Challenge to halt Calif. same-sex marriages

There are 15 comments on the News 4 Jax story from Jun 29, 2013, titled Challenge to halt Calif. same-sex marriages. In it, News 4 Jax reports that:

Lawyers for groups opposed to same-sex marriage in California petitioned to reverse a federal appeals court order that OK'd the resumption of such unions -- doing so a day after that ruling.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News 4 Jax.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Jun 30, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
It is a reasonable question! Wait and see who will cry bigotry, racism next to marry whomever, whatever or as many as they want! NAMBLA is already foaming at the mouth, no pun intended or this will be the argument for Sharia Law in the US! WAIT AND SEE!
Oooh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling......

“Je suis Charlie”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#29 Jun 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it reasonable?
Can a child or golden retriever legally consent to ANY legal contract? Is marrying one person at a time (which gay and straight people do)the same as marrying 4?
And, if you have such a deep and personal relationship with nambla, can you tell me how many members it has? How and where does it operate? Who supports it?
Just remember, the age of consent laws in this country that allow even 14 year olds to marry were NOT created by gay folks.
And what the heck does Sharia law have to do with American tax-paying citizens legally marrying?
If this is allowed, how can you stop any group from NOT marrying whom they please, or think they should be allowed to marry under THEIR our religious laws and not state law? Or argue that you can't deny love from a child or animal? Again, where will it stop?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#30 Jun 30, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is allowed, how can you stop any group from NOT marrying whom they please, or think they should be allowed to marry under THEIR our religious laws and not state law? Or argue that you can't deny love from a child or animal? Again, where will it stop?
People can ALREADY marry anyone or anything under their religious laws. Of course under civil law you can only marry another consenting adult.

Now feel free to run down to your church and marry the goat of your choosing.

“Je suis Charlie”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#31 Jul 1, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
People can ALREADY marry anyone or anything under their religious laws. Of course under civil law you can only marry another consenting adult.
Now feel free to run down to your church and marry the goat of your choosing.
You try to make a joke of it, but you wait! Someone out there will TRY to push this and see how far they are able to go! That is just what humans do.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Jul 2, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
You try to make a joke of it, but you wait! Someone out there will TRY to push this and see how far they are able to go! That is just what humans do.
Maybe stupid humans like you. The rest of us can easily understand the difference between 2 people marrying and someone marrying their goat.

But keep up the ridiculous rhetoric; it only makes you anti-gays look desperate for attention.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#33 Jul 13, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
It is a reasonable question! Wait and see who will cry bigotry, racism next to marry whomever, whatever or as many as they want! NAMBLA is already foaming at the mouth, no pun intended or this will be the argument for Sharia Law in the US! WAIT AND SEE!
NAMBLA has no valid argument, as children can neither legally consent, nor can they enter into a legal contract.

Use your head man.

“Je suis Charlie”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#34 Jul 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA has no valid argument, as children can neither legally consent, nor can they enter into a legal contract.
Use your head man.
But there will be someone that will argue different, or argue in lower the consent age. This will not stop with gay marriage, wait and see.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#36 Jul 13, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
But there will be someone that will argue different, or argue in lower the consent age. This will not stop with gay marriage, wait and see.
Children are not capable of understanding such a contract. That's the difference here. Two consenting adults who are mature enough to understand the commitment they intend to make should have the right to do so.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#37 Jul 13, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
But there will be someone that will argue different, or argue in lower the consent age. This will not stop with gay marriage, wait and see.
Those, as you admit, are different arguments.
There ARE valid arguments against lowering the age of consent, whereas there are not similar arguments against same sex marriage.

“Je suis Charlie”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#38 Jul 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Those, as you admit, are different arguments.
There ARE valid arguments against lowering the age of consent, whereas there are not similar arguments against same sex marriage.
Where do you draw the line? Someone is going to feel persecuted for doing something. It will never end!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#39 Jul 14, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
Where do you draw the line? Someone is going to feel persecuted for doing something. It will never end!
The line is already drawn at the age of viability.

Any sane person would realize this, and understand that it is an important distinction. Only an insane person would make a fetus a person with legal rights in utero before that point, doing so creates the potential for a conflict of rights between the fetus and mother.

“Je suis Charlie”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#40 Jul 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The line is already drawn at the age of viability.
Any sane person would realize this, and understand that it is an important distinction. Only an insane person would make a fetus a person with legal rights in utero before that point, doing so creates the potential for a conflict of rights between the fetus and mother.
That the problem. We are dealing with insane people trying to make something sound sane and mainstream. Wait and see what happens next.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#41 Jul 14, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
That the problem. We are dealing with insane people trying to make something sound sane and mainstream. Wait and see what happens next.
You are correct. What you are saying is absolutely not sane, and you wish to project your religious morality onto others. Fortunately, we still have a constitution that prevents you from doing so. If you find Abortion to be so objectionable, you have a remedy, don't get one.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#42 Jul 14, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is allowed, how can you stop any group from NOT marrying whom they please, or think they should be allowed to marry under THEIR our religious laws and not state law? Or argue that you can't deny love from a child or animal? Again, where will it stop?
Um ...when it either involves a person or creature that cannot legally consent to a marriage, or when such a marriage contract is harmful to either the people involved, or society in general.

It's not hard for sensible people to understand.

If you belief that children and animals can understand and sign legal contracts, then prove it.

I will never understand why your sort has so much difficulty in discerning the difference between adult humans, and children or animals. This issue ONLY seems to be present in the anti-gay crowd.

We all find it quite disturbing. I hope you are not harming any children or animals in your care.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#43 Jul 14, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
That the problem. We are dealing with insane people trying to make something sound sane and mainstream. Wait and see what happens next.
Yes, your belief in the sensibility of harming children and pets is not sane, but you still promote it as a viable option.

If I were heterosexual, I would be insulted by the idea that straight folks will rush to marry children or animals because gay adults can marry each-other.

The straight people I know aren't that twisted. It's likely something that is your personal problem, and not a fetish/illness shared by most straight people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How Iran Solved Its Gay Marriage Problem 1 min IQ Kid 4
News Supreme Court rejects challenge to New Jersey '... 3 min Fa-Foxy 17
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 3 min Wondering 546
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 min Blackburn 32,388
Are the mods fair and balanced? 5 min Frankie Rizzo 831
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 5 min Reverend Alan 139
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Wondering 20,710
News Mark Hopkins: The Supreme Court and gay marriage 7 min Dan 36
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 38 min Frankie Rizzo 59,629
More from around the web