Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop ...

Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

There are 1477 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges. In it, EDGE reports that:

On December 7, marriage equality proponents heard the news they'd been waiting to hear: that the Supreme Court will review whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#920 Jan 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It used to, still does in most states.
It may to you, it doesn't to me regardless of what state I'm in.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#921 Jan 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think it's not better for the mother and father to be married?
.......
I believe that parents SHOULD be married if they can be, though I respect other folks decisions to do otherwise, and realize that in some cases it's just not possible.

Marriage promotes social and financial parental responsibility for a child. It provides legal recognition of their union, social and monetary benefits that help kids, and protects the elderly after the kids are grown.

But I do not believe that the mix of genitalia of a married couple automatically makes them good parents. Nor do I believe that every sperm and egg donor should marry and raise their offspring, though it would be lovely if they were all capable of it.

But many are not.

Parenting is about more than genetics, thank goodness. And many straight and gay couples are wonderful parents to children who are not biologically related to them.

But with regard to marriage, it's obvious that all of those legal and social perks to marriage benefit gay couples and their kids in ALL of the same ways that it does for straight couples.

And it does that in all the same ways for children who are genetically related to both parents, or one parent only, or no parent at all.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#922 Jan 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It used to, still does in most states.
It doesn't actually matter in ANY state, unless you think straight folks are too simple-minded to understand the forms.

Personally, I doubt most are.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#923 Jan 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
...... How you arrived at the conclusion that I don't believe they do is another mystery. You people seem to have some type of dysfunctional reasoning process, how else could it be explained? Don't understand what you read?
You seem to have a problem with your memory. You might want to get hat checked.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#925 Jan 20, 2013
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>Liar.
You know that homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud!
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Does the US Constitution guarantee equal protection of the law for all persons within a state's jurisdiction, yes or no?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#926 Jan 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a problem with your memory. You might want to get hat checked.
I will, when you pass a reading comprehension test.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#927 Jan 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
Marriage promotes social and financial parental responsibility for a child.
You embrace those responsibilities or you don't. Marriage doesn't change that. You get the same tax deduction for a child if you're married or not. I can tell you that being a kid for many isn't easy, I'm grateful I didn't have to go through school with same sex guardians. Having both a caring mother and a caring father is best.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#928 Jan 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It may to you, it doesn't to me regardless of what state I'm in.
Even though your 'marriage' isn't recognized by the overwhelming majority of states, including the state you live in? I don't believe you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#929 Jan 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We teach her HOW to think, not WHAT to think;
So, when it comes to moral issues and the difference between right and wrong you offer no guidance because that would be brainwashing. Got it. No one has to be taught HOW to think. Like your heart beating or your lungs breathing, it's automatic.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#930 Jan 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Not at all, since a wife is completly unnecessary.
2. Yet another stereotype. Sorry to bust your bubble, but we're both masculine.
3. Yes, your reason is because you're anti-gay.
1. A mother isn't.
2. Very common. Think Ellen & Portia.
3. My reason is I want gays to stop forcing their agenda on children. Outside of that, I couldn't care less what you do.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#931 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. That's too bad.
2. I just am, nothing more. With many gay couples one partner is more masculine and one is more effeminate. Which one are you?
3. You know my reason.
hhahaahahah
ahhahahahahah
ahhahahahahah

Ignorance on parade.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#932 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. A mother isn't.
2. Very common. Think Ellen & Portia.
3. My reason is I want gays to stop forcing their agenda on children. Outside of that, I couldn't care less what you do.
And yet you can never really outline that agenda, can you?

It is a scary agenda though.

Spreading the idea that gay folks are a vital and productive part of society. The notion that children should treat others will care and respect. The frightening thought that the makeup of another person's family doesn't affect anyone else. The terror of a kid learning that some of their friends might be attracted to the same gender, but that it's not harmful, and won't hurt their chances and choices in life.

And then there is the most terrifying part of the agenda!

Teaching gay youth that they are loved, and have all of the same potential that everyone else has. Supporting them and guiding them into good choices that will set a healthy course for their lives.

Oh, the HORROR!!!!

And nowhere in that agenda is the belief that learning these things young will turn a single straight child gay. And do you know why that is?

Because it just doesn't happen.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#933 Jan 20, 2013
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>Liar.
You know that homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud!
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals .....
David, Dear, you are repeating yourself. Again. You are lying, again, as usual.

How do I know this?

Because the stats just don't lie, the facts don't lie, and neither do all of my married gay friends.

Pretending otherwise just makes you look like an obsessed, delusional, compulsive liar.

You poor thing.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#934 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You embrace those responsibilities or you don't. Marriage doesn't change that...
Now, if you believe that marriage does not promote financial security for a family, prove it.

If you believe this, I gather you have never placed a spouse on your employer's insurance plan, and just paid out of pocket for their coverage, right?

Expensive, wasn't it?

Do you need a list of perks and benefits that come along with a marriage license that help to secure a family's financial security?

Financial security has ALWAYS been one of the many reasons that straight folks marry, so good luck with that.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#935 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
You embrace those responsibilities or you don't. Marriage doesn't change that. You get the same tax deduction for a child if you're married or not. I can tell you that being a kid for many isn't easy, I'm grateful I didn't have to go through school with same sex guardians. Having both a caring mother and a caring father is best.
Same-sex PARENTS! Not same-sex guardians. When you adopt, you become a PARENT! And when you adopt, those kids are legally the same as if you had naturally born them.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#936 Jan 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you can never really outline that agenda, can you?
Your stupid is showing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#937 Jan 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, if you believe that marriage does not promote financial security for a family, prove it.
If you believe this, I gather you have never placed a spouse on your employer's insurance plan, and just paid out of pocket for their coverage, right?
Expensive, wasn't it?
Do you need a list of perks and benefits that come along with a marriage license that help to secure a family's financial security?
Financial security has ALWAYS been one of the many reasons that straight folks marry, so good luck with that.
Financial security was the last thing on my mind when I got married. Family was first. So many times you people claim that marriage is for love and commitment. When pressed you reveal the true reasons, perks and benefits. Perks and benefits have nothing to do with love and commitment.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#938 Jan 20, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-sex PARENTS! Not same-sex guardians. When you adopt, you become a PARENT! And when you adopt, those kids are legally the same as if you had naturally born them.
I prefer legal guardians. You can use whatever you prefer.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#939 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Financial security was the last thing on my mind when I got married. Family was first. So many times you people claim that marriage is for love and commitment. When pressed you reveal the true reasons, perks and benefits. Perks and benefits have nothing to do with love and commitment.
Perks and benefits are tangible, quantifiable. Love, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

So when you got married to start your 'family', you continued to files your taxes as single? Didn't add your 'spouse' to your employer supported/paid health plan? You didn't take advantage of any of the perks and benefits of marriage?

So either gays and lesbians seek to marry for all the same reasons you and other hetero couples seek to marry -- love, commitment, family -- or we all seek to marry just for the perks and benefits.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#940 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I prefer legal guardians. You can use whatever you prefer.
The law says Parents. Aint that too bad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump is making a last-ditch effort to resurrec... 6 min Ms Sassy 2
News Sessions greenlights police to seize cash, prop... 11 min spud 7
News Op-Ed Columnist: The Health Care Collapse Is a ... 1 hr Fundiementally ill 28
News Trump stops hundreds of planned regulations 1 hr CodeTalker 34
News paige_winfield_cunningham 1 hr Fundiementally ill 3
News GOP health care plan draws mixed reaction from ... 1 hr Putins Glock Holster 137
News US restoring asset seizures - with safeguards 1 hr Putins Glock Holster 5
More from around the web