However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NewsCenter 25

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Comments
1,861 - 1,880 of 2,351 Comments Last updated May 29, 2013

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1958
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
<quoted text>
When dealing with conservatards you will have to speak slower and use shorter words! They're not too bright to begin with!
I would have to agree with ya....thanks for the information:-)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1959
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Grow up, NorCal...I couldn't care less about your 'personal' information...do what you must....
Last time I ask nicely......next time I'll have your post removed!!!

Thank you!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1960
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I ask nicely......next time I'll have your post removed!!!
Thank you!!!
\

Oooooo, I'm scared, Rose....go for it!

BTW are you going to respond to the post about the issue, instead of diverting to this kindergarden cra-p?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1961
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>\
Oooooo, I'm scared, NoCal....go for it!
BTW are you going to respond to the post about the issue, instead of diverting to this kindergarden cra-p?
See an adult would understand why one would not want their name out there and respect it, but you insist on being a jerk and continue to use it.......so, don't be surprise when your posts are removed!!!

Thanks so much:-)

I've responded to your posts on the issue and have told you where I believe you are wrong.......but that matters not to you......so, at the moment I'm dealing with an important issue to me and if you were an adult....you'd act like one and just not use that information!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1963
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
I did handle as an adult......I asked you to stop.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1964
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't actually suggesting that people argued against interracial marriage for fear of approving of ssm, polygamy and incest marriages??? Are you??? Even 'that' goes to far for liberal lies....
Come come now. We know that ignorance is your hallmark. We also know that you are neither as stupid nor ignorant as you pretend. Leaving only one alternative: You are utterly dishonest.

But for those who are interested in exploring history, I offer this well-researched article: http://matrix.msu.edu/hst/fisher/HST150/unit1...
The point being that interracial marriage has NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to do with the push for polygamy since ssm has entered the courts...
I've got some news for you: Polygamous groups have been around in the United States since its founding. And people have challenged the constitutionality of its bans for all my life.
Race is not 'sexuality'...Race is an inherant trait carried by our genes...
Sexuality is nothing of the sort..if anything...it's getting closer to being proven that homosexuality is a malfunction in the womb, which if they do discover that, can fix it...
First, there is no evidence that the variation in sexuality is a "malfunction." Second, it cannot today be prevented or fixed.(Note that identical twins sometimes share sexuality, sometimes not. Given that reality, how are doctors to play god and fix the one that "malfunctioned?"] Third, there is no reason why we should "fix" anything. Making you happy is definitely not a compelling reason. You will clearly find something else that doesn't affect you to be unhappy about, anyway.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1965
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So ss supporters do not call it gay marriage???
No. We call it "marriage." Just like we call it "lunch" when we have our mid-day meals. "Gay lunch" would be something a little different--kind of like Arthur in the Afternoon.
I was talking about the liberal press that has worked feverishly to perpetuate your cause....
Oh there we go with the "liberal press" again. In fact, their constant use of "gay," "homosexual" or "same-sex" marriage is all the proof anyone needs of their conservative slant. Look at the politics of the people who own the press. They're conservatives.
Correction...we ALL already have that right, regardless of sexuality...it's you all that have brought sexuality into the instituition...not us...
Now there's an ironic statement. We've been saying all along that sexuality doesn't matter: Love matters. And now you're here saying that because we want to marry the people we love--not some random person of the opposite sex--we're bringing sexuality into it?

Do you have to practice being stupid? those work-outs must be hard.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1966
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't actually suggesting that people argued against interracial marriage for fear of approving of ssm, polygamy and incest marriages??? Are you??? Even 'that' goes to far for liberal lies....
They did use the same one fundies are now using against gay marriage: "God doesn't want it."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Get That Fool wrote:
The point being that interracial marriage has NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to do with the push for polygamy since ssm has entered the courts...
Polygamy has been in and out of the courts, long before gay marriage was an issue.
Get That Fool wrote:
Race is not 'sexuality'...Race is an inherant trait carried by our genes...
Gender is not 'sexuality'...Gender in an inherant trait carried by our genes...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1967
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not called 'straight' marriage now is it????
Correct, it's just called marriage regardless of the gender of the parties involved.

Nothing requires 2 guys to be gay to marry each other.

Just as nothing requires a man & woman to be straight to marry each other.

That's why it's just called marriage.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1968
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I did handle as an adult......I asked you to stop.
You whined and stomped your feet over nothing to avoid actual debate...that is 'exactly' what you did...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1969
Apr 26, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, it's just called marriage regardless of the gender of the parties involved.
Nothing requires 2 guys to be gay to marry each other.
Just as nothing requires a man & woman to be straight to marry each other.
That's why it's just called marriage.
What is the name of this thread again??? Case closed...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1970
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You whined and stomped your feet over nothing to avoid actual debate...that is 'exactly' what you did...
Funny how you accuse others of exactly what you do. You whine and snivel and lack the intelligence to understand the nuances of the legal issues involved and can't actually debate the topic anyway. So you just repeat your discredited drivel or spam multiple threads with your improperly attributed and thus plagiarized cut and paste jobs of others' copyrighted materials in their entirety. You have no respect for either the civil rights of others or their intellectual property rights. You're just a selfish, uneducated, immoral and pathetic excuse for a human being.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1971
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You whined and stomped your feet over nothing to avoid actual debate...that is 'exactly' what you did...
Sorry, I didn't whine nor stomp anything......I simply asked you not to do it and you did it anyways.....now, move on about it.......because it's a done issue!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1972
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Come come now. We know that ignorance is your hallmark. We also know that you are neither as stupid nor ignorant as you pretend. Leaving only one alternative: You are utterly dishonest.
You wouldn't know 'honesty' if it fell on you from the sky...you are lying when you say those that opposed interracial marriage did so out of a fear of ssm, polygamy and incest marriage...you should be ashamed for lying the way you do...
I've got some news for you: Polygamous groups have been around in the United States since its founding. And people have challenged the constitutionality of its bans for all my life.
Well thanks to ssm, they have a real shot at being heard now...face it...it is homosexuals that started the decent of marriage in this country, and history will reflect that...
First, there is no evidence that the variation in sexuality is a "malfunction."
Were you saying the same thing about the gay gene when there was no evidence of it???? Of course you weren't....the evidence now coming forward certainly suggests what I'm saying...you need to read it for yourself...it's on 'your own' websites for goodness sake....
Second, it cannot today be prevented or fixed.(Note that identical twins sometimes share sexuality, sometimes not. Given that reality, how are doctors to play god and fix the one that "malfunctioned?"]
Actually, we don't know any of that to be true...if they find it to be a 'malfunction' as I believe they will, then they can certainly intervene to correct it.
Third, there is no reason why we should "fix" anything. Making you happy is definitely not a compelling reason. You will clearly find something else that doesn't affect you to be unhappy about, anyway.
Is there a reason to fix other birth defects?? Of course there's a reason...it's coming to light that homosexuality is a result of a 'mix-up' in the womb...soon we will be able to tell which babies are effected, from there I don't know what we will do...but it will be interesting to see.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1974
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you accuse others of exactly what you do. You whine and snivel and lack the intelligence to understand the nuances of the legal issues involved and can't actually debate the topic anyway. So you just repeat your discredited drivel or spam multiple threads with your improperly attributed and thus plagiarized cut and paste jobs of others' copyrighted materials in their entirety. You have no respect for either the civil rights of others or their intellectual property rights. You're just a selfish, uneducated, immoral and pathetic excuse for a human being.
I know this legal issue..polygamy is getting a legal boost from ssm.....

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1975
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice brings up polygamy in Prop 8 gay marriage case....
They can bring it up, but it won't go anywhere. You know that. You just keep hammering on it because you have nothing else to use to prop up your fear and ignorance based prejudices.

Legally recognized polygamy may well be in our future, but it's totally unrelated to same-sex marriage. But you know that, too, don't you?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1976
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
They can bring it up, but it won't go anywhere. You know that. You just keep hammering on it because you have nothing else to use to prop up your fear and ignorance based prejudices.
Legally recognized polygamy may well be in our future, but it's totally unrelated to same-sex marriage. But you know that, too, don't you?
I don't know that it won't go anywhere....10 years ago the same thing was said about ssm....

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1977
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that it won't go anywhere....10 years ago the same thing was said about ssm....
Credible sources?? Or just your dishonest imagination??

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1978
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I know this legal issue..polygamy is getting a legal boost from ssm.....
If you knew the legal nuances of the issue you'd know your statement is false. You misconstrue coincidence of timing as polygamy getting "a boost" from the cases surrounding legal recognition of same sex marriage. They are two separate and distinct issue each with their own set of hurdles. Same sex marriage involves removing a restriction on the sex of the participants of a marriage; it in no way addresses the separate restriction on the number of participants in a marriage.

Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic of human sexual identity. And homosexuality is recognized as a normal variant of sexual identity in humans by the medical profession. It also happens to be a variant of human sexuality that has a long history of being discriminated against by the majority and has been singled out to have a number of rights and/or legal protections withheld from them as a class relative to the majority heterosexual population. That's what enables an equal protection challenge against laws prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriage. And should gays prevail in their legal proceedings, it will only remove the restriction on the sex of of the marriage participants (which in this case acts as a de facto restriction on sexual orientation); it leaves the restriction on the number of participants in a marriage unchanged. Restricted the ability of a minority to group to exercise a particular civil right minimally requires a rational basis that's related to the purpose of the stated goal of the restriction (and for gays should require a compelling government reason since they meet the criteria for a suspect class even though SCOTUS to date has refused to recognize sexual orientation as such). There has not been a single "rational" reason provided for prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriage that is also rationally related to the stated goal of the restriction. Contrary to your erroneous belief, prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriage is NOT rationally related to encouraging responsible procreation by heterosexuals. Whether gays marry or not has no bearing on whether straight people decide to procreate within marriage or out of wedlock.

Certainly polygamists appear to becoming more vocal about their relationships. Gaining legal recognition for those relationships, however, will require an entirely different fight based on different legal arguments than the path same sex marriage has taken. As counsel for the plaintiffs of Prop 8 pointed out in oral arguments before SCOTUS, polygamy isn't an innate characteristic but rather conduct. It's conduct that's been universally prohibited to all citizens, not just a certain disfavored minority group. It's conduct prohibited specifically by federal and state law and also by restriction on the number of participants allowed in a marriage legally recognized by the government. Anti-bigamny laws have already been challenged before SCOTUS on the basis of first amendment religious freedom and lost. The ability of polygamists to mount a challenge based on equal protection law would also seem limited as there is not a particular class of people that has been prohibited from entering into multiple simultaneous marriages since ALL citizens have been similarly prohibited. The route chosen in the Brown case in Federal court is focusing not on gaining legal recognition of multiple marriages but rather eliminating the potential for criminal prosecution of private consensual conduct and living arrangements among adults. This action does seem to mirror the gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas but Lawrence was also a case about private consensual conduct between adults and had nothing to do with marriage, same sex or otherwise.

Your continued and erroneous attempts to link same sex marriage litigation and polygamy litigation are simply fear mongering by a bigot.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1979
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Credible sources?? Or just your dishonest imagination??
Credible sources for predicting the future??? Yeah, sorry, don't have any and neither do you....id-jit....

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

11 Users are viewing the Autos Forum right now

Search the Autos Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CEO to reveal 5-year strategy in early 2014; ke... (Nov '13) 10 hr Lesabre 9
Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 21 hr Pull the Plug 9,217
Sexy electric supercar makes debut at Pebble Beach Aug 17 Solarman 1
Honda and Acura High Mileage Stories (Jul '07) Aug 17 Travis 534
Fernando Alonso still confident that Ferrari ca... Aug 15 Rook 4
Ferguson violence: Escalation blamed on cops Aug 14 tdaddybone 1
2006 Mercedes SL500 Aug 13 Tim 1
•••

Buy a New Car


Zipcode:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••