TAKE THAT bigotted Homophobes.

Larry

Next thing you know, they'll allow bestiality.

Good for them.

So now we know what is causing the worldwide economic crisis. God is pissed.

"Next thing you know, they'll allow bestiality."

#2 | Posted by LeeAtwater

Good for them.

#3 | Posted by 726

Typical f[l]ag.

Well, at least now Larry Craig has more states to go get married in.

Typical f[l]ag.

#5 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I don't think Barney Frank is from CT, is he? I thought it was MA.

These rulings are on the right side of the Constitution. I would be very interested to read the three dissenting justices' opinions and what their rationale is for treating gays differently.

Joe,

Is that available online?

Those three dissenting judges probably based their rulling on personal opinion? In other words they are ACTIVIST JUDGES! But I thought the right hated ACTIVIST JUDGES. I wonder what social cons have to say about this.

"Is that available online?"

Yes.

Thanks for the links, Joe.

I read the first dissent and thought it was extremely well-written.

Thanks!

Typical f[l]ag.

#5 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Someone have a problem with the Constitution?

Typical.

"I read the first dissent and thought it was extremely well-written."

But it still assumes gays should be happy with second-class status. The jurist doesn't see gays as a group which has been discriminated against, seemingly living in his little mind instead of the big world.

The third dissent contains the following passage:

the long-standing, fundamental purpose of our marriage laws is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct

What a slippery slope.

Using that "logic", why are the infertile and post-menopausal allowed to marry?

I don't have the time to read all the opinions right now, but from what I saw of the first dissent it looks as though they treated gays as a quasi-suspect class and therefore subjected the law to higher scrutiny. From cases I've seen I don't think gays have been entitled to "suspect class" treatment and that might make this case easy to overturn if it is appealed to the SC.

That's not to say that gays shouldn't be given suspect class treatment, frankly I think it's clear that there is a history of discrimination against them in our country and that therefore they should be given that classification. But the precedent is against it if I'm not mistaken.

Well, no wonder the Dow is off by 50%.

"From cases I've seen I don't think gays have been entitled to "suspect class" treatment "

What about from reality? I don't mean that in a snarky way (surprise!), but who looks and can't see the second-class status? My wife and I enjoy over 1,000 rights, protections, and privileges we got the moment we said "I do", which are either only available after legal papers are filed, papers which require legal assistance, or, as in the case of Social Security, the right to be on a partner's health care, or the equal right to a second-to-die pension, protections and rights to which they have no access whatsoever, regardless what legal hoops they jump through.

Again, an honest question: how does that NOT rise to being a "suspect" class?

And this affects you how?

Love thy neighbor, after all.

And this affects you how?

#2 | Posted by Manypaths at 2008-10-10 01:54 PM

Just a guess...He's now got no excuse for not getting his boyfriend that ring?

Fabulous!

Using that "logic", why are the infertile and post-menopausal allowed to marry?

Because they are not gay.

The arguement revolving around procreation is used because without extraordinary circumstances a homosexual pair cannot have a child. It is an airtight way to discriminate.

Why the hell do folks on benches use procreation to justify their homophobia? You'd think that people who DON'T contribute to the overpopulation problem would get judicial preference. herm

Phone polls are totally meaningless, but do it. I have. herm

It is very unfair that Rcade won't let us engage in making sexual comments. unfair i tell you.

"And this affects you how?"

Try making a financial plan for a gay couple. You'll learn the true meaning of "abomination". Or look at the nearest widow, and calculate what percentage of her income is due to the fact God created her straight.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-10-10 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag

It appears as though I was taking a swipe at you earlier (manypaths too).
I'm almost positive that Rcade merged 2 threads because when I commented, Manypaths post was the second one, and I was the third post in the thread.

Long story short, it appears as though Many was posting to you, but in reality, your post wasn't in the thread we responded to.

Make sense?

Watch for CT to fall into a state of anarchy the same way Massachusetts has.

People marrying their kids, people wanting to marry their pets, rioting, burning of businesses, eternal darkness........ It's just plain terrible!!!

oh wait....that never happened. In fact, the biggest news story to come out of gay marriage has been gay divorce.

Watch for CT to fall into a state of anarchy the same way Massachusetts has.

Heh. You could almost say that the country has.

Coincidence...?

No problem, as long as they now legalize the right to multiple wives or gay partners.

Or are those groups "second class citizens"...

"Next thing you know, they'll allow bestiality."

Lee is wishing for that day so he can finally marry his true love, Lassie.

. . . And all over Hartford, Greenwich, and Groton--two or three couples too lazy to drive to Massachusetts are finally making their wedding plans.

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?

Yes 49%
No 49%
Not Sure 0%

I am all for gay marraige ... I think they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us hetero married folk.

I bet after 5 years it won't be so "gay" about it anymore either...

No problem, as long as they now legalize the right to multiple wives or gay partners.

Or are those groups "second class citizens"...

#35 | Posted by armyof1 at 2008-10-10 04:32 PM

brings up a good question... why is it not legal to have two wives especially if you get both of them properly pregnant and thus are "regulating" your procreative conduct?

Donner, HEy why not. Hell can a gay or lesbian have multiple partners.... Why not.

IF that was what my lifestyle was why shouldn't I be allowed to...

You surely can't say the law prevents it. It used to prevent Gay marriage but since that is legal why is polygamy now not legalized in these states.

Just a thought!!

Dear whiny trogs:

I am not scared of gay people.

Nor, I am not scared of polyamory between consenting adults. Legal structures will eventually have to accommodate such realities.

Children are not consenting adults.

Animals are not consenting adults.

Any questions?

LawnChair,

Really, children though can have an abortion without the consent of their parents... Why shouldn't they be able to get married without their parent permission/consent.

Seriously, the latter is a lot less intrusive.

Yea, the animals thing though, I am with you 100%...

"Coincidence...?"

Yeah.

Danforth, I don't know if you saw my 1:39 but that should answer your question.

can i marry a friend on April 14 ,file a joint tax return,save 1,600 dollars then get a divorce and split the savings with said friend?

Really, children though can have an abortion without the consent of their parents... Why shouldn't they be able to get married without their parent permission/consent.

Seriously, the latter is a lot less intrusive.

Yea, the animals thing though, I am with you 100%...

#43 | Posted by armyof1 at 2008-10-10 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The strangest part about what you bring up is that most of the states with the strongest anti-gay marriage stances are also the same states with the some of the lowest age-of-consent.

Wonder why that is?

Children marrying at 14....Good? .....but Adult Gay people wanting to get married is somehow bad?

can i marry a friend on April 14 ,file a joint tax return,save 1,600 dollars then get a divorce and split the savings with said friend?

Yes. But only if you're straight. Actually, the day you have to worry about is December 31st of the previous year. Get married New Year's Eve and divorced New Year's Day, and you can file jointly.

The only way you'll be saving $1600, though, is if you're in different tax brackets, so the higher earner shelters more by filling up the lower earner's brackets. If the two of you make exactly the same wages, there is zero tax savings in getting married.

Joe, thanks for the 1:39...I guess it comes down to lack of precedent, which makes sense for something groundbreaking.

". . . And all over Hartford, Greenwich, and Groton--two or three couples too lazy to drive to Massachusetts are finally making their wedding plans."

Laziness had nothing to do with it. What you're suggesting is illegal.

"Make sense?"

Your response seemed out-of-character to me...I knew something was off, so I just ignored it. No problem.

If the christians wanted to punish the gays, they should allow them to get married.

to be legally obligated and connected, to live forever and ever in a swirling hell of idiosycracies and peccadillos, to never ever ever have sex with no one else, and to see each other everyday, in the morning, in he night, during lunch and to have secret fantasies about that model in the victoias secret catalogue, you know, matrimonial bliss.

but i love being married.

If the christians wanted to punish the gays, they should allow them to get married.

#52 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-10-10 08:07 PM

If the right really wants to prevent gay marriage they should try to outlaw gay divorce.

The day after most gays married, they would each run to a different bath house to spread the joy.

FWTHOM obviously loved his time in the Navy.

"Rum, sodomy and the lash"
The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash. - -- Churchill's assistant, Anthony Montague-Browne said that although Churchill had not uttered these words, he wished he had.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I said that.

"...I bet after 5 years it won't be so "gay" about it anymore either...Posted by donnerboy...

I know you're using humor, but as the resident DR Gay Man (Married since 2004) let me say that my husband and I are more in love than ever before. Especially knowing that our marriage binds us to a committed and responsible relationship - hopefully through our lives.

We were not 'promiscuous gays' before we married. we were together since 1995 and never bought into the whole multiple sex partner thing. We are enough for each other.

Once again the homophobes are left scratching their heads as to how we manage NOT to fit their prejusiced stereotype taught to them by thieving preachers 'praying' on their ignorance. Once again celebrating another victory by another state.

More to follow...

Army of 1: You, sir, are a MORON.

prejusiced=prejudice...

About damned time, really. Seriously people. Gay Marriage, on our list of "Things that should concern us as a society" is on page 11 right after "Would the Atari 7800 not have flopped if Jack Tramiel were not a moron and released it in 1985 like was intended?"

can i marry a friend on April 14 ,file a joint tax return,save 1,600 dollars then get a divorce and split the savings with said friend?

#46 | Posted by semtex111 at 2008-10-10 05:54 PM | Reply

Absolutely--and you can say your wife is pregnant every month and take the child deduction. When she doesn't produce, you can claim the child was accidently thrown out with a tampon. That's good for 12 child deductions a year. Plus you can get insurance on the zygotes and collect millions every month--you get good rates when children are that young. But for insurance, you need a body, so save the tampon for microscopic analysis. Make sure you get a teeny tiny coffin and headstone to make it legit.

Congrats to Larry nd Boob. You guys can now go to Connecticut with Larry's goat and form a more perfect three-way union.

While you're at it, Boob can bring his refrigerator along and make it a foursome.

Shit 'Vernon I don't love Buffalo Bob nothing personal but I don't want a spouse so old they have undergarments older than Me. Sorry

Larry

Vernon

Wouldn't you rather have your own country where just men and women get married? That's where you should put your energy. In my country gays can marry---a great liberal concept that embraces freedom for everyone. You seem to be upset that gays are getting this freedom. It is inevitable with all the liberals in this country. There are enough conservatives to form your own country where this could never happen. Then you could laugh at the other country for being such fools while your country remains pure in the eyes of God.

I'm sure you don't think liberals have anything valuable to offer your country--so why not go with it? Fight for a separate country--a country with no liberals--now that's a change you can believe in. Talk to your friends--get a movement going.

Just think. This year your Presidential choice could be between McCain and Huckabee---isn't that better than having Obama for the next 8 years and all the liberal programs he's going to bring to life? Wouldn't you be happier?

Larry Sinclair (google it) is alleging he did Obama a homo-favor in 1999.

Larry Sinclair has failed 2 or 3 Polygraph tests already on the subject. Please do so ever try yet again Takeitez for You know not what You espouse.

Larry

"Larry Sinclair (google it) is alleging he did Obama a homo-favor in 1999."

Okay:

Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Fails Polygraphs

"Larry Sinclair has failed 2 or 3 Polygraph tests already on the subject. Please do so ever try yet again Takeitez for You know not what You espouse."

Way to go, Larry!

Was Larry Sinclair screwing Jeff Gannon?

News at 11.

i just don't see myself eating cake ever again...

Well, as California is teaching us, the nice thing about a Constitution is it can be changed by a vote of the people. If the people of Connecticut are not happy about this, they need to amend their constitution to reflect their opinion.

I think the next group that needs to be filing suit is polygamist. Under the logic presented by the majority, no one should have a problem with that either. Sounds like religious discrimination to me that someone can't have several spouses.

Even the exhalted Dalai Lama is anti-gay.

Throughout all of human history we are 10% of all societies, every nation. The reason is that we are an advantage to the breeding population. We are leaders, teachers, husbands and wives - no different, less caring or uninterested in equality.

Well, it's only been 40 years since interracial marriage was legalized. I don't expect much from the heterosexual community other than another uphill struggle for what is natural to all creatures great and glamorous.

"...Well, as California is teaching us, the nice thing about a Constitution is it can be changed by a vote of the people. If the people of Connecticut are not happy about this, they need to amend their constitution to reflect their opinion....Posted by A_Citizen"

Obviously, Moron, you have not read the opinion of the California Supreme Court.

Even is Prop 8 passes in California, the Judges have already told us that they will overthrow any attempt to block the rights granted by the constitution of the state.

In California 'majority rule' cannot use a constitution to remove rights from other people - a group of people who were being denied Equal Access and Due Process to state rights, privelages and benefits - simply because the majority suffers from delusions whims and prejudice.

Get that? Got it? Good! Prop 8 means NOTHING.

As far as the Polygamy Claim? It's biblical. Got a problem with the Bible? Take it up with God!

Now, if you don't mind I have to get beck to my 5 month old Big Fat Legal Gay Marriage here in California!

Obviously, Moron, you have not read the opinion of the California Supreme Court.

#71 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2008-10-11 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

..like I said before, Dumpling, if people _amend the Constitution_ then no court can declare that _Amendment to the Constitution_ unconstitutional. If they are following the proper procedure to amend their Constitution, and it passes, there is not a damned thing you can do about it except rally for a "This amendement is repealed" followup amendment.

Use your head. Nobody can declare a part of the Constitution to be Unconstitutional. I don't even understand where you keep getting this demented idea from. I have read the case law up and down, ranged the articles left and right. I am fully in favor of legalizing Gay Marriage but you have to get it through your head: While the amending of the California Constitution cannot legally go back in time and unmarry _you_, it can very, very, VERY much deny future couples the same right.

The ONLY thing the State Supreme Court can protect you on.. and they already have.. is the NAME of the measure on the ballot. They have refused to tackle the case that it is a revision instead of an amendment, which means it won't be taken off the ballot.

You can type bwahaha all you want, but what you _really_ need to do is get your head out of your butt and realize that you must STOP proposition 8. _If_ it passes, _then_ the Constitution of California gets changed. That means _gay marriage_ becomes unconstitutional. The Supremes cannot ignore the Constitution, they can ONLY enforce it!

"Next thing you know, they'll allow bestiality."

Well, shouldn't Heffalumps and Tiggers be happy too?

Dumpling,

If you actually believed that raving of yours, I would know I can couint on your declining to vote against Prop 8. In the alternative, vote for it, since it is "meaningless".

Sohe is exactly correct, the state court cannot declare an amendment to the state constitution unconstitutional. Since the Feds have defined marriage as being between a man and woman, I dount the Federal Court will jump in to declare the state constitution unconstitutional on the basis it conflicts with the Federal Constitution.

As to polygamy I think your answer is laughable at best...if you want to use God as your yard stick, I believe he had some pointed remarks about homosexuality. Other than that, if you can marry who you want, why would you deny me the happiness (and tax deductions) to marry a couple of people that I want?

Why is it that people who are most obsessed with the sanctity of marriage/family values only focus on gay marriage? If they really cared about the issue, you'd think they'd really push to get rid of the no fault divorce and make adultery a crime.