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

#8865 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
and infringed on the state's right to make marriage law.
You've got that one wrong.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8866 Nov 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't hurt them and they are still claimed as dependents..
Actually denying their parents the right to marry does harm the children in numerous ways, both financially & the legal protections afforded to married parents.

Co-parent adoptions by unmarried couples are banned in about half the states, which means only one person can be the legal parent. Without the legal protections of marriage, if something happens to the one legal parent, the child is considered a legal stranger to the other parent.

Obviously that affects not only taxes, but healthcare treatment & insurance, custody, etc, etc.

If you can't see the harm in that, it's only because as a typical anti-gay you don't WANT to see the harm.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8867 Nov 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got that one wrong.
The SCOTUS disagreed, which is why they overturned section 3 of DOMA.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#8868 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Obviously that affects not only taxes, but healthcare treatment & insurance, custody, etc, etc.
Not so obvious. Most people get health care insurance from their employer and it covers dependents. The tax penalty was on married couples, I believe that's been addressed. The child/children would still be tax deductions.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8869 Nov 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so obvious. Most people get health care insurance from their employer and it covers dependents. The tax penalty was on married couples, I believe that's been addressed. The child/children would still be tax deductions.
Only to anti-gay bigots such as yourself.

Using your logic there is no reason for opposite-sex couples to marry either because their children would suffer no harm.

I won't bother explaining, because as an anti-gay bigot you'll believe only what you want to believe.

But just so you know, the harm to our children which comes from denying us marriage rights is one of the reasons we have successfully gotten marriage equality in 16 states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8870 Nov 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so obvious. Most people get health care insurance from their employer and it covers dependents. The tax penalty was on married couples, I believe that's been addressed. The child/children would still be tax deductions.
Btw, most healthcare plans strictly limit who can be claimed as a dependent, and in most cases you have to have legal parentage & custody of a child to qualify.

That's the problem with unmarried couples without second-parent adoptive rights; the child is a legal stranger to one parent and can't be claimed as a dependent.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8872 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you finally got one right.
DOMA actually infringed on the equal treatment of married same-sex couples, and infringed on the state's right to make marriage law.
DOMA did nothing of the sort! It only stated that the federal government is only obligated to recognize the marriages of heterosexual couples, which does not infringe on "rights", and the Feds have a LONG way to go in terms of mandating equal "treatment" of much of anyone. They ARE prostitutes for sale to the highest bidder and would NEVER do anything to cut into their profits there.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8873 Nov 10, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No Pastor Greg, that's your mantra.
Seems to me that such is both your mantras.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8874 Nov 10, 2013
First American wrote:
dispite our personal beliefs on being Gay , we have to think about this country it was founded on freedom.Its not hurting anyone for Gay couples to marry. They deserve happiness and families despite our personal beliefs. it isnt fair for the government to make decisions based upon what is morally correct God knows politicans most of them are crooks anyway.
We've heard this canned spam from the first day. It hurts ME, the single person who has to not only take up the extra tax burden to subsidize breeding, but now also the burden of whimsically subsidizing the bigotry of Christians and liberals who just want to whiz in each others Wheaties.

Fold up your simplistic sound bites and stow them!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8875 Nov 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't limit those benefits to married couples without kids because until recently, the potential of procreation was unknown until marriage, and the vast majority of married couples wanted children.
Moreover, until recently, the government sought the best interests of the CHILDREN, not ss couples, and sought to provide a mother and father to children.
Now you admit the injustice of the situation, but assert a majority can overrule the rights of a minority? Were you not just on the other side of that claim???
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So the govt couldn't tell before the marriage that a 75 y/o couple couldn't procreate? Or that a woman who had a hysterectomy couldn't procreate? Hmmmm, I don't think most people were as ignorant as you.
If the govt sough to provide a mother & a father, then they would have banned divorce and single parents.
What minority right is being overruled by allowing same-sex couples to marry?
Now you are just being silly stupid. A 75 year old couple has most likely already procreated. Most hysterectomy's come after procreation too. Even in the rare cases where that is not the case, it is still a far cry from the total mutual barren sterility of a ss couple.

The reason divorce was originally very difficult was exactly because of the children. The government accepted the assurances of psychologists that divorce was better for children. When no-fault was introduced, it devastated marriage and the family.

You brushed off the inequity of giving rights to marriage and ss couples, and not singles or any type of committed relationship between consenting adults.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8876 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a govt interest in promoting marriage because all statistics show married couples are happier & healthier & live longer & are more financially stable & therefore are more productive citizens- regardless of whether that couple decides to have children or not.
It costs the same to raise a child whether the parent is single or part of a opposite-sex or same-sex couple. Govt assistance should be based on need; not marital status.
My only interest is equal treatment under the law for all citizens.
Marriage provides that benefit to opposite sex couples, the government does no such thing. If anything, any government involvement is a detriment to health.

It does not cost the same. Any child in a default family situation is far more expensive than a child in the natural nuclear family. Moreover, the outcome is significantly less in the child's well being.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8877 Nov 10, 2013
First American wrote:
<quoted text>
I am for less government control as you can see anything they touch is a hot mess.
Then I'll ask the same question of YOU that I've asked everyone else here, only to get anal control-freak silence.

Would you accept a national civil union contract to replace all the formal contracts of marriage, and remove all reference to sexuality and the number of spouses from such a contract?

We want equality. We want to support many of the benefits of marriage without putting a tax burden on those who do not choose such an arrangement. We don't want the State to be endorsing any kind of behavior as legitimate or otherwise other than respect of civil law, and we don't want to have that law act as a segue into yet another political or religious indoctrination hidden behind Hate Crime or Affirmative Action laws.

A simple yes or no is all that is required.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8878 Nov 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still short sighted.
Ss couples were never recognized by the federal government as married.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well DUH. That's how the federal govt discriminated against them; by not recognizing their valid state marriages. That's why the SCOTUS overturned section 3 of DOMA.
Your claim was DOMA changed the norm.

What's the matter? Painted yourself in a corner???

Smirk.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8879 Nov 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't limit those benefits to married couples without kids because until recently, the potential of procreation was unknown until marriage, and the vast majority of married couples wanted children.
Moreover, until recently, the government sought the best interests of the CHILDREN, not ss couples, and sought to provide a mother and father to children.
Now you admit the injustice of the situation, but assert a majority can overrule the rights of a minority? Were you not just on the other side of that claim???
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
<quoted text>
Now you are just being silly stupid. A 75 year old couple has most likely already procreated. Most hysterectomy's come after procreation too. Even in the rare cases where that is not the case, it is still a far cry from the total mutual barren sterility of a ss couple.
The reason divorce was originally very difficult was exactly because of the children. The government accepted the assurances of psychologists that divorce was better for children. When no-fault was introduced, it devastated marriage and the family.
You brushed off the inequity of giving rights to marriage and ss couples, and not singles or any type of committed relationship between consenting adults.
You're just going to have to deal with the future as it comes. What are you going to do when you have a generation of the super rich who are determined to perpetuate their vanity only by having themselves cloned or genetically engineered? You don't think this can happen but I'm willing to bet that it is already a trend among those who simply are above the law.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8880 Nov 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMare, all you have proven is that you don't understand the applicability of a compelling state interest, which is to say you don't understand the law. A compelling state interest is necessary to deny rights.
<quoted text>
The government already allows marriage in every state in the union. Do you mean to argue against marriage, or do you simply have no valid argument against same sex marriage?
<quoted text>
...
You are wasting time with your lies. You have no credibility.

The state has a compelling interest to provide education for children. Hardly 'restricting a right'.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8881 Nov 10, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are clearly on the wrong thread. The battle for SSM is nearly completely over.
Really?

In politics, the battle is NEVER over. Never ever, ever in a million years! By the kingdom and the power and the glory, NEVER over!

Well, that's one way to look at it. There are many things that I look at and I see gay marriage as modern Prohibition. It's a wandering, idiotic rationalization that roughly translates as the female ego clashing against the male ego. In the days of Prohibition, it marginalized the majority of men who turned to organized crime. This time around, it's a little different, but ultimately will lead to the same results.
1. Most people don't think marriage is that important, just those who want to control others.(just like the prohibitionists)
2. Men are always going to be men, because women are always going to be women. Women want, no, NEED, them big and stupid and willing to do things for the nookie! Don't believe that! No! Really! Don't! See if I care! When Miss "Wistful Sigh" wants her Jethro Clampett to HIT someone, he's going to HIT someone to get his nookie!
3. No amount of political indoctrination will EVER, EVER, EVER change that. This is NOT slavery. This is NOT woman's suffrage. This is Christian vs. Anti-Christian and an assorted cast of walk-ons who are just looking for personal profit. One percent of the population isn't a poot in a wind storm!

In the end, the world will move on in a truer sense of the Enlightenment, but America will be paying a long time for their collective bender! They need to get over themselves and accept the imperfections that make politics necessary to begin with. It's not like thousands of years of civilization hasn't already put a huge amount of thought into the things the we smugly think we've invented in one or two generation.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8882 Nov 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Really?

1. Most people don't think marriage is that important, just those who want to control others.(just like the prohibitionists)
If there were another way for us to have the same legal benefits as str8 married couples, that would be fine. But, without federal recognition we lack over 1400 benefits. For instance, without SSM my husband would have to claim insurance benefits as "income".

I have no interest in controlling anyone.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8883 Nov 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA did nothing of the sort! It only stated that the federal government is only obligated to recognize the marriages of heterosexual couples, which does not infringe on "rights", and the Feds have a LONG way to go in terms of mandating equal "treatment" of much of anyone. They ARE prostitutes for sale to the highest bidder and would NEVER do anything to cut into their profits there.
Nope, over 1100+ federal rights and benefits are given to married couples. To deny those same benefits to SOME married couples just because they are a same-sex couple does indeed infringe on the right to equal protection of the law.

Which is why the SCOTUS overturned section 3 of DOMA.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8884 Nov 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't limit those benefits to married couples without kids because until recently, the potential of procreation was unknown until marriage, and the vast majority of married couples wanted children.
Moreover, until recently, the government sought the best interests of the CHILDREN, not ss couples, and sought to provide a mother and father to children.
Now you admit the injustice of the situation, but assert a majority can overrule the rights of a minority? Were you not just on the other side of that claim???
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
<quoted text>
Now you are just being silly stupid. A 75 year old couple has most likely already procreated. Most hysterectomy's come after procreation too. Even in the rare cases where that is not the case, it is still a far cry from the total mutual barren sterility of a ss couple.
The reason divorce was originally very difficult was exactly because of the children. The government accepted the assurances of psychologists that divorce was better for children. When no-fault was introduced, it devastated marriage and the family.
You brushed off the inequity of giving rights to marriage and ss couples, and not singles or any type of committed relationship between consenting adults.
You're the idiot who claimed the govt gave benefits to married couples because they couldn't tell before the marriage if they would procreate.

So work to ban divorce.

Single people & cohabitating adults aren't similarly situated to married couples, which is why there is no violation of equal protection. If they want the same rights & benefits, all they have to do is get married. The choice is theirs.

I proved that was obviously not the case.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8885 Nov 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage provides that benefit to opposite sex couples, the government does no such thing. If anything, any government involvement is a detriment to health.
It does not cost the same. Any child in a default family situation is far more expensive than a child in the natural nuclear family. Moreover, the outcome is significantly less in the child's well being.
And marriage provides the same benefit to same-sex couples, which is why the govt promotes marriage regardless of gender.

How does it cost more to raise a child for 18 years just because that child if raised by someone other than their married biological parents?

Do they charge more for diapers & food for single moms?
Do they charge more for daycare for a same-sex couple's child.
Do they charge more for education for the child of a divorced dad?

Nope, the costs are the same.

And the outcome of the child raised by 2 married parents is the same regardless of their gender or biological relation to their child.

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 The Trump victory, the threat to California's g... 1 min Philosophic 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 230,969
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Moans6157 62,300
News OK, so, pota s legal. Now what? 7 hr ThomasA 18
News California attorney general pick pledges affron... 8 hr Humps4061 14
News Group says it has sued Dow over pesticide used ... Thu ThomasA 3
News University of California digs in to fight Trump... Thu tomin cali 1
More from around the web