RECENT  POSTS:  » 'No Law Against Woman Marrying Another Woman', says 103 years ago » What the hell is Brian Brown smoking?! » Their bullcaca will never ENDA » Here it is: 'The Manhattan Declaration' » For Gwen For Lateisha For Angie For Adolphus For Simmie For Ebony For Lawrence For Duanna For... » Far right to issue manifesto, drag Big Apple into rotten attacks » 'Daily' video: Wise beyond years vs. unwise inability to get beyond fears » Well since you did ask, Pete... » Poll: NJ will come down to those who can't/won't make up damn mind » Houston, chronically: City's 2nd anti-gay story in as many days  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/31/2008

Video: Supremely encouraging

Obama on the Supreme Court:

"And so my criteria, for example, would be-- if a Justice tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution-- that means that they possibly don't mean-- believe in-- a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there.
I mean, the-- the right to marry who you please isn't in the Constitution. But I think all of us assume that if a state-- decided to pass a law saying, "Brian, you can't marry the woman you love," that you'd think that was unconstitutional. Well, where does that come from? I think it comes from a right to privacy-- that may not be listed in the Constitution but is implied by the structure of the Constitution.
"

Nightly News Obama interview [NBC]
(H/t: Lane Hudson)

gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-AddThis Feed Button gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Oh, the things I would do for him, if only I were more his type.

:sigh:

Posted by: Matt Algren | Oct 31, 2008 12:52:55 PM

Talk to us






*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails