Despite same-sex marriage shift, opponents fight on

Mar 26, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS News

This week, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear two landmark cases concerning same-sex marriage, momentum appears to be on the side of gay rights: A recent poll shows support for gay marriage at an all-time high; voters in Maine and Maryland approved same-sex marriage at the ballot box last November; and in the past few weeks, a slew of ... (more)

Comments
21 - 40 of 176 Comments Last updated Apr 3, 2013

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Ummmm..don't you know what DOMA is? you really should have the very basic understanding of a topic before you post...
sheesh!
So again instead of giving an answer you are back with a question. You pulled this on other subjects as well, when you don't have a clue.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Then if we are all treated the same, we can have voter ID, The FEDERAL government has no area of involvement with Marriage. It is a State issue and always has been, just like abortion was until as Justice Ginsberg noted, THEY WENT TOO FAR MANDATING LAW TO ALL STATES.
States used to be able to put limits on minority rights.
I saw the "white only" signs around the South on drinking
fountains, at lunch counters, at beaches and swimming pools,
motel accommodations, in theaters, on city buses etc., etc.,
etc. The nation finally understood that the majority
has no right to restrict minority rights, to make second-
class citizens out of certain people because of their
skin color or their religion or their ethnicity. Blacks
were prevented marrying white by law, and vice versa.

Conservatives were much in favor of that kind of apartheid
white-supremacist society. The old Southern Dixiecrats with
their claiming states-rights thought they had a God-given
right to take away the rights of minorities. They were
proved wrong and sometimes at the point of a bayonet.

Been there, done that.
Let's not go down that road again.

Minorities have rights and majorities just have to learn
to live with the idea as much as they may dislike it..

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>So again instead of giving an answer you are back with a question. You pulled this on other subjects as well, when you don't have a clue.
No. you proved you shouldn't be talking about this subject as you don;t even understand the most basic aspects of the issue.

I am tired of educating you for free.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so in reality, it about changing the definition of marrige and what is normal in the natural world to fit your preversions. What's next, poligmy, beastality and sex with minors because it fits your idea of the equality clause.
We are talking about law abiding people here. There is no law against being homosexual. there are laws prohibiting, sex with animals and sex with or marriage to a minor.
This is All-American fairness.
Every American citizen who is adult, mentally sound and has not been convicted of a felony, must be treated equally by their gov't.
No exceptions.
If you don't like gay equality you will need a constitutionally acceptable law declaring homosexual behavior to be in it self proof of mental disease or have it declare a crime.
If you can't....you are attempting to create law according to your personal likes and dislikes
Yeah sure

Lehighton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Looks like the Supremes could punt on the queers.
Fire the GOP

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

It's ironic that an organization calling themselves the "National Organization for Marriage" is spending millions of dollars to protest against marriage. And NONE to ban divorce and criminalize adultery.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Yeah sure wrote:
Looks like the Supremes could punt on the queers.
i was unaware they were ruling an a case involving the evangelicals ....good to know.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Gary wrote:
<quoted text>
States used to be able to put limits on minority rights.
I saw the "white only" signs around the South on drinking
fountains, at lunch counters, at beaches and swimming pools,
motel accommodations, in theaters, on city buses etc., etc.,
etc. The nation finally understood that the majority
has no right to restrict minority rights, to make second-
class citizens out of certain people because of their
skin color or their religion or their ethnicity. Blacks
were prevented marrying white by law, and vice versa.
Conservatives were much in favor of that kind of apartheid
white-supremacist society. The old Southern Dixiecrats with
their claiming states-rights thought they had a God-given
right to take away the rights of minorities. They were
proved wrong and sometimes at the point of a bayonet.
Been there, done that.
Let's not go down that road again.
Minorities have rights and majorities just have to learn
to live with the idea as much as they may dislike it..
wow, you saw those signs......you must be in your 90'S

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Fire the GOP wrote:
It's ironic that an organization calling themselves the "National Organization for Marriage" is spending millions of dollars to protest against marriage. And NONE to ban divorce and criminalize adultery.
Liberal organizations names are always the opposite of what their agendas are. It's not hard to fool the low information voter.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>wow, you saw those signs......you must be in your 90'S
those signs were there in the 1960's.

once again you show how stupid you are...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>those signs were there in the 1960's.
once again you show how stupid you are...
Yep, but for low information voters, you don't learn to read till 17, but I guess 70 would be more real. I guess you were ran out huh.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, but for low information voters, you don't learn to read till 17, but I guess 70 would be more real. I guess you were ran out huh.
not even man enough to admit when you totally f*cked up...what afreakin wuss you are jimbo...your dad must be totally ashamed that you are his offspring...i would be.
Sheik Yerbouti

Chalfont, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No To Tinkerbell Marriage wrote:
Validating queer "marriage" doesn't make anyone less than a disordered pervert.
You mean like you and your sisters in the trailer park?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not even man enough to admit when you totally f*cked up...what afreakin wuss you are jimbo...your dad must be totally ashamed that you are his offspring...i would be.
EUROZONE CHIEF: Personal savings accounts in Spain, Italy will be raided to save euro...

CYPRUS: Banks still closed; depositors to lose 40%...

Students protest, bank prez offers resignation...

Well you were wrong again puffer.
Yeah sure

Lehighton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i was unaware they were ruling an a case involving the evangelicals ....good to know.
No, I was referring to you and your kind. LOL
Ravianna

Coos Bay, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Homosexual relationships have zero purpose so they can never become marriage. If homosexuals realized that their relationship has zero purpose they would break up.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ravianna wrote:
Homosexual relationships have zero purpose so they can never become marriage. If homosexuals realized that their relationship has zero purpose they would break up.
?

My purpose is to live a long happy life together with my husband, raising our lovely daughter.

What more purpose do I need?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ravianna wrote:
Homosexual relationships have zero purpose so they can never become marriage. If homosexuals realized that their relationship has zero purpose they would break up.
Please explain why homosexual couples have no purpose in their marriages. I would love to know.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ravianna wrote:
Homosexual relationships have zero purpose so they can never become marriage. If homosexuals realized that their relationship has zero purpose they would break up.
In fact they can. many US states and many countries have legal SSM now. welcome to the 21st century....

Sad that you are so behind the times and such a blatent prejudicial bigot... that hate is gonna tear you up inside...and i'll laugh about it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yeah sure wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was referring to you and your kind. LOL
My kind? rational, heterosexual conservatives? no, no SCOTUS case about us...

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.

•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••