November 20, 2017
Nation Latest News | Poll Questions | Videos | Susan Collins | Donald Trump

Comments for: U.S. Supreme Court will decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Lazerus Phoenix

    Gays have just as much right to be miserable in marriage as hetero couples are!

    • paul

      yes… but it’s not up to the federal gov’t to decide who gets married and who doesn’t.. want to get married.? go and get married.. gov’t has no business in the marriage business.. it’s none of their collective business… the courts have no say .. it’s a deal between whoever wants to make it a deal.. I am against Gay marriage based on my faith.. but stand hard that gov’t cannot tell them they can’t or that they can…. it’s a huge over reach.. for any marriage to have some enity other than God , say whether you can or can’t

      • Tedlick Badkey

        As long as the federal government is doling out protections and benefits of marriage, they’ll always have a say.

        Give those up completely for all citizens, then what you seek can happen. But not until.

        • Anonymous

          I agree single childless people should be getting the tax breaks, special rights.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Not one of the protections or benefits of marriage applies to a singular entity…
            You are aware of that, aren’t you?

      • Anonymous

        I agree with your position completely, and for the same reasons. Unfortunately, Tedlick Badkey’s assessment is the reality of the situation.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          And one I’d happily stand with…

          Liberty does not come from the government, but they can put up barriers. This is one of those situations.

          • Anonymous

            People invited the government in, they wanted laws changed, special rights, every other thing in the world “against the law”,free life rides, obama phones

          • Tedlick Badkey

            When you bring up “Obama phones”, when it was George W. Bush who extended the program to include cell phones, you make yourself out to be no better than those you rail against.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah I know it was Bush but someone showed me a video recently of Obama supporters that was funny which goes to show all of America is mis-informed, so I guess your spew makes you look like your talking out both sides of your face. First you whine to the government about equal rights and asked they stick their nose in it now, you complain about the same government.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Yes… I’ve seen the video. Their ignorance shouldn’t be emulated and perpetuated should it?

            Hey, I didn’t ask the government to divvy out protections and benefits for married citizens… if you want to abolish that altogether, I’m perfectly fine with that.

            But as long as they are, they must demonstrate a rational argument for excluding citizens from said protections and benefits or apply them all equally.

            It’s a pretty simple concept.

          • Anonymous

            Wild hyperbole. Again. “Special rights”? Obama phones?

      • Anonymous

        The Government has every right to have a say. They are the ones dealing out the marriage certificates/licenses. They provide tax write-offs, inheritance protections, and the rights of partners to both visit their loved ones in hostpitals and have right of attorney upon their deathbed.

        Marriage is much older than any current religion. It is found in ALL religions. Atheists get married in a civil ceremony, christians get married in a christian ceremony, Hindu’s get married in Hindu ceremonys. This is a civil matter as it is pertaining to our country as a whole, which contains more than just christians, or hindus, or athiests.

        As with the Maine law that we passed a few weeks ago, it should be the right of every person to go to the government and take vows with their partner. If that couple happens to be Christian, they can find a christian church to marry them. Simple really. The Maine law specifically put into place language that does NOT make it necessary for a religious institution to marry a gay couple if it doesn’t want to. This leaves the civil marriage open – but gives the couple the same protections that any hetero couple would enjoy after taking vows.

        • Anonymous

          A church, any church, has NEVER been required to marry anyone! Geez, when will that myth end? That said I agree with your comments. Frankly I see marriage as a fundamental Right of citizenship in America. Hopefully the Supreme Court shows a little intestinal fortitude and makes that clear to everyone. States should have no say in this at all.

          • Anonymous

            for now. One just has to look at the persecution of true Chuches with this change. They will complain, just the the BSA that they are being discriminated against.

          • Anonymous

            “Persecution”?? Really? Martyrdom complex to the extreme.

          • Why hasnt this happened in the over 26 countries and states that have allowed it for over 20 years?

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, it’s a State’s Rights issue, now, isn’t it ?
        So only a RINO could not support it,

        lol

    • Doug Scott

      Marriage is only a “state of mind” ,,, it only depends if you have one or not,,,,,, & I bet SCOTUS ain’t got one, & never will.

    • Anonymous

      Amen to that

  • Anonymous

    Before anyone screams about activist judges, the majority of those judges that struck down DOMA were Republican appointees.

  • Better AndBetter

    The defenders of Proposition 8, by contrast, argue the Constitution “leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved by the democratic process in each state.”

    Loving v. Virginia already demonstrates how the people do not have the right to “resolve the definition of marriage”.

    Just a fact.

  • Anonymous

    Scalia, for example, says the “equal protection” clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as “equal protection.”
    So Scalia must be stumped when it comes to the 4th amendment because I don’t see anything in there that suggests people are secure in their iphones, computers, or from gps tracking devices or thermal cameras………….Of course the supreme court has to give a contemporary interpretation.

    • Better AndBetter

      Scalia is also on record as stating that without sodomy laws, there’s nothing to prevent gay citizens from realizing marriage. It’ll be interesting to see how he justifies himself in light of that statement.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    It’s gonna be fun… it’ll be interesting to see how long this swims around in SCOTUS… with no rational basis arguments against, and so many in favor, it’ll keep coming up if no resolution is found now.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s call the defenders of Proposition 8 in CA what they are. Mormons. If not for the Magic Underwear Brigade (which is huge here by the way, you can’t throw a cat without hitting one), there is no way in hell such a discriminatory piece of crap would ever have passed in CA. I realize that gay rights is a monumental issue in our country; after all, Homophobia IS the last form of hatred still sanctioned by SCOTUS. It is only a matter of time before cooler heads and rational minds prevail; why not now?

  • The SCOTUS will just make it a new tax. If you don’t want to get gay married you will simply have to pay a tax.

    The above is sarcasm for those that don’t understand it.

  • Anonymous

    Mormons had to give up polygamy for Utah to join the us. Where does that leave that decision. They should be allowed to practice their faith too. I’m not Mormon

    • They should and if they want to go out, get signatures, and work hard perhaps it will happen for them. As long as they are all adults and support themselves I am ok with that Biblical definition of marriage.

  • Basically if you are legally married in your state you are recognized by the government. If your state cannot legally recognize you then you cannot.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      The federal government doesn’t recognize it… Even in states that allow gay marriage.

You may also like