Gay Marriage Debate - Los Angeles, CA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Los Angeles, CA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Los Angeles supports
Support
 
949
Oppose
 
211

Vote now in Los Angeles:

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#694 Mar 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The Equal Rights Amendment failed and the people of California voted for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Men and women aren't equal. Nothing in the Constitution says they are.
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
The people of California do not get to vote to take away the Constitutional rights of a minority.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#695 Mar 13, 2013
There is no gender equality right in California's or the US Constitution. When people don't get to vote on the fundamental nature of marriage; that's antidemocratic.

If you love diversity, integration, individual liberty and democracy, keep marriage one man and one woman. If you like segregation and disunity, gender apartheid marriage might be your cup of tea.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#697 Mar 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gay couples may raise children, there's no law restricting parental rights based on orientation. What gay couples can't do is create children on their own; they aren't equal to heterosexual couples in this regard.
Same sex marriage is ersatz equality, based on the fiction that men and women are equal. There is no gender equality right in our Constitution; the ERA failed ratification.
The ERA isn't needed. The 14th Amendment already says all persons get equal protection under the law.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#698 Mar 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in California's or the US Constitution. When people don't get to vote on the fundamental nature of marriage; that's antidemocratic.
If you love diversity, integration, individual liberty and democracy, keep marriage one man and one woman. If you like segregation and disunity, gender apartheid marriage might be your cup of tea.
Yes there is gender equality is the Constitution. 14th Amendment equal protection. I know you are still bitter about your divorce, but women are still persons, and the 14th Amendment says, "all persons".

And stupid, is it an example of "apartheid marriage" every time someone marries someone of the same race?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#699 Mar 13, 2013
Correction Please wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, and those are pointless marriages.
LOL. Do you have any actual friends?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#700 Mar 13, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
The ERA isn't needed. The 14th Amendment already says all persons get equal protection under the law.
The Constitution says all people are equal before the law, not equal to one another. The Constitution recognizes differences between man and woman, minor and adult and a person in an Indian tribe and a citizen.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, the left tried to pass the ERA but the states don't want same sex marriage.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#701 Mar 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution says all people are equal before the law, not equal to one another.
So what, stupid? We *are* talking about equality before the law, not height.
Brian_G wrote:
The Constitution recognizes differences between man and woman, minor and adult and a person in an Indian tribe and a citizen.
You don't think Indians are persons?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, the left tried to pass the ERA but the states don't want same sex marriage.
No need for the ERA, the 14th Amendment already says all persons should have equal protection under the law.
And yes, both Indians and women are persons.
Markus

Los Angeles, CA

#702 Apr 20, 2013
It should be up to me if I want to marry. Not up to someone down the street that has no idea about the love I have for my partner.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#703 Apr 20, 2013
Markus could be talking about someone already married, too young to consent or otherwise disqualified. Love isn't enough.

Men and women are different; the facts of life are tough love.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#705 Apr 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Markus could be talking about someone already married, too young to consent or otherwise disqualified. Love isn't enough.
Men and women are different; the facts of life are tough love.
Look, stupid, two to people are the same, not even identical twins.
The issue is equal rights.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#706 Apr 24, 2013
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The ERA failed. The 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes different male/female rights; if somebody told you the ERA would do the same thing as the 14th Amendment, you were duped.

So sorry.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#707 Apr 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The ERA failed. The 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes different male/female rights; if somebody told you the ERA would do the same thing as the 14th Amendment, you were duped.
So sorry.
However, what you seem to be too ignorant to recognize is the fact that the 14th amendment DOES require that the government provide equal treatment to ALL citizens. Period.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#708 Apr 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The ERA failed. The 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes different male/female rights; if somebody told you the ERA would do the same thing as the 14th Amendment, you were duped.
So sorry.
The ERA would have been redundant. The 14th Amendment says all persons in a state's jurisdiction should get equal protection under the law. Both men and women are persons.
Goley

Denmark

#709 Apr 25, 2013
Because no religion allows ever.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#710 Apr 25, 2013
Liam R wrote:
However, what you seem to be too ignorant to recognize is the fact that the 14th amendment DOES require that the government provide equal treatment to ALL citizens. Period.
True, and the 14th explicitly recognizes male and female as different; unequal. Equal treatment but not gender equality.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#711 Apr 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
The ERA would have been redundant. The 14th Amendment says all persons in a state's jurisdiction should get equal protection under the law. Both men and women are persons.
No, the ERA says:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

There's nothing like gender equality anywhere in our Constitution.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#712 Apr 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>True, and the 14th explicitly recognizes male and female as different; unequal. Equal treatment but not gender equality.
Be honest for once.
You are lying.
And what you say makes no sense.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#713 Apr 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, the ERA says:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
There's nothing like gender equality anywhere in our Constitution.

The 14th Amendment says
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Are you claiming women aren't persons?
wendy

Whittier, CA

#714 Apr 25, 2013
all love is still love

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#716 Apr 26, 2013
wendy wrote:
all love is still love
A good argument; therefor if love is the standard, government must license polygamy because more love is better than less. Same sex marriage is bad because arguments for it lead to far worse.

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.

Los Angeles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I heard Garcetti is a typical bad Democrat mayor 1 hr Fair Progressive 1
Local Politics Do you approve of Antonio R. Villaraigosa as Ma... (Nov '11) 1 hr Fair Progressive 18
come join us at the luxury beauty forum even be... 2 hr Xzelli 1
L.A. raises minimum wage to $15 an hour 4 hr Juan 7
Idolize Your Oppressors New Campaign Cry 5 hr lonnie wells bro 2
Marco Rubio in 2016! 8 hr Mammy from Sonorra 37
News Michael Jackson Estate Sued Over Refinancing Of... 15 hr Sleepingboy 5
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]