Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61395 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

#2899 May 2, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides you are obviously a very intelligent individual so surely you must see why a lot of people see issue with a gay union being called a marriage.You are wanting to change the whole meaning of a word to suit yourselves when 95 percent of the population are straight.
It's a simple matter of equal protection, which is guaranteed in the very basis of US law.

Denying gay marriage does actual harm, by denying 1,400 rights and legal protections that are regularly afforded opposite sex couples in every state in the US.

Allowing same sex couples equal protection of the law has no physical impact whatsoever upon traditional, opposite sex, marriages, whether existing or yet to be performed.

The composition of the population in terms of percentage gay or straight is utterly irrelevant to the issue.
common sense wrote:
I totally understand fighting for a state recognized union that provides you with the same rights and priveleges but to call it marriage ,which everyone knows refers to the union of a male and female ,is wrong .
Sorry charlie, the protection of the law is called marriage, and that's not going anywhere. There is no harm to anyone to allow same sex couples to participate. That some people think it is icky is no reason to deny equal protection, and creating a new and separate classification makes no sense. Beside which, the law has long since clarified that separate institutional are inherently unequal. Check out Brown v Board of Education.
common sense wrote:
The segragation you speak of was an entirely different issue and should in no ways be compared to this ,and if i was african american,which i am not,i would take offence to you even saying that.
Of course, this argument only attempts to sensationalize the issue. At the root, the struggles are the same, as will the eventual result. Black people were not afforded equal protection of the law, and there was no legitimate state interest served by denying them that right. The same is true of overturning segregation, overturning restrictions on interracial marriage, and granting women the right to vote. The prohibition against each of the groups, which are each separate and different problems, all had one thing in common; they were being denied equal protection under the law, and there was no legitimate state interest furthered by that denial.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#2900 May 2, 2013
fr d pantz:

> I really don't care what its called, as long as the federal government stays out of it. <

Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. However, it does often take place in a religious environment.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#2901 May 2, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr d pantz:
> I really don't care what its called, as long as the federal government stays out of it. <
Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. However, it does often take place in a religious environment.
Right you are. You can marry 10 times if you want to....in a religious environment but it's not legal until the powers that be (the STATE) issues that license!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2902 May 2, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe he shouldn't post if he doesn't like it. Complaining to me is only going to make me go to full site and "judge it!".
If all you're interested in is to annoy another poster, I guess.

I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and when it comes to brinkmanship, I don't extend a hand to someone who's been playing the field until they've run out of choices. It's a bad example, just an attempt at being an artificial hero.

The technological reality of today's world changes the calculated ego trip of political science far more than most Americans realize. The truth will hit them hard.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2903 May 2, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides you are obviously a very intelligent individual so surely you must see why a lot of people see issue with a gay union being called a marriage.You are wanting to change the whole meaning of a word to suit yourselves when 95 percent of the population are straight.
I totally understand fighting for a state recognized union that provides you with the same rights and priveleges but to call it marriage ,which everyone knows refers to the union of a male and female ,is wrong .
The segragation you speak of was an entirely different issue and should in no ways be compared to this ,and if i was african american,which i am not,i would take offence to you even saying that.
I agree with everything you said...(except for the lides being intelligent stuff)...but everything else was great!
Cemetery Enthusiast

Elkview, WV

#2904 May 2, 2013
Government has no business in marriage either way because that should be personal business. The entire basis of "The Sanctity of Marriage" argument is based upon beliefs in religious policies and religious convictions have no right in government affairs or imposing on other people with other choices of faith or the freedom to have no faith. The "Sanctity Of Marriage" is an excuse used to deny equal rights because if "The Sanctity Of Marriage" was an honest concern of those opposing, they would be trying to outlaw divorce, so this "Sanctity Of Marriage" term is garbage and used only as an excuse to squash another minority. If it isn't this minority, it will always be another one. Civil Rights should never be left to a majority decision because all minorities will be oppressed eternally when decided by a majority. A belief in marriage restriction with a basis in religious faith invades on the rights of others to have their freedom to religious beliefs in their choice of faith which may include marriage of the same gender. The "Sanctity Of Marriage" is an excuse only and the world sees through it now because those same primitive minds do not mention the more common threats to the "Sanctity" of marriage, such as divorce, infidelity, etc. If Same Sex Marriage is against your religious belief, then don't marry a homosexual, but if they marry each other it will be their souls and their business, which will have no effect on you or your own soul. KNOCK IT OFF AND STOP USING THE SAME EXCUSE THAT THE WORLD CAN SEE CLEAR THROUGH NOW. Your religion and faith does not have any right to invade other lives and determine how they should live their personal lives. Stop imposing your faith on everybody and what others do in their personal relationships will have no effect on you, and its none of your business anyhow. Mind your own business and stop trying to ruin people's lives because you want to appear as some authority of faith. I say you are nothing but a busy-body imposing your religious views onto people and without that you would have no other way to make yourself artificially superior or authoritarian to anyone you can get to pay attention to your needy rule-making desires. If people do something you think is a sin, it has no relevance to you. That is the proof your kind is needy for attention as somebody superior which mean that you are quite pathetic in reality, otherwise your life would be too full and busy without any time to invade the personal lives and beliefs of other people. Well no longer are we going to let you dictate what our personal lives will involve. From now on you are invisible and voiceless because your pulpit has rotted and the invasion of personal lives infringes upon our pursuit of peaceful happiness. You are hereby put on notice. This imposing and privacy invasion will no longer continue and your bigotry, hypocrisy and distasteful oppression will no longer be permitted. Freedom and Liberty shall prevail!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2905 May 2, 2013
Same sex marriage is wrong because men and women are different. Same sex marriage is ersatz equality, a new standard of gender segregation marriage, disunity and a loss of perfect marriage gender integration and diversity.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2906 May 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is wrong because men and women are different. Same sex marriage is ersatz equality, a new standard of gender segregation marriage, disunity and a loss of perfect marriage gender integration and diversity.
no, SSM is our society recognizing the fact that homosexuality is a normal part of our species.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2907 May 2, 2013
Cemetery Enthusiast wrote:
Government has no business in marriage either way because that should be personal business. The entire basis of "The Sanctity of Marriage" argument is based upon beliefs in religious policies and religious convictions have no right in government affairs or imposing on other people with other choices of faith or the freedom to have no faith. The "Sanctity Of Marriage" is an excuse used to deny equal rights because if "The Sanctity Of Marriage" was an honest concern of those opposing, they would be trying to outlaw divorce, so this "Sanctity Of Marriage" term is garbage and used only as an excuse to squash another minority. If it isn't this minority, it will always be another one. Civil Rights should never be left to a majority decision because all minorities will be oppressed eternally when decided by a majority. A belief in marriage restriction with a basis in religious faith invades on the rights of others to have their freedom to religious beliefs in their choice of faith which may include marriage of the same gender. The "Sanctity Of Marriage" is an excuse only and the world sees through it now because those same primitive minds do not mention the more common threats to the "Sanctity" of marriage, such as divorce, infidelity, etc. If Same Sex Marriage is against your religious belief, then don't marry a homosexual, but if they marry each other it will be their souls and their business, which will have no effect on you or your own soul. KNOCK IT OFF AND STOP USING THE SAME EXCUSE THAT THE WORLD CAN SEE CLEAR THROUGH NOW. Your religion and faith does not have any right to invade other lives and determine how they should live their personal lives. Stop imposing your faith on everybody and what others do in their personal relationships will have no effect on you, and its none of your business anyhow. Mind your own business and stop trying to ruin people's lives because you want to appear as some authority of faith. I say you are nothing but a busy-body imposing your religious views onto people and without that you would have no other way to make yourself artificially superior or authoritarian to anyone you can get to pay attention to your needy rule-making desires. If people do something you think is a sin, it has no relevance to you. That is the proof your kind is needy for attention as somebody superior which mean that you are quite pathetic in reality, otherwise your life would be too full and busy without any time to invade the personal lives and beliefs of other people. Well no longer are we going to let you dictate what our personal lives will involve. From now on you are invisible and voiceless because your pulpit has rotted and the invasion of personal lives infringes upon our pursuit of peaceful happiness. You are hereby put on notice. This imposing and privacy invasion will no longer continue and your bigotry, hypocrisy and distasteful oppression will no longer be permitted. Freedom and Liberty shall prevail!
your basic premise, and your understanding of what marriage is, is faulty.

marriage has always been the purview of the state, since its inception as a social construct.

you are confusing marriage with religious rites of matrimony, which religions glommed onto from the state sponsored marriage.

your religious cult is free to perform whatever rites they want, as are the local garden club, any private organization, or a group of people dancing around a bonfire waving sticks...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2908 May 2, 2013
"[H]omosexuality is a normal part of our species" but that's no reason to rewrite marriage law; heterosexuality is a normal part of our species too. You won't earn acceptance by rewriting laws, you earn it by gaining respect.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2909 May 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, SSM is our society recognizing the fact that homosexuality is a normal part of our species.
But we are finding out more and more that this is not true...in fact...the lastest study is showing that it is a 'side effect' of excess hormone activity...that is not 'normal'...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#2910 May 2, 2013
Congratulations to Rhode Island for becoming the 10th State to grant Marriage rights for Gay and Lesbian Couples......and Congratulations to Delaware for moving the Marriage Equality bill out of committee!!!
Cemetery Enthusiast

Elkview, WV

#2911 May 2, 2013
Either way, equality will be existent under the legal terms and whether people of faith accept it or not will be their own problem from now on.

Excuses will no longer be accepted and marriages between same gender couples will not be minimized regardless of whatever labels or excuses or primitive arguments there are to be made against them and no longer will those in oppression be limited to what marriage "was" and people may disagree and make arguments from here to Pentecost but liberty and freedom will prevail and those bullies who want nothing more than to remain as a vintage society are hurtful and only understand and care about their wishes and want the county to operate under a religious law and that is imposing against what others choose to believe and if a couple of the same gender have love and want to marry and receive equal benefits, it has no effect on the lives of those who wish not to marry someone of the same gender and it isn't even any of their nosy and Nazi business.
Cemetery Enthusiast

Elkview, WV

#2912 May 2, 2013
What was the latest study with proof of the excess hormone activity? We should examine that specific study and find out what hormones they are and if normality is based upon something which may be perceived as well as how the study was performed and who funded it, and what their main objectives and motivations were to perform the study.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2913 May 2, 2013
Cemetery Enthusiast wrote:
What was the latest study with proof of the excess hormone activity? We should examine that specific study and find out what hormones they are and if normality is based upon something which may be perceived as well as how the study was performed and who funded it, and what their main objectives and motivations were to perform the study.
Well, nothing was conclusive...but the study was done by a group of scientists in the U.S. and Sweeden I believe...

"In The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Uppsala University in Sweden have concluded through their research that sexual orientation can be decided through epi-marks, which are temporary switches in a fetusí DNA that exist while in the womb and shortly after birth."
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2914 May 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
"[H]omosexuality is a normal part of our species" but that's no reason to rewrite marriage law; heterosexuality is a normal part of our species too. You won't earn acceptance by rewriting laws, you earn it by gaining respect.
"Normal" is an opinion too. The State should not be in the business of deciding what is "normal".

Create a Civil Union contract that is not based on sexuality, and do not give tax breaks to people who engage in them. You can give them rights to inherit but don't tax at a lesser rate. You can give them medical authority over their partner in the event of incapacity, but don't worry about their sexual status.

A financial contract is only a financial contract. Any other interpretation is unconstitutional prejudice.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2915 May 2, 2013
Cemetery Enthusiast wrote:
Government has no business in marriage either way because that should be personal business. The entire basis of "The Sanctity of Marriage" argument is based upon beliefs in religious policies and religious convictions have no right in government affairs or imposing on other people with other choices of faith or the freedom to have no faith. The "Sanctity Of Marriage" is an excuse used to deny equal rights because if "The Sanctity Of Marriage" was an honest concern of those opposing, they would be trying to outlaw divorce, so this "Sanctity Of Marriage" term is garbage and used only as an excuse to squash another minority. If it isn't this minority, it will always be another one. Civil Rights should never be left to a majority decision because all minorities will be oppressed eternally when decided by a majority. A belief in marriage restriction with a basis in religious faith invades on the rights of others to have their freedom to religious beliefs in their choice of faith which may include marriage of the same gender. The "Sanctity Of Marriage" is an excuse only and the world sees through it now because those same primitive minds do not mention the more common threats to the "Sanctity" of marriage, such as divorce, infidelity, etc. If Same Sex Marriage is against your religious belief, then don't marry a homosexual, but if they marry each other it will be their souls and their business, which will have no effect on you or your own soul. KNOCK IT OFF AND STOP USING THE SAME EXCUSE THAT THE WORLD CAN SEE CLEAR THROUGH NOW. Your religion and faith does not have any right to invade other lives and determine how they should live their personal lives. Stop imposing your faith on everybody and what others do in their personal relationships will have no effect on you, and its none of your business anyhow. Mind your own business and stop trying to ruin people's lives because you want to appear as some authority of faith. I say you are nothing but a busy-body imposing your religious views onto people and without that you would have no other way to make yourself artificially superior or authoritarian to anyone you can get to pay attention to your needy rule-making desires. If people do something you think is a sin, it has no relevance to you. That is the proof your kind is needy for attention as somebody superior which mean that you are quite pathetic in reality, otherwise your life would be too full and busy without any time to invade the personal lives and beliefs of other people. Well no longer are we going to let you dictate what our personal lives will involve. From now on you are invisible and voiceless because your pulpit has rotted and the invasion of personal lives infringes upon our pursuit of peaceful happiness. You are hereby put on notice. This imposing and privacy invasion will no longer continue and your bigotry, hypocrisy and distasteful oppression will no longer be permitted. Freedom and Liberty shall prevail!
Glad to hear that you support ending tax breaks for married people!

Please learn to use paragraph structure though!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2916 May 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
"[H]omosexuality is a normal part of our species" but that's no reason to rewrite marriage law; heterosexuality is a normal part of our species too. You won't earn acceptance by rewriting laws, you earn it by gaining respect.
no need to rewrite any laws, just remove the ones put in place to specifically discriminate against SSM.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#2917 May 2, 2013
fr common sense:

>...I just dont get why a civil union is not good enough for you when it provides you with the exact same benefits as a marriage....<

Because it does NOT "provide with the exact same benefits as a marriage". Have a 1L explain it to you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2918 May 2, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>But we are finding out more and more that this is not true...in fact...the lastest study is showing that it is a 'side effect' of excess hormone activity...that is not 'normal'...
What study is that?

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min tina anne 58,877
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 12 min WelbyMD 508
News Republicans downplay Trump rally unrest in Cali... 13 min Trumping On 317
News Trump spurs a fresh wave of Latino activism 26 min Coconuts For Trump 6
News Anti-Trump protests break out again in California 2 hr lolol 13
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Rogue Scholar 05 213,225
News California To Florida: Stop The Stunts, Do Some... 16 hr Clinton-NAFTARobb... 2
More from around the web