Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to prec...

Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents

There are 820 comments on the WSFA-TV Montgomery story from Feb 13, 2014, titled Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents. In it, WSFA-TV Montgomery reports that:

Greg Bourke, front, and his partner Michael Deleon speak to reporters following the announcement from U.S. LOUISVILLE, Ky.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WSFA-TV Montgomery.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#338 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
Love is love, right!!
No, moron, equal protection of the law is equal protection of the law.

You certainly are going out of your way to make yourself look unintelligent.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#339 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it time!! If the ACLU will defend NAMBLA anything is possible!
LOL!!! NAMBLA. An organization that hasn't existed since the 1980's. TOO funny.

Just curious, though.... HOW, exactly, do you know anything about that group??? What were you Googling when you "accidentally" stumbled across them???

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#340 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
i actually wasted time on the first link (against my better judgement..) nothing there but the same bullshit you posted...none of this has happened anywhere SSM is legal. most of your bullshit can't as it is against the law, a several people pointed out to you...

once again you make a total ass of yourself with your ignorance and stupidity...

if you were a better citizen, you would know how your own nation works...sadly, you are the worst kind of citizen..

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#341 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT is the difference. Some don't see that as a contract, they see this as blessed union in the eyes of God and how can God bless sin? Give it time, Mormons and Muslims practice polygamy. The ACLU defended NAMBLA. This will be one of those unintended consequences!
no-one at all will ever stop a religious cult from performing any rite they wish to...

your proven false god does not come into play in the making of US laws. religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage..absolutely nothing. when you learn enough on this subject to not make a fool of yourself you will understand the difference between marriage and your religious cults rite of matrimony...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#342 Feb 18, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing listed here as of yet:
http://equalityontrial.com/
However a new lawsuit has been filed in Colorado!!!
I saw that too, this time in state court- probably because they're in the same 10th circuit, so another federal case would probably be put on hold at this point pending a ruling on the other cases which are much farther along.

While I welcome every new court case, most of these new cases won't see a ruling.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#343 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
If it gets re-defined, marriage will include anything!
Marriage has been redefined numerous times in the past and has never resulted in including "anything".

That's just another scary yet completely meaningless phrase the anti-gays use.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#344 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
You, Ralph B, sniper,woodtick57 and We The Sheeple had better who you are right. It is your souls at stake not mine!
My "soul" is my concern.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#345 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
You had better hope you are right! I will ask, if you re-define marriage to same sex, what makes you think will won't be re-defined for polygamy? Or pedophiles marrying children? Or marrying family members to avoid tax penalties? Or marrying animals? Where will it stop?
Oooh, so scary.

Your unfounded fears are no reason to deny equal treatment to an entire group of people.

But to answer your question, it stops where society wants it to stop at any given point. I suspect that will be at any two adults not closely related. As society changes, so do our laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#346 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT is the difference. Some don't see that as a contract, they see this as blessed union in the eyes of God and how can God bless sin? Give it time, Mormons and Muslims practice polygamy. The ACLU defended NAMBLA. This will be one of those unintended consequences!
Oooh, so scary!!!

Has that tactic worked with ANY judge or ANY rational person ANYWHERE?

Ummm, NO!

Keep screaming the sky is falling, Chicken Little.

You just make yourself look like an irrational idiot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#347 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Love is love, right!!
Between consenting unrelated adults, yes.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#348 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it time!! If the ACLU will defend NAMBLA anything is possible!
The ACLU defended their right to publish, just as they defended the Illinois NeoNAZIs of Skokie, Illinois Right to march.

foster

Ashburn, VA

#349 Feb 18, 2014
What wrote:
Next you all will support beastiality. Your views are nothing other then the scum in the bottom of a sewer. This country was bought by the blood of Christians. It was founded on the bible and its teachings. On our currency it's says in God we trust. If you want to live in a country that's abolished it's self from the word of the bible then it should be you that moves our principles were here first. You want to change our ways of life but then you refer to us as the nazi party?
we had a spiritual system before the christians showed up with their weapons of mass destruction and teaching the missionary position
foster

Ashburn, VA

#350 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT is the difference. Some don't see that as a contract, they see this as blessed union in the eyes of God and how can God bless sin? Give it time, Mormons and Muslims practice polygamy. The ACLU defended NAMBLA. This will be one of those unintended consequences!
What of the right for an individual to belive in a god of his own understanding and not your concept of god?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#351 Feb 18, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT is the difference. Some don't see that as a contract, they see this as blessed union in the eyes of God and how can God bless sin? Give it time, Mormons and Muslims practice polygamy. The ACLU defended NAMBLA. This will be one of those unintended consequences!
First, that is just the "slippery slope fallacy".

Second and last, Freedom of Religion includes as a functional corollary Freedom FROM the unwanted religion of others.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#352 Feb 18, 2014
Polygamy may become legal, but will need to be treated as a separate entity as civil marriage is based on the principle of primary kinship, which cannot exist between more than two people.

Children and animals can't enter into contracts.
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
You had better hope you are right! I will ask, if you re-define marriage to same sex, what makes you think will won't be re-defined for polygamy? Or pedophiles marrying children? Or marrying family members to avoid tax penalties? Or marrying animals? Where will it stop?
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#353 Feb 19, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Polygamy may become legal, but will need to be treated as a separate entity as civil marriage is based on the principle of primary kinship, which cannot exist between more than two people.
Children and animals can't enter into contracts.
<quoted text>
Yeah, it's not the same thing. The fallacy the antigay commit is that they see EVERYTHING outside "one man and one woman" as deviations from that set archetype.

Gay marriage *logically completes* that archetype. Now everyone marries based on inborn orientation, as is natural and sensible.

However, they lump gay marriage OUTSIDE the archetype and thus compare it to all the other things to which it has no resemblance.

In effect, what's hilarious is that their system of categorization logically compares the marriage of one man and one woman to those other entities they hate. By their logic, the marriage of one man and one woman is comparable to a man marrying a goat.

Oh, I never knew.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#355 Feb 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court issued no decision in Baker v Nelson. It summarily dismissed the case, which is how it became "precedent."
Only a fool would start making arguments using Baker and not know the case history.
the fool is you and it is how is was presented to the SCOTUS if you read the link where it says "Because the case came to the Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as precedent ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#356 Feb 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the court issued no decision in Baker v Nelson, it was summarily dismissed, which is how it became "precedent."
You aren't making yourself out as being very intelligent.
here again

it is was presented to the SCOTUS if you read the link where it says "Because the case came to the Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as precedent ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#357 Feb 19, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Cucci- who?
You do realize he's no longer in office, and therefore is opinion is no more relevant than any other private citizen.
The SCOTUS already dumped the Baker precedent when they overturned DOMA.
It is still a legal precedent issued & established by the SCOTUS that still exist and the majority wants the SCOTUS to reaffirm that banning same sex marriage does not violate the US Constitution as the SCOTUS affirmed in 1971 and here in Indiana they want to ban same sex marriage and civil unions and the gays know they have no legal grounds either which is why they are threatening to leave Indiana which they can and we don't have to worry about Polygamy either.

Indiana moves closer to constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

By Abdul-Hakim Shabazz

INDIANAPOLIS Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:44pm EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/17/us-...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#358 Feb 19, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
If it gets re-defined, marriage will include anything!
Exactly and the Liberals will be wanting to marry their pets next.

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News a CDC ban on 'fetus' and 'transgender?' Experts... 2 hr Retribution 5
News Arlington Receives "All-Star" Rating for LGBTQ ... 8 hr Marcavage s Trick 22
News Kentucky Baptists issue threat regarding hiring... 18 hr white n blue 7
News Roy Moore at campaign rally: 'We don't need tra... 19 hr Marcavage s Trick 151
looking syrian bottom in jeddah (Jan '16) 21 hr Lolo1234 12
News CDC banned from using words like fetus, transge... Sat Sick in Louisiana 3
News Regional queer youth call for more understandin... Fri Tre H 12
where guys and gays hangout in jeddah (Sep '10) Thu aboa 2,332
More from around the web