Gay marriage

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.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32421 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-se...
But seriously, why is polygamy still illegal?
Posted on December 17, 2013 by The Matt Walsh Blog
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/26/proble...

I love reading his blogs.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/25/yes-of...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#32422 Mar 4, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
When you get tax breaks for getting married and even better breaks if you have kids, the government is micro-managing our lives. Like the government believes a castrated dog is a happier animal they believe guys who get married and have kids make better citizens than those wild guys who spend the week end at the meat rack bar. Insurance companies give lower rates to guys who get married and have kids because they can do the math.
This should be seen as a huge insult to gay people when the government refuses to recognize their marriages when they recognize the marriages of opposite sex couples. Government should get out of the marriage business all together and let us all make our own decisions and treat us all as individuals instead of numbers.
It is AN insult......that's why the lawsuits because if one's opposite-sex legal marriage is recognized....then so should one's Same-Sex legal marriage!!!

Whether the State and Federal Governments should or shouldn't get out of the marriage business is really irrelevant........what they need to do is treat a legal marriage the same regardless of the gender make-up!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32423 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good, at least you understand the basic facts of human reproduction.
<quoted text>
There'll always be a government interest in the raising of the children, and the adults involved, particulaly if it involves adoption.
<quoted text>
If you're implying that two men crossing swords, or two women mixing clams fall within that claim, then there's no logical reason not to extend your reasoning to any number of situations.
Ya did it again Sheepie, another reason for polygamy!
Actually the proven harm to women & children which is inherent in polygamy outweighs any of those previously listed benefits.

It's a balance.

And with polygamy the harm outweighs any good which would come from govt sanction.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32424 Mar 4, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? You gotta lose that paranoia Jizzy. Polygamy is not a plot against SSM. It is good peoples' OWN DAMN choice, it certainly shouldn't be yours. Where have we seen that before?
I think that is exactly what the problem is, Poof and others are convinced that polygamy is a ruse to make gay marriage look bad. It is like they have their panties all tied in knots from worry that the homophobes are going to say, see, just like we said, you legalize gay marriage and you get polygamy.

Why are gays so desperately seeking the approval of homophobes? I have never understood this but I see it in here all the time and it is pathetic so see them beg for acceptance from the conceit of the self anointed.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32425 Mar 4, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down on Dec. 13 that a provision in Utah's bigamy law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of religion.
The ruling decriminalizes polygamy, but bigamy — holding marriage licenses with multiple partners — is still illegal. Utah's law was considered stricter than the laws in 49 other states because of the cohabitation clause. If the ruling stands, Utah's law would be identical to most other states that prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. In most polygamous families in Utah, the man is legally married to one woman but only "spiritually married" to the others.
Polygamy is still illegal in Utah, and the other 49 states.
Thank you for sharing a way to get around the law and live the way you want to live despite the freedom hating and morally bankrupt politicians. I just love it when people give the government the finger.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32426 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhhhh noooooooo....Sheepie, the shory has just begun. Popular support is not needed for polygamy thanks to judicially imposed SSM over will of the voters who voted to constitutionally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the definition in place since the birth of the Republic. All that is needed is a sympathetic judge or two.
Actually you need at least 5 "sympathetic judges"- i.e. a majority on the SCOTUS to overturn the federal ban on polygamy.

If you want to continue to believe that judges operate in a vacuum and aren't influenced by societal views, then you'll continue to be surprised when bans on same-sex couples getting married are overturned, while bans on polygamous group marriages are upheld.

Judges are a reflection of society as a whole, and society has changed significantly over the past decades.

Only an ignorant fool would continue to deny that simple fact.

Obviously you're one of the 19% who don't believe the majority of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32427 Mar 4, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,“what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example,“with respect to the number of people ... that could get married?”
Free peaceful consenting adults living voluntarily together in a free country do not need any state restrictions. The only restrictions we need are against people who violate the rights of others.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32428 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hetero sex"?......"straight marriage"? It's coitus, and conjugal/opposite sex marriage. Modern sexual identity labels and/or adjectives are not necessary, nor relevant.
If you think heteros can only contract HIV through coitus, then you're an idiot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32429 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the logical question to ask. Once the definition of marriage as a union of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN is rejected, by what reasoning can the other "discriminatory restrictions" be justified, other than age of consent, and ability to consent?
Why age of consent?

Why ability to consent?

Why limit it to humans.

Why limit it to life forms.

No restrictions can ever be justified.

Aaaaaaaaaah..........that's you falling down the slippery slope)

(obviously I'm demonstrating what a complete moron you are once again)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32430 Mar 4, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you're just too smart for me! So stop trying. Hell you're a "master machinest" [sic].
I dunno. If I wanted to hire a master machinist, I doubt I'd pick the guy who can't even spell it.
I think he was trying to be nice to you Frankie and was offended that you didn't like his post about polygamy. It is difficult when people grow and learn and change to not hold on to their past and to respond to the past instead of the present. Can you imagine if Sheepie realized the error of his ways and saw that when polygamists are free that that helps establish his own freedom? It would take awhile to verify if it was really real.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32431 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a gay man who opposes redefining marriage, a "homophobe"?
Possibly.

More likely he's just an idiot who doesn't support equality.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32432 Mar 4, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't understand a simple question.
As I said......
Since I can't understand a simple question, stop asking them.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32433 Mar 4, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn. That went over my head.
Me too! What's up Frankie?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32434 Mar 4, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is my point. Poof Daddy too. And others. They are the same as the people they complain about. The SAME.
Nope.

The people we complained about opposed marriage for same-sex couples.

Obviously since we support marriage for same-sex couples, we're not the same as them.

No wonder you idiots are in denial about forced child brides inherent to polygamy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32435 Mar 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the logical question to ask. Once the definition of marriage as a union of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN is rejected, by what reasoning can the other "discriminatory restrictions" be justified, other than age of consent, and ability to consent?
And the racists said the same thing about getting rid of inter-racial marriage bans.

Aaaaaaaaaaaah..........look out for that tree).........Aaaaaaaaaaaaah.. ........
Poof

Madison, WI

#32436 Mar 4, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is exactly what the problem is, Poof and others are convinced that polygamy is a ruse to make gay marriage look bad. It is like they have their panties all tied in knots from worry that the homophobes are going to say, see, just like we said, you legalize gay marriage and you get polygamy.
Why are gays so desperately seeking the approval of homophobes? I have never understood this but I see it in here all the time and it is pathetic so see them beg for acceptance from the conceit of the self anointed.
Polygamy has nothing in common with Same sex Marriage ( no such thing as gay marriage) What is so hard for you to understand? Link after link have been posted, that clearly shows how forced under age marriage is intertwined within polygamy . When you and Super Putz talk about polygamy, you shut your eyes and plug your ears in fear of hearing or reading the truth.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32437 Mar 4, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine if someone said gay marriage is illegal, end of story! Sheepies would pop a 'roid. File hate crime charges! Seek criminal penalties!
All polygamy needs is what same sex marriage has, sympathetic judges. And he HATES that fact.
Well if that's all you need, then go find some.

Quick like a bunny.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32438 Mar 4, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What I will say is that I support consenting adult marriage equality and you don't.
Doesn't matter who wants something Poofy. We are all equal. Even the Muslims and (Oh NO!) the dreaded fundie.
Are children equal as well?

Why not?
Poof

Madison, WI

#32439 Mar 4, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Free peaceful consenting adults living voluntarily together in a free country do not need any state restrictions. The only restrictions we need are against people who violate the rights of others.
I see, you seem to think we can all live in a society where there are no laws.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#32440 Mar 4, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You bring up a VERY good question!...AND here's my answer.
Let's remove ALL the monetary incentives to marriage so we can ALL appreciate the authenticity of your "trusting" relationships!
Back a'cha!
"Back a'cha!" is uncalled for. Your reply was non-responsive to his point. Most everyone in here, once they understand the implications, if they can understand them, finds that it is in their best interest for Government to get the hell out of marriage altogether and secure freedom for individuals to make the most of their lives as best they can with out government micro-managing their lives.

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
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 13 min Fit2Serve 1,305
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 13 min Drumpf Disaster 46,226
News Still Untitled: Alabama Election - Roy Moore 23 min Geezer 38
News Area activists push to make Dream Act a reality... 25 min Willie Granville 98
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 40 min Shrugs 1,656,990
News Senate GOP on track to OK judicial pick rated n... 44 min Fundie Sniffling 8
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr javawhey 112
News Obama: Protect democracy or risk taking path of... 2 hr hawaiian punch 221
News Trump accusers call for congressional investiga... 4 hr Retribution 68
More from around the web