However court rules, gay marriage deb...

However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

There are 2351 comments on the NewsCenter 25 story from Mar 28, 2013, titled However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end. In it, NewsCenter 25 reports that:

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsCenter 25.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#286 Mar 28, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals consistently increase funding for the unions,not the students when it comes to education.
That's because the union kickbacks are higher than the student kickbacks.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#287 Mar 28, 2013
Colorado Chick wrote:
<quoted text> Really???... There are SOME States that are TOTALLY against it!!...BE CAUSE of the BIBLE teachings ...If YOU love someone and wish to share your life together.. DOING THE MARRIAGE THING..I believe.. IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.. GOD knows your heart..WHEN you have found your True Soulmate.. UNCONDITIONAL SPIRITUAL LOVE..ONLY sees YOUR SPIRIT... NOT your PHYSICAL Shell...JUST..your SPIRIT!!
And those states will be brought in line just like they were on interracial marriage and other issues.

There are always stragglers. Fortunately, our country forces them to better themselves.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#288 Mar 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And those states will be brought in line just like they were on interracial marriage and other issues.
There are always stragglers. Fortunately, our country forces them to better themselves.
I see that you and I, live in one of those states that need to be brought in line. We can register for Domestic Partnership here but I believe all that is a 'tracker' on where gay couples live. We did not do it.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#289 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>"MY" little leftie? are you under the mistaken impression i am of the left political persuasion/ that would show you are very poor at making assumptions from he given facts... but your posts show that enough.
i don't care if you use quotes, the word is offensive. you are 'that guy' at a party that thinks he is being all hip and really being offensiove but too stupid to know it...
Fortunately I don't care if you are offended. You are that guy at the party that gets offended at every little unPC comment. You know, like "dongle".

And I think being PC is retarded.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#290 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so wrong yet again.
Same-sex couples can indeed marry in 9 states. Just because the federal government currently doesn't RECOGNIZE that marriage doesn't mean the couple isn't still legally married.
The federal govt has no constitutional authority to define marriage, which is why DOMA is being overturned. So if the govt is going to recognize ANY legal state marriages, they have to recognize ALL legal state marriages.
Again, that's why DOMA is being overturned.
As I said, they are not married under federal law.(i.e. according to federal law, they are not married). Yes, within their states they are, but not under federal law.
Front Line Fighter

Greensburg, PA

#291 Mar 29, 2013
Written by a GAY MAN: "Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation."

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/962...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#292 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If the federal govt is going to recognize ANY legal state marriages, then they have to recognize ALL legal state marriages.
If a state allows first cousins to marry, then the federal govt has to recognize those marriages.
Your opinion. We'll see if the court agrees.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#293 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Another good reason to bar closely related family members from marrying.
You just ruined your own argument to that they should be able to marry.
Btw, if it's our fiscal problems you're really worried about, then you should support banning HETEROS from marrying, because they are the overwhelming majority of people in America sucking up benefits.
There's the rub. You cannot deny rights for fiscal reasons. If gays change the definition of marriage and get the court to declare it a right, then there is no legal reason to deny that right to ALL US citizens and not discriminate against them based on their lineage.

Why do you think the gov't provided benefits to married heteros in the first place? Answer that and you will understand why I think marriage benefits should be reduced (or even removed) or the legal holdings of the marriage contract should be reinforced back to what they were when the benefits were established.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#294 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They said an existing close familial legal kinship relationship already exists.
Is it equal to a marriage relationship? Civil unions also already exist. So, that should be good enough for gays.

BTW, claiming the court says something means nothing without the reference or quote to support your claim.
Front Line Fighter

Greensburg, PA

#295 Mar 29, 2013
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
This is for all you Bible preaching hellraisers out there who don't really have a clue as to how to deal with this sort of thing.
1) It makes no difference what believe or don't believe,what you like or don't like.
This world is going to do what it wants to do and the rest of the world doesn't give a damn what you have to say about it.
2) If you really want to be a Child of God and win souls for the Lord then heed this advice carefully and that is there is an old saying which says,"You Can Catch More Flies With Honey Than You Can With Vinegar."
Telling people that they are going to go to hell and burn forever and all this and that will not win hardly anybody over to the Lord.
I,myself,personally do not approve of homosexuality and there is also something that I absolutely do not believe for a minute about homosexuality but just because I say that it does not give me the right to deprive them of their common civil rights nor is it my place to judge any gay or any lesbian.
I know its going to be hard to accept gays and lesbians but you are just going to have to because just like it was with interracial couples,gays and lesbians are going to have the right to marry each other in every state in the country,it will happen.
And it will happen to our detriment. Please read this written by a GAY MAN. Quote from the article (which is brilliant, BTW): Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither 'progressive' nor 'conservative' legislation. It is 'regressive' legislation." I don't know about gay folks going to hell. That is only for the Lord to know. I do agree with this man, however, that things will come undone. And I think another way to describe this is "our society will go to hell in a hand basket."

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/962...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#296 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because married people are happier, healthier, more productive members of society.
And society benefits when people are healthier & more productive.
So the govt properly incentivizes marriage.
SO that should apply to family members who want to marry as well then, right?

Or do they not have the right to be happier and healthier?

Also, all studies showing they are happier and healthier have been with heterosexuals. The same does not necessarily hold true for gay marriages.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#297 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately I don't care if you are offended. You are that guy at the party that gets offended at every little unPC comment. You know, like "dongle".
And I think being PC is retarded.
its not being PC, it is being human...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#298 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you just refuse to accept any legal argument against it because you're terrified of the gays getting married and you realize there is absolutely nothing yo can do to stop it. So you have to resort to lame incest & polygamy concerns.
Feel free to tie youself up in knots over it. It won't stop us from getting married, and getting federal benefits, and eventually getting the right to marry in all 50 states.
But do keep trying......
You have yet to present one for me to reject. You have no cited a single instance of case law.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#299 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
There's the rub. You cannot deny rights for fiscal reasons. If gays change the definition of marriage and get the court to declare it a right, then there is no legal reason to deny that right to ALL US citizens and not discriminate against them based on their lineage.
Why do you think the gov't provided benefits to married heteros in the first place? Answer that and you will understand why I think marriage benefits should be reduced (or even removed) or the legal holdings of the marriage contract should be reinforced back to what they were when the benefits were established.
Back to when women entering inot marriage lost their right to inherent wealth or property? back to that?

marriage is always changing, as social constructs must to remain relevant.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#300 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>its not being PC, it is being human...
Oh noes. You called me not human. Isn't that hate speech in itself?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#301 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Back to when women entering inot marriage lost their right to inherent wealth or property? back to that?
marriage is always changing, as social constructs must to remain relevant.
Nope. The benefits to marriage really did not come until after that. But before no-fault divorce. What is the point of having a contract and getting benefits for entering if it is easy to get out of it?

That's like entering a contract to get a cheap phone but then having no repercussions for leaving the contract.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#302 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. The benefits to marriage really did not come until after that. But before no-fault divorce. What is the point of having a contract and getting benefits for entering if it is easy to get out of it?
That's like entering a contract to get a cheap phone but then having no repercussions for leaving the contract.
but there are repercussions.

epic fail...

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#303 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, they are not married under federal law.(i.e. according to federal law, they are not married). Yes, within their states they are, but not under federal law.
MY guess is probably by June.......we will have that federal recognition along with the federal rights, benefits and privileges that other legally married couples have!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#304 Mar 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
MY guess is probably by June.......we will have that federal recognition along with the federal rights, benefits and privileges that other legally married couples have!!!
I agree.

And I still maintain that in states where gay marriage is not [yet] legal, those states still must legaly recognize the ssame gender marriage sof other states where they are legal, because of teh full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. there is NOT a "gay exception" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. And I don't believe that homosexuality was invented only after the 14th Amendment was ratified.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#305 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, they are not married under federal law.(i.e. according to federal law, they are not married). Yes, within their states they are, but not under federal law.
NO ONE is married under federal law; they're all married according to their STATE law.

The federal govt has no constitutional authority to decide who's married; it doesn't matter how many laws they pass.

That's why DOMA is being overturned.

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
News Is my 13-year-old son gay? @ Salon (Apr '07) 1 min marcier18 632
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 3 min Frankie Rizzo 5,804
News Jewish groups pull support of Holocaust exhibit 3 min dick fuld zionism 18
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 4 min Wondering 4,770
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 5 min Wondering 653
News Rare Under 40 poll: This is what young people t... 6 min Wondering 34
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Wondering 21,945
News Rick Santorum Will Fight The Supreme Court If I... 4 hr Poof1 114
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 5 hr WeTheSheeple 2,719
More from around the web