Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn...

Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban

There are 1525 comments on the The Washington Post story from Feb 28, 2013, titled Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Thursday that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, a position that could also cast doubt on prohibitions in other states.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

d pantz

Portage, MI

#1257 Mar 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you insist others are idiots and you spend hours making trying to make that point.
The bible "says" many things.
You might start with reading John 8:7.
anybody who isn't a theiest will probably be taking it out of context. The same way the word tax and the word innocent civilian are taken out of context by people who like to stick to the original definition of the words. Kwimv?
d pantz

Portage, MI

#1258 Mar 31, 2013
In other words I'm it doesn't surprise me to people who aren't otherwise religious at all, quote the bible advance a political view, BUT I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE THE LEFT DO IT.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1260 Mar 31, 2013
d pantz wrote:
In other words I'm it doesn't surprise me to people who aren't otherwise religious at all, quote the bible advance a political view, BUT I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE THE LEFT DO IT.
Jesus was a liberal, after all.

He bucked the religious establishment and called them hypocrites. His best friends were uneducated fisherman and rabble-rousers, he hung out with the poor, and those that society though were less than desirable, and preached that rich folks were going to have a much harder time getting into Heaven.

He completely ignored class distinction, and treated people with differing religious beliefs like family.

Hardly sounds like a conservative.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1261 Mar 31, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> ok so if its such a failure then why drag other people into it? It has nothing to do with your sexual preference, I would say if a couple tries to get married and both have parents who were divorcxed, chances are they will be divorcxed too.
So, we should ban them from marrying, since their odds of succeeding are low?
d pantz

Portage, MI

#1262 Mar 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we should ban them from marrying, since their odds of succeeding are low?
no. I can't believe I need to explain this again. I think if one group wants to accept same sex marriage that's fine. If they try to tell everybody else that they need to they are just as bad as the people who say anybody shouldn't. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF IT. All I'm asking with those last posts is, if you think homosexuals would stay married more often than straight couples, what is that based on?
What does "liberal" even mean today. There's the actual definition of the word liberal, and then we have people who love aborting babies and drone bombing school children in middle eastern countries who call themselves "liberals".
d pantz

Portage, MI

#1263 Mar 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was a liberal, after all.
He bucked the religious establishment and called them hypocrites. His best friends were uneducated fisherman and rabble-rousers, he hung out with the poor, and those that society though were less than desirable, and preached that rich folks were going to have a much harder time getting into Heaven.
He completely ignored class distinction, and treated people with differing religious beliefs like family.
Hardly sounds like a conservative.
I'm only an agnostic but I would guess you don't have a degree in theology. Probably not philosophy either.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1264 Mar 31, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> no. I can't believe I need to explain this again. I think if one group wants to accept same sex marriage that's fine. If they try to tell everybody else that they need to they are just as bad as the people who say anybody shouldn't. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF IT. All I'm asking with those last posts is, if you think homosexuals would stay married more often than straight couples, what is that based on?
What does "liberal" even mean today. There's the actual definition of the word liberal, and then we have people who love aborting babies and drone bombing school children in middle eastern countries who call themselves "liberals".
Different "groups" don't get to decide if they recognize a legal civil marriage, unless that is within their own religious denomination. That's kind of the point of having legal marriages in the first place.

And arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether is inrealistic, and just isn't going to happen. Most married people would fight such a move to the end, as they should. It would be completely chaotic when it comes to taxes, family law and custody, inheritance, and a multitude of other ways.

It does't matter if gay folks would be better or worse at marriage than straight people. It's completely irrelevant.

"Liberal" seems to mean whatever the conservative dejour thinks it means. Usually, that seems to be anyone who does not agree with them in all things.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1265 Mar 31, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I'm only an agnostic but I would guess you don't have a degree in theology. Probably not philosophy either.
But am I wrong on any point, leaving out the divinity of Jesus, since you are agnostic?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1266 Mar 31, 2013
d pantz wrote:
I think if one group wants to accept same sex marriage that's fine. If they try to tell everybody else that they need to they are just as bad as the people who say anybody shouldn't. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF IT.
The government have everything to do with it.

You not allowed to think on Sunday?

There are over one thousand laws where the government has "something" to do with marriage, and of the "government" defines marriage as being between two people of different sex, then then marriages of persons of the same sex don't count.

If one state decides that marriages can be between persons of the same sex and another state decides the first state rules don't count: the government is involved.

It should not be hard to understand what would happen if one state could decide it would not honor the rules (contracts... marriages) of another state.

I give you more time since you seem to be a little slow.
d pantz

United States

#1267 Apr 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Different "groups" don't get to decide if they recognize a legal civil marriage, unless that is within their own religious denomination. That's kind of the point of having legal marriages in the first place.
And arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether is inrealistic, and just isn't going to happen. Most married people would fight such a move to the end, as they should. It would be completely chaotic when it comes to taxes, family law and custody, inheritance, and a multitude of other ways.
It does't matter if gay folks would be better or worse at marriage than straight people. It's completely irrelevant.
"Liberal" seems to mean whatever the conservative dejour thinks it means. Usually, that seems to be anyone who does not agree with them in all things.
how dense are you? I said THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY OF IT. No marriage or church or belief group or anything! And sexual preference having nothing to do with the success of a marriage was exactly my point.
And I told you you didn't know what the word "liberal" means.
d pantz

United States

#1268 Apr 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But am I wrong on any point, leaving out the divinity of Jesus, since you are agnostic?
no! You're wrong because you want to tell other churches what they have to believe! Ever hear of freedom of religion? The government should honor none of it, at all.
d pantz

United States

#1269 Apr 1, 2013
Here is a good example of what 2days "liberal" supports. The usa backing groups that fight an illegal war in syria, using 8 year old children to fight!
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...
d pantz

United States

#1270 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government have everything to do with it.
You not allowed to think on Sunday?
There are over one thousand laws where the government has "something" to do with marriage, and of the "government" defines marriage as being between two people of different sex, then then marriages of persons of the same sex don't count.
If one state decides that marriages can be between persons of the same sex and another state decides the first state rules don't count: the government is involved.
It should not be hard to understand what would happen if one state could decide it would not honor the rules (contracts... marriages) of another state.
I give you more time since you seem to be a little slow.
no. You understand that the constitution says the government should honor no religion. That's my point. So in the court they should decide its all unconstitutional, not write new laws from the bench.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1271 Apr 1, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> how dense are you? I said THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY OF IT.
The government is intensely involved.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1272 Apr 1, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> no. I can't believe I need to explain this again. I think if one group wants to accept same sex marriage that's fine. If they try to tell everybody else that they need to they are just as bad as the people who say anybody shouldn't. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF IT. All I'm asking with those last posts is, if you think homosexuals would stay married more often than straight couples, what is that based on?
What does "liberal" even mean today. There's the actual definition of the word liberal, and then we have people who love aborting babies and drone bombing school children in middle eastern countries who call themselves "liberals".
The government put their nose into marriage when the republicans pushed through DOMA in 1996 - now, because gays want similar recognition, government should butt out?

When you state you are in favor of repealing DOMA, your statements can be taken a bit more seriously.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1273 Apr 1, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> how dense are you? I said THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY OF IT. No marriage or church or belief group or anything! And sexual preference having nothing to do with the success of a marriage was exactly my point.
And I told you you didn't know what the word "liberal" means.
Again, you are wrong. Same sex states have a lower divorce rate than states who do not recognize SS marriages;

"According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/0...

Do bit more reading regarding ALL the data - not just the data that suits your personal feelings or beliefs.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1275 Apr 1, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are wrong. Same sex states have a lower divorce rate than states who do not recognize SS marriages;
"According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/0...
Do bit more reading regarding ALL the data - not just the data that suits your personal feelings or beliefs.
Therefore, same-sex marriage actually improves opposite-sex marriage by helping to lower the divorce rate.

Good Stuff!!!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1276 Apr 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore, same-sex marriage actually improves opposite-sex marriage by helping to lower the divorce rate.
Good Stuff!!!
All recent data points to this conclusion, but correlating factors have yet to be determined.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1277 Apr 1, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
All recent data points to this conclusion, but correlating factors have yet to be determined.
True.
d pantz

Portage, MI

#1278 Apr 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government is intensely involved.
really? Haow long did it take you to figure that out?

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 Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 2 min Caciques a liar 21
News Oregon Christian Bakers Wedding Cake Case Going... 5 min NE Jade 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 19 min Rose_NoHo 34,639
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 29 min TerriB1 2,775
Looking for a new boyf 39 min Belles Echoes 4
News Cyprus' first public gay wedding takes aim at p... 47 min Belles Echoes 9
News US government: North Carolina LGBT law violates... 53 min Belles Echoes 2
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 7 hr June VanDerMark 9,845
More from around the web