Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61384 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25208 Feb 6, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
All SCOTUS has ruled on is that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right......and if it is truly a FUNDAMENTAL right....then it has to be FUNDAMENTAL without regard to specific gender make-up!!
So, opposite-sex is a SPECIFIC gender make-up, are you saying that makes marriage a "SPECIAL" right ONLY for couples consisting of a man and a woman?
It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules the next time around.
Personally I would shudder in horror at the thought of SCOTUS ruling on my rights.

Each individual has rights. The SCOTUS should support the rights of the individual to form his/her own unions, associations etc and not let anyone limit them with qualitative words like male and female, gay and straight, homosexual and heterosexual. Individuals have rights because they are an individual and if they engage in peaceful relationships with other consenting adults it is not the business of either the government or the pew warmers.

I do not see why we would say a man has a right and a woman has a right and then claim two men or two women do not have the same rights. Or that you have a right when you are with a man, but not when you are with a woman. As an individual you have the right to be with other individuals.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25209 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
People choose whether to get married and whether to get pregnant or remain pregnant.
Well aren't you a genius! How come you aren't in the White House advising President Obama?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25210 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
until you address the child bride issue, polygamy will remain illegal.
ALAN: OK, address the issue and we'll all join in.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25211 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If a man can legally marry 2 adult men, then he can also legally marry 2 young boys.
Prove it.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25212 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does polygamy "deserve" the same respect as marriage for same-sex couples?
Asked and answered.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#25213 Feb 6, 2014
Gay is not normal.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25214 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I could just as easily say Infant Marriage "deserves" the same respect as polygamy.
Or bestiality "deserves" the same respect as polygamy.
.
Saying nonsense things like that is something that comes to you easily.

I could just as easily say that believing the earth is flat leads to silicone breast implants. Or warming pews leads to flights in space and to the moon and Mars. It makes as much sense as what you are saying which is to say, no sense at all.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#25215 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
For the last time- respect is EARNED.
Which is why you do not get any.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#25216 Feb 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an excellent movie with excellent actors. I highly recommend it. It wasn't so much a gay movie as it was a movie about two bi-sexual men and how because of the narrow minded people around them they were never able to live the happy life together that they both really wanted. This was more of a general audience kind of movie than it was directed at the gay community. I enjoyed it enough to watch it a second time.
I agree. Brokeback Mountain is a very good movie (and book). Annie Proulx, Diane Ossana and Larry McMurty wrote the screenplay. Enough said.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#25217 Feb 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why you do not get any.
Sheepie seems to think the worth of someone elses marriage is how much respect he wants to give it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#25218 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So your proof that ALL polygamists support same-sex marriage is by citing ONE example?
Okay.
Warren Jeffs.
There's MY one example, which judging by your own response must be accepted as proof that ALL polygamists are child molesters.
Polygamists cheered the Supreme Court for their gay marriage rulings Wednesday, which they considered one step forward for the legal and social acceptance of multi-person relationships."We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Practical Polyamory spokeswoman Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News & World Report.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#25219 Feb 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, because a paper from some anti-gay professor who is just a front for some rabidly anti-gay groups is relevant at all.
He is very pro SSM. You obviously are too arrogant to read his paper, it supports SSM. At the same time arguing that the slippery slope is real.

Your ignorance prevents ever opening your mind to true freedom and equality. You're a Fascist.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#25220 Feb 6, 2014

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25221 Feb 6, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> You is saing thare is no slipary slope thang. You got to be kidding. You knows that the marrage thang is just a smoke screen. You knows that what you really wants is to thought of as the same. You gays will keep pushing using rites as the reason you wants this and that. But no matter what you dose there will be gays what hits on normas in bathrooms and gays what embarissin other gays by prissing around like some kind of freek There will still be gays what puts on womans cloths. There will still be people what thanks they is a woman in a mans body and they wants the goverhment to pay to have his pecker cut off. You is diffarant. You can't be the same.
When did I ever say I wanted to be the same as every one else?

All I expect is to be treated equally under the law.

And we're getting there whether you like it or not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25223 Feb 6, 2014
The Moral Compass wrote:
So, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to dispute the FACT that allowing same sex Partnerships to be called marriage would fundamentally change the definition of marriage.
It would also infringe on the already existing rights of people of nearly every religious sector. How so? Lets revisit the 14th amendment, specifically the equal protection clause; does not grant anyone(including homosexuals) special rights. It simply upholds the existing rights of all persons. All people are granted the right to religious freedom, and are free from government intrusion regarding it's practice, provided it does not interfere with the rights of others or "break the law" for lack of a better term. By passing law allowing, or amending current laws to include same sex marriage you impede the existing right of persons to freely exercise religious freedom, as you change and disintegrate a very fundamental portion of that religions practice. The religious definition marriage predates the legal definition, it is in fact one of the most profoundly important practices of the religion. It therefore would be unconstitutional to change the definition of marriage to accommodate one group of people as it would clearly affect the religious practices of another group. Changing the definition of marriage legally or otherwise, by virtue, would diminish its inherent value to such a degree that it's religious definition would no longer retain the same merit or values as it was established upon. The SCOTUS has a compelling interest, therefore in maintaining the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and cannot; without profoundly inhibiting religious freedom of others, in good conscience, change that definition.
Hmmm, the SCOTUS had the opportunity to define marriage as one man & one woman in both the Prop 8 case & the DOMA case.

They notably did NOT do so.

Gee, now I wonder why that is?...

Instead, the SCOTUS specifically affirmed that the federal govt can't refuse to recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples.

Yep, that pretty much confirms that your entire argument is b.s.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25224 Feb 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<. My gay neighbors have the nicest houses, the best kept yards the cleanest cars and they are always polite and well mannered and wish only to be responsible and considerate neighbors. None of them would walk down our street wearing women's pink see through panties in front of our children. Of course around here we all have 5 acre lots so if they did walk down the street you might never see them no matter what they were wearing. Please, direct your comments to the problem, Comrade Sheepie and not the whole entire gay community. That would be like throwing out the whole barrel of apples because one of them is rotten. Just a friendly suggestion.
Gee, I didn't realize we were neighbors.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25225 Feb 6, 2014
The Moral Compass wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it as you already have marriage equality in 33 states which uphold the ACTUAL definition of marriage.
Keep telling yourself that.

Right up to the day same-sex couples can exercise their right to marry in all 50 states.

Then continue pissing into the wind after that time as well....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25226 Feb 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
. I would rather restore our Republic and put all those bastards who promise to uphold FAITHFULLY the Constitution and then end up violating it on death row.
Yeah, like THAT wouldn't violate the Constitution.

What a moron!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25227 Feb 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you never tire of confronting Comrade Sheepie with his double standards and hypocrisy.
"""Polygamists cheered the Supreme Court for their gay marriage rulings Wednesday, which they considered one step forward for the legal and social acceptance of multi-person relationships."We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Practical Polyamory spokeswoman Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News & World Report. """
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/polygamists-ga...
Polygamists clearly support the freedom of gay marriage, a freedom our resident hypocrite Comrade Sheepie refuses to advocate for them. Comrade Sheepie got his gay marriage so every one else can go screw themselves.
You should be ashamed of your self Comrade Sheepie. Ashamed!
So if an axe murderer support marriage for same-sex couples, that means I have to support axe murderers?

Nope, doesn't work that way.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25228 Feb 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose, you don't think that that gay couple who reported the baker for refusing to bake their wedding cake, and who now faces a year in prison for refusing, doesn't piss a lot of people off? I mean going to prison for a year and a $10,000 fine does not make the gay community look good does it? It sure seems to me that this baker refusing to bake a cake and the gay community saying he deserves what he gets, which might be a $10,000 fine and a year in jail, is not justice and turns people willing to tolerant gays into people who hate them, and people who accept gays into people who only now tolerate them? And it makes a lot of people who would otherwise remain silent start saying gays want to much and enough is enough. I believe that this discrimination case made things worse instead of better for the gay community. What do you think?
You think wrong, as usual.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News In a consultant, it's location, location ... - ... (Oct '09) 11 min District 1 6
News California's Jackie Speier is urging Trump's re... 1 hr Retribution 2
News California Editorial Rdp 3 hr Rico the 147 IQ H... 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 hr John 242,545
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Tue Agents of Corruption 63,948
News California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Tue Bobo 5,133
News Think big and act boldly to solve California's ... Tue RiccardoFire 3
More from around the web