Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61362 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#994 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just one tiny example. Wow! You are losing it!
There is a complex jumble of tax laws to prevent businesses from exploiting workers to the point of maltreatment. It's not working. I couldn't even begin to list all of the tax loopholes, acts of bribery, monopoly extortion and so on that favor capitalists.
If the employer has the profits to pay his or herself hundreds of times more than their workers, than the workers certainly have lost out in the process of fair taxation, government representation and collective bargaining.
But please, go on explaining how CEO's are hundreds of times more productive than workers are. Tell us all!
Yes, i can see that you can't list them!

not that any of that would prove your point. i'ms till waiting for your very first example of how the wealhty use more gov't services than others, as you stated...

still waiting...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#995 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
That's just one tiny example. Wow! You are losing it!
There is a complex jumble of tax laws to prevent businesses from exploiting workers to the point of maltreatment. It's not working. I couldn't even begin to list all of the tax loopholes, acts of bribery, monopoly extortion and so on that favor capitalists.
If the employer has the profits to pay his or herself hundreds of times more than their workers, than the workers certainly have lost out in the process of fair taxation, government representation and collective bargaining.
But please, go on explaining how CEO's are hundreds of times more productive than workers are. Tell us all!
You are running a bit off topic, don't you think?

Have you noticed that when you can't offer a rational and on topic response that you attempt to obfuscate the topic? I have.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#996 Apr 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
My favorite to date is their claim that the US Supreme Court never asserted that marriage was a fundamental right. "Anonymous" isn't terribly bright.
"And the Supreme Court has never claimed that marriage is a fundamental right." -Anonymous.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...
yes, he doesn't even know enough about his own country to be called an informed citizen, yet he feels he can push his prejudice on others by citing law...

he has yet to make one rational point against SSM, haven't you, anonymous? if so, name one of them that hasn't been completely disproven... oh...you're still trying to find examples to back up the false claims you are still making...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#997 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
And there is no claim on my part that homosexuality is a disease, just a symptom of one of many medical conditions.....Sort of like name calling is likely a sign of another obsessive-compulsive disorder called Tourette's syndrome.
Of course, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in1973.

Do you have any facts to back up your opinion that homosexuality is a medical condition? It appears the doctors and scientists all disagree with you. Merely repeating your opinion ad nauseum does not make it factual.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#998 Apr 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
My favorite to date is their claim that the US Supreme Court never asserted that marriage was a fundamental right. "Anonymous" isn't terribly bright.
"And the Supreme Court has never claimed that marriage is a fundamental right." -Anonymous.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...
Read your own link. They were defending the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment. As described by Wikipedia "safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clau...

Sanction of law: See the Defense of Marriage Act.

Arbitrary Denial: Also see the Defense of Marriage Act. You can get married. The government does not have to recognize it.

So there is no protection against vague laws in question here and the current interpretation of the law is sanctioned.

Stop cherry picking your quotes.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#999 Apr 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, he doesn't even know enough about his own country to be called an informed citizen, yet he feels he can push his prejudice on others by citing law...
he has yet to make one rational point against SSM, haven't you, anonymous? if so, name one of them that hasn't been completely disproven... oh...you're still trying to find examples to back up the false claims you are still making...
I wish he would "cite" anything. He regularly refers to DOMA, but seems to lack the ability to defend it as law; and seems entirely ignorant of the US Constitution.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#1000 Apr 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are running a bit off topic, don't you think?
Have you noticed that when you can't offer a rational and on topic response that you attempt to obfuscate the topic? I have.
I'm the only one presenting any type of argument. All you and woodtick are providing are personal attacks and dogma.

Providing scenarios that demonstrate the complexity of morality is fine with me. You want doctors to experiment on political dissidents, just like NAZIs do. You want Aristocrats to have unrestricted monopoly power. Well, just about all the well-off want that.

Perfectly sound debate from where I stand.

Gotta go now! Enjoy your peevish name calling while you can!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1001 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your own link. They were defending the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment. As described by Wikipedia "safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clau...
Sanction of law: See the Defense of Marriage Act.
Arbitrary Denial: Also see the Defense of Marriage Act. You can get married. The government does not have to recognize it.
So there is no protection against vague laws in question here and the current interpretation of the law is sanctioned.
Stop cherry picking your quotes.
You keep bringing up the DOMA, but you refuse to defend it. In order for DOMA to be constitutional, the congress needs the authority to pass it.

Where in the federal constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to regulate marriage?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." US Constitution, 10th Amendment.

Either defend your position, or admit that you are simply spewing BS, just like when you claimed the that US Supreme Court had never declared marriage to be a fundamental right. Proof was supplied to illustrate that you were incorrect.

Are you any better equipped to defend this assertion?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1002 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your own link. They were defending the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment. As described by Wikipedia "safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clau...
Sanction of law: See the Defense of Marriage Act.
Arbitrary Denial: Also see the Defense of Marriage Act. You can get married. The government does not have to recognize it.
So there is no protection against vague laws in question here and the current interpretation of the law is sanctioned.
Stop cherry picking your quotes.
yet clearly SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right"...the exact opposite of your claim...again...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1004 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the only one presenting any type of argument. All you and woodtick are providing are personal attacks and dogma.
Providing scenarios that demonstrate the complexity of morality is fine with me. You want doctors to experiment on political dissidents, just like NAZIs do. You want Aristocrats to have unrestricted monopoly power. Well, just about all the well-off want that.
Perfectly sound debate from where I stand.
Gotta go now! Enjoy your peevish name calling while you can!
No, i have clearly shown that EVERY SINGLE ONE of your arguments are false. not just open to different opinions, but false. every single one of them....

yes, i would run away again if i were you also...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1005 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
I'm the only one presenting any type of argument.
No, you are not. You offer opinions, which you are utterly incapable of defending.
anonymous wrote:
All you and woodtick are providing are personal attacks and dogma.
Providing scenarios that demonstrate the complexity of morality is fine with me.
My only DOGMA is equal protection of the law. Read your 14th Amendment.
anonymous wrote:
You want doctors to experiment on political dissidents, just like NAZIs do.
Wow, a little delusional aren't you? I've never made any such claim. That you would imply that I have indicates that your argument is pretty inept, so you have to stoop to off-topic and inflammatory accusations.
anonymous wrote:
You want Aristocrats to have unrestricted monopoly power. Well, just about all the well-off want that.
Perfectly sound debate from where I stand.
Gotta go now! Enjoy your peevish name calling while you can!
You are way off topic, and apparently paranoid. Do try to keep up.
Marilyn Morrtyanuta

Napa, CA

#1006 Apr 4, 2013
American Lady wrote:
Bunch of DAMN sicko's!
``````````
Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-... ;
GREAT comment!
esquire2
3/2/2013 4:45 AM EST
Another fraudulent attack on the Constitution by this socialist, Marxist, Communist,[choose one or more] crowd who want to undermine the Constitution and the American way of life.
PROOF: The Constitution does not mention marriage.
The Constitution is a limiting document. It limits the power (authority) of the FEDERAL government.
The 10th Amendment states UNEQUIVOCALLY:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Connect the dots. Marriage is an institution delegated to either the States, or to the people. The people and the State have spoken.
On the issue of Marriage, the federal government has NO STANDING to challenge State legislation.
This suit should be DISMISSED by any judge whose oath of office requires supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution.
The 10th Amendment tells me so ...
`
This si awful. You are a blasphemer for sure. You make God cry. You make Jesus cry, you make my small dog, Dumpling, have diarrhea with foul and muggy stool, even though she has never met you thank God. How could you, you communist Stalinist froot? Have you no shame? How is the weather in Hell? Pray and Join the party of DOMINION.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#1007 Apr 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is no claim on my part that homosexuality is a disease, just a symptom of one of many medical conditions.....Sort of like name calling is likely a sign of another obsessive-compulsive disorder called Tourette's syndrome.
You can't control your name calling, can you?
You serve your master.
Now it's not a medical condition. Homosexuality is a symptom? Of what? I don't have a master, but yours is the master of ignorance and stupidity.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1008 Apr 4, 2013
This whole nightmare will be over soon with the Supreme court upholds both Prop 8 and DOMA, then we can move on to bigger more enterprising things for America....

“Vote Republican”

Since: Aug 08

Wyandanch, NY

#1009 Apr 4, 2013
I respect and love the gay community. My position is still that marriege is a privlege and not a right. I know what the supreme court says; 5-4 by the way. I still do not agree with them.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1010 Apr 4, 2013
I Hate Syracuse wrote:
I respect and love the gay community. My position is still that marriege is a privlege and not a right. I know what the supreme court says; 5-4 by the way. I still do not agree with them.
there were many rulings on it being a right.

just because you do not agree with them does not mean it isn't a basic civil right.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1011 Apr 4, 2013
I Hate Syracuse wrote:
I respect and love the gay community. My position is still that marriege is a privlege and not a right. I know what the supreme court says; 5-4 by the way. I still do not agree with them.
And you are incorrect.
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...
Your opinion does not trump US Supreme Court rulings.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1012 Apr 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there were many rulings on it being a right.
just because you do not agree with them does not mean it isn't a basic civil right.
If it is a 'right', why would there be any laws against any concept of any marriage???

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1013 Apr 4, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is a 'right', why would there be any laws against any concept of any marriage???
there is no "if" about it. it has been ruled a right many, many times. not up for debate.

we have many restrictions on our rights. felons cannot own guns, but that is a right, is it not? felons cannot vote in many states, yet that is a right. you have the right to free speech, but that also has certain restrictions on it.

if you actually knew enough about your own country, you wouldn't look so foolish when you post your crap!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1014 Apr 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is no "if" about it. it has been ruled a right many, many times. not up for debate.
we have many restrictions on our rights. felons cannot own guns, but that is a right, is it not? felons cannot vote in many states, yet that is a right. you have the right to free speech, but that also has certain restrictions on it.
if you actually knew enough about your own country, you wouldn't look so foolish when you post your crap!
Aha, but those restrictions serve a legitimate state interest. I wonder if those who oppose gay marriage could offer any such interest served by banning same sex marriage?

I don't think they can. They certainly have not in open court.

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 Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 5 min Edward 26
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 10 min Clyde 28,160
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 41 min Rose_NoHo 61,637
News Transgender people in Iran face discrimination ... 57 min TipsyFromCentralC... 3
Why do we use LGBT or GLBT and not just GBT? (Jun '09) 1 hr Dale 8
News Pope Francis reportedly tells gay man: 'God mad... 2 hr Dale 1
News Oregon high school faces hearing for anti-gay d... 2 hr Dale 2
News Gay veteran with a penchant for heels wins land... 8 hr FRAN FARTS 95