Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61304 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.

“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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8804 Nov 9, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a choice.. You choose to be straight?
It's a choice as to what type of behavior one chooses to engage in, and what political sexual identity label one chooses to adopt, if any at all. Does same sex sexual attraction require adopting such a label?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8805 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we have marriage equality in 15 states; that's 30% of the states, including 3 of the 5 most populous states with more than 1/3rd of all Americans living in a marriage equality state.
Or to put it another way Sheepie, marriage conjugality has be rejected in 15 states as the foundation of the marital relationship.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8806 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. You serve your master. Understood.
No one chooses their sexual orientation.
Poof

Cambridge, IL

#8807 Nov 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or to put it another way Sheepie, marriage conjugality has be rejected in 15 states as the foundation of the marital relationship.
Then again we could say that 30% of the nation ( and growing) have tossed homophobes to the curb.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8808 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The battle is not about gays. The battle is hardly begun.
This particular battle is about equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8809 Nov 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The battle is not about gays. The battle is hardly begun.
Then you are clearly on the wrong thread. The battle for SSM is nearly completely over.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#8810 Nov 9, 2013
fr KiMare:

>Unless you are a man named Patty, you are not married.<

My MARRIAGE LICENSE says differently.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8811 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the basis.
Why do state and federal laws now discriminate against singles and show preferential treatment to couples?
Smile.
Because it is beneficial to society when people couple up. They take care of each other, are happier & healthier & more productive citizens overall. That makes them less likely to be dependent on the govt. So a dollar in tax breaks today saves thousands down the road.

It's like paying for preventive medical care.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8812 Nov 9, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Then again we could say that 30% of the nation ( and growing) have tossed homophobes to the curb.
Who has a fear of homogenized milk?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8813 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. It changed nothing.
You are avoiding the issue. Why?
Smile
Wrong yet again.

DOMA forced the federal govt to discriminate against married same-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8814 Nov 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or to put it another way Sheepie, marriage conjugality has be rejected in 15 states as the foundation of the marital relationship.
You can put it however you want.

Either way, it will soon be all 50 states.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8815 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No one chooses their sexual orientation.
Sooooooooo what,.one chooses what behavior to engage in, what "identity", sexual, or,otherwise to adopt, with whom one wishes to associate with, etc. Those are all choices.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8816 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You can put it however you want.
Either way, it will soon be all 50 states.
So then it will be all fifty states have rejected marriage conjugality as the foundations of the marital relationship. Next up to be rejected, monogamy. Tune in tomorrow.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8817 Nov 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. Only someone lacking an argument with a rational foundation would advance such an absurd theory.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
1. I'm asking what government interest is served for any person.

2. All kinds of prejudicial issues are opened if the government is showing preferential treatment while excluding singles, and limiting the number of participants in marriage.

3. A dowery was not at the basis of American marriage laws. You know that.

DOMA simply intended to maintain the rights of married couples because of children. If children are removed as a government interest, than those rights must be extended to ALL people, married or not. Moreover, outlawing polygamy is discriminatory because it is based on children too.

4. Two people (or more) already have an advantage of shared expenses. Now singles are excluded from additional benefits? For what government interest?

Moreover, since those benefits were intended for stay at home mothers, but were invalidated because of societal changes, it only makes sense to REMOVE them, or extend them to ALL.

You are defensive and evasive because you know this.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8818 Nov 9, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Why did you steal money from Jesus, WHY?
Get a life twit.

Do you think after seventeen years of dealing with sonne Israel your idiotic lies are going to bother me?

You just joined the parade of an insane and deeply troubled person. Comfortable?

Snicker.
First American

Columbus, IN

#8819 Nov 9, 2013
I am for Gay marriage I am heterosexual. I say get married be happy Your an American You should be free to make your own choice and recieve the tax benefits:)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8820 Nov 9, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr KiMare:
>Unless you are a man named Patty, you are not married.<
My MARRIAGE LICENSE says differently.
Embarrassingly silly isn't 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) 56 min Jacques in Orleans 207,388
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 hr Earthling-1 57,168
News Lawmakers Warn Buffett's Coal May Hurt Californ... 16 hr Solarman 1
Join Baphomet Ashram Brotherhood for Riches, Po... 19 hr Brian 1
News California Politicians Have A Huge Financial In... Sat Cob Coy 5
News Face-to-face still trumps texts for social clos... Sat Mistydo 1
News Will Smith among NAACP Image Awards attendees a... Fri Ronald 3
More from around the web