Gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Full Story
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2693 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but it will be made up of the saem idiots...
...and they'll be indulging poetic license, I'm sure.

So what would a political party have to be to not be "idiots". Agree with your megalomania, no doubt.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2695 Apr 23, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
...and they'll be indulging poetic license, I'm sure.
So what would a political party have to be to not be "idiots". Agree with your megalomania, no doubt.
Be made up of intelligent, informed people. of course, the ill-informed, complacent voters that can'[t be bothered to learn about the issues and laws of their own nation will not vote for such a party. they will continue to vote through their TV remotes for the ones with the most adverts...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2696 Apr 23, 2013
Slippery slope realized.....

The Washington Times reports:

[Polygamy is] getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.

... "Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."

... If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard. A Utah-based religious-freedom lawyer, Mr. Barnard has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.

"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.

Can no longer be dismissed as 'irrelevant' by the ssm supporters.....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2698 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Slippery slope realized.....
The Washington Times reports:
[Polygamy is] getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.
Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.
... "Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."
... If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard. A Utah-based religious-freedom lawyer, Mr. Barnard has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.
"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.
Can no longer be dismissed as 'irrelevant' by the ssm supporters.....
Realize transitive verb
to bring into concrete existence : accomplish <finally realized her goal>

No where is polygamy legal in the United States. Beside which, polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law, it seeks extraordinary protection of the law for three or more persons. Same sex couples seek equal protection for two persons., which already exists in every state in the union.

Why is it that those who advance this argument invariably cannot count?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2699 Apr 23, 2013
Even liberal can no longer deny the obvious...

NPR Casually Discusses How Gay Marriage May Lead to 'Grander Trend' of Legalized Polygamy
By Tim Graham | March 29, 2013 | 23:24

They made fun of Rick Santorum and other social conservatives when they suggested gay marriage would easily lead to legalizing polygamy. But now liberals see that “grander trend” on the horizon.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2700 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Even liberal can no longer deny the obvious...
NPR Casually Discusses How Gay Marriage May Lead to 'Grander Trend' of Legalized Polygamy
By Tim Graham | March 29, 2013 | 23:24
They made fun of Rick Santorum and other social conservatives when they suggested gay marriage would easily lead to legalizing polygamy. But now liberals see that “grander trend” on the horizon.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/...
The reality remains that no one has won one of thee claims in court, nor are they likely to.

Learn to count. 3 or more is greater than two, ergo polygamy seeks inherently greater, not equal protection of the law.

Since the Constitution does not delegate the authority to regulate marriage to the federal government, the 10th Amendment clearly reserves that power to the states. However, if my state were entertaining such legislation, which it is worthy of note has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, I would oppose it, because it places an unfair burden upon both the state and employers to provide benefits to a greater number of persons in a marriage. That is simply an irrational move to make. I don't care if someone wishes to be in a plural relationship, but there is no reason why the state and employers should be liable to support such greater unions.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2701 Apr 23, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth usually does for uneducated bigots like you.
Oh no....not the 'b' word!!! LOL!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2702 Apr 23, 2013
August 21, 2012

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage
by Bruce Hausknecht

If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?

That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims.(My earlier coverage is here.) And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification.

Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.

Cont'd.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2703 Apr 23, 2013
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution.

The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of “standing,” which boils down to whether the challenger has really been “injured” in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.

Cont'd.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2704 Apr 23, 2013
The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case.....

Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.

Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.

And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.

Never a truer word spoken...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2705 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case.....
The case has no merit, the state constitutionally must provide equal, not greater protection of the law.

Three or more is greater than two.
d pantz

United States

#2706 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why would you think a third party would be substantially different from the two we have?
you do realize that the political parties are made up of the people in this country, don't you?
that depends on how it emerges boy. Not allowing cfr members would be a great non corporate start.
Antoine

Talence, France

#2707 Apr 24, 2013
Everybody can love, everybody can make a civil union, everybody can make what he wants, this is liberty and as we are in a democraty we have to accept the differences between each of us!
Stop it with the religious comments, I'm catholic and I accept that because it's an actual topic and it's a normal evolution of the society!
With love from France where the debate is close.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2708 Apr 24, 2013
Antoine wrote:
Everybody can love, everybody can make a civil union, everybody can make what he wants, this is liberty and as we are in a democraty we have to accept the differences between each of us!
Stop it with the religious comments, I'm catholic and I accept that because it's an actual topic and it's a normal evolution of the society!
With love from France where the debate is close.
Unfortunately, this is America, and both parties embraced the political correctness of the 1980's as a means of conducting witch hunts against those who don't agree with the party agenda.

Sooner or later, the sizzling sausages of America will stop using the legal system to harass each other but for now, the idiots can't stop turning up the heat in their own frying pan.

Perhaps they see the solution to life's problems in having someone eat their worthless, ground-up, fatty carcasses.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2709 Apr 24, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case.....
Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.
Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.
And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
Never a truer word spoken...
Personally, I think a marriage should mean something to those who engage in it, and is nobody else's business. Stop using the law to bully people into a shallow parody of commitment to anything of value. If they aren't up to the task, they aren't going to be.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2710 Apr 24, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> that depends on how it emerges boy. Not allowing cfr members would be a great non corporate start.
Identifying the real villains IS important. Corporate greed in the form of exploiting cheap foreign or domestic labor is always at the top of the list. Taking resources through government manipulation is always out there. But never forget the liberal side as well.

Lobbyists for intellectual property rights, compulsory insurance and unfair labor practices based on education bias are all manifestations of traditional liberal agendas.

If it's law, medicine or education, you typically deal with heavy liberal bias. If it's corporate ambitions, linked to Christian values or harassment by the majority in local communities, it's always conservative bias. It's all sadly predictable.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2711 Apr 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Personally, I think a marriage should mean something to those who engage in it, and is nobody else's business. Stop using the law to bully people into a shallow parody of commitment to anything of value. If they aren't up to the task, they aren't going to be.
Never has anyone so quickly undermined their own point.

How exactly is it that marriage of same sex couples doesn't "mean something to those who engage in it", or that their commitment isn't "anything of value"?

Even you rhetoric is out of touch with reality. What about the 40% of marriages that end in divorce? For that matter what of the many people who have been married two, three, four, or even more times? Why should they be exempted because their early marriage didn't mean anything to those engaged in it, or wasn't a commitment of any value.

You are arguing a BS point to try to say the state should pick or choose winners or losers on this point, but the reality remains, heterosexual couples don't necessarily get love right on the first (second, third, etc) try, and the state doesn't discriminate against them.

However, even that is not to the point. The state has no interest in the motives to marry, merely the rights secured by the legal marriage.

Do you have any valid reasons to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, or just your own blistering moral disapproval, which amounts to a hill of beans?

Since: Mar 07

Hanover, VA

#2712 Apr 24, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution.
...
What does polygamy have to do with gay folks marrying one person, in the SAME way that straight folks do now?

At least TRY to form a logical argument for stopping gay Americans from marrying ONE person at a time.

Since: Mar 07

Hanover, VA

#2713 Apr 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Identifying the real villains IS important. Corporate greed in the form of exploiting cheap foreign or domestic labor is always at the top of the list. Taking resources through government manipulation is always out there. But never forget the liberal side as well.
Lobbyists for intellectual property rights, compulsory insurance and unfair labor practices based on education bias are all manifestations of traditional liberal agendas.
If it's law, medicine or education, you typically deal with heavy liberal bias. If it's corporate ambitions, linked to Christian values or harassment by the majority in local communities, it's always conservative bias. It's all sadly predictable.
You see to be posting to the wrong topic. Allowing gay folks to legally marry IS a conservative value.

What true conservative wants MORE government intrusion into people's personal lives?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2714 Apr 24, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
What does polygamy have to do with gay folks marrying one person, in the SAME way that straight folks do now?
At least TRY to form a logical argument for stopping gay Americans from marrying ONE person at a time.
Polygamists say...'a lot'!, as they thank you for successfully challenging the current marriage laws and duping a lot of Americans...

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
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 46 min KiMare 2,837
Chinese gay dating app grows to 15 million users 1 hr nayan 12
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr Cowobunga 201,164
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr RevKen 26,691
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 3 hr Zamby 126
Comedian Margaret Cho to headline at San Jose I... 3 hr FaFooey 20
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 3 hr RevKen 40
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 6 hr Pope Bennie s Closet 4,999
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr Rick in Kansas 5,455
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 15 hr EdmondWA 12
More from around the web