40 million heterosexual Baptist husbands got drunk today and beat the shit out of their wives because of this.

NOW you see why same sex marriage is a threat to real marriages.

Where in the Constitution is congress granted the power to decide for or against a national marriage policy, let alone gay marriage policy? This is precisely why I opposed DOMA. It is not within the enumerated federal powers. It is not interstate commerce or a national security measure.

I saw this week that 45 percent of conservatives in college support gay marriage. This train is going in one direction. Conservatives should jump on board and be glad to see gays wanting the stability of marriage along with straights.

Hooray! Now if we could just get rid of that pesky Clinton-signed DOMA, so that those couples can actually enjoy the full rights of privileges of their contract.

Where in the Constitution is congress granted the power to decide for or against a national marriage policy, let alone gay marriage policy?

Congress has nothing to do with this story. It's the state Senate in Washington state.

Right on, RCADE. Any Republican opposing gay marriage is opposing the inevitable future of their own party, as well as displaying their hypocrisy with states' rights issues.

Where in the Constitution is congress granted the power to...blah, blah, blah.
#2 | Posted by Diablo

Congress has nothing to do with this story. It's the state Senate in Washington state.
#5 | Posted by rcade

That's what I said: the Senate is part of Congress and it's in Washington. What are you, stoopid?
#0 | Posted by D.A. Blow

"Congress has nothing to do with this story. It's the state Senate in Washington state."

Thread title threw me off, Rcade. Might change it.

I now pronounce you man and man. You may buttfuck the husband.

"Thread title threw me of"

And that first sentence at the top of the page - "By a 28-21 vote on Wednesday, the Washington state Senate..." - man, it's a real discombobulator.

The average DR Rtard sees the word GAY in a thread title and one of two things can happen: he gets a hard-on or his brainwashed little brain goes into parrot-speak mode. The really talented one do both at the same time.

"..he gets a hard-on or his brainwashed little brain goes into parrot-speak mode."

Much as you probably do during Shirley Temple movies.

Right on, RCADE. Any Republican opposing gay marriage is opposing the inevitable future of their own party, as well as displaying their hypocrisy with states' rights issues.

#6 | Posted by adammm at 2012-02-03 11:26 AM

Opposing it is pure hypocrisy, it's big government at it's finest.

Strong work, WA.

"that exempts religious organizations from having to perform such weddings or rent their facilities for gay nuptials."

Good. Finally, some respect for both sides of the issue.

Have we talked about homosexuality yet today?

Thread title threw me off, Rcade. Might change it.

Changed. Having a state named Washington is a pain in the ass.

I like that their are some exemptions in there.

Right on, RCADE. Any Republican opposing gay marriage is opposing the inevitable future of their own party, as well as displaying their hypocrisy with states' rights issues.

Makes me feel good to see young conservatives supporting gay marriage and Ron Paul. Maybe there's a Republican Party coming in the future I could vote for.

Have we talked about homosexuality yet today?

Posted by KBM

Have you posted a dozen crappy links that nobody will read today?

Equality test, are gay brothers allowed to marry?

Have we talked about homosexuality yet today?

If I talk about gay sex would you hold it against me?

Thread title threw me off, Rcade. Might change it.

Changed. Having a state named Washington is a pain in the ass.

#17 | Posted by rcade

awwww should have left it....gave me great pleasure to think of all the R-tards and the Religulous losing their minds and spilling their morning coffee all over themselves.

Strong work, WA.

#14 | Posted by ness_gadol

Before you knuckleheads get off on this, understand that here in the Great State of Washington the civil unions statute gave gay couples absolutely everything that a heterosexual marriage did.

They were convened into special session to fix the absolutely fucked budget situation, instead they lit off a smoke screen and delved into the gay marriage issue.

Congratulations progay marriagers, you provided a pretty effective cover for the legislature to do absolutely nothing. But hey, its called a marriage now!

AmewicanPlayBaby sure is upset about gays getting to marry.

Wonder why he cares?

I dont. You jackasses want to get hoodwinked thats your business. You've been informed.

"the Great State of Washington the civil unions statute gave gay couples absolutely everything that a heterosexual marriage did. "

Absolute nonsense. They're still not married on the federal level, which denies them joint filing advantages as well as SS equality and a host of other privileges.

Clearly you don't have a clue about the subject, to make a statement so completely bogus.

"Good. Finally, some respect for both sides of the issue."

Have any gay marriage bills forced churches to perform marriages between homosexuals? I certainly have never heard a gay marriage proponent suggest that a Catholic church (or whomever) would then have to perform such, or should then have to do so. Of course, I've not read all the bills or statements by advocates.

""Absolute nonsense. They're still not married on the federal level, ""

Yeah genius, and to rebut, theyre still not married on the federal level.

or, in MonthyPython speak "theyre still not still" not married on the federal level.

"Have any gay marriage bills forced churches to perform marriages between homosexuals?"

Short answer? No.

"Yeah genius, and to rebut, theyre still not married on the federal level."

IOW, your claim was bullshit. Just now realizing that?

Then again, Hagbard, no one in this country has been arrested for speaking out against homosexuality... yet. Its happened a couple of times in Britain and Sweden, models of modern socialism for the the left.

So in short, not yet but its coming.

IOW, your claim was bullshit. Just now realizing that?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at

Hey ASSHOLE. Washington State cant assign federal benefits. The statute of Civil Unions in Washington and the statute governing marriage gave the same STATE PROTECTIONS to both sides. The only thing the State Senate bill did was change the name of Civil Union to Marriage. They did this to sidestep the BUDGET CRISIS that they were convened to resolve.

Normally when people show themselves to be complete morons they have the humility to sit down and shutup. Why cant you?

Four Republicans joined 24 Democrats in supporting the bill, which would make Washington the seventh state to recognize same-sex matrimony. Three Democrats sided with 18 Republicans in opposing it.

Woo Hoo there are 4 half-ways decent Republicans in office in Washinton State now.

That's got to be some kind of record.

Ignore the snark, gratz guys, good move.

Be Well.

"Washington State cant assign federal benefits"

Oh.

Then you were full of shit when you posted "the Great State of Washington the civil unions statute gave gay couples absolutely everything that a heterosexual marriage did."

Got it.

"Normally when people show themselves to be complete morons they have the humility to sit down and shutup. "

The irony is priceless.

I want a 500 word essay on the meaning of "Context", to be posted by 2100 Eastern Standard Time tonight. I want it in standard double-spaced format and the grammar and punctuation had better be correct.

The irony is priceless.

#37 | Posted by Danforth

You got that one right sister.

Man, AmewicanPlayBaby is just getting reemed out in this thread. (pun intended)

Its happened a couple of times in Britain and Sweden, models of modern socialism for the the left.
So in short, not yet but its coming.
#33 | Posted by americanPLY

You're smarter than that post, A-PLY.

#28 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2012-02-03 01:57 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You need to pay more attention to the world around you. There are gays filing suit against churches for refusing to wed them. These suits are not always failing, and they SHOULD. A church should not have to marry anyone it does not want to, and your ignorance of the subject matter does not prevent these events form occurring. The state of Washington has made it clear that this will not be allowed there.

Im sure you've been waiting to use that word all week, along with a couple of other choice terms you learned at the bathhouse over the weekend.

Then again, the only thing that some people have keeping them afloat in this world is their marred sense of perception and stupidity. I wont fuck with that, dont think I can.

A gay person should not be able to sue a Christian church for not marrying them any more than a Buddhist person should be able to. Yet they can. Why? I don't know; but this is not "equality" it is special privileges.

You need to pay more attention to the world around you. There are gays filing suit against churches for refusing to wed them. These suits are not always failing, and they SHOULD.
#42 | Posted by soheifox

Then you'll have no difficulty providing some particulars about these suits, right? Because I'd be interested.

#41 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

You can be arrested in Seattle for calling someone a faget. Im keenly aware of incrementalism. Im not saying that all people that want to be gay-married are willing to sue a church, it only takes a few, along with a seasoned attorney.

The gay marriage movement isnt going to just disappear if/when gay-marriage is the norm, theyre going to shift focus. I see "discrimination" being a big part of that focus.

at the bathhouse over the weekend.

#43 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-03 02:40 PM | Flag: Knows all about bathhouse chit-chat

#47 | Posted by LIVE_OR_FUCKING DIE ALREADY

Still at it bimbo? Need a tonguelashing to satisfy that craving for Daddy and his belt, or are you just pissed your usual man with the latex gloves didnt stop by last night?

Need a tonguelashing to satisfy that craving for Daddy and his belt,

#48 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-03 02:48 PM

"You can be arrested in Seattle for calling someone a faget"

What's a faget?

You sure? If you want to swing by I can handcuff you to a steampipe in the basement and beat you with a bamboo stick for a half hour.

The offers still good till 1 this afternoon, got shit to do today.

There are gays filing suit against churches for refusing to wed them. These suits are not always failing... #42 | Posted by soheifox

I just spent some time looking for evidence that your claim is true and came up empty. I'd love to see some kind of proof that a church was ordered to marry a homosexual couple. And then I'll stand with you (well, I'll probably remain seated) in denouncing that ruling.

You sure? If you want to swing by I can handcuff you to a steampipe in the basement and beat you with a bamboo stick for a half hour.

#51 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-03 02:54 PM

--Sohefox

#50 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

A) Common term for a man that likes to hold one hand up and lower his mouth to the glass instead of vice versa

B) Denseforth/LIVE_OR_DIE after the obligatory second beer.

faget

1. This hideously misspelled derivation of 'faggot' is primarily used by uneducated rednecks who fail to see the irony of calling someone a derogatory name but having no idea how to say the word.

6. Faget

to forget about it

talking in a bronx accent "faget abat it"

I like that one better.

or:

7. Faget

alternate, shorter way of spelling "Faggot" when you have shit to do and want to save keystrokes. Closely akin to spelling night "nite" or any other simple ways of abbreviating words.

8. Grammar Nazi

Any of a group of pathetic assholes who seek to poke holes in someones argument by bringing up nitpick little flaws in spelling rather than taking it head-on with equally compelling ideas and facts.

"A gay person should not be able to sue a Christian church for not marrying them"

Successfully? Or just nuisance shit.

Are you working on your essay Danforth? Im not kidding, 2100 EST or there will be hell to pay. Context, 9 o'clock this evening.

Now its a beautiful day, im going to knock back a few beers and go for a drive, so when I get back I want to see some progress on that paper.

"Im not kidding"

No, just a joke.

Grammar Nazi

Spelling =/= Grammar

"Any Republican opposing gay marriage is opposing the inevitable future of their own party, as well as displaying their hypocrisy with states' rights issues."

#6 | Posted by adammm

#45 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-03 02:42 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Can someone link me to when this guy has ever had anything of substance to say?

#52 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-02-03 02:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You didn't look very hard.

And on what basis? Because a few years back they applied for a tax break which, at the time, did not have a non-discrimination policy, but had one tacked on later. Nothing like using a technicality to force a church to rent their property for a wedding.

Stay classy "equal" marriage rights people.

"You didn't look very hard."

You must have missed the part where the area in question was a beach owned by the church, yet they were offering the area as a public space...

...except to gay people.

For years, the Camp Meeting Association had applied for and received state tax breaks under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program, which requires facilities to be open and nondiscriminatory to all.

Great. Another group doing "Jesus' work" who want all taxpayers' monies, but want to be able to deny access to certain taxpayers.

"Because a few years back they applied for a tax break which, at the time, did not have a non-discrimination policy, but had one tacked on later. "

They could've refused at that point. But they didn't did they? They kept taking the government's tax breaks, and the QPQ "requires facilities to be open and nondiscriminatory to all."

What part of "all" did you miss?

You need to pay more attention to the world around you. There are gays filing suit against churches for refusing to wed them. These suits are not always failing, and they SHOULD.
#42 | Posted by soheifox

Then you'll have no difficulty providing some particulars about these suits, right? Because I'd be interested.
#45 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'm going to take Soheifox's inability to make a positive response to my query as a "Fuck, no, of course I can't substantiate what I said."

PS, chumpy: the case you cited for Hagbard above? Hasn't got anything to do with what you claimed. Don't you ever feel embarrassed, coming onto a thread like this and making a fool of yourself?

"Nothing like using a technicality to force a church to rent their property for a wedding."

That's not a "technicality" at all. They choose the tax break over the policy changes. And if you hadn't noticed, the property isn't a church at all.

"choose" = chose

"The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled Monday that a church group discriminated against a lesbian couple when it denied them the right to hold their civil union ceremony on beachfront property the group owns but has advanced as a public space."

What does that have to do with homosexuals forcing churches to officiate gay weddings?

Or what Dan said, I guess.

"A city randomly decided a church's property was suddenly public property for these lesbians."

Ah, that old tactic: lie.

"a technicality"

I love it when morons spout that.
Technicality, my ass.
It's the law.
Period.
End of story.

"The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled Monday that a church group discriminated against a lesbian couple when it denied them the right to hold their civil union ceremony on beachfront property the group owns but has advanced as a public space."

What does that have to do with homosexuals forcing churches to officiate gay weddings?
#71 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Nothing.

But I have a feeling Shoeifox started slinking off when Danforth served him his (Shoeifox's) arse up on a silver platter.

You need to pay more attention to the world around you. There are gays filing suit against churches for refusing to wed them. These suits are not always failing, and they SHOULD.
#42 | Posted by soheifox

So there are gay people who've filed suits against churches because the churches won't marry them, and some of these suits have succeeded?

And only you know about it?

ROTFLMAO

And only you know about it?
#76 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Stranger things have happened. What I want to read about is a minister of some denomination being forced to officiate a gay ceremony and to sign the marriage certificate. That isn't happening, that's not going to happen, and 99.9% of liberals AND homosexuals would defend a church from being forced to do so if anyone tried to make that happen. At least the ones of a similar mind. And I'm way out here in the lunatic fringe for most retorters' purposes.

One of the 1/10 of 1 percent, eh, Hagbard? Thought I recognized a fellow traveler.

Anyway, nice summary of the situation.

I don't know where these folks get the idea that churches are being forced to officiate at gay marriages, but, hey, there are still folks who think the moon landing was faked.

Those would be the 1/10 of 1/10 of 1 percenters.

There won't be any need to force churches to marry them when there are plenty of non denominational wedding officiants out there to do it. I personally plan on offering my services dirt cheap and free for friends as soon as the bill is fully passed. I need the practice anyway. I've been trying to build my resume and hetero couples just don't seem to get married much anymore.

"One of the 1/10 of 1 percent, eh, Hagbard? Thought I recognized a fellow traveler."

shhhh....

""Stranger things have happened. What I want to read about is a minister of some denomination being forced to officiate a gay ceremony and to sign the marriage certificate. That isn't happening, that's not going to happen, and 99.9% of liberals AND homosexuals would defend a church from being forced to do so if anyone tried to make that happen.""

I think that any rational mind here knows that is pretty far from the truth. Gay marriage has always been about changing societies view of whats normal sexually and emotionally. Gays arent going to stand up for the rights of "homophobic, bigoted" clergy who refuse to preside over a gay wedding. You only need look at the vitriolic comments posted by some of the darlings here on the retort to understand that.

Its SPECULATION, but im pretty sure that sooner rather than later churches within these liberal zones of influence are going to have to officiate these same sex wedding ceremonies under the pretext of non-discrimination, just the same as restaurants were forced to serve blacks.

I need the practice anyway. I've been trying to build my resume and hetero couples just don't seem to get married much anymore.

#79 | Posted by missesmerelda

Its a good angle, you're going to have plenty of repeat customers with your chosen clientele. Just a little friendly advice, you can get it from both angles if you double as a divorce lawyer.

Its STUPID SPECULATION, but im pretty sure that sooner rather than later churches within these liberal zones of influence are going to have to officiate these same sex wedding ceremonies under the pretext of non-discrimination, just the same as restaurants were forced to serve blacks.

/Fixt!

Nope, that aint how it's gonna work.

"House of Worship" =/= "House of Pancakes"

More and more churches will end up reforming and evolve morally allowing more and more gays to marry in officially sanctioned ceremonies while the bigots remain in their own shrinking numbers where they will ultimately marginalize themselves into insignificance and become cultural dinosaurs.

Kinda like flat-earthers, heliocentrists, creationists or tribes of pygmy cannibals.

Be Well.

"AmewicanPlayBaby sure is upset about gays getting to marry.

Wonder why he cares?"

I'm beginning to think it's because he's so far in the closet he can see Narnia.

hetero couples just don't seem to get married much anymore

Yeah, probably only about 2 million or so tying the knot last year.
Rare as hens' teeth.
LOL

I'm beginning to think it's because he's so far in the closet he can see Narnia.

#84 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Im beginning to think you're developing a mancrush.

Kinda like flat-earthers, heliocentrists, creationists or tribes of pygmy cannibals.

Be Well.

#83 | Posted by dethspud

Liberals have been hijacking the good name of elightenment for decades. Just because you claim the high road doesnt mean you walk it. Fact is, there have been, are, and always will be moral norms. The enlightened perspective in this case is to protect people for living in the ways that make them happy, but at the same time preventing their unhealthy habits from affecting the rest of society, in essence not encouraging the behavior.

"Im beginning to think you're developing a mancrush."

If you ever turn into a man, let me know.

"If you ever turn into a man, let me know."

#88 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2012-02-03 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag: FF!!!!!

If you ever turn into a man, let me know.

#88 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

I always thought you were into the 14-17 crowd. But maybe you attend those high school wrestling matches because you're a genuine fan of the sport.

Fact is, there have been, are, and always will be moral norms.

Like slavery?

Polygamy?

Cops in KKK garb lynching "uppitty" blacks?

Making race mingling being against the law?

Anti-sodomy and oral sex laws?

Some "moral norms" are immoral and need to change.

See: Yourself in a mirror sometimes.

Be Well.

"But maybe you attend those high school wrestling matches because you're a genuine fan of the sport."

Sweetie:

A man is a work in progress until he's fifty.

#91 | Posted by dethspud

+30 for style and sentiment
-50 for not staying on topic.

until he's fifty.

I could fly my P Baron when I was 50 sweetlips.

A man is a work in progress until he's fifty.

#92 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

I guess you could apply that to fine-tuning your skill on picking up high school boys.

A man is a work in progress until he's fifty.

Spud just turned 49 last week so ...getting a real kick, etc.

1 more year and Spud'll finally be cooked!

Should Spud stick a toothpick in his belly to ascertain whether the process is quite complete?

Or is that cake?

Mmmm cake!

^__^

Be Well.

"But maybe you attend those high school wrestling matches because you're a genuine fan of the sport."

Oh, high school boys are easy to spot.

High-profile homophobes are always hanging around them in raincoats.

Uhhhh okey dokey.

On that note, I'm going to jump in the shower, wash my perfectly sculpted ass, then head out and grab some drinks.

Nite all.

"On that note, I'm going to jump in the shower, wash my perfectly sculpted ass, then head out and grab some drinks."

That could not have sounded gayer if you'd added, "Hi sailor - new in town?"

On that note, I'm going to jump in the shower, wash my perfectly sculpted ass, then head out and grab some drinks and give some head and grab some ass.

Nite all.

#98 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-03 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag

#99 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Sorry, I have a bad habit of saying shit that people want to hear. Its a habit I picked up after 4 1/2 years of hard Army living.

#100 | Posted by nullifidian at 2012-02-03 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Wishes he had options.

"Sorry, I have a bad habit of saying shit that people want to hear."

Couldn't prove it by me.

American2Ply sure is concerned about the state of butt fucking in America.

Wow I am now very proud of my State of WA.
Good going except for those cowardly Dems that voted against this.
they are just as big if not bigger cowards then americanPLY.
OH MY GOD THE HOMOS WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED NOW SOME HOW MY MARRIAGE MEANS NOTHING TO ME NOW.
yes there might be a few gay folks that might try to sue a church to force them to marry them and when those lawsuits fail that will be the end of that.
Trust me the vast majority of Gays do not want to be married in a Church that hates them.

"SOME HOW MY MARRIAGE MEANS NOTHING TO ME NOW."

The only thing that makes sense to me is that it bothers him that he now has other options to choose from. As if keeping gay marriage illegal was the only thing keeping him from getting into a gay marriage. And Mrs. 2Ply knows she's on notice.

""they are just as big if not bigger cowards then americanPLY.""
yup, big damn coward. If you were to see me in a room, you would definetly point and say, "Hey, look at the big coward." Now, back to the original point.

The Washington legislature was convened to solve the budget shortfall. Given the fact that the state's civil union statute is gay-marriage all but in name, there was really no need or justification for pursuing the topic, it was a sidestep.

I heard them talking about this over the radio a month ago. The governor is going to have to make some very unpopular cuts and she did this to glaze over the unpopular issue, which is raising taxes and cutting assistance for lower income residents. You idiots want to be bamboozled, that's your business. I dont care what you do or how you throw away your life. You can marry that hole in the wall with the mouthbreather on the other end, doesnt affect me one bit. Im not a resident of Washington, nor do I expect to be here longer than a year.

Bottom line is, this gay marriage vote was a stunt to distract the voters from the more important issue, the budget. It obviously worked.

""And Mrs. 2Ply knows she's on notice.""

She's always known to keep the floors clean, the food hot, and that ass ready, or else. Gay marriage hasnt changed a thing in the 2ply household.

Trust me the vast majority of Gays do not want to be married in a Church that hates them.
#105 | Posted by PunchyPossum
Yea, they want to marry a building that loves them.