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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#857 Apr 27, 2014
They weren't arrested for trying to get a marriage license--they were arrested for criminal trespass for their protest after being denied. It's in your own damned story.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
Texas Gay Couple Arrested After Requesting Marriage License In Dallas
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/texa...

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#858 Apr 28, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
2013 - The Supreme Court of the United States overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, which outlaws federal recognition of both same-sex marriage and polygamy. Requiring that the federal government recognize marriages, in states where such unions are legal.
SCOTUS overturned Section 3 of DOMA, which had SPECIFICALLY stated that the federal government ONLY recognized a marriage as between a man and a woman and that "SPOUSE" meant someone of the opposite-sex.........Section 3 NEVER had ANYTHING to do with polygamy nor did the Windsor ruling change ANYTHING regarding polygamy!!!

A State may define marriage as it sees fit, it DOESN'T have the ability to violate rulings from SCOTUS as it sees fit....so, UNTIL such a time comes that a lawsuit is filed to challenge the State bans on polygamy....appealed through the process and reaches SCOTUS.......I seriously DOUBT anything will change..........and the right to marry 1 other consenting ADULT without regard to a specific gender is NOT the same fight as the right to marry multiple consenting ADULTS no matter how one wants to see it!!!

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#859 Apr 28, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>has nothing to do with discrimination in recognizing gay marriage from one state to another that is liberals trying to justify discrimination who have problems with the US Constitution and State Rights and if anything gay marriage has more to do with economics than anything for the states that are for it and they are generating alot of revenue of those states that are issuing the gay marriage licenses and another thing these gays that are married are also getting taxed more too which generates even more tax revenue for the states and right now states like California are hurting economically and states that are hurting economically gay marriage is a go.
Marriage penalty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
First off.......find something better than Wikipedia....thanks!

Secondly......it MOST certainly does have EVERYTHING to do with DISCRIMINATION........to believe it DOESN'T just shows your ignorance in my opinion!!!

Thirdly........."GAY " marriage DOESN'T exist and NO "GAY" marriage licenses have been issued!!!

Fourthly......read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and then tell me how one legal marriage is NOT being discriminated from another legal marriage SOLELY based on the gender make-up of the couple!!!

Interesting thought process regarding the last part of your comment.......because according to your logic, just about EVERY State in this Country SHOULD be a go for the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians!!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Xstain Rezerect

Philadelphia, PA

#860 Apr 28, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>why dont you take own advice since you have no use for the State Rights, SCOTUS and the US Constitution.
Jedediah, just because some sexually fraught hick doesn't like marriage equality doesn't mean the legislatures and courts are wrong on the issue of permitting marriage equality.

"Unconstitutional" does not mean "some tee baggrz don't like it."

Your equating of a common law marriage out of state - no marriage license - with same sex marriages in those states permitting them - marriage license - indicates you completely lack the capacity to make sensible arguments.

Now go slop the pigs. Then after they're fed take them to Sears for a family portrait, my treat.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#861 Apr 28, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I didnt lose we already know the liberals have no use for the US constitution which was confirmed in 1971 in Baker v. Nelson which liberals have showed their arrogance with the US Constitution and the SCOTUS which has confirmed it by their ruling in Baker v. Nelson.
on October 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled — in a five-page opinion without dissent — that the Constitution does not protect “a fundamental right” for same-sex couples to get married. That ruling, in Baker v. Nelson, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Washington almost exactly a year later, with this order:“Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”(Baker v. Nelson, October 10, 1972, docket 71-1027).
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/gay-marriag...
That's been tried a couple of times, the judges ruled for marriage equality. You lose again.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#862 Apr 28, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
there is no difference between gay and polygamy marriage compared to standard marriage between one woman and one man which is like saying there is no difference between apple and oranges.
There are plenty of differences. Just because this all deals with "marriage" does not mean that all these situations are therefore identical. Similarities are present, but significant differences exist to those who care enough to look at the issue closely enough. I'm sure it's very easy to just brush this aside by saying everything's the same, but some people aren't looking for the easy route. Some people actually want to better their understanding of the situation. You can PRETEND that no differences exist, but look where that is getting you with regards to the law.

Gay people are not all that different from straight people. We feel love and affection the same way you do. We crave companionship in exactly the same way. If marriage is a way for two people to join together as family, and devote their lives to one another, then we can do that just as effectively as you can.

Polygamy is a different situation. No one is telling polygamists that they cannot build legal bonds to protect their family. They're only being told that they can't go hog-wild and do this with unlimited numbers of people. I support polygamy, I don't think the government should be dictating who may be a family and who may not, but a multi-person relationship is significantly structurally different from a two-person relationship (of any gender configuration). They have different dynamics, different ways of resolving conflict, different balances and different needs.

It may make you feel like you can sweep this issue under the rug by pretending that there are no differences to be spoken of, but none of that is true. There are many differences to be considered, this issue will not go away, and you will only be left out of the discussion because those who are prepared to make progress in their understanding will leave you behind.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#863 Apr 28, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>there is no grasping straws there is no difference and up to the state voters to decide.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943 (SCOTUS Majority Opinion)
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Constitution of the United States
Article. 3.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

ARTICLE 4 [Legal Status of the Constitution]
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

U.S. Constitution
FIRST AMENDMENT
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1.
“ 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….”

__________
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
- Chief Justice John Marshall; Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#864 Apr 29, 2014
The anti-gays will continue to deny the rights of same-sex couples to marry, even AFTER the SCOTUS overturns all remaining state bans.

It's all they can do...
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#865 Apr 29, 2014
"Prescedent"

A word the far right should scared of. Think about being able discriminate againt gays by your redneck states laws.......THOSE LAWS CAN BE USED AGAINTS CHISTIANS ALSO.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#866 Apr 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The anti-gays will continue to deny the rights of same-sex couples to marry, even AFTER the SCOTUS overturns all remaining state bans.
It's all they can do...
The "anti-gays". They weren't anti-gay when they first came here. They became that way thanks to you.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#867 Apr 29, 2014
Xstain Rezerect wrote:
<quoted text> indicates you completely lack the capacity to make sensible arguments.
pot/kettle

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#868 Apr 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Frankie insists that since same-sex marriage is now legal, polygamy must be legalized as well, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
What "evidence" to the contrary? The government has no business deciding for us what a marriage is. They should instead protect our right to make those personal decisions for ourselves. But that would mean giving up some of their control over us, some of their power and they would not be able to micromanage our lives like they do now.

Do you really believe that the likes of Chris Christie knows how you should live your life better than you do? Or Prom Queen Nancy Polosey? Would you even trust her to walk across the street with a dime of your money? Yet you allow them to define your marriage for you. If that isn't insanity what would be?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#869 Apr 29, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's a response, and thus can't be non-responsive, twit. Polygamy is not the same legal case as SSM; you idiots can't seem to deal with that. And no, the arguments aren't the same.
<quoted text>
Your assertions are non-responsive. You can say black is white all you want but it does not change the truth. You complain about Frankie calling you fruitloops yet you call me much worse and more often.

You are as insane as our President who smoked pot and now puts more blacks in prison for doing the exact same thing than were put into slavery. And you worship that government he represents. It is your God. Some atheist you are. All you have done is reject the God of the Bible and replaced it with Government. Instead of the church telling you what to do, you asked the Government to tell you what to do instead.

And that would be fine for yourself alone, but you insist those criminal scumbags in Washington micromanage all our lives as well. If you want to be a slave, fine, but stop trying to make those of us who love freedom and liberty slaves right alone side you. It is immoral to do so.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#870 Apr 29, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Oh, lookie...the moron who calls me an authoritarian is telling me what and how I should think.
Fu**ing hypocrite. I choose what is important to me.
<quoted text>
The more insulting you are comrade peter the more I know you can not answer or refute my posts. You are an authoritarian and anyone with any intelligence knows that describes you to a "T".

And you are lying, you do NOT choose what is important, you gave that over to the government to decide for you. And decide they do! They have made 2.5 million decisions about your life and you support them and refuse to see their criminal activities. You are worse than the Christians lying about their God when you lie about your God, the Government.

If you want to be a slave fine, but you are not going to make the rest of us slaves. We are fighting back with ideas about freedom and liberty to defeat your socialistic nonsense about fairness and equality. Nothing is ever fair and Government can not make life fair and bring us equality.

You want us to believe that the CRA brought an end to discrimination, well look around you, racism is alive and well in America. Your stupid laws don't work and you need to stop insisting they do.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#871 Apr 29, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Bigamy laws exist to protect people from fraud. They weren't created to stop polygamy, but will still have the same effect UNLESS you people stop whining and put real thought into how to frame this entirely different form of civil contract.
<quoted text>
Bigamy laws exist to give government power over our lives. You bought the lies hook line and sinker comrade peter. It is a delusional nightmare that government is looking our for your best interests when all government is looking out for is how to get more of our money and how to control us like cattle. You see reality backwards and you being a government apologist are an enemy of the freedom and liberty some people would like to enjoy.

You are just like all those scumbags you have been voting for.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#872 Apr 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>no difference between gay and polygamy marriage to marriage between a man and a woman and what your trying to say is apple and oranges are the same and they are not.
Apples and oranges are both fruits and both are eaten by humans. If you have diabetes apples are good for you but oranges are bad.

If you are insane, government is good for you but if you love freedom and liberty then Government is bad for you.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#873 Apr 29, 2014
Christianist Talibuns wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone needs a timeout.
And it's YOU!

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#874 Apr 29, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
If you are insane, government is good for you but if you love freedom and liberty then Government is bad for you.
Unless you need someone to pave your roads, or police your neighborhoods, or deliver your mail, or insist on safe cooking practices in restaurants, or regulate what goes into prescription medicine, or ensure that high-rises have wheelchair ramps, or provide for the safety and comfort of 300,000,000 people. THEN it's okay to insanely rant against the government while simultaneously taking advantage of everything it does for you.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#875 Apr 29, 2014
Ooohhh...all three of them, including you. Fu**'em.
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The "anti-gays". They weren't anti-gay when they first came here. They became that way thanks to you.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#876 Apr 29, 2014
Civil marriage is a contract WITH THE GOVERNMENT; they're gonna have a say in what that contract entails.

Who the hell is Nancy Polosey?
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What "evidence" to the contrary? The government has no business deciding for us what a marriage is. They should instead protect our right to make those personal decisions for ourselves. But that would mean giving up some of their control over us, some of their power and they would not be able to micromanage our lives like they do now.
Do you really believe that the likes of Chris Christie knows how you should live your life better than you do? Or Prom Queen Nancy Polosey? Would you even trust her to walk across the street with a dime of your money? Yet you allow them to define your marriage for you. If that isn't insanity what would be?

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 Pope Francis reportedly tells gay man: 'God mad... 6 hr C Kersey 5
News New Castle students plan silent show of support... (Apr '07) 7 hr F c k the fa g s 10
News State investigation reveals discrimination at O... 9 hr The Troll Stopper 10
News LGBTQ representation in film fell in 2017, acco... 15 hr Pence of Tides 3
News Transgender Detainees Face Challenges in Broken... (May '12) 19 hr Guest 12
News Transgender people in Iran face discrimination ... 20 hr Pence of Tides 7
News The Fight for LGBT Equality in 2018 Will Be Fierce May 21 FART FRANK 135