Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61391 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14329 Dec 14, 2013
Is it really a free country when someone's choice of marriage is a felony?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14330 Dec 14, 2013
Marriage. There is no one right way.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#14331 Dec 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is, most gay men are NOT in a monogamous relationship. One proof is the AIDS rate among gays.
Citations? Nevermind, we know you're just shooting from the hip.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14332 Dec 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
That's what the bigots and haters said when you guys won your first federal court victory. Remember? I do. You are now them.
Bozo the Rizzo, this was a provision of Utah's law that would have been overturned close to a decade ago, if the folk bringing the cases hadn't been bringing child brides into the mix. It was unconstitutional then too, but ick. They didn't need same sex marriage to accomplish this, the law violates Lawrence and it's been toast since, but no Judge was going to overturn the law to provide a legal excuse for the guys in spiritual marriages with 14 year-olds. What they needed were the safe for TV Brown families.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14333 Dec 14, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
Honestly, dude, do you smoke a bowl of pot each time you post? I can think of no other explanation for the gibberish you post.
Finding yourself, once again, completely in over your head in the discussion, you bail in your usual snarky manner. Your reading comprehension issues, not my problem, your inability to come up with something resembling an intelligent response, also not my fault. Don't blame me for your shortcomings.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#14334 Dec 14, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?".
<quoted text>
Where is the "Zzzz" judge it icon?
Not quite getting the point about what a judge does, are you?

Judges don't make the law. That is the absolute truth! Get your mind around it!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14335 Dec 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I heard the title might have gone to Miley Cyrus. We Americans are so silly. That would have been embarrassing.
Are you kidding? I wish Time had selected Miley Cyrus Person of the Year.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14336 Dec 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I take your answer as "Yes Frankie, you are correct, the judge's ruling was good for polygamy".
Only in the few states which currently prohibit married folk from cohabiting with folk they aren't legally married to. For polygamy this is nothing more than these three states finally catching up to the rest and a legally neutral view on the issue. This is a great leap nowhere.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14337 Dec 14, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
who exactly has the gov't forced into a same sex marriage?? Do you have their names?
Their names are listed as defendants in civil lawsuit and government bureaucratic proceedings. They are Christians, forced to serve a same sex wedding ceremony against their religious conviction that marriage is one man and one woman. They would have turned down a polygamous wedding or a wedding between a straight same sex couple who married for finance or convenience instead of sexual attraction.

Anybody's name could be next, if they act against same sex marriage. In some schools, speech for keeping marriage male/female is forbidden.

.
Karma is a_______ wrote:
If you are talking about the Pope he is also the leader of an organization that institutionalized child abuse by pedophiles on a scale never seen before. Not something I would look up to.
Not something you would speak fully and truthfully about either? The Pope helped stop child abuse, to say otherwise is defamation. He's been Pope since March, do you want to blame all the Church's problems on him now?

.
Karma is a_______ wrote:
The Vatican should be on trial for crimes against humanity with the number of children abused over the decades across the globe.
That's a hideous idea, I oppose government operations against churches, religious groups, race groups or anyone else. Down with putting political opponents on trial in leftist courts where law is lost to action for mascot victim groups and social justice replaces true justice.

Up with religious freedom, you have the right to act and speak for marriage as one man and one woman. Be nice about it so you don't hurt their feelings, but speak truth against lies.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14338 Dec 14, 2013
Since K. knows these things, what about the Catholic gay and his sexual relations with a more experienced man, even if not a Priest, is that a bad thing? I say no, whatever floats your boat; K. seems hung up on the pedophile rape, I wonder if he thinks changing marriage law for sex might change it for gender too? Don't men and women mature at different rates?

Get your head out of the gutter and focus on the issue. Religious freedom against marriage sex equality, the elimination of male/female marriage as the ideal social model for family. That's a bad thing.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#14339 Dec 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite getting the point about what a judge does, are you?
Judges don't make the law. That is the absolute truth! Get your mind around it!
I was talking about the "judge it" icons, not judges.
Sheesh...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#14340 Dec 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Their names are listed as defendants in civil lawsuit and government bureaucratic proceedings. They are Christians, forced to serve a same sex wedding ceremony against their religious conviction that marriage is one man and one woman. They would have turned down a polygamous wedding or a wedding between a straight same sex couple who married for finance or convenience instead of sexual attraction.
Yeah, anybody who breaks a law can be charged with a crime.
Brian_G wrote:
<
Anybody's name could be next, if they act against same sex marriage. In some schools, speech for keeping marriage male/female is forbidden.
I'm sure that's a lie.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<
<quoted text>Not something you would speak fully and truthfully about either? The Pope helped stop child abuse, to say otherwise is defamation. He's been Pope since March, do you want to blame all the Church's problems on him now?
.
<quoted text>That's a hideous idea, I oppose government operations against churches, religious groups, race groups or anyone else. Down with putting political opponents on trial in leftist courts where law is lost to action for mascot victim groups and social justice replaces true justice.
Up with religious freedom, you have the right to act and speak for marriage as one man and one woman. Be nice about it so you don't hurt their feelings, but speak truth against lies.
You have the right to speak for marriage however you want.
Your parents spoke against one man one woman marriage by getting a divorce.
Actions speak louder than words.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14341 Dec 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Since K. knows these things, what about the Catholic gay and his sexual relations with a more experienced man, even if not a Priest, is that a bad thing? I say no, whatever floats your boat; K. seems hung up on the pedophile rape, I wonder if he thinks changing marriage law for sex might change it for gender too? Don't men and women mature at different rates?
Get your head out of the gutter and focus on the issue. Religious freedom against marriage sex equality, the elimination of male/female marriage as the ideal social model for family. That's a bad thing.
Brian, you really are an idiot.

There is no religious issue, if one believes that same sex marriage is immoral, they are free not to enter into such a union. Allowing others to do so in no way violates the religious freedom of anyone who wouldn't enter into such a union.

You've yet to indicate a state interests served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples. Similarly, you have not addressed that the state allows children to be raised out of wedlock (40% of births are to out of wedlock parents), it allows divorce, it allows adoption, and it allows single parenthood, all of which illustrate that the state does not have an interest in a traditional family raising a child.

Your arguments are childish and transparent, you lack the mental capacity to put forward a valid, factually supported, and rational argument in defense of your opinion.

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#14342 Dec 14, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been around as long as humans have.
<quoted text>
Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.
An even smaller percentage of marriages were interracial 13 years after Loving v. VA
(3.2 percent in 1980) Should that court case be reversed?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/021...
<quoted text>
LOL, look at the freak who is talking.
Just when I think it's not humanely possible for Rose to get any stupider -- she gets stupider.

I wrote "10 years after same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and less than 5% of gay males are married. She wrote:
Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.
An even smaller percentage of marriages were interracial 13 years after Loving v. VA
(3.2 percent in 1980) Should that court case be reversed?
See Rose's dumb error?

She's comparing the percentage of marriages that were interracial (3.2%) to the amount of gays who got married 5%). In other words, she's too stupid to realize the two percentages are based on two different demographics --(1). percentage of all marriages vs (2) percentage of gays who got married.

These two percentage have no relation to each other. Nowhere do they intersect mathematically. Furthermore, she's too stupid to realize the amount of interracial marriages is meaningless unless we know the amount of interracials who wanted to get married.

Those who've followed Rose's comments recognize such idiocy as signature Rose -- she posts gibberish like the above all the time.

Give her a LGBT talking point to parrot and she does fine. Let her express her own thinking and she founders like a drunk who's fallen off her boat.

.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14344 Dec 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we just call it marriage.
Which "we" is that?

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14345 Dec 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except polygamy isn't marriage; at least not in America.
Sure it is. Don't be mad because they had the designation centuries before you.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14347 Dec 14, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Bozo the Rizzo, this was a provision of Utah's law that would have been overturned close to a decade ago, if the folk bringing the cases hadn't been bringing child brides into the mix. It was unconstitutional then too, but ick. They didn't need same sex marriage to accomplish this, the law violates Lawrence and it's been toast since, but no Judge was going to overturn the law to provide a legal excuse for the guys in spiritual marriages with 14 year-olds. What they needed were the safe for TV Brown families.
Tricky Ricky who likes di.....ies. SSM was a big help though. It showed if marriage can be fundamental altered for one group by jettisoning conjugality, it's possible to fundamentally alter it for another by jettisoning monogamy. Marriage equality for all! It's not just for same sex couples anymore.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14348 Dec 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've yet to indicate a state interests served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples. Similarly, you have not addressed that the state allows children to be raised out of wedlock (40% of births are to out of wedlock parents), it allows divorce, it allows adoption, and it allows single parenthood, all of which illustrate that the state does not have an interest in a traditional family raising a child.
Yep it allows all of that, but none of those are in the best interest of the state or society, nor is fundamentally redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14349 Dec 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional
Been there, done that, repeating yourself isn't a form of rebuttal. Your great leap nowhere.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14350 Dec 14, 2013
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78...

Statement from Kody Brown:

The entire Brown family is humbled and grateful for this historical ruling from the court today. Like thousands of other plural families, we have waited many years for this day. While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs. There are so many families who have waited for so long for this ruling and, on their behalf, we can only say: thank you, Judge Waddoups, for your courageous decision. We want to particularly thank our lead counsel Professor Jonathan Turley who represented us through the criminal investigation and then led the fight against this law. We also want to thank the team of lawyers and students from George Washington, including our local counsel Adam Alba. We are so honored and blessed to have been able to serve as the vehicle for this milestone ruling. Professor Turley has pledged to defend this decision on appeal and we are equally committed to fight to preserve this great victory.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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 Mississippi Governor Signs Law Allowing Busines... 3 min Redd Neckman 517
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 4 min Tony Price 77 2,276
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 11 min payme 1,118
News Christian Rock Star Trey Pearson Comes Out As Gay 14 min St Rick Saintpornum 5
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... 16 min WeTheSheeple 14
News Local LBGT Law Enforcement Group Rejects Honor ... 43 min Gremlin 6
News Australian Christian Lobby likens gay marriage ... 50 min Gremlin 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr EdmondWA 36,388
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr lides 12,017
More from around the web