Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | 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




Mar-28-13 8:04 AM

I think you all know which side of this I'm on.But I will leave it at that,because of the name will bring on if I say more!!

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 8:15 AM

now days it dont matter if u want to marry your friends dog or cat

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 9:22 AM

Another place where the gov has no business sticking their nose.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 10:20 AM

It's funny how republicans talk about small government, freedom and liberty, but when it's their views that big government is enforcing, they find denying liberty to others totally acceptable. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


Mar-28-13 12:02 PM

We cannot pick and choose the liberites?

So we can shoot people on the street? That would be a liberty wouldn't it?

We can drive 100 miles an hour if we wanted to right? That would be a liberty wouldn't it?

Some things need to be controlled or do they?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


Mar-28-13 2:16 PM

Excellent Comments Minotian!!!!!!!!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


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 »


Mar-28-13 3:20 PM

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

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


Mar-28-13 9:37 PM

billg...give a rest. Out of maybe 7 posters on this poll which i didnt count. However you are posting the most. Are you a gay person? You seemed to be on the attack. God condems gays and all of that sort of behavior, and you are trying to condem the true believers and followers of Christ. You should be ashamed of yourself and all your rants. Some kinda sad...

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


Mar-28-13 10:14 PM

I see Bill is back with his Black.

Trying to draw people into your web again BGarr?

Are you gay?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 11:17 AM

veritas whats your definition of "old"?

My granddaughter is 16 years "old"

How old is old? How much tax is enough?

Both questions no one can answer..

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 3:25 PM

Who is a gay person that thinks the whole world should turn kinky so he can feel good about the way he preforms his needs?

They want us to change the rules so they don't feel like the dirty little people they really are.

Even the animal kingdom is smarter then that..

If God wanted us to all be like them he would have put only one sex on this earth and they would have been equipped to reproduce.

Think about it?? Minotier was right on in all he said yesterday.

It was just to Flaming for the newspaper but it also was just so true!!!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 3:29 PM

Billgarr atila the hun.. Whatswhat is your definition of a man who is bigot enough to expect everyone to bow down to him beacues he is gay?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 3:50 PM

More from the two faced Democrats:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., spoke against DOMA, saying it was unnecessary and an intrusion into states' rights to define marriage. But he emphasized his own opposition to gay marriage before expressing reservations about the bill.

"I am not for same-sex marriage. I have said that publicly. I would not vote for same-sex marriage,"

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California made a similar point. "I personally believe that the legal institution of marriage is the union between a man and a woman," she said. "But, as a matter of public policy, I oppose this legislation."

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »

Showing 25 of 38 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web