Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.

Comments (Page 143)

Showing posts 2,841 - 2,860 of39,843
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3144
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Libertarian wrote:
So supposed good christians want to deny their fellow citizen their constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness?
Don't be such bigots, if you dont like gay marriage simply dont do it, but you dont get to tell others they cant because the magical being in the sky you happen to believe in may have told someone 2000 years ago.
If it is only for one man and one woman because of religion then you cant just leave out the rest ie FOR LIFE
either you allow gay marriage or you ban everyone who makes their vows infront of their deity from ever being able to divorce.
ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN UNTIL DEATH.
You dont get to pick and choose which bits of your disgusting religion you make other people live by, other people who don't even believe in your particular flavour of sky fairy.
There is no Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution acts to protect such pursuits but not if they are in conflict with the happiness of others. Taxing single people to subsidize marriage is what is unconstitutional.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3145
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Brian_G wrote:
At least Delaware's Congress rewrote their marriage law instead of an unelected and unaccountable court imposing new marriage law on the state. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic, see California's court actions for proof.
Have you read the decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)?

It turns out, public opinion is irrelevant to equal protection. The US Supreme Court held that ďOne'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.Ē
anonymous wrote:
I'm not going to legitimize your assumption that the State can take away rights granted in the Constitution if they feel there's a compelling interest. They can't.

Itís so cute when the ignorant donít understand the law.
Read about strict scrutiny, it addresses when constitutional rights, may, legitimately be infringed. I didnít make it up, it was a ruling by the US Supreme Court, ergo and interpretation of constitutional law. Read this and become less ignorant.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
Rights may be infringed, if doing so serves a compelling state interest.
anonymous wrote:
We have an obligation to prevent such things, and we've failed miserably over the last ten years or so. Actually, much earlier, but most people hide their heads in the sand and are happy not to know the truth if it means that they can go on eating, breeding and trying to move up in the monkey herd.
Youíre right. There is no reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry.
anonymous wrote:
The Constitution does not guarantee rights based on sexual behavior.
It doesnít matter, it does guarantee equal protection of the law. Choice is not addressed. In fact, most, non imbeciles, would realize that choice is free will, a subject most intelligent people donít want government infringement upon.
anonymous wrote:
The Constitution promises equal protection based on the things that one cannot choose, such as one's sex or race.
Actually, it just guarantees equal protection of the law, it doesnít address choice. You arenít looking so bright here.
anonymous wrote:
Go ahead! Tell everyone that you have no choice in your sexual preferences. DO IT! USE IT!! You WILL USE IT!...

Why? Itís irrelevant?
anonymous wrote:
and if I can't get the monkeys to take on their responsibilities, I'm glad to invite YOU into their home where you can fence together.....and some more!....and EVEN some MORE!
Wow, were you trying to make a valid point? Because you seem highly unstable in this sentence?
anonymous wrote:
Some things are just destiny!
Like equality under the law? I quite agree.

Your side will lose, because the best argument you have, is a discombobulated BS argument having something to do with monkeys. You have no valid argument against equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, for same sex couples to marry; nor do you have a compelling state interest served by denying such protection.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3147
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read the decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)?
It turns out, public opinion is irrelevant to equal protection. The US Supreme Court held that ďOne'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.Ē
<quoted text>
Itís so cute when the ignorant donít understand the law.
Read about strict scrutiny, it addresses when constitutional rights, may, legitimately be infringed. I didnít make it up, it was a ruling by the US Supreme Court, ergo and interpretation of constitutional law. Read this and become less ignorant.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
Rights may be infringed, if doing so serves a compelling state interest.
<quoted text>
Youíre right. There is no reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry.
<quoted text>
It doesnít matter, it does guarantee equal protection of the law. Choice is not addressed. In fact, most, non imbeciles, would realize that choice is free will, a subject most intelligent people donít want government infringement upon.
<quoted text>
Actually, it just guarantees equal protection of the law, it doesnít address choice. You arenít looking so bright here.
<quoted text>
Why? Itís irrelevant?
<quoted text>
Wow, were you trying to make a valid point? Because you seem highly unstable in this sentence?
<quoted text>
Like equality under the law? I quite agree.
Your side will lose, because the best argument you have, is a discombobulated BS argument having something to do with monkeys. You have no valid argument against equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, for same sex couples to marry; nor do you have a compelling state interest served by denying such protection.
I don't respond to parsed comments. Take your ransom note elsewhere.

BTW - Your link doesn't go anywhere relevant. To quote:

"For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty."

In other words, the courts must interpret the contradictions in existing laws. Fundamental right that's been compromised? None. You CAN marry but the state does not recognize it. Suspect classification? Don't see gays in that list.

Just another fantasy coming from the Joker!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3148
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

To the remaining gay supporters, who I really don't have too much more to say. It's already been said, but they keep trying to reinvent the reality that is that you still don't get it.

The breeding majority are bigots and you have no means to change that. The conservatives who support Christian doctrine are bigots. The liberals who support social engineering are bigots. The only difference between the two parties is how they invent laws to allow them to control the redistribution of wealth. The working class had their chance when they were allowed to collectively bargain. They blew it. That's all!

The conservatives have abortion, a means of putting young, dumb monkeys in debt before they know what hit them. The liberals promise the world but always have an excuse for keeping the working people out. Both keep the chimps dependent on marriage. The liberals will keep the monkeys in an eternal maze. Until the monkeys gladly do the fencing dance with you, they WILL be unworthy. Once they do, they move up one notch. They then become cannon fodder against the conservatives, but likely to die young from AIDS or direct involvement with criminals.

Well, I choose to allow abortion, and I don't subsidize marriage at any point, and I don't deal with criminals of ANY kind. If you want to breed, then work hard to afford it! None of this artificial football jock bullying, rock star cr@p and not with my tax dollars...and maybe if I am NOT engaging in an irresponsible sexual lifestyle, maybe I REALLY just DON'T care about who dies from AIDS.

Bigots created this world. Shaddup and live in it!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3149
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution acts to protect such pursuits but not if they are in conflict with the happiness of others. Taxing single people to subsidize marriage is what is unconstitutional.
Really? Then why are you against allowing us to marry?

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3150
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>you're right! GAY NAZIS FOR CHRIST! Amen brother!
Really I don't care, if homosexuals want tax credits they should fight with another large group of people who are denied too. Single people who make the free choice not to get married.
Freedom of expression is great because you can express yourself" and I can either laugh at you, or ignore you. LOL!
Gay Nazi's for Christ?!? Do you even know what you are writing? I feel sorry for you- I believe that friends I have can't change their sexual orientation but you can change the fact you are ignorant!!! It's funny how many in your camp claim you fight for freedoms but only for certain groups, kinda weird- font you think?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3152
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

anonymous wrote:
I don't respond to parsed comments.
And yet, here is yet another response to a "parsed" comment.

The reality remains that you seem to lack the ability to respond to specific criticism of the individual components of your argument, such as it is.
anonymous wrote:
Take your ransom note elsewhere.
BTW - Your link doesn't go anywhere relevant. To quote:
"For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty."
That is exactly the point. What state interest is served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?
anonymous wrote:
In other words, the courts must interpret the contradictions in existing laws.
So, now you are parsing the words of the US Supreme Court. Don't you find that slightly ironic coming from someone who doesn't respond to parsed posts?
anonymous wrote:
Fundamental right that's been compromised? None. You CAN marry but the state does not recognize it. Suspect classification? Don't see gays in that list.
Just another fantasy coming from the Joker!
Marriage has been held to be a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions by the US Supreme Court. You have offered no valid argument why same sex couples should be legally excluded, or denied equal protection of the laws. Similarly, you have failed to illustrate any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples such equal protection. inf act, you've failed to offer an argument that rises to the level of having a rational basis.

You have made yourself look foolish, bigoted, and ignorant, and left me with some concerns for primary education in my birth state.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3153
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Then why are you against allowing us to marry?
Because you have no constitutional right to marry...
Pope Francis

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3154
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

"Sweetie ,im sure i'll cope.As a straight person we can get married in any state,any country ,any religion any where in the world.I can also have biological children with the person i love and form a truly united family by blood and not have to resort to scientific methods or adoption which is something we generally have to do when we find out the devastating news we cant have kids.We also can have proper ,normal penetrative sex without the use of lubes ,sex toys ,or resorting to unhygenic ,disgusting ,unatural forms of sex with parts of the body that are not sex organs.
So even though other states will recognize your pretend marriages(as a true marriage is between a man and a woman)and let you go on pretending to try and live your lives like us ,you never will.Im sure people will respect you to your face ,and be nice to you ,but straight people will always think"theyre so nice but its such a shame that they're gay".

You mean I can have equal protection, rights, and dignity under the federal laws of the greatest country on earth, but I'll never have the personal approval of an anonymous illiterate from Vermont, Australia? You know what, I think that's going to keep me up at night! What is legal equality worth, if an imbecilic foreigner who can barely speak English thinks that it's a shame that I'm gay!

Seriously though, anonymous from Vermont, Australia, you bring up a great point because it's the ultimate fall-back of your side. Gays will win legal battles, win equal recognition, win social acceptance, and win in the history books, but a handful of you pathetic bigots will always think you've secretly got the upper hand because you get to be bigots inside your own minds or in your trailer parks, and you'll always believe that everyone else secretly shares your bigotry but doesn't have the courage to express it anonymously on a website like you. I hate to break it to you, but white supremacists in the USA today think the same way, and they're dead wrong, just like you will be in a few years.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3155
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you have no constitutional right to marry...
I can get married today, if I wanted to. Sort of makes you look stupid.
d pantz

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3156
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I can get married today, if I wanted to. Sort of makes you look stupid.
so could I, it doesn't make it a "constitutional" right. What's so "constitutional" about he government honoring one group with tax benefits over everybody else who makes a free choice to be single?
d pantz

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3157
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pope Francis wrote:
"Sweetie ,im sure i'll cope.As a straight person we can get married in any state,any country ,any religion any where in the world.I can also have biological children with the person i love and form a truly united family by blood and not have to resort to scientific methods or adoption which is something we generally have to do when we find out the devastating news we cant have kids.We also can have proper ,normal penetrative sex without the use of lubes ,sex toys ,or resorting to unhygenic ,disgusting ,unatural forms of sex with parts of the body that are not sex organs.
So even though other states will recognize your pretend marriages(as a true marriage is between a man and a woman)and let you go on pretending to try and live your lives like us ,you never will.Im sure people will respect you to your face ,and be nice to you ,but straight people will always think"theyre so nice but its such a shame that they're gay".
You mean I can have equal protection, rights, and dignity under the federal laws of the greatest country on earth, but I'll never have the personal approval of an anonymous illiterate from Vermont, Australia? You know what, I think that's going to keep me up at night! What is legal equality worth, if an imbecilic foreigner who can barely speak English thinks that it's a shame that I'm gay!
Seriously though, anonymous from Vermont, Australia, you bring up a great point because it's the ultimate fall-back of your side. Gays will win legal battles, win equal recognition, win social acceptance, and win in the history books, but a handful of you pathetic bigots will always think you've secretly got the upper hand because you get to be bigots inside your own minds or in your trailer parks, and you'll always believe that everyone else secretly shares your bigotry but doesn't have the courage to express it anonymously on a website like you. I hate to break it to you, but white supremacists in the USA today think the same way, and they're dead wrong, just like you will be in a few years.
just wait. Your "equal protection" has you discriminatory yourself.
Pope Francis

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3158
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Against whom am I discriminating?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3159
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Then why are you against allowing us to marry?
I never claimed to want to stop you. But I don't accept government tax breaks for your activities.
This is not an Affirmative Action issue. You were not "born gay". You chose "gay". Plain and simple! Plain and simple! Plain and simple!!!!
YOU WERE NOT BORN GAY! You made a choice. There is no gene that defines you. You can call it destiny but that doesn't mean that the government needs to give you a tax break.

Here's the two-plus-two. Remove government subsidies and tax breaks and I will allow the government to acknowledge your marriages. Better yet, remove government from the act of marriage, because that would absolve them of their unconstitutional meddling in religion, and I will let it all go.

When it comes to "MONEY", Ca-ching!, Swag!, kickbacks, or payola, I'd rather you all burn in hell! That's all that matters to the ape. Lesson learned. Never forget. Never give in!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3160
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pope Francis wrote:
"Sweetie ,im sure i'll cope.As a straight person we can get married in any state,any country ,any religion any where in the world.I can also have biological children with the person i love and form a truly united family by blood and not have to resort to scientific methods or adoption which is something we generally have to do when we find out the devastating news we cant have kids.We also can have proper ,normal penetrative sex without the use of lubes ,sex toys ,or resorting to unhygenic ,disgusting ,unatural forms of sex with parts of the body that are not sex organs.
So even though other states will recognize your pretend marriages(as a true marriage is between a man and a woman)and let you go on pretending to try and live your lives like us ,you never will.Im sure people will respect you to your face ,and be nice to you ,but straight people will always think"theyre so nice but its such a shame that they're gay".
You mean I can have equal protection, rights, and dignity under the federal laws of the greatest country on earth, but I'll never have the personal approval of an anonymous illiterate from Vermont, Australia? You know what, I think that's going to keep me up at night! What is legal equality worth, if an imbecilic foreigner who can barely speak English thinks that it's a shame that I'm gay!
Seriously though, anonymous from Vermont, Australia, you bring up a great point because it's the ultimate fall-back of your side. Gays will win legal battles, win equal recognition, win social acceptance, and win in the history books, but a handful of you pathetic bigots will always think you've secretly got the upper hand because you get to be bigots inside your own minds or in your trailer parks, and you'll always believe that everyone else secretly shares your bigotry but doesn't have the courage to express it anonymously on a website like you. I hate to break it to you, but white supremacists in the USA today think the same way, and they're dead wrong, just like you will be in a few years.
Nice, new way to parse!

Well, anyone can play the game of vengeance! It's not really my bag but then again, SOMEone introduced the monkey dominance game, therefore SOMEone needs to know who's in charge and SOMEone needs to know where they REALLY stand on a battlefield.

Think you're ready for chaos? Or perhaps you depend on the status-quo so much that you'll try to be yourself just once, and live in absolute terror for the rest of your days after revealing your secrets. Sickness is sickness. Denial is denial! Fate is fate. Eat! Just do what you have always done and EAT-EAT-EAT!

You've become a role model for liberals. SATISFY! EAT!

You're going to fail. Let us bless the years that follow where only a complete idiot would try to reenact those idiot times.

EAT!!!! Obey YOUR MASTER!
d pantz

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3161
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pope Francis wrote:
Against whom am I discriminating?
unless you're trying to move the poverty line for a single person from 11 thousand to 54 thousand you are discriminating against single people. Why should they be treated any differently for making that choice?
Jason

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3162
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

My partner and I are engaged and getting married in August. Help us start our family :)

http://www.youcaring.com/adoption-fundraiser/...
d pantz

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3163
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Help me plan for a family one day and demand equal rights for single taxpayers!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3164
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

d pantz wrote:
unless you're trying to move the poverty line for a single person from 11 thousand to 54 thousand you are discriminating against single people. Why should they be treated any differently for making that choice?
Sweetie, the poverty level for a couple with no kids is only 14k, if singles were treated equally in that regard, we would have to drop theirs to just 7,000, not raise it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3165
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Pope Francis wrote:
"im sure i'll cope.As a straight person
Actually, YOU, can cope as an ignorant, arrogant, idiotic, bigoted, moron.

Congratulations! For exposing this publicly.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,841 - 2,860 of39,843
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••