A potential huge loss of freedom for 10% of the US

I know that straight folks (the 90%) gave up this freedom long ago (everyone wants approval, even at the price of freedom).

So gay folks used to have freedom of marriage. To marry and interact on a private spiritual or religious basis, that way that man/woman couples used to be before the govt got involved. The govt taking over a custom does not increase freedom, it reduces it. It does not increase rights, they take them over. By allowing the govt to sanction your marriage, they essential own it, they, outside of your marriage, start to feel that they have a say in it....other crazies all over the country, some real freedom haters on both sides, seem to be looking to their all mighty leaders for guidance and then actually respect what others say about your marriage, truly sad that we have given up the regulation of the primary relationship in our lives to ...others???

With Obama now feeling that the govt should get involved with gay marriage, the govt will now be the one making the rules for them, they used to make their own rules. truly sad.

I do not understand why any human would want their govt involved in their marriage in any way. We should treat people as individuals and have no exceptions for special relationships and no govt bodies deciding anything with marriage. If there was a lack of rights issue in society, address those restrictions, don't put more on yourself to be legit. This is what the MMJ crowd did to get legit and it completely backfired on them. The same will happen for gays, this will backfire and ultimately freedom haters will try and restrict their relationships more via law.

Another American embarrassment, another loss of freedom wrapped in the flag (so folks will eat it up like ice cream(. The funny part is that because people feel that all their rights come from their leaders, that this is a good thing, people are considering it a gain in freedom, what a joke?

Get the govt out of marriage. Get other people's opinions out of marriage. Gay marriage or marriage at all is not a public issue, in the slightest...and yes this also means that I feel that the govt has no place deciding where children go or who gets custody or who visits sick people in a hospital (private business so up to owner of hospital), or that certain relationships get tax breaks or penalties.

This is a potential loss of freedom for both gays and straight people, by simply letting the govt decide any of this. Anyone who supports freedom should be working to get the govt out of marriage. They should not need the approval of someone they never even heard of until 5 years ago. If folks needed mass approval to be gay, there would be no gay people (in public anyway).

I honestly don't know if my marriage was approved and sanctioned, we just did it and then told everyone we were married, no one has every questioned it or asked for proof or approval. This is an honor based system anyway.

popcorn eater wrote:
[snip]

With Obama now feeling that the govt should get involved with gay marriage, the govt will now be the one making the rules for them, they used to make their own rules. truly sad.

[snip]

What are you going on about? How will the federal government be the ones making any rules about gay marriage? Obama affirmed in his Wed. announcement that gay marriage was solely at states issue and should be decided by the state.

DOMA was the federal government getting involved in the marriage business, taking it away from the states. The Obama administration is refusing to enforce it as unconstitutional, while the House GOP is spending taxpayer's money to try to enforce DOMA on the states.

Perhaps you should ask Mitt Romney, who has pledged to support a "Marriage Amendment" to the Constitution to enshrine--for the first time in history--something that takes AWAY rights instead of granting them.

I agree, Popcorn, the gov't has no business getting in the business of who can marry who... And wrapping it in the flag or the Bible may appeal to the usual sheep, but it's still none of the government's business....

Something the Dog Said wrote: DOMA was the federal government getting involved in the marriage business, taking it away from the states. The Obama administration is refusing to enforce it as unconstitutional, while the House GOP is spending taxpayer's money to try to enforce DOMA on the states.

Not exactly sure how you come up with that interpretation Dog. The title of Section 2 of the law reads "Powers Reserved to the States". Section 3 simply clarifies what the definition of the words "marriage" and "spouse" are with regards to federal legislation passed by Congress are so that the judiciary has a clear and precise definition with which to work when dealing with questions of legislative intent when those words are used in any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States. Congress and agencies of the federal government may substitute "life partner" or "domestic partner" or any number of other terms to ensure that federal legislation and regulations include same-sex couples when that is their intent, but they didn't want to run into a situation where a judge might "interpret" the meaning of the words "marriage" and "spouse" in a manner other than the ones Congress or federal agencies intended when they wrote laws and regulations that were either already on the books or that would be written in the future.

Something the Dog Said wrote: DOMA was the federal government getting involved in the marriage business, taking it away from the states. The Obama administration is refusing to enforce it as unconstitutional, while the House GOP is spending taxpayer's money to try to enforce DOMA on the states.

No it wasn't. It confirmed that if a certain state had legal gay marriages that another state did not have to recognize it. It was to affirm states rights. Just like Obama said yesterday, same sex marriages are a state by state issue. And who signed the DOMA? Why it was Clinton.

"Obama has chosen to stand in the gap, even as conservatives manipulate religion to undermine the core value of equal standing before the law."

Yep, while the conservatives "manipulate religion to undermine the core value of equal standing before the law"...(which is one of their specialties)...I'm PROUD to say that MY president is standing tall in front of the sheeple....

LadyJazzer wrote: "Obama has chosen to stand in the gap, even as conservatives manipulate religion to undermine the core value of equal standing before the law."

Yep, while the conservatives "manipulate religion to undermine the core value of equal standing before the law"...(which is one of their specialties)...I'm PROUD to say that MY president is standing tall in front of the sheeple....

And some of his "sheeple" doesn't agree with him. Blacks in North Carolina voted 2 to 1 for the a same-sex marriage ban. And even Obama's spiritual advisor is not in agreement with his decision. The flock is being culled out.

It won't take long for SCOTUS to figure out that the rights of one group of people should not be put to a popular vote by a majority of the people of a state. The 14th Amendment wasn't ambiguous. If black civil rights had been put to a popular vote, we'd still have slavery...and the GOP would have their dream of cheaper labor...

More reverberations from inside the echo chamber SFB? It isn't equal access to the civil laws that's the issue, civil union legislation takes care of that. Asking that government start issuing contracts of civil union for everyone and getting out of defining marriage at all would equally take care of that. But that isn't what the LGBT community wants - they want more than this. What they want is to have their relationships viewed as equal to traditional marriages by the society in which they live. I've got news for you, having a legislature pass a law or finding a sympathetic judge willing to write one from the bench won't change the way society views those relationships. Every single attempt to have the voters institute such laws has been unsuccessful precisely because society doesn't view homosexual relationships as being the same as a marriage. Homosexuals can run around telling people they are married all they want - the society will simple look at them and think to themselves, "No you're not, marriage is the union of one man and one woman." - and no law is capable of changing that.