world

U.S. Supreme Court cautious on same-sex marriage

14 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Gays and lesbians, isn't that redundant? There are heterosexuals and homosexuals, a.k.a. "straights" and "gays", nevermind the pejoratives.

Marriage has nothing to do with government and vice-versa. Leave marriage to the religious institutions and fully recognize civil unions including all the legal obligations when they dissolve.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I, like all Americans, believe in equality. I also believe in our judicial system and I have great faith in it. But more than anything, I believe in love,” Stier said on the Supreme Court steps.

“It is our hope that we can move forward and remove this harm from society so that gays and lesbians in California can go back to their lives living equally alongside their neighbors with the same rights and protections.”

These 2 paragraphs or so full of silly statements that one is inclined to take the side of the anti's just because.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan Today posters cautious on same-sex marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The president had some stones when he backed gay marriage last year, and I hope he keeps them and stays strong.

"“All people are capable of loving children, but all the love in the world can’t turn a mother into a father or a father into a mother,”

Surgery will.

And anyway, people like this nut bag are the true freaks. They CHOOSE to believe what they believe, whereas homosexuality is as natural as the sun on this world. And of course we cannot forget, freaks like this always change their tune pretty quick when one of their kids publicly admits to being gay.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'm a bit surprised at any of the justices talking about going into "uncharted waters." They've been in these waters before, most famously in Brown v. Board of Education. This is an equal rights issue. And it's not the job of the Supreme Court to judge the morality or justice of a law. They're there to decide if it passes constitutional muster, and that's all.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Leave marriage to the religious institutions and fully recognize civil unions including all the legal obligations when they dissolve.

This is the only logical solution. The courts cannot rule on the definition of marriage. If they do, for instance, declare "same-sex marriage is a thing now," it would, more or less, screw the Church. Ministers would be required to perform marriages for same-sex couples lest they risk losing their marriage license, or perhaps their church's tax-exempt status.

The best thing to do is go with the civil union approach. Marriage is a societal institution, let society define it. If same-sex couples find a minister willing to marry them, good for them. Otherwise, they can find themselves a justice of the peace or whatever and still get all the legal benefits associated with a marriage.

They CHOOSE to believe what they believe, whereas homosexuality is as natural as the sun on this world.

This bothers me. So many people claim homosexuality is a genetic and therefore unchangeable trait, yet when asked for evidence of this fact they either A. give none and make claims of homophobia, or B. cite studies that either never happened or have results that cannot be replicated. They also seem to forget, so soon, that the creed of the homosexual rights movements in the 80s and earlier carried the message of desiring to be accepted for the lifestyle they have chosen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" And anyway, people like this nut bag are the true freaks. They CHOOSE to believe what they believe, whereas homosexuality is as natural as the sun on this world. And of course we cannot forget, freaks like this always…"

And anyone who dares to disagree with leftist ideas gets labelled "nut, freak, nut-bag" etc. How very tolerant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hypothetical question. Can I ask if some of the posters above were presented with evidence they would accept that homosexuality is genetic, would they still oppose gay marriage? Is this the key factor?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Free will Jimizo. Does not an alcoholic have free will? Abstinence ... not easy but can be done...AS we can see above, all religious people will be demonized as bigots and persecuted...see SmithInJapan. That is only 60% of the population in Western cultures...Africa and the Asians are not too big on this nonproductive behavior either. We need to ALL work together to feed and educate the next generation.

To be spending so many resources on this issue is just weird when there is so much work to be done in service to one another...as the new Pope Francis washed AID victims feet on Holy Thursday...even though he stood for traditional marriage and the rights of children to a Father and Mother. We must keep our hearts aimed toward truth but deal with the real world in a compassionate manner. Anyone seen the poverty in India? Now there is a cause to get excited about. The crime in the USA cities...India could help us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Sodeska So, gay people should abstain from sex completely? That should promote healthy, happy minds and shows a remarkable tolerance of other people. The church is entitled to its opinion, and secular societies have every right to ignore it - thankfully so in the case of reducing the prevalence of HIV with condoms. Oh, yes, I have seen the poverty in India firsthand and I've also seen the riches of the Vatican firsthand. Believe me, the last thing India needs is less contraception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@jimizo, let me start by clarifying that I'm atheist. I do, however, respect that others hold religious beliefs dearly. That said, marriage has always been a religious institution. Governments have relatively recently recognized non-religious heterosexual unions(labelled civil marriage, unfortunately ). Recognizing homosexual unions is the new kid on the block, and should be decided on a local level. A huge part of the problem is special perks afforded to married couples. Anytime one group gets a perk that another group doesn't, there is envy. And it's governments that create these divides.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" Governments have relatively recently recognized non-religious heterosexual unions(labelled civil marriage, unfortunately )."

By this, I mean that the labelling is unfortunate, not the recognition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Jinizo Interesting really - Orientation should have nothing to do with things. Do two people have to prove their orientation to get the benefits? Take out orientation and just put in children, for people can be platonic as well and share a life with children. So a family could be redefined as one with children, be it one, two, three or so adults. You know grandparents or those who decide to help each other out. Really, to have a society to pay benefits to two adults who are sharing costs anyway is kind of funny, even if it is a guy and a girl. What is that marriage thingy anyways. Perhaps we need to just consider the children and get away from the orientation issue completely. Just an idea.

Yes, it is right for the Supreme court to be cautious with this issue because in effect it would be granting special rights to a group of people who are no different from you or I setting up shop as brothers. In fact, I will bet many will do just that to help a friend. "Let's get married and you can have a good life after I am gone." Love can be platonic and is probably the true love that we all learn, finally. Life has a way of bringing truth to each one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites