Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61390 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#58384 Aug 11, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually decent society is fighting to eliminate the discrimination and hatred ignorant *sswipes like you have historically inflicted upon many minority groups, including gays.
Don't forget polygamists, after all they were discriminated against decades or more before "gays" were invented.
That's because SCOTUS has ruled people don't get to vote on the fundamental rights of minority groups. The judicial branch is the interpreter of both laws and the US constitution as designed by the Founders.
Didn't they also state fundamental rights are:

"...deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” These rights must be “based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history.”

Since when did anyone vote on the fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, and thus deprive any man or woman, from exercising said fundamental right?
Actually it's un-American to whine when our system of government works the way it was designed to by the Founders. If you don't like it, emigrate to the theocracy of your choice since you constantly want to ram you religious beliefs down the throats of others.
No, it unAmerican for the federal judiciary to overstep their authority and remove from the states the power to regulate marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, deeply rooted in our nation's history, culture, and traditions.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#58385 Aug 11, 2014
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we just change the subject from hitler, we have our own problems here in America!
The Germans did invent homosexuality.

Robert Beachy: The Earliest Gay Rights Movement Started in 19th Century Germany
March 4, 2011 | Filed under: International,Local,National,P olitics,Top News | Posted by: The Seattle Lesbian

Photo: The Diary of Miss Anne Lister
Historian Robert Beachy is challenging our modern understanding of what it means to be homosexual. According to the Goucher College scholar, the earliest gay rights movement started in nineteenth-century Germany.

When the German empire was unified in 1871, the Imperial Criminal Code included a law prohibiting sexual penetration of one man by another. Questions about what types of activity should fall under the law spurred a sustained public inquiry into the nature of same-sex eroticism and sexuality in general.

“As such,[the law] created the all-important context and stimulant for the evolution of the world’s most expansive science of homosexuality,” wrote Beachy in The German Invention of Homosexuality. The full text can be read in Journal of Modern History.

According to Beachy’s website:

My recent research focuses on the origins and development of sexual identity in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Germany. My current project, Long Knives, focuses on homosexuality under the Nazi regime. I analyze the complex evolution of Nazi thought and policies toward homosexuality from open tolerance to persecution. The history of homosexuality under the Nazis illuminates the multi-faceted relationship of homosexuality to right-wing movements in contemporary Western political and social thought. My book on homosexuality in Berlin (forthcoming Alfred A. Knopf), situates the origins of modern male and female homosexual identity in Germany between the 1860s and the Weimar Republic. It suggests that it was in Berlin, rather than in other European and American cities, that contemporary gay and lesbian identity first emerged and flourished.
German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing became a vocal opponent of the German anti-sodomy law, stating that homosexuality “should not be viewed as a psychic depravity or even sickness.” His monumental Psychopathia Sexualis was first published in 1886 and continues to be a source of reference to this day.

“The encyclopedia entries suggested directly or implicitly that same-sex eroticism was a naturally occurring if uncommon phenomenon that affected a small percentage of the general population. The love that dared not speak its name, as Oscar Wilde put it, had many names, at least in German,” he wrote.

- See more at: http://theseattlelesbian.com/robert-beachy-th...

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#58386 Aug 11, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't forget polygamists, after all they were discriminated against decades or more before "gays" were invented.
Apparently they don't share your concern enough to challenge the anti-bigamy laws and marriage restrictions in court or to organize and lobby their elected representatives to change the laws. Even you don't care enough to do more whine about their plight for the sake of argument while not actually supporting their ability to engage in plural civil marriage, hypocritical Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Didn't they also state fundamental rights are:
"...deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
The fundamental right of marriage is deeply embedded in our nation's history. So is discrimination against same sex behavior and those we now call gay. Now that SCOTUS has ruled private consensual sex between same sex adults can no longer be criminalized and moral disapproval can't be used as justification for discrimination, it's now apparent that the historical discrimination that prevented gays from marrying was always unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
These rights must be “based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history.”
You do realize that quote is from the dissenting opinion and therefore is not the official ruling of the court, don't you? Of course you don't. Just as you have no clue the very next sentence was "Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just" because it obviously wasn't included in the source from which you mindlessly copied and pasted it or you chose to willfully ignore it because it undermines the assertion you're trying to make. Historical practice can in hindsight be deemed wrong and unconstitutional, which is why anti-miscegenation laws were struck down even though their history and practice preceded our nationhood in North America.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Since when did anyone vote on the fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, and thus deprive any man or woman, from exercising said fundamental right?
SCOTUS has never limited the fundamental right of marriage to a "union of husband and wife". So by placing any proposed restriction on the fundamental right to popular vote does in fact constitute voting on the fundamental rights of those whom the restriction prevents exercising said fundamental right. And SCOTUS has previously ruled fundamental rights aren't subject to vote of the outcome of any election.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, it unAmerican for the federal judiciary to overstep their authority and remove from the states the power to regulate marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, deeply rooted in our nation's history, culture, and traditions.
You're simply a lying, uneducated *sswipe, stupid Peter. The federal judiciary is exercising their power of judicial review explicitly granted to it by the federal constitution. The power of judicial review enables the judiciary to rule on the federal constitutionality of laws passed by state or federal governments or citizen initiatives. Neither citizens nor states are exempt from compliance with the mandates of the federal constitution. Newly naturalized citizens have a better grasp of how our system of government works than you do. People like you are sufficient reason to reconsider granting automatic citizenship to people simply because their parents screwed and gave birth on American soil.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#58387 Aug 11, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
They violated a law intended to prevent the "races", two specific ones primarily, "black" and "white" from marrying in order to prevent micengenation of the races. In other words mixed race babies. Maybe they didn't realize they didn't have to marry in order to procreate.
Or perhaps they didn't want their children branded as "illegitimate" with the associated legal and social disabilities that accompanied that status. After all, it was until after Loving v. Virginia that SCOTUS ruled birth legitimacy a quasi-suspect class for equal protection analysis. But you knew that, didn't you stupid Peter? Of course you didn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, calling a circle a "circle" is circular reasoning. Call a circle a "square", is what you're trying to do.
Circular reasoning has nothing to do with geometric shapes, stupid Peter. No wonder you're so confused.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In other words calling an apple an orange.
Nope. Simply calling the creation of kinship between previously unrelated parties what it is: marriage. And it occurs regardless of the sex of the parties involved, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men and women have the equal right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Equal application of the law isn't the same thing as equal protection of the law, stupid Peter. By your logic anti-miscegnation laws should be constitutional since they applied equally to blacks and whites.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugality
Conjugality results from ALL marriages, stupid Peter, regardless of the sex of the participants. If by conjugality you mean male/female, then you are simply engaging in circular reasoning once again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
and biology.
How quickly you forget the assertion in your first sentence that people don't "have to marry in order to procreate".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides, didn't SCOTUS state fundamental rights are:
"...deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” These rights must be “based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history.”
No, a dissenting opinion by a SCOTUS Justice said that. It doesn't have the effect of law since it's not a majority opinion.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#58390 Aug 11, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
No public opinion is when there is a Public Vote in over 25 States in America and Every Single State voted NO to Gay Marriage.
On the contrary, it's merely a demonstration of public ignorance that in the 21st century so many US citizens think they actually have a right to vote on the fundamental rights of minority groups.
SevenTee wrote:
In Kentucky the percentage voting NO was over 75% of the people.
It doesn't matter if the vote was unanimous; SCOTUS has ruled the fundamental rights of citizens aren't subject to popular vote or the outcome of elections.
SevenTee wrote:
When the Judicial Branch overturns a law for political reasons Society as a whole suffers.
Then it's a good thing the judicial branch didn't overturn the bans on same sex marriage because of "political reasons' but rather because they violated the federal constitution. And in doing so, they were carrying out their constitutionally appointed task of judicial review.
SevenTee wrote:
The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not allow "Gay Marriage".
Then it sucks for you that constitutional rights belong to ALL citizens, and not just those who can muster a majority vote.

Here's a tissue; go have a good cry.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#58391 Aug 11, 2014
Bruno wrote:
Gee I guess all the kids are back in school ---
My Grandkids go back tomorrow!!!

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#58392 Aug 11, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
No public opinion is when there is a Public Vote in over 25 States in America and Every Single State voted NO to Gay Marriage.
In Kentucky the percentage voting NO was over 75% of the people. When the Judicial Branch overturns a law for political reasons Society as a whole suffers.
The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not allow "Gay Marriage".
If you get to vote on my right to marry.....then I SHOULD have the right to vote on your right to marry......let's put it to a vote, okay?

Actually NOT every single state voted AGAINST our right to marry? Otherwise it would have been ALL 50 states and it WASN'T!!!

That vote took place in Kentucky roughly 10 years ago.......if voted on today, would the numbers be the same? I HIGHLY doubt it!!!

The greatest good to society is when people's rights AREN'T trampled on simply because of someone's religious beliefs or thew yuck factor!!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#58393 Aug 11, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
No public opinion is when there is a Public Vote in over 25 States in America and Every Single State voted NO to Gay Marriage.
In Kentucky the percentage voting NO was over 75% of the people. When the Judicial Branch overturns a law for political reasons Society as a whole suffers.
The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not allow "Gay Marriage".
Awwww...is that pesky US Constitution getting in the way of your hatred?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#58397 Aug 11, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If you get to vote on my right to marry.....then I SHOULD have the right to vote on your right to marry......let's put it to a vote, okay?
Still spouting that falsehood again. Individual citizens voted on the definition of marriage within a particular state. The right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, is a right you, as a woman, already possessed.
Actually NOT every single state voted AGAINST our right to marry? Otherwise it would have been ALL 50 states and it WASN'T!!!
Again, no one voted on a right, but rather a definition. No one state denied you as a woman, the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
That vote took place in Kentucky roughly 10 years ago.......if voted on today, would the numbers be the same? I HIGHLY doubt it!!!
Perhaps if we put all sorts of definitions of marriage on the ballot, more than just same sex would be ratified.
The greatest good to society is when people's rights AREN'T trampled on simply because of someone's religious beliefs or thew yuck factor!!!
The greatest good to a society is when people have a common understanding, experience, and respect, for those institutions, in this case, marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, which benefit and stabilize society as a whole.

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#58398 Aug 11, 2014
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>Peace and quiet!
No Sh!t!!! LOL

Judged:

18

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#58399 Aug 11, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
No public opinion is when there is a Public Vote in over 25 States in America and Every Single State voted NO to Gay Marriage.
In Kentucky the percentage voting NO was over 75% of the people. When the Judicial Branch overturns a law for political reasons Society as a whole suffers.
The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not allow "Gay Marriage".
Look, Beavis. You don't get to vote to deny rights to a minority, just because you find the minority "icky".
Rights aren't voted on by others. Period.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#58400 Aug 11, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
No public opinion is when there is a Public Vote in over 25 States in America and Every Single State voted NO to Gay Marriage.
In Kentucky the percentage voting NO was over 75% of the people. When the Judicial Branch overturns a law for political reasons Society as a whole suffers.
The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not allow "Gay Marriage".
Each and every one of those public "opinion" polls will be overturned. Each and every one, Greg.

Judged:

12

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Roy

Columbus, OH

#58401 Aug 11, 2014
Rose is no different then those mob of chimps rioting in St Louis

Judged:

25

24

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Roy

Columbus, OH

#58402 Aug 11, 2014
Bruno wrote:
Gee I guess all the kids are back in school ---
You keeping records of children's whereabouts you sick twisted homopedo?

Judged:

25

24

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#58403 Aug 12, 2014
KiMerde wrote:
<quoted text>
Each and every one of those public "opinion" polls will be overturned. Each and every one, Greg.
I don't see a ss 'marriage'. Even you know a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gender half isn't the same as marriage.

Smirk.

Judged:

23

22

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#58404 Aug 12, 2014
KiMerde wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, Beavis. You don't get to vote to deny rights to a minority, just because you find the minority "icky".
Rights aren't voted on by others. Period.
That happens all the time. Who do you think you're kidding?

No. YOU, not anyone else, have to come up with a reason and a definition as to why your group deserves special treatment, AND then you'll have to explain why others don't get it. We already have a bunch of polygamists in the discussion who have been waiting for your answer.

Sure, you can dis the pedophiles, the inbreeders and the zoofiliasts, but what makes you sooooo special? Put it in writing and deal with it. Every law requires things put in writing that can be clearly interpreted. Are gays special because they brought the magic moon dance into our lives or are they just a cynical litmus test adopted by an elitist political party who deserves every bit of what's coming to them?

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#58405 Aug 12, 2014
KiMerde wrote:
<quoted text>
Each and every one of those public "opinion" polls will be overturned. Each and every one, Greg.
A public referendum is not an opinion poll, it's the law. What will be overturned is vigilante politics from the judiciary.

TELL US why you think you get special protections? Just tell us why you get your own pet police thug while others get shot down, spied upon and financially harassed by our taxpayer funded Gestapo?

The government WILL answer for their crimes. They'll probably do exactly what every other idiot elected criminal does and fight it until the end, but they WILL pay and to hell with restrictions on retroactive judgments.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#58406 Aug 12, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That happens all the time. Who do you think you're kidding?
No. YOU, not anyone else, have to come up with a reason and a definition as to why your group deserves special treatment,
You haven't proven that we're getting any special rights. Equality for all isn't about special treatment for some.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#58407 Aug 12, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's Brooklyn for get dafug-outta he-ah.
I know, I was trying to insult him. Wow, you got almost 50 times 3 negative judge-its for this post. The judge-it queens are back in full force. Well at least they aren't going door to door trying to sell Watchtower.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#58408 Aug 12, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
A public referendum is not an opinion poll, it's the law. What will be overturned is vigilante politics from the judiciary.
TELL US why you think you get special protections? Just tell us why you get your own pet police thug while others get shot down, spied upon and financially harassed by our taxpayer funded Gestapo?
The government WILL answer for their crimes. They'll probably do exactly what every other idiot elected criminal does and fight it until the end, but they WILL pay and to hell with restrictions on retroactive judgments.
Ok, fine. Let's vote on whether or not red-headed, left-handed males should be able to procreate. It won't be an opinion, if it passes; it'll be the law.

Kindly tell me how any two non-related consenting adults who enter into marriage are receiving special treatment.

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) 1 hr hojo 64,165
News California Experiences Hepatitis A Outbreak 4 hr Solarman 1
News We must eliminate renewable energy subsidies to... 4 hr Solarman 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) Thu loose cannon 243,009
News California business leaders call on Congress to... Wed tomin cali 1
News Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order uncons... Nov 21 Solarman 1
News Watch these bizarre flies dive underwater using... Nov 21 Faith 5
More from around the web