As Gay Marriage Heads To Court, A Loo...

As Gay Marriage Heads To Court, A Look Back At The Bumpy Ride: NPR

There are 240 comments on the www.npr.org story from Mar 22, 2013, titled As Gay Marriage Heads To Court, A Look Back At The Bumpy Ride: NPR. In it, www.npr.org reports that:

Gays and lesbians have adopted the phrase "it gets better" as a kind of slogan to assure young people that life won't always be so tough.

Looking back, life has gotten dramatically better for LGBT people in the United States in a very short period of time. The modern gay rights movement began less than 50 years ago. Today, supporters of same-sex marriage outnumber opponents.

Now, the Supreme Court is about to hear two big cases that could shift the landscape for gay rights again.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.npr.org.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#206 Apr 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Gay marriage has also been settled as a matter of law.
No, Wondering, it has not. If it had, there would not be multiple cases being reviewed by state courts, federal courts, appellate courts, and the US Supreme Court. So, this issue has very much NOT been settled as a matter of law.
Wondering wrote:
Gays don't like it so they are attempting to have the law changed or removed. You do understand that laws change, don't you?
Of course, I understand, you dunce. It has been my argument this entire time that the law needs to change because laws restricting same sex couples from marrying unlawfully infringe upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Similarly, the US Congress, having not been delegated the authority to regulate marriage by the US Constitution, overstepped its bounds in drafting the DOMA. Ergo, the right to regulate marriage belongs to the states, who are constitutionally mandated to provide all persons within their jurisdiction (good news, this includes dullards, like yourself) equal protection of the laws.
Wondering wrote:
As for the relevance, yes, it is relevant. Two US citizens, same sex, seeking the same rights. No chance of producing children making the birth defect argument a non-issue.
No, that merely illustrates that you are not very intelligent. People are regularly allowed to marry who have no intention, or no ability to become pregnant.

Procreation or procreative ability are neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Your argument is so much hot air. What is more, it is demonstrably false.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#207 Apr 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
None of them require marriage.
Civil Marriage is a legal elegance.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#208 Apr 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, it has not. If it had, there would not be multiple cases being reviewed by state courts, federal courts, appellate courts, and the US Supreme Court. So, this issue has very much NOT been settled as a matter of law.
Using your logic (hahaha) no law is settled as all laws are subject to change or at least be challenged.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#209 Apr 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
laws are without regard to "what if" arguments. "what if" scenarios are not fact. they are imagined possibilities that the speaker or poster can dream up.
"What ifs" are considerations and surely play a role in the design of any law. Only the simple minded would think otherwise.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#210 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Using your logic (hahaha) no law is settled as all laws are subject to change or at least be challenged.
Not at all. Many laws remain on the books unchallenged, as such they are settled. You raise any number of irrelevant arguments that refer to laws that haven't been challenged in years. As opposed to the laws regarding same sex marriage, which have been actively challenged throughout recent history.

You also keep arguing drivel because you know your argument lacks any rational foundation. Yet rather than admitting as much, and retiring to the sideline, you keep reaffirming that you would rather be right than president. However in the course of arguing to be right, you consistently make yourself look like an ignorant dullard.

Congratulations.

Now, what was that compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?

Are you ready to admit you can't indicate one?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#211 Apr 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Many laws remain on the books unchallenged, as such they are settled.
Can they be challenged?
Can they be voided?
Can they be changed?
Will all the laws that you claim are settled look the same in 10 or 50 or 100 years?

Go outside and play with the other kids.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#213 Apr 17, 2013
lides wrote:
Now, what was that compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?
Are you ready to admit you can't indicate one?
Not only have I indicated many, I've also asked you to provide a state interest for allowing same sex marriage. There are many for allowing traditional marriage. There are none for gay marriage. You can reject my reasons, it doesn't matter, it just implies that you're a closet gay. Nothing will change your mind because your bias is overwhelming your reasoning or lack thereof. You are like a dog chasing it's tail. It's good that Justice Dumbass is powerless to change anything. The courts, the real justices, will deal with it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#214 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only have I indicated many, I've also asked you to provide a state interest for allowing same sex marriage. There are many for allowing traditional marriage. There are none for gay marriage. You can reject my reasons, it doesn't matter, it just implies that you're a closet gay. Nothing will change your mind because your bias is overwhelming your reasoning or lack thereof. You are like a dog chasing it's tail. It's good that Justice Dumbass is powerless to change anything. The courts, the real justices, will deal with it.
in fact, there are. equality for our citizens. a closer adherence to the principles of our nation. just being a more moral nation.

great reasons for this.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#215 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only have I indicated many, I've also asked you to provide a state interest for allowing same sex marriage. There are many for allowing traditional marriage. There are none for gay marriage. You can reject my reasons, it doesn't matter, it just implies that you're a closet gay. Nothing will change your mind because your bias is overwhelming your reasoning or lack thereof. You are like a dog chasing it's tail. It's good that Justice Dumbass is powerless to change anything. The courts, the real justices, will deal with it.
i'm sorry i seem to remember all of the reason you give as being found to lack rationale. what are the ones that hold up again?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#216 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"What ifs" are considerations and surely play a role in the design of any law. Only the simple minded would think otherwise.
you obviously have no inkling of how the legal system works nor how our laws are made or interpreted.

what ifs are not a consideration when creating or interpreting law by the judicial branch. each law is considered solely upon itself - it must stand in conjunction with the applicability to the u.s. constitution.

otherwise most laws would never have been passed.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#217 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only have I indicated many, I've also asked you to provide a state interest for allowing same sex marriage. There are many for allowing traditional marriage. There are none for gay marriage. You can reject my reasons, it doesn't matter, it just implies that you're a closet gay. Nothing will change your mind because your bias is overwhelming your reasoning or lack thereof. You are like a dog chasing it's tail. It's good that Justice Dumbass is powerless to change anything. The courts, the real justices, will deal with it.
there was no state compelling interest proven not to allow same sex marriages.

Nothing will change your mind because your bias is overwhelming your reasoning or lack thereof. You are like a dog chasing it's tail.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#218 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Can they be challenged?
Can they be voided?
Can they be changed?
Will all the laws that you claim are settled look the same in 10 or 50 or 100 years?
Go outside and play with the other kids.
Why? You've just posted a series of valid questions that invalidate your own arguments.

You are a moron.

The funny part is, I don't even think you believe the BS you spout.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#219 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Not only have I indicated many,
You've indicated none. If you had, you would be able to post a summation of those reasons here, instead you imply that you have made a response that you have not.
Wondering wrote:
I've also asked you to provide a state interest for allowing same sex marriage. There are many for allowing traditional marriage. There are none for gay marriage.
Once again, this only serves to prove your lack of understanding of the issue and the law. The law requires a compelling state interest to deny a right (Research strict scrutiny, the level of judicial review necessary to deny a constitutional right like equal protection. Here’s a link, so you can even be lazy.http://www.law.cornell.ed u/wex/strict_scrutiny), not to grant one. In fact the law requires that protections of the law be afforded equally to all persons within a state’s jurisdiction.

Do try to be less ignorant.
Wondering wrote:
You can reject my reasons, it doesn't matter, it just implies that you're a closet gay. Nothing will change your mind because your bias is overwhelming your reasoning or lack thereof. You are like a dog chasing it's tail. It's good that Justice Dumbass is powerless to change anything. The courts, the real justices, will deal with it.
Wondering, you “reasons” fail to rise to the level of having a rational basis, much less do they serve a compelling state interest. The fact that you think homosexuality is icky isn’t a reason to deny equal protection of the laws.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#220 Apr 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you obviously have no inkling of how the legal system works nor how our laws are made or interpreted.
You have me confused with lides.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#221 Apr 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've indicated none. If you had, you would be able to post a summation of those reasons here, instead you imply that you have made a response that you have not.
If you didn't understand them there first 100 times you won't understand them now. Repeating nonsense is a strange hobby of yours, it isn't one of mine.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#222 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you didn't understand them there first 100 times you won't understand them now. Repeating nonsense is a strange hobby of yours, it isn't one of mine.
what you don't understand is they wee shown to be irrational and not based in fact or proven wrong already...

still can't put up even one? not just a teensy one? hwy not?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#223 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you didn't understand them there first 100 times you won't understand them now. Repeating nonsense is a strange hobby of yours, it isn't one of mine.
I have understood, and debunked, every rationalization you have ever offered.

It's not my fault that you have no valid argument against equality. An intelligent person would not argue against the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#224 Apr 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what you don't understand is they wee shown to be irrational and not based in fact or proven wrong already...
still can't put up even one? not just a teensy one? hwy not?
Stupidity comes to mind as a reason.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#225 Apr 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I have understood, and debunked, every rationalization you have ever offered.
In your tiny mind only.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#226 Apr 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
In your tiny mind only.
still not one reason? can you give us a hint? hum a few bars maybe?

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 42 min Georgia 14,266
News Getting used to gay unions 3 hr NE Jade 4
News Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling (Nov '14) Wed BangmoPopoPedos 184
News Meghan McCain marries Ben Domenech in Arizona Wed American Citizen 1
News You're gay? You're out! Gay teacher sacked due ... Wed Rabbis on the Run 2
News Free Woods: 19th century community unique in area (Feb '11) Nov 21 Draius Jesse Ballard 6
News PolitiFact NH: Did Margaret Sanger believe Afri... (Oct '15) Nov 21 Bill Clinton 6
More from around the web