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.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#6138 Oct 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You answered nothing. You only know a set series of gay twirl talking points that are meaningless dribble.
Ss marriage is an oxymoron. A delusion hurts everyone who accepts it.
You are a moron. Which is more of a problem than being an effeminate gay.
You are a anal orifice. Which is not much of a problem as long as you bend over.
Clayton Leon Winton

Spokane, WA

#6139 Oct 2, 2013
If it were not for protections of homosexual women, called, "Lesbians," there would be no protections for homosexual men, called, "Gays," due to the Equality Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is what Gay Rights is about, defining Equality.

The sanctity of marriage, the institution of marriage itself is not defined by gender, or gender identity, nor sexual-orientation; but monogomy.

Those who have lied, cheated in their private relationships, legally 'married' or not, have proved to be a threat to that well-defined equal institution of marriage, therefore against Equality, be they 'str8' or 'gay' or 'lesbian' or whathaveyou. If Gay or Lesbian, non-monogomy is a threat to all marriage, Lesbian, Gay, Str8 or any and all other private relationships.

That said, the religious diatribe is a violation of Equality; the forced participation or punishment via laws to exclude, disenfranchise, discredit, displace, oppress, suppress and form 2nd-class citizenship 'status' against others. This is why the seperation of Church and State is vital to Equality, and those 'christians' claiming otherwise promote the same ideals as al Qaida, tacitly approving a Theocratic form of government of exclusivity at the expense of diversity.

Further, Gays who took funds to pass Legislation in certain states (my own state of Washington for example) on behalf of Marriage Equality and non-profit orgs, such as Human Rights Watch, who now claim that Gay Marriage is about non-monogomy, have committed fraud and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and whomever they defrauded reimbursed with additional penalties as restitution, state by state, region by region, and nationally.

Equality for we Gays is participation in, and serving and protecting the institution of marriage by proving monogomous committment. Period, regadless of faith or political persuasions.

That protects marriage and faith and government and equality, for all people equally. Nothing else. Nothing more. Just that.

See, Gay Rights has never been about protecting people to lie and cheat, or helping Str8 married men to cheat on their wives, covering up liars and cheaters, putting the health and welfare of women at risk. Gay Rights is the opposite of that. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have proved to serve and protect Equality my entire life through loving monogomous relationships, every breath, every moment, every step along the road of life.

When I became disabled (September, 2001), my faith challenged, my 'purpose' and every aspect of existence 'tested,' I never waivered in my service and defense of the institution of marriage. But I know many Str8s who did, who have, who do; not just Gays, not just Lesbians, an ongoing challenge for all people equally. I am just a man, of Jew-ish faith, with real Gay Pride, I do not fake it. I never hid in a closet of deception, pretending to be someone I am not, cowering behind a woman. I do not have HIV. Yet all of my friends were killed-off by non-monogomous cheaters and liars before I was 30 years old.

I have divorced three men for their non-monogomy. The first died from "complications related to HIV" (AIDS), after I divorced him and had re-Gay-married. I divorced him, the 2nd one, twice. I know not the private medical status of those other two. I do not have HIV. I am not about to place the life of any future "one and only love" at risk for a moment of selfish "fun". I've dated many others, was intimate with very few. I am single. I know what real love is. And serving and defending the institution of marriage by living monogomous lifestyles is my proof of exactly that. Shalom.

Kind regards, always,
Clayton Winton, posting within city limits of Spokane, Washington, Spokane County, State of Washington, United States of America, planet Earth, U.S. Dept of State ID#C03183395, at 20:47 on October 2nd, 2013.
Clayton Leon Winton

Spokane, WA

#6140 Oct 2, 2013
I can't find my post ... where is it?
Clayton Winton

Spokane, WA

#6141 Oct 2, 2013
If it were not for protections of homosexual women, called, "Lesbians," there would be no protections for homosexual men, called, "Gays," due to the Equality Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is what Gay Rights is about, defining Equality.

The sanctity of marriage, the institution of marriage itself is not defined by gender, or gender identity, nor sexual-orientation; but monogomy.

Those who have lied, cheated in their private relationships, legally 'married' or not, have proved to be a threat to that well-defined equal institution of marriage, therefore against Equality, be they 'str8' or 'gay' or 'lesbian' or whathaveyou. If Gay or Lesbian, non-monogomy is a threat to all marriage, Lesbian, Gay, Str8 or any and all other private relationships.

That said, the religious diatribe is a violation of Equality; the forced participation or punishment via laws to exclude, disenfranchise, discredit, displace, oppress, suppress and form 2nd-class citizenship 'status' against others. This is why the seperation of Church and State is vital to Equality, and those 'christians' claiming otherwise promote the same ideals as al Qaida, tacitly approving a Theocratic form of government of exclusivity at the expense of diversity.

Further, Gays who took funds to pass Legislation in certain states (my own state of Washington for example) on behalf of Marriage Equality and non-profit orgs, such as Human Rights Watch, who now claim that Gay Marriage is about non-monogomy, have committed fraud and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and whomever they defrauded reimbursed with additional penalties as restitution, state by state, region by region, and nationally.

Equality for we Gays is participation in, and serving and protecting the institution of marriage by proving monogomous committment. Period, regadless of faith or political persuasions.

That protects marriage and faith and government and equality, for all people equally. Nothing else. Nothing more. Just that.

See, Gay Rights has never been about protecting people to lie and cheat, or helping Str8 married men to cheat on their wives, covering up liars and cheaters, putting the health and welfare of women at risk. Gay Rights is the opposite of that. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have proved to serve and protect Equality my entire life through loving monogomous relationships, every breath, every moment, every step along the road of life.

When I became disabled (September, 2001), my faith challenged, my 'purpose' and every aspect of existence 'tested,' I never waivered in my service and defense of the institution of marriage. But I know many Str8s who did, who have, who do; not just Gays, not just Lesbians, an ongoing challenge for all people equally. I am just a man, of Jew-ish faith, with real Gay Pride, I do not fake it. I never hid in a closet of deception, pretending to be someone I am not, cowering behind a woman. I do not have HIV. Yet all of my friends were killed-off by non-monogomous cheaters and liars before I was 30 years old.

I have divorced three men for their non-monogomy. The first died from "complications related to HIV" (AIDS), after I divorced him and had re-Gay-married. I divorced him, the 2nd one, twice. I know not the private medical status of those other two. I do not have HIV. I am not about to place the life of any future "one and only love" at risk for a moment of selfish "fun". I've dated many others, was intimate with very few. I am single. I know what real love is. And serving and defending the institution of marriage by living monogomous lifestyles is my proof of exactly that. Shalom.

Kind regards, always,
Clayton Leon Winton, posting within city limits of Spokane, Washington, Spokane County, State of Washington, United States of America, planet Earth, U.S. Dept of State ID#C03183395, at 20:47 on October 2nd, 2013.
Clayton Winton

Spokane, WA

#6142 Oct 2, 2013
Why are my posts being deleted? I didn't know defense of marriage was about suppression of free-expression.*smirk*
Clayton Winton

Spokane, WA

#6143 Oct 2, 2013
Again, my posts deleted. Is that what Gay Rights are now, too? The censorship of free-speech/free-expression? Is it because I am Disabled, or Jew-ish?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6144 Oct 3, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is NOT military policy to follow orders.
You must have NEVER served if you believe what you posted.......sad really because the ONLY way the Military works is by having people follow orders without question!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6145 Oct 3, 2013
Clayton Winton wrote:
Again, my posts deleted. Is that what Gay Rights are now, too? The censorship of free-speech/free-expression? Is it because I am Disabled, or Jew-ish?
This is topix's and they can remove your posts without reason......if you had read the TOS, you'd know that!!!

By the way....it has NOTHING to do with being Gay, Lesbian or Straight........it has to do with not being nasty!!!
Impeach

Evansville, IN

#6146 Oct 3, 2013

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6147 Oct 3, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You are a anal orifice. Which is not much of a problem as long as you bend over.
The complimentary reunion of a man and woman is nothing like a ss couple. I've listed just some examples, anyone of which stands alone.

I don't have to give you an example of harm. The only question that matters, is,'are they the same'?

No.

That's reality. No law can change that. Your ignorance doesn't make it so. There is not one damn thing you can do to make it so. Reality will bitch slap your dumb ass every time.

But here is my cause. To exercise this travesty of the most unique relationship, the bonds between parent and child have to be discarded. Any Tom and Dick, calling themselves 'dad' and 'dad', can be just the same as mom and dad.

You are a dumb abused ass idiot who sold his soul and threw children under the bus.

Your only hope is to get on your knees and pray, because death and hell are knocking on your door.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6148 Oct 3, 2013
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have NEVER served if you believe what you posted.......sad really because the ONLY way the Military works is by having people follow orders without question!!!
Really? Then you've never witnessed the prosecution of the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib, have you?

If you just want to argue, do some research. I was obligated to learn the UCMJ because I did serve for about 10 years.

The reality of reality is that politicians are contemptible prostitutes. They commit any crime that they think they can get away with, and at the moment, scapegoating the least ranking of thugs who get caught doing the dirty deeds of our secret police is the standard.

The UCMJ was written in the days when we wanted to have international good will on our side. Without the Cold War keeping our politicians honest, we've taken a very Orwellian approach to who our enemies are and what our duties are, but the UCMJ is still there.

Go ahead and say we follow every order because it's terrorism! We defined the invalidity of the Nuremberg defense and if our bad karma ends up with our own precedent being used against us, so be it.

But remember, it's the terrorists! You were only following orders! Say it again! Say it LOUDER! The only question is whether you're playing the mercenary trigger man or the low level officer who's expecting to use the law to force others to commit atrocities. The courts defended the commander of Abu Ghraib, only punishing her with a demotion. In the current state of politics, it seems that we don't punish officers simply for getting caught.

In the end, it was about Rumsfeld's policy of abusing the civilian law and allowing contractors to tell the military what to do, while the upper echelons claimed no knowledge of events. As for the Enlisted who "followed orders", eleven soldiers were convicted for various violations of the UCMJ.

No, you do not simply follow orders.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6149 Oct 3, 2013
Clayton Winton wrote:
Again, my posts deleted. Is that what Gay Rights are now, too? The censorship of free-speech/free-expression? Is it because I am Disabled, or Jew-ish?
If you mean the 2 long duplicate posts - scroll up. They are right there.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6150 Oct 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The complimentary reunion of a man and woman is nothing like a ss couple. I've listed just some examples, anyone of which stands alone.
..
Wrong.

Same love.
Same commitment.
Same strong family bonds.
Same good place to raise kids.
Same attraction.
Same companionship.
Same joy.
Same challenges.
Same emotional benefits.
Same physical comfort.
Same support system.
Same legal protection.
Same love for their children.
Same support for the elderly.
Same financial benefits.

Same EVERYTHING, except for ONE thing.

The ONLY difference is gender. That's it.

Your oft repeated opinions to the contrary don't change the facts.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6151 Oct 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Same love.
Same commitment.
Same strong family bonds.
Same good place to raise kids.
Same attraction.
Same companionship.
Same joy.
Same challenges.
Same emotional benefits.
Same physical comfort.
Same support system.
Same legal protection.
Same love for their children.
Same support for the elderly.
Same financial benefits.
Same EVERYTHING, except for ONE thing.
The ONLY difference is gender. That's it.
Your oft repeated opinions to the contrary don't change the facts.
What an idiotic claim.

The love between opposite genders is no where near the same as love between duplicate genders.

The commitment requires distinct elements when diverse genders are joined in marriage.

You have ONE natural mother and father. A ss couple can NEVER provide one of those, if not either. There could not be a greater difference.

I could go on with each one.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6152 Oct 3, 2013
Clayton Winton wrote:
If it were not for protections of homosexual women, called, "Lesbians," there would be no protections for homosexual men, called, "Gays," due to the Equality Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is what Gay Rights is about, defining Equality.
The sanctity of marriage, the institution of marriage itself is not defined by gender, or gender identity, nor sexual-orientation; but monogomy.....
Simple questions!

Why is monogamy worthy of protection?

If I lie to you on the street and tell you that I'm wearing pink underwear, am I committing a crime worthy of a Constitutional edict?

If I am married and my partner is OK with sexual acts outside of marriage, should our marriage be nullified?

Why does constitutional requirements for gender equality equate to constitutional protection for those who engage in unconventional sex?

Answer:

Monogomy is NOT worthy of protection. It is at best described as a government subsidy for the encouragement of the raising of children. We don't live in the days of colonialism. We are short of jobs for our existing population. We have no interest in increasing the workforce as we prefer to use machines whenever possible and cheap foreign labor whenever we are just too lazy.

No, I can lie whenever I want to as long as it is not an act of fraud, perjury or slander/libel. It's strictly a matter of moral conduct and I'll be honest, when I hear the word "lie" I find it to be synonymous with white people.

No. The civil laws of marriage are about honoring a commitment, not specific rules of conduct. That commitment is between the partners. The morality of one's conduct in a marriage is pretty much a gamble when used to leverage a legal decision. With regard to polygamy and under-age marriage, we have picked very arbitrary rules and I'm fairly sure that those rules vary a good bit from one state to the next.

The Constitutional mandate for gender equality has not gone beyond the right to vote. The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified and several states have rescinded their support for it. No supermajority ever approved it. Welcome to the world of politics!

See? The law isn't just a rhetorical soapbox where any inaccuracy can be spewed out if it sounds cool. If it was, I'd have to turn you in for not having the required sturm und drang to keep me entertained.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6153 Oct 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiotic claim.
The love between opposite genders is no where near the same as love between duplicate genders.
The commitment requires distinct elements when diverse genders are joined in marriage.
You have ONE natural mother and father. A ss couple can NEVER provide one of those, if not either. There could not be a greater difference.
I could go on with each one.
SO?????!!!!! Civil contract marriage has nothing to do with any of that....WHAT PART OF CIVIL RIGHTS DONT YOU NAZI PIGS GET?????
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6154 Oct 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Same love.
Same commitment.
Same strong family bonds.
Same good place to raise kids.
Same attraction.
Same companionship.
Same joy.
Same challenges.
Same emotional benefits.
Same physical comfort.
Same support system.
Same legal protection.
Same love for their children.
Same support for the elderly.
Same financial benefits.
Same EVERYTHING, except for ONE thing.
The ONLY difference is gender. That's it.
Your oft repeated opinions to the contrary don't change the facts.
Let me make this simple for both of you so you don't have to write long spiels of goodie-two-shoes lists.

Same financial benefits.

You don't care Jack about the rest. Now go find a hotel room because you WILL obey your masters and become loving allies before you'll ever give up on the money.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6155 Oct 3, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make this simple for both of you so you don't have to write long spiels of goodie-two-shoes lists.
Same financial benefits.
You don't care Jack about the rest. Now go find a hotel room because you WILL obey your masters and become loving allies before you'll ever give up on the money.
So, you believe that everyone who marries does so only for the financial benefits? You would be wrong,m of course. But, when those are denied, they suddenly become a bit more important.

Gay people can't take those for granted, like every straight person can.

Yes, I do care that my wife will have some access to my Social Security if I die. And yes, she should not have to pay inheritance tax on the things we have together. Yes, I should be able to have my wife on my insurance at work.

And why do I want those protections for my family?

It's because I LOVE them. You seem to have trouble grasping that concept, and I feel sorry for you.

Try to strip away every legal and financial benefit of marriage, from both the private sector and the government, and see how far that gets you. As long as you don't demand them for yourself and all other straight folks, but fight to deny them to gay couples, then it's fine.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6156 Oct 3, 2013
Gill v OPM:
"To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6157 Oct 3, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
Comic relief is the only thing KiMare's posts are good for.
Then they fail on every level.

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) 59 min hfcv 64,119
Is Rioatmdevices Legit??? (Jan '17) 4 hr mike123 12
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr heiscommunist 243,000
News Why are gas prices so high in California? 19 hr Mr Ludd 8
News Sessions targets more sanctuary cities Sun freebird 18
California Holiday Events Sat howefortunate 1
News Trump gains local support in possible shrinking... Sat Kate 3
More from around the web