Gay couples seek court case that might reach the Supreme Court

Print More
The four plaintiffs in a major Virginia case challenging the state to permit gay marriage are, clockwise from top left, Tim Bostic, Tony London, Mary Townley and Carol Schall.   Photo by H. Darr Beiser, courtesy USA Today

The four plaintiffs in a major Virginia case challenging the state to permit gay marriage are, clockwise from top left, Tim Bostic, Tony London, Mary Townley and Carol Schall. Photo by H. Darr Beiser, courtesy USA Today

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) Despite two landmark Supreme Court decisions in June that vastly expanded same-sex marriage rights in states from Maine to California, gay and lesbian couples in 35 states remain outside the bonds of holy matrimony. For them, the battle is ongoing.

  • Pingback: Gay couples seek court case that might reach the Supreme Court | Do You Really Believe?()

  • daniwitz13

    There is a slight disconnect here. These two couples have been together, one 25 and the other 30 years. One would think that they would be contented couples already. It seems that being together and loving together is NOT all they cherish. They could go to another State and Marry and have Marriage papers, but that again is NOT what they cherish as they claim. They could show their license for proof of wedlock Again, not what they want. Seems like being together is not what it’s about. Recognition is recognition, no? It has to be here and NOT there. That is the most important thing, right? Oh, I get it, its the BENEFITS that really count, well pardon me! And, don’t tell me that my 25 years together is not as good as yours. She could have said, Don’t tell me that after 25 years together we can’t make Children, how dare you!. Only males and Females can make Children, are you nuts, you bigoted homophile. This is like: She gets Married in her State, gets her license, but her Father does NOT recognize her Marriage and did not give her away and did not attend. She is Married in EVERYONE’S eyes and isn’t this the defining moment? No, not that she wants or needs his recognition, she wants BENEFITS like inheritance. What I’m driving at is that Loving and living together is NOT the most important thing as the Benefits. Basically, what others have. Pity

  • Larry

    You would think a couple with children would be happy that only one parent is allowed to actually act like one? Or that one spouse can’t legally provide for the other in death or illness? Oh they are just selfish for wanting such things. To live life with a measure of sanity and dignity. That is just being selfish. After all, your bigotry is much more important.

    Nobody should have to move to another state in order to carry on living like a family in a normal fashion. That is not what equal protection under the law means.

    You lack the understanding of what marriage means. Marriage is ALWAYS about the tangible legal benefits. Marriage is a legal condition defined by the government. Benefits and obligations are hardwired into it. A marriage in the eyes of God is worthless unless recognized by the eyes of the state. (See the troubles of the FLDS for examples of that one).

    Your procreation argument is ridiculous. Obviously gay couples have children. All you do is marginalize them and undermine the ability of their parents to raise them in a sane manner.

    Its a pity you can’t recognize that living in a legally insane manner causes harm to others. That civil liberties are not a privilege, they are a right. Nobody should ever apologize or feel bad about demanding them.

  • Frank

    Then civil unions with all the benefits that are given to actual married couples should be ok,

  • Larry

    Separate status but equal. Where have we heard that before?

  • Frank

    So then your last comment was untrue.

    Two same sex people playing house will always be separate from actual married couples. Two people of the same sex will never make a marriage.

  • Larry

    Not at all. Your prior statement smelled of bigotry that we have heard in the past. I am just pointing out that there were people who used the same arguments as yourself who ended up on the bad side of history.

    “We have never believed [black men] to be equal to the white man.”
    -Senator Benjamin R. Tillman 1900
    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/55/

    Your are just illustrating that regardless of the subject, arguments from bigotry like your own, all sound alike.

  • Frank

    Arguments are used for many things. Some good, some bad. It doesn’t negate the argument when its used correctly.

    Anything but one man plus one woman will never, ever be a marriage.

  • Earold Gunter

    Frank, “Methinks thou dost protest too much”

  • Duane Lamers

    Larry, you’re offering the liberal spin regarding “equal protection” in the Constitution. Your right to do so, just for once offer us some full disclosure.

  • Frank

    Earold methinks you are unable to articulate a cogent argument.