Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

Dec 20, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

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.

Comments
1,341 - 1,360 of 1,477 Comments Last updated Feb 6, 2013
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1362
Jan 31, 2013
 
Strel wrote:
No one has the right to be unoffended by reality.
Why are you offended by reality? Why shouldn't people have a choice as to just what reality is presented to their 5 & 6 year old children?
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1363
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I gave you titles to the books. Tip: google them.
The only thing that matters in the Parker incident is that they were not allowed to opt out. Your opinion of me, gays often question the sexuality of the posters they disagree with.
I already did, and from what I can tell about them, the contents do not support your argument.

Gays are right to question the sexuality of their detractors, who quite often get caught at Interstate rest stops attending to a wang thrust through a glory hole.

Do I need to provide names?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1364
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Strel wrote:
What you are REALLY saying is that you think this information will make kids gay,
Your chronic stupidity is showing.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1365
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Be honest, it's 2013 and PC.
So what if it is?

They don't do anything that straight couples don't already do, and have done, since...well forever.

I was raised in a very traditional, Southern, Christian family. I did not even know what a homosexual was until I was probably close to being a teenager sometime in the 70's.

Like you, it's not for me. This is a civil rights issue to me, and that is something I care about very much. It's immaterial to me that the subject happens to ba gays. It could be Mexicans or Episcopalians or Satanists.

Rights are rights and the law is the law. I think the law banning gay marriage is a leftover from another time, and it serves no purposes - if it ever really did.

PC? 2013? This is not the first time in history that homosexuality was accepted in a society. Many pagan cultures had little trouble with it.

As the Bard so aptly put it, nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. If kids accept homosexuality as a normal variation in human behavior it is not going to turn them gay. They either will be or won't be as per their own nature. What educating them will do is make the 95%(wild guess) of them that are straight not have a problem with the other 5% that are gay, and that 5% can grow up, accept themselves as who they are and live without fear that they will be persecuted.

So what exactly is wrong with that? You are just now beginning to make sense, don't stop now.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1366
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you offended by reality? Why shouldn't people have a choice as to just what reality is presented to their 5 & 6 year old children?
I'm not. Why do you want it banned from schools?

As I already said, parents already have that choice. Frankly I am fine with the opt out thing, but the problem is that this actually does not work. The kids will get this "forbidden fruit" from other kids, only garbled and probably inaccurate. You've also made it attractive and a subject of curiousity by making it controversial.

It's only controversial if we make it so. My daughter's shrugs. She accepts that some people like the same sex. She accepts this as a fact and doesn't bring all sorts of emotional, judgmental baggage into it.

hell I wish it WOULD turn her lesbian until she's 25 or so and ready to get married and give me grandchildren.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1367
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Your chronic stupidity is showing.
What other reason could you possibly have?

It has to have something to do with the information "harming" the children, no?

It's a rhetorical question that you have already answered, although you don't realize it, when you wrote that you object to "indoctrination" and object to homosexuality being taught as "normal."

Again, transparent. You're only fooling yourself
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1368
Jan 31, 2013
 
Strel wrote:
This is a civil rights issue to me, and that is something I care about very much.
Me too. That's why I think Parker, or anyone faced with this, should have been allowed to opt out. He didn't want those books banned, he just didn't believe they were right for his kids.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1369
Jan 31, 2013
 
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not. Why do you want it banned from schools?
As I already said, parents already have that choice. Frankly I am fine with the opt out thing, but the problem is that this actually does not work. The kids will get this "forbidden fruit" from other kids, only garbled and probably inaccurate. You've also made it attractive and a subject of curiousity by making it controversial.
It's only controversial if we make it so. My daughter's shrugs. She accepts that some people like the same sex. She accepts this as a fact and doesn't bring all sorts of emotional, judgmental baggage into it.
hell I wish it WOULD turn her lesbian until she's 25 or so and ready to get married and give me grandchildren.
It's ok if your daughter shrugs it off. It's ok for her to read those books if you don't object to them. If you did object then you should have the ability to opt-out. Nothing more. You are reading much more into my objection than what's actually there.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1370
Jan 31, 2013
 
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
What other reason could you possibly have?
It has to have something to do with the information "harming" the children, no?
It's a rhetorical question that you have already answered, although you don't realize it, when you wrote that you object to "indoctrination" and object to homosexuality being taught as "normal."
Again, transparent. You're only fooling yourself
I'm not fooling anyone, myself included. Take my posts at face value.
I don't care what gays do in their personal lives.
I don't care if schools want to add books about homosexuals to the CHOICES on a reading list.
I really don't care if gays marry or not.
I do care when families are being forced to read books about gays when they object on whatever grounds. Freedom and rights don't always work for everyone. People like the Parkers want the freedom and the right to opt out of that material, gay advocates want that right taken away. Gay advocates want the freedom and right to introduce gay literature in the public elementary schools. People like the Parkers don't want to take that freedom and right away, they just don't want to participate. They should have a choice.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1371
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Me too. That's why I think Parker, or anyone faced with this, should have been allowed to opt out. He didn't want those books banned, he just didn't believe they were right for his kids.
That's all well and good and I understand your position on that.

But you brought it up as a justification for banning gay marriage...when the two have no link.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1372
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ok if your daughter shrugs it off. It's ok for her to read those books if you don't object to them. If you did object then you should have the ability to opt-out. Nothing more. You are reading much more into my objection than what's actually there.
Like I said just above, THIS objection is one I can understand.

It's your relating it to banning gay marriage that doesn't make sense to the rest of us.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1373
Jan 31, 2013
 
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all well and good and I understand your position on that.
But you brought it up as a justification for banning gay marriage...when the two have no link.
They should have no link but the Lexington school used legal gay marriage as a reason to avoid parental notification and to refuse an opt out. The school was backed up by a judge.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1374
Jan 31, 2013
 
If Wondering and a brick had a debate, I think Wondering could possibly win 3 times out of 5.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1375
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They should have no link but the Lexington school used legal gay marriage as a reason to avoid parental notification and to refuse an opt out. The school was backed up by a judge.
Wondering, you have only been able to assert that one administrator claimed this, which you haven't offered any evidence to prove.

Nor have you illustrated that the claim was correct. It appears you war on reality remains in effect.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1376
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you offended by reality? Why shouldn't people have a choice as to just what reality is presented to their 5 & 6 year old children?
They do. They have a choice between the public school curriculum, a private school curriculum, or home-schooling.

It's simple, but you don't seem to understand that.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1377
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Me too. That's why I think Parker, or anyone faced with this, should have been allowed to opt out. He didn't want those books banned, he just didn't believe they were right for his kids.
He or they don't get to change public policy on the subject. And public policy is there is nothing "taboo" about being gay and no reason not to discuss it, any more than you wouldn't discuss apples.

That is the public policy, therefore, that is how it will be addressed in public schools.

Neither he nor you need to use public schools. There's your opt out.

But in a public school you can no more opt out about hearing that gay kids or parents are OK than you could opt out about hearing that all skin colors are OK or all religions (choices) are OK.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1378
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not fooling anyone, myself included. Take my posts at face value.
I don't care what gays do in their personal lives.
I don't care if schools want to add books about homosexuals to the CHOICES on a reading list.
I really don't care if gays marry or not.
I do care when families are being forced to read books about gays when they object on whatever grounds. Freedom and rights don't always work for everyone. People like the Parkers want the freedom and the right to opt out of that material, gay advocates want that right taken away. Gay advocates want the freedom and right to introduce gay literature in the public elementary schools. People like the Parkers don't want to take that freedom and right away, they just don't want to participate. They should have a choice.
I agree they should be able to opt out. And they can. It's called private school or home schooling.

We are only disagreeing on the method of opting out.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1379
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They should have no link but the Lexington school used legal gay marriage as a reason to avoid parental notification and to refuse an opt out. The school was backed up by a judge.
And the school and the judge were right.

How can you say that something is legal but has an opt-out in school on the basis that some people don't like it?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1380
Jan 31, 2013
 
lides and Strel, you've both done a great job with this one.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1381
Feb 1, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
Neither he nor you need to use public schools. There's your opt out.
That's true, but it isn't true for everyone. I'm for choice when it comes to topics as sensitive and provocative as homosexuality. Allowing an opt out of this material is the answer.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••