Pastor snags Obama, McCain for joint appearance

[Predicto]

You argued that Obama's decision was a matter of constitutional law and that he opposed it on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and he couldn't support it unless the California constitution was ammended.... However, I provided a link that quoted him as saying he wouldn't even support an attempt to ammend the constitution on the grounds that the language of Proposition 8 was "divisive" and "discriminatory".

You aren't a constitutional expert and neither am I, so stop pretending...

First of all, I didn't say that Obama's decision was a matter of constitutional law.

I said YOU WERE WRONG in your statement that the ONLY possible interpretation of Obama's position on the California Supreme Court decision was the "Smoot" version. I did so by pointing out that Smoot didn't understand what actually happened in the California Supreme Court decision.

Second I am, in fact, a constitutional law expert. But you are entirely correct that you are not one.

[Smoot Point Really]

But opposing Proposition 8 isn't equivalent to supporting gay marriage. Obama's official statement was:

"Senator Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions."

And I'm not sure what you mean by half of California disagreeing. Prop 8 will not be voted upon until November, and recent polls show a majority against it: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080718-9999-1n18field.html

1) You are correct on Proposition 8. Proposition 22 is what I meant... It was 61%, not half...

2) California already recognized civil unions between homosexuals... Proposition 22 was specific to defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Barack Obama's "views" on how things should be existed in California even if the Supreme Court hadn't struck down Proposition 22... The fact that he doesn't support proposition 8 means that his statements on marriage and civil unions aren't accurate.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Of course he didn't. But after being married for several years, I can tell you how some women would react to that. And that's what I meant.

Irrelevant. McCain's did fail because he committed adultery and abandoned her.

The question was about a "moral failing". His answer was his divorce.

If he had divorced her for legitimate reasons it wouldn't be a moral failing on his part would it?

I was under the impression that they did not know the questions ahead of time? Hence Obama's studdering and McCain's quip about them all being as hard as the first one.

Link?

Legitimate reasons? My friend got divorced for legitimate reasons, doesn't mean he didn't feel it was a moral failure. McCain didn't go into any detail at all, it was a one sentence statement that the marriage failed--and he moved on. Disappointing, IMO.

I stated earlier in this thread, with a link, that both men had advance knowledge of 2 of the first 2 questions. This is separate from the 'cone of silence' issue. I take McCain for his word that he didn't listen or have someone text it to him, etc.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5454363&postcount=65

[Smoot Point Really]

First of all, I didn't say that Obama's decision was a matter of constitutional law.

I said YOU WERE WRONG in your statement that the ONLY possible interpretation of Obama's position on the California Supreme Court decision was the "Smoot" version. I did so by pointing out that Smoot didn't understand what actually happened in the California Supreme Court decision.

Second I am, in fact, a constitutional law expert. But you are entirely correct that you are not one.

1) haha! Everyone except Smoot is a constitutional law expert... Whatever... The term is used so loosely, I may be an expert afterall. With 10% of the population around DC holding law degrees (a significant number of them unemployed or working in something other than the legal field), I should assume we have at least a hundred or so experts in our midst.

2) I said that the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people... I meant on Proposition 22, not Proposition 8 (as DJTJ corrected me on... thanks)... You said the following:

He understands that the Constitution takes precedence over voter initiatives until the Consitution itself is amended.

I provided a link showing that he doesn't support Proposition 8, which is an amendment that basically accomplishes what proposition 22 set out to do. Based on this, none of the assertions I have made are unreasonable... You are the one who put words into Barack Obama's mouth, suggesting he would support an amendment to the constitution that he doesn't actually support.

Am I the only one that finds it interesting that McCain was asked about Prop 8 and not Obama? The fact that McCain answered it in the same fashion he answered the other questions, makes a good case for him not being "prepped".

[DjTj]

2) California already recognized civil unions between homosexuals... Proposition 22 was specific to defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Barack Obama's "views" on how things should be existed in California even if the Supreme Court hadn't struck down Proposition 22...

Which is probably why he simply said that he "respects" the decision, rather than saying that he endorsed the decision in any way.

The fact that he doesn't support proposition 8 means that his statements on marriage and civil unions aren't accurate.

You might have a point if Proposition 8 stated that marriage was defined between a man and a woman but that no rights relating to civil unions would be infringed ... but the amendment is pretty open-ended, and just like the Supreme Court was able to read the California Constitution to strike down Proposition 22, they could read the newly amended Constitution to strike down some of the laws regarding civil unions.

While the Prop 22 world may have reflected Obama's views, the Prop 8 world will not simply restore the world back to the way it was before ... putting something into a Constitution is not the same as simply passing it into law.

P.S. I'm not a Constitutional law expert, but Predicto has legitimate credentials on this at least, since he works at the California Supreme Court. For all we know, he might have written parts of the opinion.

[SkinsFanAnt]

I guess they both equally want to pretend they are religious

No..they wanted to pretend that they are Christians. Both are NWO elitists...and so is this 'pastor'. Why isn't he asking about the FEMA concentration camps, the imported Russian Chemical trucks, the tanks, or the thousands of prisoner railcards being spent by our Government? If he is that uniformed then he's another big media pawn.

[Predicto]

P.S. I'm not a Constitutional law expert, but Predicto has legitimate credentials on this at least, since he works at the California Supreme Court. For all we know, he might have written parts of the opinion.

If I had written parts of that opinion, I definitely would not discuss that case here at all. That would cross the confidentiality line I have with the Justices.

I have, however, written parts of other published decisions on constitutional issues.

And I better get back to it before I get fired.

[Smoot Point Really]

Which is probably why he simply said that he "respects" the decision, rather than saying that he endorsed the decision in any way.

I'm referring to your whole text, but trying not to quote the whole thing... I agree that there are "nuances" that conveniently give Barack Obama a way to claim he supports both while supporting neither. Still, it's much like his dance on born-alive...

These issues are a no-win situation for Obama and he probably should just remain consistent on the issue instead of creating this impression that he is trying to appease everyone. It's not like anyone on the right actually believes he means what he says on this issue or born-alive.

He should come out and say:

1) Marriage is a States issue, and I don't care if a State wants it between donkeys and chihuahuas...

2) Once a mother consents to abort a child, that child will never have any rights.

At least there wouldn't be comments like "pay-grade" and looking like everything is way to complex for him to juggle views on. I mean, if he did this there wouldn't be a conservative or liberal among us who wouldn't say: We knew it all along!

[Smoot Point Really]

And I better get back to it before I get fired.

Yes... get back to being a "constitutional expert" and stop arguing on the internet. BTW, San Francisco, California needs more "constitutional experts"...

[DjTj]

I'm referring to your whole text, but trying not to quote the whole thing... I agree that there are "nuances" that conveniently give Barack Obama a way to claim he supports both while supporting neither. Still, it's much like his dance on born-alive...

These issues are a no-win situation for Obama and he probably should just remain consistent on the issue instead of creating this impression that he is trying to appease everyone. It's not like anyone on the right actually believes he means what he says on this issue or born-alive.

He should come out and say:

1) Marriage is a States issue, and I don't care if a State wants it between donkeys and chihuahuas...

2) Once a mother consents to abort a child, that child will never have any rights.

At least there wouldn't be comments like "pay-grade" and looking like everything is way to complex for him to juggle views on. I mean, if he did this there wouldn't be a conservative or liberal among us who wouldn't say: We knew it all along!

I kind of agree that it would be nice to just hear a straight opinion ... but the reality is that as a Democratic nominee, he has to do this dance because he wants to keep the votes of the people he went to church with (who are probably generally opposed to gay marriage), and he wants to keep the votes of Catholics (like potential VP Tim Kaine) who may have Pro-Life views.

The Democratic Party is a big tent, and there is plenty of dancing required to keep everyone inside...