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 145)

Showing posts 2,881 - 2,900 of50,729
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3187
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I can get married today, if I wanted to. Sort of makes you look stupid.
Then what are you complaining about???

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3188
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Keeping marriage as is, that's the conservative position. Redefining marriage is the radical extremist position, as would be criminalizing same sex behavior.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to redefine marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3189
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage as is, that's the conservative position.
Yes it is. It lacks a basis in reason or logic, but it is the conservative position.
Brian_G wrote:
Redefining marriage is the radical extremist position, as would be criminalizing same sex behavior.
So, denying constitutionally guaranteed rights, like equal protection of the laws for all is NOT radical?

Face it, there is not a rational basis to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, so instead you put forward this hopelessly irrelevant argument about semantics. The reality remains that legal marriage exists in every state in the union, and there is no reason why same sex couples should be excluded from the LEGAL protections of marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to redefine marriage.
So long as the constitution requires equal protection of the laws for all, and marriage is a protection of the law, and there isn't any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, there certainly IS a reason to redefine marriage.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3190
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> interesting story. All that to become a physical education teacher?
WTF! See what happens when you get wrapped up in the trash talk?

I've been the person on this site who supports single's rights. And I'm a network administrator by trade. The battle is with kids who have a recent college degree in "MIS" which usually includes the hit parade of general requirements along with some Microsoft Office training. Not exactly heavyweights but tell that to an HR crony!

I've got some college but no diploma. Those darn reality things like the dot.com bubble kept me from staying on a degree path. I've got plenty of certifications and twenty years experience since back when PC's running macros on Procomm Plus were state of the art networking. I know where I stand, and I deserve a job as much as some nut kid who may or may not go on to breed does.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3191
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Watching you think is like watching a dog that has been fed peanut butter.
Taxation is inherently NOT respecting an establishment of religion, nor is allowing legal marriage. One needs to understand what the Amendment ACTUALLY says before they can intelligently comment upon it.
No, although this is a darn muddy segue, religious organizations do not get taxed. That is a sticky issue as many religious organizations use the pulpit to promote political agendas. They should lose tax exempt status as soon as they cross the line from moral advocacy to political endorsement.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3192
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, although this is a darn muddy segue, religious organizations do not get taxed. That is a sticky issue as many religious organizations use the pulpit to promote political agendas. They should lose tax exempt status as soon as they cross the line from moral advocacy to political endorsement.
why do they need their faith subsidized by the tax payers in the first place? is their faith that weak?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3193
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

anonymous wrote:
No, although this is a darn muddy segue, religious organizations do not get taxed.
Of course, that exemption is equally available to all religions, just as marriage soon will be to all Americans.
anonymous wrote:
That is a sticky issue as many religious organizations use the pulpit to promote political agendas. They should lose tax exempt status as soon as they cross the line from moral advocacy to political endorsement.
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit...
The restriction exists, it merely need be enforced. I think if a few churches lost their exemption, the instances of religions allowing such political speech at the pulpit would dry up pretty quickly.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3194
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is. It lacks a basis in reason or logic, but it is the conservative position.
<quoted text>
So, denying constitutionally guaranteed rights, like equal protection of the laws for all is NOT radical?
Face it, there is not a rational basis to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, so instead you put forward this hopelessly irrelevant argument about semantics. The reality remains that legal marriage exists in every state in the union, and there is no reason why same sex couples should be excluded from the LEGAL protections of marriage.
<quoted text>
So long as the constitution requires equal protection of the laws for all, and marriage is a protection of the law, and there isn't any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, there certainly IS a reason to redefine marriage.
Whats the state interest in denying incestous relationships that dont want kids ,or want to adopt,from getting married .
Same goes for polygamous couples ,whats the state interest in denying them the right to marry .Three people or 4 people or whatever being covered equally under the law and having the same rights as any other union.I just dont see why its ok for gays and not for any other unorthodox union to be able to marry ,or for single people to recieve the same benefits as married people ,if the constitution says that it provides equal protection under the law for everyone, how is it in their best interest to deny the others?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3195
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

common sense wrote:
Whats the state interest in denying incestous relationships that dont want kids ,or want to adopt,from getting married .
I'm glad you asked, you see, incestuous procreation has a demonstrably higher instance of birth defect and mental illness, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing such unions, or such procreation. Not wanting kids does not negate one's ability to have one. This argument MIGHT be legitimate for same sex incestuous marriages, but the only one's arguing for that are those who can't make a valid argument against same sex marriage. There is not legitimate push to legalize same sex incest.
common sense wrote:
Same goes for polygamous couples ,whats the state interest in denying them the right to marry .Three people or 4 people or whatever being covered equally under the law and having the same rights as any other union.
Why do those on your side of this argument regularly lack the ability to count?

Polygamy, by definition, is a union of three or more people. Three is inherently greater than two. Ergo, by definition, polygamists seek greater protection of the law, not equal protection.
common sense wrote:
I just dont see why its ok for gays and not for any other unorthodox union to be able to marry ,or for single people to recieve the same benefits as married people ,if the constitution says that it provides equal protection under the law for everyone, how is it in their best interest to deny the others?
Being single, is a choice, as is marriage (of course that choice requires a consenting partner). So long as the individual has an equal opportunity to choose to marry, equal protection is satisfied.

Personally, I find these arguments laughable, because they don't actually address the topic at hand, and they make you appear to be utterly irrational. We have already expanded marriage to allow interracial couples to marry and there was no impact upon existing regulations banning incest and polygamy. Do you know why? Because there are legitimate state interests served by disallowing incest and polygamy.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3196
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you asked, you see, incestuous procreation has a demonstrably higher instance of birth defect and mental illness, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing such unions, or such procreation. Not wanting kids does not negate one's ability to have one. This argument MIGHT be legitimate for same sex incestuous marriages, but the only one's arguing for that are those who can't make a valid argument against same sex marriage. There is not legitimate push to legalize same sex incest.
<quoted text>
Why do those on your side of this argument regularly lack the ability to count?
Polygamy, by definition, is a union of three or more people. Three is inherently greater than two. Ergo, by definition, polygamists seek greater protection of the law, not equal protection.
<quoted text>
Being single, is a choice, as is marriage (of course that choice requires a consenting partner). So long as the individual has an equal opportunity to choose to marry, equal protection is satisfied.
Personally, I find these arguments laughable, because they don't actually address the topic at hand, and they make you appear to be utterly irrational. We have already expanded marriage to allow interracial couples to marry and there was no impact upon existing regulations banning incest and polygamy. Do you know why? Because there are legitimate state interests served by disallowing incest and polygamy.
I understand and agree about incestous marriage,but technically,according to you,if the incestous couple could prove that they are infertile they then should be able to get married as there then is no other state interest to stop them.

About the polygamist unions,i dont quite understand how the individuals in a union of three or more people would benefit anymore than the individuals in a conventional marriage thus providing inequality .

Also , marriage is not always a choice for some people who would like to get married but for whatever reason cant find a partner.Its not a choice for them therefore they're not getting the equal protection of the law under the constitution.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3197
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

In a democratic society, the consent of the majority is a rational reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3198
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, that exemption is equally available to all religions, just as marriage soon will be to all Americans.
<quoted text>
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit...
The restriction exists, it merely need be enforced. I think if a few churches lost their exemption, the instances of religions allowing such political speech at the pulpit would dry up pretty quickly.
More parsing! And more denial. The point IS enforcement.

What I've been saying all along is that law is about enforcement. Teddy Kennedy walks away from Chappaquiddick. The commanders walk away from Abu Graib. Nixon walks away from Watergate. Corporate CEOs walk away from just about everything.

You are missing the message.

"Gay Rights" is about easy money through tax breaks, but in this case, you're increasing the petty behavior modification laws that are only imposed on the working class. What you want is "hate crime" laws to protect the group but what you'll get is simply a stealthier dodge when being harassed.

Working people can't afford the lawyers to give them their "rights". They are all being driven into an underclass role that does not count on or observe the law for anything in life.

Do you actually think that any such legislation will improve the lives of gays? Do you not see how the collective population is no longer getting married?

Here's a simple question. I can't even say I have any evidence to go with it. It's simply a question whose time has come. Are gays moving to the states that allow Gay marriage? There's an important observation in all this. What is more important to gays? Maintaining their current lifestyle or attaining an incremental tax improvement that mostly only improves one's life in the case of an inheritance.

I'm betting that you don't see a big migration. First, gay relationships don't typically last a lifetime. Second, the legal encumbrances outweigh the benefits. You've got a Trojan horse whose only purpose is to legitimize an agenda of gay Affirmative Action.

Simply put, Socialism has shown its inherent immaturity hiding behind a "father knows best" mimicry of actual maturity. Real maturity would be to fix the law so that it's enforced, but we don't even see our police driving at the posted speed limits. It wouldn't be safe to do so when everyone else is driving at least 15 mph faster.

Instead, we have a chaos of laws that are arbitrarily, and thus inevitably, enforced prejudicially. When our laws are all written in spin, we have chaos. If there is ANYthing the gay community would be noted for, it would have to be an almost autistic trait of stepping into escalating conflicts when their sense of order is disrupted.

Your entire agenda is just another example of political posing that someone will profit from but not the intended. Fix law enforcement. End the social engineering. If any laws need to be made fair, it's the laws that involve taxation, because THAT is the source of all repression.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3199
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

common sense wrote:
I understand and agree about incestous marriage,but technically,according to you,if the incestous couple could prove that they are infertile they then should be able to get married as there then is no other state interest to stop them.
Are you actively trying to make a case for incestuous marriage? Because your argument does nothing to indicate why same sex couples should be denied the right to marry. Your point is irrelevant, and no one is legitimately making an argument for incestuous marriage. What is more, allowing same sex marriage has no impact upon current laws addressing incest. If two infertile siblings wish to marry, it is a separate issue.
common sense wrote:
About the polygamist unions,i dont quite understand how the individuals in a union of three or more people would benefit anymore than the individuals in a conventional marriage thus providing inequality .
Are you kidding? Spousal insurance benefits, for starters. The reality remains that the union seeks inherently greater protection of the law for three or more people, which is greater than two. It isn't even a matter of math, simply one of counting.
common sense wrote:
Also , marriage is not always a choice for some people who would like to get married but for whatever reason cant find a partner.Its not a choice for them therefore they're not getting the equal protection of the law under the constitution.
It is still a choice for them, they simply can't find a consenting partner, that doesn't rise to the level of the government denying equal protection, as is the case in many jurisdictions with same sex marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3200
May 11, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
In a democratic society, the consent of the majority is a rational reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Does the majority need to agree for your to speak your mind, follow the religion of your choosing, be free from unwarranted search or seizure, to be free from self incrimination, owning a firearm, or be kept in jail without charge or trial?

Some rights are not subject to the court of public opinion.

The US Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions. http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

It has separately held that fundamental rights may not be put to a vote, they depend upon the outcome of no elections. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Your ignorance is showing.
Quest

Milford, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3201
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
You are missing the message.
"Gay Rights" is about easy money through tax breaks, but in this case, you're increasing the petty behavior modification laws that are only imposed on the working class..........
You mean those same costly pesky rights and protections that the straight folks have already been sponging off us working gay taxpayers? For generations.

I will never understand why heterosexuals can't stand on their own two feet and support themselves? Why do they have to do it on the backs of gay Americans?
Quest

Milford, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3202
May 11, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
In a democratic society, the consent of the majority is a rational reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
I thought our country was designed to protect the basic civil rights of minorities and prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

Are you saying that this is not true?

Can you imagine the fallout if any majority was always able to decide which guaranteed civil rights any minority could enjoy?

How unAmerican can you get?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3203
May 11, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
More parsing! And more denial. The point IS enforcement.
What I've been saying all along is that law is about enforcement. Teddy Kennedy walks away from Chappaquiddick. The commanders walk away from Abu Graib. Nixon walks away from Watergate. Corporate CEOs walk away from just about everything.
You are missing the message.
"Gay Rights" is about easy money through tax breaks, but in this case, you're increasing the petty behavior modification laws that are only imposed on the working class. What you want is "hate crime" laws to protect the group but what you'll get is simply a stealthier dodge when being harassed.
Working people can't afford the lawyers to give them their "rights". They are all being driven into an underclass role that does not count on or observe the law for anything in life.
Do you actually think that any such legislation will improve the lives of gays? Do you not see how the collective population is no longer getting married?
Here's a simple question. I can't even say I have any evidence to go with it. It's simply a question whose time has come. Are gays moving to the states that allow Gay marriage? There's an important observation in all this. What is more important to gays? Maintaining their current lifestyle or attaining an incremental tax improvement that mostly only improves one's life in the case of an inheritance.
I'm betting that you don't see a big migration. First, gay relationships don't typically last a lifetime. Second, the legal encumbrances outweigh the benefits. You've got a Trojan horse whose only purpose is to legitimize an agenda of gay Affirmative Action.
Simply put, Socialism has shown its inherent immaturity hiding behind a "father knows best" mimicry of actual maturity. Real maturity would be to fix the law so that it's enforced, but we don't even see our police driving at the posted speed limits. It wouldn't be safe to do so when everyone else is driving at least 15 mph faster.
Instead, we have a chaos of laws that are arbitrarily, and thus inevitably, enforced prejudicially. When our laws are all written in spin, we have chaos. If there is ANYthing the gay community would be noted for, it would have to be an almost autistic trait of stepping into escalating conflicts when their sense of order is disrupted.
Your entire agenda is just another example of political posing that someone will profit from but not the intended. Fix law enforcement. End the social engineering. If any laws need to be made fair, it's the laws that involve taxation, because THAT is the source of all repression.
Do you even remember what the topic is? Your rants are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

This is about equal protection of the laws, plain and simple. You obviously have no valid argument against such equal protection, which is why you go on these meandering rants that seldom even touch on the topic.
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3204
May 11, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Watching you think is like watching a dog that has been fed peanut butter.
Taxation is inherently NOT respecting an establishment of religion, nor is allowing legal marriage. One needs to understand what the Amendment ACTUALLY says before they can intelligently comment upon it.
it respects an establishment of beliefs over others period. You idiots try to compare this to civil rights, wich you could do, only you leave out the FACT that single people are treated the same and don't include them in the group being dicriminated against, when they are in that group.
I don't think you understand the definition of the word "religion". But read this thread in reverse and look at all the pro ssmers quoting the bible.
" 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3205
May 11, 2013
 
Idles, I will ignore your next post as you will probably try to chang the definitions of words. I bet anything.
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3206
May 11, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you asked, you see, incestuous procreation has a demonstrably higher instance of birth defect and mental illness, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing such unions, or such procreation. Not wanting kids does not negate one's ability to have one. This argument MIGHT be legitimate for same sex incestuous marriages, but the only one's arguing for that are those who can't make a valid argument against same sex marriage. There is not legitimate push to legalize same sex incest.
<quoted text>
Why do those on your side of this argument regularly lack the ability to count?
Polygamy, by definition, is a union of three or more people. Three is inherently greater than two. Ergo, by definition, polygamists seek greater protection of the law, not equal protection.
<quoted text>
Being single, is a choice, as is marriage (of course that choice requires a consenting partner). So long as the individual has an equal opportunity to choose to marry, equal protection is satisfied.
Personally, I find these arguments laughable, because they don't actually address the topic at hand, and they make you appear to be utterly irrational. We have already expanded marriage to allow interracial couples to marry and there was no impact upon existing regulations banning incest and polygamy. Do you know why? Because there are legitimate state interests served by disallowing incest and polygamy.
really anybody with a brain would find that laughable as you don't have to be married to have kids.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,881 - 2,900 of50,729
|
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.

6 Users are viewing the California Forum right now

Search the California Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min Mothra 45,546
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 26 min LRS 173,737
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 41 min Frankie Rizzo 200,227
California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Sins of the Father 4,859
CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 2 hr sloading 7,817
Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 4 hr The right is wrong 2,225
California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Fri This topics peaked 15,911
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••