Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.
Comments
7,521 - 7,540 of 54,829 Comments Last updated 39 min ago

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8425
Oct 31, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
Hey look, even the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-adoption bigot finally got one right!

Congrats!

The remaining state marriage bans will be overturned on due process and/or equal protection grounds.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8426
Oct 31, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
At the heart of that extended family is "...the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
And now at the heart of some of those extended families are legally married same-sex couples who ensure the same thing.

What's your point?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8427
Oct 31, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is about gays getting tax breaks and legal recognition for a behavior that should be classified as a MENTAL DISORDER. It has NOTHING to do with families. Why don't you stop lying.
Go ahead and bluster! Cite all the "scientific" references you want! The gubbermint also promises us that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans....and they CERTAINLY don't do it as a tool of political doctrine enforcement.
Reasonable people let obsessive-compulsives take control of the country. They are going to pay for that mistake. You're just an important object lesson for malcontents who just want to break things. Let those bums pay the price, but not all single people.
Yeah, well you'll just have to get over it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8428
Oct 31, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
Second, statistically, natural parents provide the best setting by far.
Let's see your data.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8429
Oct 31, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So how does calling a same sex couple's, only one of which can be the child's biological parent, relationship "marriage" significantly improve the quality of the child's childhood?
Could this reasoning be applied to plural marriage families, where at least both biological parents are present?
<quoted text>
How do "we know this" when the research is very limited, as are the number of subjects available for research?
This about marriage, and it's benefits to families and kids.
Marriage provides the same legal protections for children raised by same-sex couples as by opposite-sex couples.

Denying same-sex couples the rights & legal protection of marriage only harms the children they are going to raise regardless.

No, it can't be applied to plural marriage families because of the inherent harm to women & children in plural families.

Correct, it's about marriage and its benefits to families and kids, regardless of the gender of those 2 parents.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8430
Oct 31, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Smirking when you don't know the meaning of a simple word isn't rational.
And very few people are going to agree that folks can't lose a spouse and remarry, or divorce and remarry, because that would make them a "default" family. Most folks also agree that gay couples should be able to marry.
Why do you look down on divorced folks and blended families? It's really none of your business, unless that divorce and remarriage is your own, or your new spouse's.
Blondie, I posted a government study that proved the fact. Your being offended by reality doesn't change one thing.

And losing the argument and then claiming it is none of my business is silly childishness.

Smile.
Carl from Pittsfield

Pittsfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8431
Oct 31, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wish to prove that you are dumb too, Pietro?
You established that some time ago.
The reality remains that if the only argument that one has against same sex marriage is traditional families, they have no argument at all.
I love you in your tux and scruffy beard. Please let me come to Georgetown

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8432
Oct 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL parents regardless of gender combination should teach their children to be responsible for the children they produce and to marry before having children.
That's why we're changing the state marriage laws to enable same-sex couples to marry BEFORE having children.
Ohhhhhhh....SO THAT'S IT! All those pregnant gay men out there, their impregnators took off, left them all alone. If only marriage was available nationwide for these poor souls, then they could become honest men!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8433
Oct 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage provides the same legal protections for children raised by same-sex couples as by opposite-sex couples.
Provides the children with a legal mother and father?
Denying same-sex couples the rights & legal protection of marriage only harms the children they are going to raise regardless.
If that's the case any adult combination raising children should have legal marriage protection.
No, it can't be applied to plural marriage families because of the inherent harm to women & children in plural families.
From treating those families as second class citizens, robbing them of their dignity. Therein lies the harm. A man can marry, father children with his wife, and later divorce her. He can then remarry, and father children with his second wife. Perfectly acceptable, but if he, with the consent of the women of course, chooses not to divorce his first wife, and takes in a second wife, that's not acceptable? The children are less worthy of the legal protection that marriage brings, is that your contention?
Silly me, you probably think it's okay for two men to mix their sperm, so as not to know who the bio dad is, buy and egg, and rent a womb. That perfectly fine, right? Just not two wives at a time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8434
Oct 31, 2013
 
SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge wants to know whether Utah County's assertion that it would not prosecute the polygamous family featured in "Sister Wives" is a ruse to avoid a legal challenge of the state's bigamy law.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups' blunt questions had a state attorney on his heels for much of a 45-minute hearing Wednesday as he tried to defend Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman's recent policy change regarding the statute.

"Is the act of the Utah County attorney simply an attempt to avoid the issue of what consenting adults can do constitutionally?" Waddoups asked assistant attorney general Jerrold Jensen.

In May, Buhman said in court documents that his office had adopted a formal policy not to prosecute the practice of bigamy unless it occurs in conjunction with another crime or if a party to the marriage or relationship is under 18.

The change came about 18 months after Buhman's office said it was investigating and might prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives under Utah's bigamy law. The Browns later filed a lawsuit, claiming the statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.

Jensen contends that because the Browns won't be prosecuted, their lawsuit is moot and should be dismissed.

Calling it an "important issue to many people," Waddoups took the case under advisement and said he would rule as soon as possible.

The judge noted that other than in court documents, Buhman did not publicly announce the change and there's nothing to preclude him or a future county attorney from enforcing the law. "That goes to the sincerity of this policy," he said.

Jensen said Buhman, who did not attend the hearing, should be taken at his word.

"I don't think you can question the sincerity of the adoption of this policy," Jensen told the judge.

Jensen said after the hearing that he would call Buhman to the witness stand if the ruling goes against the state.

The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, said the "faux" policy does not repeal the bigamy statute and that Buhman still considers it constitutional and enforceable. He never explains the reasons for not prosecuting people for bigamy, but is willing to do so if it's connected to another crime, Turley said.

"It's clearly an effort to avoid a ruling in this case," he said.

The law, Turley said, still "dangles like a Damocles sword" over the Browns.

Brown, who did not attend the hearing, filed a court declaration Tuesday saying despite the "policy" change, his family still feels threatened and that Buhman has never withdrawn his statements labeling them as criminals.

"We continue to suffer harm as a result of the criminalization of our plural family and the public attacks made against my family with reference to this law," he wrote.

In statement Wednesday, Brown said he remains committed to the lawsuit and that the people of Utah should have the final say on that question.

"While we continue our close ties to Utah, we have remained in Nevada in the best interest of our children and family," he said. "One of the factors weighing heavily on our decision has been the continued insistence of officials that this law is constitutional and that plural families are presumptive felons."

In court documents filed in May, Buhman denies making promises or threats to prosecute the Brown family.

"I never stated publicly that I would or would not prosecute the Browns," he wrote, "though I'm aware others in my office may have responded to the press to that effect."

The Browns sued Gov. Gary Herbert, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Buhman in July 2011. Waddoups earler dismissed Herbert and Shurtleff from the case.

In February, the judge ruled there was sufficient evidence to allow the Browns to pursue a lawsuit against Buhman contesting the constitutionality of the law.
http://www.ksl.com/...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8436
Oct 31, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge wants to know whether Utah County's assertion that it would not prosecute the polygamous family featured in "Sister Wives" is a ruse to avoid a legal challenge of the state's bigamy law.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups' blunt questions had a state attorney on his heels for much of a 45-minute hearing Wednesday as he tried to defend Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman's recent policy change regarding the statute.
"Is the act of the Utah County attorney simply an attempt to avoid the issue of what consenting adults can do constitutionally?" Waddoups asked assistant attorney general Jerrold Jensen.
In May, Buhman said in court documents that his office had adopted a formal policy not to prosecute the practice of bigamy unless it occurs in conjunction with another crime or if a party to the marriage or relationship is under 18.
The change came about 18 months after Buhman's office said it was investigating and might prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives under Utah's bigamy law. The Browns later filed a lawsuit, claiming the statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.
Jensen contends that because the Browns won't be prosecuted, their lawsuit is moot and should be dismissed.
Calling it an "important issue to many people," Waddoups took the case under advisement and said he would rule as soon as possible.
The judge noted that other than in court documents, Buhman did not publicly announce the change and there's nothing to preclude him or a future county attorney from enforcing the law. "That goes to the sincerity of this policy," he said.
Jensen said Buhman, who did not attend the hearing, should be taken at his word.
"I don't think you can question the sincerity of the adoption of this policy," Jensen told the judge.
Jensen said after the hearing that he would call Buhman to the witness stand if the ruling goes against the state.
The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, said the "faux" policy does not repeal the bigamy statute and that Buhman still considers it
Did you not know that the issue in that lawsuit is cohabitation, NOT polygamy?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8437
Oct 31, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhhh....SO THAT'S IT! All those pregnant gay men out there, their impregnators took off, left them all alone. If only marriage was available nationwide for these poor souls, then they could become honest men!
Drama Queen hyperbole.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8439
Oct 31, 2013
 
And to sum up, SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.

Smile.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8440
Oct 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
And to sum up, SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.
Smile.
And to sum up..pointless post from a bigot.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8441
Oct 31, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Think again.

From the constituion:
"The full faith and credit clause DOES NOT require one state to substitute for its OWN statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the CONFLICTING statute of another state."

Oklahoma does not recognize queer marriage and can not be forced to accept it from other states.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8442
Oct 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet a same-sex couple from the Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes WAS legally married in Oklahoma, and will get all the federal rights & benefits of marriage!
Wrong aagin, dipshit. That marriage is only recognized inside the tribe. They may get Tribal benefits (which they already were getting) but they will not get the same benefits from the state. They can not change statutes of Oklahoma State Law.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8443
Oct 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What you believe is irrelevant.
Maybe. But I swat you down like a bug every time you raise up.
Xaviers Breath Mint

Schenectady, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8444
Oct 31, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Drama Queen hyperbole.
Multiple syllable insults.....you're growing up so fast Neil.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8445
Oct 31, 2013
 
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Think again.
From the constituion:
"The full faith and credit clause DOES NOT require one state to substitute for its OWN statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the CONFLICTING statute of another state."
Oklahoma does not recognize queer marriage and can not be forced to accept it from other states.
Oh, that's where you are wrong. It CAN be forced by SCOTUS.

Besides, who cares what your backward-ass State accepts? The federal government recognizes it and that is what really matters.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8446
Oct 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong aagin, dipshit. That marriage is only recognized inside the tribe. They may get Tribal benefits (which they already were getting) but they will not get the same benefits from the state. They can not change statutes of Oklahoma State Law.
What benefits from the State? Free dust?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••