Women Plan To Marry, Challenge SD Gay...

Women Plan To Marry, Challenge SD Gay Marriage Ban

There are 104 comments on the KDLT-TV Sioux Falls story from Apr 25, 2014, titled Women Plan To Marry, Challenge SD Gay Marriage Ban. In it, KDLT-TV Sioux Falls reports that:

A lesbian couple from Rapid City plans to exchange vows Saturday in Minnesota then challenge South Dakota's ban on same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize such nuptials.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KDLT-TV Sioux Falls.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#1 Apr 25, 2014
We're now down to Alaska, North Dakota and Montana as states which haven't yet had a marriage equality lawsuit filed.
Hermione

Louisville, KY

#2 Apr 25, 2014
Who wants to be gay in Alaska? Who wants to be gay and married in Alaska. It's too damn cold.
IoanPueblo

United States

#3 Apr 25, 2014
Great! The more challenges the better

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Apr 25, 2014
You GO, Sistahs !!!!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Apr 25, 2014
See guys!

Full Faith and Credit IS (slowly) getting resurrected from the dead clause file ... even IF they are doing it through "Equal Protection".

C'mon guys! MORE CASES !!!
Larry

Richardson, TX

#6 Apr 25, 2014
This is the BS we have to put up with here in Texas.



Thank you for your letter expressing your thoughts about same sex marriages. The institution of marriage is important to me, and I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue.



As you may know, the Supreme Court recently heard two cases regarding same sex marriage. The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenged California’s ban on same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. The second case, Windsor v. United States, involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the grounds that DOMA denies rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA. The court also delivered a 5-4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry effectively allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in the state of California.



Although we live in a free society and people are free to cohabitate, contract, and bequeath property as they see fit, marriage deserves special protection. I believe the legal definition of marriage should be limited between one man and one woman as this is an institution dating back thousands of years and has served as a critical part of the foundation of our civil society.



Although you and I do not see eye-to-eye on this issue, you may be certain that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the House of Representatives consider relevant legislation in the future.



Thank you again for contacting me. I appreciate having the opportunity to serve you in the United States House of Representatives. I encourage you to visit my website at www.hensarling.house.gov where you can sign up for my e-newsletter. The website also provides links to my YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter pages, all of which will help bring my work in Washington, D.C., home to you.



Yours respectfully,

Signature
Yours respectfully,

Signature

JEB HENSARLING

Member of Congress



JH/MB
Dan

Omaha, NE

#7 Apr 25, 2014
Larry wrote:
This is the BS we have to put up with here in Texas.
Thank you for your letter expressing your thoughts about same sex marriages. The institution of marriage is important to me, and I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue.
As you may know, the Supreme Court recently heard two cases regarding same sex marriage. The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenged California’s ban on same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. The second case, Windsor v. United States, involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the grounds that DOMA denies rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA. The court also delivered a 5-4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry effectively allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in the state of California.
Although we live in a free society and people are free to cohabitate, contract, and bequeath property as they see fit, marriage deserves special protection. I believe the legal definition of marriage should be limited between one man and one woman as this is an institution dating back thousands of years and has served as a critical part of the foundation of our civil society.
Although you and I do not see eye-to-eye on this issue, you may be certain that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the House of Representatives consider relevant legislation in the future.
Thank you again for contacting me. I appreciate having the opportunity to serve you in the United States House of Representatives. I encourage you to visit my website at www.hensarling.house.gov where you can sign up for my e-newsletter. The website also provides links to my YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter pages, all of which will help bring my work in Washington, D.C., home to you.
Yours respectfully,
Signature
Yours respectfully,
Signature
JEB HENSARLING
Member of Congress
JH/MB
Extremely polite and gracious response, IMO.

You may disagree with his views, but I'm not sure that this correspondence serves to indict Rep. Hensarling.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#8 Apr 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Extremely polite and gracious response, IMO.
You may disagree with his views, but I'm not sure that this correspondence serves to indict Rep. Hensarling.
... except that it proves that he is completely (and deliberately?) ignorant of marriage as it has been defined for "thousands of years", both in religious and secular histories (including the Holy Bible).
Dan

Omaha, NE

#9 Apr 25, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
... except that it proves that he is completely (and deliberately?) ignorant of marriage as it has been defined for "thousands of years", both in religious and secular histories (including the Holy Bible).
?

Would you want him to lean on the Bible in his response?

He certainly didn't mention it.

He stated what he believed, I think.

Move to Texas if you don't live there, run against him and unseat him. Then, your constituents can read about your views of marriage throughout history, and you can sprinkle liberal doses of what you think the Bible says about it, if you're so disposed.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Apr 26, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Extremely polite and gracious response, IMO.
You may disagree with his views, but I'm not sure that this correspondence serves to indict Rep. Hensarling.
It's blah, blah.

It gives an opinion with no reasoning behind that opinion, then continues to ask for the reader's support.

It's not up to MY standard.

My Reps have always been far more forthcoming.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#11 Apr 26, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It's blah, blah.
It gives an opinion with no reasoning behind that opinion, then continues to ask for the reader's support.
It's not up to MY standard.
My Reps have always been far more forthcoming.
Did the person to whom I replied (or you) expect an exposition from the Congressman?

He replied, respectfully stated that his position differs on the issue, and closed asking for support.

A politician isn't going to tell a voter off.

People get their say at election time. He evidently got voted in. If enough people in his district find his stance on that issue of sufficent import to vote him out,, they will.

I thought it very congenial that he'd reply in that manner to someone with whom he disagrees on an issue. He could have simply thrown it in the circular file.
Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Apr 26, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Extremely polite and gracious response, IMO.
You may disagree with his views, but I'm not sure that this correspondence serves to indict Rep. Hensarling.
That man is a sexually sick bigot, imo, and a liar.

Marriage has not been "one man and one woman" for thousands of years. It has barely been so for a century even in the West if you stupid bigots would actually ever think it through.

Who cares if abject bigots phrase their bigoted, ignorant hate "graciously"? All the more reason to call them out.
Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#13 Apr 26, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
He stated what he believed, I think.
The id iot's "beliefs" are completely contrary to known fact.

It is essential to point little nits like this out to our fundie and tee baggrz detritus.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#14 Apr 26, 2014
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>
That man is a sexually sick bigot, imo, and a liar.
Marriage has not been "one man and one woman" for thousands of years. It has barely been so for a century even in the West if you stupid bigots would actually ever think it through.
Who cares if abject bigots phrase their bigoted, ignorant hate "graciously"? All the more reason to call them out.
Um, I think it's been around for more than 100 years in the West.

In any event, the guy's as entitled to his opinion as you are. He doesn't present himself as an anthropologist or a social scientist. He's a Congressman.

If he reacted to his correspondent they way you do to him, there'd be an article in EDGE screaming about it and a thread here with 750+ posts condemning him.

The Congressman was civil and congenial, and certainly didn't have to reply in such a direct fashion.
Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Apr 26, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, I think it's been around for more than 100 years in the West.
What you think is pure ignorance, as usual.

Women were effectively chattel in the US until even the 1970s. Wives could not get credit in their own name and could not effectively prosecute a husband for rape.

Polygamy and child brides were quite common even in the US until the 20th century...and even more recently in backwards quarters.

So you see, you sick, lying, ignorant bigot, the "polite" bigotry about "one man and one woman" is actually nothing more than a psychological malady. It is unconnected from known fact.

You stupid filth.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#16 Apr 26, 2014
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>
What you think is pure ignorance, as usual.
Women were effectively chattel in the US until even the 1970s. Wives could not get credit in their own name and could not effectively prosecute a husband for rape.
Polygamy and child brides were quite common even in the US until the 20th century...and even more recently in backwards quarters.
So you see, you sick, lying, ignorant bigot, the "polite" bigotry about "one man and one woman" is actually nothing more than a psychological malady. It is unconnected from known fact.
You stupid filth.
Yawn.

Wives were still women.

Next.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#17 Apr 26, 2014
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>
What you think is pure ignorance, as usual.
Women were effectively chattel in the US until even the 1970s. Wives could not get credit in their own name and could not effectively prosecute a husband for rape.
Polygamy and child brides were quite common even in the US until the 20th century...and even more recently in backwards quarters.
So you see, you sick, lying, ignorant bigot, the "polite" bigotry about "one man and one woman" is actually nothing more than a psychological malady. It is unconnected from known fact.
You stupid filth.
.....and plygamy's been illegal since the 1800's. Crimilaized in 1862, made a felony in 1882.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#18 Apr 26, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
... except that it proves that he is completely (and deliberately?) ignorant of marriage as it has been defined for "thousands of years", both in religious and secular histories (including the Holy Bible).
Polygamy was acceptable in biblical times as well. One can only assume your approval of same.
Or are you the more popular version of Christianty and believe you get to cherry pick what parts of the bible you support and just ignore the others?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#19 Apr 26, 2014
So THIS thread is going to be a polygamy thread too?

Why bother with the actual news at all?

Just say it's all polygamy.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#20 Apr 26, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was acceptable in biblical times as well. One can only assume your approval of same.
Or are you the more popular version of Christianty and believe you get to cherry pick what parts of the bible you support and just ignore the others?
We get to cherry-pick.:)

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus said:“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

In Luke 14: 26, Jesus said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

Yet, in Ephesians 2: 14 - 17, Paul says: "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near."

The first two references I cited, Jesus' own words, are diametrically opposed to what Paul says in the last reference I quoted.

So which do you believe and pick ? Jesus of Nazareth ? Or Saul of Tarsus ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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 Pulse nightclub massacre is Florida's top story... 22 min gary 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 28 min lides 44,022
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 32 min lides 23,883
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 36 min Demon Finder 201
News The Case for Decriminalizing Gay Sex in Public ... 49 min Southern Charm 2
News Homosexuality against natural law (Sep '09) 1 hr Southern Charm 1,433
News Gay man legally donates blood after a year with... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 4
More from around the web