Florida Official: Gay Marriage Would ...

Florida Official: Gay Marriage Would Cause Harm

There are 147 comments on the ABC News story from May 30, 2014, titled Florida Official: Gay Marriage Would Cause Harm. In it, ABC News reports that:

The attorney general of Florida says in court documents that recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states would disrupt existing marriage laws and "impose significant public harm."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
NOM s Waffle House

Philadelphia, PA

#1 May 30, 2014
Restricting homophobes' ability to disfranchise lgbt people will impose significant public harm where there's significant numbers of sexually sick bigots.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2 May 30, 2014
And they STILL cannot come up with even ONE example of how marriage equality harms straight couples. Not one.

But that doesn't stop them, does it?
Dern

New York, NY

#3 May 31, 2014
"Florida's marriage laws have a close, direct, and rational relationship to society's legitimate interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units," Bondi's office said in court documents."

AMEN TO THAT!

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4 May 31, 2014
And it affects you in NY how, Dern1?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#5 May 31, 2014
Dern wrote:
"Florida's marriage laws have a close, direct, and rational relationship to society's legitimate interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units," Bondi's office said in court documents."!
The purchase of a $35 Florida marriage license does NOT involve children
.
It involves two legal adults in love

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#6 May 31, 2014
eJohn wrote:
And they STILL cannot come up with even ONE example of how marriage equality harms straight couples. Not one.
But that doesn't stop them, does it?
That is because they can not leave their KKKrist-insanity at the door when they get elected to public office. They all swore to uphold the Constitution and they are all [almost all of them] violating the principles of the Constitution and no one is calling them on it.

The reason they can not come up with even a single example is because no such example exists.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#7 May 31, 2014
Dern wrote:
"Florida's marriage laws have a close, direct, and rational relationship to society's legitimate interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units," Bondi's office said in court documents."
AMEN TO THAT!
There is no such thing as "society" therefore it can't have any interest in anything. It is not the job of the government to play favorites for those of us who chose to breed. These are personal decisions best left to the individuals involved. It is another example of how authoritarians in government want to micro-manage all our lives.

It is also an example proving that we can not trust KKKristians in public office as the first thing they do is pass laws against the peaceful activities of consenting adults. KKKristians have been destroying our Constitutional Republic since day one and they have no intention of stopping.

KKKrist-insanity is an abomination, it is a crime against humanity. And it is not only gays that it has harmed, but women, blacks etc. I want all laws based on KKKrist-insanity removed from our law books so that people can live free again.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8 May 31, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
The purchase of a $35 Florida marriage license does NOT involve children
It involves two legal adults in love
These days most marriage licenses involve children as most are on their 3rd and 4th marriage, LOL!

And I think you mean consenting adults, right? My gay cousin wants me to marry him, LOL, and while I do love him, I tease him that he wants to marry me so he can kill me and get all my money. It is a joke because he can have all the money he wants.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#9 May 31, 2014
NOM s Waffle House wrote:
Restricting homophobes' ability to disfranchise lgbt people will impose significant public harm where there's significant numbers of sexually sick bigots.
Well, look at you! I knew you could post facts with out insulting people and calling them names. Good for you. Good post. You make a lot of sense in this post.
Cult

Pittsfield, MA

#10 May 31, 2014
NOM s Waffle House wrote:
Restricting homophobes' ability to disfranchise lgbt people will impose significant public harm where there's significant numbers of sexually sick bigots.
Your last 3 words are projecting and a fine example of an oxymoron. How on earth can a person having a relationship with the opposite sex possibly be sexually sick? Your zealotry is showing again, Ernst.
:o)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11 May 31, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "society" therefore it can't have any interest in anything.
No such thing as society......

ahahahahah
ahahahahahah
ahahahahhaha

is that part of your ostrich act where you pretend that things you don't like don't exist? There's a word for that.... delusional.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12 May 31, 2014
This part of the law was left intact:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Until the supreme court strikes section 2 down, these federal judges are breaking this law.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#13 May 31, 2014
Wondering wrote:
This part of the law was left intact:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Until the supreme court strikes section 2 down, these federal judges are breaking this law.
Section 2 does not protect a state from FEDERAL authority to require marriage equality; so obviously this was the wide open path to our amazing success
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14 May 31, 2014
Wondering wrote:
This part of the law was left intact:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Until the supreme court strikes section 2 down, these federal judges are breaking this law.
ahahahha
ahhahahahaha
ahhahahaha

Yeah, right...... because YOU know more about the law than a federal judge.
Flank Steak

Pittsfield, MA

#15 May 31, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Section 2 does not protect a state from FEDERAL authority to require marriage equality; so obviously this was the wide open path to our amazing success
They use such catch phrases as equality to make you feel such. But guess what? You have no equality, and the govt cannot provide you with equality. You have no rights. Welcome to the free-dum bubble.
They OWN you.
Rambeaux

Philadelphia, PA

#16 May 31, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Section 2 does not protect a state from FEDERAL authority to require marriage equality; so obviously this was the wide open path to our amazing success
Oh, g'wan, let the sick bastids get married already. Maybe we will have some peace and quiet for a while, for chrissake!
Phyllis Schlafly s Stain

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Jun 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, look at you! I knew you could post facts with out insulting people and calling them names. Good for you. Good post. You make a lot of sense in this post.
The point I made is not about namecalling.

The point I made is about your routine use of namecalling while taking others to task for it.

I could careless about your invective - it's about your hypocrisy, your pathetic whining about something that you do.

You are apparently the craziest poster on topix, beyond foxy, beyond the Springfield LaRoochite person, beyond the buybull thumpers. I just don't know how many monikers you use and so which of those could also be you.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#20 Jun 1, 2014
Rambeaux wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, g'wan, let the sick bastids get married already. Maybe we will have some peace and quiet for a while, for chrissake!
Not so fast; speedy
.
We still have more than 40 active Federal lawsuits in the pipeline
.
With the launch of marriage equality in Illinois today; we still have 30 states to go before our crusade hits the National Museum of LGBT History
.
AND the President hasn't called out the National Guard to subdue redneck supremacy rioters yet. They're still putting their sheet suits on and warming up their blowtorches
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o6/04/318004/1/73285000...
Phyllis Schlafly s Stain

Philadelphia, PA

#21 Jun 1, 2014
Rambeaux wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, g'wan, let the sick bastids get married already. Maybe we will have some peace and quiet for a while, for chrissake!
You'll always obsess about men having sex with men, no matter what the law says or how many lesbian couples you see in your town or on your tv.
Rambeaux

Malvern, PA

#22 Jun 1, 2014
Phyllis Schlafly s Stain wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll always obsess about men having sex with men, no matter what the law says or how many lesbian couples you see in your town or on your tv.
Got no problem with lesbians. As a matter of fact, I kind of identify with them. My wife enjoys it when I kiss her li'l man in the boat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
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
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 11 min Frankie Rizzo 68,799
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 11 min GayleWood 37,409
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 13 min Frankie Rizzo 942
At what age were you born queer? 18 min Frankie Rizzo 8
News Pentagon Ends Transgender Ban 19 min BBM 7
News New survey doubles the estimate of transgender ... 26 min Fundies R Mentall... 5
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 31 min Frankie Rizzo 13,166
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 4 hr WasteWater 991
More from around the web