Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

Feb 22, 2013 Full story: The Daily Democrat 220

Choosing a broad legal strategy with national implications, gay marriage advocates on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on same-sex nuptials and declare all such state laws unconstitutional.

Full Story

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#45 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I have never seen that in any legal definition or SCOTUS opinion. Perhaps you just made that up to suit your needs. Indeed, if that silly crap were true, there would be no discussion or disagreement. There being considerable discussion and disagreement by reasonable people, your claim is shown to be false. That would seem to show you to also be dishonest in making that false claim.
People argue and debate about what they believe to be true every day. And even reasonable people can be wrong on a variety of issues.

But really, there has been no rational or logical governmental interest put out by any source for denying a gay couples and their families the same legal protections under marriage law that straight folks receive.

The very opposite is true, with there being a state interest in more stable families, and a more secure elderly population. Those things mean fewer tax dollars spent shoring up weaker and more vulnerable members of the population.

Saying that you don't like something is not the same as saying why that thing is damaging to those involves and damaging to the country at large. And all of the arguments against same-sex marriage, no matter how verbose, convoluted, or circular, seem to revolve around that.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#46 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> What claim have I failed to demonstrate? That I haven't seen something?
I can't demean your character if you have shown none.
Not Yet Equal usually debates in a very reasonable way, using only the facts as they see them, providing references and historical context, and not often with personal insults.

And, instead of refuting their points, you use insults?

Not nice.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#47 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I love stupid and dishonest people like yourself who are so "sure" about that which they know nothing about. When you can quote where I actually said I knew better than SCOTUS (and of course you can't), get back to me with that which so many liberals run in terror from. Facts.
Other than that, your post was a self-indulgent waste of time.
You didn't say anything about SCOTUS, I did. I said they disagree with your statement: "Equal treatment under the law is a bit of a myth."

"Liberals run in terror from facts?" Gee.... got anything other than emotion-laden school yard taunts?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#49 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Aw, Tommy is trying to be clever.
Doesn't take much when dealing with you, sourpuss.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#50 Feb 23, 2013
And accurate. Separate but equal is in no way equal. Even a BS Detector should understand that.
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Aw, Tommy is trying to be clever.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#51 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Yet Equal usually debates in a very reasonable way, using only the facts as they see them, providing references and historical context, and not often with personal insults.
And, instead of refuting their points, you use insults?
Not nice.
That's why nobody really talks to him anymore ... at all ... ever ... no matter how tempted ... not on alternate leapyears ...
Jerry

Pekin, IL

#52 Feb 23, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
And accurate. Separate but equal is in no way equal. Even a BS Detector should understand that.
<quoted text>
Of course it is completely ludicrous to claim that marriage and something homsexual are the same thing in composition, characteristics, frequency even among homosexuals, and in effects on society.

The government has no rational interest in any legal homosexual relationship. No child is ever born as a direct result, no economically unequal genders are involved, and such relationships don't even form a basis of homosexual society much less of society in general.

Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual 'marriage' is every country that allows it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#53 Feb 23, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why nobody really talks to him anymore ... at all ... ever ... no matter how tempted ... not on alternate leapyears ...
Good idea

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#54 Feb 23, 2013
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it is completely ludicrous to claim that marriage and something homsexual are the same thing in composition, characteristics, frequency even among homosexuals, and in effects on society.
The government has no rational interest in any legal homosexual relationship. No child is ever born as a direct result, no economically unequal genders are involved, and such relationships don't even form a basis of homosexual society much less of society in general.
Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual 'marriage' is every country that allows it.
Here we go again, I don't know why you post this same BS over and over. Your totally wrong, I can attest to it, I am legally married. David, your not fooling anyone, stop the bigoted misinformation and get a life or go build a another cross in the back yard.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#55 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Even you know better than that. From experience, I have found that you make things up to suit your argument whether that made up stuff is true or not.
In other words, I have found you to be dishonesty.
Sucks to be you then.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#56 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Unlike your own dishonest self, I don't claim to see the future so I don't know how SCOTUS will rule.
And I didn't say your personality is why you won't be treated differently under the law. Once again, you make up sh!t and that makes you fundamentally dishonest. I do believe your crappy personality is why some will always treat you differently. Notice that I treat you differently than some others in this forum because you're not very nice and you're dishonest. Those who are honest and who are nice get treated as though they are honest and nice. Rather simple if you're able to understand such simple stuff.
Apparently, you don't understand obvious and simple stuff.
Well considering the 1st circuit AND the 2nd circuit have BOTH ruled DOMA unconstitutional, and both the appeals court & trial court judges were "conservative" republican appointed judges, I feel pretty confident predicting the SCOTUS will agree with them. So does just about every constitutional "expert" out there.

Actually you DID say I wouldn't be treated equally under the law because I have a "really crappy personality", so you lied again.

I'm very nice & very honest to those who deserve it.

I just don't put up with sh!t from bigots like you.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#57 Feb 23, 2013
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it is completely ludicrous to claim that marriage and something homsexual are the same thing in composition, characteristics, frequency even among homosexuals, and in effects on society.
The government has no rational interest in any legal homosexual relationship. No child is ever born as a direct result, no economically unequal genders are involved, and such relationships don't even form a basis of homosexual society much less of society in general.
Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual 'marriage' is every country that allows it.
You would have us remain 'legal strangers' with no legal responsibility to each other. So if my same-sex 'spouse' should become unemployed or sick, the government wouldn't want me to help support him? Our income should not be counted jointly to get subsidized health care or welfare?

You must have a very narrow view of what it means to be married. Marriage gives both benefits AND RESPONSIBILITIES!
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#58 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality under the law is based on one's personality?
Since I never made that claim, I feel no need to defend it.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text> Basic civil and human rights can be denied to anyone that someone else dislikes?
I know you are just griping at Sheeple, but that doesn't come off as sensible, and you know it.
Doesn't work to tell me what I know or do not know, especially when the premise is flawed. My dislike of Sheeple is because he is intellectually dishonest and smug. Add that to his stupidity and there is no reason at all for me to have any regard or respect for him. I make no correlation between my dislike and contempt for him and how he (guessing Sheeple to be a man) might be treated under the law. I doubt that I would ever consider him an equal because of his miserable disposition and personality. I feel that way about most dishonest hypocrites regardless of orientation. He has always been a jerk, and he likely feels that same about me. The difference being that since I have no respect for him, his opinion of me means less than nothing. He's the one who seems to think it's important to change my opinion. I don't give a damn if he agrees with me or not, figuring he's too angry and stupid to even consider adjusting or otherwise altering his hate and closed mind.

Note to idiots: A rational challenge/disagreement has been offered. No vitriol between Quest and myself, even guessing my response to not be what was desired.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#59 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
People argue and debate about what they believe to be true every day. And even reasonable people can be wrong on a variety of issues.
But really, there has been no rational or logical governmental interest put out by any source for denying a gay couples and their families the same legal protections under marriage law that straight folks receive.
The very opposite is true, with there being a state interest in more stable families, and a more secure elderly population. Those things mean fewer tax dollars spent shoring up weaker and more vulnerable members of the population.
Saying that you don't like something is not the same as saying why that thing is damaging to those involves and damaging to the country at large. And all of the arguments against same-sex marriage, no matter how verbose, convoluted, or circular, seem to revolve around that.
Point of order which I have offered before to nobody's satisfaction. I have no qualm with equal protections under the law for gay couples. I support civil unions or domestic partnerships. I do not agree with same sex unions being called marriage. That's pretty much it. I also don't call tangerines oranges because they aren't oranges, at least as defined when such nomenclatures were defined. If you would like to take issue at that, I'm fine with that. All the extraneous gnashing of teeth and self-righteous posturing is a crashing bore and a waste of time.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#60 Feb 23, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucks to be you then.
Not at all. But you make up silly/dishonest crap all the time so why should you be expected to get anything right now?

Again, it's you. Why would I possibly give a damn about what you think, about me or anything else?
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#61 Feb 23, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> I'm very nice & very honest to those who deserve it.
I'm the same way. Clearly you don't deserve it and you feel the same about me. See? We CAN agree on something!
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> I just don't put up with sh!t from bigots like you.
Oooo, you called me a bigot! Do you get a stiffy trying to sound butch and righteous? Was I supposed to be impressed or feel chastised?

You're wrong yet again.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#62 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Yet Equal usually debates in a very reasonable way, using only the facts as they see them, providing references and historical context, and not often with personal insults.
And, instead of refuting their points, you use insults?
Not nice.
Okay, so I'm not nice. I can live with that, especially considering the amount of BS from the usual suspects in here. If you don't see the "personal insults" for these alleged people, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point and I would invite you to read their silly nonsense. Difficult to take them seriously, so I don't.

And Snyper claims that "nobody talks to him (me) anymore." Considering that I just came back to this forum a few days ago and the level of vitriol and BS coming from those who don't like me or who disagree with me, that claim is just more BS.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#63 Feb 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> "Liberals run in terror from facts?" Gee.... got anything other than emotion-laden school yard taunts?
Emotion-laden? Seriously? That's simple ridicule!
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#64 Feb 23, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
And accurate. Separate but equal is in no way equal. Even a BS Detector should understand that.
<quoted text>
I disagree with that, and a reasonable argument can be made counter to my position. True, in the CONTEXT of when and how that concept came about, it had validity because there was such a clear arbitrary and deliberate disparity between the black and white schools in the deep south decades ago.

And the silly bullsh!t "Separate but equal is in no way equal." is simply absurd when applied with such a broad brush. Simplistic nonsense is so often just that. Nonsense.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#65 Feb 23, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Point of order which I have offered before to nobody's satisfaction. I have no qualm with equal protections under the law for gay couples. I support civil unions or domestic partnerships. I do not agree with same sex unions being called marriage. That's pretty much it.
Your "agreement" is irrelevant. That's pretty much 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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sea Shepherd 'in contempt of US court' 13 hr Your Ex 1
US court reconsiders order to have YouTube remo... 17 hr barefoot2626 42
Immigrants Closer to Driver's Licenses in Arizona Fri Guess Who 1
Immigrants closer to driver's licenses in Arizona Fri Guess Who 10
Young immigrants allowed to get driver's licenses Thu OId Sailor 1
Supreme Court Justices reject Arizona bid over ... Dec 16 Sterkfontein Swar... 3
Couples Anxious to Grab First Idaho Same-Sex Ma... Dec 11 The Real Zeke 33
More from around the web