Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

[VMI77]

Our King is generous and merciful. He won't use force to violate the Constitution. We must all believe and be grateful to The One. Ein Volk. Ein Reich. EIn Furher.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-w ... le/2532418

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

[cb1000rider]

VM,
At least quote him in context.. Don't be a party to the political mud-slinging. The title of your post and the title of the article is intentionally misleading.

Here's what he actually said:

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me... Perhaps it's a clarification for those that read too much political mud-slinging.

[xb12s]

He's quoting the headline from the Washington Examiner

[anygunanywhere]

VM,
At least quote him in context.. Don't be a party to the political mud-slinging. The title of your post and the title of the article is intentionally misleading.

Here's what he actually said:

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me... Perhaps it's a clarification for those that read too much political mud-slinging.

Up until the point where churches are sued because priests and ministers refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. You can bet barry will come to the aid of the religous then. Yessirreee.

Also, it will probably be the same as his promise to allow churches and other faith based institutions freedom of conscience with respect bummer care mandates. We all know how well that is working out. Simply splendid.

You can spout all of the support for barry you want, but rest assured he will do whatever he needs to do to further his agenda, and his agenda has no room for our values.

Anygunanywhere

[cb1000rider]

You just attributed a statement to Obama that he didn't actually make. Either:
1) You didn't actually read the article and you just copied the headline.
2) You did read the article and chose to copy the headline anyway, ignoring the fact that Obama didn't say what is in that headline.. Not even out of context.

Now we're on to indicating that churches are going to get sued for not performing gay marriages. They could have been sued before the supreme court decision. How does what Obama said or what the supreme court ruled on today change anything?

Again, if you want people to lean more towards your political concerns, at least intelligent people, you'll need try and make points with a little less fear-mongering and political mud slinging. Personally, I consider that headline and your quote of it an out right fabrication that intentionally inflames...

[The Annoyed Man]

VM,
At least quote him in context.. Don't be a party to the political mud-slinging. The title of your post and the title of the article is intentionally misleading.

Here's what he actually said:

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me... Perhaps it's a clarification for those that read too much political mud-slinging.

Yeah. Reasonable. Just like he was with the Catholic Church's not wanting to subsidize abortion with the health insurance they provide their employees. Before his term is over, he won't be forcing churches to perform gay marriages, but he WILL be siccing the IRS on those that won't. They can keep being churches, but they won't have a tax-exempt non-profit status any longer.

[Salty1]

VM,
At least quote him in context.. Don't be a party to the political mud-slinging. The title of your post and the title of the article is intentionally misleading.

Here's what he actually said:

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me... Perhaps it's a clarification for those that read too much political mud-slinging.

Only the left is allowed to mis-quote and play cut and paste with actual facts and pick what portions they deem important, when they do it I guess it is not mud slinging.

What seems reasonable to me is to let the people decide, not a political party and puppet who is in the white house who has an obvious anti religion bias (with the exception of protecting Muslims) and agenda to force the beliefs of the radical left upon the rest of the country. Obama and Holder have trampled all over States Rights and will continue to do so as long as they have a single iota of power.

[philip964]

VM,
At least quote him in context.. Don't be a party to the political mud-slinging. The title of your post and the title of the article is intentionally misleading.

Here's what he actually said:

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me... Perhaps it's a clarification for those that read too much political mud-slinging.

I would agree that the headline that was quoted for this post is misleading since Obama did not actually say that. It actually would be in some ways more comforting, if he actually said that. Since he didn't, we will have to wait and see what his plans are.

[Purplehood]

cb1000rider, quit being so darn objective please.

[Jeff B.]

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

The president's last paragraph does an effective job of encapsulating his view of the role of government in society. We will pass (or interpret) laws which will effectively tell you what is permissible and acceptable.

I'm opposed to protected classes, period.

There should not be any anti-whatever laws. If you assault somebody, you should be charged with and tried on that charge.

We need fewer and less complicated laws instead of more. Can anyone really believe that a 1000 or 1700 page act that is intended to become law is really understood by the people voting on it or those who it will apply to?

Jeff B.

[jayinsat]

You just attributed a statement to Obama that he didn't actually make. Either:
1) You didn't actually read the article and you just copied the headline.
2) You did read the article and chose to copy the headline anyway, ignoring the fact that Obama didn't say what is in that headline.. Not even out of context.

Now we're on to indicating that churches are going to get sued for not performing gay marriages. They could have been sued before the supreme court decision. How does what Obama said or what the supreme court ruled on today change anything?

Again, if you want people to lean more towards your political concerns, at least intelligent people, you'll need try and make points with a little less fear-mongering and political mud slinging. Personally, I consider that headline and your quote of it an out right fabrication that intentionally inflames...

I worry less about being sued for not performing a wedding than being sued for not hiring an openly homosexual individual as my church secratary or maintenance worker or whatever, and refusing to offer benefits to their "spouses" should an employee later reveal their sexual orientation.

[Cedar Park Dad]

You just attributed a statement to Obama that he didn't actually make. Either:
1) You didn't actually read the article and you just copied the headline.
2) You did read the article and chose to copy the headline anyway, ignoring the fact that Obama didn't say what is in that headline.. Not even out of context.

Now we're on to indicating that churches are going to get sued for not performing gay marriages. They could have been sued before the supreme court decision. How does what Obama said or what the supreme court ruled on today change anything?

Again, if you want people to lean more towards your political concerns, at least intelligent people, you'll need try and make points with a little less fear-mongering and political mud slinging. Personally, I consider that headline and your quote of it an out right fabrication that intentionally inflames...

I worry less about being sued for not performing a wedding than being sued for not hiring an openly homosexual individual as my church secratary or maintenance worker or whatever, and refusing to offer benefits to their "spouses" should an employee later reveal their sexual orientation.

Unless there is a state/local law banning such this has not changed.

[jayinsat]

You just attributed a statement to Obama that he didn't actually make. Either:
1) You didn't actually read the article and you just copied the headline.
2) You did read the article and chose to copy the headline anyway, ignoring the fact that Obama didn't say what is in that headline.. Not even out of context.

Now we're on to indicating that churches are going to get sued for not performing gay marriages. They could have been sued before the supreme court decision. How does what Obama said or what the supreme court ruled on today change anything?

Again, if you want people to lean more towards your political concerns, at least intelligent people, you'll need try and make points with a little less fear-mongering and political mud slinging. Personally, I consider that headline and your quote of it an out right fabrication that intentionally inflames...

I worry less about being sued for not performing a wedding than being sued for not hiring an openly homosexual individual as my church secratary or maintenance worker or whatever, and refusing to offer benefits to their "spouses" should an employee later reveal their sexual orientation.

Unless there is a state/local law banning such this has not changed.

An example that leaves me concerned. This is a case from 2003 in Chicago.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003 ... commission" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another case from the state of Washington a few months ago where the state is suing a small flower shop for refusing to provide flowers for a Gay wedding which was against the owners religious beliefs.
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstar ... /page/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's hard to trust that government won't over reach when they have a history of over reaching.

[VMI77]

You just attributed a statement to Obama that he didn't actually make. Either:
1) You didn't actually read the article and you just copied the headline.
2) You did read the article and chose to copy the headline anyway, ignoring the fact that Obama didn't say what is in that headline.. Not even out of context.

Now we're on to indicating that churches are going to get sued for not performing gay marriages. They could have been sued before the supreme court decision. How does what Obama said or what the supreme court ruled on today change anything?

Again, if you want people to lean more towards your political concerns, at least intelligent people, you'll need try and make points with a little less fear-mongering and political mud slinging. Personally, I consider that headline and your quote of it an out right fabrication that intentionally inflames...

1. I usually post whatever title an article has, instead of writing my own, in order to make it easier for others who might want to post the same, to spot something already posted. Sometimes I don't, but most of the time.
2. I posted the link to the article expecting people to read it. It's not my problem if someone can't be bothered to read an article in its entirety.
3. The headline doesn't quote Obama --note the absence of quotation marks-- so it is obviously the writer's interpretation of his remarks. Again, it's not my problem if the subtlety of the English language escapes some readers.
4. I'm not recruiting people to lean towards my position on anything. I discovered a long time ago that I cannot change anyone's mind on anything. A mind changes over time in a process unique to every individual, and it happens only rarely. One look at the support Obama still has after everything he's done and every lie he's told, is pretty demonstrative proof that virtually nothing is going to change the mind of an Obama supporter. I post primarily so that people with similar beliefs see something they otherwise might have missed.
5. I think you missed the point of my post and the juxtaposition of title and quotes. Anyone reading the article can see exactly what he said. Obama is a pathological liar, so in the first place, his promises mean nothing. In the second place, as the article points out, he has already interfered with how Churches practice their beliefs, and singled out some beliefs for special treatment, so his statement is hypocritical. In the third place, there was no reason to make the statement, if it is truthful, since he can't do anything to make Churches marry homosexuals without violating the Constitution. So the only reason to say it is because enough people see his contempt for the law and the Constitution that he thinks an attempt at mollification is necessary, and it gives his supporters a talking point.

Finally, if we still lived under the rule of law, Obama, and many of those in his administration, would be in prison instead of ruling over us. As far a fear-mongering and mud-slinging go: if you're not afraid you're not paying attention; and suggesting that a narcissistic pathological liar leading a criminal cabal (though lead/follow is up for debate) is arrogant and can't be believed or trusted, is not mud-slinging, it's common sense.

[anygunanywhere]

You just attributed a statement to Obama that he didn't actually make. Either:
1) You didn't actually read the article and you just copied the headline.
2) You did read the article and chose to copy the headline anyway, ignoring the fact that Obama didn't say what is in that headline.. Not even out of context.

Now we're on to indicating that churches are going to get sued for not performing gay marriages. They could have been sued before the supreme court decision. How does what Obama said or what the supreme court ruled on today change anything?

Again, if you want people to lean more towards your political concerns, at least intelligent people, you'll need try and make points with a little less fear-mongering and political mud slinging. Personally, I consider that headline and your quote of it an out right fabrication that intentionally inflames...

1. I usually post whatever title an article has, instead of writing my own, in order to make it easier for others who might want to post the same, to spot something already posted. Sometimes I don't, but most of the time.
2. I posted the link to the article expecting people to read it. It's not my problem if someone can't be bothered to read an article in its entirety.
3. The headline doesn't quote Obama --note the absence of quotation marks-- so it is obviously the writer's interpretation of his remarks. Again, it's not my problem if the subtlety of the English language escapes some readers.
4. I'm not recruiting people to lean towards my position on anything. I discovered a long time ago that I cannot change anyone's mind on anything. A mind changes over time in a process unique to every individual, and it happens only rarely. One look at the support Obama still has after everything he's done and every lie he's told, is pretty demonstrative proof that virtually nothing is going to change the mind of an Obama supporter. I post primarily so that people with similar beliefs see something they otherwise might have missed.
5. I think you missed the point of my post and the juxtaposition of title and quotes. Anyone reading the article can see exactly what he said. Obama is a pathological liar, so in the first place, his promises mean nothing. In the second place, as the article points out, he has already interfered with how Churches practice their beliefs, and singled out some beliefs for special treatment, so his statement is hypocritical. In the third place, there was no reason to make the statement, if it is truthful, since he can't do anything to make Churches marry homosexuals without violating the Constitution. So the only reason to say it is because enough people see his contempt for the law and the Constitution that he thinks an attempt at mollification is necessary, and it gives his supporters a talking point.

Finally, if we still lived under the rule of law, Obama, and many of those in his administration, would be in prison instead of ruling over us. As far a fear-mongering and mud-slinging go: if you're not afraid you're not paying attention; and suggesting that a narcissistic pathological liar leading a criminal cabal (though lead/follow is up for debate) is arrogant and can't be believed or trusted, is not mud-slinging, it's common sense.

Very well said, VMI77. Bravo.

Methinks some here have been slurping waaayyyy too much koolaid.

Anygunanywhere