Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of G...

Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage

There are 3875 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 15, 2014, titled Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage. In it, EDGE reports that:

For foes of same-sex marriage, their losing streak keeps growing. Some sense a lost cause, others vow to fight on.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1092 Jun 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst, the issue is marriage for same-sex couples, not polygamy.
The issue is marriage equality. Censorship sucks. It is a tool of people who have no valid argument.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1093 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again Loser and filed with the stay even for you to read clearly and for your information I am a Democrat that hasnt been Radicalized and doesnt go around acting like a bigot claiming to be a Liberal some Liberal Democrats as they call themselves which they are not and have no use for True Liberalism.
A true liberal is in favor of equal rights for men and women.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1094 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it is going to fly which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Friday because the lunacy is very clear that Liberal Democrats are advocating which we all know they have no use for the US Constitution.
You mean:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1096 Jun 29, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you're jealous. Bet you call yourself a Christian too!
That guy has a crush on me. He follows me like a 12 year old boy with a crush, changing names and proxy servers, doing what 12 year old boys with crushes do. The hormones have started to flow, and they aren't sure what to do to get the attention of the girl/woman they are fixated on, so they tease. Sometimes I wonder if he is a 12 year old with a crush on me, but he doesn't seem mature enough.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1097 Jun 29, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."?
Key words:
"within its jurisdiction"

I don't expect you to understand.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1098 Jun 29, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That guy has a crush on me. He follows me like a 12 year old boy with a crush, changing names and proxy servers, doing what 12 year old boys with crushes do. The hormones have started to flow, and they aren't sure what to do to get the attention of the girl/woman they are fixated on, so they tease. Sometimes I wonder if he is a 12 year old with a crush on me, but he doesn't seem mature enough.
http://www.hark.com/clips/bsvmvxgykk-cuckoo-c...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1099 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you proved my point that liberals will be advocating for incest next.
LOL. You are a joke.
At least you managed to make a post without "Baker" in it.
I've always said an act had to involve a non consenting party to be immoral. Even a dolt like you should realize that would include incest.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1100 Jun 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Key words:
"within its jurisdiction"
I don't expect you to understand.
Equal protection.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should also be able to.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should also be able to.
Anywhere in the state (its jurisdiction).
I don't expect you to understand.

Oh, yeah, you said you have info to show there is a 70+% chance I don't know who my dad is. Put up, b!tch, or admit you are lying.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1101 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>SCOTUS has not wanted to touch the Gay Marriage issue is the problem but now the SCOTUS is going to have to reaffirm Baker v Nelson again because orginally the SCOTUS said gay marriage was state issue which they were right and left up to the individual states but what has happened is these gay couples are either moving out of state into state that does not recognize gay marriage which they dont have to or these gay gay couples are going out of state and marrying in a state that recognizes gay marriage and coming back to the state where they live thinking their state has to recognize their out of state marriage which they dont which is why it is a Federal Issue now and the SCOTUS is going have no choice but to rule on Gay Marriage just like they reaffirmed Minnesota Supreme Courts decision in Baker v Nelson in 1971.
Hey look, you FINALLY got something right.

Yes, the SCOTUS is going to rule on whether or not a state can ban same-sex couples from marrying or refuse to recognize their marriages performed in other states.

If you want to believe they're going to reaffirm Baker, that's your choice. The overwhelming majority of constitutional experts- including the last 20 federal judges to issue a ruling- all believe the SCOTUS will rule same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as opposite-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1102 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No that is at issue what will the Liberals constitute as marriage next which Baker V Nelson spells that out very clear.
Nope, that's just the scary chicken-little rhetoric from the anti-gays trying to scare people into thinking if gays can marry then people will be marrying their dog next.

Thankfully very few people are that ignorant to believe that nonsense anymore.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1103 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>they are still in court and here in Indiana same couple marriages have come to a halt and onto the SCOTUS it will go.
Yes, a temporary stay has been issued by the 7th circuit preventing any more same-sex couples from marrying. It's pretty standard for a stay to be issued in cases like these until the appeals process is complete.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1104 Jun 29, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am against tree marriage too. But all in all, I support consenting adult human being marriage equality and you don't. That's the bottom line. I know this bothers you but it should! You're a hypocrite.
Then you don't support marriage equality for all either.

Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

If you can limit marriage equality to consenting adult humans, then there is no reason it can't be limited to consenting adult human couples.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1105 Jun 29, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because marriage is for consenting adult human beings. Not for children even if they are same sex. Not for animals even though they are same sex and a bla bla bla...
Why do you limit marriage to consenting adults power ranger? Probably the same reasons I do eh, dummy?
Your desperation is showing.
But wait, if marriage is for "consenting adult human beings" as you claim, then how is it millions of children have married in this country before they turned 18 and became an adult?

Ooops, I guess marriage ISN'T limited to just consenting adult human beings after all.

So why do you oppose allowing a 17 y/o child to marry their 18 y/o adult boyfriend or girlfriend?

Your bigotry is showing.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1106 Jun 29, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is marriage equality. Censorship sucks. It is a tool of people who have no valid argument.
Yes, the topic is marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Bringing up polygamy & incest & bestiality is a tool of people who have no valid argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry.

I'm glad you finally sobered up enough to realize every time you mention polygamy you demonstrate how ignorant you

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1107 Jun 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you don't support marriage equality for all either.
Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
If you can limit marriage equality to consenting adult humans, then there is no reason it can't be limited to consenting adult human couples.
Or heterosxuals.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1108 Jun 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But wait, if marriage is for "consenting adult human beings" as you claim, then how is it millions of children have married in this country before they turned 18 and became an adult?
Ooops, I guess marriage ISN'T limited to just consenting adult human beings after all.
So why do you oppose allowing a 17 y/o child to marry their 18 y/o adult boyfriend or girlfriend?
Your bigotry is showing.
The overwhelming majority of children married before age eighteen are married monogamously. Aw hell there goes your whole dopey theory eh? Ban child marriage. Don't ban marriage.

So to solve the problem of children marriage, ban monogamy.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1109 Jun 29, 2014
Old Sarge wrote:
<quoted text>Explain why your wife screws the gardener "Leroy" the mail man the plumber the tv repair man
cable guy etc etc ... pays the bills huh? Dickless veteran asshat.
They all had the same complaint; your
a$$h*le is the size of a sewer pipe.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1110 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You and the other are advocating for polygamy and incest marriage too that is currently illegal too and you are an insult to the Democrat Party and part of the same brainless group of radicals that is trying to destroy the democrat party with your Liberalism you advocate which has no use for the US Constitution.

Court Puts Indiana Gay Marriage Ruling on Hold

INDIANAPOLIS — Jun 27, 2014, 6:59 PM ET

A federal appeals court on Friday put on hold a judge's order striking down Indiana's gay marriage ban, bringing same-sex marriages to a halt and leaving those who've already tied the knot in legal limbo.

By TOM LoBIANCO Associated Press

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-gran...
I advocate for polygamy and incestuous marriage? LMAO!!

How do you do it? Respond to something when you can't read?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1111 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No the SCOTUS has not dismissed Baker v Nelson as precendent and the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with SCOTUS that Baker v Nelson still stands as precedent just like the Family Law Lawyers here in Indiana have confirmed and were right that Gay Marriages were coming to a halt here in Indiana because Baker v Nelson does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which has been reaffirmed.

Court Puts Indiana Gay Marriage Ruling on Hold

INDIANAPOLIS — Jun 27, 2014, 6:59 PM ET

By TOM LoBIANCO Associated Press

A federal appeals court on Friday put on hold a judge's order striking down Indiana's gay marriage ban, bringing same-sex marriages to a halt and leaving those who've already tied the knot in legal limbo.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-gran...

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971)

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/d...
Yeah, yeah. And SCOTUS also ruled abortion is illegal.

You're an idiot.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1112 Jun 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>Let's take a look at the case citation's of Indiana's Attorney General:

Baker v. Nelson as it pertains to Minnesota: Moot as Minnesota now gives legal recognition to same sex marriages.

Baker v. Nelson as it pertains to federal courts: Moot due subsequent legal developments since 1971 and the SCOTUS ruling in a same sex marriage case in Windsor v. United States.

Jackson v. Abercrombie: Moot as Hawaii now gives legal recognition to same sex marriages. Further the 9th Circuit recently ruled sexual orientation a quasi-suspect class requiring intermediate judicial scrutiny for equal protection cases. The District Court ruling will be overturned because it can't survive intermediate scrutiny.

Sevcik v. Sandoval: Although the state of Nevada won in the District Court ruling, they withdrawn their defense of the appeal to the 9th Circuit because state officials acknowledge they have no legal arguments to support their constitutional ban against same sex marriage that can survive intermediate judicial scrutiny that's now applicable in to 9th Circuit equal protection cases.

United States v. Windsor: Renders Baker v. Nelson moot simply by the fact SCOTUS heard the appeal at all and ruled in favor of same sex marriage. Further, SCOTUS explicitly ruled that state regulation of marriage laws still was subject to compliance with the federal constitution, including equal protection, due process and the proper level of scrutiny required of cases implicating fundamental rights like marriage.

in summary, all the case citations are either moot, misapplied or will soon be overturned on appeal. Which essentially means Indiana's appeal is a house of cards just waiting to collapse.
BINGO!!

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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 Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min OBAMANATION 1,479,742
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP 234,017
News House prohibits $15-an-hour minimum wage 15 min southern at heart 567
News Sen. Dianne Feinstein says Russian involvement ... 27 min tomin cali 35
News Republican-led Senate takes first step to repea... 1 hr spocko 177
News 'Beautiful Wall' a Tough Task Patchy border bar... 1 hr tomin cali 1
News Obamacare replacement may lower rates for young... 1 hr Frank 82
More from around the web