Appeals court: Minnesota gay marriage case will get trial

Judged:

4

4

3

snyper wrote:

This is REALLY bad timing.

Judged:

3

3

3

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think it'll matter. Since those that are against marriage equality are already masters at lying, misrepresentation, and panicking the stupid people, if they didn't have this case to lie about, they'd just come up with something else.
How are these two statements any different?:
"We need to ban marriage equality because this lawsuit will force all school children to engage in gay sex together and be told that choosing to be gay is a viable option for them!"
and
"We need to ban marriage equality because it force all school children to engage in gay sex together and be told that choosing to be gay is a viable option for them!"
When the other side makes up that level of insane lies and the ignorant masses choose to believe them, does a lawsuit really make anything worse?

Judged:

3

3

3

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean insane lies like,
"those that are against marriage equality are already masters at lying, misrepresentation, and panicking the stupid people"?
Those kind of insane lies?

Judged:

2

1

1

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, since there's no compelling government-based reason to deny civil marriage for same-sex couples, yes, any "argument" against it HAS to be a lie, a misrepresentation, or something that's designed to panic stupid people. Or any combination of the above.
Can you give me a relevant, non-religious based, government interest in carving out a subset of law abiding citizens for unequal treatment?

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, since there's no compelling government-based reason to deny civil marriage for same-sex couples, yes, any "argument" against it HAS to be a lie, a misrepresentation, or something that's designed to panic stupid people. Or any combination of the above.
Can you give me a relevant, non-religious based, government interest in carving out a subset of law abiding citizens for unequal treatment?

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you give me a relevant, non-religious based, government interest in carving out a subset of law abiding citizens for unequal treatment?

Judged:

3

3

2

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think the government needs to be involved in marriage for gays or straights, why would I vote for increased government intrusion?

Judged:

3

2

2

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>No! So what? Does that prevent those religious based enities from their right of free speach to speak up against it??

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:

This is REALLY bad timing.

Judged:

4

3

2

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think the government needs to be involved in marriage for gays or straights, why would I vote for increased government intrusion?

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
They can speak all they want. They can use megaphones on top of towers. They CAN NOT use their religion in civil matters such as marriage. First Amendment.

Judged:

1

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
You have already stated that no argument exists, why waste my time?

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Then we need to push for removal of all government subsidy of marriage. That would make things equal.

Judged:

2

1

1

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>No! So what? Does that prevent those religious based enities from their right of free speach to speak up against it??

Judged:

4

4

4

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>Really, thanks for the civics lesson. The poster made some rather slanderous remarks about those who defend DOMA. My point is, those who oppose have the same right as those who oppose.
Also, you might want to check on English law, which our law is based on and see how much religion affect both!