Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61391 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: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5268 Sep 7, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>Good, then don't expect the rest of us 98% to put up with your piss ant 2% demands. We aren't listening and the pendulum will swing back to the right sooner than you think. Besides, we don't have any use for sexual predators in our "club."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20...
KANSAS CITY -- A Missouri man was arraigned Thursday on charges that he recklessly infected a sexual partner with the virus that causes AIDS, and a prosecutor said he potentially could have infected 300 more people in two states.

David Mangum, 37, faces a felony charge in Stoddard County Circuit Court in southeastern Missouri accusing him of exposing a 29-year-old man to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes a life-threatening failure of the immune system commonly known as AIDS, according to court documents.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/30/98...
Original post: A Michigan man has been charged with felony sex offenses after he told police he was HIV-positive and had set out to intentionally infect as many people as he could, police said. Health officials have issued an alert warning that "possibly hundreds of people have been exposed to HIV."
Advertise | AdChoices

The man, identified as David Dean Smith, 51, of Comstock Park, north of Grand Rapids, was arraigned Wednesday on a second count of "AIDS-sexual penetration with an uninformed partner" after police said they had identified a second possible victim.
Largely bisexual males infecting females and is reported as heterosexual spread. More accurate would be heterosexual sex with bisexual males. No protection. Seems some get angry because HIV will put a hamper on their multiple partner perverted sex life so they don't care about infecting others. Disgusting.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5269 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Lots of gay priests too! I guess it goes along with that silly celibacy lie.
BTW - Check your facts. The "authorities" that you claim have total dominion over the truth are almost exclusively those of West European origin or colonial states of particularly English origin.
This isn't science. It's politics.
your meds seem off again, anonymous...

you seem to be having whole conversations in your head and then posting only parts of it to include others...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5270 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20...
<quoted text>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/30/98...
<quoted text>
Largely bisexual males infecting females and is reported as heterosexual spread. More accurate would be heterosexual sex with bisexual males. No protection. Seems some get angry because HIV will put a hamper on their multiple partner perverted sex life so they don't care about infecting others. Disgusting.
so monogamous same sex marriage would be a good thing then, wouldn't it?

your prejudice and fear is getting in the way of clear thinking...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5271 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
HEY DUMMY! GROW A HEAD! HEU! HEU!
I've already read the definition. It doesn't apply to gay marriage.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
No law protecting gay behavior means no compelling governmental interest and no Strict Scrutiny.
Tell us all how you know how to interpret that better than than the Supreme Court does.
Looks like someone missed their nap. Not to mention a course on logical thought.
Marriage is a fundamental right, the US Supreme Court has held as much on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
So, can you indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? If you can, you had best contact the legal counsel of those defending traditional marriage, because they have not been able to come up with such an argument to justify their position.
Simply put, no such reason exists, and allowing same sex couples the right to legally marry does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.
Thanks for playing.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5272 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't start whimpering when people decide that you're "fighting" back against democracy.
........
So, democracy means that a majority can, for any reason or no reason at all, decide to strip basic civil and human rights from a tax-paying and law-abiding minority?

When did this start? There seems to have been a great many laws and SC court decisions that are telling me just the opposite of what you are.

Why, our Constitution and it's amendments even don't agree with you. Can you tell me when it was revoked, and what replaced it?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5273 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently YOU seem to think that it's OK to further marginalize about 43 percent of the law-abiding population in favor of less than 2 percent.
...and don't get me started on that self-important "law-abiding" compost! Suffice it to say that "law-abiding" and "marginalized" tend to be opposites, but some people go out of their way to appear marginalized. I wonder what other behaviors they actively pursue?
"Law-Abiding" is compost?

That's a sad thought. but par for your course, I guess.

And, unless you can prove that one person's marriage "marginalizes" another person, you might want to think about it for awhile, and come back when you have a better argument.

You see, most people just aren't that insecure. At least, I would hope not. If you are, and you believe so many others are, then you are to be pitied. If hurting other Americans and their families is what makes you feel validated and secure, then expect to feel a bit marginalized.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5274 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yes. I'm quite aware of our tippy-tap, bathroom stall dancers in Washington. The politically active tend to have private agendas and well... my personal observation is that certain types of people are far more used to lying than others. But we won't go there if you don't want to talk about it.
So now you are fantasizing about gay males in restrooms, when everyone else is talking about marriage law and family life.

Why do you do that? It's creepy.

Marriage certainly isn't a 'Private Agenda". It's valued and engaged in by a large percentage of the American population, and for good reason. The only thing you should be thinking about here is formulating the reasons - if there are any - that gay folks and their families won't benefit from the legal recognition of their marriages, and if straight folks or society will be harmed if MORE people legally marry.

Good luck with that.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5275 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your meds seem off again, anonymous...
you seem to be having whole conversations in your head and then posting only parts of it to include others...
Heh! Pot, meet kettle?

Or perhaps a better way of saying it:

woodtick.....

You seem to be saying something without a tangible link to associate it with, then you grammatically fall off a cliff.....

No. I think you just wanna be an aroused monkey and insult people! Hue! Hue! Hue! ;)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5276 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so monogamous same sex marriage would be a good thing then, wouldn't it?
Yes it is good for society and children who need both male and female parents as role models assuming healthy adult parents.
your prejudice and fear is getting in the way of clear thinking...
Personal attacks as a substitute for logical argument. It is not about me. Besides i do not fear perversion. More disgust. There is a difference. Your average multiple partner homosexual has nothing really to fear from Christians. They should fear their homosexual partner. Assume they are infected with HIV and will lie to cover up so they can engage in unprotected sex with whoever is willing. Same with females who engage in sex acts with bisexual males. They should also assume they are infected. Typhoid Mary types who will infect them with HIV which will bring about drastic health consequences and all but eliminate their sex lives with healthy male partners. What healthy male will want to have sex with an infected female? HIV is a true relationship breaker and brings on a whole new meaning to the term lifetime celibacy.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5277 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it is good for society and children who need both male and female parents as role models assuming healthy adult parents.
<quoted text> Personal attacks as a substitute for logical argument. It is not about me. Besides i do not fear perversion. More disgust. There is a difference. Your average multiple partner homosexual has nothing really to fear from Christians. They should fear their homosexual partner. Assume they are infected with HIV and will lie to cover up so they can engage in unprotected sex with whoever is willing. Same with females who engage in sex acts with bisexual males. They should also assume they are infected. Typhoid Mary types who will infect them with HIV which will bring about drastic health consequences and all but eliminate their sex lives with healthy male partners. What healthy male will want to have sex with an infected female? HIV is a true relationship breaker and brings on a whole new meaning to the term lifetime celibacy.
off a little non relevant rant, huh?

your previous post, as i pointed out was clearly illogical and based on your clear fear and prejudice.

fear and prejudice usually prevents clear thinking, it clearly does in your case.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5278 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh! Pot, meet kettle?
Or perhaps a better way of saying it:
woodtick.....
You seem to be saying something without a tangible link to associate it with, then you grammatically fall off a cliff.....
No. I think you just wanna be an aroused monkey and insult people! Hue! Hue! Hue! ;)
your post drifted far from anything being discussed. you clearly have some serious issues with staying on a logic thread, or using logic at all. as you pointed out again in this post...
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5279 Sep 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like someone missed their nap. Not to mention a course on logical thought.
Marriage is a fundamental right, the US Supreme Court has held as much on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
So, can you indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? If you can, you had best contact the legal counsel of those defending traditional marriage, because they have not been able to come up with such an argument to justify their position.
Simply put, no such reason exists, and allowing same sex couples the right to legally marry does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.
Thanks for playing.
No. Individual judges of the Supreme Court have claimed that marriage is a right. The question is whether or not it's a compelling government interest.

There are no laws defining marriage other than DOMA, the one saying that it is only between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court may have decided that law to be unconstitutional but they cannot make a law of any kind. None whatsoever!

Invalidating DOMA only demonstrates that the Feds have unfair tax and benefit laws and that is largely because the states have unfair marriage laws. The 14th Amendment obligates the Feds to treat all citizens the same but it is the states that don't all treat their citizens the same.

You've got a legal quandary between State's Rights and Federal Socialism. I've already stated two legal solutions. Either support civil unions that have no basis on sexual relationships or stop giving tax breaks to people based on the supposition that the country needs to subsidize breeding.

You don't matter. The selfish, lying Liberals matter. They are one form of organized crime, just as the robber barons of the Conservatives are organized crime. Both problems have to be fixed.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5280 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your post drifted far from anything being discussed. you clearly have some serious issues with staying on a logic thread, or using logic at all. as you pointed out again in this post...
No, you have problems with paying attention to anything other than what you want to hear. Kind of childish, but you won't learn if I just throw labels at you the way you do with others, don't you think?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5281 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>off a little non relevant rant, huh?
your previous post, as i pointed out was clearly illogical and based on your clear fear and prejudice.
fear and prejudice usually prevents clear thinking, it clearly does in your case.
Just noting that this pattern isn't just about me.

Nope! It's all about Woodtick, isn't it?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5282 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>off a little non relevant rant, huh?
your previous post, as i pointed out was clearly illogical and based on your clear fear and prejudice.
fear and prejudice usually prevents clear thinking, it clearly does in your case.
Accusations and or reaction is not an argument. Is a logical argument to difficult for you? You cannot defend your position logically? I posted a valid factual information and all you have in return is BS.

Private acts of vice when they become widespread affect important public interests. This includes behaviors which spread diseases which include drug usage and perverted sex. People who engage in this type behavior are enslaved to their sex drive almost like a drug addict needs drugs. Because they are enslaved they have to have it and will lie and put innocents at risk in order to get it.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5283 Sep 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are fantasizing about gay males in restrooms, when everyone else is talking about marriage law and family life.
Why do you do that? It's creepy.
Marriage certainly isn't a 'Private Agenda". It's valued and engaged in by a large percentage of the American population, and for good reason. The only thing you should be thinking about here is formulating the reasons - if there are any - that gay folks and their families won't benefit from the legal recognition of their marriages, and if straight folks or society will be harmed if MORE people legally marry.
Good luck with that.
Hmmm. OK. I'll bite!

Are you not familiar with any of the recent Republican Congressmen gay sex scandals? Never hooked up in airport bathrooms, have you?

OR... are you just doing what gays do many, many times a day? Lying!

Lying is not a culture. Lying is not a community. Lying is something that has become the norm in Congress, and I'll be honest. That's primarily because the Liberal order has broken down, allowing the Conservatives to do what they have always done without restraint.

I blame it on the Baby Boomers. The eldest sons and daughters of that generation always get their way with Mom and Dad by lying. The balance was lost and now it's going to take some very confrontational actions to get the balance back again.

...but that doesn't concern you. It's all about you and gay marriage. Yell it out LOUDER! IT'S ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!! AAAUUUGGGGHHH!!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5284 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Accusations and or reaction is not an argument. Is a logical argument to difficult for you? You cannot defend your position logically? I posted a valid factual information and all you have in return is BS.
Private acts of vice when they become widespread affect important public interests. This includes behaviors which spread diseases which include drug usage and perverted sex. People who engage in this type behavior are enslaved to their sex drive almost like a drug addict needs drugs. Because they are enslaved they have to have it and will lie and put innocents at risk in order to get it.
this is not a logical argument in any way shape or form. it is your prejudice tossing out falsehoods and stereotypes that have nothing to do with the real world or the issue at hand.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5285 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. OK. I'll bite!
Are you not familiar with any of the recent Republican Congressmen gay sex scandals? Never hooked up in airport bathrooms, have you?
OR... are you just doing what gays do many, many times a day? Lying!
Lying is not a culture. Lying is not a community. Lying is something that has become the norm in Congress, and I'll be honest. That's primarily because the Liberal order has broken down, allowing the Conservatives to do what they have always done without restraint.
I blame it on the Baby Boomers. The eldest sons and daughters of that generation always get their way with Mom and Dad by lying. The balance was lost and now it's going to take some very confrontational actions to get the balance back again.
...but that doesn't concern you. It's all about you and gay marriage. Yell it out LOUDER! IT'S ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!! AAAUUUGGGGHHH!!!!
yup, your meds are definitely off.

you are incapable of rational discussion...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5286 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
No. Individual judges of the Supreme Court have claimed that marriage is a right. The question is whether or not it's a compelling government interest.
Do you understand how the court works?
US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."
Simply put, the court arbitrates disputes concerning the law, and they are the final say as to issues of law. The legislature can act to address decisions of the court by passing new legislation.

The fact remains the majorities on the court have ruled on 14 separate occasions that marriage IS in fact a fundamental right.
anonymous wrote:
There are no laws defining marriage other than DOMA, the one saying that it is only between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court may have decided that law to be unconstitutional but they cannot make a law of any kind. None whatsoever!
Actually, there are laws in every state in the union, each of which defines marriage in that jurisdiction.

It is questionable whether DOMA is even constitutional, since the federal constitution does not delegate the authority to regulate marriage to the federal government, nor does it deny that power to the states. In short, Congress lacked the constitutional authority to pass the DOMA, and it violates the 10th Amendment.
anonymous wrote:
Invalidating DOMA only demonstrates that the Feds have unfair tax and benefit laws and that is largely because the states have unfair marriage laws. The 14th Amendment obligates the Feds to treat all citizens the same but it is the states that don't all treat their citizens the same.
Actually, it shows they overstepped their authority.
anonymous wrote:
You've got a legal quandary between State's Rights and Federal Socialism. I've already stated two legal solutions. Either support civil unions that have no basis on sexual relationships or stop giving tax breaks to people based on the supposition that the country needs to subsidize breeding.
Actually, your argument still doesn't pass muster. You might have a valid argument to end governmental marriage, but you don't have a valid argument against same sex marriage. Try again.
anonymous wrote:
You don't matter. The selfish, lying Liberals matter. They are one form of organized crime, just as the robber barons of the Conservatives are organized crime. Both problems have to be fixed.
I'm in no way selfish. You are the one arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law, which is unconstitutional at best.

Tell me, how does it feel to think such unAmerican thoughts?

Equality has continued to prevail in the courts, because people who hold arguments similar to your own can advance no rational argument against equality. Allowing same sex couples the right to marry doesn't impact you or your rights.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5287 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>this is not a logical argument in any way shape or form. it is your prejudice tossing out falsehoods and stereotypes that have nothing to do with the real world or the issue at hand.
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10340/Un...

''George: Marriage is critical to the success of any society because it is the way that mothers and fathers are united to each other in a relationship uniquely apt for the project of child rearing. Now, obviously, law and the state have a profound interest in successful child rearing. Every other social good depends on that.

So, although the state did not invent marriage — marriage, properly understood, is a pre-political institution — the state rightly and necessarily recognizes marriages, distinguishes marital from nonmarital forms of relationships, and supports, regulates and promotes marriage in the hope of sustaining a vibrant marriage culture.

This explains why, historically and across cultures, governments have formally recognized and regulated marriages, even though they have not done that for ordinary friendships, relationships among siblings or purely religious sacraments and ceremonies, such as baptisms and bar mitzvahs.''

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) 2 hr Earthling-1 60,205
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Dr Guru 217,148
News California Lawmakers Poised To Make It Illegal ... 14 hr Into The Night 143
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 19 hr JackArmStrong 1,390
News Vallejo city manager's pay ranks 3rd in Bay Are... Wed Kurshan Village I... 5
Need Urgent Financial assistance or Loan? Conta... (Jun '13) Jun 28 Mr Williams Hood 17
News Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, ren... Jun 28 PFfff 8
More from around the web