Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Progress 2016 | Customer Service | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Should the Supreme Court strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(29)

locomotive

Apr-05-13 1:13 PM

Yeah, sure, it's ALWAYS the wascally wepublicans' fault for everything not-so-good. The same ol' diatribe is getting stale.

If the Democrats want to insure proper election results, with no fixin' by those horrible Republicans, I would have thought by now that THEY would've passed legislation with funding to get ALL people of voting age the means to an ID, free of charge, useful for any purpose as well as voting.

But no, it's easier to curse the darkness. Time for the excuses that run the gamut of possibility to end, and just get 'er done already.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-03-13 11:12 AM

Obviously, loco, you are not a worldly person. You have no idea of what the people do in the big cities. Most all of them have NO vehicles. Therefore, no drivers license. In addition, in some of the states the time frames were so tight that many of these people could not get to the centers to get picture ID's. Of course, we also have waiting lines for four or five hours because of the restrictiveness of the rules. But, as long as the Republicans can restrict the votes they want, it is ok. The only way the Republicans win is to fix the voting setup.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-02-13 6:40 PM

No voter would need be disenfranchised if IDs were required. One person, one vote. Simple.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-02-13 9:38 AM

Voters suppression and gerrymandering political districts are a thousand times the problem you are so worried about. Disenfranchising millions of voters seems to be ok if Republicans are doing it.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-01-13 11:17 AM

Veritas, two pieces that were interesting reading about voter fraud.

rnla . org/votefraud . asp

electionlawblog . org/wp-content/uploads/Natl-Center-report . pdf

The second would probably be more to a non-partisan's liking than the first. But that's just my opinion.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-01-13 11:08 AM

C'mon, Veritas, that's the one we know about, right?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-31-13 9:49 PM

I read an article or two about Melowese Richardson, the Cincinnati poll worker that Dusty referenced. She considered it her duty to get the President re-elected.

One of the faithful, eh, billgrr?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 7:15 PM

What did I just say about sore losers?

You've got to pay attention, billgrr, in spite of your being a top poster and all.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 4:43 PM

So "confused" voters' results shouldn't stand, when leftists don't get the result they deem appropriate?

I get it. It's "hanging chads" deja vu, all over again. Sore losers.

Real time example: Pres. Obama won re-election, and there's no one going to court over that, even if some people didn't care for the result.

Rest assured, lefties. We can respect the results of a vote. Obviously, better than you.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 1:42 PM

So the voters were confused?

Yeah, only when a leftist result is at stake...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 1:18 PM

So all the citizens in California who voted for Prop 8? Their votes didn't matter because....?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-29-13 5:11 PM

"Democrats evolve.

Republicans devolve."

According to....well, of course. A Democrat.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-29-13 5:08 PM

If "love is more than a sexual act," why oh why oh why is the court addressing this?

Who says same-sex couples can't draw up contracts? Civil unions were all about contractual rights, of property, of living wills, etc., right? If they weren't, I've been misled.

The term "marriage" over time has meant one thing: a union between a man and a woman. Word history of the word "marriage" shows that it meant the act of consummation itself: if you did it, you were "marrying" one another. Check it out in a good dictionary.

If same-sex couples want to solemnize their relationships, invent a word that all are willing to use. Obviously, "civil union" didn't take. Why does the word have to be "marriage?"

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-28-13 10:05 PM

There was a quote somewhere out there that said some thing about Judging not, lest ye be judged. I believe the Big Man kept the judging thing for his own. I would like to know where you guys figure you could steal his right to judge people.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Mar-28-13 8:47 PM

We need less government.

I want government out of daily affairs . . . except when it discriminates against people I don't like . . . then I want activist judges and lots of federal laws.

We need more government.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Mar-28-13 7:52 PM

What if a married woman is at a party that turns into an oar g, is seduced, copulates with several men, becomes pregnant, gives birth, and the child is XYYY at birth and becomes gay when reaching adulthood? Republican, too, to add insult to injury.

Can the husband kill the newborn infant because it is an unwanted child and pregnancy due to immoral activity? Can he be the judge of what is moral or immoral? Can she be stoned to death along with the male seducers, maybe even a couple of female seducers too for causing an unwanted pregnancy, in the opinion of the husband, the injured party?

Marriage can sometimes not be sacred.

And the US gov wants to be a part of this mess?

Gotta be something else better to do.

Like get a grip on the economy and the spending. It is all planned to fail, so get it in your head.

It's a mockery of a travesty of a sham.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Mar-28-13 3:20 PM

Ah, well then. Clearly, quoting the Epistles overstep that invisible line.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Mar-28-13 3:01 PM

I don't know if blaming the editors is necessarily fair, but definitely "Minotian's" comments ought to be culled from the conversation (if the name-calling qualifies as such). If you can't say something even halfway decent... well, your ignorance probably knows no restraint anyway.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ZRider

Mar-28-13 2:51 PM

Minotain said: "A joining or union of two pickel-bumpers or muff-munchers is NOT EQUAL to a legitimate man/woman MARRIAGE because they can't naturally produce children within the pairing. Simple as that."

So, using your logic, an old or infertile couple can't get married either.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lazarus

Mar-28-13 2:25 PM

Said by: Minotian "Does your gay dude neighbor ever help shovel anyone's walk, help rake the little old lady's leaves across the street or push her out when she's stuck? No. Of course not. Again, useless people." How does someones sexual orientation have any bearing whatsoever on whether they help out a neighbor,UNLESS that neighbor happens to be a bigoted, self-rightous *******?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Russ98387

Mar-28-13 1:40 PM

Amazing how when California voters banned "gay" marriage, the "progressives" couldn't accept that decision. They had to find a "progressive" judge who overturned the will of the people. If the "progressives" don't like the way people vote, then they find a judge to legislate from the bench.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SayWhat

Mar-28-13 1:31 PM

I agree this isn't about marrying a dog or cat, but what would prevent future marriages between multiple partners? We say the government has no business dictating love between people, but could it come someday where 2 men want to marry a woman or 2 women want to marry a man? Do we regulate it to just 2 "people"? Polygamy is already against the law, but why should it be? If we start letting same sex partners marry each other because they are in love. Polygamist can argue that they too are in love with each other and their multiple partners?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Mar-28-13 1:23 PM

I don't care. But, if they decide they want a divorce, they bettter plan on paying for it themselves and not depend on the government.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Mar-28-13 1:06 PM

The State needs Sex Police so the right marriages occur and the unwarranted marriages do not occur.

Republican gays can marry, Democrat gays cannot.

Larry Craig could marry Barney Frank though, the Supreme Court would give the blessing.

Governments shouldn't bother with such nonsense and the Supreme Court should rule it all frivolous.

You can't make this stuff up.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Mar-28-13 10:41 AM

Equal treatment under the law of the land. Individual inalieable rights as a free citizen of this United States of America, according to the U.S. Constitution. Isn't that what this country was founded on? We cannot pick and choose what liberties we are going to enforce and what ones we are going to ignore are we? If we do. We are not a true free society.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web