Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tony Auth

Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago

    For those of us who are not Supreme Court scholars….that was the rub for the struggle for civil rights rights for blacks. Brown vs. Board of Education struck down the concept that “separate but equal” was really “equal”. For instance, we had bathrooms for “White Only” and for “Colored”, but the plumbing in the “White Only” bathrooms actually worked. And so on.

    The court required the states to integrate schools with “all deliberate speed”. Whether this was their intention or not, the foot-draggers and the status-quo people used that phrase to emphasize the word “deliberate”, which meant making sure everything was perfect, which of course would take a long time, rather than “speed”.

  2. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 3 years ago

    Maybe equality, but not prosperity or freedom of religion.

  3. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @jack75287

    “Maybe equality, but not prosperity or freedom of religion.”

    Whose freedom of religion is being infringed upon if marriage equality becomes the law. No one will be forced to gay marry. No church will be forced to perform or recognize gay marriages, just as they are currently free to not recognize straight marriages that do not meet their criteria (i.e. the Catholic Church).

  4. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Gresch

    “What equality? the law is written so hetrosexual people as well as homosexual people only permitted to marry people of the opposite sex..”

    60 years ago the law was written so that both black people and white people were only allowed to marry a person of the same race. It was declared unconstitutional. Your argument is invalid.

  5. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    Equality for everyone is important, but I too wish we could get past this to focus on other issues. “Corporate civil rights” need to be killed before they breed, for instance. No, “ilbs” haven’t forgotten that there are other important problems; those you list are not being ignored. It’s really too bad that some on the “right” continue to use this issue as a distraction. (We know there are as many “gay” Republicans as Democrats so why the fuss?)

  6. Movingsound

    Movingsound GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    From the CSM:
    Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in close cases, joined the four more-liberal justices in raising questions Wednesday about a provision that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law.

    It affects more than 1,100 statutes in which marital status is relevant, dealing with tax breaks for married couples, Social Security survivor benefits and, for federal employees, health insurance and leave to care for spouses

  7. omQ R

    omQ R said, over 3 years ago

    ‘Will you be in an uproar if blood brothers and blood sisters say they should be allowed to marry under Marriage Equity? What about individuals who want to marry their pets and or farm animals under Marriage Equity? Should fathers be allowed to marry their daughters, and mothers marry their sons under Marriage Equity?’


    Your question regarding incestuous marriages might have some value, but as for animals? None whatsoever. “Consent” is the key. [one could argue that in some incestuous relationships there might be coercion at some level and that therefore consent might not be valid.]

  8. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    Some of these objections are funny/sad. Animals and children and “forced to marry”; No.

    Now lets get real. There is one problem that came up in all that nonsense that should be addressed. Given that same-sex marriage should be allowed out of fairness to “gays” (and I think so because a marriage license is issued by the state not a church) then shouldn’t same-sex heterosexual “couples” also be allowed to marry? Why should two adult (and single) sisters be denied the benefit of living as a legal “couple”? Yes that question applies to “blood brothers” and “blood sisters” too. Should the government require sex (or someones definition of love) between consenting adults in order to get a tax break or the right to visit someone in jail or all those other things reserved for married couples? The longer you talk about marriage, the sillier it gets… But still, this is a serious question.

  9. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    @Gresch

    “… the prevention of inter-racial marriage was to stop the killing of blacks and native populations by the white majority…. "

    Get real.

  10. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    Tigger is, for the umpteenth time, trying the old “slippery slope” argument…that if gays are allowed to marry, then it will lead to people marrying animals, etc.

    I remember back in the 1970s when the Federal government responded to the gas crunch by imposing a national 55 mph speed limit. That, of course, led to a 45 mph limit, then 35, then 25, then 15, then 5, until finally we weren’t allowed to drive at all. I sure miss driving.

    Do you remember this, Tigger, since you think slippery slope arguments are valid?

  11. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    Could it be this is all about Gays wanting access to more Free Stuff ?…………..it seems to be going trend."

    They want access to the same things heterosexuals have. You know, equality…which apparently really upsets you.

  12. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    I will enjoy thinking about how much it upsets you when gay marriage becomes law of the land.

  13. omQ R

    omQ R said, over 3 years ago

    claimed that “No… the prevention of inter-racial marriage was to stop the killing of blacks and native populations by the white majority…. it was basic tribalism.”

    You’re kidding, right? lolololololol

  14. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Gresch

    “I bet you are OK with laws that that prevent people with different levels of consent from being forced to marry.”

    That is an invalid argument. You’re conveniently forgetting that legally recognized marriage is a legal contract, not a holy sacrament. You can obtain the sacrament without having a legally recognized marriage and vise versa. Only a person of legal consent may enter into a legally binding contract, such as the aforementioned marriage.

    The point I tried to make about inter-racial marriage is the laws forbidding it were struck down because it violated citizens’ right to equal protection under the law.

    All of that still just dances around the main injustice of you using your religious beliefs to discriminate against others who do not share your religion.

  15. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    What “facts” of mine are flawed, Onguard?

    Oh, wait, you missed the sarcasm in my speed limit story, didn’t you? Went right over your head, did it? Allow me to explain: I was wasting my time demonstrating to Tigger that her slippery slope argument was worthless, by demonstrating an example where the creation of a national speed limit did not in fact lead to progressively lower and lower limits, to the point of not being able to drive. See? Slippery slope didn’t work here at all.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (18).