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.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#429 Dec 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and I cited to what the high court found to avoid ad hominem attacks...
and look at what you are "talking about"?
I was right to do so, huh?
So when you attack the person who came up with the reason, you are attacking the high court of NY...
a much tougher target than lil ole me...
wrong...I wasn't even having a debate with you. I was commenting how you c/p posts to skew whatever argument in you favor..Cite whatever court/legal crap all you want, still won't make you less bigoted, argumentative or 'right'....And to reiterate, your a waste of time to debate with because you deflect and change the subject rather than actually debating the issue, just like your doing now...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#430 Dec 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you back peddled so far I can't even hear you now...
you claimed the vermont movement was local and homegrown. I showed you where national campaigns admitted to picking Vermont off the map and coming here to raise this...
and you change AGAIN...
I won't even try to keep up with your moving target...
What is more local and home-grown than a vote of the legislature? If you have evidence that legislators were unduly influenced by out-of-staters, you should bring your evidence. If you have evidence that the campaign that educated the electorate and eventually changed their minds was funded and staffed from outside the state, bring your evidence. The fact that the national groups recognized that Vermont was fertile ground for our campaign is a statement about Vermont, not a condemnation of our efforts.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#432 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
I didn't try to force you into anything pookie. Maybe that was your partner. You keep side stepping the fact that you are abnormal and are trying to have people say you are normal. Any pet at home can show you how wrong you are and what freeks of nature become. You have the right to be with anyone you want pookie, and I could care less, but changing abnormal to normal for uncle sugars money won't work.
Contraire, the only side stepping here is your own, when you claim homosexuality is abnormal, but can't offer one iota of evidence to support that assertion.

It's funny how those on your side of this debate so often make claims that they are either unwilling, or unable, to support with fact.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#433 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't try to force you into anything pookie. Maybe that was your partner. You keep side stepping the fact that you are abnormal and are trying to have people say you are normal...
Childish name calling aside, why are you the final arbiter of "normal".

I mean, it's hardly normal for a so-called straight person to be obsessed with gay people and what you fantasize they might be doing, especially sexually. To be honest, it's creepy.

You have to admit such obsessions as yours aren't high on the "normal" scale.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#434 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't try to force you into anything pookie. Maybe that was your partner. You keep side stepping the fact that you are abnormal and are trying to have people say you are normal. Any pet at home can show you how wrong you are and what freeks of nature become. You have the right to be with anyone you want pookie, and I could care less, but changing abnormal to normal for uncle sugars money won't work.
So you're the authority on normal eh? I guess in your view, being a bigoted judgmental condescending c(_)nt is normal too.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#436 Dec 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
say, whose benefit are we interested in during divorce?
the best interest of the child?
KIDS?
with marriage?
say it aint so!
and interestingly, does the divorced couple still get the benefits of marriage after divorce?
NO?
so when they stop the biological family, they cease to get the benefits?
curious again!
and as to adoption, saying gay parents are better than being in the street says nothing about how they stack up against good straight parents...
try again.
or don't.
I see you still haven’t rejoined the topic, and are still off on your irrelevant field trip.

Jane, divorce is allowed, and a parent can be granted sole custody, which means the child will not be being raised by two biological parents.

Adoption is allowed, in which a child will not be raised by two biological parents.

Either one of these facts ALONE would disprove your foolish notion that the state has a legitimate interest in a child being raised by two biological parents.

Feel free to come back to the topic at hand.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#438 Dec 3, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Contraire, the only side stepping here is your own, when you claim homosexuality is abnormal, but can't offer one iota of evidence to support that assertion.
It's funny how those on your side of this debate so often make claims that they are either unwilling, or unable, to support with fact.
Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#439 Dec 3, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're the authority on normal eh? I guess in your view, being a bigoted judgmental condescending c(_)nt is normal too.
Love the snarky attack. It show how weak your case is.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#440 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Love the snarky attack. It show how weak your case is.
Not weak, normal ...just calling a spade a spade.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#441 Dec 3, 2012
Uve wrote:
Fa$$ots are sick people.
Nice try NoQ, you obviously feel threatened

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#442 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Hint: Two consenting adults is not the same as a Man and a Women. You keep trying to skip that part. Maybe if you go watch two rabbits or two horses you will get the idea of what is natural.
Again, another idiot that relates marriage to procreation.......and they DON'T go hand in hand!!!!

Same-Sex Couples can and are getting legally married and no where in their marriage application does it ask if they plan on having children!!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#443 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.
We happen to be more than 2% of the population.......and there are over 1500 species that practice homosexuality, Humans included!!!

So, yes, it is very normal and natural for what 2 men or 2 women share:-)

Marriage has been evolving for over the last 500 years.......and this isn't about some Liberal Judge......maybe ya missed the election results in Maine, Maryland and Washington:-)

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#444 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Love the snarky attack. It show how weak your case is.
I guess it wouldn't matter to you either, of all the scientific data collected showing homosexuality concurring 'naturally' in nature. So, you just keep on with your household pet synopsis..Pookie

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#445 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.
1. There would be a coma before "pookie".
2. I am in no way your pookie, to presume it was OK to use that word says more about you than anything else.
3. I didn't miss it. I dismissed it as the simplistic drivel that it was.

Nowhere does the constitution mention normalcy in relation to equal protection of the laws. So, in the end, your arguments of normalcy are an irrelevant dodge.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#446 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.
Have you not heard by now, every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country agree being gay, bisexual, and heterosexual are all normal sexual orientations and expressions of being human?

The fact that no other human is exactly like you, should be enough to convince you, you need not try to make it so.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#447 Dec 3, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that SCOTUS has the right to hold the cases INDEFINITELY........nope, they have to deal with them in some fashion.......even if it means sending them back to the courts that they just left, with the exception of the one's that have gone through the appeals processes!!!
Unfortunately the SCOTUS can indeed hold these cases indefinitely.
I wish there was something we could do to force their hand, but we can't.

Even if the 9th circuit removed their stay on the Prop 8 case, the anti-gays would just get an emergency indefinite stay from the SCOTUS.

So we wait; possibly a year or more........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#448 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Hint: Two consenting adults is not the same as a Man and a Women. You keep trying to skip that part. Maybe if you go watch two rabbits or two horses you will get the idea of what is natural.
Just as a black and white couple aren't the same as a same-race couple.

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, which is why it has naturally occurred throughout history is every society & culture on the planet.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#449 Dec 3, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.
So left-handed people are abnormal?

If only the majority is normal, then that means men, blacks, redheads, catholics, blue-eyed people, etc, etc, etc, are all abnormal.

Gee, I'm a gay, left-handed, blue-eyed, readheaded, ex-catholic.

If that makes me "abnormal" in your bigoted eyes, then so be it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#450 Dec 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately the SCOTUS can indeed hold these cases indefinitely.
I wish there was something we could do to force their hand, but we can't.
Even if the 9th circuit removed their stay on the Prop 8 case, the anti-gays would just get an emergency indefinite stay from the SCOTUS.
So we wait; possibly a year or more........
Well, that's wrong and we shouldn't have to wait until they decided to get over their fear!!!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#451 Dec 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the first circuit spefically said th eopposite of you:
"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."
Know what?

Let me struggle and strain and try really, really hard to type something, I might not make it, "JANE DOUGH," I might not be able to get it out:

The first circuit is flat-out wrong.

I don't think people grasp the basic concept of *law*-- it is *interpretive*. While courts make findings, the very process demonstrates HOURLY, not just daily, that people disagree about interpretation of the law, which would be why the BAKER case you're so weepily clinging to is belied by the NINE STATES which currently recognize gay marriage,

but you don't like talking about that because it shatters your illusions, doesn't it?

Get a backbone and get over it.

We can do this all day and you *know* you're wrong. You're clinging, and it looks ugly. Just so you know.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 min yehoshooah adam 52,226
News LGBT outrage over Trump ban on transgender mili... 3 min Aronald 13
News 'Revolutionary': Study of gay couples shows HIV... 6 min Aronald 12
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 7 min Messianically 516
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min Freedomofexpression 7,041
News Trump bans transgender people from military 17 min defeat Maxine Warren 44
News Protesters gather against Trump ban on transgen... 37 min Tokyo Rose 7
News Blood donation rules relaxed for gay men and se... 1 hr RalphB 36
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 2 hr Aronald 44
More from around the web