Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Reader opinion: Debating DOMA

Love is Love

The board's editorial about DOMA, Out front on gay rights, prompted a debate among readers. Here we zoom in on two readers -- "Jet Black" and "Leonardo" -- who spent a good part of Friday challenging each other on gay marriage. Here's their unedited argument.

Jet Black at 11:01 AM February 25, 2011

What the president has done will set a precedent for years to come. Doing an end run around the constitution to mainstream a sick behavior. I'm sure some creative Republican or Democrat against homosexuality can't wait to use this method to keep from enforcing homosexual rights laws in the future. So, this may only be a temporary setback for the American society in favor of morality. The silver lining in all of this is that the presidential election is in two years, and this give powerful Christian organizations and citizens against immorality a chance to defend against this immoral homosexuality law since the DOJ was giving a half hearted defense for DOMA in the first place.

Leonardo at 11:17 AM February 25, 2011

Obama is preserving and protecting the US Constitution. The President, ex constitutional law professor, has read the law and applied the facts to the controlling law for this issue. The ex constitutionally law professor who is now the President has concluded that the law is in conflict with the US Constitution.  Therefore, the president and his AG has decided to not enforce section 3 of the DOMA act.   That reads like to me that Obama is preserving and protecting the US Constitution NOT doing an "end run" around the Constitution.

Jet, what law school did you attend? Were you ever a Constitutional law professor?  

Continue reading after the jump.

Jet Black at 11:32 AM February 25, 2011

Leonardo, I did not attend law school. But I have enough sense to know that any group like polygamy,  pseudo masochism, bestiality, cannibalism, pedophile, and prostitution, in the future can use these same argument to make a case concerning rights entitlement as a minority group as well as  future office holders can decide not to defend the laws protecting homosexuals.

Jet Black at 11:36 AM February 25, 2011

Obama has opened a BIG can of worms. You homosexuals may have unwillingly set your own movement back when some other president who is elected have a different view on homosexuality.

Leonardo at 12:22 PM February 25, 2011

@jet black, one thing i recently learned from my reading is that when the USSC ruled on Loving vs. VA it wasn't that big if a deal since only 17 states still had their anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. The same is happening today. 

Public opinion polls shows that more and more people are willing to accpet same sex marriages. Based on the opinion polls politicians are playing this issue differently then say 3 years ago. Also, another reason Obama took this stand is because of the number of same sex couples that are legally married. Why shouldn't these married couples have the same rights are you? 

BTW,  "group(s) like polygamy,  pseudo masochism, bestiality, cannibalism, pedophile, and prostitution" don't have the public support.  

You do know that minors don't have the mental capitcy to consent to a sexual relationship. That law would not change when same sex marriage is legalized. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. It should be legalized for health and safety reasons. There are laws on the books against bestiality, i.e, cruelty to animals, Cannibalism (are you kidding?), pseudo masohism I think is already legal under lawrence vs texas. 

Leonardo at 9:53 AM February 25, 2011

Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010.This decision was appealed in October 2010. On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would cease legal defense of the Act's Section 3 at the direction of President Barack Obama, who had reached a conclusion that Section 3 was unconstitutional. However, the administration is obligated to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court.

Jet Black at 11:11 AM February 25, 2011

A San Francisco federal judge who happened to be a homosexual himself. He ruling is currently being challenged.

Leonardo at 8:25 AM February 25, 2011

It has been an historic week for the gay civil rights movement. It appears the end to the gay jim crow laws will be coming to an end sooner than later. 

1.       Obama makes historic shift on gay rights

2.      Training for end of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' starts at Camp Pendleton

3.       But even more important than the setback to the marriage act itself was the administration's reasoning: Sexual orientation, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said, falls within the same category as race and national origin under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Groups within these categories — discrete, insular minorities that historically have been singled out for discrimination — are entitled to special protections; laws that adversely affect them must pass a high bar of "strict scrutiny" to survive court challenges.

Obama set the stage for toppling a panoply of laws, ordinances and practices that have long placed homosexuals at a disadvantage. This includes discrimination in housing, the workplace, adoption laws and the like. The president is not obligated to defend laws that are unconstitutional and thus indefensible.

The Doma deabte continues here.

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: A lesbian couple hold a sign at a protest calling for the right of gays and lesbians to marry outside the county clerk’s office in Los Angeles on Valentine's Day. Credit: Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

 

Comments () | Archives (57)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amalgamate

The saddest thing is that jetblack is a black woman, a person who, just a few decades ago, would not have been able to vote or marry the one she loved. She is blinded by religious bigotry-the brainwashing on this bigoted black woman runs deep.
She doesnt get that two same sex adults loving one another are denied rights today just as her race and gender were denied rights based ON THE SAME BOOK. Yes, the bible orders women to be subervient to men, orders women to marry their rapists in Deutornomoy, orders blacks and whites not to marry (Babel).
Blacks against gays make me particularly sad. It is this ignorant hatred that keeps blacks from progressing in this country. They follow religious leaders, mostly republicans, like sheep. Republicans do nto have black peoples' backs-they never have.

Gay righst are inevitable-it is people like jetblack that help us gain-just read the comments! Cannibalism? Pedophilia? Really? Crazy thinking.

Keep posting, bigoted black woman-you help us with every comment. When gay rights are law, please pray that we dont come after you for your misguided hatred and take away your rights.

You do know that interracial marriage woudl have been illegal if majority voted up until 1993, right? Beware

thecanimal

Next they'll criticize Charlie Sheen.

thecanimal

Next they'll criticize Charlie Sheen.

thecanimal

Next they'll criticize Charlie Sheen.

Brandon

DOMA is unconstitutional just as the former bans against interracial marriage are.
Banning gay marriage violates the first and fourteenth amendments.

First Marriage is a symbol of expression.
You are denying a form of expression.
Secondly, Gay Marriage has existed though history.. The legal definitions today redefine marriage in a modern religious definition of marriage.

last, Marriage cannot be denied based on sexual orientation because denying someone based on sexual orientation discriminates based on gender.

Race and gender are protected statuses
interracial marriage bans were found to violate the fourteenth amendment.

Glen Barry

What is being lost in the noise here is that what the Obama Justoce Department has done is in no way something new. President Bush did it, President Reagan did it. It's not new. See: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473959808&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Mitchell Young

And now a gay man 'social secretary' -- BHO, shattering the stereotypes!

Joseph A. Mustich

It's time CA; it's time America, grow up and just accept marriage equality.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the Peace.
We did in New England, the land of the Puritans....

Heywood Jablowme

I love when the opponents of Marriage Equality say..."If passed who is going to pay for all the benefits like SSI survivor benefits and the tax breaks?"...answer finally WE ALL WILL! Straight people have been getting a free ride on the backs of gays for years. Generally we make more money and are better educated contributing far more money to all the rights afforded not able to access most of them. For the most part we dont have children but pay for your schools, we do not enjoy SSI survivor benefits but pay into SSI with every paycheck. If our husband or wife is in the Armed Forces and is killed in battle no widow/widower benefits. Not to mention the other plethora of benefits afforded married straight people. If you arent interested in affording homosexuals the same rights...fine...then we should not continue to pay any portions of the unfair advantages that you reap from our contributions. Fighting this is pointless...the cat is out of the bag...this ship has sailed...this bell has been rung...Marriage Equality is GOING to happen...what will be remembered...is who was on the right side of history and who was on the wrong side.

Mitchell Young

"For the most part we dont have children but pay for your schools, we do not enjoy SSI survivor benefits but pay into SSI with every paycheck."

Uh, you do know that SSI is 'pay as you go', so those who didn't have children are the free riders. You may be paying for your parents, but in general aren't leaving anyone to pay for you.

Cameron

Amalgamate: Enough with the "black" this "black" that.
Homophobes come in all colors. If she were white, I highly doubt that you would be pointing her race out. The fact that she is black is irrelevant. The fact that she is a bigot is what matters.

P.S. When you imply that one group has more of a responsibility to be open-minded(because of History), you also imply that other groups have LESS of an obligation, and that simply isn't so.

Mitchell Young

Hey Joe,

Take a look at the proportion of the population under 5 years old in New Hampshire and Vermont. 5.6% and 5.2% respectively. National average is 6.9. So New Hampshire and Vermont are 25% and 18% under the national average, respectively. Societies in a slow death spiral. Too bad, too, because the Puritan inheritance is a great one -- but somewhere it went awry. Your 'grown up' New England is evaporating.

Now take a look at Idaho and Utah -- roughly the same ethnic demographic, but of course there are a lot of traditional Christians and devout Mormons in both of those states. Not 'same-sex marriage' sorts of places. The relative figures. 8.2% of the population in Idaho, and an incredible 9.8% of the population in Utah are under five. That is 18% above and 43% above (!) the national average, respectively. Pretty easy to tell which are the healthier states from a societal point of view -- and easy to see where the future is. (All figures for 2008, Census.gov quickfacts)

Tom

United States Constitution - Article 2, Section I: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By our Constitution, Congress legislates laws. Presidents can veto them. Congress can override the President with a 2/3rds majority vote.

DOMA is the law of the land. Democrats had exclusive control of Congress the last 4 years. Since Obama took office, Democrats controlled the Presidency, the House and Senate. They could have legislated DOMA away. They did not. Why not? They would have lost votes in November 2010, knowing that the vast majority of U.S. citizens would have opposed that change.

However, this is not about DOMA. It is about Constitutional obligations of a President. Presidents may disagree with any law of the land, but they have an obligation to enforce all laws on the books, period. If any President does not have his AG enforce current law, that President is clearly violating his Constitutional oath of office...no matter what the law.

JetBlack

The saddest thing Amalgamate, is that your homosexual mental illness hampers your ability to tell the difference between a male and a female. You should see a doctor for that.

JetBlack

For the rest of the sound minded people on this thread who isn't suffering from dementia, I am a male who isn't buying into the hype that homosexuality is a normal behavior or that it is not a choice. What many of the Progressives don't seems to understand is that I am in the majority in my community who feels this way and are highly offended when the homosexual community compare our race to their behavior.

Sue Doe Nim

Jetblack-if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a man. It's none of yours or anyone else's business when two consenting adults decide to get married. IT doesn't hurt marriage of straights either. It's clearly unconstitutional. I love when hate thinks it can over ride inalienable rights of man.

JetBlack

I agree it's none of my business, Sue Doe Nim. The homosexual community made it our business by bringing our children into this debate. I can careless what those people do to themselves. But it becomes my problem when my rights as a parent is undermined by this so called Progressive society. From giving an abortion to an underaged child without parents notification or consent to usurping my religious freedom as a parent to have my child opt out of sex ed classes teaching homosexuality as a normal behavior and an alternative lifestyle.

Warren

JB, still can't or wouldn't explain why a community full of mental ill people, the gay community, has more high school and college grads along with higher income levels than the black community. Hey JB, what to give thanks to the black community for giving us the term, 'living on the down low.' JB, can you explain why the black community has a high percentage of women inflicted with HIV?

Bob

It passed the House 342 to 67; it passed the Senate 85 to 14; it was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat; it has NOT been deemed unstitutional by the US Supreme Court; only the US Supreme Court can make that decision, not the President and the Attorney General.

Very simply, the President and Attorney General have openly chosen to ignore the will of the people and the law of the United States of America and have committed an impeachable offense. You hear that Congress? You Republicans have the majority now do your job!

Regan DuCasse

Jetblack, you're an embarrassment of ignorance and heartlessness. The most reprobate hetero can marry once and again, over a gay person marrying ever. So this is not an issue of morality.
There is no legal discrimination anywhere against anyone to marry based on their lack of fertility and fecundity.
So that's no defense to do so against gay couples. Especially those who ARE parents.
You keep citing that the laws will have no reason to bar other forms of coupling with equality extended to gay couples.
You're THAT stupid? Nice try using stereotypes that would imprint inferiority on the minds of the public.
Marriage has four simple rules. Two of which are essential regarding KINSHIP and CONSENT.
The point of marriage is to join two NON RELATED adults to FORM the primary kinship for custody and responsibility of the other.
If you're already married and already closely related you HAVE the state's recognition of your kinship.
All the basic requirements to marry, gay couples MEET them, and no changes are being made to the definition of marriage.
What isn't said, is that the anti gay want the government to mandate the ROLE of gender in a marriage. As if this was still the 1950's when women had little autonomy in a marriage.
For ALL intents and purposes, there is no rational nor justifiable reason to deny gay citizens full rights and protections, as they have FULL responsibilities don't they?
If anything, there is Constitutional protection against TYRANNY by a majority. And it CAN be argued that said tyranny over gay lives must stop. And yesterday.

Regan DuCasse

jetblack,
I'm a hetero black woman. And there is little difference between the cruelty heaped on gay people and the myths around their sexuality, than that of blacks. Jim Crow laws were implemented based on the distrust and fear of black SEXUALITY. And the SAME indictments are put on gay people. Gay men are considered predatory, immature, promiscuous and threatening. Lesbians considered exploitable and compelling. Just as black males were typed the same way as gay males, black women were treated the same way as lesbians are now.
Color only made Jim Crow easier to enforce. Marital status is another way of segregating gay people from society, where color cannot be used now.
Just as a het can marry another het, a gay person should have the freedom to marry another gay person.
It's wrong for ANY kind of Jim Crow type laws to exist against a SINGLE minority of people.
EVER.
The Constitution SAVED your black butt, not the Bible. And further, it's NOT NATURAL to be distrustful and hostile to gay people. If you hadn't gotten such early training, NO WAY would you have come by it naturally.
It's not even natural to be so incurious as to the truth about who gay people are.
What's wrong with YOU?

Regan DuCasse

Lastly: you wouldn't appreciate someone lecturing to you unsympathetically about racism or that YOU have no experience with it worth any empathy for you.
Don't argue with a gay person on whether they choose to be gay or not. Since homosexuality has existed in ALL mankind's history in all human societies, it's obvious of a biological basis.
The difference is in whether treating gay people unjustly, unequally or as inferiors was EVER justified. It's not. Not any more than doing so against women.
Any other 'minorities you mention' are not culturally neutral minorities, but people with FETISHES and paraphilia. KNOW the difference.
You're the kind of ignorant and scared person that is the reason for NEVER putting gay lives to a popular vote or ex Constitution.

Regan DuCasse

Lastly: you wouldn't appreciate someone lecturing to you unsympathetically about racism or that YOU have no experience with it worth any empathy for you.
Don't argue with a gay person on whether they choose to be gay or not. Since homosexuality has existed in ALL mankind's history in all human societies, it's obvious of a biological basis.
The difference is in whether treating gay people unjustly, unequally or as inferiors was EVER justified. It's not. Not any more than doing so against women.
Any other 'minorities you mention' are not culturally neutral minorities, but people with FETISHES and paraphilia. KNOW the difference.
You're the kind of ignorant and scared person that is the reason for NEVER putting gay lives to a popular vote or ex Constitution.

Mitchell Young

Look at an analogy. There is no rational reason for the government to certify some food as 'organic'. Studies have failed to show any connection with health, nutritution and 'organicness' . Yet the government does draw arbitrary lines and privilege certain agricultural practices through such certification. Moreover the non-organic farmers suffer economic loss for no rational reason. In comparison, when looking at reproduction , and also in the case of male homosexuality , public health , the government's reasons for not endorsing homosexuality is infinitely stronger than its reasons for penalizing conventional, non-organic agriculture.

Sue Doe Nim

JB-complete Straw Man argument. Again, how does gay marriage effect you personally? You can also educate your children at home and not rely on the state/fed to do so. That's your option. I can say growing up with a staunch republican father who would agree more with you on abortion and the right to marry, I made up my own mind not to be a bigot and to not limit what others do in their personal lives.

Mitchell Young

"Any other 'minorities you mention' are not culturally neutral minorities, but people with FETISHES and paraphilia. KNOW the difference."

Regan, I suggest you take a look a the documentary "Zoo" about the situation, a few years back, in Enumclaw Washington. Its available on youtube.
Now, I am absolutely not claiming an equivalence between homosexuality and bestiality. Let me repeat, no equivalence.

However, the participants in that video (1) seem every bit as convinced that they are born the way they are (2) justify their activities in pretty much the same language of the *early* homosexual rights movement , ie. 'leave us alone, we aren't hurting anyone' (3) other than their rural activities, seem to have functioned pretty normally in society (4) were *not* prosecuted in Washington because at the time the state didn't have a bestiality law and there was no evidence of cruelty to the animals.

My point is that any society is a moral community, and we impose collective morality on minorities all the time. The Washington legislature thought nothing of rapidly pushing through an anti-bestiality law based, as far as I can tell, on nothing but distaste and moral disapproval of that activity.

JetBlack

So far, all I have seen are the same commenters with the same worn out response. Everything posted here have already been posted on other threads by these same individuals, under a different screen name of course. I have already debated Warren and his misleading facts about the education and the HIV statistics in the African American community. I guess in some kind of indirect way he's trying to clue me in on the fact that white homosexuals are far superior and at less risk for HIV infections than those in the African American community. Ok Warren, I got your point from all of those other times you've posted your opinion. Though, I have never seen Warren posting numbers of white males infected with HIV or have died from complications caused by AIDS. Just the numbers in the African American community. Plus, I am still waiting for Warren to make a trip to the CDC website so he can read that the highest rate for HIV infections have been with men who have sex with men in all racial categories. Then there are others who feel, since my race have been oppressed, that automatically qualifies for my allegiance to the homosexual community in their quest for marriage recognition. Yet, I have read on a number of occasions the homosexual community bragging about being the wealthiest and the most educated of all the other members of American society. I'm sure my ancestors will frown upon me for not jumping on the homosexual marriage rights bandwagon. Then there are others in the homosexual community who have challenged my faith in God, saying my believing in God is like believing in Peter Pan. Yes, we have already been down this road before too. My belief system has remained the same. I am still offended when the homosexual community use my race to compare to their behavior. As long as they continue to do so, I, and others, will continue to post on threads our disagreements with the homosexual community.

Mitchell Young

"You can also educate your children at home and not rely on the state/fed to do so. "

Can I deduct the taxes I pay to support state education? In essence that is what this is all about. Gay rights people want *state* acceptance. We've gone long beyond 1978 when it was 'leave us alone'. No one is prohibiting gay couples from having whatever ceremony they want, exchanging rings, etc. What the 'marriage equality' folks want is state certification -- that means in effect the approval of the people. It will no doubt entail teaching about gay sex in the public schools etc. All of that sort of stuff is the realm of democratic decision making, not the realm of 'rights'.

We don't live in libertopia.

Rooter

But, Obama said he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, said that a long time ago. Maybe he's now trolling for support from his base. Seems he's losing the union support.

Rooter

But, Obama said he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, said that a long time ago. Maybe he's now trolling for support from his base. Seems he's losing the union support.

Ironman Carmichael

Jet Black is a woman? Is she married? If so, did she vow to "serve and obey" her husband? (That's traditional marriage, folks.)

JetBlack

Ironman Carmichael, I'm sure you have seen me posting many times and should have enough common sense to know that I am a man. Nice diversion tactic though. You people seem to be very good at that.

Allen Jones

Google Gay Marriage and Fried Taranchulas for a third view on the subject of marriage.

Mystic

I am not in agreement with or in favor of homosexuality, but I believe that homosexuals are free moral agents just like the rest of mankind, if it is their choice to rebel against God, who sees homosexuality as an abomination, they have to take it up with Him.

I am not in favor of, or in agreement with infidelity, promiscuity, fornication, or adultery, I am against teen age pregnancy, and abortion, but these people who do it will also have to answer to God.

I will not cover my eyes to any of them, without denouncing all of them, meaning I cant be silent on Jan creeping out at night with bob, and be vocal when jim and jack do the same thing.

stanJames

I see that jetblack is back. As usual demonizing people just as what I presume his race is, were demonized in the past.

some people never learn.

And Jet - when you are so hung up on sexuality and gays, its a truism that you have, sir, your own gender or sexuality problems.

stanJames

Mitchell young........
I am thrilled that my 8 year old grandaughter knows that some families have two moms or two dads. Its something about being modern and open minded.

My complaints if any are about all the str8 couples who are divorcing left and right, making my wife and myself almost a rarity - married 43 years, no divorces etc etc.

And all the single parents who are struggling finanacially and time wise to raise a kid, when there should be two parents available.

BTW the states with gay marriage the longest - MA and CT, have the lowest divorce rates. Gay marriages there are probably a minor factor in this situation, but the major one is educational levels of people. Places like Harvard, MIT, Brandies, Tufts , Worcester Polytech make a big difference in peoples stability as well as educational levels.

And yes, we are from there, but moved away 40 years ago.

stanJames

Mitchell young........
I am thrilled that my 8 year old grandaughter knows that some families have two moms or two dads. Its something about being modern and open minded.

My complaints if any are about all the str8 couples who are divorcing left and right, making my wife and myself almost a rarity - married 43 years, no divorces etc etc.

And all the single parents who are struggling finanacially and time wise to raise a kid, when there should be two parents available.

BTW the states with gay marriage the longest - MA and CT, have the lowest divorce rates. Gay marriages there are probably a minor factor in this situation, but the major one is educational levels of people. Places like Harvard, MIT, Brandies, Tufts , Worcester Polytech make a big difference in peoples stability as well as educational levels.

And yes, we are from there, but moved away 40 years ago.

stanJames

Oh btw- teh National organization for marriage is now on the 'candidates list' by the Southern Poverty Law center, as a hate group.

Not for their religious beliefs but for demonizing a whole group of people for their immutable beliefs.

As for Maggie Gallagher - the nominal head along with (brian brown). Maggie 's church has her over the proverbial barrel for her own sins - 2 kids out of wedlock. cant seem to find much about Brian Brown, except he's been involved in a lot of right wing groups. apparently a convert to catholocism. Converts in general tend to be extremist, trying to "make up for lost time".

what sort of dirt may underlie his life, I don't know.

EthanR

Oooh, is this not journalism at its WORST? Fomenting heat over an action generally met with the yawn that it is?

The anti-gay-marriage side has yet to show a SINGLE instance in which they are tangibly harmed by other people marrying those of the same gender. Not a single one.

WHY IS THE TIMES REGURGITATING HATE???

Religious actions against others are among the most cruel, despicable, immoral, and depraved in human history. The history of religion is written in rivers of the ink of human blood.

STOP the cruelty! STOP the hate! YOUR religion is your PERSONAL affair. Forcing someone else to live under YOUR religious convictions is the very thing that forced our ancestors to found America. Nothing could possible by more UNAmerican.

EthanR

Oooh, is this not journalism at its WORST? Fomenting heat over an action generally met with the yawn that it is?

The anti-gay-marriage side has yet to show a SINGLE instance in which they are tangibly harmed by other people marrying those of the same gender. Not a single one.

WHY IS THE TIMES REGURGITATING HATE???

Religious actions against others are among the most cruel, despicable, immoral, and depraved in human history. The history of religion is written in rivers of the ink of human blood.

STOP the cruelty! STOP the hate! YOUR religion is your PERSONAL affair. Forcing someone else to live under YOUR religious convictions is the very thing that forced our ancestors to found America. Nothing could possible by more UNAmerican.

EthanR

Oooh, is this not journalism at its WORST? Fomenting heat over an action generally met with the yawn that it is?

The anti-gay-marriage side has yet to show a SINGLE instance in which they are tangibly harmed by other people marrying those of the same gender. Not a single one.

WHY IS THE TIMES REGURGITATING HATE???

Religious actions against others are among the most cruel, despicable, immoral, and depraved in human history. The history of religion is written in rivers of the ink of human blood.

STOP the cruelty! STOP the hate! YOUR religion is your PERSONAL affair. Forcing someone else to live under YOUR religious convictions is the very thing that forced our ancestors to found America. Nothing could possible by more UNAmerican.

EthanR

Oooh, is this not journalism at its WORST? Fomenting heat over an action generally met with the yawn that it is?

The anti-gay-marriage side has yet to show a SINGLE instance in which they are tangibly harmed by other people marrying those of the same gender. Not a single one.

WHY IS THE TIMES REGURGITATING HATE???

Religious actions against others are among the most cruel, despicable, immoral, and depraved in human history. The history of religion is written in rivers of the ink of human blood.

STOP the cruelty! STOP the hate! YOUR religion is your PERSONAL affair. Forcing someone else to live under YOUR religious convictions is the very thing that forced our ancestors to found America. Nothing could possible by more UNAmerican.

Winski

Probably a good idea you guys 'screening down" the responses that get analyzed here, because this decision will bring every nut-bag alive to forums like this to spew the most un-imaginable hate speech that exists..

IF there was a way to monitor the content of sermons given this sunday in every church across the land, I would bet good cash ($1) that between 90 and 98% of EVERY sermon delivered on that day will somehow wind this thread into it's substance.. Already the flying monkeys like Gingrich, Beeeeeck and their compatriots are bellowing from every platform that this will cause the destruction of mankind as we know it and for just a $5 campaign donation they will mount a rebellion against the evil that has beset us this day...

Study up on the FACTS, and Leonardo tries to highlight the obvious one.... Then if you still don't get it - leave.

Correy Lennox Youngblood

AND YET AGAIN we see from this... There simply is ZERO valid argument against gay marriage. ALL the arguments are religious and/or grounded in homophobia, or just plain ridiculous.

Correy Lennox Youngblood

AND YET AGAIN we see from this... There simply is ZERO valid argument against gay marriage. ALL the arguments are religious and/or grounded in homophobia, or just plain ridiculous.

Mitchell Young

"I am thrilled that my 8 year old grandaughter knows that some families have two moms or two dads. "

But of course they don't. Mom and step-Mom, maybe. I find it funny that that recent hit movie about a 'two Mom' family *still* has to bring a Dad -- the biological father -- into the equation. Human nature is a tough thing to fool.

Thomas Alex

DOMA violates the US Constitution and will be overturned and Gay marriage will be legalized nationwide; just like when they legalized Interracial marriage nationwide.

Sue Doe Nim

Michael Young-you really think what you pay in taxes ACTUALLY covers what it cost to educate your child? It never even occurred to you that when you write those children off on your Fed that people like me who don't have children pick up YOUR tax slack? I guess I can use the argument since I don't HAVE children, I shouldn't pay property taxes, right?

The irony are there are so many "baby mamas" that exist, you'd think that gay marriage wouldn't even hit the radar being such a non-starter. But no, bigotry and hate rule the day per usual. Michael, there are lot's of bio-dads out there. Being a sperm donor doesn't make one a father, that much is apparent in todays society.

Regan DuCasse

Mitchell Young, I told you that fetishes and paraphilias are NOT sexual orientation.
Objectification of things that cannot consent, nor have MUTUAL attraction, and RESPONSIBILITY are inappropriate analogies to gay couples.
So yeah, your attempt WAS at trying to make a comparison to bestiality.

I have to repeat myself on the issue of morality? The state does have an interest. So yeah, it's immoral to have sexual relations with a living thing that cannot consent, nor have mutual attraction. Period.
There is no moral test as to who is fit to marry. An incarcerated mass murderer can marry. So can serial adulterers and divorced.
Gay couples DO meet the standards set by the state regarding what OTHERS have to meet.
1. Mutual consent.
2. Non closely related
3. Unmarried.
4. Of legal minimum adult age.

In this, where do gay couples NOT meet these minimum standards?
And anything else the state doesn't regulate against individuals anyway.

The other issues are personal, between the individuals within the relationship. NO state can determine the QUALITY that marriage will have. Nor is there a test to the fitness of parenting.
DUH.
Gender and sexual orientation are factors of human sexuality that HAVE NO affect on the quality of those in the relationship, nor third parties outside of it.
A gay person deserves the right to marry another gay person under the same requirement (consent and attraction).

Taking the gender equation from the laws would be a practical way of inclusion for the intersexed and the transgendered. These are issues that occur naturally as a medical condition. There shouldn't be any discrimination based on that issue either. Since no one is denied marrying because of their medical or even mental illness issues.

Mitchell Young

"Mitchell Young, I told you that fetishes and paraphilias are NOT sexual orientation."

Oh, it must be so then.

"So yeah, your attempt WAS at trying to make a comparison to bestiality."

Ever hear of 'greater than" . " less than" ," alike in this way, but not that way"?

As for the rest, you are just asserting that your particular preferences (age of consent, 'consent' at all -- arranged marriages are pretty much the norm historically outside 'the West, two vs. three or more folks. etc) are the correct ones.

I will concede that the gender issue is difficult, but typically medical professionals 'assign' a gender a birth in those rare cases -- at least as I understand it.

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...