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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5514 Sep 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
What you have done is prove that there is no state interest in marriage! There's nothing to protect! Obviously there's no need to subsidize it or deny any polygamist their style of it either.
...or are you just out for gubbermint money?..looking for that segue into applying Affirmative Action to gays too? Perhaps you think gays should always get to sit in the front seats on the bus too!
Sooner or later, even a Socialist has to realize that they are flaming nitwits!
Wow, you aren't terribly bright. A state interest is needed to deny, not to grant a right.

Every state in the union has marriage, and thus far you seem to lack the brain cells to offer a valid state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5515 Sep 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have done is prove that there is no state interest in marriage! There's nothing to protect!......
Receiving all basic civil and human rights is the default position for every American. No American needs to prove they are worthy of them. However, the state must have some interest if they are to be denied to certain Americans.

What is the rational state interest in denying a gay couple legal marriage? Does it protect others, or the state itself? Does it improve the quality of life for anyone? Does a legal marriage for same sex couples harm anyone or anything?

Just what is the valid state interest in taking this one civil right away from a couple based only on gender?

Let's hear your take on it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5516 Sep 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I state a historical fact.
You have no valid responce and are unable to disprove it by stating even one single exception.
I've stated many times why infertile couples are allowed to marry. Never been a problem in any country.
I have not stated my beliefs. I have stated facts. You are falsely trying to deprive me of that right.
Why do you hate freedom?
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have done is to prove that there is no state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage.
Congratulations.
Done no such thing. Moreover, you and I both know SCOTUS has disagreed with you more than once.

You are deliberately avoiding the historical practice.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5517 Sep 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you aren't terribly bright. A state interest is needed to deny, not to grant a right.
Every state in the union has marriage, and thus far you seem to lack the brain cells to offer a valid state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Tell me where THE LAW grant marriage as a right! Nope! It's just opinion of populist judges, ain't it?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5518 Sep 14, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Receiving all basic civil and human rights is the default position for every American. No American needs to prove they are worthy of them. However, the state must have some interest if they are to be denied to certain Americans.
What is the rational state interest in denying a gay couple legal marriage? Does it protect others, or the state itself? Does it improve the quality of life for anyone? Does a legal marriage for same sex couples harm anyone or anything?
Just what is the valid state interest in taking this one civil right away from a couple based only on gender?
Let's hear your take on it.
Show me a document that describes "civil" rights. Just show me!
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5520 Sep 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly don't know what mating behavior is.
Look up genetic chimera.
Song of Solomon has nothing to do with property and everything to do with love. Your concept of marriage is based on gay twirl.
And your concept of marriage is based on Song of Solomon?

Have many wives did Solomon have?

p.s. Song of Solomon is an allegory about the relationship between God and Israel.

You think marriage got its cues from Song of Solomon? Yeah.... you should pretty much shut the hell up now.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5521 Sep 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me where THE LAW grant marriage as a right! Nope! It's just opinion of populist judges, ain't it?
Um.... did you sleep through the class where it was explained that the decisions of SCOTUS have the same effect as the Constitution .
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5522 Sep 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have done is prove that there is no state interest in marriage! There's nothing to protect! Obviously there's no need to subsidize it or deny any polygamist their style of it either.
...or are you just out for gubbermint money?..looking for that segue into applying Affirmative Action to gays too? Perhaps you think gays should always get to sit in the front seats on the bus too!
Sooner or later, even a Socialist has to realize that they are flaming nitwits!
You conclusions about polygamy reveal YOU as the true nitwit.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5523 Sep 14, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
And your concept of marriage is based on Song of Solomon?
Have many wives did Solomon have?
p.s. Song of Solomon is an allegory about the relationship between God and Israel.
You think marriage got its cues from Song of Solomon? Yeah.... you should pretty much shut the hell up now.
Where did I say that?

You claimed marriage was about property until recently. I proved you wrong by thousands of years.

You are right about the allegory. Apparently people knew thousands of years ago about marriage and love before you did, and used it as an allegory.

You've been schooled by a near senile old man boy.

I mean idiot.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5524 Sep 14, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... did you sleep through the class where it was explained that the decisions of SCOTUS have the same effect as the Constitution .
Not so.

The Constitution can only be changed by amendment.

SCOTUS can change on a whim. And then reverse itself.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5525 Sep 14, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... did you sleep through the class where it was explained that the decisions of SCOTUS have the same effect as the Constitution .
Dred Scott? Minor Happersett? 9-0 against women's voting?

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/li...
The idea of judicial supremacy—or the idea that the supremacy of the Constitution entails judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation—has come to be so widely held not only in the legal profession but also by the public at large that today it seems unremarkable. As the nation prepares for our annual celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, however, we have an occasion to consider just how remarkable it is, and just how far it is from the Great Emancipator’s understanding of the legitimate scope of federal judicial power...
Like Jefferson, Lincoln believed that courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, could violate the Constitution and even undermine constitutional government. That judges, whenever they invalidate executive or legislative acts, purport to speak in the name of the Constitution, and claim merely to be giving effect to its commands, was in Lincoln’s view no guarantee against judicial despotism. Judges exercising effectively unconstrained power were, in his view, no less a threat to the Constitution than other governmental officers exercising such power. His fear was not that judges would sometimes err in their constitutional rulings. Given human fallibility, that is in­evitable and unremarkable. His fear, rather, was that judges are capable of behaving unconstitutionally, just as other officials are capable of behaving unconstitutionally, by exceeding the authority granted to them under the Constitution and thereby usurping the authority allocated to other officials in a delicate system of checks and balances. Indeed, Lincoln believed that judicial violations of the Constitution were in certain respects graver matters than the violations of elected officials.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5526 Sep 14, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... did you sleep through the class where it was explained that the decisions of SCOTUS have the same effect as the Constitution .
I think that lesson went "The Supreme Court interprets the law. It doesn't make the law".

You're not going to accept that, are you?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5527 Sep 14, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>You conclusions about polygamy reveal YOU as the true nitwit.
My conclusions about polygamy reflect the ambiguous nature of the legality of marriage.

The inability of others to separate absolutes from Socialism is...

Well, it's certainly socialistic. I might choose another word if I wasn't so diplomatic in my tendencies.
World Traveler

Sydney, Australia

#5528 Sep 14, 2013
Rather die a flucking hermit!!!!

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5529 Sep 15, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>As opposed to you fecal funsters, who will screw anything with a pair of balls on it and a five o'clock shadow. Then wonder why you have to survive on meds for the rest of your short lives.
that's one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. just because someone is gay or lesbian doesn't mean that they'll have sex with just anyone of the same sex, any more than you would have sex with just anyone of the opposite sex. You don't understand homosexuality at all.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5530 Sep 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that lesson went "The Supreme Court interprets the law. It doesn't make the law".
You're not going to accept that, are you?
All decisions should be 9-0. Unless it is unanimous, someone in the court either has no idea on how to interpret the law or they're making the law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5531 Sep 15, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
You don't understand homosexuality at all.
What's to understand?
Gay: Male/male, female/female.
Straight: Male/female.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5532 Sep 15, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
that's one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. just because someone is gay or lesbian doesn't mean that they'll have sex with just anyone of the same sex, any more than you would have sex with just anyone of the opposite sex. You don't understand homosexuality at all.
Unfortunately, that's one statistic that is taboo to mainstream observers. Statistics that upset the Liberal agenda and demonstrate the foolishness of their logic tend to get swept under the carpet. I can't find a mainstream publication wiling to touch it, just religious, conservative or blatantly pro-gay publications.

Might as well go looking for statistics on the IQs of minority groups or the pay disparity in favor of married people. Some things just don't get talked about.

Without any good statistics, I just won't do anything to invite a gay to start jabbering about himself.....But I'm not going to shame anyone for insulting him back after he's shot off his big mouth either.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5533 Sep 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that?
You claimed marriage was about property until recently. I proved you wrong by thousands of years.
You are right about the allegory. Apparently people knew thousands of years ago about marriage and love before you did, and used it as an allegory.
You've been schooled by a near senile old man boy.
I mean idiot.
Smile.
Liar. I said marriage BEGAN being about property and transfer of wealth.

If you have to lie to make your point, do you really think you made anything... other than a fool of yourself?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5534 Sep 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so.
The Constitution can only be changed by amendment.
SCOTUS can change on a whim. And then reverse itself.
READ IT AGAIN

"Um.... did you sleep through the class where it was explained that the decisions of SCOTUS have the same effect as the Constitution ."

Where did I say ANYTHING about changing the Constitution?

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 min Patriot AKA Bozo 62,872
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 53 min JRB 233,779
looking for older men to have fun with 3 hr Grinder1373 1
News Political Earthquake In California Gay Conserva... 5 hr Raspberry3705 4
read this if you're looking for a real woman!! 6 hr Syrup2995 1
Election California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr Grape Soda 16,061
News Recycled wastewater to give Los Angeles County ... (Nov '15) 16 hr Ronald 5
More from around the web