Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61394 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.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3645 May 28, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
WILL you stop talking about YOU! I don't give a rat's @ss about YOU!
.!
Of course you do, because you are avidly reading and responding to ALL of the posters, here.

You are obsessed with gay folks, their supporters, and what you fantasize we are doing and thinking.

Own it.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3646 May 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and the same courts have deemed marriage to be one of those fundamental rights. The only argument is whether gender or orientation will "come to be" among those suspect classes.
And I think that's already been proven that sexual orientation is, so now we wait and see.
And Congress, which MAKES those laws, has said NO. There's nothing in the Constitution about the right to titillate yourself with whatever object suits you. Oh! You say marriage isn't about sex?

I'm glad we agree that civil unions that have no basis in sex is the ONLY solution.

Vigilante judges. Plain and simple.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3647 May 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you do, because you are avidly reading and responding to ALL of the posters, here.
You are obsessed with gay folks, their supporters, and what you fantasize we are doing and thinking.
Own it.
I AM concerned about the law.

I don't want to hear one moment of some jabbering idiot talking about how they discovered their wee-wee!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3648 May 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the response because it's the simple truth. You won't be getting any other response, because no other is rational, sensible, or logical.
Homosexuality is not normal for YOU, if you are actually heterosexual.
It's quite normal for gay folks, and it expresses itself in all the ways that heterosexuality does.
That's it.
It's not hard to understand.
Pretending you know otherwise is just not logical. Rather like insisting the moon is made of green cheese, despite all evidence to the contrary. YOU can believe it with every fiber in your being, but it's just not true.
No! No! That's the response because its all about the wee-wee.

Obsessive-compulsive behavior. Put some science on the table, not empty dogma. Science? Gays don't breed means gay genes get phased out of the gene pool.

The government shouldn't be raising livestock anyway.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3649 May 28, 2013
common sense wrote:
Only a moron would think that gays can get married.
Funny, I think only a fool would argue against equality under the law.
anonymous wrote:
Only a completely idiotic, microcephalic moron would think it's a civil rights issue.
....and you're a dummy-dumb-dummy!
3 questions.
1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws?
2. Are homosexuals persons?
3. Is marriage a protection of the law?(it's a trick question, the answer is yes).
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3650 May 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, I think only a fool would argue against equality under the law.
<quoted text>
3 questions.
1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws?
2. Are homosexuals persons?
3. Is marriage a protection of the law?(it's a trick question, the answer is yes).
Simple question! No tricks!

What does marriage protect you from?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3651 May 28, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Simple question! No tricks!
What does marriage protect you from?
It establishes around 1,000 legal rights and protection at the state and federal levels.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overvie...
Care to make a point? How about to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3652 May 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, I think only a fool would argue against equality under the law.
<quoted text>
3 questions.
1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws?
2. Are homosexuals persons?
3. Is marriage a protection of the law?(it's a trick question, the answer is yes).
The state offers the protections of marriage to anyone that takes the option to get married,and marriage is when any man unites with any woman ,regardless of whom they are, in matrimony.Attraction challenged people are given the option as well ,just like everyone else ,but they decide not to take that option because it doesnt agree with their lifestyle ,but the state still offers them that option just like it offers everyone the option to get married so the state already fulfills its legal obligation to provide everyone equal protection of the law.

What you actually want is for the state to change the meaning of marriage to include attraction challenged people ,but that would mean going against millenia of tradition and culture for 95 percent of its population and offending quite a lot of them ,so i would say its against the state interest to do so.Its like saying,everyone see's the color red as red,but a small minority of people who are colorblind see it as brown ,so we have to change the meaning of the word red to include brown as well.It just doesnt make sense.
It would be so much easier for you to get the state to recognize your unions under another name and fight to have the same rights as marriage, as then you would have the majority of the population on your side.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3653 May 28, 2013
common sense wrote:
The state offers the protections of marriage to anyone that takes the option to get married,and marriage is when any man unites with any woman ,regardless of whom they are, in matrimony.Attraction challenged people are given the option as well ,just like everyone else ,but they decide not to take that option because it doesnt agree with their lifestyle ,but the state still offers them that option just like it offers everyone the option to get married so the state already fulfills its legal obligation to provide everyone equal protection of the law.
Attraction challenged, how dumb do you want to make yourself out to be? You already aren’t making yourself look good.
You’ve yet to indicate any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
common sense wrote:
What you actually want is for the state to change the meaning of marriage to include attraction challenged people ,but that would mean going against millenia of tradition and culture for 95 percent of its population and offending quite a lot of them ,so i would say its against the state interest to do so.Its like saying,everyone see's the color red as red,but a small minority of people who are colorblind see it as brown ,so we have to change the meaning of the word red to include brown as well.It just doesnt make sense.
And? The constitution require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and thus far, you have been incapable of articulating any compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
As for offending an unspecified, but “quite a lot”, of the populace, that is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. You don’t have the right to own a gun, speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc, only if everybody thinks it’s OK. Constitutional rights are not predicated upon popular opinion.
common sense wrote:
It would be so much easier for you to get the state to recognize your unions under another name and fight to have the same rights as marriage, as then you would have the majority of the population on your side.
Of course, separate is not equal, and you have no valid argument to deny equality.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3654 May 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Attraction challenged, how dumb do you want to make yourself out to be? You already aren’t making yourself look good.
You’ve yet to indicate any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
<quoted text>
And? The constitution require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and thus far, you have been incapable of articulating any compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
As for offending an unspecified, but “quite a lot”, of the populace, that is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. You don’t have the right to own a gun, speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc, only if everybody thinks it’s OK. Constitutional rights are not predicated upon popular opinion.
<quoted text>
Of course, separate is not equal, and you have no valid argument to deny equality.
Well i would say that my argument is valid and makes common sense.Just because you and the rest of the attraction challenged minority disagree with it ,doesnt make it wrong.

Also most of the laws of the land have been made and changed when a majority of people agreed with them ,not just because a small vocal minority find loopholes and have people in influential places to advance their cause.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3655 May 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It establishes around 1,000 legal rights and protection at the state and federal levels.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overvie...
Care to make a point? How about to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Read the question! WHAT DOES IT PROTECT YOU FROM?

Nice word, "protection" ,,,,but another sound bite of empty gibberish, it seems. Marriage is NOT an act of protection. It's an unfair privilege with distinct undertones of religious bias and class warfare. Any such contract should be available to any citizen, regardless of their sexual relationships and breeding should never be subsidized by the government.

You're just a tool of the Welfare State, it seems....Or you can answer the question.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3656 May 29, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the question! WHAT DOES IT PROTECT YOU FROM?
Nice word, "protection" ,,,,but another sound bite of empty gibberish, it seems. Marriage is NOT an act of protection. It's an unfair privilege with distinct undertones of religious bias and class warfare. Any such contract should be available to any citizen, regardless of their sexual relationships and breeding should never be subsidized by the government.
You're just a tool of the Welfare State, it seems....Or you can answer the question.
what religious bias and class warfare? please be specific.

you still have yet to back up your claims about the wealthy using more gov't services. it seems you are the class warfare monger, without any facts to back up your jealousy of those who actually succeed in life...(hint..it IS your fault you are a failure in life, it is not that the game is rigged against you...)
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3657 May 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Attraction challenged, how dumb do you want to make yourself out to be? You already aren’t making yourself look good.
You’ve yet to indicate any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
<quoted text>
And? The constitution require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and thus far, you have been incapable of articulating any compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
As for offending an unspecified, but “quite a lot”, of the populace, that is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. You don’t have the right to own a gun, speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc, only if everybody thinks it’s OK. Constitutional rights are not predicated upon popular opinion.
<quoted text>
Of course, separate is not equal, and you have no valid argument to deny equality.
Hey, Civil Behavior Challanged!

Along with your continued vigilante misunderstanding that "State Interest" means ANYTHING other than the public interest as defined by existing law, your hypocrisy just doesn't stop.

Since when is taxation laws that benefit married people anything but a BS lie about "separate but equal". Sorry, Parse Bunny. I want the cash in my hand and I want it NOW! I don't want any loser promise of a rebate from our bankrupt government. CASH! NOW!

DO IT! NOW!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3658 May 29, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
.... Sorry, Parse Bunny. I want the cash in my hand and I want it NOW! I don't want any loser promise of a rebate from our bankrupt government. CASH! NOW!
DO IT! NOW!
You already have it, Dear, and you are taking it out of the pockets of married gay couples, to the detriment of their own families.

Why can't you stand on your own two feet? Do you really need to be subsidized by other American families?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3659 May 29, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Civil Behavior Challanged!
Along with your continued vigilante misunderstanding that "State Interest" means ANYTHING other than the public interest as defined by existing law, your hypocrisy just doesn't stop.
Since when is taxation laws that benefit married people anything but a BS lie about "separate but equal". Sorry, Parse Bunny. I want the cash in my hand and I want it NOW! I don't want any loser promise of a rebate from our bankrupt government. CASH! NOW!
DO IT! NOW!
still harping on an issue that has nothing ot do with SSM, huh? thought you'd figure that out by now. if you have a beef with our tax laws, you should be on a tax law thread. as long as there are marriage benefits, SScouples should also get them.

but as we have seen, you are just using these strawmen to try and lie to your self about your prejudices and bigotry...no-one else is being fooled but you...
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3660 May 29, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You already have it, Dear, and you are taking it out of the pockets of married gay couples, to the detriment of their own families.
Why can't you stand on your own two feet? Do you really need to be subsidized by other American families?
Now that's just irrational. You come to a forum to just be a troll?

Figured as much. No point in responding to complete fantasy.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3661 May 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>still harping on an issue that has nothing ot do with SSM, huh? thought you'd figure that out by now. if you have a beef with our tax laws, you should be on a tax law thread. as long as there are marriage benefits, SScouples should also get them.
but as we have seen, you are just using these strawmen to try and lie to your self about your prejudices and bigotry...no-one else is being fooled but you...
No, the simple strawman is that the topic is about civil rights. You can always engage in a ceremony. You can always share your income and resources. Nobody is stopping you.

You want free money!

That's all there is to it.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3662 May 29, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the question! WHAT DOES IT PROTECT YOU FROM?
...
Let's see. Along with the marriage license comes 1200 or so basic protections and privileges, both state and civil, from allowing a couple to have a safety deposit box in both names, to allowing one spouse to put the other on their health care at work, right up to survivor benefits with Social Security.

So, by providing stability, security, and all of those other nice things, marriage helps to protect families in many ways.

Do you really deny that?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3663 May 29, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the simple strawman is that the topic is about civil rights. You can always engage in a ceremony. You can always share your income and resources. Nobody is stopping you.
You want free money!That's all there is to it.
shit, you're even stupider than I thought! how is keeping the money you made getting free money?

you don't even understand the arguments you are trying to use to support you bigotry. most bigots are stupid like you.

amazing dude...such an epic fail. how is it you are abloe to show your face continually after being repeatedly shown to not have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about? do you have not one ounce of pride or self-esteem?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3664 May 29, 2013
Sorry. This group has been reduced to simple trolling. No new ideas. The only dialog here is turning into hate peddling. I don't want to go there nor do I need to defend myself on absurd notions about my role. It is my own, not chosen by the State or any self-appointed prig in the community.

Married people are selfish bigots. The gay community obviously wants to appeal to that part of human nature. I'd like to think that there is better out there but I won't prop up anyone who gambles on breeding that they can't afford.

Subsidizing breeding is a choice that the extended family can make, but it's not the government's job. It never will be. To assume so will lead to war, which I won't lift a finger to support either.

Only the public can decide if they've crossed the line. Only they can pay for their mistakes. This debate is dead though.

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 43 min Jacques Ottawa 231,014
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Into The Night 62,314
News The Trump victory, the threat to California's g... 8 hr Mikey 18
News OK, so, pota s legal. Now what? Sat ThomasA 18
News California attorney general pick pledges affron... Sat Trump your President 13
News Group says it has sued Dow over pesticide used ... Dec 1 ThomasA 3
News University of California digs in to fight Trump... Dec 1 tomin cali 1
More from around the web