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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#472 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
no , it doesn't. at all.
We encourage home ownership as a society right?
but why does the govt give rent vouchers...
false logic is all you have here...
and no support in reality, that's why you NEVER have a source...
like i said, you use your ignorance as a sword...
Jane, can an infertile woman and an impotent man legally marry, yes or no?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#473 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, can an infertile woman and an impotent man legally marry, yes or no?
Yes.

Has the court ruled on this yet, yes or no?

Here's a hint;
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited."

That's your exact argument.

Here's what the court says about it (to paraphrase the initials are BS)
"Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.""

Why do you think your argument means anything when it is clearly backhanded right here...
exceptions don't negate the rule...
you are silly to think it does...

we murder legally for war, does that mean all murder is tolerated?
silly logic, already deemed to be by the court...
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#474 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Has the court ruled on this yet, yes or no?
Here's a hint;
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited."
That's your exact argument.
Here's what the court says about it (to paraphrase the initials are BS)
"Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.""
Why do you think your argument means anything when it is clearly backhanded right here...
exceptions don't negate the rule...
you are silly to think it does...
we murder legally for war, does that mean all murder is tolerated?
silly logic, already deemed to be by the court...
Your logic is skewed.

Fact is gays who are seeking equality in terms of marriage are only pursuing a basic liberty that should have already been theirs.

We live in a country which espouses individual freedom and liberty unless those said liberties produce harm.

As to date no viable harm has been affixed to gay marriage therefore we should allow it.

Personal disdain towards gays or their idea they should have the freedom to marry is just that and should not dictate another American citizens liberty no matter what the number.

So in short, you and your idea we can vote out another Americans right to live in a fashion they deem fit unless it produces harm is wrong. Let 'em marry.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#475 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Has the court ruled on this yet, yes or no?
Here's a hint;
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited."
That's your exact argument.
Here's what the court says about it (to paraphrase the initials are BS)
"Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.""
Why do you think your argument means anything when it is clearly backhanded right here...
exceptions don't negate the rule...
you are silly to think it does...
we murder legally for war, does that mean all murder is tolerated?
silly logic, already deemed to be by the court...
Jane, it is patently absurd to say that there is a procreative requirement for legal marriage, applicable only to same sex couples, and exclusively to deny them equal protection of the law.

Feel free to come up with a big boy argument, this one doesn't even come close. Your assertion that there is a procreative requirement for marriage has been utterly debunked. Why not try another rationalization?
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#476 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
we murder legally for war, does that mean all murder is tolerated?
silly logic, already deemed to be by the court...
Question -

What in the f#@k does this have to do with gays marrying?

There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever.
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#477 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is skewed.
Fact is gays who are seeking equality in terms of marriage are only pursuing a basic liberty that should have already been theirs.
We live in a country which espouses individual freedom and liberty unless those said liberties produce harm.
As to date no viable harm has been affixed to gay marriage therefore we should allow it.
Personal disdain towards gays or their idea they should have the freedom to marry is just that and should not dictate another American citizens liberty no matter what the number.
So in short, you and your idea we can vote out another Americans right to live in a fashion they deem fit unless it produces harm is wrong. Let 'em marry.
You have it twisted.

First you would need to show that the reasons we offer marriage apply to you with comparable force as they do to straights...
the question is NOT to examine the harm of giving you the benefits.

Take student loans,(an unequally provided benefit). We do not ask if giving money to non students would harm students? We ask why we offer the money and whether non students qualify.

Gays simply do not qualify for the benefit. They do not meet all of the reasons we offer the benefit...

It doesn't mean we hate them any more than we hate young entrepreneurs that didn't get a student loan. They are just not the people we are looking for...

You also need to grasp that equal protection under the law is NOT absolute equality, but most people's mommas already learned them that.

Lastly, this was the logic of the court in Baker. A tougher target than little ole me...
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#478 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not try another rationalization?
for you to claim my rationalizations are not rational?
I've had enough pete and repeat...
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#479 Dec 4, 2012
you guys like my name change?

Its a woman's name, but that's okay for all of you, RIGHT?

I also figured since Mona was going to snipe from afar that I would include him for more fun....

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#480 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
for you to claim my rationalizations are not rational?
I've had enough pete and repeat...
Congratulations, you're showing your true colors. You might want to change your hometown when you do this, so you don't look like quite such an incompetent juvenile hack.

Feel free to come back to the topic at hand and offer that elusive legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#481 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, you're showing your true colors. You might want to change your hometown when you do this, so you don't look like quite such an incompetent juvenile hack.
Or maybe I shouldn't have announced the name change...
but I think Mona will like it!
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#482 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it twisted.
First you would need to show that the reasons we offer marriage apply to you with comparable force as they do to straights...
the question is NOT to examine the harm of giving you the benefits.
Take student loans,(an unequally provided benefit). We do not ask if giving money to non students would harm students? We ask why we offer the money and whether non students qualify.
Gays simply do not qualify for the benefit. They do not meet all of the reasons we offer the benefit...
It doesn't mean we hate them any more than we hate young entrepreneurs that didn't get a student loan. They are just not the people we are looking for...
You also need to grasp that equal protection under the law is NOT absolute equality, but most people's mommas already learned them that.
Lastly, this was the logic of the court in Baker. A tougher target than little ole me...
Nah...

I spelled out concise reasoning basing itself on the fundemental aspect this country was founded upon regarding basic civil liberties all Americans are due.

Secondly you inferred I am gay. I'm straight. Funny...you'd think an intelligent person would ask a question before assuming. Add to that I am married and am familiar with the institution.

Gay marriage has the same inherent comparable factors and "force" in being in that it is a freedom that should be allowed all American citizens to enter into a legally binding contract called marriage should they find an adult they are attracted to, find mutual love and a willingness to commit with.

Is anyone asking for a student loan? A license to perform as a surgeon? A free pass into the Rolling Stones concert? No dumbass....they're pursuing a basic civil liberty in marriage. ALL Americans should have unless you can find viable harm and as to date you have not.

As STUPID as you are I would wonder if you could tell the difference between a striped African zebra and a Pacific swimming otter.

And WTF is this;

"You also need to grasp that equal protection under the law is NOT absolute equality..."???

Equality has one meaning shitforbrains. It's not a fluid aspect which can be bent into a myriad of shapes so puh-lease idiot....don't try and muddy the waters on an aspect which is abundantly clear.

As fas as 'Baker'....tghere has been a history of decisions on this aspect of gay marriage but the fundemental core of it's being is inherently righteous if we are to abide by the Constitution and what this country is founded upon.

If it were not we would not have pesent day saem sexed marriages as it is and you wouldn't have me supporting their wish to marry as I myself had a journey in which it took me awhile to support same sexed couples only to learn they have a full blown right to do so.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#483 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe I shouldn't have announced the name change...
but I think Mona will like it!
Apparently you don't think much.

Why would anyone like some smartass dumb fool such as yourself who cannot intelliegently argue on this manner of gays marrying without utilizing skewed reasoning by bringing into the conversation unrelated subjects as a means as a sad effort to back an already proven method of thought which has been debunked want to see this lost character change their online screen name to fit their own?

BAH HAH HAH!!!!
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#484 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
for you to claim my rationalizations are not rational?
I've had enough pete and repeat...
Exactly what is rational about bringing in subject matter which has no connection or parallel thought to the item at hand, gay marriage?

There exists no rational reasoning outside of possibly your dumb self thinking you can muddy the waters.
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#485 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>

Is anyone asking for a student loan? A license to perform as a surgeon?

.
no, they are pursuing a marriage LICENSE...what do you make of the LICESE part?
Notice there is no birth LICENSE?
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>

"You also need to grasp that equal protection under the law is NOT absolute equality..."???
Equality has one meaning shitforbrains. It's not a fluid aspect which can be bent into a myriad of shapes so puh-lease idiot....don't try and muddy the waters on an aspect which is abundantly clear.
Is there a WOMAN's right to choose? With equality how can that be?
oh right, rights are a FLUID concept...

are you sure you should be insulting ME?(especially since I didn't hand have not insulted you, isn't the HATE supposed to be on my side?)
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>

As fas as 'Baker'....tghere has been a history of decisions on this aspect of gay marriage but the fundemental core of it's being is inherently righteous if we are to abide by the Constitution and what this country is founded upon.
I think you are going to have to try this one again...it is intelligible...

it would be nice if you could make your point without childish insults, its also very telling if you cannot...
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#486 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you don't think much.
Why would anyone like some smartass dumb fool such as yourself who cannot intelliegently argue on this manner of gays marrying without utilizing skewed reasoning by bringing into the conversation unrelated subjects as a means as a sad effort to back an already proven method of thought which has been debunked want to see this lost character change their online screen name to fit their own?
BAH HAH HAH!!!!
I think I will just let you post just stand on its own...thanks for it Dan!
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#487 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what is rational about bringing in subject matter which has no connection or parallel thought to the item at hand, gay marriage?
There exists no rational reasoning outside of possibly your dumb self thinking you can muddy the waters.
Hey Dan, you are jumping into the conversation at the long pathetic end....why would you be so presumptuous as to think you knew what we were talking about?
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#488 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
no, they are pursuing a marriage LICENSE...what do you make of the LICESE part?
Notice there is no birth LICENSE?
Exactly. And why should we deny a license towards a personal institution which directs itself to an American citizen pursuing a basic freedom?

Your reasoning bases itself on disdain. Bigotry. And has no place in determining if Harry wants to marry Tom. Either find viable harm in the marriage or shaddup given we are a free country.

Other licenses exist too asshat. Business licenses for example. Think we should in turn also deny gays the basic ability to form a business because you don't care for them?

You're an idiot.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#489 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice there is no birth LICENSE?
There's also no license for you to drink out of the water fountain at your local YMCA moron.

Got a point are you just going to drag in unrelated shit into a forum specifically based on gays marrying all day long freak?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#490 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Given I showed you how national organizations looked at a map and decided to focus on Vermont, will I still see you around here pretending it was a local movement?
I never claimed the oppositon was all local, but you sure did claim your side was...
you take it back, right?
(no pun intended)
No. I never claimed our side didn't employ outside resources. I claimed that our resources came primarly from in the state and, to a greater extent, our opponents relied on (1) financial resources from out-of-staters (2) staffers from out-of-state and (3) church hierarchy. Our side mobilized in-state resources more effectively in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota. That's how we won.

The fact is the opponents of same-sex marriage have never had an extensive in-state infrastructure outside of the church leaders that they rely on to carry their water. Going forward, expensive media campaigns and their church leaders will be increasingly ineffective in these battles. Our side will continue to mobilize large in-state efforts with an emphasis on one-on-one conversations with voters. That's how we won all four states in 2012. Unless our opponents learn to do the same, they will have more losses.

Our efforts were massive this year. And they worked because of the friends-and-neighbors approach.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#491 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there a WOMAN's right to choose? With equality how can that be?
oh right, rights are a FLUID concept...
are you sure you should be insulting ME?(especially since I didn't hand have not insulted you, isn't the HATE supposed to be on my side?)
Well yeah...it is a woman's right to choose in terms of a marriage.

Wha??? You think it's OK for a woman to be drug to the altar wearing a pretty wedding dress, sparkly nine inch pumps while being hog tied with nylon rope wearing some duct tape for lipstick with the groom saying her "I do's" for her?

ROFL!!!!

I don't 'hate' you goof...I'm just giveng you my opinion on your GOOFED up posts and opinion on this matter so quit bunching up like a toddler being told he won't get a cherry sucker as he's eyeballing it in the checkout line at the local supermarket.

LOL!!!

Good gaaaawd.....

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 Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher says it... 9 min Paper Towel Free ... 4
News Virginia hardware store fires employee accused ... 10 min whiney beech 22
News Soros Foundation Spends Millions Annually to Su... 25 min YouDidntBuildThat 5
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 27 min Munchkin 49
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr River Tam 61,734
News Two Texas Men Who Used Grindr To Assault, Rob G... 5 hr judy 5
News Giant gay-friendly church welcomed into United ... (Nov '06) 5 hr judy 1,284
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 6 hr Bouncy House 28,127