Ruling sparks debate on retroactive g...

Ruling sparks debate on retroactive gay rights

There are 37 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Jul 17, 2014, titled Ruling sparks debate on retroactive gay rights. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

A new Connecticut Supreme Court ruling is adding to the debate on whether gay marriage rights should be applied retroactively and qualify same-sex couples for rights and benefits for which they weren't entitled before state laws allowed them to marry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
wellll

Rio Rancho, NM

#25 Jul 20, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Hope that includes Social Security benefits. It could make a world of difference to a surviving spouse if they have only been married a couple of years and one of them dies.
.
kinda greedy theere, it's all about da money, regular couples have to be married 10 years, but I guess the special entitled ghey class is special. and that group wonders why the disgust for them.
wellll

Rio Rancho, NM

#26 Jul 20, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>We've been discussing couples who've been together much longer than there has been any form of legal recognition, let alone marriage.
.
shacking up is not a legal union for any couple regardless of sex
passing by

Salina, KS

#29 Jul 20, 2014
wellll wrote:
.
shacking up is not a legal union for any couple regardless of sex
No? Really? Who'd a thunk it? Same sex couples were not permitted to marry, their shacking up was not by choice. That has to be taken into account ,in all fairness. we are talking about couples who have been married in all but name for decades.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#32 Jul 22, 2014
I like being naked. Where's my "right" to do that??
passing by

Salina, KS

#33 Jul 22, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
I like being naked. Where's my "right" to do that??
Your right to privacy. Any more stupid questions?

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#34 Jul 22, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>Your right to privacy. Any more stupid questions?
No No No. You're stifling my "right" to express myself in public. By stating that I can only do so in private makes you a bigot and a hater.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#35 Jul 22, 2014
fr Cordwainer Trout:

>This extreme exaggeration is getting old. It is an exaggeration to claim more than 1.5% of any population is homosexual. One can travel endlessly throughout the world and never be in contact with a homosexual. They congregate in certain cities, so their numbers are easily misapplied. They are only a little more prevalent than small pox these days.<

As usual, your entire diatribe is full of trash. GLBT's are EVERYWHERE, as teachers, tour guides, data entry people, software writers, teachers, tutors, musicians, lawyers, doctors, dentists, healthcare workers, clergy, bank tellers, grocery clerks, forklift drivers, customer service people, librarians, etc.

Grow UP, and get a life.
passing by

Salina, KS

#36 Jul 22, 2014
Limitations on your right to freely express yourself through nudity need only be rational to survive constitutional challenge and rationality is in the eye of the beholder. Beholders who wear black robes tend to find such limits to be constitutional. The rationale is that since there any number of appropriate places for you to strut what the good Lord short-changed you, places where there aren't many folk looking for naked people, nudity can be prohibited in them. Sorry.

PS, I'm not against the right to public nudity, exercised it myself on more than one occasion, but there is a time and place for just about everything and some places and times where it just ain't appropriate for anyone.
Anonymous

Riverside, CA

#38 Jul 22, 2014
Makes for a great suntan.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#39 Jul 22, 2014
dawgs wrote:
All homosexuals will burn in hell according to the Bible. Just the facts!
If that includes closeted ones, pack light.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#40 Jul 22, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
I like being naked. Where's my "right" to do that??
Unless you're afraid of a broken mirror, go to it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#41 Jul 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Unless you're afraid of a broken mirror, go to it!
Who wants to look at his pathetic little thing?

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#42 Jul 23, 2014
passing by wrote:
Limitations on your right to freely express yourself through nudity need only be rational to survive constitutional challenge and rationality is in the eye of the beholder. Beholders who wear black robes tend to find such limits to be constitutional. The rationale is that since there any number of appropriate places for you to strut what the good Lord short-changed you, places where there aren't many folk looking for naked people, nudity can be prohibited in them. Sorry.
PS, I'm not against the right to public nudity, exercised it myself on more than one occasion, but there is a time and place for just about everything and some places and times where it just ain't appropriate for anyone.
So you want to infringe on my "right" to be naked in public? You're a bigot! Being naked is a God given right. We were brought into this world naked until society forced us all to conform to it's unfair clothing standards.

If being naked offends you, then stay clothed. If my nudity offends you, don't look. If I walk into a bakery buck naked to have a cake made and I get kicked out, I'll sue the owner for discrimination. I'll have parades with all of my naked friends, waving flags with phallic symbols on them, throwing my nudity in everybody's face. If the owner of a restaurant chain is of the opinion that being clothed is preferred to walking around naked, I'll storm the establishment with all of my naked supporters and demand a boycott of them and any other organization that doesn't agree with my viewpoint.

Being naked in public is the new normal. Either get used to it, or join the rest of the haters in the stagnant, swirling backwater of bigotry.
passing by

Salina, KS

#44 Jul 24, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
So you want to infringe on my "right" to be naked in public?
Pookie, NONE of our rights are guaranteed as absolute by our Constitution. Not even our "God-given"
ones are beyond limitation by the government. The question always is, just how much limitation on any given right is unacceptable to the Constitution? Sorry to break this to you, but our right to our own nudity is seen as a pretty low priority in the grand scheme of things, so if a rational case can be made for disallowing our nudity at given times and/or places, our right to our own nudity can be reasonably limited. Since our nudity isn't being completely forbidden in any and all times and/or public places, merely those specified,
passing by

Salina, KS

#46 Jul 24, 2014
Frank Stanton wrote:
So the Third, Sixth & Seventh Amendments are not absolute ? Can you cite any legal cases proving that ?
I doubt if the 3rd amendment has ever been tested in court, our rights under the 6th are constantly evolving as the right to a speedy trial can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder and you often sign away your 7th amendment rights when you sign any sort of agreement where disputes have to be resolved by arbitration. None of our rights were meant to be absolute because it would impede the function of government.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47 Jul 24, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to infringe on my "right" to be naked in public? You're a bigot! Being naked is a God given right. We were brought into this world naked until society forced us all to conform to it's unfair clothing standards.
If being naked offends you, then stay clothed. If my nudity offends you, don't look. If I walk into a bakery buck naked to have a cake made and I get kicked out, I'll sue the owner for discrimination. I'll have parades with all of my naked friends, waving flags with phallic symbols on them, throwing my nudity in everybody's face. If the owner of a restaurant chain is of the opinion that being clothed is preferred to walking around naked, I'll storm the establishment with all of my naked supporters and demand a boycott of them and any other organization that doesn't agree with my viewpoint.
Being naked in public is the new normal. Either get used to it, or join the rest of the haters in the stagnant, swirling backwater of bigotry.
Please don't. No body wants to see you exposing your pathetic little wee-wee.
gv go in zee sewer

Anonymous Proxy

#50 Aug 6, 2014
Rick Perry s Closet wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've got your tongue tied all in knots over all this. Literally.
Why don't you have a similar grievance over society offering benefits and rights to married heterosexuals?
One instance does not impact you anymore than the other...except in a psychosexual sense.
ey , jump by more on dirt water GAY BASH BABY RAPE STATES , good to see more in the dirt !!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... 6 min spud 4,192
News Fired workers say Chipotle was soft on immigration (Apr '11) 5 hr Life is a Minestroni 17
News Toohil mulls legislation to allow Hazleton to l... 12 hr Broncos Won 1
News In a Japan that celebrates sexuality, few seem ... 18 hr DRUGBRAZIFRAMDEBD... 26
News Who Are Mitt Romney's 47 Percent? A Breakdown (Sep '12) Feb 3 Ritual Habitual 107
News Social Security disability approvals decline (Dec '13) Feb 3 lavon affair 101
News After Tuesday veto vote on Obamacare repeal, GO... Feb 3 Le Jimbo 8
More from around the web