Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.
Comments
47,201 - 47,220 of 54,784 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51233
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooooooooo.....
<quoted text>
Hellloooooooooo.....a lesbian married throuple is same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
Funny how just a generation ago, people understood marriage as a union of one man and one woman
of the same race...
Pietro Armando wrote:
as husband and wife, recognized procreation intrinsic to marriage, no need to defend such concepts until a 4 judges in Massachusetts decided to overturn literally centuries of American marital jurisprudence, just to satisfy the desires of a sexual minority within a sexual minority.
<quoted text>
Rather like some judges did in VA

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51234
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They are equally protected when they marry, if they choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
That's like saying everybody had the right to marry someone of the same race.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is based on the relationship of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no matter how many times you ignore reality, culture, history, conjugality, etc.
Logical fallacies.
Too bad you have a kid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51235
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

17

17

17

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has no effect on a person's ability to reproduce.
Procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
And you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
And you don't have to marry.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51236
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

anonymous wrote:
No, that is a completely wrong interpretation of legal precedent.
No it's not. But then you've proven yourself ignorant of constitutional law many times already so it's not surprising you screw this up as well.
anonymous wrote:
All Constitutional declarations regarding the rights of the individual are interpreted with a minimalist point of view.
Again, no it's not. The interpretation is based upon what a majority of the SCOTUS Justices agree to. The minimalist view has not been a prevailing view during most of the court's existence.
anonymous wrote:
In other words, you can't claim 14th Amendment status as a pedophile or a Satan worshiper.
Pedophiles aren't protected if they act upon their desires because children can't give legal consent to sex and sex with children is a felony. Satan worshipers are protected by the first amendment freedom of religion. They can also raise equal protection claims under the 14th amendment if someone discriminates against them on the basis of their religion.
anonymous wrote:
The general moral guidelines dictated by law makers and general public opinion take precedence over the wildly eccentric, but with a few checks and balances to prevent impulsive lynch-mob decisions.
Actually, moral disapproval was ruled by SCOTUS as an impermissible justification for discrimination against a group that lacks majority favor.
anonymous wrote:
It's not perfect and right now is an example where the parties have exploited mob psychology to acquire political power by subverting common sense goals with wild, prejudicial fears. The public needs to grow up! Either they grow up or our government WILL fall. It's that simple.
Whatever. And don't bother to whine to me about being a "parse bunny" because I don't give a f*ck about your reading disability either.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51237
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

17

17

17

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
of the same race...
But in commonsense [***9]&#65533; and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination.&#65533; Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited.&#65533; Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect.&#65533; We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment. n4

n4 See, Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 144, 34 S. Ct. 281, 282, 58 L. ed. 539, 543 (1914).&#65533; As stated in Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S. Ct. 879, 882, 84 L. ed. 1124, 1128, 130 A.L.R. 1321, 1324 (1940), and reiterated in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 540, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L. ed. 1655, 1659, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same."
&#65533;
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. ed. 2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion.&#65533; Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination.&#65533; As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S. Ct. 1824, 18 L. ed. 2d 1018):

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.&#65533; The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations." n5&#65533; [*315]&#65533; Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense [***9]&#65533; and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

n5 See, also, McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S. Ct. 283, 13 L. ed. 2d 222 (1964), in which the United States Supreme Court, for precisely the same reason of classification based only upon race, struck down a Florida criminal statute which proscribed and punished habitual cohabitation only if one of an unmarried couple was white and the other black.
&#65533;
We hold, therefore, that Minn. St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Rather like some judges did in VA
Said marriage isn't a union of husband and wife?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51238
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

17

16

16

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand "appeal to tradition fallacy".
Sad.
You don't understand conjugality and biology.
Sad

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51239
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

17

17

17

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the fact there is no compelling state interest to prohibit same sex marriage doesn't mean compelling state interests don't exist to prohibit other types of marriage.
A married lesbian throuple IS same sex marriage.
Each restriction on exercising the fundamental right of marriage is evaluated by courts on its own merits.
The fundamental right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. What further evaluation is needed?
It's not "all or nothing" no matter how many times you lie about.
It's the fundamental right to enter into a union of husband and wife, no matter how many times you lie about it.
I'm not the one standing in the way of them getting the prohibiting laws rescinded. That would be you.
No, that's up to the courts, and the throuple themselves to petition the court if they so choose.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51240
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't write post about contracts but let's discuss them now. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts and I support them whole heatedly as compromise.
Why don't you go fk yourself with a rat tail file as a compromise?
This is a matter of equal protection, not your personal wittle feelings.
Brian_G wrote:
<
Men and women can enter into contracts too, but marriage is more than a contract.
Not legally, jack ass, and that's the issue, the legal definition of marriage.
Good thing it is a contract, so your parents could divorce.
Brian_G wrote:
One man and one woman marriage is ideal for children because every child deserves to be raised by his mother and father.
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
No matter how you feel about gay couples raising children, it's a different issue. Single people and unmarried couples can and do raise children. And genitalia don't make a parent good or bad.
Brian_G wrote:
<
I understand w.'s anger and frustration, being unwilling or unable to engage any of my arguments must be very frustrating. Keeping marriage one man and one woman is unfair to some gays and I feel their pain.
Not as much pain as you'd feel if you fkd yourself with a rat tail file.
Brian_G wrote:
<
Life is unfair, every standard is unfair to those who don't meet the standards.
It's not a matter of being fair, it's a matter of justice. And if the standards don't meet the standards of the Constitution, then they should be changed.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51241
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
It's consistent with an individual's sex as either a man or woman.
No it's not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sexual orientation is irrelevant to the fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Perhaps on planet "bigoted *sswipe" where you live, stupid Peter, but not here on earth.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not all federal courts, some judges have recognized definition of marriage is a function of the state, not the federal government.
No federal judge has ruled in favor of maintaining prohibitions on legal recognition of same sex marriage since the SCOTUS ruling in Windsor. No one has stated marriage is defined by the federal government, stupid Peter. State marriage laws, however, must still comply with the federal constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You continue to project into the past, the modern concept of sexual identity, which is relatively recent invention.
Same sex behavior has always existed and has almost always been discriminated against by the majority. That we now call the concept of to which sex one is attracted sexual orientation and call those that are attracted to the same sex homosexual/gay doesn't change that fact. We simple have better knowledge now.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Virtually all human societies have had sexual mores, and prohibitions against certain types of sexual behavior, regardless of how the individuals who engaged in such identified themselves.
So? Our society no longer allows discrimination based on the moral disapproval of the majority.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhh.....huh.....same sex marriage is a by product, to a certain degree, of the sexual revolution of the 1960's.
History will be the ultimate judge of whether or not it sustains itself over time.
No, it's the logical progression of eliminating centuries of discrimination against gays and infringement of their fundamental and other civil rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Who knows, marriage, the conjugal kind, may rerun to a place of prominence in society, and SSM, as it did in the far distant past, may fade away.
All marriages are conjugal, stupid Peter, including same sex marriages. Your ignorance of the English language won't change that fact.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51242
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
Actually, it's not.
Marital status has no effect on procreation.

Pietro Armando wrote:
And you don't have to marry.
Nobody has to.
So, what's your point?

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51243
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparing ss marrage to marriage is like comparing a turd to a chocolate truffle.
Smile.
Eat what you like, big boi.

Smirk

Since: May 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51244
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

17

17

17

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably the only reason he got nominated was because he wan't just another moron empty suit. He was an ex-prisoner-of-war and that must have caused some psychological issues but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been a good president.
Nowadays, a president has to have his or her life choreographed from birth or they won't make it. I suppose the country would excuse their faults if they were a gay rock musician but I don't think the stockholders will go for that.
WOW, that is a great analogy!! Whehh!!

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51245
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> At least Perry is consistent whereas Hillary has all the convictions of a harlot.
There is one big difference between them.

lf Hillary runs, she'll win.

If Perry runs, he'll be laughed at again.

Where's the Mormon when you need him?
Bruno

San Pedro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51246
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

18

18

18

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true, but even if it were, so what?
The Constitution says all persons should get equal protection under the law.
<quoted text>
Who says it should be?
Individual person yes, not a couple like you are making it out to be
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51247
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

18

18

18

Poncho wrote:
<quoted text>
So you a big fan of Loony Tunes hey fruitloop?
So what if she is power ranger? I am. Sign of class. Big fan myself, big fan.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51248
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
Procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
Not by law. Procreative decisions are constitutionally protected liberty interests and can't be compelled by the state.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And you don't have to marry.
That decision is reserved for individuals to make, not the state and certainly not you.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51249
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
<quoted text>
And you don't have to marry.
Procreation is a result of sex ... which doesn't require marriage at all.

Parenting doesn't require either ... but is easier with marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51250
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But in commonsense [***9]&#65533; and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
Your opinion, &#tch;
The 14th Amendment says "all persons", no matter how "fundamental" you feel differences in men and women are, both men and women are persons.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51251
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand conjugality and biology.
Sad
Unnecessary conflations.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51252
Jun 14, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But in commonsense [***9]&#65533; and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination.&#65533; Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited.&#65533; Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect.&#65533; We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment. n4
n4 See, Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 144, 34 S. Ct. 281, 282, 58 L. ed. 539, 543 (1914).&#65533; As stated in Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S. Ct. 879, 882, 84 L. ed. 1124, 1128, 130 A.L.R. 1321, 1324 (1940), and reiterated in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 540, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L. ed. 1655, 1659, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same."
&#65533;
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. ed. 2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion.&#65533; Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination.&#65533; As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S. Ct. 1824, 18 L. ed. 2d 1018):
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.&#65533; The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations." n5&#65533; [*315]&#65533; Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense [***9]&#65533; and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
n5 See, also, McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S. Ct. 283, 13 L. ed. 2d 222 (1964), in which the United States Supreme Court, for precisely the same reason of classification based only upon race, struck down a Florida criminal statute which proscribed and punished habitual cohabitation only if one of an unmarried couple was white and the other black.
&#65533;
We hold, therefore, that Minn. St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
<quoted text>
Said marriage isn't a union of husband and wife?
Baker v. Nelson only applied to the state of Minnesota and it's moot since the state now gives legal recognition to same sex marriages.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••