Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61393 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.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2717 Apr 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I think a marriage should mean something to those who engage in it, and is nobody else's business. Stop using the law to bully people into a shallow parody of commitment to anything of value. If they aren't up to the task, they aren't going to be.
They are using the law to do that..not me...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2718 Apr 24, 2013
Wow, did I call that one or what?

What's that matter, Be the Fool? Can't must the grey matter to actually make valid and on topic argument?

“Vote Republican”

Since: Aug 08

Wyandanch, NY

#2719 Apr 24, 2013
Because I do not agree with you, does not mean I do not respect you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2720 Apr 24, 2013
I Hate Syracuse wrote:
Because I do not agree with you, does not mean I do not respect you.
Or that you 'hate' anyone...
d pantz

United States

#2722 Apr 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The case has no merit, the state constitutionally must provide equal, not greater protection of the law.
Three or more is greater than two.
is that what equal protection is? Three being greater than two, and two being greater than one? Lol!
d pantz

United States

#2723 Apr 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Identifying the real villains IS important. Corporate greed in the form of exploiting cheap foreign or domestic labor is always at the top of the list. Taking resources through government manipulation is always out there. But never forget the liberal side as well.
Lobbyists for intellectual property rights, compulsory insurance and unfair labor practices based on education bias are all manifestations of traditional liberal agendas.
If it's law, medicine or education, you typically deal with heavy liberal bias. If it's corporate ambitions, linked to Christian values or harassment by the majority in local communities, it's always conservative bias. It's all sadly predictable.
obama has gotten more from the bank lobbyists than any other president ever in 2008 running against mccain. We are now in more countries in the middle east than ever before killing school children and counting them as terrorists, something that wasn't done up until this administration. So the agendas? Apples and oranges.
d pantz

United States

#2724 Apr 24, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You see to be posting to the wrong topic. Allowing gay folks to legally marry IS a conservative value.
What true conservative wants MORE government intrusion into people's personal lives?
wrong, an equal tax code is a libritarian issue. Gay people need to stop the whole bs of comparing this to civil rights and admit they're a little conservative!
d pantz

United States

#2725 Apr 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
There is both a legitimate state interest served by denying incestuous marriage, due to increased instance of birth defects and mental illness.
Can you indicate any such state interest, or even a rational basis, to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
Or will you instead, childishly "judge" the post, and not respond?
then shouldn't it be against the law for them to even have sex a all? Forget marriage, you don't need to be married to have sex. So wouldn't arguing gay marrriage against incest be kinda pointless anyway? What is two gay brothers wanted to get married? They can't even have kids.
d pantz

United States

#2726 Apr 24, 2013
lides wrote:
Wow, did I call that one or what?
What's that matter, Be the Fool? Can't must the grey matter to actually make valid and on topic argument?
are you going to answer a question with another question? Any body can do that. See.
d pantz

United States

#2727 Apr 24, 2013
I think some of these posters have grey matter between they're ears.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2728 Apr 25, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> obama has gotten more from the bank lobbyists than any other president ever in 2008 running against mccain. We are now in more countries in the middle east than ever before killing school children and counting them as terrorists, something that wasn't done up until this administration. So the agendas? Apples and oranges.
And at home, the American sausage still is playing word games, expecting that doing so will eventually turn them into leaders. They are little more than sausage men with sausage arms and legs sporting sausage fingers and toes. Sausage man intends to SCORCH THE EARTH! He will lead his minions by being the perfect MACHINE in search of buns to fill! TAKE THAT you tiny sausages!

Well, that's a silly analogy but that's all I see coming out of the gay political question. Dumb, white men who are still being denied their heterosexual conquests so they project! Most people still live a Freudian fantasy where they think penetrating every orifice is a sign of God's will that you were born to lead. And so the sausages keep circling the frying pan.

Third party. No gay marriage. I'll wait for the first riot. That will be the idiot riot. After that, MAYBE the masses will decide to do it right, but not likely.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2729 Apr 25, 2013
d pantz wrote:
I think some of these posters have grey matter between they're ears.
I'm not sure what you are implying but grey matter IS what a person should have between their ears! Brain tissue is described as grey or white depending on the level of myelinated sheathing in the axons of neurons. Nerves are white. Brain cells are grey.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2730 Apr 25, 2013
d pantz wrote:
is that what equal protection is? Three being greater than two, and two being greater than one? Lol!
No, equal protection is if the state allows one couple to legally marry one another, establishing a legal protection of marriage, and there isn't a compelling state interest served by allowing another couple to marry, they should be allowed to marry.

Feel free to make a legitimate argument. That is, if you learn to count.
d pantz wrote:
wrong, an equal tax code is a libritarian issue. Gay people need to stop the whole bs of comparing this to civil rights and admit they're a little conservative!
Wrong, if there is an exemption, or penalty, for taxes, it is an equal protection issue.
d pantz wrote:
then shouldn't it be against the law for them to even have sex a all? Forget marriage, you don't need to be married to have sex. So wouldn't arguing gay marrriage against incest be kinda pointless anyway? What is two gay brothers wanted to get married? They can't even have kids.
You again miss the point. What a surprise?

In most jurisdictions, incest is illegal. However, in most jurisdictions that police have better things to do with their time than raid the bedrooms of private citizens.

I am not arguing gay marriage against incest, I have said, time and time again, that arguments of incest are irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage.

Similarly, the argument of gay incest is only being made by morons, such as yourself, who have no valid on topic argument. Congratulations, you're a moron. You've made a vlid argument FOR same sex incest, and no valid argument against same sex marriage. Is that what you set out to do?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2731 Apr 25, 2013
d pantz wrote:
I think some of these posters have grey matter between they're ears.
Interesting. I think some posters, like yourself, have none.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2732 Apr 25, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, equal protection is if the state allows one couple to legally marry one another, establishing a legal protection of marriage, and there isn't a compelling state interest served by allowing another couple to marry, they should be allowed to marry.
Feel free to make a legitimate argument. That is, if you learn to count.<quoted text>
Wrong, if there is an exemption, or penalty, for taxes, it is an equal protection issue.
<quoted text>
You again miss the point. What a surprise?
In most jurisdictions, incest is illegal. However, in most jurisdictions that police have better things to do with their time than raid the bedrooms of private citizens.
I am not arguing gay marriage against incest, I have said, time and time again, that arguments of incest are irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage.
Similarly, the argument of gay incest is only being made by morons, such as yourself, who have no valid on topic argument. Congratulations, you're a moron. You've made a vlid argument FOR same sex incest, and no valid argument against same sex marriage. Is that what you set out to do?
Gee, I don't know!

No, actually I do! That logic is the kind that judges fear. Anyone who is in government and depends on public support, but doesn't have the autonomy to use the media like a politician would, shuns any kind of exclusionary politics. The person who placed them in the job would drop them like a bad habit if any significant part of the voters objected.

Judges get a lot of protection against rabble opinion but they are as focused on their pension as any Union yahoo leaning on a shovel watching the new hires fix the potholes.

You really do seem to think that people are in government because they WANT to serve the public!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2733 Apr 25, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Gee, I don't know!
No, actually I do! That logic is the kind that judges fear. Anyone who is in government and depends on public support, but doesn't have the autonomy to use the media like a politician would, shuns any kind of exclusionary politics. The person who placed them in the job would drop them like a bad habit if any significant part of the voters objected.
Of course, judges do not, nor need not, fear such logic, because there is precedent.
"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." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

So there goes that argument.
anonymous wrote:
Judges get a lot of protection against rabble opinion but they are as focused on their pension as any Union yahoo leaning on a shovel watching the new hires fix the potholes.
You really do seem to think that people are in government because they WANT to serve the public!
They are in government to interpret the law. And it appears, given your lack of argument, that you are incapable of articulating a rational argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry.

Judges, unions, and potholes? My, you really do have very little to offer.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2734 Apr 25, 2013
Now people are waking up!...

Has The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Started?
Slate Writer Calls for Legalizing Polygamy
by AJ Delgado | 7:11 pm, April 24th, 2013

We are constantly reassured that recognizing gay marriage will not lead to the recognition of other unions, such as polygamous or incestuous ones. As a conservative who supports gay marriage, and has done so for quite some time, I bought into these reassurances in good faith.

Now I am starting to wonder if I’ve been hoodwinked.

Why? On April 15th, an article was posted on Slate. Had it not been for Rush Limbaugh finding and discussing the article on his radio show today, it would have likely gone unnoticed by many, posted only hours before the Boston bombing and lost in the subsequent news cycle. But there it is, entitled:“Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding.”

Keep reading...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2735 Apr 25, 2013
In it, Jillian Keenan writes:

“Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.

We knew they were lying from the start, but like I said before...Americans can be sooooo gullible...cont'd.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2736 Apr 25, 2013
And…. scene. Allow that to digest.

The first thing that came to mind when I read this article today, dumbfounded, was one night several years ago (it may have been in 2005 or 2006), as I was watching O’Reilly Factor. My routine on weeknights was to watch O’Reilly Factor, followed by Hannity & Colmes, while getting ready to go out for the evening (hey, I didn’t sleep much).

Bill O’Reilly was interviewing a gay marriage proponent and asked her about this possible polygamy slippery-slope. She laughingly assured him, as they closed out the segment:“Bill, if that happens, I promise I’ll be right at your side fighting it.” For some reason, that segment always stuck in my mind.(Apologies, readers: I tried finding it online but was unable to.)

Yet here we are today, with this Slate writer claiming one must ‘keep fighting’ and the gay marriage fight must continue on to legalize polygamy. But aren’t we told it would stop at gay marriage?

cont'd....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2737 Apr 25, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Now people are waking up!...
Has The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Started?
Slate Writer Calls for Legalizing Polygamy
by AJ Delgado | 7:11 pm, April 24th, 2013
We are constantly reassured that recognizing gay marriage will not lead to the recognition of other unions, such as polygamous or incestuous ones. As a conservative who supports gay marriage, and has done so for quite some time, I bought into these reassurances in good faith.
Now I am starting to wonder if I’ve been hoodwinked.
Why? On April 15th, an article was posted on Slate. Had it not been for Rush Limbaugh finding and discussing the article on his radio show today, it would have likely gone unnoticed by many, posted only hours before the Boston bombing and lost in the subsequent news cycle. But there it is, entitled:“Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding.”
Keep reading...
Fool, are three or more people equal two people, or are they more?

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Rogue Scholar 05 234,714
TRUMP COUNTDOWN CLOCK_____Vegas IS Betting IT W... 32 min District 1 1
News California governor speech comes amid shifting ... 52 min Battle Tested 1
News Deadly storm heads north after battering Southeast 7 hr next 1
Need Urgent Financial assistance or Loan? Conta... (Jun '13) 9 hr Chiscalabrador 26
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 17 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 62,986
roofiess Xan bar Blues OC H Addyis weed m... Sun dope 1
More from around the web