Gay marriage

There are 61390 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

#55353 Jul 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Some excerpts from Terra Firma's recent posts ("abstractions of thought"?):
"stupid peter"
"lying bigoted *sswipe"
"No, but thanks for lying."
"stupid Peter" (again)
"bigoted *sswipes like you"
"bigots like you"
"stupid Peter" (again)
"stupid Peter" (three more times!)
" ignorant *sswipe"
"You and your ilk" (new one!)
Ah good times!
Terry gets his panties in a bunch at times.....puts pressure on his hemorrhoids....makes him cranky.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55354 Jul 15, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believed in freedom and liberty you would know that the answer is to let each individual make his/her own decision free of your input.
So they can already, free of government involvement as well....no need to get a license if they don't want to.
Why didn't your mother teach you to mind your own business?
Why didn't your mother teach you to say your prayers every night?
If I want to marry a man and two women, why do you get a say in it?
You can marry your French poodle if you want...the beauty of that is, you can both wear tails at the wedding!

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55355 Jul 15, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage is an example of a change that is necessary.
[QUOTE]

Ohhhhhh....pray tell.....please explain Reverend.

[QUOTE]
Your incessant posturing trying to convince people that gay marriage is some kind of trivial whim is sick and demented.
Uhhhhh...huh.....oh no...you're right Rev....it's not trivial at all, in fact it's been evident in virtually every human society throughout time and place, and sustained itself over time, right?
We are talking about people who have just as much right to live their lives as you do. What arrogance you demonstrate insisting you know what is best for other people.
Sigh...stick with the libertarian view.
We need a law for people like you who can't mind their own business. A law requiring incarceration in a mental facility until you are ready to leave other people alone to pursue their own happiness.
They are free to pursue away without government involvement.
What gives you the right to control other people, or even have a say in their personal peaceful affairs with other consenting adults?
What gives you the right to control other people's opinions regarding matters of public policy? Who are you tell tell American citizens they have no right to have their views heard?

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55356 Jul 15, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh...both men and women had the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife of the same race.
Of course they do, and of different races, and same religion, and different religions, same ethnicity and different ethnicity, same economic class and different economic class. Still legally recognized union of husband and wife, though.
See how stupid that sounds?
It sounds stupid to compare "race" a relatively modern Western invention, like sexual identity, with sex.
That's how stupid you sound now.
It stupid to legally redefine marriage from husband and wife, to "spouses for life regardless of gender composition".

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55357 Jul 15, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you are a dishonest, deceitful, deceptive moron who twists the words of others. What needs to be abolished is this belief you have that you have a right to stick your nose into the affairs of others and tell them either,'no you can't' or 'yes you can'. You need to leave other people alone and you need to respect other people because not doing so makes you disrespectful.
Somehow your holier than thou act has a great deal of manure attached to it considering you refer to Christians as "KKKristians".
Because you are too stupid to remember from one post to the next: no one is advocating abolishing opposite sex marriage but only to make marriage available to everyone no matter how they wish to define it.
What? So "marriage" is just some form of service or product the government offers? Step right up boys and girls and get some government "marriage", define it how ya like, and Uncle Sam will put his rubber stamp on it.

What happened to getting the government to out of marriage?
No one wants you defining their marriage for them. What arrogance you have to self-appoint yourself to try to micromanage other people's marriages.
What arrogance you have to self appoint yourself to dictate how the people of a state should legally define marriage.

Judged:

13

13

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55358 Jul 15, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Society is a buzz word for majority rule.
"Community" then...does that please the Good Reverend?
In America the majority does not get to control the peaceful activities of consenting adults.
On America, people do have a say in government policies that effect, or can effect their communities.
Just because the majority used to believe nonsense does not mean anyone is obligated to believe it as well.
What pray tell, is the good reverend referring to?
If the majority jumps off a cliff that is no reason any minority has to.
Exactly
This whole discussion would end if you would admit you are a sick perverted control freak who can't manage to mind his own business.
So get the government out of the marriage business.
This majority "society" you have invented does not give you any authority from which you can advocate violating the rights of minorities.
So does that mean anyone can claim "minority" status, regardless of the basis of such, and create rights based on said claim?
You are as thick as cement and as criminal as any elected official. We need a law against you authoritarian control freaks sticking your nose in where it is not wanted. What part of 'not wanted' do you not understand?
(Laughing) Now that's funny Rev! "We need a law against you authoritarian control freaks"! So witty.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55360 Jul 15, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I have always maintained that the referendums are wrong, even if we win them. Nobody should be voting on any other citizens' rights.
Sigh....Tony...no one voted on anyone's right...the vote was in the definition of marriage in a particular state. Your right to marry, as a man, was the same as any other man, both before the vote as it was after. You could enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, or in states that voted for SSM, you could enter that as well. There was no preexisting right to marry someone of the same sex, anymore than there was a preexisting right to marry a sibling, or more than one person of the opposite sex.
The federal judges are "taking it upon themselves" just as they did when they had to correct the public about racial issues and other issues.
This has nothing to do with race.
You will be corrected.
Time will tell.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55362 Jul 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ss couples are inferior to marriage. Like many other relationships, they dont equate.
Cool story, Greg.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55363 Jul 15, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
How did it survive with slavery?
The Civl War took care of that.
How did it survive without women voting?
You're comparing the right to vote, with the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?!
Your "reasoning" is fundamentally flawed.
Yours is, in making those comparisons. Please explain, why society suddenly needs men to marry men, and women to marry women? Virtually all human societies have organized themselves around the male female union for the obvious fact at human reproduction is sexual. So what does a same sex sexual relationship produce that warrants societal recognition?
That's why you keep losing in state after state. We haven't lost a single case in a year.
Really.....is that why,(rolls eyes). Honestly Tony you seem like an intelligent man, look at the big picture. If men and women married at rates of previous generations, cohabitated less, divorced less, and produced more children in wedlock, SSM would've had stood a chance.

But it ain't over till the fat lady sings...or in this case, SCOTUS weighs in.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#55364 Jul 15, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a tiny man and a tiny women who are married have less civil rights then a huge man and huge women??
You see you want one relationship to have more rights then another..THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PIG NAZI FILTH!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to be a bigot move to Iran turd.,
My, ain't you a polite feller. I thinks that ever body ought to have equil civil rites. I ain't got nothing again them gays, they is just diffarant and as long as they dose their thang in private I could care less. Equil civil rites don't meen that when two gays ties the not that they gits to call it marriage. You gays won't agree to tie the not and have your own thang because you wants ever body to thank you is normal. If the goveriment was to give you ever rite that normal married people has and call it something else you wood have a calf. Another thang, jest cause a person don't cotton to two gays smooching in public and marrying up that do not make them a bigit. I thanks that there is more bigits on here what is gay than them that ain't.

Judged:

21

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#55365 Jul 15, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery was socially, culturally, historically and religiously an abomination. One that the world is trying to free itself of.
Yes it is, and this country fought a bloody civil war to end slavery here.
Are you going to advocate we keep it as an institution because America was founded with this Christian tradition? Slavery was an institution of owners and slaves.
So you're comparing the institution of marriage, union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, to slavery?!!! Put down the sacramental wine.
Like slavery, your one man one woman marriage has got to go to make way for more freedom and liberty for more people.
Oh Madone! Make up your mind! Either get the government out of the marriage business, as you've stated, or keep the monogamous conjugal definition.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#55366 Jul 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The Civl War took care of that.
<quoted text>
You're comparing the right to vote, with the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?!
<quoted text>
Yours is, in making those comparisons. Please explain, why society suddenly needs men to marry men, and women to marry women? Virtually all human societies have organized themselves around the male female union for the obvious fact at human reproduction is sexual. So what does a same sex sexual relationship produce that warrants societal recognition?
<quoted text>
Really.....is that why,(rolls eyes). Honestly Tony you seem like an intelligent man, look at the big picture. If men and women married at rates of previous generations, cohabitated less, divorced less, and produced more children in wedlock, SSM would've had stood a chance.
But it ain't over till the fat lady sings...or in this case, SCOTUS weighs in.
Here is the thang bout that SCOTUS. The dimocrats is dying for the house of raparenstants to keep being full of dimocrats. That way they can put a liberal on the SCOTUS when the next one either gits altimisars or kicks the bucket. Ain't it funny that the constitution meens diffarant thangs to liberals and consaratives. There ought be a rite and a rong. But liberals is wanting to jest let each feller do his own thang and let it be so that their ain't relly no reel rite or wrong. That is why fellers like the Reverend feller is so again religion. Religon does give us a moral guide.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#55367 Jul 15, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool story, Greg.
The questan is is a marriage between a man and woman and a marriage between two mens equil. It ain't. Mens and womens can have kids. Mens and women can have sex the way that nature made us. Two mens can only do the butt, hand, and mouth thang and that shore ain't normal. Did you ever see two boar hogs getting it on? Even see a bull do to another bull in the butt? Ever see hen eggs hatch if they ain't no rooster. Human beens is animals jest the same as them other animals. It ain't no more normal for two gays to do it that it for two bulls or two buck sheeps.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55368 Jul 15, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> My, ain't you a polite feller. I thinks that ever body ought to have equil civil rites. I ain't got nothing again them gays, they is just diffarant and as long as they dose their thang in private I could care less. Equil civil rites don't meen that when two gays ties the not that they gits to call it marriage. You gays won't agree to tie the not and have your own thang because you wants ever body to thank you is normal. If the goveriment was to give you ever rite that normal married people has and call it something else you wood have a calf. Another thang, jest cause a person don't cotton to two gays smooching in public and marrying up that do not make them a bigit. I thanks that there is more bigits on here what is gay than them that ain't.
Cool story, KiMare.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55369 Jul 15, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> The questan is is a marriage between a man and woman and a marriage between two mens equil. It ain't. Mens and womens can have kids. Mens and women can have sex the way that nature made us. Two mens can only do the butt, hand, and mouth thang and that shore ain't normal. Did you ever see two boar hogs getting it on? Even see a bull do to another bull in the butt? Ever see hen eggs hatch if they ain't no rooster. Human beens is animals jest the same as them other animals. It ain't no more normal for two gays to do it that it for two bulls or two buck sheeps.
Cool story, Kimare.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#55370 Jul 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sigh....Tony...no one voted on anyone's right...the vote was in the definition of marriage in a particular state.
Voting on who may or may not exercise a fundamental is indeed voting on people's rights - those who are precluded from exercising the right by the definition being voted upon. It's no different than voting on the definition of religion being only Protestant Christianity for purposes of freedom of religion. But it's good to know you wouldn't feel your rights had been voted upon if you were suddenly prevented from professing the religion of your choice.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your right to marry, as a man, was the same as any other man, both before the vote as it was after. You could enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, or in states that voted for SSM, you could enter that as well.
It doesn't change the fact limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is discrimination based on seal orientation and violates equal protection.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There was no preexisting right to marry someone of the same sex
Because the fundamental right is marriage, not "same sex" marriage. Which means states can only limit the ability of citizens to exercise the fundamental right of marriage for a legitimate compelling interest. The sex restriction isn't such a compelling interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
anymore than there was a preexisting right to marry a sibling, or more than one person of the opposite sex.
The right is marriage. Period. Quit conflating made up rights with restrictions on exercising an actual right acknowledged by SCOTUS.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This has nothing to do with race.
The constitutional issues are analogous. Which is why so many of the federal District court rulings have cited Loving v. Virginia.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Time will tell.
Yes, time will demonstrate how ignorant of constitutional law you really are.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#55371 Jul 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes it is, and this country fought a bloody civil war to end slavery here.
Actually, the Civil War was fought over secession. It wasn't started with the intent to end slavery; that ended up being a consequence.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you're comparing the institution of marriage, union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, to slavery?!!! Put down the sacramental wine.
Or you find a brain that was educable so you could understand comparisons like this and sexual orientation with race. Educated adults shouldn't have to constantly dumb things down to your level or present thoughts in a manner a first grader could understand.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh Madone! Make up your mind! Either get the government out of the marriage business, as you've stated, or keep the monogamous conjugal definition.
Fallacy of false dichotomy. There are more options than just those two.

Poof1

“don't tell me how”

Since: May 14

to live my life

#55372 Jul 15, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> The questan is is a marriage between a man and woman and a marriage between two mens equil. It ain't. Mens and womens can have kids. Mens and women can have sex the way that nature made us. Two mens can only do the butt, hand, and mouth thang and that shore ain't normal. Did you ever see two boar hogs getting it on? Even see a bull do to another bull in the butt? Ever see hen eggs hatch if they ain't no rooster. Human beens is animals jest the same as them other animals. It ain't no more normal for two gays to do it that it for two bulls or two buck sheeps.
I did see a Hillbilly rape a guy in a movie called Deliverance, does that count? Squeal like a pig

Poof1

“don't tell me how”

Since: May 14

to live my life

#55373 Jul 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How does 20 states agreeing change reality?
Your reality? The one where cheating on your wife is allowed? That one Gregg?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#55374 Jul 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Civl War took care of that.
So how'd the US survive prior to that when slavery still existed?
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're comparing the right to vote, with the right to marry, enter into a legally recognize union of husband and wife?!
They're both fundamental rights. It's not a difficult concept to understand. At least for educated people.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yours is, in making those comparisons.
It's perfectly valid to compare things that are similar. Like fundamental rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please explain, why society suddenly needs men to marry men, and women to marry women?
It isn't a matter of society's "need", stupid Peter. It's matter of compliance with the federal constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Virtually all human societies have organized themselves around the male female union for the obvious fact at human reproduction is sexual.
Except marriage isn't a necessity to procreate nor is procreation a requirement for marriage. Marriage creates kinship between previously unrelated parties and thus creates FAMILIES. Families are the building blocks of societies. And families contribute to the stability of society whether or not they have or raise children because spouses are pledged to care for each other which hopefully relieves the state of that burden. And same sex couples can create families. Just like opposite sex couples. They can have and raise children as well if they so choose. Just like opposite sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So what does a same sex sexual relationship produce that warrants societal recognition?
What makes you think society recognizes your sexual relationship? Society recognizes your marriage; what you do or don't do with your spouse within your marriage is your decision, not society's.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really.....is that why,(rolls eyes). Honestly Tony you seem like an intelligent man
Too bad the same can't be said for you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
look at the big picture. If men and women married at rates of previous generations, cohabitated less, divorced less, and produced more children in wedlock, SSM would've had stood a chance.
That's purely speculative drivel on your part, and not even well reasoned speculative drivel. The history of the US is extending rights to groups that were previously denied those rights by the majority. Discrimination is eliminated whether judicially or legislatively or just by the evolution of attitudes. the elimination of discrimination against gays has been no different.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But it ain't over till the fat lady sings...or in this case, SCOTUS weighs in.
SCOTUS already gave a preview in Windsor but of course you're too stupid to understand that.

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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min Ghost of Seth Rich 42,483
News Sen. Flake says GOP is 'toast' if it follows Tr... 11 min Retribution 24
News Trump won't campaign for Alabama's Roy Moore am... 19 min spud 62
News Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should've resigned ove... 42 min Retribution 141
News Donald Trump blames hurricane-hit Puerto Rico f... 43 min Ms Sassy 34
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Into The Night 64,143
News Rep. Joe Barton apologizes to constituents afte... 1 hr Xstain Mullah Decree 1
More from around the web