Analysts: Gay marriage OK remains unlikely in Pa.

Nov 18, 2012 Full story: Pocono Record 41

Despite recent gains for gay marriage in a number of states, analysts say you needn't expect Pennsylvania to join their number anytime soon.

Full Story

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#22 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>Did you actaully read anything? first thing i said is try to change it dummy. If not you can move.
People are changing it. If you don't like it, YOU can move.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#23 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>]Its called state rights nitwit ever hear of it? it’s in the constitution. Actually the ONLY reason some states agreed to the constitution Gay rights isn’t. If gays were open and out and wanted to be married when the constitution was written you better believe that would of been in the constitution to outlaw that.
You have equal protection if not call the police. Typical you want to push your beliefs on the mass of society who disagrees but when someone has a different view you are so close minded.

Sounds like you are a communist talking all of this gov forcing you to do this or that, you must be an Obama supporter.

Bottom line is you libs are all hypocrites its okay for YOU to push your beilfs on someone, but when they say they say the opposite you cry foul and they are close minded lol. Do you realize how big of a hypocrite you are???

I also never said I was for or against it I just find it hilarious how big hypocrites you people are.

MY LTCF should be recongnized everywhere! guess what its not becuase of state rights. Deal with it.
Go ahead, call me a nitwit. It takes attention away from the fact that you don't know what a comma is, or when a sentence should end. Really.

Federal Constitution trumps State constitution. Always.

It isn't a matter of disagreement. I can respect your opinion, and we can agree to disagree. I was referring to proven, inalienable fact. No opinion involved. You can have your beliefs and eat them too.

Regardless of your beliefs, the fact remains that by denying marriage to same sex couples, over 1000 federal rights are being denied to otherwise contributing members of society.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#24 Nov 20, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead, call me a nitwit. It takes attention away from the fact that you don't know what a comma is, or when a sentence should end. Really.
Federal Constitution trumps State constitution. Always.
It isn't a matter of disagreement. I can respect your opinion, and we can agree to disagree. I was referring to proven, inalienable fact. No opinion involved. You can have your beliefs and eat them too.
Regardless of your beliefs, the fact remains that by denying marriage to same sex couples, over 1000 federal rights are being denied to otherwise contributing members of society.
You dont know my opinion on this Im just a advocate for state rights.
I personally think a good compromise is civil unions with the exact same benefits, just not called "marriage." If we are going to go on a fed level making states abide.
That is my real opinion on gay marriage.

I can see both sides of the issue and can make arguments either way.

Yes I also spell horrible, and use bad grammar. If I wanted to be perfect in that I would of went to school for that and not joined the military. With that in mind DADT should of been left alone removing that was a bad idea. Military is about cohesion and being one unit, NOT individuality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#25 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>So you are okay with forcing your beliefs on people but not okay for them to force theirs on you.....LOL
What equal protection?? Maybe gay marriage is a reason for higher taxes in Maryland.
No one in PA is stopping you for loving and being intimatewith your significant other.
If you wanted to live in a state that approves gay marriage you have plenty of choices, and you can look for a job.
Denial of equal rights is an example of using the law to impose beliefs on others. While it may not change beliefs, it requires the others to live under those restrictive beliefs, without the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the constitution.

Equality under the law does not force you to change your beliefs or to operate under those beliefs. You are still free to marry the qualified person of your (mutual) choice. You are not forced into a same sex marriage or none at all. Further, you are not forced to change your beliefs. Those opposed to same sex couples can still hate them, and keep them out of their homes and churches if they so choose.

"In the courts final analysis, the governments only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#26 Nov 20, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
<quoted text>
People are changing it. If you don't like it, YOU can move.
If PA makes it legal more power to you good job getting things changed for the state. I dont really care and would not move if PA changed that, nor would i be on here crying about PA making it legal.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#27 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>You dont know my opinion on this Im just a advocate for state rights.
I personally think a good compromise is civil unions with the exact same benefits, just not called "marriage." If we are going to go on a fed level making states abide.
That is my real opinion on gay marriage.
I can see both sides of the issue and can make arguments either way.
Yes I also spell horrible, and use bad grammar. If I wanted to be perfect in that I would of went to school for that and not joined the military. With that in mind DADT should of been left alone removing that was a bad idea. Military is about cohesion and being one unit, NOT individuality.
With civil unions, only the equality of gay people is compromised. Straight people give up nothing, nor should they. Yet they lose nothing by accepting marriage equality.

DADT was a terrible law for many reasons. It forced people to lie and keep secrets. Nothing is more destructive to unit cohesion than forcing soldiers to keep secrets from each other. It also told the world that gay people must be punished simply for being gay. It had no place in a country dedicated to the proposition that all are equal under the law. It was decalred unconstitutional before it was repealed.

"Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act." http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/trial...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>]Its called state rights nitwit ever hear of it? its in the constitution. Actually the ONLY reason some states agreed to the constitution Gay rights isnt. If gays were open and out and wanted to be married when the constitution was written you better believe that would of been in the constitution to outlaw that.
You have equal protection if not call the police. Typical you want to push your beliefs on the mass of society who disagrees but when someone has a different view you are so close minded.
Sounds like you are a communist talking all of this gov forcing you to do this or that, you must be an Obama supporter.
Bottom line is you libs are all hypocrites its okay for YOU to push your beilfs on someone, but when they say they say the opposite you cry foul and they are close minded lol. Do you realize how big of a hypocrite you are???
I also never said I was for or against it I just find it hilarious how big hypocrites you people are.
MY LTCF should be recongnized everywhere! guess what its not becuase of state rights. Deal with it.
How is getting married pushing our beliefs on you? No one is saying YOU will be forced to marry someone of the same sex.

States don't have the right to discriminate. They tried that crap with blacks and eventually got smacked down by the federal courts.

Same thing here. It's only a matter of time before the federal courts force every state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>You dont know my opinion on this Im just a advocate for state rights.
I personally think a good compromise is civil unions with the exact same benefits, just not called "marriage." If we are going to go on a fed level making states abide.
That is my real opinion on gay marriage.
I can see both sides of the issue and can make arguments either way.
Yes I also spell horrible, and use bad grammar. If I wanted to be perfect in that I would of went to school for that and not joined the military. With that in mind DADT should of been left alone removing that was a bad idea. Military is about cohesion and being one unit, NOT individuality.
And the military is STILL about cohesion of the unit, and has been shown, gays serving openly is no more detrimental to unit cohesion than heteros serving openly has been.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#30 Nov 20, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
With civil unions, only the equality of gay people is compromised. Straight people give up nothing, nor should they. Yet they lose nothing by accepting marriage equality.
DADT was a terrible law for many reasons. It forced people to lie and keep secrets. Nothing is more destructive to unit cohesion than forcing soldiers to keep secrets from each other. It also told the world that gay people must be punished simply for being gay. It had no place in a country dedicated to the proposition that all are equal under the law. It was decalred unconstitutional before it was repealed.
"Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act." http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/trial...
I will just disagree not for nothing you lose some rights being in the military that just comes with the job. You are not forced to join the military and you know the rules before you sign up. The purpose is cohesion one unit not a group of individuals. Now I am no longer active so cannot say first hand if I would or have seen things change for the worst. My fear is all it will take is a person no longer wanting to be in the military and just for lack of a better term "acting gay" violating the code of conduct getting dishonorable discharge ore reprimanded and suing the military claiming he was discharged for being homosexual.

I can tell you my CO also shared this view.

There is 3 or 4 things about repealing DADT that concern me knowing what goes on in the military especially overseas and in the barracks.
If that never happens and I dont see the negative effects of this in the military than Im just wrong about that.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#31 Nov 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How is getting married pushing our beliefs on you? No one is saying YOU will be forced to marry someone of the same sex.
States don't have the right to discriminate. They tried that crap with blacks and eventually got smacked down by the federal courts.
Same thing here. It's only a matter of time before the federal courts force every state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Its really not pushing it on me personally but it does to some people, Religous people for starters.
Than the fed court should recongnize my LTCF everywhere in the USA it violates my rights that they dont.
States set standards for marriage like same sex or traditional based on the belifs of the people of that state, just like they set standards on what is required for a carrying permit based on what they think is right.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#32 Nov 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And the military is STILL about cohesion of the unit, and has been shown, gays serving openly is no more detrimental to unit cohesion than heteros serving openly has been.
It very much can be detrimental. That is the reason a lot of military including top Marine general being agianst the repeal. 60% of combat troops felt and or still feel that same way. So right there its a distraction

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#33 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>Its really not pushing it on me personally but it does to some people, Religous people for starters.
Than the fed court should recongnize my LTCF everywhere in the USA it violates my rights that they dont.
States set standards for marriage like same sex or traditional based on the belifs of the people of that state, just like they set standards on what is required for a carrying permit based on what they think is right.
Only if those state standards don't violate the US constitution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>It very much can be detrimental. That is the reason a lot of military including top Marine general being agianst the repeal. 60% of combat troops felt and or still feel that same way. So right there its a distraction
No more of a distraction than any other change to military policy.

Btw, that same Marine general (Amos) admitted that gays serving openly hasn't been detrimental to unit cohesion nor combat effectiveness.

Oh well, so much for that......

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#35 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>I will just disagree not for nothing you lose some rights being in the military that just comes with the job. You are not forced to join the military and you know the rules before you sign up. The purpose is cohesion one unit not a group of individuals. Now I am no longer active so cannot say first hand if I would or have seen things change for the worst. My fear is all it will take is a person no longer wanting to be in the military and just for lack of a better term "acting gay" violating the code of conduct getting dishonorable discharge ore reprimanded and suing the military claiming he was discharged for being homosexual.
I can tell you my CO also shared this view.
There is 3 or 4 things about repealing DADT that concern me knowing what goes on in the military especially overseas and in the barracks.
If that never happens and I dont see the negative effects of this in the military than Im just wrong about that.
While true you lose some rights when you enlist, the same rules should apply equally to everyone. When talking about fundamental first amendment rights, any restriction must serve a purpose beyond maintaining an irrational prejudice.

Many who enlisted under DADT were 18 at the time, and many gay and bisexual people at that age do not yet accept and understand how sexual orientation works, while others hoped the military would change them.

Many enlisted and officers joined before DADT. But DADT was written in a way that allowed military service as long as no one found out who they were attracted to. But that required keeping secrets, which is antithetical to unit cohesion. Additionally, keeping such a secret is next to impossible in the long run.

So far, the fear some will use being gay as an excuse to avoid punishment for other offenses has not been realized, and there is no reason to believe it will be. Fear of the unknown is a powerful tool, used by those who want to maintain otherwise scientifically unsupportable prejudices.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#36 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>It very much can be detrimental. That is the reason a lot of military including top Marine general being agianst the repeal. 60% of combat troops felt and or still feel that same way. So right there its a distraction
The now 2 year old Pentagon study revealed most soldiers already know gay soldiers and don't really care. 70 percent asserted that they believed a repeal of don't ask, don't tell would not have a negative impact on military morale. Additionally, 92 percent contend that their experiences with colleagues perceived to be gay have been nothing but positive. Cpt. Anthony Woods (West Point graduate, post grad Harvard, Two combat tour vet., Bronze Star) was on CNN around that time. Discharged under DADT, he eloquently explained how DADT harms the military in addition to being unnecessary. It directly harms gay soldiers and their families as well.

Beyond that, it dehumanizes and demonizes all gay people by telling everyone that it is not only acceptable, but necessary to punish gay people. That official social prejudice has no scientific basis and establishes a prejudice in the law that is only supported by a few questionable religious texts which are contradicted by other more important texts, and not agreed upon by all religious scholars, leaders, and believers. The tragedy is that the resulting dehumanization and stigmatization results in needless suffering and death in a wide variety of ways, here and around the world. DADT only perpetuated the deadly prejudice it was designed to indulge.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37 Nov 20, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>Its really not pushing it on me personally but it does to some people, Religous people for starters.
Than the fed court should recongnize my LTCF everywhere in the USA it violates my rights that they dont.
States set standards for marriage like same sex or traditional based on the belifs of the people of that state, just like they set standards on what is required for a carrying permit based on what they think is right.
No religious groups are required to recognize marriage equality or even accept gay people in their congregations. They can discriminate any way they choose, and they do. This first amendment principal has been upheld by the courts and is so old, it is settled law. Yet some of the states that have passed equality, have restated that principal in the law and made it clear no religious group has to perform same sex marriages. Recently, a church in the south refused to allow a black couple who were members of their congregation to get married in their own church. No legal problem. No law was violated.

But religious groups that do recognize marriage equality are restricted from practicing their religious beliefs as they see fit, by laws that restrict marriage equality. No religious groups are harmed by acceptance of equality, but only by denial of equality.

LTCF laws affect all persons qualified to carry, equally. You may not agree with them, but they don't discriminate.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#38 Nov 21, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>So you are okay with forcing your beliefs on people but not okay for them to force theirs on you.....LOL
What equal protection?? Maybe gay marriage is a reason for higher taxes in Maryland.
..
That's a very silly comment.

How in the world would I be "forcing a belief"? Would I be stepping into homes, cracking open skulls, and inserting MY "belief"?

Would I be voting to ban all straight folks from marrying? Harming their families in ANY way?

Of course not.

It's not a difficult concept, really. By voting to stop my marriage from being legally recognized, some people are directly harming my family.

By my pushing for legal recognition of my marriage, not a single bigot will be harmed in ANY way. NO other family will be harmed.

Do you see the difference?

One more time:

Marriage equality for gay folks harms no one.

Banning gay couples from legally marrying harms them, and their families.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#39 Nov 21, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>It very much can be detrimental. That is the reason a lot of military including top Marine general being agianst the repeal. 60% of combat troops felt and or still feel that same way. So right there its a distraction
I didn't know that our soldiers were that weak.

Are the strong men and women in our military really "distracted" by someone else's sexual orientation?

If true, that would make them seem rather pathetic, particularly when so many other countries armed forces have not had such a problem.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#40 Nov 21, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>Its really not pushing it on me personally but it does to some people, Religous people for starters.
..
Wouldn't that be THEIR problem, then? And not the fault of those seeking equality under the law?

And what about all of the religious people, and church denominations that support same sex couple's right to legally marry?

If religious belief is to be the determining factor on who is afforded basic secular civil and human rights, which religion or religious denomination gets to choose?

My recognized Christian denomination conducts weddings for same sex couples. Isn't the belief of other denominations who do not do the same being forced upon MY church?

And isn't such confusion the very reason that religious belief of any group should NOT be a determining factor under the law?

Since: Mar 07

United States

#41 Nov 21, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>You dont know my opinion on this Im just a advocate for state rights.
I personally think a good compromise is civil unions with the exact same benefits, just not called "marriage." ...
...
But why call a person's marriage something other than marriage, simply because you want to make it "lesser" and different?

Most people aren't going to accept that, and why would they?

Would you accept it for yourself?

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Brian_G 6,077
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,726
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 2 hr NorCal Native 3,025
The NE Jade Christmas Day Thread 2 hr Farmsworth 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr Religionthebiglie 51,284
After 30 years, AIDS has become a 'Black disease' (Jun '11) 2 hr Jason 37
26 'Gay' Men Arrested at Cairo Bathhouse Caged ... 3 hr KiMerde 1
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 4 hr NorCal Native 5,169
Florida clerks won't give gays marriage licenses 4 hr NorCal Native 21
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 10 hr Poopdeck Pappy 68,588
More from around the web