LOL - uh, yeah.
Edit -
I don't know about it being too "risque." But "The first gay president" leaves one with the impression that he himself is gay. Pretty sure that would come as a shock to his wife. lol
Newsweek Calls Obama the 'First Gay President': Did the Magazine Go Too Far?
SodaHead News
2012/05/14 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
832 votes
|
|
61% | |||
|
542 votes
|
|
39% | |||
It was kind of a big deal when Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to openly support gay marriage -- enough for the some to joke that he was "coming out of the closet," so to speak. But Newsweek took it a step further on the cover of this week's issue, dubbing Obama "the first gay president," along with an image of the president under a rainbow halo. It's a striking statement, no matter what side of the conversation you're on. But is it going a little too far?
Andrew Sullivan, an openly gay Newsweek journalist, wrote of Obama's announcement, "Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity — and the humanity of all gay Americans — was, unexpectedly, a watershed." Still, was Newsweek's cover a little too risque?
Andrew Sullivan, an openly gay Newsweek journalist, wrote of Obama's announcement, "Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity — and the humanity of all gay Americans — was, unexpectedly, a watershed." Still, was Newsweek's cover a little too risque?
We seem to have survived okay since then.
Our constitution & the president are supposed to protect the rights of every single American, not this one or that one because he or she wears this or that color tie or donates the most money.
A marriage is a contract. To prevent two willing adults from entering into a contract, because of personal bias is unconstitutional.
This is, the first truly presidential thing he's done that I can fully support. I have disagreed with just about every one of his actions up to this point.
Mr. Obama's statement did not slap anyone. What it did was to support a level playing field for all people's personal, private right to enter into a legal contract. A marriage certificate is issued by the government. Government has no right to prevent anyone from entering into a contract (who is of legal age & is of his/her free will). A marriage certificate does not force a church to perform a wedding ceremony. Were government to force churches to perform wedding ceremonies, that would be an infringement of the right to believe as one chooses. But the issuance of a license should not have any race, creed, color, status or orientation barriers.
Genuine Conservatives do not bother too much about the personal affai...&&&
&
We seem to have survived okay since then.
Our constitution & the president are supposed to protect the rights of every single American, not this one or that one because he or she wears this or that color tie or donates the most money.
A marriage is a contract. To prevent two willing adults from entering into a contract, because of personal bias is unconstitutional.
This is, the first truly presidential thing he's done that I can fully support. I have disagreed with just about every one of his actions up to this point.
Mr. Obama's statement did not slap anyone. What it did was to support a level playing field for all people's personal, private right to enter into a legal contract. A marriage certificate is issued by the government. Government has no right to prevent anyone from entering into a contract (who is of legal age & is of his/her free will). A marriage certificate does not force a church to perform a wedding ceremony. Were government to force churches to perform wedding ceremonies, that would be an infringement of the right to believe as one chooses. But the issuance of a license should not have any race, creed, color, status or orientation barriers.
Genuine Conservatives do not bother too much about the personal affairs of others & do not believe that the federal government should be involved in the personal affairs of the citizenry. Do not be confused between Conservatives & Neoconservatives. Neoconservatives (the bulk of the Republican Party) are interested in controlling the personal lives & actions of the general public via legislation based on their own personal beliefs.
It would behoove everyone if Neoconservatives would stop calling themselves Conservatives. They are not. They do not behave conservatively in government nor generally in their private lives. Learn the differences & then identify yourself appropriately.
Tell Grandpappy Fred and Psycho Shirley that I said hello.
Crap, that means we have something in common...
If anyone is forming weapons against you, it's you.
The point is that marriage licenses are issued by government, not churches. So the government preventing two adults from voluntarily entering into a legal contract is unconstitutional. The President's job is to protect the rights of all citizens, whether or not you or he agrees with them. You see, even though he is black, Mr. Obama must also protect the rights of members of the Aryan Nation, the KKK, etc. because they have the right in our nation, under our constitution to think & believe & live as they choose... right up to the point that they injure someone else... at that point their rights end. The same goes for marriage. As long as government is involved in marriage, it cannot discriminate between adults entering into it of their own free will.
As for God: Let's just let God sort it out, shall we? I don't feel comfortable entrusting judgment of so-called sins to mortals. Jesus said to love all the children, not this or that one. Everyone is a sinner & Jesus loved everyone. The premise of Christianity is to emulate Jesus & follow his teachings. Jesus didn't hate anyone. So, it would be best to allow God to sort out the particulars, not us.
We have a civil code of conduct in our nation that everyone has...&
The point is that marriage licenses are issued by government, not churches. So the government preventing two adults from voluntarily entering into a legal contract is unconstitutional. The President's job is to protect the rights of all citizens, whether or not you or he agrees with them. You see, even though he is black, Mr. Obama must also protect the rights of members of the Aryan Nation, the KKK, etc. because they have the right in our nation, under our constitution to think & believe & live as they choose... right up to the point that they injure someone else... at that point their rights end. The same goes for marriage. As long as government is involved in marriage, it cannot discriminate between adults entering into it of their own free will.
As for God: Let's just let God sort it out, shall we? I don't feel comfortable entrusting judgment of so-called sins to mortals. Jesus said to love all the children, not this or that one. Everyone is a sinner & Jesus loved everyone. The premise of Christianity is to emulate Jesus & follow his teachings. Jesus didn't hate anyone. So, it would be best to allow God to sort out the particulars, not us.
We have a civil code of conduct in our nation that everyone has to abide by. So, unless a person breaks the law, we need to just leave them alone whether we agree with their lifestyle or not. I love my constitution & believe that it should be allowed to rule our land, not individuals.
Christ didn't judge anyone. Christ loved everyone.
Leave the judging up to God & be as much like Christ as you possibly can... if you're a Christian.
Now, regarding our laws:
The United States is a secular nation Our nation might have been formed by religious men & of religious principals, but it is still a secular nation. Our constitution was beautifully written to ensure that people of all beliefs (including lack of belief) would be protected equally. (The only thing I can say personally about The President's statement is that it's about time.)
So, that being said, if you are morally opposed to homosexual marriage, the best thing for you to do is not marry someone of your own gender. But the worst thing you can do (in both the eyes of the law as well as the eyes of Christ) is to judge someone else for his/her choice to do so. It isn't your job. Your job is to be the best person you can be, which does not mean judging others. You might look at someone & decide you do not want to be like him/her, therefore you do not do as he/she does. But it's a good idea to leave the judging up to someone actually qualified to do it. Jesus didn't feel qualified, so how the hell can you possibly think you are?
If you don't like the idea that government protect everyone equally, without discrimination, you are, I'm afraid, living in the wrong nation.
also being for black civil rights makes you a n*gg*r.
And -not- being a holocaust denier makes you a Jew.
Are their lives so mundane that they have to attack those who take a stand.