Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

Feb 22, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Daily Democrat

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.

Comments
81 - 100 of 220 Comments Last updated Feb 27, 2013

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Razer wrote:
You are one stupid a:ss fagg@t
Sometimes we lose track of the very meaning of words. Let me see if I can help...

Stupid (adj)
1 a : slow of mind : obtuse
b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>
4a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event>
b : vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>

Your response, which has no bearing in fact, reason, law, or reality, is stupid. The fact that you can only offer personal insults to support it merely affirms the lack of validity of your argument.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> .
And the silly bullsh!t "Separate but eoqual is in no way equal." is simply absurd when applied with such a broad brush. Simplistic nonsense is so often just that. Nonsense.
That is merely your opinion and worth no more than anyone else's except those who are impacted by such silly notions as civil unions being equal to marriage. A good number of states have already made that decision and they find marriages to be equal regardless of sexual orientation. Those states who allow nothing for homosexuals get no place at the table since their laws are based on only heterosexual marriage and prohibit anything else. They get no voice and the courts will have to judge their laws accordingly. They will, at some point probably in violation of the US constitution just as they were with their sodomy laws directed at only one segment of society. History repeats itself.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

snyper wrote:
The core question is and remains,
"Is sexual orientation sufficient grounds to deny Citizens the Equal Rights, Equal Access, Equal Participation and Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America?"
no
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
That is merely your opinion and worth no more than anyone else's except those who are impacted by such silly notions as civil unions being equal to marriage. A good number of states have already made that decision and they find marriages to be equal regardless of sexual orientation. Those states who allow nothing for homosexuals get no place at the table since their laws are based on only heterosexual marriage and prohibit anything else. They get no voice and the courts will have to judge their laws accordingly. They will, at some point probably in violation of the US constitution just as they were with their sodomy laws directed at only one segment of society. History repeats itself.
Are you suggesting that I have to change my position or "opinion" because somebody has a differing position or opinion? You declare (and invent) the stipulation that only those who are (according to you) "impacted" by a position may have a valid opinion. Do you believe that those who do not support same sex marriage are not entitled to an opinion? Some believe that gays imposing their view do, indeed, impact them (and their religion which, to many, is very important).

Not so simplistic as some would/require us believe.
Heather from LI

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

It's so annoying when you meet a hot guy at a club and then find out he's a gay, and then you feel sooo disgusted just thinking about all the little boys he must have molested! Gross!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Are you suggesting that I have to change my position or "opinion" because somebody has a differing position or opinion? You declare (and invent) the stipulation that only those who are (according to you) "impacted" by a position may have a valid opinion. Do you believe that those who do not support same sex marriage are not entitled to an opinion? Some believe that gays imposing their view do, indeed, impact them (and their religion which, to many, is very important).
Not so simplistic as some would/require us believe.
Someone they don't even know getting married impacts them and their religion? It makes them look backward and ignorant..... aw.... too bad.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Heather from LI wrote:
It's so annoying when you meet a hot guy at a club and then find out he's a gay, and then you feel sooo disgusted just thinking about all the little boys he must have molested! Gross!
Well, if you're stupid enough to not know the difference between gay and pedophile, you have bigger problems.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jake wrote:
Do you feel like a little bitc:h when you take a d!ck up your a:ss????
Do you feel like an fool when you air your bigotry in public?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Heather from LI wrote:
It's so annoying when you meet a hot guy at a club and then find out he's a gay, and then you feel sooo disgusted just thinking about all the little boys he must have molested! Gross!
Funny, I was just thinking about how annoying it is when you meet a troll online, and then you feel so disappointed about all of the brain cells that they have murdered.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Yep, and your lying continues.
Here's a question you're too stupid to answer honestly. Have I ever tried to convince you that you should adopt my position? And since you are demonstrably both stupid and dishonest, I'll even give you the answer. No, I have not.
And when there are so many true anti-gay types out there,n you and the other morons waste time with me simply because I support civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. That, to me, clearly shows your abject stupidity.
You ARE a true anti-gay because you don't support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

You can claim to be whatever you want, but I will continue to point out to everyone that you ARE INDEED ANTI-GAY.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not so sure heightened scrutiny is needed. I've yet to see anyone offer a rational basis for laws barring same sex couples from marrying that would allow those laws to stand under the lowest levels of judicial review. There simply is no legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Numerous state supreme courts have indeed upheld their marriage bans on rational basis in the past, including New York, Washington, Minnesota, etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Are you suggesting that I have to change my position or "opinion" because somebody has a differing position or opinion? You declare (and invent) the stipulation that only those who are (according to you) "impacted" by a position may have a valid opinion. Do you believe that those who do not support same sex marriage are not entitled to an opinion? Some believe that gays imposing their view do, indeed, impact them (and their religion which, to many, is very important).
Not so simplistic as some would/require us believe.
Sicne no one is forcing them to marry someone of the same sex, it doesn't impact them nor their religion.

Just as heteros marrying in no way impacts me or my religious beliefs.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Are you suggesting that I have to change my position or "opinion" because somebody has a differing position or opinion? You declare (and invent) the stipulation that only those who are (according to you) "impacted" by a position may have a valid opinion. Do you believe that those who do not support same sex marriage are not entitled to an opinion? Some believe that gays imposing their view do, indeed, impact them (and their religion which, to many, is very important).
Not so simplistic as some would/require us believe.
I DO believe those who have a vested interest have opinions which carry more weight than someone with mere personal feelings. Your blatant attempt to alter what I said tells the tale here. It was not inferred that someone isn't entitled to their opinion.

Not a single witness against Prop 8 has proven there is any impact on them from marriage equality. Additionally since when, under our laws, does one religion or anyone's religion trump the rights of those without or with a different religious view in civil law? Just because you believe my civil equal marriage has impact upon you or your life does not make it so.

Just how does my civil equal marriage rights in any way impact you? By what rationale would any court in the land dare impose someone's religious views on a nonbeliever? Not in this republic, now or ever!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
Numerous state supreme courts have indeed upheld their marriage bans on rational basis in the past, including New York, Washington, Minnesota, etc.
That doesn't mean those decisions will continue to stand. Separate but equal was a valid legal theory for 58 years. The times changed, society changed, the court changed, and the law changed.

I've yet to see anyone offer a valid legal theory that would withstand a rational basis test to deny same sex couples the right to marry. I don't think a new classification or heightened scrutiny will be necessary to win this legal battle. I don't think that even this court is willing to nullify the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and in many ways they are uniquely composed to defend states' rights, which the DOMA tramples upon.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't mean those decisions will continue to stand. Separate but equal was a valid legal theory for 58 years. The times changed, society changed, the court changed, and the law changed.
I've yet to see anyone offer a valid legal theory that would withstand a rational basis test to deny same sex couples the right to marry. I don't think a new classification or heightened scrutiny will be necessary to win this legal battle. I don't think that even this court is willing to nullify the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and in many ways they are uniquely composed to defend states' rights, which the DOMA tramples upon.
I realize YOU don't think it's a valid rational reason, I'm just saying other courts HAVE accepted them as valil legal justification.

You do realize almost EVERY equal protection case under the 5th & 14th amendments are because the victims are part of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification? Religion, race, ethnicity, or gender bias.

Without that suspect classification it is VERY easy to meet rational basis; it really is.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize YOU don't think it's a valid rational reason, I'm just saying other courts HAVE accepted them as valil legal justification.
You do realize almost EVERY equal protection case under the 5th & 14th amendments are because the victims are part of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification? Religion, race, ethnicity, or gender bias.
Without that suspect classification it is VERY easy to meet rational basis; it really is.
I just don't see any legally defensible state interest served by denying equal protection. The legal reasoning of the Minnesota court is, at best, shoddy; but the decision came 40 years ago when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder. They relied heavily on the presence of a procreative element relative to the legal protections of marriage, which can be proven false by the numerous instances where the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to marry.

The New York court held that there was no state constitutional right for same sex couples to marry. However their ruling could have been challenged at the federal level citing the equal protection clause, had it not been superseded by legislation.

The times are changing, as are public perceptions. Equality will prevail, if not this time, soon.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't see any legally defensible state interest served by denying equal protection. The legal reasoning of the Minnesota court is, at best, shoddy; but the decision came 40 years ago when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder. They relied heavily on the presence of a procreative element relative to the legal protections of marriage, which can be proven false by the numerous instances where the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to marry.
The New York court held that there was no state constitutional right for same sex couples to marry. However their ruling could have been challenged at the federal level citing the equal protection clause, had it not been superseded by legislation.
The times are changing, as are public perceptions. Equality will prevail, if not this time, soon.
I agree equality will eventually prevail.

My only point was that the courts can do whatever they want on these issues; nothing is absolute.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Feb 24, 2013
 
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I'll ask you, do you feel like a little bitc:h when you take a d!ck up your a:ss??
Do you feel like one when you imagine it happening?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree equality will eventually prevail.
My only point was that the courts can do whatever they want on these issues; nothing is absolute.
The courts that have denied equal treatment had to excuse irrational reasoning to do so, and the irrationality of those excuses has been exposed in subsequent court rulings, failing even the "rational basis" excuse for discrimination.

While Scalia and Thomas may hang their hats on those arguments, they now will have a more difficult to defending them, in light of the more recent court findings and rulings.

"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
Barry

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Feb 24, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts that have denied equal treatment had to excuse irrational reasoning to do so, and the irrationality of those excuses has been exposed in subsequent court rulings, failing even the "rational basis" excuse for discrimination.
While Scalia and Thomas may hang their hats on those arguments, they now will have a more difficult to defending them, in light of the more recent court findings and rulings.
"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."
"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."
Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
You keep Spamming us with the same refuted nonsense. Did you forget your ridiculous polical charade has been exposed as ludicrous? Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••