Best
124 Comments
Post
  • #16
    !
    Republicans don't believe in small government. They believe in big government when it comes to denying gay people equal rights in marriage, women the right to their reproductive rights, and black and other minorities equal rights to vote or the racist war on drugs. If you believe the Republican party in any way shape or form is a "small government" party than tell that to the oil corporations that get billions in subsidies they get from Republican policies.

    Republicans do believe in government as long as government is used to discriminate against gay or non-white people.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #2
    !
    Small Government doesn't mean "Unless its something I dislike, like the Gays". Absolutely the Federal Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage.
  • #6
    !
    Well, who else regulates and manages a legal, binding contract such as marriage? if there is some federal benefit to the social construct of marriage, then by definition, it is a federal issue, not a states' right.
  • #15
    !
    @Fishbone345

    My class A CDL is registered with the federal gov't, and has federal govt regulations on it, but is still issued by my state.

    the states can issue things that are a federal issue.
  • #18
    !
    @stepped_in_it

    You were able to take federal benefits off your state issued marriage all three times were you not?(or were you married to someone of the same gender? we don't judge here...)
  • R Load more replies

  • #80
    !
    @CanisCanemEdit Not on this issue. Polls have continually shown a steady and strong shift toward support of equal rights over the course of years. Those who want to make homosexuals second class citizens are just plain on the wrong side of history.
  • #82
    !
    Isn't it funny (odd) how quickly arguments of small government evaporate when conservatives wish to thrust their moral views onto others?
  • #72
    !
    As soon as government got in the business of sanctioning marriage or any ceremony for that matter it loses any religious protections and becomes the right of every citizen. If you don't want government in religion you must keep religion out of government. Neither functions well combined. Even if government has no authority over religious ceremony's which I believe should be the case and it's based on purely religious grounds some religion may believe it OK to marry the same gender then it would be their right under freedom of religion. Your religion is given no merit or importance over that of any other by law. Personally I have more to worry about than telling my neighbor what or how to live. If your marriage is threatened by someone Else's it's not that strong anyway. One should remember what else the book they keep quoting say's about being in judgement. Every little thing that makes one feel uncomfortable should not be illegal.The thought of two men being together makes me more than a little uncomfortable but who am I to sit in judgement . The world would be a much better place if people would attend their own business and let others attended theirs.
  • #119
    !
    @woodtick57 A license is permission granted by public authority. The first marriage license was issued in the mid 1800's. Washington nor Lincoln's marriages was sanctioned by the state. Historically speaking there was no law requiring a marriage license in colonial America. Read the laws of the colonies and later the states and you'll see only two requirements for marriage. You had to obtain your parents permission to marry and you had to post public notice of the marriage. State sanctioning or licensing of marriage only came about in the US when some states decided to give miscegenation legal protection. As the right of blacks and whites to marry was under attack much the same ways as the attacks on homosexuals are today. As far as the federal government goes it's established it supreme authority over marriage in 1923 by passing the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act.
  • #66
    !
    @woodtick57 i done several searches on miss palin and she must never go swimming or anything,i've yet to see her in a bikini or anything other than a hunting jacket,oh well
  • #68
    !
    @MongoAPillager

    I was more interested in searchhes on her political views. funny, she really doesn'''t have any of her own...
  • #60
    !
    The sup ct should decline to hear both cases. This would please me not so much because I support gay marriage, as because I would enjoy the annoyance it would cause to the so-called social conservatives.
  • #42
    !
    We have a neighbor to the north which has same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea.
    Canada ended slavery a generation before the U.S. and they are ahead of us on the same sex marriage issue as well.(socialized medicine?)
  • #45
    !
    heck, even South Africa is ahead of the US on this human rights issue. how sad is that that we lag behind South Africa on human rights?
  • #26
    !
    yes they could, but with all the national interest and legioslation on this issue, it woud certainly be looked upon as the chickenshit way out, and an abrogation of their duties.
  • #31
    !
    @woodtick57 And who did you say would hold them accountable for a perceived abrogation of their duties? They answer to no one.
  • #32
    !
    @jessejaymes

    as the judiciary should be. we just hhave to live with the best legal system around. Sucks...i know...
  • #37
    !
    @woodtick57 LOL You're funny. first you call them Chickens**t if they don't deal with it and then say they're the best. Which is it?
  • #41
    !
    @jessejaymes i said we have the best system i did not called them chickenshit yet.

    Isn''t it chickenshit to not write out chickenshit?(yesm there i did call you chickenshit.)
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    May these men and women see this for what it is blatant discrimination! I will be popping a bottle of champagne open on Monday if this goes in the favor of gays and lesbians.
  • #12
    !
    @Fishbone345 No know Champagne that night I was working and while I did vote for Obama I was not to thrilled about either one of them winning to be honest.
  • #3
    !
    Nice to see the government is more worried about who wants to get married instead of stopping the socialistic hemorrhaging that's being done by the anti Constitutionalists that are laughing as they destroy a once great nation that held self respect, honor, self resiliency high so all could see.
    Now its turning into a dependent welfare state full of "entitled"subjects that want everything, but don't want to work/earn it.
  • #5
    !
    Why don't you put your energy to real "anti Constitutionalists". Like the ones that vote in things like the Patriot Act and NDAA 12. Or uphold institutions like TSA and Homeland Defense.
    You have no idea what the word means. Just more blowing hot air as per usual.
  • #10
    !
    Were you out there picketing when George W. Bush stripped more of are rights away then any president we have ever had combined? The courts DO NOT have ANY CONTROL over the government you should be smart enough to know that!
  • #30
    !
    The only anti Constitutionalists are the ones who oppose equal protection under the law. And I've yet to have a conservative answer this question; when was our nation better, and why? I don't want a vague answer, I want actual dates, and specific reasons. Do you think slavery is better than freedom (first 100 years of the US)? Think it was better when women couldn't vote (up until 1920)? Better when people made $2 a day, for a 12 hour day in a steel mill, and almost 10% of them died on the job (around the same time)? Ah, those were the days, huh?
  • #50
    !
    @Jet_Silverman how about when men were shoveling low coal in west virginia mines for 17.5 ¢ an hour and boys aged 8 were doing the same for 11.5¢ an hour for a hundred hours a week?(that was in the mid 50s)

    how about when minimum wage was 75¢ an hour...(mid to late 60s)

    yeah, that was better.
  • R Load more replies

  • #124
    !
    If this nation AND THE COURTS DECIDE TO FORCE GAY MARRIAGE ON THIS COUNTRY AND NOT LOOK AT CIVIL UNIONS AS THE WAY TO GO I THINK IT WILL FORCE US INTO A CIVIL WAR! Please courts look a5t the compromise civil unions NOT GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!
  • #121
    !
    the government should, stay stay out of any religious issues. in any ones attempt, to use the government to establish their religious beliefs against mine.
  • #116
    !
    If DOMA violates the equal protection clause then what about state laws against gay marriage?
    Could this ruling do more than repeal DOMA? Like legalize gay marriage in every state?
  • #105
    !
    I'm confused. The SCOTUS defends laws and enacts others right? Legally, you dont have to be in love to be married, you dont even have to like each other or live with each other. The only legal things I see enforced are: legal age, blood tests, signing a document with witnesses, and being performed by a person who has accountability to make the union legal ( minister, captain etc). If the SCOTUS were to disavow any notion of legalized gay marriage, then by attrition, they would be mandating love, which is impossible, and infidelity would become a punishable crime on its own. What does the sex of two people matter if the courts cannot neither enforce or qualify the desires of the individuals at the inception of marriage?
  • #96
    !
    @woodtick57 DOMA is one of the reason why the fed gov is #OutOfControl. And the tax breaks are not regulations. They're just tax breaks. The burden of proof the marriages receiving the tax breaks is now and has always been on the state (not that I agree with that either, I don't think marriage should be regulated by any government agency).
  • #98
    !
    @Afua

    Who else would regulate a legal, binding contract?(do not confuse religious rites with legal marriage, religions may hold watever rites they wish.)

    DOMA and the FEDERAL benefits of marriage show that is indeed a federal issue.
  • #100
    !
    @woodtick57 the people getting married would. The simple gesture of having the legally binding (paper) contract and/or marriage certificate notarized and signed by all parties involved... that is proof enough. And I never even mentioned religion. Religious or not, this is a simple way to do it
  • #79
    !
    I'd like to see how all the "states rights" foljs will act if the high court sends it back to the states. Officially I think marriage is a religious institution. But I understand the point gay people are making about the rights that come along with it in this country.p
  • #85
    !
    the rite of holy matrimony,(or watever your particular reliion calls it) is a religious institution.

    Do not confuse that with legal marriage as the two have absolutely nothing to do withh each other. your local garden club can invent a rite of mariage, as can two people dancing around a fire with sticks.
  • #97
    !
    @woodtick57 Did you not read my post? I am not confused at all. Reread my post because you seem to be confused.
  • #99
    !
    @Waynestew

    yes, I did read it. you stated marriage is a religious institution. the rite of matrimony is, legal marriage is not. we are discussing legal marriage here.
  • #108
    !
    @woodtick57 In my opinion the word marriage is ALWAYS referring to religion. However I do understand that we had given that word certain rights and privileges. I think most gay people are seeking the rights and privileges. Are you telling me gay people are really fight over "word" and not rights and privileges.
  • #111
    !
    @Waynestew

    i am glad you have that opinion, but it is not based in fact. marriage started as a state sponsored social construct. religion didn't get into the game for millenia.

    no religion as any claim to the word marrige. it as always been the purview of the state. if reliions want to glom onto the concept, good for them, but their rite of matrimony has aboslutely nothing to do with legal marriage. Zip. nada. Zero.
  • R Load more replies

  • #78
    !
    I don't get the pic, though. Even with both of them in dresses, how does Susan Sarandon and David Spade getting hitched qualify as a 'gay marriage'?
  • #49
    !
    Let gays and lesbians marry. The extra cash the states will get from marriage licenses would be a good way to pay for some much needed state projects.
  • R Load more comments...
Post