming out of Obama`s chute to con those clueless gay idiots....lah!

Of cos, unethical, religious bigot like you would have no hope of getting any blessing from ANY religion anyway....

You persist with your lunacy of religious marriage... The government IS NOT INVOLVED WITH RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE (how will you understand this?)

I couldn't care less what different religions require from me to marry me. A rabbi will ask that I embrace Judaism, a Catholic priest will ask that I am a practicing Catholic. A Mormon priest will ask me to become a Mormon, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Seems that the only one here worrying about "religious" marriage is you. Interesting, because you would never be able to marry in your life (because nobody would make the sacrifice, hahaha)

[jetguyz]

Even if Obama declare he support gay marriages...is he going to "force" all the States to comply or just NATO *No Action Talk Only)??

There is a looming question that if the "gay marriage" does not work out, can married gays get a divorce?

Currently...it seems they can`t....or would have hard time doing that.
Possibility of being stuck in a loveless or deceitful marriage...anyone?

Quote

Divorce Dilemma: Texas Says Gays Can't Get Divorce

After the joy of a wedding and the adoption of a baby came arguments that couldn't be resolved, leading Angelique Naylor to file for divorce. That left her fighting both the woman she married in Massachusetts and the state of Texas, which says a union granted in a state where same-sex marriage is legal can't be dissolved with a divorce in a state where it's not.

A judge in Austin granted the divorce, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is appealing the decision. He also is appealing a divorce granted to a gay couple in Dallas, saying protecting the "traditional definition of marriage" means doing the same for divorce.

A state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Dallas case on Wednesday.

The Dallas men, who declined to be interviewed for this story and are known only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings, had an amicable separation, with no disputes on separation of property and no children involved, said attorney Peter Schulte, who represents J.B. The couple, who married in 2006 in Massachusetts and separated two years later, simply want an official divorce, Schulte said.

The drawn-out process has been frustrating for Naylor, who says she didn't file for divorce as an equal rights statement — she just wants to get on with her life.

"We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce," said Naylor, 39, of Austin, who married Sabina Daly in Massachusetts in 2004.

That year, Massachusetts became the first state to let same-sex couples tie the knot. Now, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia also allow them.

Gay and lesbian couples who turn to the courts when they break up are getting mixed results across the nation. A Pennsylvania judge last month refused to divorce two women who married in Massachusetts, while New York grants such divorces even though the state doesn't allow same-sex marriage.

"The bottom line is that same-sex couples have families and their families have the same needs and problems, but often don't have the same rights," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, a national legal organization that promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

"It really is an unenviable position that the courts have put these couples in," said Karen Loewy, an attorney at the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

Abbott, a Republican seeking re-election, declined to be interviewed for this story. He has argued in court filings that because the state doesn't recognize gay marriage there can be no divorce, but a gay or lesbian Texas couple may have a marriage voided. Attorneys representing such couples argue that voiding a marriage here could leave it intact in other states, creating problems for property divisions and other issues.

"OK, you're recommending voidance, but how does that work?" asked Jennifer Cochran, Naylor's attorney. "Is it only void in Texas and can you void a marriage that's valid in another state? The attorney general I feel didn't answer those questions."

======full version here

It happens in Canada before!

Quote

Canada: First Same-Sex Divorce Occurring

By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 22, 2004

Just as gay marriage is becoming a reality, gay divorce must also become a reality. No one expects gay marriages to last any longer (on average) than marriages for straight couples? The first gay divorce in Canada is making news because the divorce laws haven't caught up to the marriage laws.

Gay.com reports:

Though same-sex marriage is legal in four Canadian jurisdictions, the country's divorce laws have not yet been changed to include same-sex couples. One of the women, M.M., has petitioned the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to change the definition of "spouse" in the province's Divorce Act. The law currently defines "spouse" as "a man and woman who are married to each other." Through her attorney, Martha McCarthy, M.M. has asked to have the words "to each other" removed.

"If that doesn't happen, it is not possible for same-sex couples to divorce," said attorney Julie Hannaford, who represents J.H. in the case. "That is their dilemma," Hannaford said in a Toronto Star report. "They are married, they both want to have their marriage dissolved and they both want to get on with their lives; and right now, they can't."

It’s an interesting dilemma. The two are legally married, but they can’t get divorced! Unless the laws are changed, these two are stuck with each other. I’m sure the laws will be changed — there’s no reason why they won’t be — but I wonder how long it will take...

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 10 May 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

What a deceitful hypocrite psychotic this liar and deceiver is! As soon as I post some good news for the gay community he has to throw his acid poop on them. In this case because he is both anti-Obama and anti-gay (I don't know which of his phobias is stronger).

What a deluded deceitful hypocrite psychotic this liar and deceiver is! ...tsk...tsk...
Just becos OBama make a hypocrite speech about "supporting gay marriage", and this deceitful hypocrite psychotic pro-Obama supporter is over the moon, claiming it is "good news for the gay community"...duh!

FACT is, VP Joe Biden`s loud mouth about being "absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage ..." forces Obama to come out in support of gay marriage, not becos Obama wants to!
To say otherwise would have cost him political points for disagreeing with his VP.
Biden pushes Obama to declare gay marriage support, then offers his apologies

In the ABC interview, Obama declare that "...over the course of several years” with family, friends and neighbors... (I) was moved by seeing members of his staff who are in long-term same-sex relationships and gays serving in the military who aren’t able to commit themselves in marriage.

“I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said."

Then how come he did not come out in support of gay marriages several years ago ...huh!?
Why waited until now?

In fact, from his time as senator to becoming president, he has stated several times that "“marriage is the union between a man and a woman....and God”.

So doing so now would only mean ONE of several THINGs...that he is using the gay marriage issue to divert the attention from his failure as president to curtailed the deficit and unemployment and obviously, his unconstitutional eligibility lawsuits to be POTUS that are pending in the Supreme Court...duh!

One_of_us, on 10 May 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

The degree of his lack of understanding of the issue of gay marriage is so evident in his question if Obama was referring to religious or civil marriage!

The degree of your lack of understanding of the real issue of gay marriage is so evident in your blind faith that that Obama do not have to be clear whether he is referring to religious or civil marriage....dummy!

One_of_us, on 10 May 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

YOU DUMMKOPF! Religious marriage has nothing to do with this, because it is exclusive to whichever business of religion is involved and how they want to carry on their business. YOU can create a religion and dictate that your ceremony of marriage to please YOUR god can only be between persons who were child prostitutes, if you like.

YOU IDIOTIC RELIGIOUS BIGOT DUMMKOPF!
Religious marriage requires very certain moral duties and meanings. The vows are very clear; the definitions of a wife (or husband) and a husband and their contract or compact are clearly defined in religious texts and doctrines.

Civil unions, however, are not governed by religious doctrine, faith or belief - they are governed by State institutions and offer specific legal benefits for the parties entering into the contract.
Thus civil union is "just a contract of benefits" between 2 people and the State.....

Whilst religious marriage is THE vows which bind 2 people spiritually together with "very certain moral duties and meanings and the blessing of their God".
It provides the frame for a holy sanctification of a union between two people. The Church process is what we traditionally call "marriage," and is none of the State's business.

Therefore, YOU DUMMKOPF!
It is relevant that Obama specify if he support gay religious marriage or gay civil union and what is he going to do to if the Church deny LGBT community the process of religious marriage...duh!
Otherwise, it is just another hot-air hypocrisy coming out of Obama`s chute to con those clueless gay idiots....lah!

Of cos, unethical, religious bigot like you would have no hope of getting any blessing from ANY religion anyway....

I am sure you have created a "warped religion cult" (SIC) to dictate that your "ceremony of marriage" to please YOUR god can only be between you, formerly a child prostitute and the old troll who is now your asylum warden....lor!
WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

One_of_us, on 10 May 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Here in the US our Constitution dictates separation of church and state

Really?
And yet the flip flopping hypocrite Obama constantly uses his "religion" to justify his stance on opposing gay marriage....until now...that is!

If there is indeed a "separation of Church and State, then surely Obama would not have kowtow to the Church in the Obamacare condom issue and now the "gay marriage" deceits....!

[One_of_us]

A BRILLIANT stragegy:

Quote

Gay marriage opposition could backfire on GOP
By Kyle Scott
Updated 07:41 p.m., Thursday, May 10, 2012

In the past two weeks the issue of gay rights has come to the forefront. From Richard Grenell's resignation from Mitt Romney's campaign to North Carolina's vote to ban gay marriage to San Diego renaming a street in honor of Harvey Milk, it would seem a wise political strategy to take a stand on gay rights, and President Barack Obama took the cue.

Following Vice President Joe Biden's lukewarm support of gay marriage, the president gave his full support. The president's announcement is politically expedient because now he will regain the support, presumably, of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, which was losing faith in him. It should also help regain support of young voters, as they are more accepting of alternative lifestyles than their parents and grandparents. The risk is that the president's comments will ignite the Republican base of social conservative voters. If there was any hope that they would stay home in November because they were unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney, the president just made sure they will show up in large numbers.

What ought to be perplexing to anyone who values consistency is the Republican's opposition to same-sex marriage. If the president is clever, he can pitch this as a matter of liberty and limited government, and he can do so during the Democratic convention in North Carolina, a state that just voted to ban same-sex marriage.

It comes as no surprise that opposition to same-sex marriage comes from Republicans. Republicans are justified in opposing lifestyles that do not conform to their view of morality, but they are wrong in trying to use the government to enforce their views on others. There is an inherent contradiction in the GOP platform of liberty and limited government and the party's strategy to oppose same-sex marriage. One cannot be for limited government and in favor of using government to promote one's social agenda. Using the government in this way is precisely what limited government is not. The reason why limited government is such a powerful idea, and one worth defending, is that it sees the dangers inherent in a government that limits freedom and choice. One must make the choice to either be for liberty or against it; there is no middle ground.

Right, right, right!

If some churches are anti-gay, why should the government lean towards them and give up their logical position of neutrality? Churches' dogmas are not allowed to be made into laws in the US, according to our Constitution.

While the Catholic Church has a right to refuse to marry gays and it has a right to marry two cats or two dogs if it wants, the government should not discriminate against any of its citizens in their right to have the benefits and privileges of a secular, civil state identified as "marriage".

Is the desire of the religious conservatives, mostly republicans, to have big-government peaking into everyone's bedroom and dictate what gender couples should be? Already the "sodomy laws" that the religious conservatives supported were found unconstitutional. It seems logical that the mislabeled "defense of marriage act" should follow the same fate.

[One_of_us]

Is tide turning in our favor? Seems to be...

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

Quote

Obama's change on same-sex marriage comes after voters reach turning point
By Josh Levs, CNN
updated 3:36 PM EDT, Thu May 10, 2012

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama's announcement that he now supports same-sex marriage reflects a dramatic shift taking place across the country.
Last year, for the first time, polls found a majority of Americans share that stance.
Surveys show the country's position has undergone a rapid change over the past 15 years -- one not seen on other issues.
On climate change, abortion, and the death penalty, "we're not seeing Americans necessarily becoming more liberal," said Frank Newport, editor in chief of Gallup. "This one stands a little alone."
In 1996, Gallup found 27% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 68% opposed it. Last year, 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 45% opposed.
This year, Gallup found the country almost evenly split, with 50% supporting same-sex marriage and 48% against it. Sampling error could explain the apparent change from 2011.
A CNN/ORC International poll found in September that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage -- up from 44% in 2008.
American attitudes have seen dramatic changes on some other issues, Newport noted, but the changes generally have taken much longer. "The number of people who said they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified black president used to be well below 50%, but decades later it's up to 95% or higher," he said. It's been similar for the idea of a woman president.
Two main factors are driving the increased acceptance of same-sex marriage, said David Masci, senior researcher with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, whose surveys have found a similar change.
The first is "a cultural shift that's been going on for decades -- not just same-sex marriage, but broader acceptance of gays and lesbians."
He points to changing depictions of gay people and fictional characters in media -- something Vice President Joe Biden referred to Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The sitcom "'Will and Grace' probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody's ever done so far," Biden said.
The second key factor, Masci said, is young people.
So-called Millennials, born since 1981, are by far the most supportive of same-sex marriage.
Obama, in announcing his new stance this week, pointed out that his daughters have "parents whose friends are same-sex couples. It wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. And frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change of perspective."
He also said college Republicans he meets, who dislike his economic and foreign policies, often express support for same-sex marriage.
Pew found 63% of Millennials support same-sex marriage, while 30% of people born between 1928 and 1945 support it.
So the changing attitudes in America aren't just the result of people changing their minds. They're also the result of a changing electorate.
As more young people become old enough to be polled and vote, and more of the oldest Americans die, the figure skews upward.
Still, Pew found that even among the oldest Americans, support for same-sex marriage has gone up over the past 10 years.
And while younger people sometimes move toward more conservative positions as they get older, Newport said the change on same-sex marriage "seems like something that will stick with them."
There have been a few years recently in which polls found support for same-sex marriage had dropped slightly. However, Gallup and Pew found those in different years, and pollsters said they can't be sure what caused the change. An increase in opposition sometimes follows a controversial court decision, they said.
Across the country, there are regional differences in where voters stand, which partly explains why North Carolina this week became the 31st state in which voters supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Also, the national surveys assess overall voter attitudes -- not just the attitudes of those who will show up to vote on a specific question in a specific state.
While the survey trends are unmistakable, they could reverse themselves at any time, Masci says.
"One thing to be careful about is the idea of an inevitable march toward acceptance of (same-sex marriage). If I were a betting man I would be, but there's no guarantee," he said.
And, he said, "it doesn't mean that five or 10 years down the road we won't still be a divided country on this."

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 10 May 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

More like Obama flip flops again!!

Obama has 3 years to come out in support of same-sex marriage, yet he waited till his ratings in the polls have fallen drastically, and when 2012 Election is near to (once again) attempt to con and solicit the LGBT community for votes.....just like what he did in 2008 presidential campaign, using the repeal of DADT in his last minute attempt for gay votes.

FACT is, is he now proposing same-sex religious-marriage or same sex civil-marriage nationally or leave it to the state?

One without the other is as good as making lots of noises to distract the American voters about the failure of the Democrat and the president in job and economy policies.
Add to the fact that there is no platform committee yet on this issue....so is it just another "empty campaign promise" as usual??

What a deceitful hypocrite president...

What a deceitful hypocrite psychotic this liar and deceiver is! As soon as I post some good news for the gay community he has to throw his acid poop on them. In this case because he is both anti-Obama and anti-gay (I don't know which of his phobias is stronger).

The degree of his lack of understanding of the issue of gay marriage is so evident in his question if Obama was referring to religious or civil marriage!

YOU DUMMKOPF! Religious marriage has nothing to do with this, because it is exclusive to whichever business of religion is involved and how they want to carry on their business. YOU can create a religion and dictate that your ceremony of marriage to please YOUR god can only be between persons who were child prostitutes, if you like.

Here in the US our Constitution dictates separation of church and state

[jetguyz]

More like Obama flip flops again!!

"President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president."
Not to mention "reversing his slumps in the polls...and the up coming election"...duh!.

Obama has 3 years to come out in support of same-sex marriage, yet he waited till his ratings in the polls have fallen drastically, and when 2012 Election is near to (once again) attempt to con and solicit the LGBT community for votes.....just like what he did in 2008 presidential campaign, using the repeal of DADT in his last minute attempt for gay votes.

FACT is, is he now proposing same-sex religious-marriage or same sex civil-marriage nationally or leave it to the state?

One without the other is as good as making lots of noises to distract the American voters about the failure of the Democrat and the president in job and economy policies.
Add to the fact that there is no platform committee yet on this issue....so is it just another "empty campaign promise" as usual??

What a deceitful hypocrite president...

[One_of_us]

Yes, Obama has guts!

Even facing the packs of hienas and wolves in sheep clothes (the leaders of Christian churches and their fanatic followers) and the venom Mitt Romney and his GOP sheep will spray on him to see if they can take over in November, Obama took the opportunity offered by his vicepresident a few days ago when Biden expressed his support for gay marriage. Gays in the US we can now feel that he fulfilled his promises to us.

The Internet is full with this news today, for example in:

http://gma.yahoo.com...x-marriage.html


And, before this news, another gay issue popped up this time in California once more, about "gay teen conversions". The following is from:

http://newsinfo.inqu...version-therapy

Quote

California may ban gay teen ‘conversion’ therapy
By Hannah Dreier
Associated Press
8:27 am | Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

SACRAMENTO, California – A group of California lawmakers Tuesday weighed a first-of-its-kind ban on a controversial form of psychotherapy aimed at making gay people straight.
Supporters say the legislation, which is before its final committee, is necessary because such treatments are ineffective and harmful.

“This therapy can be dangerous,” said the bill’s author Sen. Ted Lieu. He added the treatments can “cause extreme depression and guilt” that sometimes leads to suicide.
Conservative religious groups emphatically reject that view of sexual orientation therapy and say the ban would interfere with parents’ rights to seek appropriate psychological care for their children.

“While this is a direct assault on everyone’s freedom it is also a not so subtle attack on religious liberty,” the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality said in a statement.
The debate comes as gay rights issues take the spotlight around the nation.

Over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden said he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex couples getting the same rights as heterosexual couples.

In North Carolina on Tuesday, voters weighed in on an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. And in Colorado, a measure to extend civil union protections to gay couples faced a looming deadline in the state Legislature.

The California bill would prohibit so-called reparative therapy for minors and obligate adults who chose to undergo the treatment to sign a release form that states that the counseling is ineffective and possibly dangerous.
AB1172, sponsored by Equality California, will go to the full Senate if approved by the committee.

Lieu says attempts to pathologize and change people’s sexual orientation should be treated akin to smoking and drinking: harmful activities that adults can choose to participate in, but children cannot.

“We let adults do all sorts of stupid and risky things, but we ban dangerous things for young people,” Lieu, a Torrance Democrat, said in a telephone interview.

He was inspired to take up the issue by a cable news documentary featuring people whose parents had attempted to change their sexual orientation. The doctor featured in the show “was evil,” he said.

Interest in the religion-based therapy appears to have surged in recent years, sparking debates about whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.
Exodus International, the world’s largest Christian referral network dealing with homosexuality, now steers people to 260 groups across the country, up from about 100 a decade ago. The organization has 35 ministries and churches scattered around California, from the Central Valley to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Conservative religious leaders say it is important for families to have access to conversion therapy services as teens first awaken to their sexual orientation.
Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, said he wished there had been somewhere for him to turn when he was trying to reconcile his sexual identity with his faith as a young man.
“When I was struggling with those things in the early ’80s, the church didn’t seem like it had a place for me,” he said
Mainstream mental health organizations say people shouldn’t be seeking out these ministries at all.

The American Psychological Association said in 2009 that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy.
The association cited research suggesting that efforts to produce the change could lead to depression and suicidal tendencies, and stated that no solid evidence exists that such change is possible.

The American Counseling Association and American Psychiatric Association have also disavowed the therapy. The psychiatric association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders nearly 30 years ago.
Last month, the author of a widely-cited 2001 study supportive of the notion that “highly motivated” people can change their sexual orientation retracted his study and apologized to the gay community.

Gay rights advocates say a ban like the one proposed in California could represent a turning point, and inspire similar legislation in other states.

The measure would likely face legal challenges from opponents who say it is unconstitutional. Lieu says he addressed free speech issues by excluding clergy from the legislation.

Conversion therapy penetrated the national consciousness last year when former Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was questioned over whether the Christian counseling business of her husband provided therapies that attempted to change gays and lesbians.
The practice has garnered attention in past years as teens sent by their parents to conversion therapy programs have shared their stories online.

So conservatives say that regulating these "therapies" for gay teens is an attack to religious liberty?

I tell you what... If the sexual orientation of a teen is SO CRUCIAL to some religious cult that involves itself with and has the nerve to claim to be speaking for an all-powerful GOD who created the UNIVERSE and has dominion of everything from day one until forever and ever,

then after having personally discovered that my sexual orientation is intrinsic instead of an act of my will and that it is completely harmless, I comfortably reach the conclusion that such religion is totally stupid, naive, primitive, petty, not worth of one ounce of trust, and I feel in my perfect right to kick the asses of the leaders and followers of such religious cult and expose them as evil impostors who are trying to turn the world against me.