Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop ...

Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

There are 1477 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges. In it, EDGE reports that:

On December 7, marriage equality proponents heard the news they'd been waiting to hear: that the Supreme Court will review whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#941 Jan 20, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So when you got married to start your 'family', you continued to files your taxes as single?
2. Didn't add your 'spouse' to your employer supported/paid health plan? You didn't take advantage of any of the perks and benefits of marriage?
3. So either gays and lesbians seek to marry for all the same reasons you and other hetero couples seek to marry -- love, commitment, family -- or we all seek to marry just for the perks and benefits.
1. Should have, could have avoided the marriage penalty.
2. I was my employer.
3. You can't marry just because you want to. You have to meet the requirements.

Here's an example from Sheeple's home state:
SEC. 3. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, nor his sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree, or another man.

SEC. 4. No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, nor her brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or cousin of the first degree, or another woman.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#942 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I will, when you pass a reading comprehension test.
You first... What does this mean?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anyone with a brain could answer... Can you?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#943 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
1. Should have, could have avoided the marriage penalty.
2. I was my employer.
3. You can't marry just because you want to. You have to meet the requirements.
Here's an example from Sheeple's home state:
SEC. 3. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, nor his sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree, or another man.
SEC. 4. No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, nor her brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or cousin of the first degree, or another woman.
And who can legally marry in Massachusetts? A man can marry another man, A woman can marry another woman. And cousins of the first degree can marry of either sex.

And there is no law that says you must marry in your state of residence. Sheeple can come to Massachusetts and legally marry (if not already married, I believe he is). Everyone else is invited to Massachusetts to legally marry. That invitation extends to male/female couples too.

We'll let each couple determine who gets listed first on the application form; who will be Party A and who will be Party B. They're grownups, they can figure it out.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#944 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stupid is showing.
That's the best argument you have?

Figures.

It's all you folks EVER have. You can't support your arguments, so you turn to insults.

If you can't articulate a logical position, why bother?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#945 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Financial security was the last thing on my mind when I got married. Family was first. So many times you people claim that marriage is for love and commitment. When pressed you reveal the true reasons, perks and benefits. Perks and benefits have nothing to do with love and commitment.
As you have repeatedly told gay folks, you certainly don't need a marriage at all for love and commitment. Why didn't you just shack up? Who needs that formal piece of paper?

You deny the very argument by your annoyance in my applying it to people like yourself.

Too funny.

And, I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, my Dear.

I said "ONE OF", the "MANY" reasons people marry.

Please try to pay attention.

If you disagree that no straight couple ever chooses to marry, IN PART, for the financial security and protection, by all means present your proof.

Good luck with that.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#946 Jan 20, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
Everyone else is invited to Massachusetts to legally marry. That invitation extends to male/female couples too.
But they won't be recognized as legally married in most states or by the federal government. You have to meet the state requirements.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#947 Jan 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the best argument you have?
It's adequate. I have posted my reasons, if you can't understand them then your stupid is showing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#948 Jan 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
1. As you have repeatedly told gay folks, you certainly don't need a marriage at all for love and commitment. Why didn't you just shack up? Who needs that formal piece of paper?
You deny the very argument by your annoyance in my applying it to people like yourself.
Too funny.
And, I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, my Dear.
2. I said "ONE OF", the "MANY" reasons people marry.
Please try to pay attention.
3. If you disagree that no straight couple ever chooses to marry, IN PART, for the financial security and protection, by all means present your proof.
Good luck with that.
1. I explained that too. You're stuck on stupid today.
2. Please, don't use your deficiencies to accuse me of anything.
3. What part of marriage isn't needed for love and commitment are you having difficulty with?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#949 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I explained that too. You're stuck on stupid today.
2. Please, don't use your deficiencies to accuse me of anything.
3. What part of marriage isn't needed for love and commitment are you having difficulty with?
It's not needed for children, either, for that matter.

It's not "needed" at all.

Yet it exists. Therefore it must be accessible by all citizens (and don't even try to go with the slippery slope crap.)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#950 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though your 'marriage' isn't recognized by the overwhelming majority of states, including the state you live in? I don't believe you.
I lived almost my entire life without being married and without any state recognition of my relationship; if other states don't recognize my marriage, I'll get by just fine. Federal recognition is much more important to me.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#951 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when it comes to moral issues and the difference between right and wrong you offer no guidance because that would be brainwashing. Got it. No one has to be taught HOW to think. Like your heart beating or your lungs breathing, it's automatic.
Okay, technically we teach her how to think in a rational manner instead of relying on just emotion or faith.

We teach her how to decide on her own what is right or wrong, and not have to rely on someone else or a dusty old book to tell her something is wrong.

Is it really that hard to get a child to come to the conlusion that killing another person is wrong without just saying- because it's illegal or because the bible says so?

I won't raise a child to be a person who has to stop and check the current laws or the bible to figure out if it's right or wrong to do something. She better be able to figure that out using her own rational thought processes.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#952 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. A mother isn't.
2. Very common. Think Ellen & Portia.
3. My reason is I want gays to stop forcing their agenda on children. Outside of that, I couldn't care less what you do.
While a biological mother is required, after that birth a mother is not necessary nor required for children to grow into productive well balanced members of society.

Yes, it's a very common stereotype.

Well then you're going to care what I do for the rest of your life, because I will always support educating children that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality and that families headed by same-sex couples are no different than any other family.

Most kids actually have no difficulty understanding that; the only ones who have trouble are those who are taught bigotry at home.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#953 Jan 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, technically we teach her how to think in a rational manner instead of relying on just emotion or faith.
Technically, by your definition of brainwashing, you brainwash her.
Ok, got it. Don't feel bad, I call what you call brainwashing parental guidance.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#954 Jan 20, 2013
Tony C wrote:
Therefore it must be accessible by all citizens (and don't even try to go with the slippery slope crap.)
It, marriage, will never be accessible to all citizens. You must meet the state regulations.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#955 Jan 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Well then you're going to care what I do for the rest of your life, because I will always support educating children that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality and that families headed by same-sex couples are no different than any other family.
Do it at home. Then millions of straight families can go back to not caring what you do.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#956 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
But they won't be recognized as legally married in most states or by the federal government. You have to meet the state requirements.
Recognized as legally married in 11 states and counting, with 5 more likely to come this year, and more next year, and more the next year.....

And of course federal recognition will come in June when the SCOTUS overturns DOMA.

Aaaah, progress.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#957 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It, marriage, will never be accessible to all citizens. You must meet the state regulations.
I guess you thought you were making a point here?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#958 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Do it at home. Then millions of straight families can go back to not caring what you do.
Nope, that's not good enough.

Children in public schools will be taught that treating other kids differently because they or their parents are gay is wrong.

If you don't like it, it's on you to pay for private schooling or to home school.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#959 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though your 'marriage' isn't recognized by the overwhelming majority of states, including the state you live in? I don't believe you.
Notice how your "overwhelming majority" of states keeps skrinking?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#960 Jan 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, by your definition of brainwashing, you brainwash her.
Ok, got it. Don't feel bad, I call what you call brainwashing parental guidance.
Nope, brainwashing is teaching someone something which isn't necessarily true without any logic or reasoned thought behind it.

That pretty much describes teaching religion or bigoty to children, or that Santa Claus is real or the Easter Bunny or any other fairy nonsense.

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) 18 min Frankie Rizzo 38,722
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 43 min Frankie Rizzo 15,733
Do Gay Men Fall in Love With Women (Nov '07) 1 hr Lacey 3,329
News ACLU settles lawsuit over 'Some People Are Gay'... 1 hr Xstain Fumblement... 18
News If Prince Was A Homophobe, What Does That Make ... 3 hr Mikey 4
News After gay couple's home is egged, a community r... 3 hr Little Robbie 19
News Lesbian pastor, United Methodist Church agree t... 3 hr Love 7
Dying off like flies 4 hr Little Robbie 23
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 6 hr Leo 68,950
More from around the web