Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 60846 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Carl from Pittsfield

Pittsfield, MA

#8431 Oct 31, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wish to prove that you are dumb too, Pietro?
You established that some time ago.
The reality remains that if the only argument that one has against same sex marriage is traditional families, they have no argument at all.
I love you in your tux and scruffy beard. Please let me come to Georgetown

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8432 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL parents regardless of gender combination should teach their children to be responsible for the children they produce and to marry before having children.
That's why we're changing the state marriage laws to enable same-sex couples to marry BEFORE having children.
Ohhhhhhh....SO THAT'S IT! All those pregnant gay men out there, their impregnators took off, left them all alone. If only marriage was available nationwide for these poor souls, then they could become honest men!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8433 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage provides the same legal protections for children raised by same-sex couples as by opposite-sex couples.
Provides the children with a legal mother and father?
Denying same-sex couples the rights & legal protection of marriage only harms the children they are going to raise regardless.
If that's the case any adult combination raising children should have legal marriage protection.
No, it can't be applied to plural marriage families because of the inherent harm to women & children in plural families.
From treating those families as second class citizens, robbing them of their dignity. Therein lies the harm. A man can marry, father children with his wife, and later divorce her. He can then remarry, and father children with his second wife. Perfectly acceptable, but if he, with the consent of the women of course, chooses not to divorce his first wife, and takes in a second wife, that's not acceptable? The children are less worthy of the legal protection that marriage brings, is that your contention?
Silly me, you probably think it's okay for two men to mix their sperm, so as not to know who the bio dad is, buy and egg, and rent a womb. That perfectly fine, right? Just not two wives at a time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8434 Oct 31, 2013
SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge wants to know whether Utah County's assertion that it would not prosecute the polygamous family featured in "Sister Wives" is a ruse to avoid a legal challenge of the state's bigamy law.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups' blunt questions had a state attorney on his heels for much of a 45-minute hearing Wednesday as he tried to defend Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman's recent policy change regarding the statute.

"Is the act of the Utah County attorney simply an attempt to avoid the issue of what consenting adults can do constitutionally?" Waddoups asked assistant attorney general Jerrold Jensen.

In May, Buhman said in court documents that his office had adopted a formal policy not to prosecute the practice of bigamy unless it occurs in conjunction with another crime or if a party to the marriage or relationship is under 18.

The change came about 18 months after Buhman's office said it was investigating and might prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives under Utah's bigamy law. The Browns later filed a lawsuit, claiming the statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.

Jensen contends that because the Browns won't be prosecuted, their lawsuit is moot and should be dismissed.

Calling it an "important issue to many people," Waddoups took the case under advisement and said he would rule as soon as possible.

The judge noted that other than in court documents, Buhman did not publicly announce the change and there's nothing to preclude him or a future county attorney from enforcing the law. "That goes to the sincerity of this policy," he said.

Jensen said Buhman, who did not attend the hearing, should be taken at his word.

"I don't think you can question the sincerity of the adoption of this policy," Jensen told the judge.

Jensen said after the hearing that he would call Buhman to the witness stand if the ruling goes against the state.

The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, said the "faux" policy does not repeal the bigamy statute and that Buhman still considers it constitutional and enforceable. He never explains the reasons for not prosecuting people for bigamy, but is willing to do so if it's connected to another crime, Turley said.

"It's clearly an effort to avoid a ruling in this case," he said.

The law, Turley said, still "dangles like a Damocles sword" over the Browns.

Brown, who did not attend the hearing, filed a court declaration Tuesday saying despite the "policy" change, his family still feels threatened and that Buhman has never withdrawn his statements labeling them as criminals.

"We continue to suffer harm as a result of the criminalization of our plural family and the public attacks made against my family with reference to this law," he wrote.

In statement Wednesday, Brown said he remains committed to the lawsuit and that the people of Utah should have the final say on that question.

"While we continue our close ties to Utah, we have remained in Nevada in the best interest of our children and family," he said. "One of the factors weighing heavily on our decision has been the continued insistence of officials that this law is constitutional and that plural families are presumptive felons."

In court documents filed in May, Buhman denies making promises or threats to prosecute the Brown family.

"I never stated publicly that I would or would not prosecute the Browns," he wrote, "though I'm aware others in my office may have responded to the press to that effect."

The Browns sued Gov. Gary Herbert, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Buhman in July 2011. Waddoups earler dismissed Herbert and Shurtleff from the case.

In February, the judge ruled there was sufficient evidence to allow the Browns to pursue a lawsuit against Buhman contesting the constitutionality of the law.
http://www.ksl.com/...
1 post removed
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8436 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge wants to know whether Utah County's assertion that it would not prosecute the polygamous family featured in "Sister Wives" is a ruse to avoid a legal challenge of the state's bigamy law.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups' blunt questions had a state attorney on his heels for much of a 45-minute hearing Wednesday as he tried to defend Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman's recent policy change regarding the statute.
"Is the act of the Utah County attorney simply an attempt to avoid the issue of what consenting adults can do constitutionally?" Waddoups asked assistant attorney general Jerrold Jensen.
In May, Buhman said in court documents that his office had adopted a formal policy not to prosecute the practice of bigamy unless it occurs in conjunction with another crime or if a party to the marriage or relationship is under 18.
The change came about 18 months after Buhman's office said it was investigating and might prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives under Utah's bigamy law. The Browns later filed a lawsuit, claiming the statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.
Jensen contends that because the Browns won't be prosecuted, their lawsuit is moot and should be dismissed.
Calling it an "important issue to many people," Waddoups took the case under advisement and said he would rule as soon as possible.
The judge noted that other than in court documents, Buhman did not publicly announce the change and there's nothing to preclude him or a future county attorney from enforcing the law. "That goes to the sincerity of this policy," he said.
Jensen said Buhman, who did not attend the hearing, should be taken at his word.
"I don't think you can question the sincerity of the adoption of this policy," Jensen told the judge.
Jensen said after the hearing that he would call Buhman to the witness stand if the ruling goes against the state.
The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, said the "faux" policy does not repeal the bigamy statute and that Buhman still considers it
Did you not know that the issue in that lawsuit is cohabitation, NOT polygamy?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8437 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhhh....SO THAT'S IT! All those pregnant gay men out there, their impregnators took off, left them all alone. If only marriage was available nationwide for these poor souls, then they could become honest men!
Drama Queen hyperbole.
1 post removed

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8439 Oct 31, 2013
And to sum up, SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.

Smile.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#8440 Oct 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
And to sum up, SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.
Smile.
And to sum up..pointless post from a bigot.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#8441 Oct 31, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Think again.

From the constituion:
"The full faith and credit clause DOES NOT require one state to substitute for its OWN statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the CONFLICTING statute of another state."

Oklahoma does not recognize queer marriage and can not be forced to accept it from other states.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#8442 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet a same-sex couple from the Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes WAS legally married in Oklahoma, and will get all the federal rights & benefits of marriage!
Wrong aagin, dipshit. That marriage is only recognized inside the tribe. They may get Tribal benefits (which they already were getting) but they will not get the same benefits from the state. They can not change statutes of Oklahoma State Law.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#8443 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What you believe is irrelevant.
Maybe. But I swat you down like a bug every time you raise up.
Xaviers Breath Mint

Schenectady, NY

#8444 Oct 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Drama Queen hyperbole.
Multiple syllable insults.....you're growing up so fast Neil.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8445 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Think again.
From the constituion:
"The full faith and credit clause DOES NOT require one state to substitute for its OWN statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the CONFLICTING statute of another state."
Oklahoma does not recognize queer marriage and can not be forced to accept it from other states.
Oh, that's where you are wrong. It CAN be forced by SCOTUS.

Besides, who cares what your backward-ass State accepts? The federal government recognizes it and that is what really matters.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8446 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong aagin, dipshit. That marriage is only recognized inside the tribe. They may get Tribal benefits (which they already were getting) but they will not get the same benefits from the state. They can not change statutes of Oklahoma State Law.
What benefits from the State? Free dust?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8447 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhhh....SO THAT'S IT! All those pregnant gay men out there, their impregnators took off, left them all alone. If only marriage was available nationwide for these poor souls, then they could become honest men!
Yes all those gay men who pair up and keep creating families; and the lesbians too.

They should all be encouraged to get married before having any kids, whether they adopt or use in vitro fertilization etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8448 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Provides the children with a legal mother and father?
<quoted text>
If that's the case any adult combination raising children should have legal marriage protection.
<quoted text>
From treating those families as second class citizens, robbing them of their dignity. Therein lies the harm. A man can marry, father children with his wife, and later divorce her. He can then remarry, and father children with his second wife. Perfectly acceptable, but if he, with the consent of the women of course, chooses not to divorce his first wife, and takes in a second wife, that's not acceptable? The children are less worthy of the legal protection that marriage brings, is that your contention?
Silly me, you probably think it's okay for two men to mix their sperm, so as not to know who the bio dad is, buy and egg, and rent a womb. That perfectly fine, right? Just not two wives at a time.
Marriage provides the children of same-sex couples with 2 legal parents, just as it does for opposite-sex couples. The gender of the parents is irrelevant under the law.

Nope, polygamy & incestuous couples/groups cause proven harm to women & children & society.

Correct, you can't have 2 wives at a time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8449 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge wants to know whether Utah County's assertion that it would not court documents that his office had adopted a formal policy not to prosecute the practice of bigamy unless it occurs in conjunction with another crime or if a party to the marriage or relationship is under 18.
The change came about 18 months after Buhman's office said it was investigating and might prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives under Utah's bigamy law. The Browns later filed a lawsuit, claiming the statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.
Jensen contends that because the Browns won't be prosecuted, their lawsuit is moot and should be dismissed.
Calling it an "important issue to many people," Waddoups took the case under advisement and said he would rule as soon as possible.
The judge noted that other than in court documents, Buhman did not publicly announce the change and there's nothing to preclude him or a future county attorney from enforcing the law. "That goes to the sincerity of this policy," he said.
Jensen said Buhman, who did not attend the hearing, should be taken at his word.
"I don't think you can question the sincerity of the adoption of this policy," Jensen told the judge.
Jensen said after the hearing that he would call Buhman to the witness stand if the ruling goes against the state.
The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, said the "faux" policy does not repeal the bigamy statute and that Buhman still considers it constitutional and enforceable. He never explains the reasons for not prosecuting people for bigamy, but is willing to do so if it's connected to another crime, Turley said.
"It's clearly an effort to avoid a ruling in this case," he said.
The law, Turley said, still "dangles like a Damocles sword" over the Browns.
Brown, who did not attend the hearing, filed a court declaration Tuesday saying despite the "policy" change, his family still feels threatened and that Buhman has never withdrawn his statements labeling them as criminals.
"We continue to suffer harm as a result of the criminalization of our plural family and the public attacks made against my family with reference to this law," he wrote.
In statement Wednesday, Brown said he remains committed to the lawsuit and that the people of Utah should have the final say on that question.
"While we continue our close ties to Utah, we have remained in Nevada in the best interest of our children and family," he said. "One of the factors weighing heavily on our decision has been the continued insistence of officials that this law is constitutional and that plural families are presumptive felons."
In court documents filed in May, Buhman denies making promises or threats to prosecute the Brown family.
"I never stated publicly that I would or would not prosecute the Browns," he wrote, "though I'm aware others in my office may have responded to the press to that effect."
The Browns sued Gov. Gary Herbert, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Buhman in July 2011. Waddoups earler dismissed Herbert and Shurtleff from the case.
In February, the judge ruled there was sufficient evidence to allow the Browns to pursue a lawsuit against Buhman contesting the constitutionality of the law.
http://www.ksl.com/...
What a lovely- if irrelevant- story, please do tell us another one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8450 Oct 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
And to sum up, SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.
Smile.
And to sum up,

You STILL haven't prevented same-sex couples from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.

And you STILL haven't prevented you tax dollars from going to support married same-sex couples and their families.

Smile!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8451 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong aagin, dipshit. That marriage is only recognized inside the tribe. They may get Tribal benefits (which they already were getting) but they will not get the same benefits from the state. They can not change statutes of Oklahoma State Law.
I never said they get state benefits; I said they'll get the federal benefits.

Obviously they don't have to change the statutes of Oklahoma to be legally married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8452 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe. But I swat you down like a bug every time you raise up.
Except just like the KiMare freak of nature, you haven't prevented same-sex couples from marrying.

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
News Planned Parenthood alleges 'smear' in letter to... 2 min serfs up 45
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min HILLARY 2016 193,614
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 5 min TomInElPaso 216
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min woodtick57 173,475
News Trump, Carson in close fight in Iowa poll 9 min Le Jimbo 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Jacques Ottawa 196,969
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Incognito4Ever 1,275,376
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 37 min positronium 340,815
More from around the web