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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#60414 Aug 31, 2014
DebraE wrote:
According to who now? You or the US Constitution AND the judicial system, hmmmm?
Hasn't been determined has it? Did I miss the SCOTUS ruling that the states can't have any say in marriage? Got a link?

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#60416 Aug 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, you have proven consistently too stupid to offer any justification to deny same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
I don't care if gays marry. It's none of my business.
I don't care if they have HIV or AIDS.
None of it means anything to me.

If you want to tell me what to think about it you have a problem.
Actually, you have a lot of problems.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Tango

Pacific, MO

#60417 Aug 31, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you say so? A monster? LOL!
Hey your a monster.....

HEY YOU ARE A PIG

Judged:

25

25

25

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#60418 Aug 31, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
They are not lies or bigotry.
Yes, most of your posts are lies and bigotry. Being an uneducated bigot, you obviously aren't qualified to make such an assessment yourself.

SevenTee wrote:
Homosexuals rape children, they have clubs and chatrooms dedicated to child rape.
And you think no heterosexual has ever raped a child or tried to lure them into meeting via a chat room? Sure, there are bad gay people just like there are bad straight people. But educated people know that such people represent only a small portion of the gay and straight populations and don't lie by claiming the actions of a few are representative of the actions of all.
SevenTee wrote:
Homosexuals are liars and perverts.
What a coincidence, so are you.
SevenTee wrote:
AIDS is a homosexual disease cause by filthy anal rape of each other like animals.
Do tell. Of course that lie ignores the fact it started among heterosexuals in sub-saharan Africa and affects far more straight people on a worldwide basis than it does gays. And most of the straight people worldwide contracted HIV through filthy penile/vaginal intercourse like mindless rutting animals.
SevenTee wrote:
Get some mental health for your mental disorder.
You really need to stop talking to yourself in the mirror, cupcake. However, I do agree with your assessment in this instance that you should seek professional help for your pathological lying and general mental illness.

Still can't find your spine or muster up the willpower to refrain from posting to me in spite of your public vow otherwise, eh lying, faux christian?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#60419 Aug 31, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
Always a moot point if they are violating the US Constitution, eh?
Uhhhhh...huh...so the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, suddenly "violates" the U.S. Constitution? The inmates have taken over the asylum. I'm sure the ratifiers of the constitution would be proud to know their work is being upended.

Judged:

24

24

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#60420 Aug 31, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
Y A W N, hash and rehash. Spin it any way you like, lying peter.
Silly Debbie....unable to admit you confused the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It's okay, it happens. But as to the "lying" charge, perhaps the "E" in "DebraE" stands for "ERROR".
The Judges and the Courts aren't buying your skewed logic, right?
Actually there's been a few judges who've either recognized the states have the authority to define marriage, and/or realized that marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife DOES NOT violate the constitution. Those crazy rebels....how dare they oppose the LKGB!
According to who now? You or the US Constitution AND the judicial system, hmmmm?
How about simple reason, AND the constitution. As a state has the authority to legally recognize SSM through the legislative process, or voter referendum, and state has to authority not to recognize SSM as well. It's a matter for the states.

So how do you feel on the rights of lesbian throuples to marry?

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#60421 Aug 31, 2014
http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/polygamy-ruling...

Polygamy joined same-sex marriage in the national spotlight this week as a Utah fed court ruling triggered renewed controversy over what constitutes marriage. Gay rights activists and plural marriage advocates have long debated with the religious community over their rights to enjoy the same conjugal benefits as monogamous, straight couples. Some see the court’s decision as a resounding victory for the recognition of non-traditional unions. Others express reservations about the wisdom of redefining marriage, and some faith-based organizations voice disappointment in what they consider a misuse of religious freedom.

The ruling stems from the case Kody Brown and his four wives. The family is known from TLC’s cable show, Sister Wives, and they lost their home in the heat of the controversy over their plural marriages. The controversy triggered a renewed scrutiny into the constitutionality of Utah’s polygamy laws. After two years of deliberation and testimony on both sides of the debate, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups extended his previous rulings in the case to strike down the last remaining section of the law that made it a criminal offense to cohabitate without the legal covering of marriage. The Browns’ lawyer, Jonathan Turley, explained in his blog, after the ruling that that provision had been used against polygamists as they could not legally marry, much as in the case of couples who seek same-sex marriage unions. With this decision, Judge Waddoups dismantled the sole remaining legal injunction against plural marriages, affirming his stance against prejudice, hostility and discrimination against polygamous families, declaring such restrictions unconstitutional.

Turley posted Brown’s statement, acknowledging that although many disapprove of polygamous families, they hope that others will extend the same respect for their personal, religious beliefs as they extend to those of different faiths than their own. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, an offshoot of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS), popularly known as the Mormon church. Therefore, they share a history of strife over the question of polygamous marriage that hearkens back to their roots at the founding of the LDS church by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in the latter part of the 19th century. The original church has long since abandoned the official sanction for the practice of polygamy by early church leaders. However, the Apostolic branch holds to a more fundamental view, retaining multiple marriages as part of their accepted lifestyle.

A 2012 study, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy entitled, Marriage in the Minds of the Next Generation, found that today’s generation of young people have an eclectic blend of progressive and traditional perspectives on sex and marriage. The National Org. for Marriage uttered disappointment over the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court and the denial of their motion to intervene on behalf of Oregonians in support of the defense of marriage amendment. They asserted that the people, not the judiciary system should resolve the issues of defining marriage and expressed regret that the voters’ voice on this policy issue is being silenced.

Russell Moore, pres. of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission maintains that history has already shown over and over that polygamous marriage triggers hurt for women and children, adding fuel to the renewed fires of controversy in the wake of the recent ruling legalizing plural marriage in Utah. Emotions run high on both sides, as they do in the same-sex marriage debate. Moore makes no apologies in mourning the decay of the solemnity of marriage, lamenting the elasticity that the court’s polygamy ruling brings to stretch the definition of marriage to the point of hollow insignificance

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#60422 Aug 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
[trimmed for emphasis and to highlight a lie]

With this decision, Judge Waddoups dismantled the sole remaining legal injunction against plural marriages, affirming his stance against prejudice, hostility and discrimination against polygamous families, declaring such restrictions unconstitutional.
You must have searched really hard to find someone else not only as stupid as you but who also willfully lies about the nature of the Brown case. Contrary to the erroneous erroneous assertion above, the federal judge did not dismantle "the sole remaining legal injunction against plural marriages" but rather only ruled the portion of the anti-bigamy law prohibiting cohabitation by unmarried adults unconstitutional. Civil polygamy is still illegal not only in Utah but all states and is a federal crime as well. The state has no interest in how citizens practice their religious beliefs including any assertions that they are religiously married to one or more people as religious marriage has no legal recognition under civil law.

Here is the federal judge's specific final order as posted on the website of the Brown's attorney:

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Utah Code Ann.§ 76-7-101 (2013) is facially unconstitutional in that the phrase “or cohabits with another person” is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; to preserve the integrity of the Statute, as enacted by the Utah State Legislature, the Court hereby severs the phrase “or cohabits with another person” from Utah Code § 76-7-101(1)."

You're becoming also most as big a liar as SevenTee, stupid Peter. Don't forget to include all your Topix lies in your next confession.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#60423 Aug 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhh...huh...so the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, suddenly "violates" the U.S. Constitution?
No one asserted that, stupid Peter. Saying that it's unconstitutional to discriminate against gays by limiting marriage to one man and one woman is not the same thing as saying it's unconstitutional for one man and one woman to marry. Please stop projecting your illiteracy onto to others.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
No, you're just hallucinating again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm sure the ratifiers of the constitution would be proud to know their work is being upended.
We;;, as you yourself have noted the constitution doesn't specifically mention marriage so no work of the ratifiers has been "upended".

Why do you lie, stupid Peter?
DANDY DEACON

Torrance, CA

#60424 Aug 31, 2014
Sunday sermon postponed till Monday 12:00 PM cst

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Gunther

Pacific, MO

#60425 Sep 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not need a rebuttal. In America your Bible is irrelevant.
I have three points of reality that distinguish an apple from an orange, it doesn't make an apple not a fruit.
What you refuse to address is the criminality of your participation here in topix. God tells you not to be a busybody and you give God the finger.
God says there is a time for everything, marriage freedom comes to mind, and you give God the finger.
If you don't like freedom and liberty than why not go find a theocracy to live in? You believe God's ears and eyes are in "everyplace", what does God think about what you do here in Topix?
Give up Rev do you really think that anyone reads the crap you post?::scrolling::

Judged:

21

21

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#60427 Sep 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhh...huh...so the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, suddenly "violates" the U.S. Constitution?
Pietro, unless you have grown the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being solely between opposite sex partners, such a definition absolutely violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Clearly, you aren't up to the task of offering any such interest that would render such a restriction valid and constitutional.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#60428 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire population except for the anarchists and anti-Christ people agree with you 100%
Thousands of years ago the entire population agreed with those who wrote the Bible that the earth was flat, except for the intelligent people who know that religion is an abomination that turns into a crime against humanity.

Jesus--"but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22)

versus

Paul--"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die" (1 Cor. 15:36) and "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you" (Gal. 3:1) and "We are fools for Christ's sake" (1 Cor. 4:10) and (Rom. 1:22, 1 Cor. 3:18). Apparently Paul doesn't feel "fool" is a dangerous word or hell fire is a thing to be feared.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#60429 Sep 1, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is saved. The whole concept is just superstitious nonsense.
It is! But SevenEleven is only presenting on of the FIVE distinct salvation's presented in the Bible. That means he is deceptive, dishonest and deceitful. Universalism has all of us being saved whether we wish it or not. Just like with homosexuality the pew warmers pick and chose which bible verses they are going to promote and which they are going to ignore, all based upon their subjective whim. And we are supposed to take them seriously? What a laugh.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#60431 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not lies or bigotry. Homosexuals rape children, they have clubs and chatrooms dedicated to child rape. Homosexuals are liars and perverts. AIDS is a homosexual disease cause by filthy anal rape of each other like animals.
Get some mental health for your mental disorder.
Well, there may be some truth to the fact that like heterosexuals, some homosexuals have had sex with children under age 18, and again like heterosexuals, some homosexuals do engage in inappropriate behavior online. And like heterosexuals some homosexuals lie and engage in what you would call perverted behavior. SO WHAT!

Your bigotry is that you present this AS IF all homosexuals are criminals and no heterosexual has ever broken the law.

If you want to talk about facts you are not doing that, instead you are presenting you bigotry and trying, unsuccessfully, to hide it in the body of your post. In other words you are still engaging in deception, distortion and dishonesty.

You should follow your own advice SevenEleven and get some help with your mental disorder. No one likes you because you are not a nice person.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#60432 Sep 1, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if gays marry. It's none of my business.
I don't care if they have HIV or AIDS.
None of it means anything to me.
If you want to tell me what to think about it you have a problem.
Actually, you have a lot of problems.
lides does have a lot of problems. I would suggest that hypocrisy and inconsistency are at the top of the list.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#60433 Sep 1, 2014
Gunther wrote:
<quoted text>
Give up Rev do you really think that anyone reads the crap you post?::scrolling::
Based on the number of people who reply to my posts, like you, it is a fact that people read them.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#60434 Sep 1, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, unless you have grown the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being solely between opposite sex partners, such a definition absolutely violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Clearly, you aren't up to the task of offering any such interest that would render such a restriction valid and constitutional.
lides, unless you have grown the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being solely between two people, such a definition absolutely violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Clearly, you aren't up to the task of offering any such interest that would render such a restriction valid and constitutional.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#60435 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
It saves children from homosexual rape and it prevents the spread of AIDS
Homosexuals don't abuse children; pedophiles do. Pedophiles may be of any orientation.
You're welcome.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#60436 Sep 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
lides, unless you have grown the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being solely between two people, such a definition absolutely violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Clearly, you aren't up to the task of offering any such interest that would render such a restriction valid and constitutional.
BRAVO! Nice work Rev!

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min District 1 231,117
News California's new legislative session begins wit... 13 min Philosophic 12
News California Democrats propose series of infrastr... 1 hr Go Blue Forever 7
News Democratic states wary as Trump embarks on vict... 1 hr Kiss6729 8
Patricia Louise McGurk's Travel Experience in J... 4 hr Patricia_McGurk 1
Need Urgent Financial assistance or Loan? Conta... (Jun '13) 7 hr Camilla 25
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 62,336
More from around the web