Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry

[Sharpienads]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

[XC700116]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

couldn't have said it any better

[GilpinGuy]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

While I agree with most of this, I've read the Constitution many times and don't recall that a US Citizen has a RIGHT to marry anyone but maybe I'm off-base. And maybe I'm being a little anal here, but let's not fall into the liberal trap of making common terms like "right to marry" a regular thing that we all utter like it is an actual right under the Constitution. There is no such right that I know of. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record I'm one of the "I really don't have a huge opposition to gay marriage or 'civil unions' (aka gay marriage), but it just doesn't SEEM like the right way to go to me" crowd. I'll leave it at that.

If it goes, fine. And I think we will see it nation-wide eventually, just like legalized pot, prostitution, etc. Weeeeeeee!

[mevshooter]

I'm not budging on gay marriage, because most of the people on that side of the argument have been infringing on my second amendment rights for longer than the gay marriage movement has been around.

Yes, you're dang right, this is my political ammunition to fight with.

Stay the hell away from my guns, and I will stay the hell out of your bedroom.

Until then, the fight continues.

[Sharpienads]

I'm not budging on gay marriage, because most of the people on that side of the argument have been infringing on my second amendment rights for longer than the gay marriage movement has been around.

Yes, you're dang right, this is my political ammunition to fight with.

Stay the hell away from my guns, and I will stay the hell out of your bedroom.

Until then, the fight continues.

True, but there are better arguments for the 2A than that.

[Sharpienads]

While I agree with most of this, I've read the Constitution many times and don't recall that a US Citizen has a RIGHT to marry anyone but maybe I'm off-base. And maybe I'm being a little anal here, but let's not fall into the liberal trap of making common terms like "right to marry" a regular thing that we all utter like it is an actual right under the Constitution. There is no such right that I know of. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record I'm one of the "I really don't have a huge opposition to gay marriage or 'civil unions' (aka gay marriage), but it just doesn't SEEM like the right way to go to me" crowd. I'll leave it at that.

If it goes, fine. And I think we will see it nation-wide eventually, just like legalized pot, prostitution, etc. Weeeeeeee!

"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

On top of that, the federal government has no power to legislate on marriage. And by getting married you're not infringing on anybody else's rights or making anybody else carry any sort of responsibility for your actions.

I get what you're saying though. But I don't think something like the "right" to healthcare or the "right" to an education is the same as the the right to marry whoever you want.

[GilpinGuy]

"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.

On top of that, the federal government has no power to legislate on marriage. And by getting married you're not infringing on anybody else's rights or making anybody else carry any sort of responsibility for your actions.

I get what you're saying though. But I don't think something like the "right" to healthcare or the "right" to an education is the same asthe the right to marry whoever you want.

None of these things is a right, including the "right to marry whoever you want". The words "marry" or "marriage" are never once mentioned in the US Constitution. Marriage to whoever you want is simply not a "right" granted by the US Constitution.

Again, if I'm off here, someone please correct my Crown and Diet Pepsi basted brain. (yeah, I know...gotta lay off the diet pepsi...)

[Irving]

I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.

Sounds like you should read the Constitution several more times then. One of the very first things that it says is that it is not an exclusive list of rights. I read the Constitution to say that anything that is not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, everything is a right, unless it is specifically stated to not be a right. Right?

[GilpinGuy]

Sounds like you should read the Constitution several more times then. One of the very first things that it says is that it is not an exclusive list of rights. I read the Constitution to say that anything that is not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, everything is a right, unless it is specifically stated to not be a right. Right?

The "not an exclusive list of rights" phrase was meant to mean (in my opinion, and others) that the list can be expanded by amendments, and, therefore, it's not exclusive. It's does not mean "yeah guys, anything else ya'll want in this silly thing we're writing is totally cool too". Why even put that phrase in there in the first place if it didn't have any specific meaning?

I think we're real close on all of this so I don't want to bait you or anything. It just steams me when folks talk about my "right" to do this or that. Some things just aren't "rights". So they shouldn't pretend they are.

If folks want gay marriage to be a "right" under the US Constitution, get it ratified by the States. That's my point.

Do I have a right to marry my dog? It's not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. So why not?

[tmleadr03]

The "not an exclusive list of rights" phrase was meant to mean (in my opinion, and others) that the list can be expanded by amendments, and, therefore, it's not exclusive. It's does not mean "yeah guys, anything else ya'll want in this silly thing we're writing is totally cool too". Why even put that phrase in there in the first place if it didn't have any specific meaning?

I think we're real close on all of this so I don't want to bait you or anything. It just steams me when folks talk about my "right" to do this or that. Some things just aren't "rights". So they shouldn't pretend they are.

If folks want gay marriage to be a "right" under the US Constitution, get it ratified by the States. That's my point.

Do I have a right to marry my dog? It's not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. So why not?

Your argument is flawed. Beastiality is against the law in I believe all the states.