Comments on: Supreme Court Won’t Rush Same-Sex Ruling

Andrew Cohen: A Few States Have Recognized Gay Marriage, But No National Consensus

[VictorMakarov]

"I think your lack of logical argument is quite irrelevant. Can you figure out why?"

Nice try, but that won't work. :)

[VictorMakarov]

"--------You're right. It is sad. It's what bigots like you have been doing to gay people like me for centuries upon centuries upon centuries. It is the hallmark of the religious reich to denigrate, besmirch and discriminate against those that do not agree with their interpretation of religion. When you were growing up did you ever hear "get lost, straight person!" or did you hear "get lost, fa*got? We all know the answer to that. So you dare to malign me as being for name calling? You dare? You dare, bigot? This homosexual won't be maligned by the likes of YOU."

You really are a sad individual aren't you. You know nothing about me, yet you want to attribute a bunch of nonsense to me? Do you realize how fallicious and stupid such a tactic is? Your hate filled diatribe is quite telling as to the position from which you are arguing. FYI: Arguing from such emotion is a terribly tenuous position.

"---------A fallacy. Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with you, your church, your religion or your rights. Nobody is forcing you to get a gay marriage. Nobody is attempting to force any churches to marry gay people. This is about CIVIL MARRIAGE, not RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE and the two concepts are totally and completely separate. You claim to be persecuted because you believe it helps you justify your bigotry. I have news for you - no honest mind would buy that."

More name calling and abuse? Is that all that you are going to do? I will point out that your premise is quite faulty as I mentioned absolutely nothing about religion. You seem to be assuming quite a bit. Moreover, I would ask you to explain the cases of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, Elane Photography and E-Harmony.

"---------Great. Move to Canada. oh wait. They have gay marriage. How about the Netherlands? Nope, you can't go there either. Norway, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Belgium, all out. Better move quick, bigot. You're likely to run out of places to move TO."

You really missed the point. Try again. Think hard. No one said anything about "religious bigots" moving. Think about what the circumstances were in previous times where "it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." (It had nothing to do with anyone moving.)


"------If you think that equal civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans is NOT inevitable then the only fool around here is YOU."

Rational people don't argue from "inevitability." Such predictions have a way of failing.

[fmg334]

No issue--I repeat, NO issue--pertaining to the rights of US citizens should be decided on religious grounds. The first question becomes, whose religion? Once that is decided, the next question is whose sect or denomination and/or whose interpretation of those religious dogmas? Finally, how do you justify referencing the Bible (or the Talmud or the Koran or whatever) on some matters but not others? If we are going to condemn gay people, then shouldn't we also be stoning adulterers in the streets? Shouldn't we be amputating the hands of thieves and cutting out the tongues of liars? Religion has no place in the laws of a civilized nation, just as the government has no place interfering with religion. Let the secular and religious worlds each govern themselves. If we could learn to honor that separation between church and state, we could avoid so much controversy, so much pain, and so much hatred.

[creeper00]

This article's premise--"it's not time yet"--reminds me of the old approach to cataracts..."wait until it 'ripens'". The cataract didn't really "ripen". Your vision just got so bad that anything they did was an improvement.

The question of same-sex marriage won't "ripen", either. There's no reason SCOTUS should not rule now. This issue has divided us long enough.

The Supremem Court permanently crippled itself with its intervention into the presidential election of 2000. The decision to enter the case and appoint a president was so bad, so far beyond reasonable, and so universally derided that they now refuse to rule in cases that desperately need their expertise.

They determined our president once more, in 2008, by refusing to hear cases brought before them asking that Barack Obama produce the same ORIGINAL birth certificate that John McCain did. Had they upheld the Constitution and forced Obama to prove he was qualified for the office he sought, I believe Mr. Obama would have gracefully withdrawn.

Of course, that would have aggravated Democrats and SCOTUS couldn't do that. They're asking Congress for a raise, you know, and they certainly don't want to offend the reigning party.

See? In the end it's still about money, even with the Supreme Court. When someone figures out how to make big bucks off same-sex unions they'll become legal PDQ.

[VictorMakarov]

"-------- you misinterpreted - for couples to get tax breaks was one reason. Not the only reason. Not collecting taxes."

You are mistaken, I didn't misinterpret you at all. My question remains the same, why are taxes relevant? Can't the government collect taxes in any way that it wishes regardless of marital status? Why does the goverment give "tax breaks" to those who are married? (This goes back to the question that you can't answer.)

"--------- not the case. Go fish."

Really now? Then why does marriage exist as an institution? Why does government issue licenses at all?


"--------- I already have my answer - it should be allowed for gays as well as straights.Do you support that, or oppose it? And why? Any logical basis, or just bible thumpery?"

Sadly when you retreat to ad hominem attacks and petty arguments from emotion you damage your cause. Would you care to try again?

"--------- Talking point? It was my question to you."

No, it's a talking point. You didn't invent the question, and the question is irrelevant. If you had thought through what I asked you (and apparently you can't) you would see why.

[rf35]

I would have to say that I am not really against gay marriage. I don't have a strong opinion either way about gay marriage in particular. I figure if they want to live their lives that way, it doesn't bother me so why object? I'm not about to go off and demonstrate at a pro-homosexual marriage rally, though. What does concern me about the outcome of this is the idea of the government dictating morals. It's a small step from there to dictate what race my wife can be and then what clothes I wear, what foods I eat, etc. They are already on the verge of telling people they can't smoke in their own homes or outdoors. What's next? How far do we allow the government to intrude into our personal lives? Let the government govern, leave the moral decisions to the churches (or whatever), and stay the heck out of my bedroom, kitchen, and liquor cabinet.

The only thing that annoys me about some homosexual people is when they try and get special rights by claiming minority status. The choice to be homosexual does not make one a minority any more than the choice to own a pet monkey. If gay people are allowed to claim minority status, then smokers, people who wear '70s disco fashion, and Mac users should be able to as well.

[jeff-fla]

[quote] When you have to make laws to "force" people to accept something nature rejects, doesn't make those laws right, nor does it make those lifestyles right.
Passing laws made up by liberal legislators and enforced by liberal judges to exalt liberal lifestyles full of desease and violence above conservative lifestyles that are less complicated, speaks highly of political correctness, but says nothing of common sense.
Posted by Aldymac at 3:49 AM : Apr 9, 2009 [end quote]

Thank you.

1st we let inter-religion marriages. Then they had the nerve to let inter-racial marriage happen. You can't just up and treat everyone the same. I mean how could you tell the good people from the bad people. Lets face it, only good white god fearing christian should be able to marry and multiply. And for those who don't understand that was sarcasm. This post was as stupid as the one I quoted.

[Aldymac]

When you have to make laws to "force" people to accept something nature rejects, doesn't make those laws right, nor does it make those lifestyles right.
Passing laws made up by liberal legislators and enforced by liberal judges to exalt liberal lifestyles full of desease and violence above conservative lifestyles that are less complicated, speaks highly of political correctness, but says nothing of common sense.

[cozzicon]

I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again...

What people do not "get":

If marriage rights are not granted on a civil basis, the next step is going to be on a religious basis. Gays have been summarily removed from most mainline denominations by being ostracized. And in response they have founded their own denominations or joined the few which do not condemn them.

If acquisition of these rights fail on a civil basis, they will enter litigation based on "freedom of religion". An argument from a freedom of religion standpoint is a lock- even a conservative court would have to decide in favor of gay marriage because because of it's religious meaning in the context of "their religion"- or at least the "equality of religions". Every religion has the right to sanctify marriage and have it registered with the state.

True this may lead to the re-introduction of group marriage, polyamory, and polygamy to the culture. But the litmus test for a marriage contract needs to be based on the consent of the parties involved and not a religious moral test.

What we are seeing here is a moral test, based on religious mores. Since a religious test is specifically disallowed by the constitution, the state must grant any form of marriage sanctified by a religion assuming the participants enter into the agreement consensually.

Freedom, at it's best, allows gays to marry, without limiting someone who may be Amish (As an example) from continuing a luddite existence. Both sets of values need to be serviced and respected by the civil arm of the government.

That is the argument that you can expect to see- and quite frankly- I think even a conservative court would come to the conclusion that the form of marriage, given it's religious basis, cannot be dictated by the state.

[tristham]

A little, *little* lesbian sex is acceptable as I see it. By this I mean it's ok for a very small percentage of women to be lesbians, like less than 1%. This gives those women whose American men are sent to die in places like Afghanistan and Iraq a partner. The balance of partners is key in the world. Everyone that honestly wants one should have one. Right now, American men are the ones that are being wronged, not American women as much, by the way.