Gay marriage

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. Read more

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8114 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
We're going to find out. It's a constitutional issue.
The SCOTUS has already upheld state public accommodation laws. I see no reason this pending case from New Mexico or anywhere else would be any different.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8115 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly Sheepie....how hypocritically cute....keeping polygamy illegal. Now now....marriage equality is not just for same sex couples!
Like all equal protection claims, marriage equality is based on the principle of similarly situated. Polygamists & incestuous couples/groups aren't, which is why polygamy & incest will remain illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8116 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/ double_x/doublex/2013/04/legal ize_polygamy_marriage_equality _for_all.html
<quoted text>
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
Jillian Keenan is a writer in New York City. You can follow her on Twitter and her website.
Similarly situated.

Look it up.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8117 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The three Christians I cited were sued for not participating in same sex weddings. Same sex marriage is the death of freedom.
No, they were sued for violating state public accommodation laws.

That you can't understand the difference is why you anti-gays keep losing in court.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8118 Oct 26, 2013
Toothless wrote:
<quoted text>The only way for it to happen is if one has a sex change.
Except for the fact that thousands of same-sex couples are getting married without having a sex change.

Poor little anti-gay lost another one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8119 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Heterosexuals"? You do love those political sexual identity labels. Besides "gay folks" can legally marry like......uh....any other man or woman.
<quoted text>
I would of thought you would have realized that polygamy is just as relevant to how legal marriage is defined as same sex relationships. You've certainly have enough time to understand this.
Correct, gay people can legally marry one other consenting non-related adult, just like any man or woman can.

At least you're finally getting a clue.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8120 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, now how are you on anatomy, and biology? Seems like you have difficulty with those subjects.
<quoted text>
Actually men and women marry one at a time, as they've done since the birth of the Republic. Silly Questy rabbit, trix are for kids.
<quoted text>
If you really believed in "marriage equality", redefining marriage, you'd be supporting polygamists right to have their marriages acknowledged too. What's good for the gay goose, is good for the poly gander. Why is the conjugality, opposite sex requirement expendable, for the nice gay folks, but to the monogamy, as in two, not for the nice polygamy folks?
Why does it matter if polygamy is legalized too? What....it's somehow "immoral"....." taboo"......same sex marriage changed the rules. The problem is the nice gay folks, at least some, understand this, but it's bad for the cause to publicly advocate for polygamy, or even acknowledge that legal SSM undermines the prohibitions on polygamy.
And yet in no state or country which allows same-sex couples to marry have they allowed polygamous marriage.

Nope, no slippery slope at all.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8121 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Every single legitimate study of default families consistently shows default families significantly affect child-welling being negatively.
Except of course they don't.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your constructed alternate reality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8122 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY reason to limit marriage to two people is the likelihood of children.
When children are removed from consideration as mutually sterile gays demand, the number of participants and the relationship of the participants are irrelevant.
However, at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Except of course that's NOT the only reason to limit marriage to two people.

Especially since having children- or even the capability of having children- has NEVER been a requirement of marriage.

If the likelihood of having children were the deciding factor, then ONLY polygamists would be allowed to marry, since they are statistically WAY more likely to have children than just 2 people.

That's just more proof the likelihood of children has nothing to do with marriage at all.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8123 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you understand it?
We understand the Constitution just fine, which is how we got DOMA & Prop 8 overturned.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8124 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In his majority opinion for U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy argued that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it pegs homosexuals as second class citizens. Minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts struck down Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
While these rulings only directly affect states that have legalized same-sex marriage, those in support of plural unions view the repeals as progress for their cause because it broadens the definition of marriage.
Polygamy has received popular exposure due to hit shows like TLC's "Sister Wives" and HBO's "Big Love," and experts estimate that there are roughly 30,000 to 50,000 people in polygamist unions nationally. Although polygamists reside throughout the country, the largest enclaves are found in Utah, Arizona and other Southwestern states due to the large Mormon fundamentalist populations living there.
Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," she says. "As consenting adults, we have a right to form our families as we see fit as long as there are no other crimes involved."
Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages.
Tim Wildmon, president of the Christian-values centered American Family Association, says that striking down the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman delegitimizes the moral argument against polygamy.
"It opens up Pandora's Box in how you define marriage in this country," he says."Why not have three men and two women marry if they love each other? Why limit it to two people?"
But the trajectory towards legalizing polygamy is not so simple, legal scholars say.
David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University who specializes in family law, says that the lack of mainstream acceptance for polygamy does not bode well for its legalization.
"There is no political movement in this country that is anywhere near making the same gains for polygamy that have been made for gay marriage," he says.
Judith Areen, law professor at Georgetown University, says that the outcomes of these two cases are more telling of state's rights than the potential for polygamy. Thus, only state­-wide support for the practice would bring about this change.
"If you're in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, that state will not recognize the Windsor ruling," she says. "These cases suggest that states have the authority. So while states are divided on gay marriage, they are uniform on polygamy."
Unlike others in his field, Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University, thinks that the two rulings had significant impact on the future of polygamy in the United States. Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law and religion, says that the courts will need to find other justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm.
" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...
Quoting polygamists and anti-gays?

Really??

No wonder you fools keep losing in court after court after court.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8125 Oct 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Still legally married.
Smile.
The law is unconstitutional, but you are not REALLY married since ss marriage is an oxymoron.

Everyone knows that moron.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8126 Oct 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except of course that's NOT the only reason to limit marriage to two people.
Especially since having children- or even the capability of having children- has NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
If the likelihood of having children were the deciding factor, then ONLY polygamists would be allowed to marry, since they are statistically WAY more likely to have children than just 2 people.
That's just more proof the likelihood of children has nothing to do with marriage at all.
First you deny my point about ss couples demanding children be eliminated, then you turn around and make the same claim. REEEALLY stupid.

Then you bring up an interesting point about polygamy. In fact, the key reason it is outlawed. It is the 'Cinderella Effect' that the story of Issac and Ishmael exhibit in the Bible. Children from one mother are favored at the expense of children from another mother.

If children are not considered, as you demand, then polygamy has no reason to be outlawed.

You were saying idiot.

Snicker.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#8127 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxymoron.
Still stuck on the word. You must like the sound of it. It doesn't even pertain in response to what I posted. Totally irrelevant, but then most of what you post doesn't even make any sense anyway so there is nothing new here.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#8128 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The three Christians I cited were sued for not participating in same sex weddings. Same sex marriage is the death of freedom.
Freedom? Or freedom to refuse service due to the fact that you disagree with gays being able to marry. And, for the record, I agree with you that they shouldn't have been forced to do anything, and so far they haven't. And, nothing has happened either because of the law suits. And, I can assume that many of their supporters will direct all their business their way simply because they did stand up for what they believe in. Same sex marriage isn't the death of anything. It's just another step towards equality for gays. But, again, I believe, in each case, it would be easier to simply seek out someone else who would perform the services. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't spawned a cottage industry among the gay population just for that reason.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#8129 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Every single legitimate study of default families consistently shows default families significantly affect child-welling being negatively.
I believe that is well being, and default is your definition. There is nothing out of the ordinary about same sex marriage except in your mind.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8130 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law is unconstitutional, but you are not REALLY married since ss marriage is an oxymoron.
Everyone knows that moron.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Gee what a shocker!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8131 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First you deny my point about ss couples demanding children be eliminated, then you turn around and make the same claim. REEEALLY stupid.
Then you bring up an interesting point about polygamy. In fact, the key reason it is outlawed. It is the 'Cinderella Effect' that the story of Issac and Ishmael exhibit in the Bible. Children from one mother are favored at the expense of children from another mother.
If children are not considered, as you demand, then polygamy has no reason to be outlawed.
You were saying idiot.
Snicker.
And yet polygamy IS outlawed, while same-sex couples CAN legally marry.

Milky Way.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#8132 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY reason to limit marriage to two people is the likelihood of children.
When children are removed from consideration as mutually sterile gays demand, the number of participants and the relationship of the participants are irrelevant.
However, at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
That statement is ridiculous no matter how many times you repeat it. Gays aren't mutually sterile, and the fact that they don't have children isn't any different than a straight couple who don't have children. And, since they don't have children how could children be a factor in it at all. If two gays marry and bring children from a previous marriage they have been shown to consistently raise them well and the children have successful lives, in most cases. the only time this isn't true is when people like you make their lives miserable by attacking their families. And, since gays can have children with a surrogate, the whole sterile routine you keep pushing is simply not true.

You should reevaluate your own sanity, it's slipping.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8133 Oct 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting polygamists and anti-gays?
Really??
No one quoted was anti happy.
No wonder you fools keep losing in court after court after court.
But still wining on state constitutional amendments.

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 hr Earthling-1 52,232
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 hr RiccardoFire 201,745
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 hr Jacques Ottawa 185,808
News Attitudes shift on illegal immigration, but uni... 10 hr ronnie 6
News California attorney general moves to end anti-g... 11 hr Belle Sexton 26
News Anti-gay initiative puts California attorney ge... 11 hr Belle Sexton 13
News Jerry Brown is mad Ted Cruz is running for pres... 11 hr Sam I Am 3
More from around the web