Governor Hires Private Firm in Gay Ma...

Governor Hires Private Firm in Gay Marriage Case

There are 65 comments on the ABC News story from Mar 13, 2014, titled Governor Hires Private Firm in Gay Marriage Case. In it, ABC News reports that:

Gov. Steve Beshear says the state has hired a private law firm to represent him in appealing a judge's order for Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#47 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
It very well might be invoked by some court, but marriage equality is coming with or without application of full faith and credit, you dumb, vile, bigoted pos.
Relax fruitcake.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#49 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Heterosexuals don't need to obtain new marriage licenses every time they travel or move to a different state or country.
That's because all states honor traditional marriage. There I go, explaining simple things to you yet again.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#50 Mar 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I read your posts for entertainment, laughs. You rarely disappoint.
Then he has achieved his self-appointed mission.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I meant like all the homosexually fixated, closet case homophobes who can't stop posting about feces and penises in every single thread.
Oh the irony.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#53 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Since traditional marriage meant polygamy, child brides, brides as property the states do not honor traditional marriage.
Where are these marriages traditional?
Maybe this will help you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tra...
Maybe not. I'm developing a real sense of sympathy for your parents.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#55 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was traditional from the buybull up until the late 20th century in the US. Same for child brides.
Wives as property were common in the US up until the 1970s. Wives could not get credit on their own, or in many cases have property in their own names. Of course the property aspect of wives was much more clearcut than that for most of the past.
Hey cretin, "traditional" means in the past. Traditional marriage was polygamy, child brides, brides as property throughout most of Western history.
You can stop "pretending" to be so stooopit.
Why do gays always say this is 2014, time to catch up with the times, then go back it time to pretend they're right about something when they are obviously wrong? Polygamy was never traditional, underage brides were never traditional, bride ownership was never traditional. You are making an ass of yourself.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#56 Mar 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I agree all bans will fall soon, but it will be based on 14th amendment equal protection and due process.
I believe there are much wider grounds that the laws could be struck upon, particularly since they are lacking in rational basis. Once the bans are gone, then whether or not full faith and credit applies is essentially moot. Comity would handle the movement of marriages across the country quite handily.

Keep in mind that just because full faith and credit has not been invoked as a legal argument, does not mean that it is not a valid one.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#57 Mar 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
No matter how much you want it to apply, it doesn't.
Wondering, the DOMA violates equal protection, due process, and arguably full faith and credit (all due respect to WeTheSheeple, just because it hasn't been invoked, doesn't mean that the argument is invalid).

The fact that your response is a one sentence voicing of your opinion, with no factual support whatsoever, tends to belie the fact that you are incapable of offering any argument in support of your position. Which is to say, what else is new.
Wondering wrote:
The most they would be required to do is to acknowledge that a couple is married in another state. A state that bans gay marriage would never be required to honor that marriage in their state.
Try again, kiddo. Once the bans are overturned, which is coming because idiots like you lack any rational argument as to why the state should deny same sex couples the right to marry, there will be no reason not to acknowledge marriages performed elsewhere.
Wondering wrote:
Much the same as a driver's license. The state would acknowledge that you are a licensed driver, but if you moved there you would have to get a new license from your new home state.
You really are an idiot, aren't you Wondering. If one moves, they must get a new driver's license due to residency restrictions. The same is not true of marriage licenses. If one is married in Ohio, and they more to Tennessee, they don't have to surrender their Ohio Marriage license and obtain a new one in the state of Tennessee. Just as if one is passing through Tennessee using an Ohio driver's license, they are recognized as a licensed driver.

Your view of the world is beyond simplistic.

I had forgotten just how dumb you were, and I think I am going to commence ignoring you again because you have nothing of value to offer to the conversation, and you seem to lac the intelligence to understand the things that have been explained to you ad nauseum.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#58 Mar 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe there are much wider grounds that the laws could be struck upon, particularly since they are lacking in rational basis. Once the bans are gone, then whether or not full faith and credit applies is essentially moot. Comity would handle the movement of marriages across the country quite handily.
Keep in mind that just because full faith and credit has not been invoked as a legal argument, does not mean that it is not a valid one.
You lack a rational basis.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#59 Mar 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe there are much wider grounds that the laws could be struck upon, particularly since they are lacking in rational basis. Once the bans are gone, then whether or not full faith and credit applies is essentially moot. Comity would handle the movement of marriages across the country quite handily.
Keep in mind that just because full faith and credit has not been invoked as a legal argument, does not mean that it is not a valid one.
BTW, do you need any coloring pages?
http://www.coloringpage.tk/printable-easter-c...
No need to thank me, you're welcome.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#60 Mar 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack a rational basis.
Ah, and you'd be wrong again. A suit filed against a drug manucturer who refused to seat a Gay juror found Homosexuals to have rational basis in a federal court case two weeks ago.

The sky is falling.

Since: Jun 13

United States

#61 Mar 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not at question. At question is whether state restrictions against same sex marriage are, in fact, constitutional. In order for such a restriction to be constitutional, it would need to serve a compelling governmental interest. Up to now, you have consistently failed to articulate any such interest. Fear not, there have been many lawyers, much smarter than you, who have had similar difficulty offering a rational argument against marriage equality.
<quoted text>
Of course, section two violates both the 14th Amendment as well as the full faith and credit clause. It is patently unconstitutional.
Why bother with the 2nd point? The first point makes it irrelevant. There's no compelling state interest. You can't discriminate just because you want to if you're a state or federal government.
So, you're going to lose.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#63 Mar 14, 2014
AdamAZ wrote:
Why bother with the 2nd point?
Wondering isn't the brightest bulb in the box, and it helps to explain things to them in a myriad of ways (that means a lot, Wondering), in hopes that they might finally understand one of them.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#65 Mar 15, 2014
People will never understand when they prefer not to.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#66 Mar 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering isn't the brightest bulb in the box, and it helps to explain things to them in a myriad of ways (that means a lot, Wondering), in hopes that they might finally understand one of them.
The trolls and "religious" closet cases assiduously wish to avoid understanding. They are only about defamation and disfranchisement of lgbt people, by lying or by violence or by evading the point or by "pretending" to misunderstand the point.

They can't even grasp what marriage has been by "tradition" in the West for most of recorded history: Many wives, child wives, wives as property.

Then they trot out the "one man, one woman" counterfactual like a child stamping her feet.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#67 Mar 15, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
People will never understand when they prefer not to.
They will never acknowledge what they understand full well.
Hammer

Uxbridge, Canada

#68 Mar 15, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
The trolls and "religious" closet cases assiduously wish to avoid understanding. They are only about defamation and disfranchisement of lgbt people, by lying or by violence or by evading the point or by "pretending" to misunderstand the point.
They can't even grasp what marriage has been by "tradition" in the West for most of recorded history: Many wives, child wives, wives as property.
Then they trot out the "one man, one woman" counterfactual like a child stamping her feet.
You do make some valid points about Islam and other religions. But at the same time we all need to be more tolerant and understanding of each other's views and ideas.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#69 Mar 15, 2014
Hammer wrote:
<quoted text>
You do make some valid points about Islam and other religions. But at the same time we all need to be more tolerant and understanding of each other's views and ideas.
Wrong, disingenuous troll, I make some quite obvious, valid points about Western, i.e., Christian, societies through history.

It was also the West which had child brides, brides without property rights, multiple brides. And all of this was quite common until the Industrial Revolution, give or take.
Hammer

Uxbridge, Canada

#70 Mar 16, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, disingenuous troll, I make some quite obvious, valid points about Western, i.e., Christian, societies through history.
It was also the West which had child brides, brides without property rights, multiple brides. And all of this was quite common until the Industrial Revolution, give or take.
So the fact that middle eastern countries kill gay people on a daily basis DOES NOT concern you...that is cold. I see you hatred for people has no boundaries
Hammer

Uxbridge, Canada

#71 Mar 16, 2014
History...is the key word in your post. Gay rights needs to stop looking at history and work to change the future

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 Nikki Haley and her son heckled during NYC gay ... 2 min The Troll Stopper 46
News Supreme Court to decide whether a Colorado bake... 10 min The Troll Stopper 84
News Arizona Supreme Court to rule on same-sex paren... 15 min The Troll Stopper 27
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 17 min No Surprise 6,928
Jade Archives volume B 27 min J Aidster 4
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 36 min Aurora Borealis 123
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 38 min General Zod 130
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Ted 51,585
More from around the web