Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61384 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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8784 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
And I won't! You don't seem to be interested in what is right, just personal ambition. I would not post here if raising the rabble was the formula. I'm only interested in getting things right.
Me too, and equal marriage rights for same-sex couples IS getting things right.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8785 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Understood! It's a fraction now, and it will likely be one again because you don't present a legal argument, just a populist statistic that appeals to ignorant voters who just want to break things. Not interested in that battle.
Actually it will be 100% of states by the end of the decade.

Good thing you're not interested in the battle, because the battle is about over.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8786 Nov 9, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriage law applies equally to every resident of any state the constitutional requirement has been met. People in all 50 states are always left with a choice.
And we're finally getting to that point; likely before the end of the decade.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8787 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
On what basis do couples get special benefits over individuals.
State & federal law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8788 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How deceitfully short sighted.
Marriage laws originated to protect and provide for children and their mothers.
DOMA seeks to protect those provisions. Two men don't need those provisions you sissy.
The only purpose of DOMA was to discriminate against same-sex couples and their families.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8789 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's not.
OK. You serve your master. Understood.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8790 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it will be 100% of states by the end of the decade.
Good thing you're not interested in the battle, because the battle is about over.
The battle is not about gays. The battle is hardly begun.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8791 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Me too, and equal marriage rights for same-sex couples IS getting things right.
No, actually getting things right like visitation rights etc. isn't being addressed at all. It's only a political douchebag tactic by liberals to piss on douchebag Christians. Douchebag Christians should be pissed on, but we need a little grownup leadership too.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8792 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How deceitfully short sighted.
Marriage laws originated to protect and provide for children and their mothers.
DOMA seeks to protect those provisions. Two men don't need those provisions you sissy.
Too bad DOMA doesn't really protect children, just those who observe bigoted Christian doctrine.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8793 Nov 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and bigoted idiots are at a loss to explain why limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves a state interest that would render such a restriction constitutional.
I see you have yet to grow up, grow a brain, or grow a rational argument. This is why those who hold an opinion similar to your own are so consistently losing in court.
Hey, stupid-dummy-dumm-dumm! Eff your State interest. Really! Just shove it entirely up your already widened sphincter!

Is this absolutely crystal clear YET?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8794 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
So marriage benefits are a right of every citizen apart from any condition?
I never said that. The law requires that before a condition be imposed that would prevent a citizen from marrying that said condition must serve a compelling governmental interest.
Can you indicate such an interest served by preventing same sex couples from marrying?
KiMare wrote:
Only by dumbing down marriage to such a degree it opens a host of other issues.
No, it doesn't. Only someone lacking an argument with a rational foundation would advance such an absurd theory.
KiMare wrote:
How deceitfully short sighted.
Marriage laws originated to protect and provide for children and their mothers.
DOMA seeks to protect those provisions. Two men don't need those provisions you sissy.
No, actually, marriage started to secure rights to property. Have you ever heard of a dowry. The purpose, practice, and legal protections provided by marriage have changed over the ages, and indeed from civilization to civilization.

The DOMA, unconstitutionally, infringes upon the right of US citizens to equal protection of the law to marry. It is not long for this world, and those proponents of the law, like yourself, lack the wherewithal to offer a rational defense of the law.
KiMare wrote:
Two men don't need those provisions you sissy.
Is that the best you can do? Between not offering any argument in defense of your position, and offering up ad hominem attacks that would be more at home on a grade school playground, you are doing an excellent job of discrediting yourself.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8795 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Eff your State interest. Really! Just shove it entirely up your already widened sphincter!
This is why your side has been continually losing in court. Rather than attempting to understand the law and craft a rational argument, you offer infantile insults that fail to even begin to support your position.

It must be frustrating to fully believe in restrictions that are utterly unconstitutional. Particularly since if you are even marginally intelligent, it must be evident that they will eventually fail.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8796 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yes! It's your choice to be gay!
Kindly detail the day that you were at a sexual crossroads and you decided to follow the "str8" path.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8797 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
State & federal law.
That's not the basis.

Why do state and federal laws now discriminate against singles and show preferential treatment to couples?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8798 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only purpose of DOMA was to discriminate against same-sex couples and their families.
Hardly. It changed nothing.

You are avoiding the issue. Why?

Smile
Poof

Rock Island, IL

#8799 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. It changed nothing.
You are avoiding the issue. Why?
Smile
Why did you steal money from Jesus, WHY?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8800 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only purpose of DOMA was to discriminate against same-sex couples and their families.
Let's it forget plural marriage families.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8801 Nov 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can a person marry absent another individual?
Of course not, that rather obvious. What does it mean to legally marry?
Congratulations, Pietro, you've just made yourself look dumber. I didn't think it was possible for you to do so.
Someday....maybe someday....if I try real hard, I'll be able to look as dumb as you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8802 Nov 9, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You silly thing - gay folks aren't "re-writing" marriage laws - straight folks did that when they created all of the laws that specifically targeted gay couples for discrimination.
Nooooooo....YOU silly thing, some folks, including a few with self professed same sex attractions, we're apparently confused over the longstanding understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. So other folks got together and decided to constitutionally define marriage according to that understanding so as to clear up any confusion. That way no one would be confused that the wife was replaceable with another man, or the husband with another woman, or even allowing a man to have ore than one legal wife, or woman more than one legal husband, at a time.
And the majority of folks pushing for positive change are straight.
Can't you at least START with the facts?
Actually the majority of those who voted in favor of retaining the definition of marriage as a union of one woman and one man as "husband and wife", are just men and women.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8803 Nov 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and bigoted idiots are at a loss to explain why limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves a state interest that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Are those bigoted individuals the same one who want to limit marriage to two people and denying additional husbands or wives, that serves a state interest that would render such a restriction constitutional?

I see you have yet to grow up, grow a brain, or grow a rational argument.

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) 1 hr Joe Balls 242,612
Is Rioatmdevices Legit??? (Jan '17) 8 hr Matthew 5
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr It s Weather Not ... 63,974
News Californiaa s anti-Trump `resistancea bills: Wh... 20 hr Thank You Doctor 19
News California Attorney General: Constitution, Rule... Wed Wildchild 2
News CommuniCare reports its at risk of losing feder... Sep 20 Concave 4
News APNewsBreak: Millions of Californians on hook f... Sep 20 Geraldo Del La Fuego 9
More from around the web