Sound Off: Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the Defense of Marriage Act this week.

Who should be allowed to get married?  We want to read your thoughts in the comment section below.

Screen Shot 2013-03-15 at 4.35.07 PM

  • Ted

    The Supreme court will kill DOMA. Its time.

  • Reality Check

    Strike it down!!!

  • Kansan

    I do not see how the Supreme Court could justify that DOMA is not clear discrimination. I believe it will be struck down and it’s about time.

  • frrrrrrunkis

    What next? People marrying their dogs?!?!

  • Kansan

    “New Rule: Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the Equal Protection Clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are same sex marriages. You get married, and every night, it’s the same sex.” –Bill Maher

  • Free Thinker

    DOMA is simply legal discrimination. The faster it is defeated the better.

  • Toby Prine

    Society is dependent upon solid marriages that provide stable homes for the children it produces. Unfortunately, solid marriages are a rarity, heterosexually speaking, with a divorce rate well above 50%. American society and culture is so narsassic and hedonistic, that we’ve defined our rights by whatever makes ME feel good and satisfies MY cravings. Modern society has no moral boundaries, and we demand total autonomy with no restrictions on our passions. The courts will strike down DOMA. It will do so on the grounds mentioned in many of the comments seen on this site. But mostly, DOMA will be struck down because we, as a society, are what C.S. Lewis described as “men without chests.”

    • Reality Check

      “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”- Sinclair Lewis

      This is a country that is supposed to be about freedom of religion. Not freedom to persecute because you don’t believe it meshes with your religion. DOMA will be struck down because love is love. Whether it’s between a same sex couple or a different sex couple. We are born with our sexual orientation, no fool would *choose* the lifetime of crap that currently comes with being gay. Many of us are actually trying to make this a society of tolerance, compassion and dignity. We want equal rights not because it’s hedonistic utopia, we want it because it is right and exemplifies the principles the country was founded upon.

      • Toby Prine

        I don’t recall mentioning religion. I certainly didn’t say anything that condones “persecution”. I also didn’t reply to the posts I disagree with by using a term like “fascism”. Tolerance seems to be a relative term and is determined by which side of the subject you’re on.

        If DOMA will be struck down because “love is love”, then the previous post about people marrying dogs (as weak an argument as that is) logically became a part of your argument. Convince me of the benefits of same sex marriage for society. Claiming persecution, discrimination, a constitutional right, a natural right, “love is love” or Madonna wearing a boy scout uniform isn’t convincing me. The positions and opinions I maintain exist because I’ve been convinced they are true. If you are going to persuade me to your position, you’re going to have to do better then making accusations of fascism. .

        • Reality Check

          Same sex partners actually have statistically raised better adjusted children than hetero couples. “Dog marriage” as stated above is NOT a logical progression from allowing consenting adults to marry. There is no real objection to human rights if it is not dependent on some sort of “religious” grounds even if that’s just the religion of fear and loathing of anyone different from yourself. As for the quotation, I felt it apt since you were throwing out a quotation that was totally off base. Fascism is actually relevant in that it proposes there are “inferior” people that shouldn’t have rights. By saying that people wanting to legalize their love with a union that many people have enjoyed for centuries(and that they actually enjoyed before the illegal immigrants we know as the pilgrims came to this country) are narcissistic, hedonistic, etc., you are clearly inferring their inferiority and promoting their persecution by not allowing them the rights they so richly deserve.

  • Toby Prine

    I’d commend to you the book “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis to address your concern about the quote being “off base.” If we were having coffee together and had the time, I’d challenge the statistics you’ve presented, which I’m sure would spark a hardy discussion. I’m afraid you’ve misread my original writing. I never stated that those with your opinions only are narcissistic and hedonistic. I stated our society, as a whole, is. Many who you might consider in my camp are just as guilty. Heck, I’m just as guilty. But inferring that a differing opinion is “promoting their persecution” is lazy, at best and slanderous at worst. Making broad accusations works on Bill O’Reilly and Bill Mahar, but its done nothing to win me to your position.
    Thank you for the mental exercise on a Monday. I wish you the best.

    • too much corporate power

      Toby, I used to feel the same way. The “ick” factor was mostly to blame.

      Evidence abounds that sexuality is something you’re born with, as opposed to gender which is culturally defined. We have no more right to demand that gays not marry each other than gays have any right that straights not marry. It’s about justice, it’s about doing what is best for our kids. Gay marriage can provide that stable, loving environment that you agree is so important for our kids.

    • Reality Check

      One thing to ponder….. have you ever heard of a gay couple having an accidental or unwanted pregnancy??? Every gay couple that has children has worked hard to have them, they are wanted more than anything. This, by itself, promotes a healthier family environment than many children in this world start out with.

  • Kansan

    There are views that are more than just voicing an opinion actually. Society norms in this day dictate that people wouldn’t really get on a site like this and rant racist views. However when it come to GBLT views some people still feel it is acceptable to do that. The views which you state is an opinion actually do perpetuate the persecution of minority when you imply that only a hedonistic society would condone marriage equality and that gay parents can’t make up a strong and health family (research proves otherwise) These “opinions” especially effect GBLT youth who are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. Depression and substance abuse is very common among GBLT youth who feel they will never be accepted for their core being. Imagine a GBLT youth seeing posts where people are arguing wether they can be good parents or live in a world where they are afforded equal rights just like any other human? So yes there is a difference between voicing opinions and hate speech. Not saying yours was hate speech but there is a difference.