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

Nov 28, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

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.

Comments
21 - 40 of 1,145 Comments Last updated Jul 31, 2013
Ex-GOP Con

United States

#23 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare is stealing. God does not support stealing. Helpping the sick and ol and poor should be from the heart not FORCED AT GUN POINT.
Being against gay marriage is casting stones. God does not support casting stones. You should focus on your own sins NOT ON OTHERS.

LOL..you show yourself to be quite the PHONY Christian.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#24 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
Good againt evil. Gods word againt the gay liberal sinners. I WILL STICK WITH GOD AND HIS HOLY WORD.
buybull thumping nutcase.
Ex-GOP Con

United States

#25 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare is stealing. God does not support stealing. Helpping the sick and ol and poor should be from the heart not FORCED AT GUN POINT.
Do you support the Iraq war by any chance? Someone stole my money and gave it to Halliburton....
Ex-GOP Con

United States

#26 Nov 28, 2012
Ask a "Christian" about their thoughts on Obamacare and you can easily weed out the phony ones from the real ones.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#27 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
Ahhhh, I have a question here. Where in the constitution does gay marriage come up?
It's not there. So that means that Federal government does not have the authority to dictate the status of marriage.
Then that falls under Amendment 10. States rights. And that reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now what needs to happen is the Federal government needs to come out and say this is a state issue and leave it to the states to decide.
For those trying to make it a federal issue, stop. You are wasting everyone's time. Take it to your state legislature.
Where does straight marriage come up?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#31 Nov 28, 2012
Is it a full moon?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
as to the legislative benefits associated with marriage, there is no real reason except that we want to encourage biologically related families...
as to the constitutional right to which you speak, it is based on procreation, so that answers itself...
the constitution speaks of ways we the people are free from govt. we are not free from govt by being entitled to GOVT RECOGNITION which is what "marriage" is...
The proof is in the pudding, no courts have called gay marriage a fundamental right (except Walker in CA rapidly overruled on that point), even though you know full well that straight marriage has been found to be one...
Actually 4 state supreme courts have found the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.

It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS rules the same.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#33 Nov 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does straight marriage come up?
Obviously you missed my other post.

There in lies the problem. It is not called out. Mainly the courts can assume the meaning under Liberty in the 14th amendment and due process. However, Liberty can only be defined as the first 10 amendments. In which marriage is not in there for any type of marriage.

There is an easy fix to this. Call for a constitutional convention and leave it up to the people to decide.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#34 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
You are missing my point.
I am?
Kahoki wrote:
Marriage is not in the constitution.
Yes and no.
Kahoki wrote:
Nowhere is it mentioned.
That is the yes part.
Kahoki wrote:
This is the problem.
Only for you dear. This is where the no part comes in. The Supreme Court has on several occasions told us that the Constitution does in fact guarantee our right to marry. That is the reality.
Kahoki wrote:
Personally I do not care if someone is gay or is a goat.
That's sweet of you pumpkin.
Kahoki wrote:
Marry whoever you want.
There is the whole issue of laws and constitutional amendments standing in the way of that, or have you forgotten so quickly?
Kahoki wrote:
An individuals marriage to whatever or whoever will not affect my life in any form of fashion. I personally do not care.
And yet you are here advocating denying the right of people to marry someone of their own sex. Way to show you don't care.
Kahoki wrote:
And since marriage is not called out in the constitution, it falls down to the states.
Yes and quite obviously no. See previous Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing the right to marry to the contrary.
Kahoki wrote:
After the states, then to the people.
Again yes and quite obviously know. See previous marriage laws struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional abrogation of our rights.
Kahoki wrote:
Meaning the people shall have their voice heard and it should be put to a vote by the people.
Tell me why again we need a representational form of government? Sweetie, the people still don't have the authority to unconstitutionally deny their own rights.
Kahoki wrote:
Here is the constitutional amendments, you tell me where marriage is called out? Not assumed meaning, but, where it is actually called out?
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments...
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Or are you saying that your right to marry is nothing more than a privilege granted to you by the state, sort of like going fishing.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#35 Nov 28, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Which is served by punishing same sex couples and their non-biologically related families how?
encouragement of one group is not oppression of another...
so a solar subsidy is not oppression against wind power...
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Dear, under common law, the federal government is required to recognize as married any and all couples the states tell them are married
no sweetie pie, look at the supremacy clause...
and consider what you say out of the other side of your mouth about the federal govt and interracial marriage...
did they dictate there?
see how that does not jibe with what you are claiming?
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text> Why do you imagine that Section 3 of DOMA has been found to be unconstitutional
I don't know why you "imagine" they did, but it was because the FEDERAL govt was trying to dictate to the states which the court found they cannot. However, it has NOT been found that the Federal govt HAS to accept the definition of the state for its own federal purposes, only that the federal cannot dictate to the state....

It would be a curious holding if the scotus were to find that the states bound the federal govt. can you think of any other examples where that is the case?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#36 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
No I do not support any war since WW2.
Liar. You just stated you wanted to war against gays.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#37 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
AND polygamy, don't forget the states banned polygamy too and still do...
Actually the federal govt also bans polygamy, and unlike DOMA the ban on polygamy has actually been upheld by the SCOTUS.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#38 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I give more money to charity each year then 20 liberal slime will ever give in a lifetime. I have gave close to ten million to charity....HOW MUCH YOU GAVE WELFARE TRASH???????
ya sure you did..... isn't lying one of your ten commandments

hmmm which charity was that again mr cannibal savage
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#39 Nov 28, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That is someone else's battle. You're trying to confuse people. Fortunately, we're not half as dumb as you need us to be.
so was interracial marriage but you guys rely on that daily.
are you admitting you do that to confuse people?

Either both are relevant or both are not, but you cannot analogize one and not run into the other...

so are OTHER rights to marry relevant or not?
no cherry picking!

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#40 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I will never get those. I am worth millions. I make millions each year. I work for a living not live off others like you.
..
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you do.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#41 Nov 28, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually 4 state supreme courts have found the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.
It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS rules the same.
Optimism unbridled by realism. good for you.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#42 Nov 28, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the federal govt also bans polygamy, and unlike DOMA the ban on polygamy has actually been upheld by the SCOTUS.
what does that say about a fundamental right to marry any consenting adult you wish?

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#45 Nov 28, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I am? <quoted text>Yes and no. <quoted text>That is the yes part. <quoted text>Only for you dear. This is where the no part comes in. The Supreme Court has on several occasions told us that the Constitution does in fact guarantee our right to marry. That is the reality. <quoted text>That's sweet of you pumpkin. <quoted text>There is the whole issue of laws and constitutional amendments standing in the way of that, or have you forgotten so quickly? <quoted text>And yet you are here advocating denying the right of people to marry someone of their own sex. Way to show you don't care.
<quoted text>Yes and quite obviously no. See previous Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing the right to marry to the contrary. <quoted text>Again yes and quite obviously know. See previous marriage laws struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional abrogation of our rights. <quoted text>Tell me why again we need a representational form of government? Sweetie, the people still don't have the authority to unconstitutionally deny their own rights.
<quoted text>Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Or are you saying that your right to marry is nothing more than a privilege granted to you by the state, sort of like going fishing.
No, I am saying call for a constitutional convention and put the issue to rest. Until that is done, leave it to the states and the people.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#46 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you missed my other post.
There in lies the problem. It is not called out. Mainly the courts can assume the meaning under Liberty in the 14th amendment and due process. However, Liberty can only be defined as the first 10 amendments. In which marriage is not in there for any type of marriage.
There is an easy fix to this. Call for a constitutional convention and leave it up to the people to decide.
Sorry, but in case you weren't aware, SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. When something isn't literally spelled out in our Constitution, SCOTUS uses "substantive due process." Society does change over time, ya know.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#47 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I have gave to many. Now again how much ahve you given to charity??? I am clsoe to ten million......How about you?
sure mr cannibal savage... hey just curious do you ever get drunk off that jesass blood... kinda like a vampire high

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Nighy tells of pride in gay role 2 min Henroy 1
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 9 min BEYONDtheCMB 684
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 12 min Tre H 133
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 20 min GOP vagina probe 200,653
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 22 min Pro Ukraine 950
Diaper-wearing gays need psychotic treatment' 22 min lgbt is silly 2
Video: We deserve respect - " Gay men in Ghana 33 min Gremlin 2
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 47 min Frankie Rizzo 55,108
Biggest Gay Lies 56 min Reverend Alan 1,768
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 118
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••