Gay marriage

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. Full Story

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48070 May 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's he legislating from the bench. That's not his job. Legislatures exist to legislate.
"Legislating from the bench" is a meaning less con dumb catch phrase.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48071 May 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So then using Rosie's Bizarro world logic, marriage violates the 14th amendment and thus should be banned.
<quoted text>
You have to lie about what I have said to try and "win".
That should tell everybody something!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48072 May 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or in your case, the gene pool.
<quoted text>
.
YOU are picking at typos!?
LOL!
That's like Rush Limpaugh making fun of the First Lady's weight.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48073 May 23, 2014
JEFF HELMS wrote:
<quoted text> What I'm trying to say Mr. Poof, is this rotten group of people that are wreaking our society in this state ---REALLY WANT GAY MARRIAGE-- what does that tell you-- Let me ask you this--Would you allow a 25+ year dog run DIRECTLY on a california beach, right above a recreation area in a bay??? The asian latino hasidic's are backing this dog run etc.--they want gay marriage also--this is the kind of entity that wants gay marriage.
Anabolic steroids are all the rage...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48074 May 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Pope Francis Against Gay Adoption:‘Every Person Needs a Male Father and a Female Mother’
How does the Pope feel about Jesus having two dads?
jeffryhelms

El Cerrito, CA

#48075 May 23, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your elevator go to the top floor?
Your not getting free std/drug healthcare and playing rotten games--its just not going to happen.

Judged:

22

21

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48076 May 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I validate your belief in one man and one woman marriage even when that's based on reason, feelings or faith. There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to rewrite marriage law for everyone.
When your parents divorced, did that end everybody's marriage?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48077 May 23, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Verbal rubbish, Rose. I noted that your endorsement of homosexuality is how you manifest your "envy". You sidestepped the essential point and went right on with your antisocial behaviors.
You homophobes have to lie. I don't endorse homosexuality, that wouldn't really make sense, it would be like endorsing being Asian.
anonymous wrote:
Personally, I don't think much of Freudian theory, but I accept his ideas as insightful on how certain types of people think. In this case, you certainly profile like you want to castrate men and you continue to behave in such a manner.
....and you WILL continue to behave in such a manner because,
And what manner is this? You don't have an answer. And since you don't, you try to demonize me. LOLSER!
anonymous wrote:
above all things, your mania will NOT allow you to manifest any sort of introspection.
Do you mind if I ask you WTF you are talking about?
anonymous wrote:
The more the discussion turns towards the topic, even if NOT worded as a personal attack, the more you will be defending yourself, not your ideas with personal attacks against others. More than anything else, you live to hide your pathology.
Nah, Beano works just fine.
anonymous wrote:
My only relevant political pursuit at this point is to decide whether to treat your behavior as deliberately deceptive or pathological lying. From the look of things, you genuinely don't retain the details of your lies from one moment to the next. Some people here are wannabe Goebbels, but I'm fairly sure that you've just fallen off your donkey.
Godwin's Law!
Now, here's the deal.
Post a lie I've told, or apologize.
You can't do the first, and you don't have the gonads to do the second.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48078 May 23, 2014
Poof1 wrote:
<quoted text>In reality land,???? LMAO, right you and Mr Helms are cut from the same cloth, he just lets his insanity shine.
They are both bat spit crazy!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#48079 May 23, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. He's either a troll or fairly illiterate. Do you think that people don't grow up in such environments?(minus the obvious dysfunctional literary stuff?) I just heard yesterday about a California actor who played a cop, who just shot and killed his wife. NOthing surprises me about La-La land ...or Frisco either.
He's probably a troll, or possibly a nut. Not too many nuts have access to computers...
Oh, damn, there goes my soda all over my monitor and keyboard.
jeffryhelms

El Cerrito, CA

#48080 May 23, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Anabolic steroids are all the rage...
Be careful I know how steroid people act--try prozac and steroid mixed!!! California made a law against being on prozac over 10 years because of the high rate of violence and murder with the "over 10 year prozac users" etc.---their is a fine line between being funny and being angry and prozac makes you "funny" etc .you can make people laugh etc.-but eventually prozac shorts out the central nervous system and you become violent etc. so they passed that law. Alot of comedians are on prozac. The california prison system is full of prozac victims etc.---O.J was one of the victims also--he had a way out or jail and still could have kept his fortune etc.--but he would have had to take a pysc. alternative etc. and his doctor would have taken the fall.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#48081 May 23, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If the marriage laws complied with equal protection and due process requires, then all federal judges since the SCOTUS ruling in Windsor would not have found them unconstitutional.
Oh sure....so how did those federal and state judges that ruled in favor of the conjugal monogamist understanding of marriage reach that conclusion? Did the constitution change? Men and women morphed into interchangeable androgynous beings? Maybe they're not as smart as the other federal judges.
No, I'm referring to all the federal District court decisions since Windsor that have ruled state laws and state constitutional amendments prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriages
violate the federal constitution. They've done so because the laws and amendments discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, not because of sex, stupid Peter.
No state requires a statement of sexual orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license, nor prohibit any man, or woman, to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, based on self professed sexual orientation.
Marriages that include "husband and wife" aren't unconstitutional. Restricting marriage only to "husband and wife" and excluding "husband and husband" and "wife and wife" discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and violates the federal constitution.
So how then did the Federal judges in the Nevada and Hawaii cases rule otherwise?
Federal courts have determined the fundamental right of marriage is not restricted to just the union of one man and one woman.
Not all federal courts, and not the Supreme Court, who has yet to rule same sex marriage a fundamental right.
They agree with me and not you that restrictions placed on exercising a fundamental rights are not the definition of that right. But nice dodge of the fact tat fundamental rights have been ruled by SCOTUS as not subject to vote (popular or legislative) or elections.
The fundamental right to marry is the right to enter into a specific relationship with another person, it is not a stand alone individual right. Attempting to lump the fundamental right of marriage with individual stand alone rights, indicates you ignore he basis, the male female union, of the right to marry.
People with half a brain understand the issue arises when government mandates segregation or integration; there is no constitutional issue when either results from voluntary choices of citizens. But that explains why you find this confusing.
Government has mandated both racial integration, and gender integration, in various public settings, schools, and the military, for example.
Whether anti-miscegenation laws were universal or only near universal doesn't change the fact they were ruled unconstitutional.
Nor the reason why they were ruled unconstitutional. They perpetuated racial discrimination, and were intended to maintain white supremacy.
The same is true for prohibitions against same sex marriage. Universality of a discriminatory practice doesn't exempt it from constitutional scrutiny.
SSM is not prohibited, it's simply not legally recognized as marriage in all states. Besides, states also prohibit plural marriage, and incestuous marriage, both are discriminatory.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#48082 May 23, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Wow! I have to use the scroll button a lot on this thread.
It is entertaining though.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#48083 May 23, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Legislating from the bench" is a meaning less con dumb catch phrase.
Except when it's in your favor. What happened to the leg lamp icon?

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#48084 May 23, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, damn, there goes my soda all over my monitor and keyboard.
Try to control yourself.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#48085 May 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Except when it's in your favor. What happened to the leg lamp icon?
I am sure glad she took that picture of her stockinged ham hock with high heeled hoof down. It was disturbing. I would shudder and feel woozy when I saw it.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#48086 May 23, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Legislating from the bench" is a meaning less con dumb catch phrase.
"Con dumb" is a meaningless Rose_BlowHole catch phrase.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#48087 May 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure glad she took that picture of her stockinged ham hock with high heeled hoof down. It was disturbing. I would shudder and feel woozy when I saw it.
Ohhhhhh.....I thought it was the leg lamp from the Christmas movie.

Judged:

19

19

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#48088 May 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Con dumb" is a meaningless Rose_BlowHole catch phrase.
Definition of con dumb: Inmate not so bright.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#48089 May 23, 2014
jeffryhelms wrote:
<quoted text>Your not getting free std/drug healthcare and playing rotten games--its just not going to happen.
GET back to me when you can post
in English.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min Earthling-1 51,395
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 18 min thetruth 4,780
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 31 min Earthling-1 33,931
Scott Walker calls Reagana s bust of air traffi... 38 min serfs up 17
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 41 min Pietro Armando 201,370
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 41 min Agents of Corruption 312,516
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Bluestater 1,190,233
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 3 hr red and right 1,777
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 hr Jay 171,780
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 8 hr Fortunate Son 1968 503
More from around the web