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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21359 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since polygamy remains illegal in all 50 states, I've already won.
Denying others the same rights you enjoy is not winning.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21360 Jan 24, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is centrist, moderate and bipartisan. Criminalizing same sex unions or rewriting marriage law for sex segregation are the extremist, radical positions. We like the peace and unity of sex integrated marriage; it means children may grow up with a mother and father.
Brian, how is it centrist if most people support same sex marriage?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-le...
Pietro Armando wrote:
FINALLY.....a simple answer. Need less to say I disagree with you. What governmental purpose is served by expanding marriage to include non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships?
Here's the difference, moron. I can support my position, you cannot.

Clearly you are too stupid to understand strict scrutiny, or its application.

Congratulations, you are a moron.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21361 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just one of the many reasons I think polygamy will REMAIN illegal.
What are some of your other many reasons? Aw c'mon, tell Frankie. Are they secret?

Judged:

12

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21362 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Someone who insists the reason to keep polygamy illegal is that three is more than two wants to argue on a rational basis. Priceless!
Frankie, I am not going to argue with an idiot that cannot count.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21363 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Doubtful.
I don't know any happy men married to just one woman; SERIOUSLY doubt I'd find one happy being married to MANY women.
I was talking to my friend Wastewater, not you jackass. I know you ain't interested in women but she is. And I am too! So butt out Romeo.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21364 Jan 24, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Parse bunny. You aren't reading at all. You're fishing for sound bites.
I already stated that in the bad old days, divorce was almost unheard of. That changed and because of that, the courts had to produce standards by which they settle them. For the most part, those standards aren't written into law, but they are based on commonly held "common sense" standards on parental roles.
I'm not here to judge anyone for engaging in divorce. I'm just pointing out the legal issues required to be reconciled along with all your "Constitutionality" rants. The Constitution is an open ended contract that is modified regularly. Our social and economic infrastructure has also changed and thus adjustments are constantly required to keep the peace.
Just tell me if you think marriage is about the raising of children and if so, how are you going to define the roles of both partners in a gay marriage. If gay marriage is NOT about the raising of children, why do you think it requires total equality instead of the definitions contained in a civil union?
Children are a good example of the problem. If both parents are working parents and the children are adopted, who gets to keep the children when there is an equal investment in their upbringing? The subject IS relevant and on topic.
I'm pointing out the obvious. Your unwillingness to address this question is proof that gay marriage is a political ego trip and irresponsible to the needs of our citizens. YES, in this case it IS about the little children. ARE YOU just going to recite the party line that contends that gay couples make GREAT parents, even though there is almost no evidence and little grounds to presume that gay couples who raise children represent anything more than individuals on the rebound from bad decisions that they made while they were taking a stab at the straight life.
If raising kids is defined by a hostile ego towards one's past partner of the opposite sex, I DO think that the upbringing of those kids will be irresponsible. If a gay couple adopts and then divorces, I DO think that the genuine empathy towards children that come from one's own genes will be lacking and that those children will not be shown the same commitment in the future.
Every single mother knows what a destroyer of relationships kids from another marriage are. I want to know if you're playing this whole game to get gubbermint money that is meant for the welfare of the children, NOT YOU! Don't play your "Rose's Law" game. I want to know if your commitment is to the children, not to spiting those Christians who you obviously hate to distraction. I want to know where your loyalties are when YOU are under duress. Will YOU make sacrifices for the child, or will you run from responsibility.
You're running from a simple question. My verdict is that you will run from your responsibilities to that child as well. Done and done!
WTF does your rambling, pretentious babble have to do with gay marriage?
It just seems to be a perfect illustration of Rose's Law.
You don't have any sort of argument against gay marriage, you abandon the subject, and bring up children to try and whip up emotion.
Those Crazy Aliens

Winnipeg, Canada

#21365 Jan 24, 2014
All I have to say is that if you want to do disgusting things with your same sex partner, and live that filthy lifestyle, keep it to yourself and leave us straight normal people alone!

If any of you LGBT crowds get close to me or my family, I'll cut off your heads, and show you what the inside of your bung snap looks like!

Also, stop adopting children, and indoctrinating them into submission at a young age on how it's o.k and PC to be gay!

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21367 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it meant happy marriage....
Well, you were wrong. Though I'm sure many gay marriages are happy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21368 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I was talking to my friend Wastewater, not you jackass. I know you ain't interested in women but she is. And I am too! So butt out Romeo.
What's the matter, Frankie? Lacking in the grey matter to address legitimate arguments from others?

Sounds like the hallmark of an imbecile.

You brought up the stupid and irrelevant topic.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21369 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiotically think men and women are interchangeable androgynous being and that their union produces nothing of value to society. Learn biology.
I don't, but I think men and women should have equal rights.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21370 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Such drama.....have you been drinking the rainbow punch again? So what has changed to necessitate change? Men and women are still men and women. Their union hasn't changed, still produces offspring. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Gay marriage doesn't change unions between men and women.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21372 Jan 24, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no logical, rational, valid federal constitutional reason to deny gay and lesbian Americans the RIGHT to marriage anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States.
I am confident that SCOTUS will agree with that statement in the foreseeable future.
The people arguing against marriage equality used the same vacuous arguments against inter-racial marriage in the U.S.(SAVE THE CHILDREN !)
Exactly.
As well as, "It's against god's will."
'"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/38...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21373 Jan 24, 2014
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
When it is all said and done and over with there is only one born fact. Gays and same sex marriage will burn in hell for ever and our lawmaker's in this country will burn with them. Gays and same sex marriage is against the Laws/Rules of God. You can live that kind of lifestyle if you want, but you will pay the price bank on it "FACT"....
PS: Do you want to burn for ever?? W.W.J.D.
Working on Friday night is against the "Laws/Rules of God". Do you think every single person working, even cleaning the house, right now should be tortured to death? Yes or no.(Exodus 35:2)

Oh, and while you are avoiding that question, provide some evidence hell exists.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21374 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the matter, Frankie?
Nothing! Doing fine, how about yourself, you sound a little edgy. Everything all right? Burn any crosses on polygamists' lawns lately?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21375 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the matter, Frankie? Lacking in the grey matter to address legitimate arguments from others?
Sounds like the hallmark of an imbecile.
You brought up the stupid and irrelevant topic.
Your post was irrelevant, "lides" whined irrelevantly.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21376 Jan 24, 2014
THE BAPTIST wrote:
Does not nature itself in evidently to a honest person with reasoning,know that homosexual sex is wrong.
There is same sex sex in nature, stupid.
THE BAPTIST wrote:
That is just using common sense,we can argue all day long about what god says homosexuality.But it is there in our bible in plain king james english,what god said about homosexuality.Jesus his self confirms what marriage is when he said in the beginning god made a male and a female,to have sex and procreate.Sex is enjoyable because god made it enjoyable sso that mankind would multiply and continue to multiply.Two men cannot have children together and two women can not either.Any other sexual gratification goes against god and nature.
You really need to let nature know about this.
God doesn't exist.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21377 Jan 24, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage doesn't change unions between men and women.
You can't expect an idiot to understand such a distinction.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21378 Jan 24, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It likely does for a lot of folks that won't admit it, based on the numbers of people who end up cheating on their spouses.
I've got specific twins in mind. lol

WOOT !!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21379 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Nothing! Doing fine, how about yourself, you sound a little edgy. Everything all right? Burn any crosses on polygamists' lawns lately?
What was actually said,
Lides wrote:
What's the matter, Frankie? Lacking in the grey matter to address legitimate arguments from others?
Sounds like the hallmark of an imbecile.
You brought up the stupid and irrelevant topic.
Sorry you are a disingenuous idiot, incapable of offering a rational argument, imbecile Frankie.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Your post was irrelevant, "lides" whined irrelevantly.
Dear moron, I am sorry you can't count, or understand that three or more is greater than two.

It must be tough to be an imbecile.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21380 Jan 24, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is centrist, moderate and bipartisan. Criminalizing same sex unions or rewriting marriage law for sex segregation are the extremist, radical positions. We like the peace and unity of sex integrated marriage; it means children may grow up with a mother and father.
It didn't for you, your mom and dad divorced.
Straight marriage, peace and unity? Most marriages end in divorce, like your parents'.

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 Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 49 min LarryV 2,004
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 50 min OK Barry 248
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 199,159
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr AMERICAN SUNSHINE 228,388
News Democrats stage sit-in, shut down chamber overa 1 hr huey goins 31
News Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest 2 hr Cat74 224
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr IB DaMann 60,011
More from around the web