Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to prec...

Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents

There are 821 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.

Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#549 Mar 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yup.
I'm glad to finally see the real Dan.
I echo what I said to BS Detector as well.
Dan, I know your positions from the last few years and we've had some real smack down nasty exchanges. I didn't even take the advice of a good friend we both have here, but I'm stubborn.
In any case I have to say I am impressed with your courage to change and express that change. Marginalised people have always relied on the rational people from both sides to create improvements to our thinking. I'm glad Dan is here.
I still have a long way to go. Thank you though for your words.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#550 Mar 29, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you have had an issue with this subject, but you try to handle it as best as anyone can and I for one commend you for that.......some times when new things come up, change is hard to accept or even accomplish.........and you're right, what we are seeing is the domino effect and just like with interracial couples being able to marry and live their lives as they see/saw fit........that is what is happening now with Gay and Lesbian couples(aka Gays and Lesbians as individuals being able to make decisions for themselves) regarding their right to marry or not to marry just like their opposite-sex counterparts can and do all the time.
The world is changing and either people need to change with it or find some other place to dwell!
I might marry your daughter one day. Love the woman after talking to her...LOL!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#551 Mar 29, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
In time no one will care if you're gay or not I think no different than if someone prefers brunettes to blondes. I already made a fool of myself in these threads by spitting venom against gays so I hope you can forgive me. Just stupidity on my behalf.
You mean like comparing someone's sexual orientation to a preference for brunettes over blondes?

A more appropriate analogy would be someone being left-handed versus right-handed.

While we appreciate your evolving attitude, you've still got a ways to go.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#552 Mar 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like comparing someone's sexual orientation to a preference for brunettes over blondes?
A more appropriate analogy would be someone being left-handed versus right-handed.
While we appreciate your evolving attitude, you've still got a ways to go.
I can agree. Many of my past stances can attest to that. In many ways I have no business posting in these threads given past negativities I've thrown in here.

Many like me have no right to throw in our judgement of others, especially those who happen to be gay.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#553 Mar 29, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I can agree. Many of my past stances can attest to that. In many ways I have no business posting in these threads given past negativities I've thrown in here.
Many like me have no right to throw in our judgement of others, especially those who happen to be gay.
I disagree with that second sentence. Whether or not one agrees with us, they still have a right to post here. In fact, your enlightenment on the subject proves just that point. If some people didn't change sides once in a while, what would be the point? People like you give me hope.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#554 Mar 29, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with that second sentence. Whether or not one agrees with us, they still have a right to post here. In fact, your enlightenment on the subject proves just that point. If some people didn't change sides once in a while, what would be the point? People like you give me hope.
"Sheeple" is right though. I have already demonstrated many times I can wobble when it comes to a full understanding. I raised hell when it came to talking about gay pride parades when in truth I should have just shut up.

I grew up in a family that literally "hated" gays. When in fact any of us could have been gay.

My hope is that one day it's not a conversation, whether someone is 'gay' or not. It's just a part of the fabric of life.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#555 Mar 29, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sheeple" is right though. I have already demonstrated many times I can wobble when it comes to a full understanding. I raised hell when it came to talking about gay pride parades when in truth I should have just shut up.
I grew up in a family that literally "hated" gays. When in fact any of us could have been gay.
My hope is that one day it's not a conversation, whether someone is 'gay' or not. It's just a part of the fabric of life.
But having conversations is exactly how we learn from one another.

If you at least make an attempt to be civil, you'll be welcome in most conversations.

Btw, I'm gay and I don't care for pride parades on the grounds they're more of a freak show than a "pride parade" and can do more harm to our image than good anymore. I usually catch a lot of flak for that as well.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#556 Mar 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But having conversations is exactly how we learn from one another.
If you at least make an attempt to be civil, you'll be welcome in most conversations.
Btw, I'm gay and I don't care for pride parades on the grounds they're more of a freak show than a "pride parade" and can do more harm to our image than good anymore. I usually catch a lot of flak for that as well.
They have been becoming more tame over the years.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#557 Mar 29, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I might marry your daughter one day. Love the woman after talking to her...LOL!!!
Hugs my friend:-)
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#558 Mar 29, 2014
If we allow religious belief to create laws that ban people from civil rights how soon before a Christian version of sharia law sets a precedent.

READ AND RE-READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT. religious freedom is for all religions and people with no religion...NOT JUST YOU CHRISTIANS..

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#559 Mar 29, 2014
If the religious conservatives want to insist that marriage is a States Right ask them to explain why they passed a FEDERAL LAW about it in 1996?

Now they want to turn back time?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#560 Mar 29, 2014
Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents?

So how many child marriages have happened in places that passed SSM?

How many polygamists have been legally married in areas where SSM is now legal?

How many places have legalised bestiality since SSM became legal?

Where's the "slippery slope"?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#561 Mar 29, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I still have a long way to go. Thank you though for your words.
Well I have to say you sure are making up for lost time. Thanks again for your writing about your experience. It is both heartwarming and gratifying.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#562 Mar 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents?
So how many child marriages have happened in places that passed SSM?
How many polygamists have been legally married in areas where SSM is now legal?
How many places have legalised bestiality since SSM became legal?
Where's the "slippery slope"?
Lol, some are sure that the slippery slope will happen, it's just a matter of time ;0)

I've been trying to find that elusive "gay agenda" for decades now!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#563 Mar 31, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
In time no one will care if you're gay or not I think no different than if someone prefers brunettes to blondes. I already made a fool of myself in these threads by spitting venom against gays so I hope you can forgive me. Just stupidity on my behalf.
Thank YOU for your willingness to learn and grow. We've all let our own lack of understanding and compassion for others embarrass ourselves.

What's important is learning from it and not making the same mistake twice--something the Republican party still hasn't figured out yet when it comes to gay bashing.... It's never a good idea to bash people for political gain, gay folks or otherwise.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#564 Mar 31, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like comparing someone's sexual orientation to a preference for brunettes over blondes?
A more appropriate analogy would be someone being left-handed versus right-handed.
While we appreciate your evolving attitude, you've still got a ways to go.
Actually, I've always thought that preferences for blondes vs. brunettes (vs. gingers--let's not forget them!) was similarly inherent as sexual orientation or left-handedness. At least, my own preferences in that area haven't changed for as far back as I can remember, so I'm thinking it's pretty set.

;)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#565 Mar 31, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
If we allow religious belief to create laws that ban people from civil rights how soon before a Christian version of sharia law sets a precedent.
READ AND RE-READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT. religious freedom is for all religions and people with no religion...NOT JUST YOU CHRISTIANS..
Also, if it becomes acceptable to include religious doctrine into civil laws, who's to say that the day won't come (soon!) where a NEW majority that's not Christian (or even the pretend version, "christian"-ish) will start adopting laws based solely on *their* religion??

It's interesting that the very same people in the U.S. that are currently crapping their pants over "Sharia Law" (which, technically, doesn't even exist, but whatever) and passing laws banning the adoption of "Sharia Law", are perfectly happy, are in fact, working feverishly toward, adopting their personal version of "Christian Law" into civil law.

It's unimaginable to me that anyone could be so short-sighted and hypocritical, but they are!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#566 Mar 31, 2014
DNF wrote:
If the religious conservatives want to insist that marriage is a States Right ask them to explain why they passed a FEDERAL LAW about it in 1996?
Now they want to turn back time?
I take great joy in reminding them that their gross overreach known as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was a HUGE aid in getting marriage equality on the fast track in the U.S.

Without the Federal DOMA for the SCOTUS to overturn, it would have been FAR more difficult for us to prove unequal treatment under state laws. But because the Federal DOMA was partially overturned, the conservatives' overreach flung the door wide open for full marriage equality in all the states.

If you don't believe me, ask Justice Scalia. He'll tell you all about how there's not legal basis to deny marriage equality. And one more bonus for us--it really pisses him off!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#567 Mar 31, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, if it becomes acceptable to include religious doctrine into civil laws, who's to say that the day won't come (soon!) where a NEW majority that's not Christian (or even the pretend version, "christian"-ish) will start adopting laws based solely on *their* religion??
It's interesting that the very same people in the U.S. that are currently crapping their pants over "Sharia Law" (which, technically, doesn't even exist, but whatever) and passing laws banning the adoption of "Sharia Law", are perfectly happy, are in fact, working feverishly toward, adopting their personal version of "Christian Law" into civil law.
It's unimaginable to me that anyone could be so short-sighted and hypocritical, but they are!
OMG
Civil law based on Scientology?
That's frightening.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#568 Apr 22, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Baker is no longer precedent, if it ever was, so the point is moot. Just about every current case has completely rejected it.
still is.

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 Biphobic hate crimes a should be treated differ... 47 min Jonas 1
News Celebrate with Allentown's Pride in the Park Fe... 1 hr weaponX 3
News Movies: LGBT Film Series to be shown at three L... 1 hr weaponX 11
News Trump bans transgender people from military 1 hr TomInElPaso 365
News Chile families fight for acceptance of transgen... 1 hr Raymond 1
News Gay rights is personal for Fla. candidates 2 hr actorvet 7
News Gov. Abbott suggests 'bathroom bill' is likely ... 17 hr Red Crosse 7
More from around the web