Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61386 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.

Democratic USA

United States

#3267 May 12, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd stuff, here.
Of course it's about justice and civil rights. How could it not be when a majority votes away the basic civil rights of a law-abiding minority, for no rational or logical reason other than animus?
And, yes, in law there is indeed the concept of a "state interest". People ARE the state. ALL the people, including the gay ones.
Part of what our courts DO - what they were designed to do - is to weigh such things.
So, I can't just decide to wipe away YOUR protections under the constitution because I don't like you. However, if there is a valid "state interest" in removing those rights from you - say you are a convicted murderer and the state removes your freedom - there would be a valid state interest in abridging your rights - i.e the protection of others.
Do you understand, now?
If you want to vote/take away basic civil rights and liberties from gay people simply because you don't like or understand them, then expect a fight in court.
That's one of the things they are for, after all.
VERY BRILLIANT POST.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3268 May 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd stuff, here.
Of course it's about justice and civil rights. How could it not be when a majority votes away the basic civil rights of a law-abiding minority, for no rational or logical reason other than animus?
And, yes, in law there is indeed the concept of a "state interest". People ARE the state. ALL the people, including the gay ones.
Part of what our courts DO - what they were designed to do - is to weigh such things.
So, I can't just decide to wipe away YOUR protections under the constitution because I don't like you. However, if there is a valid "state interest" in removing those rights from you - say you are a convicted murderer and the state removes your freedom - there would be a valid state interest in abridging your rights - i.e the protection of others.
Do you understand, now?
If you want to vote/take away basic civil rights and liberties from gay people simply because you don't like or understand them, then expect a fight in court.
That's one of the things they are for, after all.
If there is a law against murder, there is a PUBLIC interest. If that law has yet to be created, then there is no interest.

Do you see a federal law regarding gay marriage? Well, actually yes! It defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman ONLY. Do you see anyone preventing gays from voting? No! Granted, there are efforts by both parties to gerrymander. That's an example of what I call power brokering. That is not law. That is cynical power politics.

Maybe you just refuse to see it. Saying that the public supports gay marriage is a lie. That isn't hostility. It is the simple fact. You seem to be prepping to label the issue a hate crime when it is free politics. Big difference!

I've already said that the public will probably make every dumb choice imaginable before making a sensible choice! Heck! Winston Churchill made the same observation about Americans!

The problem is lack of an "identity". America is a melting pot without natural borders separating peoples of dissimilar interests. Politicians try hard to create an identity but will always elude us in an industrial society.

During WW2, it made things easier as everyone was willing to help. Nowadays, we don't all fight together to save anyone. We send working class eighteen year olds out to Arab countries, where we are hated, so that they can confiscate oil for fat upper-middle class crooks so they can reconcile their masculinity problems behind the wheel of a Hummer.

There's a very important issue that you just don't understand. We are not all the same. Republicans perform religious rituals and throw flags in our faces. Liberals talk about Evolution and throw you in our faces. The reality is that the majority of the population think like a gorilla and the only order they know is the order of the alpha male led pack. Politicians certainly don't provide order! They are the ones committing the worst crimes and getting away with them!

It's a numbers game and your Socialist buddies don't have numbers on their side. First, you'll see the police becoming criminals. Next, you'll see the public making heroes of criminals. Do you think you'll have a place in that order? Will you just watch on the sidelines as another generation is wasted on maintaining a government tyranny?

The situation is too far gone. Perhaps it was the multinational corporations. Perhaps organized crime has infiltrated the legitimate business world. Perhaps the Socialists drove the business world nuts with capricious laws and regulations. The simple truth is that the "natural born ruling class" lost control, which suggests that they aren't very good rulers. Suck it up White, limo liberals! You are not what you once were. Not by a long shot!

The only question that should matter is why the government feels the need to subsidize breeding. Cheap labor or disposable soldiers? Looks like they're getting impatient!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3270 May 13, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Why do I have to choose?
Because they are two separate issues that do not necessarily correlate.
anonymous wrote:
Why is anything irrelevant?
Because there is a topic at hand, and an intelligent person would want to continue to make points that were relevant to said topic.
anonymous wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course, you’ve yet to prove any wrong, whatsoever. Come to think of it, you haven’t really made a point.
anonymous wrote:
But thanks a lot for illustrating the contemptible and obvious power brokering that is at work. Nothing about the situation is about civil rights or justice.
It is about equal protection of the laws. You seem to lack the ability to offer any reason why that constitutional right should not be enforced.
anonymous wrote:
You talk a lot about "State interest". There is no such thing. The United States government serves the people, not any hidden aristocracy. Or at least that is what it is SUPPOSED to do.
You are an idiot. There is such a thing as a compelling state interest, it is a legal concept necessary before constitutional rights may be legally infringed. Ergo, if you wish to deny equal protection of the law for homosexuals, doing so must serve a compelling state interest. You truly aren’t that bright. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3271 May 13, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Right now, the press is trying very hard to make it look like a stampede is happening and that a new world order is about to be. Wait until election season. Those who want to keep the status-quo won't speak up until the time is right for them to do so.
When that time comes, they'll undermine your propaganda with their own propaganda, and then let FUD do the rest. The sheep cower best when their fear is sudden and recent. Don't think that most all of us haven't seen this dog and pony show many times before.
Meanwhile, please do go on acting out the reality that I could never post in one long sermon. Want to talk a bit more about State interest?
What part of State interest includes compulsory, yet privatized, healthcare? Why would the medical field endorse it? I'm seeing more and more older people who are just giving up on taking their prescribed medicines because they've already taken on too much debt. The doctors know these things. They don't care.
What do they care about? Their own status-quo, where they are entitled to astronomical salaries, all rationalized by the fear of legal actions. Do you think that patients can afford lawyers anymore than they can afford medicines? Ridiculous!
The only healthcare plan that could have worked would have been nationalized healthcare, putting government muscle behind negotiation for drug prices and removing capricious litigation.
The only people who are profiting from that liberal pile of legislation are doctors, lawyers, insurance companies and drug companies. You get three guesses where they all rank in the liberal party profile! Once again, the POS liberals made it more profitable for surviving family members to sue than to have a healthy parent, but only if the sugar plum fairy lawyer decides to take on the charity case.
It looks to me that there might be a pattern there. Extremely expensive drug combinations to keep gays alive longer, but not cured? Sounds like a win-win for the drug companies. Let's make it compulsory to keep responsible young people in debt so that irresponsible liberals can go on tearing holes in parts of their bodies not designed for what they are being used for.
Maybe we like to save the lives of drug addicts too! I wonder how much influence organized crime has in the Democratic party, hmm?
I already said that I tend to liberalism. But I know a loser agenda when I see it. Sometimes you need to force people to solve their own problems before they will even try.
Gay marriage is artificial reality. It's false rituals for fools and it's just another burden put on those who have no input in government or the mob psychology.
In case you still don't get it, I have no interest in saving you. I'm only interested in getting meek nobodys off their butts and out to regain control of their lives.
So, in addition to being unintelligent, you are paranoid. Got the message, loud and clear.

You can’t address the legal issue of a compelling state interest because you lack the mental capacity. I think I am through responding to you. If you can’t understand the basic concepts behind the issue, there really is no point in wasting one’s time.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3272 May 13, 2013
anonymous wrote:
If there is a law against murder, there is a PUBLIC interest. If that law has yet to be created, then there is no interest.
My, but you do go out of your way to prove you are an imbecile.

Do you mean to say that if there were not a law against murder, that there would be no public interest that murder be illegal?

You are a terribly dim bulb, aren't you?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3273 May 13, 2013
More IRS Scandals:

The IRS admits to ‘targeting’ conservative groups, but were they also ‘leaking’?
Matt K. Lewis

A little over a year ago, I reported that,”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”

Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.

“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement.“The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”

Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.

In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted,“The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”

And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-adm...
anonyjmous

Barberton, OH

#3275 May 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are two separate issues that do not necessarily correlate.
<quoted text>
Because there is a topic at hand, and an intelligent person would want to continue to make points that were relevant to said topic.
<quoted text>
Of course, you’ve yet to prove any wrong, whatsoever. Come to think of it, you haven’t really made a point.
<quoted text>
It is about equal protection of the laws. You seem to lack the ability to offer any reason why that constitutional right should not be enforced.
<quoted text>
You are an idiot. There is such a thing as a compelling state interest, it is a legal concept necessary before constitutional rights may be legally infringed. Ergo, if you wish to deny equal protection of the law for homosexuals, doing so must serve a compelling state interest. You truly aren’t that bright. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...
You're a complete idiot! And you parse like a gibbering parrot.
Pull the stick out or go sit on it. I'm not going to respond to small-minded sound bites.
anonyjmous

Barberton, OH

#3276 May 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in addition to being unintelligent, you are paranoid. Got the message, loud and clear.
You can’t address the legal issue of a compelling state interest because you lack the mental capacity. I think I am through responding to you. If you can’t understand the basic concepts behind the issue, there really is no point in wasting one’s time.
Don't respond to me then! You have nothing to say but simpleton sound bites and insults anyway!

..And the State exists to serve the public. Under NO circumstances do their interests come first. None! Never! A non-question because they not one scrap of legitimate authority by way of aristocratic, self-proclaimed, enlightenment.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3277 May 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
My, but you do go out of your way to prove you are an imbecile.
Do you mean to say that if there were not a law against murder, that there would be no public interest that murder be illegal?
You are a terribly dim bulb, aren't you?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Until the public gets off their FAT, VIDEO GAME PLAYING @sses and votes on it, there is no state interest in preventing murder or any other act that might be labelled a crime.

We don't need ANY self-important riff-raff taking the law into their own hands. It would be anarchy.

Someday, maybe you'll see the truth. You've spent your life mimicking that which you thing people respect, but you are and have always been absolutely wrong about what people respect and what is the right way to behave.

You think that the monkey pack and talking trash is what it's all about! Well, life isn't the Hokey Pokey! People are very tiny-brained apes who only respect people who think EXACTLY the same way they do. There just isn't much else about it!

You're a pet of the aristocratic class. You'll always be held at arm's length by the majority because you chose to be gay. You'll always be held at arm's length by limo liberals because you want something from them. You'll always spend the rest of your days being politely talked into getting out of the house and letting the apes get on with their building of nests, eating tree bark and breeding, but you are NOT, NOT, NOT ANY kind of cultural evolution. You're a political decision to give the idiot masses what they think they want while actually giving them NOTHING!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3278 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
More IRS Scandals:
The IRS admits to ‘targeting’ conservative groups, but were they also ‘leaking’?
Matt K. Lewis
A little over a year ago, I reported that,”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement.“The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted,“The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-adm...
Nothing like a contrived scandal to go off topic.

If we want to stop such scandals, we will reverse Citizens United with legislation. Ultimately, 501 (c) 4's should not exist, all contributions to campaigns should be recorded, and controlled by the candidate. We need to get the money out of politics, or at least make the money involved a known quantity.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3280 May 14, 2013
anonyjmous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't respond to me then! You have nothing to say but simpleton sound bites and insults anyway!
..And the State exists to serve the public. Under NO circumstances do their interests come first. None! Never! A non-question because they not one scrap of legitimate authority by way of aristocratic, self-proclaimed, enlightenment.
He's going to respond as long as you respond to him...just ignore him...everyone else does...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3281 May 14, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
He's going to respond as long as you respond to him...just ignore him...everyone else does...
No he won't. He can identify trolls and ignore them. I merely bait you when you show up because you are so willing to make yourself look like a mindless fool, all while making those holding your position look foolish.

You truly are a net loss for your cause.
Inigo Montoya

San Francisco, CA

#3282 May 14, 2013
Anonymous from Blabberton, Ohio.....

you keep using that word, "parsed." I don't think it means what you think it means.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3283 May 14, 2013
Inigo Montoya wrote:
Anonymous from Blabberton, Ohio.....
you keep using that word, "parsed." I don't think it means what you think it means.
From Wordweb:(grammar) analyze syntactically by assigning a constituent structure to (a sentence)

There are other applications, such as in computer programing but the meaning is quite clear. Go ahead and be stubborn, or offer a word that suits you better!

The simple fact is that he isolates peoples posts into bits that can be refuted by the standard list of sound bites, while ignoring the original context. Here's another word.

Disinformation:

Misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.)

I can't prove that, but you can just go on parsing and denying the definition. We'll see if the readers actually read or if they just log on to talk about the imaginary size of their manhood.

Win/win from where I stand, but as I've already said, Americans must do every thing stupid and wrong before they'll consider doing it right. Accelerating the process DOES accelerate the process no matter how smart the single greatest majority THINKS they are.

Here's a hint! It's not about them! Not even a little!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3284 May 14, 2013
Inigo Montoya wrote:
Anonymous from Blabberton, Ohio.....
you keep using that word, "parsed." I don't think it means what you think it means.
Oh, yes! It's not about petulant gays who like to call people names or insult communities either! Certainly not those who don't understand the nature of how Topix gathers their location information!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3285 May 14, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
He's going to respond as long as you respond to him...just ignore him...everyone else does...
I don't bump nozzles with the goofs! That would be a bad example and unproductive. I prefer to convey rational information and there's nothing better than to have real-time irrational behavior with which to base it on.

The part that most anti-gay marriage people don't get is that I AM a libertarian who endorses many liberal values. I just don't endorse either party and I don't tolerate profiteering off of the government.

I've worked in government, local and national. They're corrupt! Call it soft corruption if you want. Maybe most of them don't get unmarked envelopes from mobsters in a dark alley, but they always have a spouse who gets six figure incomes for signing checks and approving other political hires for United Way, or maybe for their incredible ability to sell the few million dollar houses in the local community! I wonder how that works?!

Really, I predict at least one more heavy depression in the coming years. Nothing has been fixed and this time, there probably won't be anyone to borrow from to postpone it any longer. There's going to be a major upheaval in this country. It's going to be very nasty.

I'm only interested in surviving it, not profiting from it. When it's over, I'll probably be too old to make any money off of it anyway. I'd just rather that the good guys win.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3286 May 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
From Wordweb:(grammar) analyze syntactically by assigning a constituent structure to (a sentence)
Translation, you can't defend the individual components of your argument. Much less the argument as a composition of said components.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3287 May 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation, you can't defend the individual components of your argument. Much less the argument as a composition of said components.
Translation: The law can't defend individual elements of itself so why should I assume I have to.

We lock away murderers. We take away their civil rights. We know why we do it, but your argument style would just demand that they have all their civil rights.

We also limit the rights of the mentally ill and engage in practices that effectively deny rights to the poor. Some of those acts are with good reason while others are efforts to exploit the labor force.

Life is complicated. Homosexuality is not a sound bite issue. It crosses into the area of mental disorder whether you like it or not. It crosses into the area of repressing the poor whether you like it or not.

Whether or not you consider homosexuality an obsessive/compulsive disorder, a "normal" personality akin to being a "nerd" or something that is an actual evolutionary trait, you'll have to address the politics. And politics is a very cagy animal.

So considering politics, are you going to apologize for your regular indulgences in name calling or will you simply concede the point that you're a fear mongering, rabble rousing, weasel who does nothing in sound-bite increments?

A simple YES or NO is all that is required!

Thank you for driving that car off the cliff and once again, proving my point far better than I ever could alone.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3288 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: The law can't defend individual elements of itself so why should I assume I have to.
We lock away murderers. We take away their civil rights. We know why we do it, but your argument style would just demand that they have all their civil rights.
We also limit the rights of the mentally ill and engage in practices that effectively deny rights to the poor. Some of those acts are with good reason while others are efforts to exploit the labor force.
Life is complicated. Homosexuality is not a sound bite issue. It crosses into the area of mental disorder whether you like it or not. It crosses into the area of repressing the poor whether you like it or not.
Whether or not you consider homosexuality an obsessive/compulsive disorder, a "normal" personality akin to being a "nerd" or something that is an actual evolutionary trait, you'll have to address the politics. And politics is a very cagy animal.
So considering politics, are you going to apologize for your regular indulgences in name calling or will you simply concede the point that you're a fear mongering, rabble rousing, weasel who does nothing in sound-bite increments?
A simple YES or NO is all that is required!
Thank you for driving that car off the cliff and once again, proving my point far better than I ever could alone.
In fact, we do NOT take away murderers civil rights. prisoners int he US still retain many of their civil rights.

why do you continually talk about thing on which you do not have the slightest clue?

homosexuality is a normal part of the human species, it is not disorder of any kind.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3289 May 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>In fact, we do NOT take away murderers civil rights. prisoners int he US still retain many of their civil rights.
why do you continually talk about thing on which you do not have the slightest clue?
homosexuality is a normal part of the human species, it is not disorder of any kind.
Like the last post, you simply lack the understanding of active and passive arguments. You don't retain "many" civil rights. YOU lose "SOME" civil rights, and that's all that matters in sound bite rhetoric.

Downs Syndrome is a "normal" part of the human species too. Is it a mental disorder? YES or NO?

If I really want to make a point, I probably DO have to ensure that there aren't two actual questions. Fortunately, there's always a troll ready to provide.

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 How tax breaks aim to keep companies growing in... 50 min Solarman 3
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Kid Rocker Panel 240,283
News Survey: Most Californians support school a sanc... 7 hr ICE MAN 4
News Democrats could tighten grip on California poli... 11 hr Solarman 1
News Washington threatens funding cut to California,... 11 hr tomin cali 23
News Muslim Day: Bay Area faithful come to Sacrament... (Apr '15) 12 hr Your Service Prov... 46
News Essential California: How a California driver's... 19 hr 07 Mustang 2
More from around the web