Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban

Full story: The Washington Post

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Thursday that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, a position that could also cast doubt on prohibitions in other states.

Comments (Page 53)

Showing posts 1,041 - 1,060 of1,526
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1278
Apr 2, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government is intensely involved.
really? Haow long did it take you to figure that out?
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1279
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government put their nose into marriage when the republicans pushed through DOMA in 1996 - now, because gays want similar recognition, government should butt out?
When you state you are in favor of repealing DOMA, your statements can be taken a bit more seriously.
how is that any differwnt than stating that the government honoring any marriage or religious group is unconstitutional? The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Its not, nice try but in context I did say that.
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1280
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are wrong. Same sex states have a lower divorce rate than states who do not recognize SS marriages;
"According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/0...
Do bit more reading regarding ALL the data - not just the data that suits your personal feelings or beliefs.
interesting. What are those states populations compared to those with high divorce rates? What state has the actual lowest? how to you calculate divorces from illegal marriages into the whole thing? Btw new jersey, lower populations, and you can't. Another important question. Ok questions, what is the average age people are getting married at in those states and how many of the couples already had children out of wedlock? How many couples that stayed married are religious? How many that get divorced aren't ?
Most important question, how can you directly relate gay marriage to the fufillment of another marriage or any marriage besides attempting cherry picking marriage statistics.
Sparkle

Beldenville, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1281
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government have everything to do with it.
You not allowed to think on Sunday?
There are over one thousand laws where the government has "something" to do with marriage, and of the "government" defines marriage as being between two people of different sex, then then marriages of persons of the same sex don't count.
If one state decides that marriages can be between persons of the same sex and another state decides the first state rules don't count: the government is involved.
It should not be hard to understand what would happen if one state could decide it would not honor the rules (contracts... marriages) of another state.
I give you more time since you seem to be a little slow.
You get dumber with every post you make.

love Lilith

“Why Is the Right Deranged?”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1283
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> interesting. What are those states populations compared to those with high divorce rates? What state has the actual lowest? how to you calculate divorces from illegal marriages into the whole thing? Btw new jersey, lower populations, and you can't. Another important question. Ok questions, what is the average age people are getting married at in those states and how many of the couples already had children out of wedlock? How many couples that stayed married are religious? How many that get divorced aren't ?
Most important question, how can you directly relate gay marriage to the fufillment of another marriage or any marriage besides attempting cherry picking marriage statistics.
The data compiled to date takes these key factors in determining divorce statistics;

1 - actual divorce rates per capita from states who do NOT sanction civil unions or SS marriages, vs. states who do sanction civil unions and SS marriages. Religion is not a factor / if you would like to do so, you would obviously see religion has no direct impact. Again, you need to read the data provided - not create scenarios that you hope will bolster your adoration of DOMA, which in itself is unconstitutional, and will be struck down in June.

“Why Is the Right Deranged?”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1284
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>They can't. They'll try, they always do. They're radical Marxist' s. It's got nothing to do with marriage, it's got everything to do with power. If they can get the SCOTUS to redefine marriage, that is one more obstacle out of their way as they trudge towards their goal of destroying America from the inside out.
If only simpletons such as yourself actually had any concept of what Marxism actually is - but you're not the sharpest tack in the box Blowhard / we know this.

Now go sit in your corner and wait for a cartoon show to come on and entertain you dumbass.

“Why Is the Right Deranged?”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1286
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
"destroying America"? Mkay....... too much coffee, or just your usual hyperbole?
Not the coffee - just the ramblings of a very deluded mind.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1287
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bluntforce wrote:
They can't. They'll try, they always do. They're radical Marxist' s. It's got nothing to do with marriage, it's got everything to do with power. If they can get the SCOTUS to redefine marriage, that is one more obstacle out of their way as they trudge towards their goal of destroying America from the inside out.
Holy Bolsheviks in our bathrooms Batman, we've either been spotted, or somebody's aerial needs adjustment. I really don't mind breaking this to you, but this really is about our right to marry and to have our marriages duly recognized by our government. What will destroy America is listening to thinking folk like you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1288
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> really? Haow long did it take you to figure that out?
I'm not the toad who denied the goverment was involved.

Two sentences one too many to process?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1289
Apr 2, 2013
 
Sparkle wrote:
<quoted text>
You get dumber with every post you make.
love Lilith
I am sure you find it comforting you can't get any dumber, dear.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1290
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bluntforce wrote:
They're radical Marxist' s.
braa-a-a-aa--ack! Marxist! braa-a-a-aa--ack! Marxist! braa-a-a-aa--ack! Marxist!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1292
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>The one thing that you radicals's
HAHAHAAHAHAH! bra--a-a-a-ack! Commies! bra--a-a-a-ack! Lefties! bra--a-a-a-ack! Marxists! bra--a-a-a-ack!
bra--a-a-a-ack! bra--a-a-a-ack! bra--a-a-a-ack! bra--a-a-a-ack!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1294
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bluntforce wrote:
The one thing that you radicals's do quite well is obstruct the truth. You're a master at this art.
You know, that might be convincing if I already didn't know that you are unable to recognize the truth even if it weighed three hundred pounds, painted itself neon purple and had given you naked lap dances on a weekly basis.
The Troll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1295
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bluntfart wrote:
<quoted text>They can't. They'll try, they always do. They're radical Marxist' s.
Tell that to the Log Cabin Republicans. LOLAY!

Oh, and you're not supposed to use an apostrophe when writing the plural of a noun. Funny how you bigots are always so illiterate. LOLAY some more!
Ravianna

Coos Bay, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1296
Apr 2, 2013
 
Does anybody honestly take Obama seriously anymore? I mean after Obama went along with the sexists that claimed there was a GOP war on women how can anyone take this idiot seriously?
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1297
Apr 3, 2013
 
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
The data compiled to date takes these key factors in determining divorce statistics;
1 - actual divorce rates per capita from states who do NOT sanction civil unions or SS marriages, vs. states who do sanction civil unions and SS marriages. Religion is not a factor / if you would like to do so, you would obviously see religion has no direct impact. Again, you need to read the data provided - not create scenarios that you hope will bolster your adoration of DOMA, which in itself is unconstitutional, and will be struck down in June.
tjat about as smart as saying minorities are responsible for high crime areas. All you can do grasp at statistic straws. I never did say religion had an impact, I only said your numbers don't really reflect anything accept maybe fewer people get married in those states? I really don't care
d pantz

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1298
Apr 3, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the toad who denied the goverment was involved.
Two sentences one too many to process?
not at all grandpa. That's exactly what I posted. Then I said I thought according to the constitution, they should have nothing to do with it. Read my posts again, this time with your depends and bifocals on!!:-D

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1299
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ravianna wrote:
Does anybody honestly take Obama seriously anymore?
Of course not, he was re-elected for entertainment purposes only. Weren't you paying attention to the last election? I'm pretty sure it was in the news. How is what's his name doing by the way?

By the way, I know you didn't notice, but you just took the man seriously enough to whine about what he be saying.
Ravianna wrote:
I mean after Obama went along with the sexists that claimed there was a GOP war on women how can anyone take this idiot seriously?
Wars always sell, real or conceptual. The Republican war on the women folk is more a war on their right to decide whether they are going to be pregnant and give birth or not. Legislating abortion out of existence, limiting insurance options, abstinence based "sex" education, limiting availability of over the counter contraceptives, it's almost if you want to ensure they get knocked up and stay that way, whether they want to or not. That ought to teach you heterosexual women folk that there are irrevocable consequences to your fornications.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1300
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

d pantz wrote:
I really don't care
If you really don't care stop wasting electrons - it takes seconds to skip over your post.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1301
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Of course not, he was re-elected for entertainment purposes only.
WAHH! WAHHHHHH! WAHHHHHH!

Obama = 332
Tea baggers = lost another one.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,041 - 1,060 of1,526
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••