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.

anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#15724 Dec 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Questioning someone's masculinity?
LOL.
These guys look masculine to me!
http://sssip.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rick...
I'll take that to mean you can't make that choice.
One more tidbit, Rose! It's Christmas!

Do you think yourself to be the puppet or the puppet master? I can tell you now why you are here today. Way back in 1978, a rock band called "The Rolling Stones" published a song called "Beast of Burden". Since then, you've been caught in a dance of pride and the desire to appear "cool" and you still serve your master.

"I don't need no beast of burden." You're the final result in that Black community where men don't surrender their pride. I'm the final result of the White community. I simply reject your world view, simply because I can. The next step is, of course, was this the way it was planned? My reality is that I don't need to obey the liberal puppeteer mandate and go spend money on black chicks just to prove them wrong. I learned long ago that being "cool" was a vain piece of White liberal trash. That doesn't seem to be something you've learned.

The only real question I have is whether or not Keith Richards was also a puppet. That's for another forum though.
JESUSFOLLOWER

Altavista, VA

#15725 Dec 25, 2013
Being gay is an abomination legalizing gays the right to marry is a double abomination during GEORGE BUSH PRESIDENCY GAYS WEREN'T TRYING TO GET THESE RIGHTS COMPARED TO NOW BEING GAY IS ALSO DISGUSTING AND NASTY

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15726 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to explain Mrs Doubtfire, why the government recognizes marriage in the first place, and why for all but ten years of the history of the republic it has been a monogamous male female union. There is no compelling interest in designating same sex relationships, male or female, "marriage". The latter comprising 2/3 of those seeking governmental recognition of their relationships as, "marriage".
<quoted text>
When did husband and wife, become expendable FOR YOU?
"Compelling interest" is NOT needed to allow anything, but only to restrict.

Laws don't "allow", they restrict.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#15727 Dec 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Compelling interest" is NOT needed to allow anything, but only to restrict.
Laws don't "allow", they restrict.
Oh? That doesn't say much about the 14th Amendment then, does it?
The Constitution is more about allowing than restricting. Otherwise, I'd agree with the statement. "Compelling interest", if it is a restriction, is a restriction on the government.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15728 Dec 25, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh? That doesn't say much about the 14th Amendment then, does it?
The Constitution is more about allowing than restricting. Otherwise, I'd agree with the statement. "Compelling interest", if it is a restriction, is a restriction on the government.
Nope. It is regulation (restriction) from top to bottom.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#15729 Dec 25, 2013
JESUSFOLLOWER wrote:
Being gay is an abomination legalizing gays the right to marry is a double abomination during GEORGE BUSH PRESIDENCY GAYS WEREN'T TRYING TO GET THESE RIGHTS COMPARED TO NOW BEING GAY IS ALSO DISGUSTING AND NASTY
You are a moron and the REAL abomination!
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#15730 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Liddie, they already have it, always have, same as any other man or woman who marries, enters into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. What they seek is to change the rules.
Anyone saying otherwise is a bigoted and idiotic imbecile.
So says the bigoted and idiotic imbecile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#15731 Dec 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Compelling interest" is NOT needed to allow anything, but only to restrict.
Laws don't "allow", they restrict.
Such gay twirl.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.

At every point of comparison, ss couples clearly fail to equate with marriage until you get to the number of people in the relationship. However, any law restricting number immediately creates an unconstitutional discrimination.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15733 Dec 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Compelling interest" is NOT needed to allow anything, but only to restrict.
Laws don't "allow", they restrict.
Laws also define.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15734 Dec 25, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
So says the bigoted and idiotic imbecile.
So says the polyaphobe.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15738 Dec 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I do that when you arrogantly dismiss polygamy as just a plot against your marriage. It is not a plot against your marriage. It is good peoples marriages. Just like same sex marriages are good peoples marriages.
I will continue stressing this point whether you like it or not. So there is no sense for you to continue whining when I do it. In other words. tough sh!t. Polygamy deserves the same respect as your marriage.
Hope that helps. But it hasn't so far. Low IQ eh? Well then don't try to play with the big boys. You will end up humiliated.
Respect is earned.

And so far no advocate for polygamy has convinced me that polygamist are deserving of my respect.

As far as I'm concerned, they're nothing more than misogynistic religious freaks hoping to get their hands on 14 y/o girls.

Hope that helps.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15739 Dec 25, 2013
ThePeopleHaveBeenFleeced wrote:
<quoted text>
It always has. Modern sexual identity labels are irrelevant. The state does not care what the self professed sexual identity the prospective husband and wife are. All that matters is that they are of the opposite sex.
Nope, not required to be opposite sex anymore.

Not even in Utah!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15740 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Both Kody and Mrs Brown constitute a couple, as do Kody and the second Mrs Brown. Each pairing constitutes an opposite sex couple, no different from any other opposite sex couple. Similarly situated. Problem solved.
They're only similarly situated to other opposite-sex couples applying for a marriage license if BOTH are unmarried at the time of applying for said license.

Problem solved.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15742 Dec 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need to. Just like same sex marriage doesn't need to. It's a given we're talking about consenting adults. A 14 year old cannot marry someone of the same sex, cannot marry someone of the opposite sex and certainly cannot marry more than one person.
In the course of history, approximately 85 percent of societies have practiced polygamy. 85 percent. The sky didn't fall. Live and let live. Marry who you want let others marry who they want. Open your mind. Why are be a hypocrite?
Merry Christmas
Nope.

Since you repeatedly claim polygamists should have the same right to marry because they're "good people", then you need to be able to PROVE they're "good people".

Couples already have the right to marry, so there is no need for any couple to prove anything other than being similarly situated to other couples seeking to marry.

Yes, a 14 y/o CAN legally marry in NY.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15743 Dec 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Such gay twirl.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
At every point of comparison, ss couples clearly fail to equate with marriage until you get to the number of people in the relationship. However, any law restricting number immediately creates an unconstitutional discrimination.
Restating your assertions doesn't make them more true than the last time.

Link to 5 credible sources that use that definition.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15746 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So much for judges being a "reflection of society", in this case dictorial. Perhaps a higher court will restore sanity, and return the power to define marriage with in the state of Utah, to the people of Utah.
Now which lesbian couple will be the first to divorce in Utah.
The majority of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples, so the judge's ruling is simply a reflection of that.

The people of Utah have always had the power to define marriage within the state of Utah, as long as that definition doesn't violate the federal constitution. Ditto for the people of every state in the country.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15748 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Always have, always did, just like any other man or woman.
<quoted text>
Rather odd to create a couples right.
<quoted text>
No, orientation, why else would he rule a couple's right.
<quoted text>
No, some states define marriage a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, they do not deny a person the right to enter into such a union based on self professed sexual identity labels.
<quoted text>
Again, gender, as in a combination thereof, not sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
Yet, the plaintiffs themselves are self segregating with governmental approval. So apparently the judge approves of gender segregation within marriage.
Marriage has always been a couple's right, since the right can't exist without the couple. You can't marry yourself.

Marriage doesn't have to be a specific combination of genders, which is why judges keep overturning laws which state they do.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15749 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? A man and a woman as husband and wife constitute a couple. Said man may be part of another husband and wife couple, but it's still a couple none the less.
<quoted text>
Exactly
<quoted text>
The claim hasn't been made as of yet.
<quoted text>
The claim hasn't been made as of yet.
Because a couple where one individual is already married isn't similarly situated to a couple where both parties are unmarried.

So they're not similarly situated.

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#15750 Dec 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Since you repeatedly claim polygamists should have the same right to marry because they're "good people", then you need to be able to PROVE they're "good people".
Couples already have the right to marry, so there is no need for any couple to prove anything other than being similarly situated to other couples seeking to marry.
Yes, a 14 y/o CAN legally marry in NY.
Sometimes this guy writes stuff so brain-numbing stupid I have to read it twice to make sure he's saying what I think he's saying.

What's he talking about? Where does he even got the notion of "good people"? How does that figure into anything?

I've long said men who don penis suits and go marching down Main Street are psychopathic to begin with. But have we now entered an age where we take their screwball view of the world seriously?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15751 Dec 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No longer in some states. Sexual orientation has replaced conjugality as the basis of marriage laws in some states. So logically, it stands to reason, someone claiming to be "bisexual" should be able to marry based on that self professed sexual identity label.
What state requires a specific sexual orientation in order to marry?

A bisexual is no more restricted in marriage than a heterosexual or a homosexual.

You anti-gays keep bringing up the same lame losing arguments time after time.

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 Trump accusers call for congressional investiga... 18 min BuckStopper 105
News Trump says US 'cannot afford' Roy Moore loss in... 37 min Retribution 136
News Judge bars ex-Speaker Dennis Hastert from being... 38 min Card Carrying Zio... 4
News US Sen. Elizabeth Warren gets 2nd turn as comic... 1 hr Retribution 14
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Repub Lies Manufa... 46,642
News Tillerson tours Europe while everyone wonders i... 1 hr Hah_ 76
News Rod Rosenstein, No. 2 official at Justice Depar... 2 hr Palin s Turkey Th... 1
More from around the web