Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

Feb 22, 2013 Full story: The Daily Democrat 220

Choosing a broad legal strategy with national implications, gay marriage advocates on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on same-sex nuptials and declare all such state laws unconstitutional.

Full Story
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#22 Feb 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Those similarily situtated are treated equally under the law, for example:
-those making over $1 million pay the same tax rate as everyone else making over $1 million
-those making less than $30k pay the same tax rate as everyone else making less than $30k
-every servicemember is treated the same as every other servicemember in the same situation.
-anyone convicted of a felony loses their right to vote, just like every other convicted felon.
And each married couple should be treated the same as every other married couple, but the married same-sex couples aren't.
That's what makes it unequal.
Even for you that's a load of crap!
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#23 Feb 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have a civil union or domestic partnership.
I'll stick with my marriage and fight till I'm treated equally to all other marriages.
My notion is that you will never be treated "equally" because you're not the same and because you have a really crappy personality.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#24 Feb 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Those similarily situtated are treated equally under the law, for example:
-those making over $1 million pay the same tax rate as everyone else making over $1 million
-those making less than $30k pay the same tax rate as everyone else making less than $30k
-every servicemember is treated the same as every other servicemember in the same situation.
-anyone convicted of a felony loses their right to vote, just like every other convicted felon.
And each married couple should be treated the same as every other married couple, but the married same-sex couples aren't.
That's what makes it unequal.
So in your make believe world, similar is the same as equal? Are you really that reality challenged? And are you really so stupid as to think that bullsh!t will be taken seriously?
Beverly

Cleveland, MS

#25 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Irrelevant, but that's okay. Doesn't change a thing. I'm all for civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. And no, gays and straights are not the same. Neither are men and women, regardless of how many tantrums are thrown.
I think that you have devolved the conversation into nonsense. Merits no reply.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#26 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> My notion is that you will never be treated "equally" because you're not the same and because you have a really crappy personality.
Appropriate name, too bad it doesn't work on you..
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#27 Feb 22, 2013
Beverly wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you have devolved the conversation into nonsense. Merits no reply.
I welcome reasoned and intelligent disagreement. Seeing none, one wonders why you bothered to reply to say I merited no reply.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#29 Feb 22, 2013
Legally, marriage it is a fundamental right of all persons.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny. Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Within those limits, gay people qualify.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate excuse for denial of equal treatment under the law. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted.

Denial of equal treatment under the law provides no benefit to opposite sex couple families. It does not make them more responsible or any more or less fertile. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#31 Feb 22, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Legally, marriage it is a fundamental right of all persons.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
I have never seen that in any legal definition or SCOTUS opinion. Perhaps you just made that up to suit your needs. Indeed, if that silly crap were true, there would be no discussion or disagreement. There being considerable discussion and disagreement by reasonable people, your claim is shown to be false. That would seem to show you to also be dishonest in making that false claim.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Even for you that's a load of crap!
That's the way the law works. Sorry you're too stupid to understand that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#33 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> My notion is that you will never be treated "equally" because you're not the same and because you have a really crappy personality.
I'll be treated equally under the law once DOMA is overturned in Jun and the remaining state bans on same-sex couples marrying are overturned over the next few years.

Btw, personality has nothing to do with being treated equally under the law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> So in your make believe world, similar is the same as equal? Are you really that reality challenged? And are you really so stupid as to think that bullsh!t will be taken seriously?
Those similarily situated are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

That's why states can allow all 18 y/o citizens to vote, but can deny that right to 17 y/o citizens. Every 18 y/o citizen is similarily situated to the other 18 y/o citizens, while the 17 y/o isn't.

That's the way our constitution works, but sometimes it needs a little nudge from the courts to enforce that basic principle.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#35 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I have never seen that in any legal definition or SCOTUS opinion. Perhaps you just made that up to suit your needs. Indeed, if that silly crap were true, there would be no discussion or disagreement. There being considerable discussion and disagreement by reasonable people, your claim is shown to be false. That would seem to show you to also be dishonest in making that false claim.
There was once much discussion & disagreement by "reasonable people" over whether blacks & women were intelligent enough to vote.

That doesn't change the simple fact they of course there WERE in general just as intelligent and capable of making an informed decision on whom to vote for as white men were.

Ignorance by even a majority of the populace doesn't by itself make a claim false. It just means a majority of the population was ignorant to the facts.

Just as you're ignorant to the fact the SCOTUS already ruled marriage to be a fundamenal right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#36 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I have never seen that in any legal definition or SCOTUS opinion. Perhaps you just made that up to suit your needs. Indeed, if that silly crap were true, there would be no discussion or disagreement. There being considerable discussion and disagreement by reasonable people, your claim is shown to be false. That would seem to show you to also be dishonest in making that false claim.
And yet you fail to demonstrate your claims, relying instead on demeaning personal character attacks.

I quoted the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution, showing it says "no person" shall be deprived, "all persons" "nor shall any state deprive any person" "nor deny to "any person" the equal protection of the laws. "All persons" means every human. Being human is the only requirement for fundamental rights.

SCOTUS has also used this terminology, repeatedly affirming marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Not some individuals, but all. They also use "all persons".

The fact we are even having this argument is because we have never fully lived up to the promise of equal treatment and unalienable rights for all as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution. We have been moving in that direction since the beginning, but we aren't there yet.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#37 Feb 22, 2013
Black Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
What would be an appropriate name for you, queer?
How about shoving a fist up black lipstick's bigoted ass?
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#39 Feb 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the way the law works. Sorry you're too stupid to understand that.
Even you know better than that. From experience, I have found that you make things up to suit your argument whether that made up stuff is true or not.

In other words, I have found you to be dishonesty.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#40 Feb 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be treated equally under the law once DOMA is overturned in Jun and the remaining state bans on same-sex couples marrying are overturned over the next few years.
Btw, personality has nothing to do with being treated equally under the law.
Unlike your own dishonest self, I don't claim to see the future so I don't know how SCOTUS will rule.

And I didn't say your personality is why you won't be treated differently under the law. Once again, you make up sh!t and that makes you fundamentally dishonest. I do believe your crappy personality is why some will always treat you differently. Notice that I treat you differently than some others in this forum because you're not very nice and you're dishonest. Those who are honest and who are nice get treated as though they are honest and nice. Rather simple if you're able to understand such simple stuff.

Apparently, you don't understand obvious and simple stuff.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#41 Feb 22, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you fail to demonstrate your claims, relying instead on demeaning personal character attacks.
I quoted the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution, showing it says "no person" shall be deprived, "all persons" "nor shall any state deprive any person" "nor deny to "any person" the equal protection of the laws. "All persons" means every human. Being human is the only requirement for fundamental rights.
SCOTUS has also used this terminology, repeatedly affirming marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Not some individuals, but all. They also use "all persons".
The fact we are even having this argument is because we have never fully lived up to the promise of equal treatment and unalienable rights for all as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution. We have been moving in that direction since the beginning, but we aren't there yet.
What claim have I failed to demonstrate? That I haven't seen something?

I can't demean your character if you have shown none.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#42 Feb 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Irrelevant, but that's okay. Doesn't change a thing. I'm all for civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. And no, gays and straights are not the same. Neither are men and women, regardless of how many tantrums are thrown.
You forgot to mention the separate water fountains.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#43 Feb 23, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to mention the separate water fountains.
Aw, Tommy is trying to be clever.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#44 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> My notion is that you will never be treated "equally" because you're not the same and because you have a really crappy personality.
Equality under the law is based on one's personality? Basic civil and human rights can be denied to anyone that someone else dislikes?

I know you are just griping at Sheeple, but that doesn't come off as sensible, and you know it.

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 21 min KiMerde 51,234
US Supreme Court refuses to block SC gay marriages 24 min USA Today 2
BC denies accreditation to anti-Gay Christian l... 41 min DebraE 50
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 44 min Just Asking 31,407
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 25,983
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 1 hr Abrahammock Religion 22
US Supreme Court refuses to block SC gay marriages 1 hr Abrahammock Religion 21

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE