Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 8, 2012, WFAA-TV Dallas story titled Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage. In it, WFAA-TV Dallas reports that:

A federal judge has ruled against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of enter into a civil union.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WFAA-TV Dallas.

Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#610 Aug 22, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What's Obama's stance now?
.
that he is "personally" not bothered by gay marriage, but that the states have the right to decide and CU's are viable.
a very reasonable position.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#611 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yah, those christians die off after a few generations right?
lots of wishful thinking here...
Again, you lost the vote in CA, the gay mecca...
cue your excuses for that.
Who said anything about christians? Every person I know who supports marriage equality is a christian, with the exception of myself & my husband.

I'm talking about the 70%+ of those over age 65 who oppose marriage equality. They can't live forever.

And they're being replaced by a generation (baby boomers) who are much more supportive of marriage equality; and THEY will be replaced by a generation (gen x) that has a majority support marriage equality; and THEY will be replaced by a generation (millenials) that overwhelmingly support marriage equality by 70%+.

It's only a matter of time.

Like I said, the anit-gays lost 9% points in support from 2000 to 2008; by 2016 marriage equality would pass in California by well over 50%.

But keep living in the past; the rest of us are living for the future.

It's only a matter of time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#612 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its a sad thing you have to make marriage into...
You heteros have done more to destroy marriage than any same-sex couple ever could.

We'll actually return a bit of dignity & respect to the institution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#613 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you believe your polls...that's a hoot.
psst, the QUESTIONS in the polls changed...and interstingly, those questions elicit exactly what i am saying, most wish gays well, but marriage is a man and woman... you misinterpret your polls which is what happens when a belioef everyone hates you replaces rationality.
I love this, we didn't lose as badly as before stuff..."they only got 61% of the vote" only a clear majority? talk about EXCUSES.
How many states have VOTED for gay marriage?
That's the only number that matters...
the rest of what you wrote is pie in the sky....
So then we're done having a rational conversation.

You believe what you want, and we'll keep fighting and winning marriage equality, whether that's through the legislature, the courts, or even at the ballot box.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#614 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that he is "personally" not bothered by gay marriage, but that the states have the right to decide and CU's are viable.
a very reasonable position.
Wrong again.

Obama now fully supports marriage equality, and the Democratic platform reinforces that support.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#615 Aug 22, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said anything about christians? Every person I know who supports marriage equality is a christian, with the exception of myself & my husband.
I'm talking about the 70%+ of those over age 65 who oppose marriage equality. They can't live forever.
And they're being replaced by a generation (baby boomers) who are much more supportive of marriage equality; and THEY will be replaced by a generation (gen x) that has a majority support marriage equality; and THEY will be replaced by a generation (millenials) that overwhelmingly support marriage equality by 70%+.
It's only a matter of time.
Like I said, the anit-gays lost 9% points in support from 2000 to 2008; by 2016 marriage equality would pass in California by well over 50%.
But keep living in the past; the rest of us are living for the future.
It's only a matter of time.
yah, hold hands, close your eyes and wish real hard....

31 states AMENDED their constitution...that's kinda serious dude...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#616 Aug 22, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Obama now fully supports marriage equality, and the Democratic platform reinforces that support.
OR, you got played.

Go back and read what Obama actually got forced into saying....
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#617 Aug 22, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You heteros have done more to destroy marriage than any same-sex couple ever could.
We'll actually return a bit of dignity & respect to the institution.
yeah, try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Jenkin...

"In the civil union dissolution proceedings, primary custody of Isabella was granted to Miller as Miller was her biological mother, while Jenkins was granted visitation rights. Miller subsequently moved to Virginia, which does not recognize civil unions, and denied attempts by Jenkins to visit Isabella. Miller further claimed that she had become a fundamentalist Christian and was no longer a lesbian."

it didn't take long for you guys to make a mockery out of "family" here in VT...

if you claim gays will be better at marriage you do get you are claiming they will be DIFFERENT than straights, right?
gays can't be better AND the same unless you have a liberal mind!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#618 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, try again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Jenkin...
"In the civil union dissolution proceedings, primary custody of Isabella was granted to Miller as Miller was her biological mother, while Jenkins was granted visitation rights. Miller subsequently moved to Virginia, which does not recognize civil unions, and denied attempts by Jenkins to visit Isabella. Miller further claimed that she had become a fundamentalist Christian and was no longer a lesbian."
it didn't take long for you guys to make a mockery out of "family" here in VT...
if you claim gays will be better at marriage you do get you are claiming they will be DIFFERENT than straights, right?
gays can't be better AND the same unless you have a liberal mind!
Ya might want to finish the thought process....Lisa Miller is a FUGITIVE and basically lost custody because she FAILED to follow the Court orders in both Vermont and Virginia!!!!

I guess ya didn't hear about the man who was found GUILTY of helping Lisa Miller flee the Country!!!

Janet Jenkins didn't make a mockery of family or the laws that governed them......LISA MILLER did that!!!!

You should be proud of a fundie Christian like that!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#619 Aug 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yah, hold hands, close your eyes and wish real hard....
31 states AMENDED their constitution...that's kinda serious dude...
And those amendments can be oveturned by either the courts or another vote.

See prop 8.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#620 Aug 22, 2012
Guys, guys, guys!

The Right to free association.

The Right to contract.

Marriage is a contract.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#621 Aug 22, 2012
Gay is the way honey wrote:
<quoted text>
WHO WAS IT? WHO HAS THE AUDACITY to lable MY POST as off topic and mean!??? WHO WAS IT?
HOW DARE YOU! Polygamy is coming! Get used to it BIGOTS! THAT'S P-O-L-Y-G-A-M-Y! GAY POLYGAMY TOO!! IT'S RAININ MENZ!!!
AND WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT LOT'S OF LITTLE CHILDREN! Studies will show that they will be fine or even better than children from regular families.
This man strikes me as an intellectually consistant believer that people should be able to mary "those whom they love".

His belief is more in accord with sophisticated advocates of same-sex "marriage' than many on this board.

He also has alot more credibility with elite thinking on this issue than many gay advocates know or care to admit.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#622 Aug 22, 2012
Time for Chick-Fil-A

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#623 Aug 22, 2012
Eighthman wrote:
Time for Chick-Fil-A
Tobor
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#624 Aug 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
Guys, guys, guys!
The Right to free association.
The Right to contract.
Marriage is a contract.
Marriage is not a contract. A contract is a contract. Marriage law is not taught as a contract in contract law classes nor do people negotiate for contracts individualy as they would for employment.

While it looks like a contract in many regards,it is its own feild of law and has its own courts and own cannon that have no basis in contract law.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#625 Aug 22, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not a contract. A contract is a contract. Marriage law is not taught as a contract in contract law classes nor do people negotiate for contracts individualy as they would for employment.
While it looks like a contract in many regards,it is its own feild of law and has its own courts and own cannon that have no basis in contract law.
Why does it matter to you what defines a marriage for the couple? The state sets the requirements for who qualifies to obtain a marriage license, does it not? Once the representative of the state signs the marriage license and it is recorded.....the state then recognizes the couple as married and provides them with the rights, benefits and privileges that the state gives to all other legally married couples, right?

Now, I know you don't want Gays and Lesbians to have the right to marry.....and I know that you believe that it will somehow open the door to all of these other supposed things you believe will happen, but in reality has those taboo other things happen?

You may be a lawyer and then again you may not be......but regardless of what your personal beliefs are or what you feel the law can do......there are obviously other more knowledgeable lawyers and Judges who certainly don't agree with you.........so, stop trying to be a lawyer here and know that all you have is an opinion, one some disagree with!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#626 Aug 22, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not a contract. A contract is a contract. Marriage law is not taught as a contract in contract law classes nor do people negotiate for contracts individualy as they would for employment.
While it looks like a contract in many regards,it is its own feild of law and has its own courts and own cannon that have no basis in contract law.
Better re-examine it's history in western civilization before you make such sweeping statements.

Take a close look just at "breach of promise", "bride price", "dowry" (trouseau), "grounds for annulment", etc.; all of which existed until VERY recently in most of the christian cultures that migrated to the US ... even after they came here.

Historically, not only IS it a contract between two people, it has also served as a merger between two economic powerhouses.

Perhaps the biggest change to this was women's suffrage (an oddly revealing word in and of itself) after which women ceased to be part of their fathers' bargain.

Let's consider the words of the marriage promises in their various forms. All of them are the exchange assent by the parties to elements of a deal worked out beforehand, some of which are mentioned in some forms of the ceremony.

What would happen if one of them didn't agree to the terms as stated? There would be no agreement. No contract.

Later, if the terms of the contract as stated are violated, in fault States it is grounds for divorce (dissolution of the corporate charter, if you will), with consequent division of assets along pre-understood lines; either by the terms of a specific pre-nuptual agreement, or by standardized terms (also pre-understood) laid out by the State.(It's interesting and important to note that the State defers to the terms of any pre-nuptual agreement between the parties)

Archaic customs encrusted into State laws aside, marriage is a contract.
Marv

Pekin, IL

#627 Aug 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Better re-examine it's history in western civilization before you make such sweeping statements.
Take a close look just at "breach of promise", "bride price", "dowry" (trouseau), "grounds for annulment", etc.; all of which existed until VERY recently in most of the christian cultures that migrated to the US ... even after they came here.
Historically, not only IS it a contract between two people, it has also served as a merger between two economic powerhouses.
Perhaps the biggest change to this was women's suffrage (an oddly revealing word in and of itself) after which women ceased to be part of their fathers' bargain.
Let's consider the words of the marriage promises in their various forms. All of them are the exchange assent by the parties to elements of a deal worked out beforehand, some of which are mentioned in some forms of the ceremony.
What would happen if one of them didn't agree to the terms as stated? There would be no agreement. No contract.
Later, if the terms of the contract as stated are violated, in fault States it is grounds for divorce (dissolution of the corporate charter, if you will), with consequent division of assets along pre-understood lines; either by the terms of a specific pre-nuptual agreement, or by standardized terms (also pre-understood) laid out by the State.(It's interesting and important to note that the State defers to the terms of any pre-nuptual agreement between the parties)
Archaic customs encrusted into State laws aside, marriage is a contract.
You certainly have made no logical case for calling anything homosexual a 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexual live!

No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it, and studies have shown that few such 'marriages' are even exclusive relationships.

The homosexual 'marriage' movement is a hate based political charade attacking what others hold sacred.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically or physically unequal genders are involve. No child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Having both is one of the most accurate statistical predictions of a child's future success in life.

Homosexual themselves overwhelmingly reject 'marriage' as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#628 Aug 23, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not a contract. A contract is a contract....
Of course it's a contract, with the basic guidelines and rules set by the state.
That's why a pre-nup is required if you want to change the basic setup of the contract prior to entering into it.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#629 Aug 23, 2012
Marv wrote:
<quoted text>..
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage....
Really David?

Marriage fails to provide security for children ONLY when the parents are gay?

Elderly gay American couples don't receive the SAME protections that straight elderly couples do? And need them in the same way?

Where do you silly people get this stuff?

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 The Latest on GOP's 2016 hopefuls: Cruz on gay ... 4 min lides 25
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 4 min Wondering 116
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Reverend Alan 19,664
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 19 min GayleWood 2,058
News Iceland's Facebook war over sex education 20 min Jonesy15092 1
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 22 min BornOfBlood 53
News Q&A: What's at stake in Supreme Court gay marri... 28 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 1
Are the mods fair and balanced? 9 hr Rick in Kansas 652
More from around the web