However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

There are 20 comments on the Mar 28, 2013, NewsCenter 25 story 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.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#387 Mar 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
All part of 'marriage equality'....'you all' are the ones using the phrase....not us....own it...
Oh here we go, another dippy-do who needs everything explained like a four year old.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#388 Mar 29, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Apples and oranges.
not at all. Discrimination = discrimination.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#389 Mar 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a less than half-assed County Domestic Partnership, which really only has teeth if you work for the County. We don't. So it's mostly meaningless unless a company opts to recognize it.
Our wedding was a civil union in New Jersey, which is not recognized here.
Six months later, when marriages were legal in California (and Massachusetts still had a residency requirement) we flew out to California and got married at the courthouse there in L.A. The Golem (RIP) and his husband were our witnesses.
That's obviously not recognized here, either - but my question is - if only part of DOMA is struck down, and the Fed Gov starts recognizing state marriages, will it recognize our California marriage if our home state does not?
I believe it will, because your marriage is still legal, valid and recognized not only in California, but in the states that recognized out of state marriages!!!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#390 Mar 29, 2013
Ravianna wrote:
The debate won't end until the deluded notion of two women or two men getting married is defeated.
The debate will end. Your side will keep yapping with each other, just like racists still do today, but nobody will care to engage, because the law makes you irrelevant.

Enjoy!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#391 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but the fundamental "right" of marriage has always been in context of procreation, which all races can do. Gays couples can't. They never have.
Wow. I was just thinking how rare this was - an anti-gay poster who can spell and doesn't sound completely stupid.

Then you had to do the stupid procreation thing. Seriously?

Do I have to go into the whole thing about straight people who adopt, use surrogates, or just don't want kids?

You should be able to figure that out for yourself.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#392 Mar 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no spin from my end...it's exactly what I say. I don't believe in ssm (regardless of orientation), therefore, I don't believe in offering ssm the same protections as osm.
The bigotry 'spin' is the only spin....and that 'and the labeling' comes directly from you...
Seems like that's what you tell yourself to make yourself feel better, but you can't be anti-ssm and not be anti-gay. There is no separating the two. If you are against my marriage, you are against me.

That's like saying, "I'm not a racist. I just don't think people should have to rent to them if they don't want to."

The label fits...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#393 Mar 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
No one ever said it was a 'requirement', but even the Justices had enough sense to acknowledge it expectantly happens...
So do uti's; that doesn't mean they are the basis for marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#394 Mar 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually...it makes me anti-ssm...regardless of sexuality...try again...
And since the overwhelming majority of all same-sex couples who are married or seeking to get married are gay, that makes you anti-gay.

Spin it however you want to excuse your bigotry, but you're anti-gay.

Wear your label with pride- you earned it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#395 Mar 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws were overturned because they were based on race...
No, they were overturned because they violated the US constitution.

As you morons are so fond of pointing out, the states have the right to make marriage laws any way they choose. So that means states could ban marriages based on the race of the individual under states rights.

The ONLY reason it was overturned is because that violated the FEDERAL constitution.
Brad

Manchester, CT

#396 Mar 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
not at all. Discrimination = discrimination.
Its not discrimination if everyone has the same exact rights,which they do.
Changing the definition doesn't change the reality.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#397 Mar 29, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not discrimination if everyone has the same exact rights,which they do.
Changing the definition doesn't change the reality.
really, brad? so when everyon had the same rights to marry someon of the same race, that wasn't discrimination?

wanna re-think that poorly thought out post?
Brad

Manchester, CT

#398 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>really, brad? so when everyon had the same rights to marry someon of the same race, that wasn't discrimination?
wanna re-think that poorly thought out post?
Focus man.
Who was talking about inter racial marriage?
Thats old news.
Everyone has the same rights concerning marriage today.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#399 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If you oppose equal marriage rights for gay same-sex couples, that makes you anti-gay.
Spin it however you want, but you earned the label.
And if you are against marriage between siblings, that makes you anti-family then, right?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#400 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>really? talking about cell phone plans?
you ran out of rational arguments long ago.
in what way will SSM harm the US? how will it harm you? how will it harm maraige? those would be relevant topics...
Sorry, since I am helping fund those benefits, the burden is on you to show how it will HELP and why we should provide financial incentives for it.

Do you think we should provide financial incentives for siblings to marry? Why not? Would those marriages harm the US? Would plural marriages harm the US?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#401 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The drawbacks of polygamous relationships likely outweigh the benefits to society by allowing them to marry.
Multiple studies prove conclusively that being married DOES make a difference. Feel free to google it.
Really? What are those drawbacks? I did look at the studies. They measure the difference but not the cause. They did not show a causal relationship as to whether marriage caused those effects or if those characteristics in people made them more likely to marry.

If you have a point to prove, the burden of Googling is on you.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#402 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, how can you claim to understand constitutional issues when you don't even understand the basic applicable terminology? Google it and then we can discuss it.
1. Father-son have an existing close legal kinship relationship.
2. More likely there could be coersion or undue influence resulting in questionable informed free consent.
An unrelated adult same-sex couple is similarily situated to an unrelated adult opposite-sex couple.
Past discrimination doesn't make it constitutional.
You keep making the claim "More likely there could be coersion or undue influence " and have shown nothing (ZERO) to back it up. Do you deny there is often a butch and bitch in gay relationships? Doesn't that result in undue coercion? How about May-December marriages?

If there is undue coercion between family members, why are they allowed to enter in ANY legal contracts together?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#403 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, since I am helping fund those benefits, the burden is on you to show how it will HELP and why we should provide financial incentives for it.
Do you think we should provide financial incentives for siblings to marry? Why not? Would those marriages harm the US? Would plural marriages harm the US?
i too am funding those beniefits. the financial benefits could stay or go, I don't care, as long as they are equal.

it will help us achieve the goals our nation was set up to achieve. it is the moral thing to do. it will strengthen marriage.

no, the three poeple that might marry in your scenario will not hurt the US...keep trying for those changes...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#404 Mar 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a strong likelihood of abusive relationships in the case of, say, a father and a daughter.
You made a claim. Back it up with evidence, not opinion.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my job to make the case for people I don't even know who might want to marry their offspring.
No one is asking you to make the case for it. I asked you to make the case against it using non-imaginary legal arguments, knowing that I will then apply those same arguments to gay marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#405 Mar 29, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What are those drawbacks? I did look at the studies. They measure the difference but not the cause. They did not show a causal relationship as to whether marriage caused those effects or if those characteristics in people made them more likely to marry.
If you have a point to prove, the burden of Googling is on you.
how many laws will you need to change for polygamy? none for SSM.(outside of removing the laws put there soley to prevent it)

are people naturally attracted to multiple wives like gay people are to the same gender?

corporate laws seem to be more fitting for them...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#406 Mar 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should people be forced to stay in a marriage they no longer want to be in?
Again, just because some people get divorced is no reason not to encourage others to marry.
Why should anyone be forced to stay in any contract they don't want to be in? Um, because that is the nature of a contract.

If you don't want the terms or benefits of the contract, don't enter it. The whole point of the benefits was to provide incentive to enter a contract which should be hard to get out of. That is the whole point.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min The_Box 20,048
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 9 min Holy Guacamole 223
News Massachusetts AG optimistic court to OK gay mar... 12 min Holy Guacamole 1
News What to watch at SCOTUS gay marriage hearing 13 min Rainbow Kid Live 4
If Frankie Rizzo isn't gay and after Jade why d... (Jun '13) 13 min Frankie Rizzo 6
Are the mods fair and balanced? 15 min Frankie Rizzo 666
News Judge rules in favor of printer that refused ga... 19 min Wondering 8
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 20 min Blackburn 32,087
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,138
More from around the web