Reader comments

On Do you think the Supreme Court should decide the gay marriage issue?


usesomesense 1 year, 4 months ago

Also - for those of you that think that gender identity is a choice:


usesomesense 1 year, 4 months ago

In my opinion 'Marriage' is a practice of religion and should be subject to whatever rules the individuals' religion is subject to.

The key to the tenth amendment is 'citizen' - it IS discriminatory to re-define or sub-define the citizen by apply race, color or creed.

Under law 'Marriage' is a partnership and or contract. It should be no different than a business contract or partnership under the law.

To say that same sex marriage is or should be illegal is to say that same sex partnerships of all kinds are or should be illegal and most businesses are in violation of the law.

It's really not about being married - it's the misconception that prohibition and/or social out-casting will prevent and/or end the behavior. (Look how well prohibition worked for alcohol - such a fabulous success)

I'm not gay and I've been married for almost 20 years. I'm also a business partner and have been for nearly 15 of those years. Both partnerships have had good times and bad - sometimes at the same time.

My contract with my wife is to share the benefits and liabilities of a household: Mortgage Vehicles Feeding and clothing our children Pay bills etc

My contract with my business partners isn't significantly different: Take care of customers Maintain an office location Maintain inventory Pay bills Keep employees busy Pay employees etc

The ONE thing that is really different is that my wife and I also agree not to have sex with anybody else. (And that's just our agreement)

Frankly I don't care what anybody does in the privacy of their own home with whoever they want to do it with as long as all parties are consenting adults.

I also don't want a team of judges coming into my home to evaluate my 'performance'.


Steven Gaudreau 1 year, 4 months ago

When does Obama nominate a new justice?


gccs14r 1 year, 4 months ago

It'll end up being a 14th Amendment ruling (I hope).

I could go along with all State-sanctioned pair bonding being civil unions and leaving "marriage" to religious institutions. I'm guessing a lot of the folks on the other side of the argument aren't willing to take that road.

Poly-marriage isn't an issue here, because no groups are currently permitted to practice it. It's universally prohibited in the U.S. If only Mormons or Muslims were legally permitted poly-marriage, then there would be reason for the issue to be visited by the courts.


In_God_we_trust 1 year, 4 months ago

PRG. John 19:7 -12 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and said unto Jesus, Who are you? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then says Pilate unto him, You won't speak to me? Know you not that I have power to crucify you, and have power to release you? Jesus answered, You could have no power at all against me, except it were given you from above: therefore he that delivered me unto you has the greater sin. And from that time forth, Pilate sought to release him...


gwlevi 1 year, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.


Paul R Getto 1 year, 4 months ago

IGWT: You quote ancient wisdom open to interpretation. The only document relevant to this issue is the US Constitution. It too will be interpreted once again as the Supremes rule.


In_God_we_trust 1 year, 4 months ago

Romans 6:11-16 Likewise consider you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin for this reason, reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield you your bodies as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your bodies as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin will not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under the grace of God. What then, should we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid! Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Now should we promote sin with gay marriage in our country? How can this be righteousness to God? Need more convincing, read Romans Chapter 1 and 2.


Liberty275 1 year, 4 months ago

I suppose the court could get around public opinion (which is mostly doesn't care anyway) by making it a 14th amendment argument. A good defense is that all persons are treated with equality as each can marry a person of a different gender.

Is there any part of the constitution that guarantees a person's right to marry who they wish?


purplesage 1 year, 4 months ago

This is a real mess. Actually, there is nothing to decide since "gay marriage" isn't really marriage at all, just a perversion of the most basic unit of human society. Woe to America if this becomes the law of the land.


Armored_One 1 year, 4 months ago

The Catholic church is taking the wrong stance. Instead of claiming the word 'marriage' is religious, then they should copyright it and patent the process of marriage.

No, there is never any sarcasm in my posts.


scarlett 1 year, 4 months ago

It's a simple constitutional issue. There are many laws surrounding marriage and they need to be applied fairly to everyone. DOMA is not constitutional nor are any of the state laws banning marriage between gays. Religion has no place at all in this. It's going to happen (Yaaay) and the right needs to get a grip.


Eddie_Haskell 1 year, 4 months ago

I like watching a couple of really hot women getting it on, but that as far as I'll go. The Supreme Court should stay out of it. There are too many women on the Supreme Court. That never should have happened.


autie 1 year, 4 months ago

Do they ever really decide anything? My goodness, citizens are still being murdered over Roe v. Wade. If Forrest Knox's proposal passes in the state house this coming session, will nudist colonies have to allow concealed carry?


milkman_dan 1 year, 4 months ago

I'm for total equality. I don't think we're doing enough for bi-sexuals. If a couple of lesbian gals want to declare that their actually bi-sexual and marry me, who am I to judge?


beatrice 1 year, 4 months ago

Yes, this issue needs to be settled. States should not be allowed to discriminate against individuals, even if a majority think they should.

If you believe this is a states issue, then I ask: Should states be allowed to outlaw marriages between different races?


g_rock 1 year, 4 months ago

So we can't even decide if it is a moral, legal, states rights, religious or judicial issue. This is the is EVERYTHING.


anticommunist 1 year, 4 months ago

The federal government shouldn't stick it's big shnozz in matters religious. Ever heard of the separation of church and state, gay marriage supporters?


rockchalk1977 1 year, 4 months ago

The Supreme's should not decide this issue. Both gay marriage and polygamy are moral issues not legal issues. I think we already know how Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg are going to vote.


verity 1 year, 4 months ago

Seems like this is an issue where having different laws in different states could cause all sorts of problems.

I advocate for civil/contractual unions--- keep the government out of the marriage business.


Alyosha 1 year, 4 months ago

The Tenth Amendment does not allow states to discriminate against U.S. citizens.


rockchalker52 1 year, 4 months ago

Back in the service they marched us through a building called 'Military Issue.' We came out...scratch that...exited with two pairs of fatigues, boots, field jacket, dress greens & a duffel bag.

If I go for the Gay Marriage Issue, can I at least keep the field jacket?


Commenting has been disabled for this item.