Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61391 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2758 Apr 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
You're parsing my comments. I'm only going to tell you once.
Don't!
Are you, 12? If not, stop acting like a juvenile.
anonymous wrote:
Anyway, I like how you stopped short of claiming a right to "the pursuit of happiness". You meant to say it. Along with life and liberty, it's not guaranteed. Legal punishment includes incarceration and, in many states, execution.
Sounds nice! But you're not paying attention to the words in those documents.
Please consider the real mechanics of law and the real mechanics of politics before snubbing a simple and elegant truth. The law isn't above the power brokers. It never was. It's a lie unless you can get people to believe in the legal system....and your flavor of vigilantism isn't going to do it.
You're bribing voters with continued marriage perks if they include you into the status quo. That monkey is an addict. It will come back for more and your socialist liberals have run the treasury about dry. You're their last gasp effort to keep THEIR pension plans. Tell us how well that works out for you when your 1 or 2 percent of the population needs to uncork their authoritarian solution!
I've never argued pursuit of happiness, nor need I do so, even though it was a founding principal established in the Declaration of Independence.

So long as the constitution contains equal protection of the law, such an argument is unnecessary.

Feel free to present a rational argument to the contrary.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2759 Apr 26, 2013
d pantz wrote:
How about I don't care about any of that and don't really want to picture it anyway.
So don't. That is your right. Denying equal protection of the law, on the other hand, is not.
d pantz wrote:
So its called equal protection. Its not equal at all.

One could make that argument, but you haven't The reality remains allowing the choice to marry is equal protection unless there is a compelling state interest to the contrary.
d pantz wrote:
Kinda like the way the word aryan is used to describe white people when that's not even what the word originally meant...
When you put it that way, it kind of feels like your are grasping at straws and desperately off topic.
d pantz wrote:
I only made an incest arguement to show how invalid your remark about it was.otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up, trust me.
Of course, it doesn't do that. Because there is a legitimate state interest served by disallowing incest, and no such interest is served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry.
d pantz wrote:
I would argue the first amendment makes the federal governments involvment in any marriage unconstitutional.
One could make that argument, but you have not, even in this post. The reality remains that marriage a civil institution, and religious marriage are separate concepts, which is what the law requires. The sooner religious marriage zealots come to grips with this simple fact, and realize that their church has the right to be bigots and need not acknowledge of perform same sex marriages the better.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2760 Apr 26, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>. How about I don't care about any of that and don't really want to picture it anyway.
So its called equal protection. Its not equal at all. Kinda like the way the word aryan is used to describe white people when that's not even what the word originally meant...I only made an incest arguement to show how invalid your remark about it was.otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up, trust me.
I would argue the first amendment makes the federal governments involvment in any marriage unconstitutional.
That's an interesting take...because if in fact we limit it to two consenting adults..why not two brothers??

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2761 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
That's an interesting take...because if in fact we limit it to two consenting adults..why not two brothers??
First and foremost, because no one, except the same sex marriage opposition, is pushing for such a union.

The danger in making such an argument, is that there is no compelling state interest served by denying such a union. So in reality, although you have not made a valid argument against same sex marriage, you make a compelling on in favor of same sex incest. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2762 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an interesting take...because if in fact we limit it to two consenting adults..why not two brothers??
Why not two sisters??

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2763 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Why not two sisters??
Why not make a valid argument.
As I've already said, there isn't a legitimate state interest in banning same sex incest, are you really so foolish as to advance that theory, which does nothing to further your anti-same sex marriage position, but does produce a legitimate argument FOR same sex incestuous marriage?

You are definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2764 Apr 26, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not make a valid argument.
As I've already said, there isn't a legitimate state interest in banning same sex incest, are you really so foolish as to advance that theory, which does nothing to further your anti-same sex marriage position, but does produce a legitimate argument FOR same sex incestuous marriage?
You are definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Why not that brother and sister that didn't know each other even existed???

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2765 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Why not that brother and sister that didn't know each other even existed???
Are you capable of making an on topic response that would make it appear as though you had, at least, a minimal amount of intelligence?

The compelling state interest served by denying opposite sex incest is that there is a demonstrably higher instance of birth defect and mental illness (tell me, were your parents closely related? That would explain a great deal).

Can you indicate any legitimate state interest served by specifically deny same sex couples the right to marry, without employing an off topic implication of slippery slope?

I think you lack the ability to do so.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2766 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not that brother and sister that didn't know each other even existed???
Why not that father and son that didn't know each other existed???

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2767 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Why not that brother and sister that didn't know each other even existed???
What about idiots? Then you could marry?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2768 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Why not that father and son that didn't know each other existed???
So now you want to marry your son? Or is it your father?
Do you realize that making such arguments is a danger to those in your position, because there is no state interest served by denying such a marriage? Once again, you've offered no argument against same sex marriage and you have offered a valid argument for another form of marriage you abhor.

Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2769 Apr 26, 2013
Funny article.....

.....This argument seems irrefutable to me, at least given the framework of libertarian theory, today widely accepted by so many of our prominent thinkers on the right and even the left. But as an obvious corollary, I would suggest that once Gay Marriage has been fully allowed in all fifty states, whether by Supreme Court writ or otherwise, we would still remain very far from the full implementation of the individual freedoms originally promised by our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

I refer, of course, to the burning issue of “Sidewalk Marriage.” Consider a man who wants to marry his local sidewalk. What argument could possibly be advanced against such a union? The man certainly gains, both in happiness and self-respect, while not even the most benighted naysayer could advance any plausible argument that the sidewalk is injured by the process. Certainly the nuptials would provide a financial boost to our struggling economy, especially given the number of construction workers who would necessarily be employed when man and sidewalk go off on their honeymoon. Dutiful individuals would surely spend their own money to keep their beloved spouses neat and tidy, immediately repairing any cracks the moment they appear, and thereby saving our over-burdened taxpayers all sorts of local maintenance expense. A win-win proposition all around, and even more importantly the moral position for society.

I thought it to be pretty clever...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2770 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not that father and son that didn't know each other existed???
Why not that long-lost uncle and that beautiful neice???

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2771 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Funny article.....
.....This argument seems irrefutable to me, at least given the framework of libertarian theory, today widely accepted by so many of our prominent thinkers on the right and even the left. But as an obvious corollary, I would suggest that once Gay Marriage has been fully allowed in all fifty states, whether by Supreme Court writ or otherwise, we would still remain very far from the full implementation of the individual freedoms originally promised by our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
I refer, of course, to the burning issue of “Sidewalk Marriage.” Consider a man who wants to marry his local sidewalk. What argument could possibly be advanced against such a union? The man certainly gains, both in happiness and self-respect, while not even the most benighted naysayer could advance any plausible argument that the sidewalk is injured by the process. Certainly the nuptials would provide a financial boost to our struggling economy, especially given the number of construction workers who would necessarily be employed when man and sidewalk go off on their honeymoon. Dutiful individuals would surely spend their own money to keep their beloved spouses neat and tidy, immediately repairing any cracks the moment they appear, and thereby saving our over-burdened taxpayers all sorts of local maintenance expense. A win-win proposition all around, and even more importantly the moral position for society.
I thought it to be pretty clever...
A dullard would think this is clever.

Someone with a modicum of intelligence understand that a sidewalk, being an inanimate object, lacks the ability to legally consent or enter into a legal contract.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2772 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Funny article.....
.....This argument seems irrefutable to me, at least given the framework of libertarian theory, today widely accepted by so many of our prominent thinkers on the right and even the left. But as an obvious corollary, I would suggest that once Gay Marriage has been fully allowed in all fifty states, whether by Supreme Court writ or otherwise, we would still remain very far from the full implementation of the individual freedoms originally promised by our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
I refer, of course, to the burning issue of “Sidewalk Marriage.” Consider a man who wants to marry his local sidewalk. What argument could possibly be advanced against such a union? The man certainly gains, both in happiness and self-respect, while not even the most benighted naysayer could advance any plausible argument that the sidewalk is injured by the process. Certainly the nuptials would provide a financial boost to our struggling economy, especially given the number of construction workers who would necessarily be employed when man and sidewalk go off on their honeymoon. Dutiful individuals would surely spend their own money to keep their beloved spouses neat and tidy, immediately repairing any cracks the moment they appear, and thereby saving our over-burdened taxpayers all sorts of local maintenance expense. A win-win proposition all around, and even more importantly the moral position for society.
I thought it to be pretty clever...
I hope the justices read topix...LOL!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2773 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Why not that long-lost uncle and that beautiful neice???
How about an on topic argument proving that you aren't a complete fool?

One wonders about your sanity, as often as you are off topic.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2774 Apr 26, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
I hope the justices read topix...LOL!!
So that they can see how dumb you are?

I think they have better things to do with their time than to stalk incompetent trolls.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2775 Apr 26, 2013
Many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman; every gay was born of opposite sex union. Same sex cohabitation rights exist now; we don't need special rights to rewrite marriage laws based on sexual orientation.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2776 Apr 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman; every gay was born of opposite sex union. Same sex cohabitation rights exist now; we don't need special rights to rewrite marriage laws based on sexual orientation.
Is legal marriage a protection of the law?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2777 Apr 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman; every gay was born of opposite sex union. Same sex cohabitation rights exist now; we don't need special rights to rewrite marriage laws based on sexual orientation.
We should never have fallen into the civil union trap. It was all a stepping stone to ssm....

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) 15 min Dr Guru 216,732
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 37 min Just Think 1,334
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 60,094
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 hr Barbi A 201,865
News California can't hide police misconduct any more 9 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, ren... 14 hr White guilt 7
AT&T subscriber in california Sun Jam 1
More from around the web