Poll: Is Gay Marriage A Constitutional Right?

Mar 31, 2013 Full story: Patch.com 143

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases involving gay marriage this week.

Full Story

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#119 Apr 4, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
<quoted text> I love animals! Thank you for sharing. I don't think New York has many gators. LOL (maybe in the sewage?) Skunks are cute but... A long time ago a dog I had got sprayed by a skunk, and I swear he smelled to high heaven for over a month!
Speaking of "he smelled to high heaven for over a month", I know a guy who had the same experience with some hairy clams. GAAAAKKKK !!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#120 Apr 4, 2013
No, it's not, but equal protection of the law is; and so long as marriage is a protection of the law, which is it in every state in the union, then it stands to reason that same sex couples deserve equal protection of the law to marry.

Don't like that? Don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.
Minority of one

Carol Stream, IL

#122 Apr 8, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Answer:
Article 4 Sec 1
Article 6
Amendment 1, 9, & 14.
Wrong- no where does the constitution say that government must recognize marriage.
Minority of one

Carol Stream, IL

#123 Apr 8, 2013
lides wrote:
No, it's not, but equal protection of the law is; and so long as marriage is a protection of the law, which is it in every state in the union, then it stands to reason that same sex couples deserve equal protection of the law to marry.
Don't like that? Don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.
Actually to solve the problem would require doing away with ALL government involvement.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#124 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
<quoted text>Actually to solve the problem would require doing away with ALL government involvement.
That would be ONE solution. It would be inept.
Minority of one

Carol Stream, IL

#125 Apr 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be ONE solution. It would be inept.
No it would the one most in line with Constitutional beleif in very limited government.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#126 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
No it would the one most in line with Constitutional belief in very limited government.
Once again, that is an inept and unrealistic option. I suspect if you proposed to a great number of the population that the legal protections of their existing marriages be rendered null and void, so would you.

It is absurd to suggest that the legal protections of marriage are invalid, just as it is absurd to argue against equal protection of the law. Only a fool would do so.

Oh, and I corrected your spelling to help you look less foolish.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#127 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
<quoted text>No it would the one most in line with Constitutional beleif in very limited government.
Well, first you have to define WHY the government[s] have an interest in marriage at all.

Some interests may include child support and financial support for an ex-spouse, when a marriage dissolves. Are these legitimate government interests ? That's a political debate.

There are both good reasons and bad reasons why government has been directly involved in marriage.

Should the government[s] get out of the "marrying business" altogether ? Let the political games begin !

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#128 Apr 8, 2013
Andrew wrote:
they didnt fear the wrath of God...constitution is sin against God. According to the Bible God created Adam and Eve only.
"only" ?! What about the serpent who tempted Eve ? Didn't God create teh serpent ? If not, who did ?

And if God really is ALL-POWERFUL, could He create a rock SO BIG AND HEAVY that even HE couldn't lift it ? Yes or no ?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#129 Apr 8, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Well, first you have to define WHY the government[s] have an interest in marriage at all.
Some interests may include child support and financial support for an ex-spouse, when a marriage dissolves. Are these legitimate government interests ? That's a political debate.
There are both good reasons and bad reasons why government has been directly involved in marriage.
Should the government[s] get out of the "marrying business" altogether ? Let the political games begin !
Of course, what is not political at all is that whatever protections the government decides to provide citizens must be provided equally to all unless denying such protection serves a legitimate state interest.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#130 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
<quoted text>Actually to solve the problem would require doing away with ALL government involvement.
Yeah, like that's a realistic solution.

While you're at it, could you get them to declare peace around the world and do away with hunger and poverty too?

Oh, and I'd like a pony.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#131 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
<quoted text>No it would the one most in line with Constitutional beleif in very limited government.
Well you get busy working on that.

Meanwile we'll be getting more states to pass marriage equality.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#132 Apr 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Yeah, like that's a realistic solution.
While you're at it, could you get them to declare peace around the world and do away with hunger and poverty too?
Oh, and I'd like a pony.....
Dude. Really? The Pony is a non-starter.
Minority of one

Carol Stream, IL

#133 Apr 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, that is an inept and unrealistic option. I suspect if you proposed to a great number of the population that the legal protections of their existing marriages be rendered null and void, so would you.
It is absurd to suggest that the legal protections of marriage are invalid, just as it is absurd to argue against equal protection of the law. Only a fool would do so.
Oh, and I corrected your spelling to help you look less foolish.
No actually I have a nerve problem with my left eye called Bell Palsey and although I am doing my best to proofread it can be hard but I thank you for your concern. As for arguing against equal protection I am not. I am arguing against the legal protections granted to married couples. I find those protections to be against my 14th amendment rights and that is a valid arguement and not at all absurd.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#134 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
<quoted text>No it would the one most in line with Constitutional beleif in very limited government.
But didn't states already have marriage laws prior to the U.S. Constitution even being written ?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#135 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
I find those protections to be against my 14th amendment rights and that is a valid arguement and not at all absurd.
Please describe how this violates your 14th Amendment rights.

I'll make popcorn. This should be amusing.
Minority of one

Carol Stream, IL

#136 Apr 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like that's a realistic solution.
While you're at it, could you get them to declare peace around the world and do away with hunger and poverty too?
Oh, and I'd like a pony.....
Funny- 50 years ago gay rights was an absurd notion. The civil rights movement was an absurd notion 60 years ago- would you like me to go on? World peace is certainly a worthy goal maybe one day we can get there. If you want a pony tell your mommy and daddy maybe if you are really good they will get you one.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#137 Apr 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Please describe how this violates your 14th Amendment rights.
I'll make popcorn. This should be amusing.
The last time I made popcorn was about a month ago when I was watching "Abbot And Costello Meet Frankenstein". Remember that one ?:)

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#138 Apr 8, 2013
Minority of one wrote:
Funny- 50 years ago gay rights was an absurd notion. The civil rights movement was an absurd notion 60 years ago- would you like me to go on?
Would going on suddenly develop a point?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#139 Apr 8, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The last time I made popcorn was about a month ago when I was watching "Abbot And Costello Meet Frankenstein". Remember that one ?:)
It's much better than Minority of One. Why did they even make that picture?

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min harmonious 1,124,780
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min baaaaaaaaaaaaa 158,619
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min USMail XXXII 269,519
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min DanFromSmithville 120,706
Ebola commentary desperately needs clarification 13 min Even Steven 41
instagram followers 16 min danyboiiig 1
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 17 min meh 6,603
Justices allow Texas to enforce strict voter ID... 2 hr woodtick57 116

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE