Strange bedfellows indeed!

Here we go... Good luck guys!

I seen that. I was beside Myself too. What a tangled web we weave.

Larry

Gays should be allowed to marry. Why straight people should have a corner on misery is beyond me.

There is a great article in the new Rolling Stone about how the GOP is purging all the moderates.

In it, Gov. Sanford of S.C, an evangelical, says he doesn't have any moral objection to gays marrying, he just doesn't want them to get the tax breaks hetero couples get. He is worried about the effect on the budget.

Interesting new angle in the justification of prejudice, dontcha' think?

Interesting new angle in the justification of prejudice, dontcha' think?

Actually, Tiny Johnson has been reiterating this meme a lot lately.

Complaining about gay marriage being economically destructive because of the strain it will allegedly put on the health care system.

Essentially, the enemies of equal rights fer gays folks have realised on some level that merely thumping their bibles and saying "God hates fags" doesn't work so good so now the argument, as far as Spud can follow it, goes like this...

"I don't hate gay folks I am just SUCH a fiscal conservative... "

Spud sez good luck with that whole "can't afford morality" argument.

Gotta luff the rtards.

It's like they are staying up late every night just to find new ways of being wrong.

Be Well.

Just think how different all this would be if Prop 8 involved denying Gays the right to own a gun.

The irresistible force against the immovable object. A milestone in the development of American morality, a cause so obviously just and correct, vs. a court of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and the inevitable fifth. herm

Gays should be allowed to marry. Why straight people should have a corner on misery is beyond me.

#3 | Posted by LetUsPrey

FF

I think everyone should be careful that this is not an end-around to subvert gay marriage and to make this a wedge issue in coming elections. The Supreme court has already decided on this issue. It is much better to keep this at the State level where advances will be incremental but forthcoming. For those of you that have been touting the "Loving" decision should know that "Baker" is THE precedent.

"I think everyone should be careful that this is not an end-around to subvert gay marriage and to make this a wedge issue in coming elections."

Probably good advice. Leopards don't change their spots.

IMHO - this is too soon. Timing is everything. Ultimately it will probably need to go to the Supreme Court, but not now.

What will happen if the court rules in favor of Prop. 8? What precedent could that set? Could it hurt the gay marriage cause?

"What will happen if the court rules in favor of Prop. 8? What precedent could that set? "

That states have the right to determine who will be treated equally. Won't that be Utopia?

I think when I finally come out of the closet I'll be in support of same-sex marriage. Until then, I'll clutch my guns and my bible and hate the liberals, muslims, gays and french like any other GOP'er that's worth a daymn...

I think when I finally come out of the closet I'll be in support of same-sex marriage. Until then, I'll clutch my guns and my bible and hate the liberals, muslims, gays and french like any other GOP'er that's worth a daymn...

#14 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2009-05-27 05:11 PM

Sorry NERFHERDER, your gay "act" isn't very convincing. You're as straight as a ruler. Admit it!
Admit it I say! You're straight, AREN'T YOU!!!

"Why straight people should have a corner on misery is beyond me."

i hear ya on that

How can I be straight? I'm a male and I own 6 Richard Simmons videos. That evidence'd hold up in any Latina-run courtroom.

The best part of this thread is that I can click on the banner, and meet Chris, Danny, Drew, and more guys in my city. Absolutely free!

I think this is great. I'm a conservative GOPer, who thinks this issue is ripe. These are both great attorneys, and I wish them the best of luck.

I just hope whatever the decision, it provides clarity and does not rest on some procedural or nit-picky grounds.

"What will happen if the court rules in favor of Prop. 8? What precedent could that set? " That states have the right to determine who will be treated equally.

Or unequally! But they don't. The US Constitution frowns on that sort of thing. herm

Equal Protection?

Gays already have equal protection.

Everyone is allowed, equally, to marry one (1) member of the opposite sex.

How is that unequal?

Gays have the same rights as non-gays - we can all marry one (1) member of the opposite sex.

The attorneys are sure to lose their case using this as a legal argument.

There are better arguments they can and should use.

How is that unequal?

Reverse the question.

Wot if it was only legal to get gay married?

Wot if only straight marriage was banned?

Would you consider that unequal treatment?

The argument for gay marriage is largely the same argument for straight marriage.

Marriage as a societal institution creates greater stability as a whole.

Greater social stability is a good thing.

The reasons against gay marriage, particularily the "it's too expensive" one are largely arguments against all marriages and mostly false to boot.

K?

Be Well.

"Everyone is allowed, equally, to marry one (1) member of the opposite sex."

One member of the opposite sex, but the same religion, ethnicity and income level. herm

I wonder if the same percentage of Americans that are currently in denial over the Gay marriage issue felt the same way about mixed race couples when they weren't allowed to marry.

Is it safe to throw them into the same pile of bigotry?

Damn, and I thought the Cal Supreme court already rulled on it.

Spud,
I don't think anyone disputes but that the ban of same sex marriage is discriminatory. Of course it is. The question the Courts are gonna face, is whether the state interest in not allowing gay marriage is strong enough to support the rule.

That will depend largely on whether they use rational relationship or mid-level scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. What level of scrutiny will be decided on whether science supports the concept that gayness is something you're born with, or a lifestyle choice.

It will be interesting to watch how it plays out. I hope they decide right.

The second amendment is very clear on a right. Marriage has nothing to do with equal protection and due process. The next thing you know, one of the loonie left women will want to marry her dog. Film at 11.

Damn, and I thought the Cal Supreme court already rulled on it.

#26 | Posted by Sniper

I see where you are going and at some level I agree. How many fucking NOs does it take to mean NO?

But this is just the process. Going from the State Courts to the Feds and all the way up to Sonia's new gig.

The next thing you know, one of the loonie left women will want to marry her dog.

#28 | Posted by Sniper

And that would be a concern of your if she did?

You would care if a woman married her dog?

I don't think anyone disputes but that the ban of same sex marriage is discriminatory. Of course it is.

No dispute?

Well not amongst sane people, obviously.

That sed, there are a lage number of mentally unwell individuals who do continue to dispute it.

What level of scrutiny will be decided on whether science supports the concept that gayness is something you're born with, or a lifestyle choice.

It's pretty much an open and shut case as far as science goes. People are born gay. While there is also the phenomenon of bi-sexuality and "prison sex" to be considered the fact that homosexuality is a part of nature itself should be enough to dissuade anyone who wants to argue the nurture theory of homosexuality over the nature one.

It will be interesting to watch how it plays out. I hope they decide right.

Spud too.

Spud actually considers the gay rights moral evolution to be inevitable.

Not a question of "If?", merely "When?".

Be Well.

I still like my idea the best.

Push to pass a law that bans Gays from owning guns.

Get the NRA on their side.

The next thing you know, one of the loonie left women will want to marry her dog

~Snippy

Cos gay marriage is EXACTLY the same thing as bestiality?

Snippy FAILs.

Again.

Ya'd think after attacking folks with the same broken crayon year after year he would eventually clue in.

Apparently, not so much.

Meh, at least he provides a certain degree of unintentional comedy relief hereabouts.

Be Well.

Spud actually considers the gay rights moral evolution to be inevitable.
Not a question of "If?", merely "When?".
Be Well.

#31 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD AT 2009-05-27 06:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Agreed.

Sniper continues to show what an ignorant tool he is. I pray he hasn't created offspring. We can only allow so much stupidity to exist.

"Everyone is allowed, equally, to marry one (1) member of the opposite sex. How is that unequal? "

Same as if the law were only one person, but it must be a member of the same sex. How would you feel then?

What?!? You don't like the idea of only being allowed to marry the gender someone else chooses?

Cos gay marriage is EXACTLY the same thing as bestiality?

#33 | Posted by dethspud

Is the air a little thin up north? It seems to affect you thought process.

Cos gay marriage is EXACTLY the same thing as a man and a woman getting married?

"... gay marriage is EXACTLY the same thing as a man and a woman getting married?"

Well, yes. And if someone wants to wed her peke, it's not my business or yours. herm

Sniper continues to show what an ignorant tool he is. I pray he hasn't created offspring. We can only allow so much stupidity to exist.

#35 | Posted by rastaninja

I guess if I was pounding your s***, there wouldn't be any.

Seems to me that the majority of the people in Calif along with their supreme court aggree with me. Now that's REAL stupid of ME.

You should take a good look in your mirror when you pluck your eye brows before you call someone else an igorant tool.

You know it's ironic that the United States claims to bring freedom and liberty around the world while they take those Freedoms away here at Home. Sighhhhhhhh

Larry

Which ones have you lost in the last 6 months lar?

I suppose you want to marry your older brother.

I suppose you want to marry your older brother.

Posted by Sniper at 2009-05-27 08:23 PM | Reply

Sorry but I am not Marriage material so that leaves Me out of the equasion. Oh and I have no Older Brother. but many Gay and Lesbian couples ARE denied their freedom to marry the one they love because of bigots and homophobes. When one of our Family members(Americans) is denied tyheir freedoms then it is denied for all) After all we are supposedly one huge Family.

Larry

didn't answer my question lar.

Well here is a perspective for the family unit in our society.

So are they going to argue for minors to get married--they need equal protection.

How about a man and a 12 year old girl? They need to have marriage confromed to their wishes too.

How about a 30 year old woman and a 11 year old boy? They need protection too.

Marriage is special in our society and not up for grabs.

You know it's ironic that the United States claims to bring freedom and liberty around the world while they take those Freedoms away here at Home. Sighhhhhhhh
Larry

#40 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR AT 2009-05-27 08:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Larry, please. I don't agree with Prop 8, and think that the gay issue will come around.

Having said that, you can't say freedoms are being taken away in the US. Gays traditionally never did have the right to marry, period. Slowly, states are passing laws and coming around. Move to Iran, and see how much freedom you get.

Probably 51% of Californians WERE ignorant tools when they passed an initiative abrogating marriage rights for all. I am convinced that the state's supreme court was politically catering to them in its wrongful decision yesterday. I am also convinced that when this issue goes on the ballot again next year, only 49% will be ignorant tools. herm

We shall overcum!

"Bring out your attorneys, that we might know them!"

"Bring out your attorneys, that we might know them!"

Yer a Lot of laffs, Theo.

One more joke like that and people might start turning into pillars of salt or sleeping with their daughters in a cave.

Be Well.

Sorry but I am not Marriage material so that leaves Me out of the equasion.

#42 | Posted by LarryMohr

How do you know that Larry? Did you convince yourself of that or is it that you just don't really try? If you want a wife you've got to get off your ass and find one!

P.S. avoid the eye candy 90% of the time they're only good for one thing and half of those aren't even good at it

Probably 51% of Californians WERE ignorant tools when they passed an initiative abrogating marriage rights for all. I am convinced that the state's supreme court was politically catering to them in its wrongful decision yesterday. I am also convinced that when this issue goes on the ballot again next year, only 49% will be ignorant tools. herm

#47 | POSTED BY HERM AT 2009-05-27 09:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG think much?

They were the ones who gave rights under the constitution, when the polls were even more than 51% douchebag. I think we should have gay marriage, but don't give me this shit about the supremes being in the tank politically.

Shit? I suggest that only a dread of loonies whining about activist judges legislating from the bench prevented the only morally permissible decision. If you can prove otherwise, so so. herm

Do so. herm

(CA taxes paying for legislative session legalizing gay marriage + state lawyer fees) + (CA taxes on passing prop 8 + CA taxes for supreme court ruling) + (tax money for Arnold and various other lawmaker's preachings + police presence to control "violent protests") + (cleanup fees for picking up various protest signs for and against gay marriage * ten million) * a bunch of bullshit = $$$$ to the nth / (Boies + Olson + campaign contributions + advertizement * political game)

TRY TO EQUATE THAT ONE!!!

Since the population of California is 35.9 million, and 17.3 million of them are registered voters, and 12.1 million of them actually bothered to vote - 6.3 million of them voting for Prop 8 - it wasn't exactly a landslide.

I want equal protection for nudists, polygamists, necrophiliacs (as long as the corpse consents) and accordian players. When is this specious nonsense about unnatural acts getting civil protection going to end?
Find issues that resonate with voters, not ones that alienate them!
I apologise if the reference to accordian players made anyone sick.

"What will happen if the court rules in favor of Prop. 8? What precedent could that set? " That states have the right to determine who will be treated equally.

Or unequally! But they don't. The US Constitution frowns on that sort of thing. herm

#21 | Posted by herm

The US Constitution hasn't stopped Age Discrimination (such as drinking).

The US Const. hasn't stopped Gender Discrmination (such as Selective Service)

The US Const. didn't stop Gender Discrimination regarding voting until a Constitutional Amendment changed it. The XIV Amendment didn't give those rights to women.

The US Const. hasn't stopped Age Discrimination (such as minimum age for Social Security)

The US Const. hasn't stopped Disability Discrimination (such as Disability payments from SS - you have to be disabled to get it but if you're healthy-screw you.)

The US Const. hasn't stopped gender discrimination (ladies night at the club)

The US Const. hasn't stopped age discrimination (alcohol)

The US Const. hasn't stopped age discrimination (bus rides)

The US Const. hasn't stopped age discrimination or education discrimination (senior citizen and student discounts)

The US Const. hasn't stopped orientation discrimination (foot tapping is code in men's rooms - there are no known code for unisex rooms)

In this day and age there is no room for hydrophobia. Yes, I refer to Herm's rabid insistence that the members of the SCOC are somehow afraid of public opinion and politically in the tank. What a load.

Hydrophobe.

6.3 million of them voting for Prop 8 - it wasn't exactly a landslide.

#55 | Posted by Rincewind at 2009-05-28 04:24 AM

good point!

I was truly surprised that Prop 8 even passed here in CA. But, due to the other issues in that election (like voting for the first black Prez in History and against Bush and his failed Torture Policies ) I believe the the importance of this vote was overlooked by many who should have come out against this prop in droves. Combine that with the valiant efforts of the Mormons and the Fundies and lack of efforts by the gay activists this Prop did slide through....barely.

I bet if we voted ONLY on that Prop again with no distractions it would fail miserably now that California has seen what the agenda and results really are.

Would anyone want the U.S. Constitution to be amended on a simple majority vote? That's exactly what happened in California.

Would anyone want the U.S. Constitution to be amended on a simple majority vote? That's exactly what happened in California.

#60 | POSTED BY LETUSPREY AT 2009-05-28 04:45 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Totally. That is stupid.

Shit? I suggest that only a dread of loonies whining about activist judges legislating from the bench prevented the only morally permissible decision. If you can prove otherwise, so so. herm

#52 | POSTED BY HERM AT 2009-05-27 10:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Herm, look at your post. It's ridiculous to say the SC was in the tank for political reasons.

Your post lacks any logic at all. CA voters have always been against gay marriage. The numbers continue to slide toward supporting gay marriage. The SC, who you say is in the tank, would have to be brain dead to think CA voters did anything but support a ban. Notwithstanding that, they invalidated the statute.

They then passed on the constitutionality of Prop. 8. To say it was politically motivated after the slide in numbers that support a ban, and right after they already decided in favor of gay marriage on a statute is moronic.

I don't mind people accusing courts of occasionally being politically motivated - but at least have some semblance of a rational argument before you spout off.

Ye, it was a political decision. That is the ONLY reason to vote against human rights. herm

SOMO, it's YOUR post that lacks any logic at all. Yes, CA voters have always been against gay marriage. That is the ONLY reason the court upheld Prop. Hate. Not a very good reason at that. The moronic is thinking that the "justices" acted for any reason but that. herm

Herm, the question put to you is, if Justices always knew voters have always been against gay marriage - why the fuck would they have decided that to define a marriage as being between a man and a woman unlawful?

You make no sense dude, and I'm on your side of this issue.

From Danni
"I think everyone should be careful that this is not an end-around to subvert gay marriage and to make this a wedge issue in coming elections."
Danni this already happened Gavin Newsome gave us 4 more years of president Bush cus he got all excited the summer before elections in 2004 and had gays kissing and leaping for joy all over the TV and Karl Rove was rubbing his hands together with glee. if Newsome had waited til valentines day 05 to do it ...John Kerry would have been our 1 term president and we would probably have McCain right now lolz
Darkstar