Same-sex marriage arguments flooding federal courts

There are 30 comments on the CBS News story from Aug 5, 2014, titled Same-sex marriage arguments flooding federal courts. In it, CBS News reports that:

Federal appeals courts soon will hear arguments in gay marriage fights from nine states, part of a slew of cases putting pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a final verdict.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#1 Aug 6, 2014
Same-Sex Unions........backlog

Illegal Immigrants .......backlog

ObamaCare..........backlog.... ......

talking about getting nothing done..........forrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrre.

HHS faces massive ObamaCare backlog
Now that the ObamaCare exchange websites are largely up and running, federal health officials are finding themselves swamped as they fact-check a flood of paperwork from applicants seeking...
liberals are heros

Urbandale, IA

#3 Aug 6, 2014
The Gay people are entittleted to their rights just as you are.
passing by

Salina, KS

#4 Aug 6, 2014
Brock wrote:
Think of all the important cases that must wait for who knows how long while the courts are inundated with all this ridiculous gay marriage BS.
Would you be so kind to name even one important case that has been delayed in any way, shape or form as a result of these cases? All I'm asking for is one, that's not too much to ask, is it? Because if you don't even know of a single important case that is being delayed, all you got left is a lie.
yup

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Aug 6, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
Same-Sex Unions........backlog
Illegal Immigrants .......backlog
ObamaCare..........backlog.... ......
talking about getting nothing done..........forrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrre.
HHS faces massive ObamaCare backlog
Now that the ObamaCare exchange websites are largely up and running, federal health officials are finding themselves swamped as they fact-check a flood of paperwork from applicants seeking...
backlog - all the fault of the GOPee party-controlled house - far & away - the most do NOTHING congress in U.S. history.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6 Aug 6, 2014
The government says 1.6% of the population is gay. I bet the courts think everyone is gay. Noisy little critters.
passing by

Salina, KS

#7 Aug 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The government says 1.6% of the population is gay. I bet the courts think everyone is gay. Noisy little critters.
Pudding, it took interracial couples some 40 years after Loving to finally account for even 1% of all marriages. I'm betting that you thought you actually had something resembling a point to your little whine. You don't.
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Aug 6, 2014
Brock wrote:
Think of all the important cases that must wait for who knows how long while the courts are inundated with all this ridiculous gay marriage BS.
So you're saying it's too trivial for the mormon whatever it is and the rcc and the feral fundies to have been obsessing over for decades?

Because without them we wouldn't have this "ridiculous gay marriage BS" cluttering up your closet's mental space. It would have been resolved long ago.

(Hint: You lie. It's not "ridiculous." Marriage equality is the most important and threatening thing to you on this earth.)

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#9 Aug 6, 2014
liberals are heros wrote:
The Gay people are entittleted to their rights just as you are.
What rights are you denied. Marriage isn't a right, it's a legal act pookie. You loons only want uncle sugars money.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10 Aug 6, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>Pudding, it took interracial couples some 40 years after Loving to finally account for even 1% of all marriages. I'm betting that you thought you actually had something resembling a point to your little whine. You don't.
Loving was about a one man one woman marriage. What's your point?

Loving, 1967.
40 years later would be 2007.
In 1980 the percentage was 3.2%, more than 3 times your lie and the gay population.
In 2010 it was 8.4%
http://newobserveronline.com/interracial-marr...

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#11 Aug 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The government says 1.6% of the population is gay. I bet the courts think everyone is gay. Noisy little critters.
It's a distraction which is all Obama is doing lately. Anything to keep the 10 scandals off the front pages. Once the MSM starts reporting the truth it will be all over and their experiment will have failed.
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Aug 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The government says 1.6% of the population is gay. I bet the courts think everyone is gay. Noisy little critters.
Jews comprise about even that low estimate of the population, although there's disparate information about how to define sexual orientation and how to get people to respond openly.

On the other hand, you being an all around bigot probably think the 2% of the population which is Jewish and which has secured legal protections against discrimination are "noisy little critters," too.

Given your racism, as revealed when you have discussed crime or immigration, you probably would not be so kind in your description of people of color.
HUH

Ivoryton, CT

#13 Aug 6, 2014
homo`s = Aids, STDS, child molesters, pedifiles.
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Aug 6, 2014
HUH wrote:
Aids, STDS, child molesters, pedifiles.
No, that's heterosexuals at least as much. AIDS is overwhelmingly heterosexual. Child sex abuse occurs overwhelmingly in the extended nuclear family, usually older males perpetrating younger females. It was heterosexual men who arranged for child brides for most of Western history. And it is overwhelmingly heterosexual men committing sexual violence - as the stats on violent rape of women show.

You have a mental illness.
passing by

Salina, KS

#15 Aug 6, 2014
HUH wrote:
(nothing worth repeating)
Somebody's mommy and daddy needs to do a better job monitoring their child's internet habits.

If you don't want to be mistaken for a mentally and emotionally challenged 9 year-old, you probably shouldn't be acting like one.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#17 Aug 7, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
Same-Sex Unions........backlog
Illegal Immigrants .......backlog
ObamaCare..........backlog.... ......
..........
If those folks that vote Republican would tell their representatives to get off their rumps and do something other that Obama bashing, this would stop.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18 Aug 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving was about a one man one woman marriage. What's your point?
.....
Actually, it was about the fundamental right to marry, and the unconstitutionality of certain laws that prevented citizens from doing so, laws with no valid state interest.

The same fight is still happening today. That's why this thread exists.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#19 Aug 7, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>If those folks that vote Republican would tell their representatives to get off their a bashing, this would stop.
You might want to look at the 306 bills the house has passed by both parties that Obama has Reid sitting from. You do know that it isn't how government works. Call harry and get HIM off his can.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#20 Aug 7, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it was about the fundamental right to marry, and the unconstitutionality of certain laws that prevented citizens from doing so, laws with no valid state interest.

The same fight is still happening today. That's why this thread exists.
Changing the definitions is the liberal way, then make the new definition conflict with current law. You did the same with abortion and calling a baby a fetus to dehumanize it.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#21 Aug 8, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Changing the definitions is the liberal way, then make the new definition conflict with current law. You did the same with abortion and calling a baby a fetus to dehumanize it.
Fetus is a scientific term. Its use is accurate.

Your use of "baby" is an appeal to emotions to make people imagine that an embryo or fetus at any stage of development is similar to a newborn.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#22 Aug 8, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Actually, it was about the fundamental right to marry, and the unconstitutionality of certain laws that prevented citizens from doing so, laws with no valid state interest.
2. The same fight is still happening today. That's why this thread exists.
1. Actually, it was about the ban on interracial marriage, a man and a woman.
2. It's not the same fight. You are not interested in one man one woman marriages.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 3 anti-nuclear activists released from federal ... Thu Tazo 1
News Attorney: Court orders release of anti-nuclear ... May 18 goonsquad 7
News Ron Paul: The only Patriot Act reform is total ... May 13 West 8
News Sabotage Conviction Overturned Against Nun, Fel... May 11 Angel99 6
News Top U.S. court appears on cusp of declaring rig... Apr 27 Fa-Foxy 25
News Ohio in a minority as high court weighs same-se... Apr 26 goonsquad 2
News Cincinnati mayor: As same-sex marriage cases ad... Apr 25 Fa-Foxy 4
More from around the web