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.

Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5535 Sep 15, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Dred Scott? Minor Happersett? 9-0 against women's voting?
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/li...
<quoted text>
Are those decisions still in effect, or did ANOTHER decision or law overturn them?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5536 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?
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 ."

Did I write ANYTHING about creating laws? No.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5538 Sep 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Or.....

it could be those statistics you cannot find don't exist.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5539 Sep 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Are those decisions still in effect, or did ANOTHER decision or law overturn them?
Your premise was proven wrong. This was your statement.
Um.... did you sleep through the class where it was explained that the decisions of SCOTUS have the same effect as the Constitution .
You made the idiot statement, not me. No sense in trying to put a happy face on a major [email protected] up, Einstein.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5540 Sep 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Now you are shifting it what you said???

You still are an idiot, and you still are wrong.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5541 Sep 15, 2013
In the end, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5542 Sep 15, 2013
A 19-year Air Force veteran who was relieved of his duties because he disagreed with his openly gay commander over gay marriage is now facing a formal investigation after he told me his story.

Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk found himself at odds with his Lackland Air Force Base commander after he objected to her plans to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality. During the conversation, his commander ordered him to share his personal views on homosexuality.

“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” he told me.“We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.”

In one of her first meetings with Monk, the commander expressed concern about the chaplain who would deliver the benediction at her promotion ceremony.

“She said she wanted a chaplain but objected to one particular chaplain that she called a bigot because he preached that homosexuality is a sin,” Monk said.

After he was relieved of his duties, the Liberty Institute filed a religious discrimination complaint on his behalf.

Last week, Monk was supposed to meet with an Air Force investigator tasked with gathering facts about the complaint. But when he arrived, Monk was immediately read his Miranda Rights and accused of providing false statements in a conversation Monk had with me.

“I immediately got the sense that this was retaliation against me for coming forward with my religious discrimination complaint,” he said.

The accusations against Monk are a court-martial offense in the Air Force – and it’s quite possible that the 19-year veteran with a spotless record could be booted out of the military because of his Christian beliefs.

And he’s not the only Christian at Lackland Air Force Base facing persecution for opposing gay marriage, according to Monk’s pastor.

Steve Branson is the pastor of Village Parkway Baptist Church, about five miles from the Air Force base. He tells me that as many as a half dozen of his church members are currently facing persecution on the base for their religious beliefs.

“Sgt. Monk is just the tip of the iceberg,” the pastor tells me.“Anyone who doesn’t hold to the right view on homosexuality is having a very difficult time.”

Pastor Branson told me Monk is an outstanding member of the congregation.

“One of the finest men I’ve ever met in my life,” he said.“He lost his job because of what he thought. He’s paying the price.”

Monk tells me Christians are trading places with homosexuals.

“Christians have to go into the closet,” he said.“We are being robbed of our dignity and respect. We can’t be who we are.”

I asked Sgt. Monk why he just couldn’t keep quiet knowing that the Obama administration has staffed the Pentagon with anti-Christian civilians. Why risk getting booted out of the military?

Sgt. Monk told me he decided to take a stand for his three teenage sons.

“Every night after dinner we read the Bible together,” he said.“I tell the boys we’ve got a lot of stuff going on in this world and we need people to stand up. My boys know what I’m going through. They are looking at me – wanting to know how I’m going to handle this.”

He said the Monk family has a “family ethos.”

“The Monk family will be strong in mind, strong in soul, they will have strong character and strong work ethic,” he said.“That is the ethos of our family. That’s what I hope they see in me.”
He hopes his boys will see “a man who stands upright and stands for integrity.”

Sadly, those values are no longer seen as virtuous in a military that’s been turned into a social-engineering petri dish.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/06/air...

“8 point Buck”

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#5543 Sep 15, 2013
I have a few words for you folks its a crime to have that in my behind.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5544 Sep 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
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 ."
Did I write ANYTHING about creating laws? No.
"same effect as the Constitution". One's an opinion. The other is a legal document.

SCOTUS creates decisions so it is implied that you think their decisions are the equivalent of creating laws.

Try a little less bluster and maybe a bit more communication in the name of clarity. Just what DO you think the Supreme Court has the autonomy to do on their own?

As I see it, it's the old adage about opinions and @holes! Everyone's got one and they all stink!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5545 Sep 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Or.....
it could be those statistics you cannot find don't exist.
Are you saying that nobody has ever published statistics about human promiscuity? I doubt that! It's the demographics of groups that nobody wants to touch, especially if there's one that involves an unpopular group, a large medical burden on the public and casual indulgences.

No, I'm betting that the Liberals don't talk about it because they don't like the idea that the public would reject expensive medical research that only makes life better for that group and a bunch of liberal researchers.

Of course there's exceptions to EVERYTHING. Statistics do matter though. Labeling it all as bigotry won't change a thing.
Mou Hitotsu

Perth, Australia

#5547 Sep 16, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No one here has ever lived in Sodom.
If you have a problem with gay folks, tell God to stop making us. It's not like we ASKED to be created. It's His plan, after all.
But we do ask that, since God decided that some humans were to be gay, that the rest of you afford us the same legal rights you demand.
It's only fair.
You must be so ignorant it isn't funny. God made people to be interested in the opposite sex. You weren't born gay. No one is born gay, nor were you created to be gay, what you said is wrong on so many levels I am sorry.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5548 Sep 16, 2013
Mou Hitotsu wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be so ignorant it isn't funny. God made people to be interested in the opposite sex. You weren't born gay. No one is born gay, nor were you created to be gay, what you said is wrong on so many levels I am sorry.
So, you pretend to know more about being gay than gay people do? Geesh. Talk about ignorant.

Can you prove your claims? Tell us the exact mechanism used by children going through puberty to choose to eliminate all attraction to the opposite gender and completely replace it with attraction to the same gender.

If you think that a 12-15 year old kid, who might never have MET anyone they know to be gay, can do such a magical thing? Why would they do it, knowing that they will be different from anyone else, and subject to brutal teasing? You must not have an adolescent child, if you really believe that they can and would make such an amazing "choice".

If you don't like the fact that God mad so many gay folks, and blesses our lives in so many ways, complain to HIM. But he has already explained this to you, if only you would listen.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5549 Sep 16, 2013
Jeffy 11 wrote:
I have a few words for you folks its a crime to have that in my behind.
No one wants to know what you have in your behind, but, if it's a crime, I suggest you stop immediately.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5550 Sep 16, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No one wants to know what you have in your behind, but, if it's a crime, I suggest you stop immediately.
Hmmm. It seems that you don't consider it fun to be publicly forced into a discussion on things that you don't think are appropriate to talk about with strangers. Imagine how others feel when a gay makes unwanted advances on them and the only solution is to contact a [email protected] liberal law enforcement bureaucrat who thinks it's all a joke.

....And yes! It's all a joke, if not a way to get yourself kicked out of a government job! Oh, yes! Please don't imagine that you don't have whiny, litigious gays just looking for a confrontation once they think they can get the law involved.

You don't think this is personal for those who aren't gay but it very much is, and you're not going to like the consequences. Ivory tower liberals won't help you when the public gets fed up with it all.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5551 Sep 16, 2013
Mou Hitotsu wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be so ignorant it isn't funny. God made people to be interested in the opposite sex. You weren't born gay. No one is born gay, nor were you created to be gay, what you said is wrong on so many levels I am sorry.
If there's one group of people I've seen gays empathize with, it's people with health problems like Tourette Syndrome. Tourette's isn't funny unless you're rebellious teenager who wants to shock prudes, but that's just a phase for immature kids.

Tourette's and homosexuality ARE cut from the same cloth, in my humble opinion. They both represent deficiencies in a section of the brain that I guess the best description would be "the part that separates the internal from the external." It's an obsessive/compulsive condition, but one that can be either an acquired condition or an innate one.

I think it's important in either case to understand that "funny" isn't the right response. It's like laughing at a man who is on crutches and has just fallen. It's a sign of one's own mental weaknesses regarding social discipline.

The world is filled with mentally scarred people. I think a good percentage of them post on Topix! Let's not provoke bad behavior.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5552 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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.
You've done, exactly that.

The reality remains that there is no state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage. Only a fool would think there was.

Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:

The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.

Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”

“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5553 Sep 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Tell me where THE LAW grant marriage as a right! Nope! It's just opinion of populist judges, ain't it?
Tell me, dullard, is marriage a protection of the law in every state in the union?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5554 Sep 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've done, exactly that.
The reality remains that there is no state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage. Only a fool would think there was.
Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:
The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.
Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”
“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)
To which the historical reply is, why require what a married couple must protect from? What an idiotic assertion!

Moreover, at its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.

As to child raising, which you now assert IS a part of marriage, a child deserves and needs a default mother and father, not a duplicate half.

This is simple historical, natural common sense!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5555 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
To which the historical reply is,
This should be good...
KiMare wrote:
why require what a married couple must protect from?
What were you attempting to say?
KiMare wrote:
What an idiotic assertion!
You are correct, your assertion is in fact, idiotic.
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, at its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Sorry charlie. Marriage, as it pertains to the state, is a protection of the law.
KiMare wrote:
As to child raising, which you now assert IS a part of marriage, a child deserves and needs a default mother and father, not a duplicate half.
Raising children is irrelevant. A couple, or even an individual, may raise children or not regardless of their marital status.
KiMare wrote:
This is simple historical, natural common sense!
You seem to be as ignorant of common sense a you do of the US Constitution.

Congratulations, you continue to make a fool of yourself.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5556 Sep 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
you are treated like a bigot because you ARE a bigot.
I claim the bigots are suing their Christian neighbors, bakers, florists, photographers and the States that refuse to participate in same sex weddings. I claim those are the bullies and keeping marriage one man and one woman is the centrist, middle of the road, conservative and respectful position. And I don't sue people to achieve my political goals; I vote.

Name calling is irrationality. Woody's catching on, just wait.

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 California Extends Climate Bill, Handing Gov. J... 43 min non homo pheobie 45
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Coffee Party 242,206
News California may have to move 3,000 inmates at ri... (May '13) 1 hr D Estes 8
News Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) 2 hr So sad for the lo... 27,540
News 'Not My President': Protesters Rail Against Don... (Nov '16) 22 hr Got it azz backwards 175
News California Senate OKs real estate fee to fund m... Wed toke the govt weed 23
News California lawmakers pass extension of landmark... Jul 18 Red Crosse 5
More from around the web