I think my favorite part of Obama and his relationship with gays is that DADT was originally going to be repealed via Log cabin republicans vs the US government until the Obama administration ordered an injuction so that they could repeal and take credit for the repeal months later. 

This whole topic could be null and void by getting government out of the marriage business in the first place. I for one don't 'condone' gay marriage just as I don't support polygamy BUT there is NOTHING in our constitution regarding marriage and therefore I can't by conscious support laws to deny anyone to be 'married'. In fact having states recognize a marriage at all is ridiculous and only serves as a revenue source through licensing fees.
For all the legalities surrounding marriage like divorce and probate etc. contract law is more than sufficient to work out issues with marriages.

As far as I know there is NO law keeping any church or minister or whom ever from performing a marriage ceremony for gays. What homosexuals need to realize is this militant aggressive call for exceptions to the current marriage laws are wrong headed in that they are only trying to gain supposed equality for themselves while other alternative lifestyles would still be treated separately.

Polygamists are the best example as it is currently illegal to marry more than one person at a time. If we can redefine marriage from one man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman then why not one man four women? What is it that is special in the number of participants in the marriage? Oh and BTW, there are still polygamists out there despite the current climate of laws.

The pro gay marriage crowd are just as bigoted and hypocritical as the anti-gay marriage folks to be honest. If they were as 'liberal' as they claim to be or if anyone is supposedly liberal they would support less government intervention IN ALL things, marriage included. The problem is they want to use government as a club to beat you breeders over the head with gay rights while advocating the denial of your right to keep and bear arms (I don't own a gun) or smoke a cigarette (I don't smoke) or drink a 32oz. soda (btw it isn't illegal to buy two 16 oz sodas so if you're in NY buy two at a time!).

There are other issues like healthcare benefits and living will issues but again contract laws could deal with that. As it is now government regulations do not allow insurance companies to cover non-spouses once again that is the problem for if those regulations were not in place what would stop like minded individuals from forming insurance companies or co-ops that covered gay couples or polygamist families etc. Sure there are exceptions in some localities but they only extend so far. We don't need common laws and the like we need no government intervention at all.

Bottom line is if you remove the burden of legislation from marriage it would become more just and no one could tell you who you can love and make a life with.

@Topic. The thing I actually wanted to say is that people have a right to a society that fits their vision for the world, and as such people have a right to want a country with or without marriage of same-sex couples. Ultimately this does cause an exception case of the right of one encroaches on the rights of another. However, in the BIG PICTURE, there is no reason why the LGBT community should be denied any right, even marriage if they so desire it. However, the person of religious inclination has the right to voice their desire for their society, and so the people opposing Chick-Fil-A are just as vile as those opposing Oreo. Let each man voice his vision for his society, that's honesty, that's fairness, that's democracy. imho.

Nice copy-paste bro, E for Effort.

Anyways, you prove my point: "Christianity is neither for nor against slavery, but it certainly favors freedom according to the book of Philemon."

I'll add to that, as you pointed out, that the golden rule ultimately favors freedom. There again, it is still neither actively pro-manumit nor anti-manumit. It is mildly and passively pro manumit, otherwise the book of Philemon would have looked much different.

The one thing that upsets me about some of you, and I'm going to stir the pot a little bit because I want to confront you guys with this, is that some of you, Bouzane yes I'm mostly talking about you, are so quick to take sides against the rights of the religious community, yet in cases like Oreo there is tremendous amount of backlash by the internet community as a whole. Can anyone explain this unfairness at all?

Why is one community allowed more defense than another? Is one a victim and the other the aggressor so that people support one less than another? I'd like to know your thoughts.

For example, an case of oppressing the rights of a member of LGBT community would be to refuse someone a job in their restaurant because of their sexual orientation. That is wrong because it has nothing to do with their moral values. To me it would seem that the topic of marriage is a completely different matter.

It's like the topic of the age of consent. If a person thinks it's okay to have sexual relations with a 13, 14 year old when he/she is older than 20, why should that person be stripped of any human right? But when it comes to sexual relations and marriage, people have a right to voice their opinions on the matter from their moral standpoint.

That's right. In Chicago we only eat gay friendly chicken like Popeye's, KFC, Church's, Brown's, White Fence Farm, Harold's, and pretty much any place on Earth that sells fried chicken not named Chik-Fil-A.

Yeah. I'm personally torn between that and the way he bravely waited until after the vote in North Carolina to come out of his closet. What courage and conviction. He's almost just like a real life super hero.

Fight on, You-Didn't-Build-That Man.

So what is wrong with what he said? He said in his opinion he should not amend the constitution with the view he stated.

He also agreed on civil union. He said he did not want to encroach on their civil rights.

Also, it may have nothing to do with coming out of the closet like you said, but with him having some thoughts and changing his view. That happens.

I'm not pro-anyone, but I don't like how you're bashing him like that it seems unfounded.

First of all, choose?

Second, no special rights asked for here, just the same as everyone else.

I don't think they call themselves liberal anymore. They're back to being "progressives" now. Which is good, because liberal is such a nice term that they've sullied  for far too long with their we know what's best for you bullshit. Hopefully it can be rehabilitated by people who are actually liberal.

Ultimately what does it even matter it's a ceremony. Some might do it religiously, some might not. End of story. Those who oppose it have the right to, it's their prerogative. Nobody has any right to bash or belittle anyone because of their political position.

That's what debates are for, there is no need for flaming people and pushing an agenda without letting an opposite force push theirs, that's just disingenuous and dishonest.