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.

d pantz

Portage, MI

#3210 May 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why do they need their faith subsidized by the tax payers in the first place? is their faith that weak?
they don't. Is as retarded as saying married people deserve more than single people. No?
d pantz

Portage, MI

#3211 May 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not respect an establishment of religion.
<quoted text>
Marriage is not mandatory, and so long as the single person has the right to choose to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing equal protection is satisfied. If one chooses not to marry, it does not mean they have lesser protection of the law, it means they have made a choice.
Making this argument is basically a tacit admission that you have no valid argument against equal protection of the law, which is what the constitution requires.
<quoted text>
Uhm, allowing same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry in no way respects the establishment of any religion. Feel free to prove otherwise. Personally, I think an attempt to do so on your part would prove hysterical.
Once again, watching you think is like watching a dog eat peanut butter.
never mind. You just changed the actual words I used and ignored the definition of a word. Even dumber than I thought.
d pantz

Portage, MI

#3212 May 11, 2013
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.
So why do people get married if its not about taxes? You don't have to be married to be together or have children. Oh so it must be from some set of beliefs concerning cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. Wich is totally fine and great and awesome, I just don't you getting tax gifts for it.
d pantz

Portage, MI

#3213 May 11, 2013
I don't think you should get tax gifts for it. Correction.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3214 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> never mind. You just changed the actual words I used and ignored the definition of a word. Even dumber than I thought.
a) According to post 3205, you aren't responding to me. I had hoped you had signaled an end to the unpleasant process of debunking your garbage.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
B) I invited you to explain in detail how allowing same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry respects an establishment of religion, and thereby violates the first amendment. Your definition does little to advance your argument, save for perhaps to prove that you don't understand much about the law.

So please, oh great thinker, tell us how marriage equality violates the establishment clause. Be specific.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3215 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
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.
How does allowing gay marriage violate the establishment clause? Be specific? It does not legally establish "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."
d pantz wrote:
So why do people get married if its not about taxes? You don't have to be married to be together or have children. Oh so it must be from some set of beliefs concerning cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. Wich is totally fine and great and awesome, I just don't you getting tax gifts for it.
There are many reason, however why people marry is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

It appears that you have no valid argument at all. It also appears that you are incapable of substantiating the baseless argument you are attempting to advance.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3216 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
I don't think you should get tax gifts for it. Correction.
Then work to change the tax laws, this is a separate issue, namely equal protection of the law.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3217 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.
Brian, this one's easy. You really must go back to eighth-grade civics. We don't live in a democracy.

We live in a constitutional republic, with specific guarantees of equal protections of the law that can't be removed by the vagaries of a democratic mob.

Simply that a sizable number of people -- a majority even -- wishes to deny another group of people the equal protections of the law is most certainly NOT a rational reason to do so. It's probably one of the worst reasons.

Recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples demonstrates the highest respect for the law and for our fellow citizens.
d pantz

United States

#3218 May 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
a) According to post 3205, you aren't responding to me. I had hoped you had signaled an end to the unpleasant process of debunking your garbage.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
B) I invited you to explain in detail how allowing same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry respects an establishment of religion, and thereby violates the first amendment. Your definition does little to advance your argument, save for perhaps to prove that you don't understand much about the law.
So please, oh great thinker, tell us how marriage equality violates the establishment clause. Be specific.
as I thought you would change the definition of the word religion. Instead you qouted me and then directly ignored facts in the above quotes.
But ok, it violates the FIRST AMENDMENT by awarding a group of people who think marriage is any kind of moral code beyond just having a healthy relationship, excluding anybody else who doesn't . They are awarded with tax bebefits. Again I don't think you know what "religion" means. It really has nothing to do with the establishment clause of the WHOLE AMENDMENT. You can't just cherry pick part of it and say I'm wrong.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3219 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> .......
But ok, it violates the FIRST AMENDMENT by awarding a group of people who think marriage is any kind of moral code beyond just having a healthy relationship, excluding anybody else who doesn't .......
That doesn't make much sense.

You would need to show that your ideas here hold any water.

First, you would have to prove that gay couples have no "moral code" as evidenced by their desire to marry the spouse they love, and then you would need to prove a unique "moral code" is written into existing marriage laws, and that all heterosexuals are required to abide by it. THEN, you would need to prove that gay folks marrying would exclude everyone else from marrying.

Since none of those assertions are valid, what is your argument based on?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3220 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
I don't think you should get tax gifts for it. Correction.
Heterosexuals are indeed getting tax "gifts", pulled straight from the pockets of the gay couples and their families.

We are trying to stop that unfair money drain, by providing the SAME benefits to gay married couples.

Quite fair.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3221 May 11, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Oh, so single heterosexuals are a write-off in your mission statement? The point has been made often enough. Time to take the time to listen.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3222 May 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I remember everything quite well. This isn't about equal protection under law. This is about unfair taxation under law and about legitimization of a type of behavior that biologically isn't sound and legally, tends to disrupt continuity in a bad way. There may be positive benefits to indulging those behaviors but the collective value is a moral decision that has to be made by the collective majority by way of the vote.

In terms of individual rights, the debate is a non-starter. In terms of eclectic value, you're not making much of a point as long as you obsess on legalism. Logic isn't your best advocate.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3223 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> relax, I was making a guess from the comment about fat kids parents. There isn't anything wrong with being a gym teacher anyway dude. I'm sorry.
honestly there are things that corporations have their hr departments do to people is asinine. I work in metal fabrication, the one corporation I worked for had hr do all the hiring with no say from our foremen. So some of the temporary employees with better skill and work ethic were overlooked for some really stupid reasons. Usually age discrimination. Sorry to go off topic.
Hmmm...

Well, expect more of it. The next bubble to hose our economy will undoubtedly be either education or healthcare. Both are criminal abuses derived from liberal political control of an essential element of our infrastructure.

As is, the absolute idiot liberals seem to be zealous about undermining their cash cows with both the H-1b visa and illegal alien issue or the compulsory, yes privatized, health insurance (ie: gaping wound) money pits.

I'd prefer to be more liberal on addressing many issues but opening the wallet one iota just allows the loonies to take a peak and go off on a nutty!

Sorry if I sound a bit too thorough in my shutdowns of indulgences, but if anything, more is needed.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3224 May 11, 2013
Every marriage case reviewed by the US Supreme Court was male/female marriage except Baker v Nelson. When the court reviewed same sex marriage there, they upheld the right of the state to maintain gender diversity in marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3225 May 11, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> as I thought you would change the definition of the word religion. Instead you qouted me and then directly ignored facts in the above quotes.
But ok, it violates the FIRST AMENDMENT by awarding a group of people who think marriage is any kind of moral code beyond just having a healthy relationship, excluding anybody else who doesn't . They are awarded with tax bebefits. Again I don't think you know what "religion" means. It really has nothing to do with the establishment clause of the WHOLE AMENDMENT. You can't just cherry pick part of it and say I'm wrong.
Nice try, but it afford equal protection of the law. It does not respect an establishment of religion.

Care to try a more adult argument?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3226 May 11, 2013
anonymous wrote:
I remember everything quite well. This isn't about equal protection under law. This is about unfair taxation under law and about legitimization of a type of behavior that biologically isn't sound and legally, tends to disrupt continuity in a bad way.
You are going to have to choose. Which is it about? Taxation, or legitimization?

Actually, both of your arguments are irrelevant. The tax benefits already exist in every state in the union, and there is no reason to deny constitutionally guaranteed equal protection for same sex couples; and arguing "legitimization" merely exposes your bigotry.

Feel free to offer that elusive legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional. Thus far, you have only illustrated your own ignorance.

"...legally, tends to disrupt continuity in a bad way." Sound like the argument of an ignorant dullard.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3227 May 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Every marriage case reviewed by the US Supreme Court was male/female marriage except Baker v Nelson. When the court reviewed same sex marriage there, they upheld the right of the state to maintain gender diversity in marriage.
Actually, the court dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. What is more, the Minnesota House just voted in favor of equality.

How does it feel to be on the losing side of history? For that matter, how does it fell to argue against equal protection of the law for fellow countrymen? Your mother must be so proud.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3228 May 11, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember everything quite well. This isn't about equal protection under law. This is about unfair taxation under law and about legitimization of a type of behavior that biologically isn't sound and legally, tends to disrupt continuity in a bad way. There may be positive benefits to indulging those behaviors but the collective value is a moral decision that has to be made by the collective majority by way of the vote.
In terms of individual rights, the debate is a non-starter. In terms of eclectic value, you're not making much of a point as long as you obsess on legalism. Logic isn't your best advocate.
Logic? You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass.

Feel free to provide evidence how allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage will cause new unfair taxes on anyone.

Feel free to show logically how one group's moral disapprobation of homosexuality should be the basis for maintaining discrimination against gays and lesbians. Provide evidence that homosexuality causes harm to society that justifies such discrimination.

Feel free to provide scientific support, with links, for your claim that homosexuality is "unsound biologically". Be sure to provide a scientific definition for the concept of "sound biology". Which scientific or medical professional organizations share this view?

Feel free to provide evidence from any of the states that currently recognize civil marriage for same-sex couples how their legal "continuity" has been "disrupted". Please be sure to provide a legal definition for "legal continuity" in your explanation for how civil marriage for same-sex couples is disrupting it. How are opposite-sex couples disrupted or inconvenienced by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Please provide the legal authority that you claim allows a "collective majority" to deny the civil rights of a minority through a "collective moral decision." (Be careful; the history of America's attempts at imposing its "collective moral decisions" by denying civil rights have led to some pretty ugly and shamefully regrettable periods in our history.)

You have quite a bit of homework to do if you even want to attempt to provide evidence for your ridiculous claims.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3229 May 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Every marriage case reviewed by the US Supreme Court was male/female marriage except Baker v Nelson. When the court reviewed same sex marriage there, they upheld the right of the state to maintain gender diversity in marriage.
As others have rightly pointed out, you are once again in error.

The Supreme Court never "reviewed" Baker v Nelson; they never accepted written briefs and there were no oral arguments.

It was dismissed for "want of a substantial federal question."

Since Baker in 1972, all three branches of the federal government have passed, signed, or ruled on laws dealing with homosexuality, same-sex relationships, and marriage.

The rationale for dismissing Baker no longer exists. A federal question exists -- DOMA.

Baker has been dead since DOMA's enactment regardless of any court opinion to the contrary.

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) 22 min Barack calls me B... 59,531
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Dr Guru 214,539
News Entering Final Primary Stretch, Clinton And San... 11 hr Three Psyche 1
News Donald Trump sides with agriculture over enviro... 12 hr woodtick57 2
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 12 hr Joe Fortuna 1,054
News As California's Largest Lake Evaporates, A Coun... 16 hr Three Psyche 2
News As Lake Mead dwindles, can an interstate water ... 18 hr Three Psyche 1
More from around the web