Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York - Obama Calls For Repeal Of Defense Of Marriage Act

Published on: May 14, 2012 09:31 PM
By: AP
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share
President Barack Obama delivers the commence address at Barnard College, Monday, May 14, 2012, in New York. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)President Barack Obama delivers the commence address at Barnard College, Monday, May 14, 2012, in New York. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

New York - President Barack Obama on Monday defended his view that gay couples should have the right to marry, saying that the country has never gone wrong when it “expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody.”

“That doesn’t weaken families. That strengthens families,” he told gay and lesbian supporters and others at a fundraiser hosted by singer Ricky Martin and the LGBT Leadership Council. “It’s the right thing to do.”

The remarks were his first to such an audience since he announced his personal support for same-sex marriage last week. They came on a day that Obama was making a targeted appeal to three core voting blocs — women, young people, and gays and lesbians. He gave a commencement address to Barnard College, a women’s college, and taped an interview on “The View,” a popular day-time talk show aimed at women.

Advertisement:

Democrats hope Obama’s politically risky embrace of gay marriage will re-energize supporters who had been frustrated by his previous assertions that his views on the hot-button social issue were “evolving.”

Women, young people and gay voters all made up crucial voting blocs for Obama in the 2008 election. With the president locked in a close race with Republican rival Mitt Romney, his campaign is focused on rallying support among those groups once again.

“At root, so much of this has to do with a belief that not only are we all in this together but all of us are equal in terms of dignity and in terms of respect, and everybody deserves a shot,” he told about 200 supporters at the fundraising event.

Obama also called for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. His administration has refused to defend the law in court challenges, and while Obama has voiced support for its repeal before, he specifically listed repeal as a goal.

Romney has said he believes that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Although Obama did not mention Romney’s stance, he cast his challenger as a “rubber stamp” for congressional Republicans and cited his 2008 opponent, Sen. John McCain, as a far more independent Republican who believed in climate change and in the need for overhauling the immigration system.

“What we’ve got this time out is a candidate who’s said he would basically rubber stamp the Republican Congress and who wants us to go backwards and not forward,” Obama said.

Earlier in the day, during his address at Barnard, Obama urged the graduates to fight for their place at “the head of the table” and help lead a country still battered by economic woes toward brighter days. “I believe that the women of this generation will help lead the way,” he said.

The president’s choice of Barnard as his first commencement address of the spring underscored the intense focus both candidates have placed on women. An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted earlier this month showed Obama with a sizable advantage over Romney with women voters, 54 percent to 39 percent.

Obama acknowledged that today’s college graduates are entering a shaky job market. To those who say overcoming the nation’s challenges isn’t possible, Obama said, “Don’t believe it.” He told the graduates that if they ever despair, they should think of the country’s history and what young generations before them have achieved.

“Young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall they didn’t just do it for themselves, they did it for other people,” Obama said. “That’s how we achieved women’s rights, that’s how we achieved voting rights, that’s how we achieved workers’ rights, that’s how we achieved gay rights, that’s how we’ve made this union more perfect.”

After the speech, Obama taped an appearance on ABC’s “The View,” which was to air Tuesday. When asked if he would personally fight to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, he replied, “Well, look, Congress is clearly on notice that I think it’s a bad idea.” He also pointed to the $2 billion loss in high-risk trading at JPMorgan Chase to reiterate the need for Wall Street reforms.

Tickets for the fundraiser hosted by Martin and the LGBT Leadership Council started at $5,000 per person.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that about half of those surveyed say Obama’s support for same-sex marriage does not affect their opinion of the president, with about one-fourth saying they feel less favorably toward him and 19 percent feeling more favorably.

There was a big disparity between older and younger adults surveyed, indicating a more intensely negative reaction among older Americans. Forty-two percent of people over the age of 65 said they viewed the president less favorably because of his decision, while 62 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 said Obama’s announcement did not affect their opinion.


More of today's headlines

New York - The Coca-Cola Co. is giving mid-calorie sodas another try, this time with Sprite and Fanta. The Atlanta-based company says it will test a "Sprite Select"... Central Valley, NY - The race for three Monroe-Woodbury school board seats next week has veered in an unlikely direction, with one board member contending in a widely...

 

Total51

Read Comments (51)  —  Post Yours »

2

 May 14, 2012 at 09:41 PM Anonymous Says:

Guy is as "krum" as a person gets. He could try to convince and manipulate the public but americans aren't foolish and stupid like in the past. We learned from our mistakes and will NOT vote for him in nov!

3

 May 14, 2012 at 09:51 PM shredready Says:

why not make a law for civil union for gays marriage for men and woman

4

 May 14, 2012 at 09:52 PM MidwesternGuy Says:

This is the definition of "doubling down" . Recently, it was reported that one in six top Democratic bundlers (the real money people) identify as being gay. Yet, when voters go to the polls, each and every state, even California, turns down gay marriage.

Looks like the gays are the real 1 percent that control the Democratic agenda.

5

 May 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM BubbyB Says:

I agree with Anonymous' first sentence, but unfortunately he/she is mistaken on the rest. "Americans", does not necessarily equal Orthodox Jews. And unfortunately there are too many in the general public, and even among Conservative, Reform, and Unaffiliated Jews who are just as stupid if not stupider than in the past. I also wonder where our leaders are. The President was in NY today, causing a tumul and gridlock alert. Why weren't there strong groups of protestors out there to show him the feelings of those of us who still posess some degree of brains/morality???
The screaming should be done where there is a need to influence the President and the Public. Screaming at congregants/Talmidim about these issues is misplaced, unless you get them to rise to action.

6

 May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM enlightened-yid Says:

Your ancestors did! You are an offspring of non traditional marriage if you don't forget that Adam's children "married" each other because there were no other humans on the planet. And don't forget the "scandalous" tryst that happened on Noah's Ark to repopulate this planet.

7

 May 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM Anonymous Says:

Be serious! This has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the election. This is genius. He is controlling the election process right now and rallying the liberal base to his cause. He now has 10x the cash Romney has, and the young demographic especially, whom he needs for the election and who were distraught over the economy, have rallied to his side.

He is on track right now to win in November, unless Romney takes command of the situation.

8

 May 14, 2012 at 10:25 PM Anonymous Says:

Hey gevald. His two beautiful daughters are as straight as you are hateful and meshugah. Too bad your girls will find it so difficult to find any normal bochurim who will want to marry them once they find out who their prospective father-in-law might be.

9

 May 14, 2012 at 10:28 PM Babishka Says:

Reply to #3  
shredready Says:

why not make a law for civil union for gays marriage for men and woman

Gay couples should have the same rights as male/female couples for all legal purposes. Civil union is legally not the same as marriage.

10

 May 14, 2012 at 11:08 PM Shula Says:

This November is our last chance to prevent the fall into the United States of Sodom and Gomora

11

 May 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM gitgezogt Says:

Reply to #2  
Anonymous Says:

Guy is as "krum" as a person gets. He could try to convince and manipulate the public but americans aren't foolish and stupid like in the past. We learned from our mistakes and will NOT vote for him in nov!

Americans are stupid that's the problem, you can show then the truth again and again and again and still won't chap

12

 May 15, 2012 at 05:16 AM Reb Yid Says:

Reply to #9  
Babishka Says:

Gay couples should have the same rights as male/female couples for all legal purposes. Civil union is legally not the same as marriage.

Is that the Torah's opinion, or is that what the goyim taught you to say?

13

 May 15, 2012 at 12:42 AM MidwesternGuy Says:

Reply to #11  
gitgezogt Says:

Americans are stupid that's the problem, you can show then the truth again and again and again and still won't chap

Only Democrats believe that Americans are stupid. That's why they believe that only a political "elite" should make up rules for everyone else. The opposite is true, and gay marriage is proof.

Regardless of what a few Washington elites say, the vast majority of Americans are smart, as evidenced by their votes against gay marriage. In 32 out of 32 states where gay marriage was on the ballot, including California, the American voters have turned it down each and every time. Americans are smart, at least when it comes to this issue.

I have a feeling that the silent majority will yet rise again in November.

14

 May 15, 2012 at 01:04 AM Respect Says:

For the record, I don't support same gender marriage, nor do I believe the government should be in the business of defining marriage if it has religious connotations and associations. Just call it all civil unions, and let us practice our religion as we would like.

As for many of the other commenters - disagreeing with someone doesn't make them stupid. This is not how adults disagree or discuss issues. Being gay doesn't make one incestuous or a pedophile. This is something that nearly half of the country supports in a growing trend. It's time we learned to address this issue rationally and not with hatred, name calling or by trying to place our religious attitudes on others. The idea of everyone having an "agenda" and mass conspiracy are simply not real. Do Jews have an agenda? Is there a massive Jewish conspiracy? Not that I know of. Neither to do they.

The concept of a free democratic society suggests that everyone should have certain freedoms, even if we don't agree with them. If you disagree and want these freedoms removed, prepare for govt attacks on torah observance.

15

 May 15, 2012 at 05:02 AM The_Beadle Says:

Reply to #10  
Shula Says:

This November is our last chance to prevent the fall into the United States of Sodom and Gomora

Allowing gays to marry will not make one person more gay than they already are

16

 May 15, 2012 at 07:00 AM Anonymous Says:

Did anyone notice that the picture accompanying this article is very cleverly shot to imply he's an angel or a saint? The Barnard College symbol behind him appears like a halo. Very, very clever subliminal "advertising." Would they do the same for a pic of Mitt? Umm, no. This shot, while maybe not staged, was deliberately chosen to go with the article...ergo, Obama is a "saint" for his views on gay marriage.

Get it? That's how his people work. Make their boy look good at every opportunity. Mitt's people must do the same thing.

17

 May 15, 2012 at 07:17 AM Avreich1 Says:

Reply to #10  
Shula Says:

This November is our last chance to prevent the fall into the United States of Sodom and Gomora

Unfortunately, Shula, I think you are mistaken. In some form or another, this story is going to run and run.

18

 May 15, 2012 at 07:18 AM What do you think Says:

Is it "hisgaros b'imos" if we demonstrate and heckle the President on the issue of gay immorality when he comes to New York? Will he became a sonay yisroel?

19

 May 15, 2012 at 08:12 AM Anonymous Says:

I think you are going to find that the ultra orthodox view of anti-gay marriage is on the wrong side of history.

20

 May 15, 2012 at 08:40 AM The Torah Says Says:

The Torah is the blueprint for the world and if the Torah calls certain acts Abominations, then they are and there is no arguing about that. Of course there are many who don't uphold the laws of the Torah and that's another problem. So there is no argument for gay couples,no matter if it is called marriage or a different kind of union. It is wrong.

21

 May 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
shredready Says:

why not make a law for civil union for gays marriage for men and woman

because "separate but equal" was determined to be unconstitutional.

I think the law should just accommodate civil unions for everyone. Let marriage be defined by one's religion.

22

 May 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #9  
Babishka Says:

Gay couples should have the same rights as male/female couples for all legal purposes. Civil union is legally not the same as marriage.

You make a decent point, but framing it that way is not OK.

At the end of the day marriage is a religious institution. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The government should ONLY allow "personal unions". This would allow any two consenting adults of any age, gender, or otherwise to enjoin their lives. This would allow the person to make medical decisions, have rights around survivorship and inheritance, etc. It could be two elderly, widowed sisters who decide to be the "partner" of the other. You afford them all the rights and privileges that today's "married" couples enjoy.

Leave marriage to the religious institutions. The government shouldn't be involved in religious institutions anyway.

That is the only way forward to get past this issue. Our nation (contrary to what Limbaugh and Hannity may tell you) is becoming more and more LIBERAL on this issue. It is only a matter of time as there is no "civil" reason for it not to be. As for the idiots who keep saying it will lead to people marrying turtles, that argument was made 50 years ago when whites marrying blacks was said to lead to "men marrying their dogs". It won't fly this time.

23

 May 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM Nobody Says:

Reply to #6  
enlightened-yid Says:

Your ancestors did! You are an offspring of non traditional marriage if you don't forget that Adam's children "married" each other because there were no other humans on the planet. And don't forget the "scandalous" tryst that happened on Noah's Ark to repopulate this planet.

What are you babbling about? If Adam's daughters were not marrying men, we wouldn't be here.

As the Gemara says (according to some rishonim), "Olem Chesed Yiboneh" The world was built with the shame of a brother and sister marrying each other. Noah's ark was populated by unrelated husbands and wives (three pairs ended up having children, Noah and his wife did not). Cham's behavior didn't change the outcome.

24

 May 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM TheDoctor Says:

Reply to #19  
Anonymous Says:

I think you are going to find that the ultra orthodox view of anti-gay marriage is on the wrong side of history.

historically there was no gay marriage so being pro gay marriage is being on the wrong side of history

25

 May 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #24  
TheDoctor Says:

historically there was no gay marriage so being pro gay marriage is being on the wrong side of history

There was no ice cream either, but we are not making that comparison.

26

 May 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #24  
TheDoctor Says:

historically there was no gay marriage so being pro gay marriage is being on the wrong side of history

Historically, Minorities and Women were not allowed to vote, so I take it, supporting their right to vote places one on the wrong side of history. While we are at it, "historically" polygamy and child-brides were common place, so opposing these practices must be ahistorical.

27

 May 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM grandpajoe Says:

Any jew that votes for Obama - is sticking a knife in the Jewish community - nothing more to be said.

28

 May 15, 2012 at 01:36 PM ShmuelG Says:

Reply to #22  
PMOinFL Says:

You make a decent point, but framing it that way is not OK.

At the end of the day marriage is a religious institution. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The government should ONLY allow "personal unions". This would allow any two consenting adults of any age, gender, or otherwise to enjoin their lives. This would allow the person to make medical decisions, have rights around survivorship and inheritance, etc. It could be two elderly, widowed sisters who decide to be the "partner" of the other. You afford them all the rights and privileges that today's "married" couples enjoy.

Leave marriage to the religious institutions. The government shouldn't be involved in religious institutions anyway.

That is the only way forward to get past this issue. Our nation (contrary to what Limbaugh and Hannity may tell you) is becoming more and more LIBERAL on this issue. It is only a matter of time as there is no "civil" reason for it not to be. As for the idiots who keep saying it will lead to people marrying turtles, that argument was made 50 years ago when whites marrying blacks was said to lead to "men marrying their dogs". It won't fly this time.

"allow any two consenting adults of any age, gender, or otherwise to enjoin their lives."

Then why not three? Or 6? Or 19?

29

 May 15, 2012 at 02:44 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #28  
ShmuelG Says:

"allow any two consenting adults of any age, gender, or otherwise to enjoin their lives."

Then why not three? Or 6? Or 19?

From a purely "civil" perspective, there should be no difference. If people want to legally enjoin their lives, so be it. It is like forming a corporation. The government should have no moral, religious, or other role in the relationships of free individuals... sexual, platonic, familial, or otherwise. This is about a government recognized "contractual entity".

30

 May 15, 2012 at 03:06 PM ShmuelG Says:

Reply to #29  
PMOinFL Says:

From a purely "civil" perspective, there should be no difference. If people want to legally enjoin their lives, so be it. It is like forming a corporation. The government should have no moral, religious, or other role in the relationships of free individuals... sexual, platonic, familial, or otherwise. This is about a government recognized "contractual entity".

Yes, if we lived in a purely libertarian state, perhaps. But we live in a country where the government either provides its subjects with cradle to grave benefits, or mandates that the third parties, such as employers, do, and it's getting worse. So, suppose I was still employed by a company, the way I used to be. Would I be able to 'enjoin' with every yid who I know and who needs health insurance, and then claim them as my domestic partners to be covered?

31

 May 15, 2012 at 03:24 PM Lawyer Says:

Reply to #29  
PMOinFL Says:

From a purely "civil" perspective, there should be no difference. If people want to legally enjoin their lives, so be it. It is like forming a corporation. The government should have no moral, religious, or other role in the relationships of free individuals... sexual, platonic, familial, or otherwise. This is about a government recognized "contractual entity".

What is wrong with your post is that you are degrading marriage into nothing more than a convenient arrangement -- like a business partnership or corporation.

That is not the Torah hashkafa. At the very creation of man, God made man and woman, and created the institution of marriage, as we are told in the possuk in Bereishis 2:18-24. In fact, the last verse (al kein yaazov ish) is the source for forbidden relationships, including adultery, for all humanity, Jews and non-Jews.

That is not even talking about the sanctity of marriage for Jews and its central place as the means to transmit our tradition.

This is precisely how recognizing same-gender marriage degrades marriage in general -- it goes from a God-instituted idea built into the very creation of Man, to nothing but a convenient arrangement, like a business partnership, to which we can always come up with new arrangements (corporations, LLPs, LLCs, etc. etc.)

32

 May 15, 2012 at 06:38 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #30  
ShmuelG Says:

Yes, if we lived in a purely libertarian state, perhaps. But we live in a country where the government either provides its subjects with cradle to grave benefits, or mandates that the third parties, such as employers, do, and it's getting worse. So, suppose I was still employed by a company, the way I used to be. Would I be able to 'enjoin' with every yid who I know and who needs health insurance, and then claim them as my domestic partners to be covered?

That would be up to the terms of your insurance policy. The free and open market will decide how that is handled. That has nothing to do with the high-level issue here.

33

 May 15, 2012 at 06:05 PM Shula Says:

Reply to #27  
grandpajoe Says:

Any jew that votes for Obama - is sticking a knife in the Jewish community - nothing more to be said.

Exactly. Don't Orthodox "libertarians" on this site understand that the whole push for homosexual marriage "marriage" will ultimately unravel the fabric of our society? CIvil unions will not do for homosexual activists. It is not the rights they crave, and they definitely don't crave responsibilities. It is the word and the very notion of marriage they are after. Churches are already sued in Arkansas for discriminating against same-sex couples. Synagogue will be sued too. And you will live to see the day when the Torah will be declared "hate speech" because it says that practicing homosexuality is an abomination. Incidentally, has anyone even thought why everyone insists on referring to homosexuals (a scientific term, after all) as gays? To cover up the meaning of the word; this is called using a euphemism. Homosexuality as the norm - isn't that part of what was wrong with sodomites? And here, on a presumably Jewish Orthodox saite, presumably religious Jews claim it's OK to "marry" two "homosexuals.".

34

 May 15, 2012 at 08:33 PM blind leading the blind Says:

What everyone seems to be missing is that Gays already HAVE the same exact rights we all do, they just choose not to exercise those rights. they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as I do.

Because they choose not to do so gives them no right to change this equation any more than I have the right to marry four women just because I want to. That's not my RIGHT, that is my preference. If I claimed my rights were being abrogated because I am not allowed to commit to a group marriage under the law does not mean that I am really being deprived of equal rights.

What everyone, up to and including Obama doesn't comprehend is that preferences and rights are not the same thing. Again, Gay people already have the same, equal rights to mine. They just do not choose to exercise those rights.

For some reason, no one seems to understand this, but if I said I don't enjoy a hamburger without a piece of cheese on it, I want to change the din so I have a right to my preference just as you have the right not to put cheese on your burger, everyone would immediately criticize me that OF COURSE I am not entitled to or have a right to change the law because of my PREFERENCE!

35

 May 16, 2012 at 12:50 AM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #34  
blind leading the blind Says:

What everyone seems to be missing is that Gays already HAVE the same exact rights we all do, they just choose not to exercise those rights. they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as I do.

Because they choose not to do so gives them no right to change this equation any more than I have the right to marry four women just because I want to. That's not my RIGHT, that is my preference. If I claimed my rights were being abrogated because I am not allowed to commit to a group marriage under the law does not mean that I am really being deprived of equal rights.

What everyone, up to and including Obama doesn't comprehend is that preferences and rights are not the same thing. Again, Gay people already have the same, equal rights to mine. They just do not choose to exercise those rights.

For some reason, no one seems to understand this, but if I said I don't enjoy a hamburger without a piece of cheese on it, I want to change the din so I have a right to my preference just as you have the right not to put cheese on your burger, everyone would immediately criticize me that OF COURSE I am not entitled to or have a right to change the law because of my PREFERENCE!

While this argument always sounds good coming from xian fundamentalists sitting in guest chairs on Hannity's show and other such places, it doesn't hold water.

Here's the proof:

60 years ago, it was the LAW in many parts of the United States that whites could only marry whites and blacks could only marry blacks. Some used your silly argument to say:

"The law says you can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of your race. Then we all have the same rights!"

Obviously that sounds ridiculous today, but 60 years ago, it was the law in the majority of the states in this nation.

The point of civil rights is to say that every law should apply equally to every PERSON, regardless of gender, sex, religion, race, etc. In that case, denying two people the right to enjoin in a government sanctioned contract purely on the basis of gender, would be wrong.

Your argument was made in the 50's by racist animals who should rot in hell. You're repeating it makes you just as ignorant.

Gay marriage is 100% against halacha and that will never change, but at least keep the debate logical and honest please. Ignorance like yours HURTS our cause. TORAH is the only valid arugment to be made.

36

 May 16, 2012 at 08:59 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #35  
PMOinFL Says:

While this argument always sounds good coming from xian fundamentalists sitting in guest chairs on Hannity's show and other such places, it doesn't hold water.

Here's the proof:

60 years ago, it was the LAW in many parts of the United States that whites could only marry whites and blacks could only marry blacks. Some used your silly argument to say:

"The law says you can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of your race. Then we all have the same rights!"

Obviously that sounds ridiculous today, but 60 years ago, it was the law in the majority of the states in this nation.

The point of civil rights is to say that every law should apply equally to every PERSON, regardless of gender, sex, religion, race, etc. In that case, denying two people the right to enjoin in a government sanctioned contract purely on the basis of gender, would be wrong.

Your argument was made in the 50's by racist animals who should rot in hell. You're repeating it makes you just as ignorant.

Gay marriage is 100% against halacha and that will never change, but at least keep the debate logical and honest please. Ignorance like yours HURTS our cause. TORAH is the only valid arugment to be made.

thank you for calling me a racist animal who should rot in Hell.

I guess it is true that when you have a case, you attack the facts, when you don't, you atttack the speaker.

Your comparison is ridiculous. not marrying different races was not argued by such a stupid example as yours. And I will point out that your logic is further flawed in that according to your exact quote, I should be able to claim a right to marry an already married woman (I mean person), since y claim your argument applies to EVERY person.

I do not have the RIGHT to marry a minor. I do NOT have the right to marry a close relative. I do not have the right to marry four people, because that is my preference. I do NOT have the RIGHT to marry anyone I want just because I want to.You believe you should not be able to marry your sister. Why not, if I choose to marry mine? You believe that I should not marry a minor. Why not, if that i my sexual preference? What makes your sexual preference more acceptable than mine?

Your argument is ignorant, and insulting me doesn't make you any smarter. There are certain things that ARE denied by government based on gender. I can't use a women's restroom, I can't, as

37

 May 16, 2012 at 09:07 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #35  
PMOinFL Says:

While this argument always sounds good coming from xian fundamentalists sitting in guest chairs on Hannity's show and other such places, it doesn't hold water.

Here's the proof:

60 years ago, it was the LAW in many parts of the United States that whites could only marry whites and blacks could only marry blacks. Some used your silly argument to say:

"The law says you can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of your race. Then we all have the same rights!"

Obviously that sounds ridiculous today, but 60 years ago, it was the law in the majority of the states in this nation.

The point of civil rights is to say that every law should apply equally to every PERSON, regardless of gender, sex, religion, race, etc. In that case, denying two people the right to enjoin in a government sanctioned contract purely on the basis of gender, would be wrong.

Your argument was made in the 50's by racist animals who should rot in hell. You're repeating it makes you just as ignorant.

Gay marriage is 100% against halacha and that will never change, but at least keep the debate logical and honest please. Ignorance like yours HURTS our cause. TORAH is the only valid arugment to be made.

interesting that you consider people "racist animals who should die in Hell".

Are you aware that there is a large part of the black community that is violently against Black men and women marrying whites? Who are you to call them or me ani,mals that deserve to die because of what we believe?

Do you agree that we Jews should be killed because Muslims believe they were instructed to kill us for religious reasons? I mean, they have a right to practice their religion, right?

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

You want to live with your lover, go ahead. you want to marry him, go ahead. But don't you dare try to force me to accept, condone and pay for that preference of yours that I consider immoral, unless you willing to be bound by every rule or din I think is the right way to live. Quid pro quo.

38

 May 16, 2012 at 09:10 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #35  
PMOinFL Says:

While this argument always sounds good coming from xian fundamentalists sitting in guest chairs on Hannity's show and other such places, it doesn't hold water.

Here's the proof:

60 years ago, it was the LAW in many parts of the United States that whites could only marry whites and blacks could only marry blacks. Some used your silly argument to say:

"The law says you can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of your race. Then we all have the same rights!"

Obviously that sounds ridiculous today, but 60 years ago, it was the law in the majority of the states in this nation.

The point of civil rights is to say that every law should apply equally to every PERSON, regardless of gender, sex, religion, race, etc. In that case, denying two people the right to enjoin in a government sanctioned contract purely on the basis of gender, would be wrong.

Your argument was made in the 50's by racist animals who should rot in hell. You're repeating it makes you just as ignorant.

Gay marriage is 100% against halacha and that will never change, but at least keep the debate logical and honest please. Ignorance like yours HURTS our cause. TORAH is the only valid arugment to be made.

Sorry I can't really read past the first line of your comment wihtout laughing. Anyone ignorant enough to have to write "xtian" instead of Christian is far too ignorant to discuss about anything with.

You also seem to misunderstand the word "proof". It does NOT mean YOUR opinion.

39

 May 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #37  
Anonymous Says:

interesting that you consider people "racist animals who should die in Hell".

Are you aware that there is a large part of the black community that is violently against Black men and women marrying whites? Who are you to call them or me ani,mals that deserve to die because of what we believe?

Do you agree that we Jews should be killed because Muslims believe they were instructed to kill us for religious reasons? I mean, they have a right to practice their religion, right?

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

You want to live with your lover, go ahead. you want to marry him, go ahead. But don't you dare try to force me to accept, condone and pay for that preference of yours that I consider immoral, unless you willing to be bound by every rule or din I think is the right way to live. Quid pro quo.

1. Yes. I am aware that there are vile, disgusting, racist black people who are against interracial marriage. So what? There are vile disgusting people in every group.

2. I didn't call you an animal, or say you deserved to die. I said you were ignorant. I said racist seditionists are animals who deserve to die (black or white). Unless of course you agree with government mandated sedition, then you can certainly feel free to join them.

3. Your comparison to muslims is just insane. We are talking about GOVERNMENT LAWS, not religious doctrine (which you are wrong about anyway). You want government enforcement of religious doctrine? That is not now nor has it ever been an American value or virtue... in fact, the opposite is true.

4. Your last statement is the most ignorant of all. You already accept all sorts of immoral behavior. Women who don't go to mikvah, the sexually promiscuous, Jews who defile shabbos, etc. Do you support the government banning chabad shuls because Jews drive to them on shabbos?

Again, gay marriage is 100% prohibited and an affront to H" and his Torah, but you only empower the extreme left by being so incredibly ignorant and dishonest.

40

 May 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #38  
Anonymous Says:

Sorry I can't really read past the first line of your comment wihtout laughing. Anyone ignorant enough to have to write "xtian" instead of Christian is far too ignorant to discuss about anything with.

You also seem to misunderstand the word "proof". It does NOT mean YOUR opinion.

Forgive me, but in settings where it would not be deemed offensive, that's the way we write it in my community since I was a young boy. Obviously you would know that if you were actually Jewish (or at least Orthodox).

I didn't give opinion. I gave a parallel.

You said that people already have equal rights because: every man can marry any woman and vice versa.

At one time the law was: any man can marry any woman of the same race and vice versa.

People made the EXACT same argument you made.

So, by your logic (of which there is none present that I can find), you would have agreed with the seditionists, because the law was "equal" in the same way you claim the current law is "equal".

Your flawed reasoning was also used by the racist seditionists. That is FACT.

Because you use lies and manipulation to make your point, you lose. You're too ignorant to understand the Torah position on this issue, which is all that matters to Jews. Your arguments are based solely on man's laws which are inherently flawed and that's why your "logic" doesn't hold up.

At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

41

 May 16, 2012 at 01:00 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #36  
Anonymous Says:

thank you for calling me a racist animal who should rot in Hell.

I guess it is true that when you have a case, you attack the facts, when you don't, you atttack the speaker.

Your comparison is ridiculous. not marrying different races was not argued by such a stupid example as yours. And I will point out that your logic is further flawed in that according to your exact quote, I should be able to claim a right to marry an already married woman (I mean person), since y claim your argument applies to EVERY person.

I do not have the RIGHT to marry a minor. I do NOT have the right to marry a close relative. I do not have the right to marry four people, because that is my preference. I do NOT have the RIGHT to marry anyone I want just because I want to.You believe you should not be able to marry your sister. Why not, if I choose to marry mine? You believe that I should not marry a minor. Why not, if that i my sexual preference? What makes your sexual preference more acceptable than mine?

Your argument is ignorant, and insulting me doesn't make you any smarter. There are certain things that ARE denied by government based on gender. I can't use a women's restroom, I can't, as

I was waiting for you to make the "people will want to marry turtles" argument.

1. Marriage, under US law, is the enjoining of two people of opposite gender into one, single entity. By it's definition, it discriminates based on gender. That is factually TRUE. The question is whether such discrimination is constitutional.

2. Actually, in most states minors CAN get married as early as age 13 under certain circumstances including here in Florida. I cannot argue this point with you because you are obviously incredibly ignorant here. This issue was left to the states. It has no bearing at the Federal level.

3. You try to argue "preference". That is a fools path. The argument over the legal definition of "marriage" is whether it is inherently discriminatory by having gender requirements. It has nothing to do with "preferences", and nobody is arguing that it is ONE person enjoining with ONE person.

How sad for you that you put your faith in the laws of man over the laws of H". I can only assume that you are either not Jewish, or minimally not Orthodox. One day I hope you abandon your worship of man's laws and find truth in H" and the laws of His Torah.

42

 May 16, 2012 at 03:51 PM ShmuelG Says:

Reply to #32  
PMOinFL Says:

That would be up to the terms of your insurance policy. The free and open market will decide how that is handled. That has nothing to do with the high-level issue here.

This is as silly retort as I saw you make and you make very silly (and often deranged) retorts all the time.

It is not up to a third party insurer to decide who and what to cover. For example, starting in 2012, the insurance companies are mandated (for MOs in Florida, that means forced) by the "interpreters" of Obamacare to cover employee's dependents up to the age of 26, which also includes same-sex life partners and adopted children. That also means that employers, such as my partners and I, who are still willing to provide health insurance to their employees, are forced to subsidize that kind of coverage. (Is it going to influence our hiring decisions? Well...)

You maintain that anybody should be able to "enjoin" with any number of "life partners" they wish. When confronted with reality of that stupid position, all you can offer is "let the free market sort it out."

43

 May 16, 2012 at 04:40 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #19  
Anonymous Says:

I think you are going to find that the ultra orthodox view of anti-gay marriage is on the wrong side of history.

if we were interested in what goyiem thought we never would have outlive the pro toaivah Greek and Roman empire.

44

 May 16, 2012 at 11:06 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #40  
PMOinFL Says:

Forgive me, but in settings where it would not be deemed offensive, that's the way we write it in my community since I was a young boy. Obviously you would know that if you were actually Jewish (or at least Orthodox).

I didn't give opinion. I gave a parallel.

You said that people already have equal rights because: every man can marry any woman and vice versa.

At one time the law was: any man can marry any woman of the same race and vice versa.

People made the EXACT same argument you made.

So, by your logic (of which there is none present that I can find), you would have agreed with the seditionists, because the law was "equal" in the same way you claim the current law is "equal".

Your flawed reasoning was also used by the racist seditionists. That is FACT.

Because you use lies and manipulation to make your point, you lose. You're too ignorant to understand the Torah position on this issue, which is all that matters to Jews. Your arguments are based solely on man's laws which are inherently flawed and that's why your "logic" doesn't hold up.

At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

You're an idiot with whom it does not pay to spend any time arguing. But for those morons who buy your screed, Il point out that you are incorrect on your most important point,, when you claim that you are against gay marriage because Gd says so.

Gd never said anything about gay marriage. Nor would he, I believe. His prohibition has nothing to do with marriage. In fact, even a gay relationship is not necessarily prohibited. the only thing prohibited is sex between two men. whether they are married or not makes no difference to them, and, I believe, to Gd. If two gay men had a relationship that did not include physical intimacy, or even a marriage that did, they would not be doing anything against the Torah.

So while I am 100% against it, your moronic comment that Gd bans Gay marriage is nonsense. He bans gay sex. and prohibiting gay marriage will not in any way diminish gay sex.

Oh, yes, one more thing you're wrong about: I am a lifelong shtiebel yid, FFB, and am now a senior citizen, and have lived almost all my life in Boro Park, as opposed to your Florida, apparently, based on you, land of the heathens and ignoramuses.

45

 May 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #40  
PMOinFL Says:

Forgive me, but in settings where it would not be deemed offensive, that's the way we write it in my community since I was a young boy. Obviously you would know that if you were actually Jewish (or at least Orthodox).

I didn't give opinion. I gave a parallel.

You said that people already have equal rights because: every man can marry any woman and vice versa.

At one time the law was: any man can marry any woman of the same race and vice versa.

People made the EXACT same argument you made.

So, by your logic (of which there is none present that I can find), you would have agreed with the seditionists, because the law was "equal" in the same way you claim the current law is "equal".

Your flawed reasoning was also used by the racist seditionists. That is FACT.

Because you use lies and manipulation to make your point, you lose. You're too ignorant to understand the Torah position on this issue, which is all that matters to Jews. Your arguments are based solely on man's laws which are inherently flawed and that's why your "logic" doesn't hold up.

At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

I am Jewish, and your explanation that "Christian" is an offensive word is as funny as the minhag some people hold not to use the word "bread" during all of Pesach. Grow up!

However, more importantly, you're an idiot extremist if you claim that all racists are "animals who deserve to rot in Hell", and apparently have severe mental problems that obviously drive you to react to things way, WAY out of proportion to reality and in a very exaggerated way.

Seek professional help. Quickly!

46

 May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #43  
Anonymous Says:

if we were interested in what goyiem thought we never would have outlive the pro toaivah Greek and Roman empire.

your argument is not at all logical, and your comment is not at all grammatical.

47

 May 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #40  
PMOinFL Says:

Forgive me, but in settings where it would not be deemed offensive, that's the way we write it in my community since I was a young boy. Obviously you would know that if you were actually Jewish (or at least Orthodox).

I didn't give opinion. I gave a parallel.

You said that people already have equal rights because: every man can marry any woman and vice versa.

At one time the law was: any man can marry any woman of the same race and vice versa.

People made the EXACT same argument you made.

So, by your logic (of which there is none present that I can find), you would have agreed with the seditionists, because the law was "equal" in the same way you claim the current law is "equal".

Your flawed reasoning was also used by the racist seditionists. That is FACT.

Because you use lies and manipulation to make your point, you lose. You're too ignorant to understand the Torah position on this issue, which is all that matters to Jews. Your arguments are based solely on man's laws which are inherently flawed and that's why your "logic" doesn't hold up.

At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

PMOinFL Says: At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

You are absolutely incorrect, and the other commenter is completely correct. There is nothing in the Torah that prohibits gay marriage. I defy you to show me where you got that from.

The Torah prohibition is against actual homosexual sex, and again, I defy you to give me any rational explanation for your belief that gay marriage will have any effect on how much gay sex gay men will indulge in.

Since gay marriage cannot be shown to increase gay physical relations, what is your basis for your claim that the Torah prohibits or even cares about gay marriage?

48

 May 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM lego606 Says:

Reply to #3  
shredready Says:

why not make a law for civil union for gays marriage for men and woman

Have you heard of the term "separate but unequal"?

49

 May 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM gayjew Says:

Reply to #47  
Anonymous Says:

PMOinFL Says: At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

You are absolutely incorrect, and the other commenter is completely correct. There is nothing in the Torah that prohibits gay marriage. I defy you to show me where you got that from.

The Torah prohibition is against actual homosexual sex, and again, I defy you to give me any rational explanation for your belief that gay marriage will have any effect on how much gay sex gay men will indulge in.

Since gay marriage cannot be shown to increase gay physical relations, what is your basis for your claim that the Torah prohibits or even cares about gay marriage?

Exactly!

50

 May 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #46  
Anonymous Says:

your argument is not at all logical, and your comment is not at all grammatical.

Jew were made fun of in Roman times for not allowing mishkav zachar relations.

but christianity (a religion largely based on Judaism) changed the Roman Empire into a empire that fit more in line with the 7 mitzvos.

we were on the right side of history then by being against mishkav zachar and we'll be on the right side of history now.

see # 19
and no it not the ultra-Orthodox position but the Orthodox position.

51

 May 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #49  
gayjew Says:

Exactly!

do you consider yourself Shomer Torah umitzos?

if yes then don't call your self gay-jew but person who is fighting the yeter harah for mishkav zachar.
you cant be a Jew and be a part of a anti Torah community.

if no get of this site and leave your propaganda to gay web sites.

52

 May 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #47  
Anonymous Says:

PMOinFL Says: At the end of the day we are against gay marriage because H" says so. That's it. No Jew needs any other reason.

You are absolutely incorrect, and the other commenter is completely correct. There is nothing in the Torah that prohibits gay marriage. I defy you to show me where you got that from.

The Torah prohibition is against actual homosexual sex, and again, I defy you to give me any rational explanation for your belief that gay marriage will have any effect on how much gay sex gay men will indulge in.

Since gay marriage cannot be shown to increase gay physical relations, what is your basis for your claim that the Torah prohibits or even cares about gay marriage?

"gay marriage" is ASSURed in the sifrah on the pasuk of toavahs miztraim

53

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!