Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn...

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

There are 1525 comments on the The Washington Post story from Feb 28, 2013, titled Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

horrific pictures

Missouri City, TX

#1568 Apr 20, 2013

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1570 Apr 20, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
Then let churches and religious people make their own decisions when it comes to who the will marry.
This isn't about religious marriage, which remains unchanged. A religion need not marry people of the same sex.

This has to do with legal marriage, and equal protection of the law. Plain and simple.
Bluntforce wrote:
Why does the government demand that their armed forces chaplains perform sodomy based marriage?
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operatio...
It's not surprising that you are ignorant of the truth.
Religious freedom ensures that Army Chaplains need not do anything in conflict with their faith.
Bluntforce wrote:
You can't use that argument, since the queers want the government to bless their actions and restrict everyone else.
No, we just want equal protection of the law.

However, A little courtesy would also be welcomed. You could stop using pejoratives.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1571 Apr 20, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text> And you, barenuts, won't have to repress those memories of those family bath nights. Plus the teenager at the drug store checkout won't be allowed to sneer at you when you buy those adult diapers and your herpes medication. Stomp, stomp, stomp. Homosexual "rights", stomp,, stomp, stomp, gun control, free healthcare, food stamps, welfare, women rights, illegal alien rights, blah, blah, blah. Etc, etc and so on. You must consume a lot of parrot food in between shagging your lawn care boy.
No, just constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws.

Do you realize how childish comments like the one to whic I am responding make you look?

What are you, twelve?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1572 Apr 20, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
Why does the government demand that their armed forces chaplains perform sodomy based marriage?
So you've never served this country either, eh, Blowface?

Wipe your chin.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1573 Apr 20, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text> And you, barenuts, won't have to repress those memories of those family bath nights.
WAHHHHHHHHHH! mommy! Barefoot keeps pulling down my panties and spanking me! WAHHHHHHHHHHH! tell him giving knobbers doesn't make me gay if I charge for them! WAHHHHHH!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1575 Apr 23, 2013
Even liberals can no longer deny the obvious...

NPR Casually Discusses How Gay Marriage May Lead to 'Grander Trend' of Legalized Polygamy
By Tim Graham | March 29, 2013 | 23:24

They made fun of Rick Santorum and other social conservatives when they suggested gay marriage would easily lead to legalizing polygamy. But now liberals see that “grander trend” on the horizon.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1576 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Even liberals can no longer deny the obvious...
NPR Casually Discusses How Gay Marriage May Lead to 'Grander Trend' of Legalized Polygamy
By Tim Graham | March 29, 2013 | 23:24
They made fun of Rick Santorum and other social conservatives when they suggested gay marriage would easily lead to legalizing polygamy. But now liberals see that “grander trend” on the horizon.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/...
Still can't count to three, I see.

Polygamists do not seek equal protection, they seek inherently greater protection of the law.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1577 Apr 23, 2013
A truly unbiased opinion of ssm and polygamy....

Gay marriage
And now on to polygamy
Apr 8th 2013, 14:30 by M.S.

THE excitement over the Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage has probably died down until the court comes back with a decision. And what with a majority of senators now in favour, it certainly looks like, whether by judicial or legislative action, gay marriage is on a fairly rapid road to acceptance across America. So this moment, when fewer people are paying attention and it can't do too much harm, seems like a good time for people who support gay marriage to admit that there are a couple of arguments for it which they've always thought were wrong.

Alexander Borinsky's article in N+1 takes up the issue from the perspective of a 20-something gay man who's not entirely comfortable with marriage advocates' campaign to show that gay people's sexual preferences are inborn and involuntary, and to present gay people as non-threateningly monogamous.

Sexuality, he feels, is in part something you actively construct as part of the bildungsroman of your life, and that journey for a lot of gay people involves a bunch of sex with strangers. After the dissolution of a relationship led him to a period of screwing around, he writes:

...my promiscuity served a purpose. Abandoning myself to alcohol and flirtation felt like a salvific, if reckless, kind of machismo.

Uncommitted sexual encounters meant self-reliance. I vividly remember leaving the house of a waifish, doe-eyed dancer from Devon who grinned and giggled and wore a ripped army jacket. It was around four thirty in the morning. The sex had been terrible, but outside was a lovely, warmish night. As I waited for the night bus I felt disappointed, embarrassed, and a little frightened. I also felt brave, dangerous, and grown...

Keep reading...it 'really' is interesting for both sides of the argument...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1578 Apr 23, 2013
The urge to prove that I could stand on my own two manly legs came, in part, from the language of helplessness that pervades most messages of gay acceptance:“It’s okay that you’re gay, because you were just born that way. It’s no one’s fault.”

Binging and [having sex] made my gayness into, yes, a “lifestyle” choice—not just a hormonal tic I couldn’t help. I was a person making choices, not a sexuality unfolding itself.

Right on. And this kind of sentimental education isn't exclusively or even particularly gay. Who hasn't left the house of a waifish, doe-eyed dancer at 4:30 in the morning?

Now, as a heterosexual, I enjoy the privilege of being able to declare that I greatly enjoyed the relatively few such evenings I experienced in my 20s and wish there'd been more of them, without worrying that anyone will then try to deny me the right to get married. But what I was doing, on those evenings, was just as much a volitional construction of my own sexuality and masculinity as what my gay friends were doing at the same age.

cont'd...good stuff...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1579 Apr 23, 2013
Mr Borinsky forthrightly notes evidence that gay men are, on average, a lot more promiscuous than straights, which certainly comports with anecdotal experience. And so what? There's no logical or ethical need for proponents of legalising gay marriage to argue that gay men are just as monogamous as straight men, or to imply that being non-monogamous is in itself bad. There may be a political necessity to make that argument, but that's another story.

So there's one aspect of the pro-gay-marriage brief that deserves a mental asterisk.

A second argument that has always been a bit weak has been the attempt to minimise the extent to which allowing same-sex marriages will change the definition of marriage for straight married couples. When conservatives have argued that gay marriage would "devalue traditional marriage", the response has often been to ridicule the idea that straight people's marriages will change at all.("OMG! Marriage is now worthless!")

This isn't a serious response. Obviously the legalisation of same-sex marriage represents a major change in the institution and in the meaning of the word, much as the meaning of phrases like "all men are created equal" changed significantly when they began to be understood to include, say, women.

For people who have a strongly gendered understanding of their own marriage, this is a paradigm shift. The government is now saying it understands marriage as a long-term legal commitment between two people who are assumed to have a sexually attached relationship to each other. Gender is irrelevant; marriage is simply a paired relationship.

It's a big deal when social institutions change this way, and if conservative heterosexuals feel their marriages are affected, they're right, even when the way they phrase their complaints is wrong.

Cont'd......

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1580 Apr 23, 2013
Which brings us to moderately off-the-mark argument number three. One of the assumptions that gay marriage calls into question, for many conservatives, is: why pairs, then? If not man-woman, then why not man-woman-woman, and so forth? Again, the response of gay-marriage proponents is generally ridicule.

I don't think this is a ridiculous question. "Why can't you marry your dog, then?" is a ridiculous question; marriage, in our society, is between consenting adult persons.(Though states where girls can marry below the age of legal adulthood violate this premise, and show the traces of a premodern understanding of marriage as a reproductive contract between extended families that few Americans would say they support today.)

But "why only two?" isn't a ridiculous question. It's easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn't raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?

Almost there...keep reading...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1581 Apr 23, 2013
There are, obviously, a whole lot of societies in the world where polygamy is legal and normal. In fact the anthropological record suggests that the overwhelming majority of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife simultaneously.

I don't want to be taken to be making a creepy dirty-old-man argument in favour of polygamy. But the reflexive belief that polygamous marriages must be evil and oppressive even in societies where they are traditional is basically an expression of cultural prejudice. I would never want to be in a polygamous marriage myself, because I've grown up in the West and it seems freaky and inegalitarian to me; but for people who grew up in Yemen, or in Swaziland, or in Vietnam before the 1950s, that is not necessarily the case.

Coming up on the end....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1582 Apr 23, 2013
Women in polygamous societies may decide to become a rich man's second wife rather than a poor man's only wife, and do not necessarily feel oppressed by that choice. Their children usually turn out well-adjusted. To take the typical paradigm-upender, if you imagine a Sudanese man with two wives (and children by each of them) who wins the Green Card lottery and is told he has to divorce one of his wives before coming to America, you have to wonder whose interests the government thinks it is defending.

And yet modernisation in almost every country seems to entail a shift from polygamy to monogamy.

This is actually something of a puzzle, according to "The puzzle of monogamous marriage", a paper published last year by Joseph Henrich of the University of British Columbia, Robert Boyd of UCLA, and Peter Richerson of the University of California Davis. It's particularly confusing, they note, in that in any polygamous society, the most powerful men are likely to be the ones who benefit from polygamy. How does a society make a shift in norms that greatly disadvantages its most powerful members? Their argument is that in the case of Europe, the dynamic that led pagan, polygamous Germanic tribes to shift to monogamy and Christianity was competition between proto-states at the group level. In polygamous societies, high-status men marry a disproportionate share of the women, leaving low-status men to fight and scramble for the rest.

....We absorb these norms, we learn to embrace them, we thrill to them from the age when we watch our first Disney film. Today, gay men and women want to have their sexual bonding embraced within the same norms, to achieve equality, and that's their right.

But my guess is that the real answer to the conservative question "why not more than two people, then?" is that we will stick to pairs because marriage is a creature of the state and pairs are the form that makes the state strongest. Nobody, though, gays or conservatives, finds this way of thinking about the issue very appealing, so it probably won't get much play.

I thought this to be an open, honest and down-to-earth view of the current state of affairs...BRAVO!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1583 Apr 23, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure you volunteered right after you got out of juvenile hall.
I'm sure you never left a customer unsatisfied, BOY.

But wipe your chin in between, the flies are overwhelming.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1584 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Even liberals can no longer deny the obvious...
NPR Casually Discusses How Gay Marriage
Funny how you couldn't find a link to what NPR actually REPORTED on.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175619109/if-su...
The Troll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#1585 Apr 23, 2013
Get That I am a Fool wrote:
Plagiarized spam. Dismissed. NEXT!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1586 Apr 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you couldn't find a link to what NPR actually REPORTED on.
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175619109/if-su...
Ummm, I 'did' supply the link...and the conversation is on that link....try again...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1587 Apr 23, 2013
It appears that Fool is still having difficulty with basic single digit counting.

Fool, if child A has 2 apples, and child B has 3, who has more?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1588 Apr 24, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Plagiarized spam. Dismissed. NEXT!
Ah....you don't like it...too bad!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1590 Apr 24, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, I 'did' supply the link...
Actually, you supplied a link to the whiners who were talking about the link.

I provided the link to NPR (the source) and the **ENTIRE** conversation.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min An NFL Fan 61,080
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 23 min Rogue Scholar 05 222,775
News 28 postal workers charged with mail theft, othe... Sun Joe Balls 3
News Show Me the Money! California's Underfunded Courts Sun Stephany McDowell 1
Need to identify a woman Aug 27 Missouri85 1
News California Lawmakers Approve Extension Of Clima... Aug 26 Apostate 1
News California court decision keeps teacher tenure ... Aug 25 Latricia 2
More from around the web