I didn't see the same glitter in his speech. considering that just a little over a year ago, he had the opposite opinion. I am especially interested to see what he will do with the immigration issue as this is also a huge issue facing the nation.

This is just one more thing that will solidify Obama's place in history as an effective president who cares about all Americans.

I sincerely hope that was a sarcastic remark.

I would love to David. My hope is I can live long enough to see him get exactly what he deserves. But I am 59, hopefully it won't take that long.

CFBO...you have some nerve Lady, what are you talking about? I haven't threatened anyone and all I said was I hope the History books will give Obama the recognition he deserves. YOU are the one who turned that into a negative so my guess is in the end, you already know the outcome!

Why the assumption that CFBO is a woman? Just curious.

Beth, maybe it isn't a woman but with all the other contacts I have had with this person, I just assumed it was. I could be wrong but I don't think so. Do you know? It wouldn't matter to me but it would be nice to know.

CFBO.....who do you claim that I threatened in the above comment?

Maxine, I don't know CFBO. I just never assume either gender.

Beth, and I won't either from now on...thanks.

I'm curious, besides making speeches, what exactly is President Obama proposing to actually do in support of the cause? From everything I've read, he says it's a states rights issue to figure out, meaning he is saying that it's not up to him to do anything in support of the cause. Making speeches doesn't actually change anything.

And considering that up until about 2009, I believe, he was not in support of the cause and advocated the exact same position as President Bush, and he only made the speech he did when he needed the support of the LGBT community for the election, how is he now the savior of this movement?

Of the various issues I have with Obama (mainly stemming from the continuing of Bush's policies and staff), I do applaud him for at least showing verbal support for same-sex couples. I just hope he can back it up with meaningful action.

It's interesting, too, that Ken Mehlman, the architect of President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, was in Iowa Monday night to speak to Iowa Republicans about marriage equality. The question is, will the Republican Party embrace marriage equality because they believe it is do otherwise is discriminatory, or will they do so because it's politically pragmatic? The GOP is realizing it is leaving behind a large group of potential voters.

Rick, the government already regulates marriage. Heterosexual couples are required to receive a marriage license and it's just a matter of extending that same right to same-sex couples.

Good point Rick.

Can you imagine the response from the people who are so vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage if the same politicians favoring it attempted to rescind laws surrounding marriage between "one man and one woman"? Your point's well taken, Rick, but talk about a political stink bomb.

But Beth I think the "one man, one woman" thing has been around as long as time has. Thats why no one questions it. On the other hand the marriage between two people of the same sex has not. I suppose there have always been gay people but why is that at this point in time they want to do it differently? What if they attempted to recind the tradtional marriage and said who ever want to be married, just do it. But they would then have the same problem they have now with the legallities of other such unions.

I think it's society's intolerance toward what some feel to be unnatural. In this country, some states had anti-miscegenation laws, banning interracial marriage. That was until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.

Some still might find it wrong, but I think many people have come around to understanding that if 2 people, not of the same ethnicity, want to tie the knot, it's all right.

My husband was born and raised in another country. If they stop the momentum of allowing people to marry the ones they love, who is to say they might go back to the days of anti-miscegenation? Why stop there? Why not also say Americans can only marry other Americans?

Legally, marriage is about property and ownership rights. Nothing else. Individuals and religious institutions may put other stipulations on it (love, social status, etc.), but that's all it is. What same-sex couples want is the same rights afforded married, heterosexual couples, and they've long deserved it.

I'm not saying there's not an extreme to allowing ANYONE to marry whomever or whatever. I don't have all the answers. But as long as consenting adults want to commit, and they are not harming themselves or others, let them be happy and have their equal rights.

It's implied that marriage is between human beings, right? I have to admit that reach of an argument that marriage equality opens the door for us to marry our pets or furniture is worth a laugh. I love my armoire, but I sure don't want to marry it.

Beth wwe had a conversation like this on another blog a while back and it was alittle wierd because people were saying how it should be open to marry anyone or anything you want to. I don't really care who someone wants to marry as long as they are of legal age to do so. There are girls at the age of 12 and 13 getting married in Ky. and I am sure it happens plenty of other places and its just wrong.

Back to the original letter, "putting people first" doesn't mean having the government control who can marry and who cannot. Putting people first is letting people have the freedom to do what they choose. That is exactly the opposite of what the current government wants to do.

I do agree with you Rick, but I also think there has to be at least guidelines otherwise people will get stupid with it just like everything else, there will be those who will want the sensationalism to want to be different and noticed. And would "the freedom" also include people who want to live the life of poligimist? And what about the 50 yr. old man who wants to marry his 14 yr. old neighbor?

Thats true but like with the drinking age, dependng on which state you are in, its either 18 or 21. And some states like Texas, you are allowed to have open containrs in public. I think the only fair way to determine such a controversial topic is to have it be state regulated, if even that is the fair way to go. Either way I believe there has got to be limitations like most everythig else.

Government should regulate marriage, but not drugs (marijuana) or guns? "Government get out of my way!" (except where my personal morality is involved or where it benefits me directly).

Dawn....and what about all those incest cases out there! Right now I believe it is against the law for first cousins to marry, but I have even heard of brother and sister marrying as sick as that sounds. As well as father/daughter relationships. There will never be and end to this, so I am not so sure the laws should be changed except for gays, but then how do you tell transgender and the rest that they can't marry? If you give any certain class of people an inch, they rest will take a mile trying to get their fair share.

I reiterate.
I am against children getting married (child-brides).
I am against incest.
I acknowledge there is a line to be drawn, but I don't have all the answers. The blurb I said about age goes just as much for immature 20-year-olds as it does for 12-year-olds, thus, I'm not sure age is always the best gauge.

I never said polygamist marriage was harmful to me. I don't care either way if people want to have more than one spouse, as long as all parties involved are okay with it.

I believe that it should be easy to dissolve unhappy marriages. Unfortunately, the part of no longer being married is not necessarily the messiest part of divorce. It's about dividing shared property.

My comments about polygamy weren't about the union itself, but how to sort out the divorce, if it happens. In polygamy cases, if it were legal, you're not just dealing with dual-ownership, but with things that might belong to 3 or more people. Who gets what? In a polygamist relationship, is everyone married to each other? Or is there one who is married to many? Are these relationships all one way or another? If one were to leave the union, is the union of the rest of them still intact?

As with all marriages, people would be wise to think about things before entering into the commitment - especially so for polygamists.