In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both...

In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

There are 1144 comments on the Reuters story from Nov 28, 2012, titled In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles. In it, Reuters reports that:

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Ninthman

“Obama Shames the USA”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#235 Nov 29, 2012
Nobody cares what the gays do. This whole battle is a trumped up attempt to demonize republicans. Republicans couldn't care less who you want to marry. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Democrats have convinced gays that they have an enemy. Gays are gullible assholes for buying it. It's ridiculous, petty and stupid..
Ninthman

“Obama Shames the USA”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#236 Nov 29, 2012
Benghazi. Chris Stevens was gay and Obama killed him and then lied about it. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Who hates gays more than THAT?
conservative crapola

Hamburg, PA

#237 Nov 29, 2012
Con-nie tail chasing. hahahahahahahaha

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#238 Nov 29, 2012
Ninthman wrote:
Nobody cares what the gays do. This whole battle is a trumped up attempt to demonize republicans. Republicans couldn't care less who you want to marry. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Democrats have convinced gays that they have an enemy. Gays are gullible assholes for buying it. It's ridiculous, petty and stupid..
As long as the National and State republican party platforms continue to oppose equal rights for gay people, and Republican candidates continue to publicly oppose equality, your argument has no basis in reality.

The Republican presidential candidates signed a NOM pledge: "Specifically, they agree to support a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, defend the federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage and the creation of a federal commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters." http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/08/05/republican...

"According to its platform, the Republican Party wants to reinstate Don't Ask Don't Tell, prevent same-sex marriages from being recognized by the federal government, and stop efforts to prevent gays and lesbians from being persecuted in Africa." http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/gop-p...

When it comes to equal rights for gay people, the Republicans demonize themselves through their votes as well as their written and spoken words. They need no help from the Democrats on this one.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#239 Nov 29, 2012
Ninthman wrote:
Benghazi. Chris Stevens was gay and Obama killed him and then lied about it. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Who hates gays more than THAT?
Diversion and deflection fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution. The topic is marriage equality.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#240 Nov 29, 2012
Papillon wrote:
FURTHERMORE ....
The homosexual activists are lobbying to lower the age for consensual sex down to thirteen (13).
Which means, when a homosexual male or homosexual female puts the moves on your little boy or girl (with the children's 'consent'),
then you as parents, cannot legally interfere.
These same activists are also pushing to legallize beastiality.
.
MERRY CHRISTMAS,
Happy Birthday, Jesus Christ.
WTF? Provide links to your crazy..POS Seriously, get help..

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#241 Nov 30, 2012
Ninthman wrote:
Nobody cares what the gays do. This whole battle is a trumped up attempt to demonize republicans. Republicans couldn't care less who you want to marry. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Democrats have convinced gays that they have an enemy. Gays are gullible assholes for buying it. It's ridiculous, petty and stupid..
Are you saying that democrats put out all of the state marriage amendments that deny marriage equality to gay couples? That it is primarily the democrats who support DOMA?

Was it really democrats that added the "anti-marriage" plank to the Republican platform just this election cycle?

Do you have some proof of those claims?

Democrats don't have to convince anyone of the animosity that so many socially conservative Rebulicans have for gay folks. Their own actions and the words out of their own mouths convict them nicely.

I understand that a great many Republicans do NOT care who marries whom, but they keep electing a great many who do care.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#242 Nov 30, 2012
Ninthman wrote:
Benghazi. Chris Stevens was gay and Obama killed him and then lied about it. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Who hates gays more than THAT?
Huh?

Obama did not kill the ambassador, and there is no proof at all that he lied about anything. You aren't watching the news or reading the reports.

If you want to say that any sitting president is automatically the murderer of anyone killed by terrorists during their time in office, then you are calling every recent president a murderer.

Good [email protected]! Think of the many murders committed by Republicans on the last 10 years. Bush would be awash in innocent blood.

Silly stuff.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#243 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
actually, because the override of race laws AUTOMATICALLY negated the marriage laws...notice the same was not rue when we stopped anti-sodomy laws?
What do you think is the basis for this difference?
Tell me, is ignorance really bliss?

Do you mean to say that Loving v Virginia was utterly unnecessary because the "marriage law" in Virginia had already been negated by "race laws".

If you believe that, I can get you very fair terms on a bridge in Brooklyn. How can you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously on the law and jurisprudence when your spout completely incorrect crap like this?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#244 Nov 30, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>

It never ceases to amaze me that you refuse to see the similarities between what the back civil rights movement dealt with and what is being recycled today against gays and lesbians.
Yah, a little distinguisher called SLAVERY... And guess who supports you LEAST?
blacks...
curious...
you are not factually or legally anything like racial civil rights!
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>

I get a real kick out of seeing you claim that a case SCOTUS dismissed for lack of a Constitutional question sets Constitutional precedent and becomes binding on all Federal courts.
that's because its true and you like to remain ignorant.

There is no disputing it, Baker is a binding SCOTUS precedent (although the strength of that binding effect is subject to debate).
wiki it for cripses sake...
"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]"

I get a kick out of you announcing your ignorance and laughing at me over it...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#245 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, is ignorance really bliss?
I dunno, you tell me...
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Do you mean to say that Loving v Virginia was utterly unnecessary because the "marriage law" in Virginia had already been negated by "race laws".
you only understand things in simplistic terms and somehow you hold that against me...

MY point was that nothing further needed to be determined in Loving besides that all statutes based on race were per se invalid including those related to marriage.

Now gays have had cases saying anti gay statutes are per se invalid, but in your case that does not automatically include marriage rights. WHATS the difference?
Starts with a P, ends with a rocreation...

Given how much I have explained to YOU about this (through the brick wall) I would think you would act kinder towards me...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#246 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
There is no disputing it, Baker is a binding SCOTUS precedent (although the strength of that binding effect is subject to debate).
Funny, it appears several Federal and Appellate courts have not applied it. Perhaps, it is not so binding as you seem to think?

Keep in mind, the US Supreme Court did not rule in Baker, which was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. That being the case, Baker is not nearly so strong a precedent as you would like it to be. It was also decided at a time when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder. Much has changed in the intervening 40 years. Homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder by any reputable medical organization, and a majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Feel free to offer ANY legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. I don't think you can, and your regular citation of court decisions without specifying what reasoning you believe is applicable is simply laughable, particularly when the decision you cite has been overturned by legislation.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#247 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
you only understand things in simplistic terms and somehow you hold that against me... MY point was that nothing further needed to be determined in Loving besides that all statutes based on race were per se invalid including those related to marriage.
Sorry, but that is not what you said. You stated:
“actually, because the override of race laws AUTOMATICALLY negated the marriage laws...”
Which simply is not true.
Jane Dough wrote:
Now gays have had cases saying anti gay statutes are per se invalid, but in your case that does not automatically include marriage rights. WHATS the difference?
Well, for starters,(as proven above) marriage paws were not included in desegregation. We required Loving v Virginia, additional litigation specifically addressing marriage, in order to fix the marriage component of the laws.
Jane Dough wrote:
Starts with a P, ends with a rocreation...
Given how much I have explained to YOU about this (through the brick wall) I would think you would act kinder towards me...
Actually, it doesn’t start and end with procreation. It may come as a complete shock to you, but procreation, or procreative ability, is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. One would need to be a terrible fool to say that it either is, or should be. The inclusion of a procreative requirement would exempt those who were impotent, past the age of menopause, or for any other reason incapable of procreation from legally marrying, and we know this is simply not the case.
Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:

THE COURT: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
MR. COOPER: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
THE COURT: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
MR. COOPER: I rejoice to hear that.
Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”
“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...

When you offer arguments like this one, you illustrate that you are fully willing to accept arguments that are not remotely rational. An argument of procreation is absolutely a rationalization, which proves that you will spew whatever BS is necessary to make your point, and that you don't understand what a rational argument is.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#248 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, it appears several Federal and Appellate courts have not applied it.
like which ones?

I saw it cited to negate any claim to a right to gay marriage in almost every recent DOMA case...

Here is the first circuit in Gill:
" Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

"Baker does not resolve our own case but it ****DOES**** limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

see how I use actual support and you have none?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#249 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that is not what you said. You stated:
“actually, because the override of race laws AUTOMATICALLY negated the marriage laws...”
Which simply is not true.

An argument of procreation is absolutely a rationalization, which proves that you will spew whatever BS is necessary to make your point, and that you don't understand what a rational argument is.
dude, when someone clarifies themselves, that's what they meant...do you get that?
You insist on sticking to your ludicrous interpretations!

and you get that walker's decision was basically tossed as junk by the most liberal appeals circuit in the land?

and for the last time junior, a RATIONALization is rational.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#250 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
dude, when someone clarifies themselves, that's what they meant...do you get that?
You insist on sticking to your ludicrous interpretations!
and you get that walker's decision was basically tossed as junk by the most liberal appeals circuit in the land?
and for the last time junior, a RATIONALization is rational.
Funny, then why did it hold? And why is it on appeal to the US Supreme Court?

Rationalize (transative verb) to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

By definition, Rationalization is not rational. It is the process of trying to make the irrational appear rational. If you don't get that, then you are dimmer than I thought, which is saying something.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#251 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, then why did it hold? And why is it on appeal to the US Supreme Court?
Rationalize (transative verb) to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
By definition, Rationalization is not rational. It is the process of trying to make the irrational appear rational. If you don't get that, then you are dimmer than I thought, which is saying something.
rational basis requires that one only have a rationalization, that you refuse to understand, I think, just so you can continue pete and repeat unabashed...

You get a d in the middle of your lies.

If there is any conceivable basis for justifying the law, it is rational.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#252 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
rational basis requires that one only have a rationalization, that you refuse to understand, I think, just so you can continue pete and repeat unabashed...
You get a d in the middle of your lies.
If there is any conceivable basis for justifying the law, it is rational.
It has been concretely illustrated for you that a rationalization is the process of falsely reasoning that an irrational concept is rational.

In order to fulfill the rational basis test, a law must serve a legitimate state interest, and you have been utterly incapable of offering any such interest in denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

The fact that you would actually state that a "rational basis requires that one only have a rationalization" is utterly hysterical, although it really does an number on any credibility you may have had.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#253 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

The fact that you would actually state that a "rational basis requires that one only have a rationalization" is utterly hysterical, although it really does an number on any credibility you may have had.
Again, you simply don't understand the difference between the standards.

I do enjoy that you think your ignorance is a joke on me...

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#254 Nov 30, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no it changed from a man and woman of the same race to man and a woman of any race. pretty huge change.
this is one of many changes to marriage. peraps we should go back to 'traditional marriage' where women are traded like cattle?
That didn't change the definition of marriage, it only ended the bigotry that encompassed 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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 min Travis Turbil 13,071
Transgender "woman" convicted of raping 10-year... 14 min Travis Turbil 2
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 2 hr Astro 2,570
News Anti-gay Southern Decadence preacher arrested o... (Feb '11) 3 hr BAC SOLDIER 31
News The fascinating sex life of Jonathan, the 186-y... 3 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 3
News Prominent chefs oppose baker in major gay right... 3 hr Luther 6
News Secret Symphony exhibit in Allentown explores t... 4 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 1
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 4 hr Noe 41
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 4 hr Travis Turbil 18
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 6 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 343
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Freedomofexpression 57,593
More from around the web