This is why the state are SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

I certainly wouldnt want my state saying this crap.

Why do you care?

On to the SCOTUS.

This is why the state are SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

A mountain of precedent begs to differ, fuckwit. States can do what they like up to the point where it violates federal law or the US constitution.

"States rights" has become a euphemism for "give a region filled with backwater morons unlimited leeway to impose their idiocy on the unwilling".

Ness, anyone with empathy toward "the least among us" would care - like Jesus would. Its about time the USA's constitutional protections be applied fairly like this. Good for the Federal Ct and good for CA!

Why do you care?

#2 | Posted by ness_gadol

It's called values. Liberals dont have them, so I understand.

"States rights" has become a euphemism for "give a region filled with backwater morons unlimited leeway to impose their idiocy on the unwilling".

The "unwilling" can move to another buttfucking state like Cali and be with idiots like them. Or would people like me in cali be considered the "unwilling"?

Why do you care?

#2 | Posted by ness_gadol

It's called values. Liberals dont have them, so I understand.

#6 | Posted by boaz

Your values are that two people who love each other cannot have that love legally recognized only because the two have the same gender.

SOOOO your values are all about hating certain people over something that has no impact on you.

Might shitty values you have

as if that is a surprise

This is why the state are SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.
I certainly wouldnt want my state saying this crap.

WTF are you talking about?

Anyway, this wasn't some state court's ruling - this is the decision of a panel composed of federal appeals court judges.

Or would people like me in cali be considered the "unwilling"?

Last I checked, bozo, no one is forcing you to marry another dude and take it up the shitpipe.

Your freedom is not impacted in the slightest.

Last I checked, bozo, no one is forcing you to marry another dude and take it up the shitpipe.

Your freedom is not impacted in the slightest.

#10 | Posted by Dr_Icepick

forced?? NOOOOOO

It's called values. Liberals dont have them, so I understand.

#6 | Posted by boaz at 2012-02-07 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Says the socialist that chose a socialist lifestyle over a capitalist lifestyle, yet would deny socialist programs for others.

Your values start with hypocrisy.

There is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. It is a state's issue.

California passed a constitutional amendment for marriage to be one man and one woman.

Of course the 9th circus would vote this way.

Now they can have the entire 9th circus vote on it or go to the SCOTUS.

It's called values. Liberals dont have them, so I understand.

Your "values" are an antiquated joke.

All you can do is sit down, shut up, and enjoy the spectacle of their inexorable slide down the rubbish chute of history. You have front-row seats.

There is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. It is a state's issue.

California passed a constitutional amendment for marriage to be one man and one woman.

Of course the 9th circus would vote this way.

Now they can have the entire 9th circus vote on it or go to the SCOTUS.

#13 | Posted by MURPHY at 2012

Commerce clause dumbass.

Or perhaps you could explain how marriage is not involved in commerce (ie contracts)

"SOOOO your values are all about hating certain people over something that has no impact on you."

If it has no impact on me, then why do they need my vote? As far as I know, they are trying to selfishly get enough people to change what has traditionally been the norm for thousands of years...

My values state marriage is between a man and a woman. Not some tranny and confused bi-boy. Obviously yours and many others pretend your values have clauses.

Fuck you Buffalo BoOB..

Anyway,

I dont want my kids exposed to the gay lifestyle. That means I dont want my kids to see two men doing their hedonistic lifestyle in public. I dont want them seeing a naked man in public.

That's why I dont live in California. But the gays in California want to force their lifestyle on me and make me accept it.

I will not, as most of the rest of the U.S. has repeately told gays..

That state wanted to ban gay marriage, who is the rest of the U.S. to tell them not to?

You GAYS dont like it, move to a GAY state...

or how a marriage is limited to the state?

can partners not work in one state and live in a different state?

Can partners not live in different states?

Can partners not have property in two different states?

can partners not move?

can partners not travel?

All you can do is sit down, shut up, and enjoy the spectacle of their inexorable slide down the rubbish chute of history. You have front-row seats.

If it wasnt so true Icepick, it would be funny...

"As far as I know, they are trying to selfishly get enough people to change what has traditionally been the norm for thousands of years..."

Sounds like Virginia, c. 1958.

"I dont(sic) want my kids exposed to the gay lifestyle. "

So much for Rock Hudson movies.

What a fucking moron.

"SOOOO your values are all about hating certain people over something that has no impact on you."

If it has no impact on me, then why do they need my vote? As far as I know, they are trying to selfishly get enough people to change what has traditionally been the norm for thousands of years...

TH: they dont need your vote dumbass. The SCOTUS SHOULD guarantee their rights, with absolutely zero effort on your part.

My values state marriage is between a man and a woman. Not some tranny and confused bi-boy. Obviously yours and many others pretend your values have clauses.

#16 | Posted by crispee_oc

TH: Your obsession with what other people do in the privacy of their own home is telling.

Truthhurts,

#18, I'm sure they can, but they have to respect the culture of the state. Here, they are not. People have strong opinions on how they want to live and raise a family. I dont want mine next to gays living like nature intended for them to be gay. It's wrong. Period.

I will never accept the gay lifestyle as normal. And I suspect a majority of the U.S. wont either.

TH: Your obsession with what other people do in the privacy of their own home is telling.

But they arent "in the privacy of their own homes", are they?

Arent they walking naked down main street SF? Are they walking nude down the streets engaging in sex acts in SF? Arent they trying to get gay lifestyle's taught in schools in alot of schools in the Nation?

Commerce clause dumbass.

Or perhaps you could explain how marriage is not involved in commerce (ie contracts)

Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 01:32 PM | Reply

When I first read it, I was thinking you were referencing your mail order bride.

Fuck you Buffalo BoOB..

TH: Gee boaz is that a proposition?

Anyway,

I dont want my kids exposed to the gay lifestyle.
That means I dont want my kids to see two men doing their hedonistic lifestyle in public. I dont want them seeing a naked man in public.

TH: Then dont, why do you need a nanny state? Of course gay marriage bans will have zero impact on your kids exposure to a gay lifestyle (Whatever that is btw). Most states prevent nudity in public, so there you go, you should be happy now.

That's why I dont live in California. But the gays in California want to force their lifestyle on me and make me accept it.

TH: Boaz, calm down, no gay man in his right mind WANTS you. Some being such a narcisist, not everything is about you. You dont have to accept it btw. You have that choice. You may have to recognize gay people's marriages when they are legalized. But, really, how much could that impact YOU.

I will not, as most of the rest of the U.S. has repeately told gays..

TH: and fewer and fewer people every year.

That state wanted to ban gay marriage, who is the rest of the U.S. to tell them not to?

TH: When the ban is against the Constitution? everything.

You GAYS dont like it, move to a GAY state...

#17 | Posted by boaz

TH: Something tells me YOU live in a gay state.

"Or perhaps you could explain how marriage is not involved in commerce (ie contracts)"

Most states consider a marriage a union to avoid breach of contract lawsuits.

You know the funny thing is that if the gay agenda just pushed for equal rights under civil unions across the country then there would be no problem. But it is not now and never was about equal rights.

Sounds like Virginia, c. 1958.
#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 01:36 PM |

Really? Thousands of years of no interracial marriage? You would be brilliant if you can provide that proof. While you are looking, maybe you will come across the hundreds of attempts to make gay marriage the norm in the last thousand or so years where it has failed in almost all walks of life...

Truthhurts,

#18, I'm sure they can,

TH: Thus the SCOTUS is appropriate and inevitably will find that gay people cannot be discriminated against.

but they have to respect the culture of the state.

TH: Cultures change but irregardless are irrelevant WRT to the law.

Here, they are not. People have strong opinions on how they want to live and raise a family.

TH: and they should keep their opinions to themselves. Mind their own fucking business.

I dont want mine next to gays living like nature intended for them to be gay.

TH: like nature intended for them HAHAAHAHAHA, what a gay couple do in the privacy of their own home is no less against nature than the freaky shit done by many heterosexual couples.

It's wrong. Period.

TH: YOU may THINK it wrong, but right and wrong has nothing to do with the legality of the issue. Cause many people think it is not wrong and there is only precedent.

I will never accept the gay lifestyle as normal.

TH: Seriously and with all honesty, who gives a fuck.

And I suspect a majority of the U.S. wont either.

#23 | Posted by boaz

TH: and again fewer and fewer every day.

That's ok, Boaz. You and people like you will die off sooner than later.

TH: Your obsession with what other people do in the privacy of their own home is telling.

But they arent "in the privacy of their own homes", are they?

Arent they walking naked down main street SF?

TH: your ignorance is obviously impacting your opinions.

Are they walking nude down the streets engaging in sex acts in SF?

TH: if they are then they are breaking existing laws.

Arent they trying to get gay lifestyle's taught in schools in alot of schools in the Nation?

TH: Gay lifestyle? What the fuck does that mean? There gay football players, firefighters and soldiers. Are they not living a gay lifestyle? You ignorance is just fear personified.

#24 | Posted by boaz at

"Or perhaps you could explain how marriage is not involved in commerce (ie contracts)"

Most states consider a marriage a union to avoid breach of contract lawsuits.

#27 | Posted by salamandagator

Never been divorced I see.

TH: Your obsession with what other people do in the privacy of their own home is telling.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 01:37 PM

Yet you ignorance and emotions seem run your life and do battle. On one hand you support homos getting married, on the other you are too fucking stupid to recognize it includes all freaks of nature such as the scenario I posted upthread.

"While you are looking, maybe you will come across the hundreds of attempts to make gay marriage the norm in the last thousand or so years where it has failed in almost all walks of life..."

Rest your banner on inequality if you choose.

And in the meantime, see if you can find the actual definition of the word "norm".

TH: Your obsession with what other people do in the privacy of their own home is telling.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 01:37 PM

Yet you ignorance and emotions seem run your life and do battle. On one hand you support homos getting married, on the other you are too fucking stupid to recognize it includes all freaks of nature such as the scenario I posted upthread.

#34 | Posted by crispee_oc

and you dont think there are "freaks of nature" in the homosexual community?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I dont want my kids exposed to the gay lifestyle.

Tough shit. The "gay lifestyle" exists as a part of society. You do not have the right to control the content of society. You do have the right to isolate yourself from it. If you do not want your kids to be exposed to society's perceived evils, you will need to sever your ties with the outside world. Most likely, your kids will conclude that you're a fucking nutcase. If you want to avoid that, you'll need to take a page from cult leaders and homeschoolers.

Convince your children that the outside world is evil only a spiritual leader can be trusted. Make your children utterly dependent on you, so they cannot investigate the outside world for themselves. Cast yourselves as heroic figures in a world of religious fantasy. Deny your children access to accurate information, so you can replace it with information that reinforces the delusional reality you are attempting to construct.

And most of all, pray. Pray that your children were born as stupid as their father. Only then will you have a chance.

"Really? Thousands of years of no interracial marriage?"

No, just similar backwater bigotry.

#33

In the middle of one right now.
And coming from a judge and lawyers most states specifically deny that marriage is a contract.

Arent they walking naked down main street SF?

No.

Are they walking nude down the streets engaging in sex acts in SF?
No. Hard to do when walking anyway.

Arent they trying to get gay lifestyle's taught in schools in alot of schools in the Nation?

No. What is the "gay lifestyle" anyway? Gays are trying to get equality taught in schools, and trying to end bigor=try against gays. It is called freedom. Something a socialist parasite such as yourself knows little about. Bringing your shildren up to be bigots should be considered child abuse. Hopefully one of your kids will be gay. Then you can tell them what a freak they are.

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2012-02-07 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag

While you are looking, maybe you will come across the hundreds of attempts to make gay marriage the norm in the last thousand or so years where it has failed in almost all walks of life...

It's called values. Liberals dont have them, so I understand.

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2012-02-07 01:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Dipshit regards discrimination as a value.

Figures. You are a righty, so I understand.

And coming from a judge and lawyers most states specifically deny that marriage is a contract.

#39 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-07 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is absolutely a contract. A legal document and a legal binding of two people. Where is your link to your idiotic claim?

#33

In the middle of one right now.
And coming from a judge and lawyers most states specifically deny that marriage is a contract.

#39 | Posted by salamandagator

A pile of shit by any other name, smells just the same

"most states specifically deny that marriage is a contract."

Then most states are idiots. Marriage, at its legal root, is a contract conferring superseding rights to one person. The legal problem stems from allowing one group, over here, to enter into those protective and advantageous contracts, while not allowing another group, over there, access to the same protections.

and you dont think there are "freaks of nature" in the homosexual community?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 01:50 PM |

Are you channeling Zed right now? Did that actually go over your naive head? You couldn't even figure out I was calling you stupid as a rock for not understanding the implications of what you want to see happen, and you trump that stupidity with some useless lame comparison to the homo community? What part of freaks was too much for you to comprehend?

#44

There are a great many reasons they define it as a union. And like i said the biggest one is to remove liability for a breach of contract and make it closer to painless to get a divorce. A remnant of the "do whatever makes you feel good" mentality.

Bigots get p'owned yet again.

As someone not entirely familiar with Prop 8, I was surprised to learn today that both before and after the passage of Prop 8, gheys in California still had the right to raise children, become foster parents, share community property, file joint state tax returns, participate in a partner's group health policy, etc., by virtue of the state's domestic partnership laws. Prop 8 literally only prevents them from calling it "marriage." This lawsuit is about the right to use a word, and strikes me as rather frivolous.

That said, I'm happy with the ruling, because any attempt to marginalize gheys is a waste of everyone's time. STFU about it already.

"There are a great many reasons they define it as a union."

Any other examples of a "union" getting special rights reserved only for them?

"Prop 8 literally only prevents them from calling it "marriage." This lawsuit is about the right to use a word, and strikes me as rather frivolous."

That's because the lawsuit is about something much larger, like forcing the SC to finally tell America if gays are equal citizens or not.

gee you're dumb
#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 01:52 PM

Of course I am truthy... Let's see where? I bring up thousands of years, and you counter with since 2001. Which of course includes a whopping 12 amongst the societies as mentioned.

While you are looking, maybe you will come across the hundreds of attempts to make gay marriage the norm in the last thousand or so years where it has failed in almost all walks of life...
#29 | Posted by crispee_oc

Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide...:
#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 01:52 PM |

Has anyone noticed the decline of our culture and nation has been commensurate with the rise of liberalism? I thought things were supposed to get better with progressivism..

"Marriage, at its legal root, is a contract conferring superseding rights to one person."

I agree, but you cannot have a contract dissolved by one party alone without breach and that breach would result in penalty for the offending party. And sadly enough people seem to want to be able to exit a marriage for any reason they see fit without penalty.

But I also see marriage as two parts, one legal and the other social. Like i said earlier the legal aspect and the social aspect. And while you may be required under law to offer the same benefits(although i do not believe that it is a constitutional issue) you can not force society to embrace it. If it were just about rights this issue would be a completely different animal but it is all about using the government to forcefully legitimize a group of peoples agenda to a populace that does not want it.

That's because the lawsuit is about something much larger, like forcing the SC to finally tell America if gays are equal citizens or not.

They already did that in Romer v. Evans. The SC case isn't going to change the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"Any other examples of a "union" getting special rights reserved only for them?"

Again a contract would fall under business law and that would be devastating financially and with regard to custody issues for someone who does not want to continue a marriage.

Has anyone noticed the decline of our culture and nation has been commensurate with the rise of liberalism? I thought things were supposed to get better with progressivism..

#52 | Posted by boaz

hahahaha,

yeah liberalism like the founding of the country, the winning of the civil war, the founding of SS to secure the retirement of countless seniors, winning WW2

yeah that decline,

gee you're dumb

like forcing the SC to finally tell America

The SC shouldnt be "telling" America anything. That's the problem. Liberals love for ONE authoratative source to speak and command them and everyone around them.

liberalism like the founding of the country, the winning of the civil war, the founding of SS to secure the retirement of countless seniors

And if you brought up these asinine issues of today to those who founded the country, won the civil war and were alive during the 30's and 40's, how do you think they would have reacted to gays going wild? I dont think they would have the same view you would. Matter of fact, I bet gays would have been banned in the constitution if it were brought up to our fore-fathers...

the winning of the civil war, the founding of SS to secure the retirement of countless seniors, winning WW2

yeah that decline,

gee you're dumb

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's liberal about those (Jeffersonian liberalism, that is. Not Stalin/Hitleresque liberalism)?

boaz strikes me as someone who is completely ignorant of the life of homosexuals. His opinions are laced with fears over naked men running through the streets, sex in the streets and the undefinable "gay lifestyle"

The reality for homosexuals is that life is no different from heterosexuals, they live, they work, they play. 99% of their life is indistinguishable from heteros. yes that 1% if flamboyant (ie a gay pride parade), but come on! that is nothing and easily avoided.

I think of a boy on my son's pee wee football team. He is the child of two gay men. He is a nice well adjusted young man, his fathers, though certainly not "football fans" allow their child to choose his interests and really the only thing different about their son and mine is he will probably grow up with a far better sense of style!

Boaz, seriously, do yourself a favor and watch a few episodes of Modern Family. They have a gay couple in the show and you will see that the gay couple just face normal everyday couple problems, one is neat the other sloppy, conflicts over parents, children etc. You might just learn that gay people are just like you except they love a different gender than you.

And if you cant handle the gays at least you will have Sofia Vergara to watch

And if you brought up these asinine issues of today to those who founded the country, won the civil war and were alive during the 30's and 40's, how do you think they would have reacted to gays going wild? I dont think they would have the same view you would.

How do you think they would have reacted to blacks voting?

Matter of fact, I bet gays would have been banned in the constitution if it were brought up to our fore-fathers...

As a matter of fact, the constitution specifically permits enslavement of blacks.

Thank goodness we decided to break with tradition and redefine the meaning of the word "citizen".

And if you brought up these asinine issues of today to those who founded the country, won the civil war and were alive during the 30's and 40's, how do you think they would have reacted to gays going wild? I dont think they would have the same view you would. Matter of fact, I bet gays would have been banned in the constitution if it were brought up to our fore-fathers...

#57 | Posted by boaz at

no dumbass you were the one who expressed the opinion that liberalism was somehow a modern concept and timed with some sort of collapse of western civilization.

I was merely pointing out that a. liberalism is far older than that, b. was the basis for the founding of our county and c. integral in numerous successes throughout our history.

#60 | Posted by Dr_Icepick

Funny how if the Civil War had not happened and those states who wished to suceed could have, this would not have been a problem. Then those northern states would have done what they wanted and the south would have remained like they wanted to be. But in reality, the north couldnt do without the income the south made in trading. See, it's all about funding a socialist ideals. As I have always said before, a conservative can live without the liberal, but the liberal needs other conservatives to contribute so the liberal can be....Your socialist programs need my tax dollars..

So TH,

you are saying our country hasnt declined morally and culturally since the 60's?

#63
Morality is subjective.

Funny how if the Civil War had not happened and those states who wished to suceed could have, this would not have been a problem. Then those northern states would have done what they wanted and the south would have remained like they wanted to be. But in reality, the north couldnt do without the income the south made in trading. See, it's all about funding a socialist ideals. As I have always said before, a conservative can live without the liberal, but the liberal needs other conservatives to contribute so the liberal can be....Your socialist programs need my tax dollars..
#62 | Posted by boaz

1. When it comes to history, Boaz, let's just say it's not your strong suit.

2. If that had happened, you'd be either (a) working in a cotton field or (b) wiping massa's ass up in the big house.

So TH,

you are saying our country hasnt declined morally and culturally since the 60's?

#63 | Posted by boaz

in some ways yes and some ways no.

next question?

and i find it hilarious that a black man would look fondly back to the pre social revolution days of the 1960s, absolutely fucking hilarious.

So uncle tom, you think segregation was more moral that MLKs dream?

#59 | Posted by truthhurts

Ok TH,

I guess we are going to have to disagree on this. I will never see the gay lifestyle as being normal. I dont give a fuck if a gay couple has the next president of the U.S. It's not right for gays to marry, it's not right to have a child raised in a gay household. The family unit should be a man and a woman. Period.

I dont want my kids exposed to that. Because it isnt right. Do I know gay people? Yes I do. Do I interact with gays? Yes I do. Matter of fact, my best friend whom I have know since we were 5 years old is gay and has a "partner". Cool. Whatever. Doesnt make it right.

integral in numerous successes throughout our history.

Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 02:16 PM | Reply

Except you neglect to mention that "liberalism" in 1791 had the opposite meaning that "liberalism" does today.

The problem with labels is that they are highly inaccurate and pertain to anything the author wishes to attach them too.

Sounds like you are all arguing over the definition of what "is" is.

2. If that had happened, you'd be either (a) working in a cotton field or (b) wiping massa's ass up in the big house.

3. Wearing a dress and a wig up at Monticello and calling himself, "Sally".

2. If that had happened, you'd be either (a) working in a cotton field or (b) wiping massa's ass up in the big house.

#65 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-07 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cuz we all know slavery in no way could have ended peacably, EVER!

You argument is an illogical false choice Doc. Phail.

So uncle tom..
#66 | Posted by truthhurts

Whoa! Is that even within the TOS here?
I sure hope you aren't one of those whiny little shits that screams racism when we disagree with bungholio.

-Your socialist programs need my tax dollars

Isn't it a fact that Red States get more than they give?

true to an extent sheeple but untrue also. The concept of liberty I believe hasnt changed and is a basic premise of today's liberalism-individual liberty-many believe protected by or from the state. The BoR is pure liberalism at work. Liberalism today is (often government) protecting the individual.

This is why the state are SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

I certainly wouldnt want my state saying this crap.

#1 | Posted by boaz

Maybe the individual states should decide to go back to white and colored water fountains, if that's the way you feel, eh?

Too bad you are clueless about equal treatment under the law, for all, not matter the race, color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

That's why it was ruled unconstitutional, as in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Or maybe you are just a bigot and you personally should be held in contempt.

So uncle tom..
#66 | Posted by truthhurts

Whoa! Is that even within the TOS here?
I sure hope you aren't one of those whiny little shits that screams racism when we disagree with bungholio.

#71 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

no, not at all, I generally stay out of racism discussions and I admittedly was trying to get under boaz's skin with the Uncle Tom comment and for that I apologize. The point stands though.

Ok TH,

I guess we are going to have to disagree on this. I will never see the gay lifestyle as being normal. I dont give a fuck if a gay couple has the next president of the U.S. It's not right for gays to marry, it's not right to have a child raised in a gay household. The family unit should be a man and a woman. Period.

I dont want my kids exposed to that. Because it isnt right. Do I know gay people? Yes I do. Do I interact with gays? Yes I do. Matter of fact, my best friend whom I have know since we were 5 years old is gay and has a "partner". Cool. Whatever. Doesnt make it right.

#67 | Posted by boaz

I will refrain from any number of nasty comments, except to say that it is a real shame that having a friend who is gay has not enlightened you at all. Of course, you clearly dont accept this person for who they are so one wonders how truly they are your friend. I could not be a friend with someone who thought of me that way.

Your socialist programs need my tax dollars..

#62 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2012-02-07 02:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Bozo keeps digging his ignorance hole.

-Your socialist programs need my tax dollars

Isn't it a fact that Red States get more than they give?

#72 | Posted by Corky

shhhh corky you will cause cognitive dissonance to all those red state republican voters who dont quite realize they are voting against their own economic self interest.

Liberalism today is (often government) protecting the individual.

#73 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Often seems more like the feds and states and counties and cities competing for control of the people from the arguments I see on here.

"And if you brought up these asinine issues of today to those who founded the country, won the civil war"
Do you have any idea how idiotic your post was? Your post was actually an argument for the progressive view that over time things which were accepted in one era are considered completely immoral in another.

"Whatever. Doesnt make it right."
Your prejudice doesn't make it wrong either.

Over at Volokh, they seem to think that the SCOUTS won't be deciding on gay marriage as a whole, and it will just be remanded to give public perception a few more years before it goes back for cert. Think they're on to something- I think this is just going to be really anti-climactic.

I will refrain from any number of nasty comments, except to say that it is a real shame that having a friend who is gay has not enlightened you at all.

#76 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-02-07 02:29 PM

I could not be a friend with someone who thought of me that way.

#76 | Posted by truthhurts

Me and this guy have been friends for close to 35 years. I actually dont care that he's gay. I love him non-the less. BUT, that being said, I would not vote for him and his gay lover to adopt a kid.

I can love the guy and still not approve of his lifestyle..

I'll bet his friend has "enlightened" him more than once.

#83 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

LOL, stupid ass....

#56 | Posted by truthhurts

gee you're dumb
-------------
Social Security loses money, so calling someone dumb who criticizes a bad investment is just TFF.

There is a reason why S.S. is forced on the public because no one would invest in it if it were voluntary.

LOL, stupid ass....

#85 | Posted by boaz at 2012-02-07 03:01 PM

"Social Security loses money, so calling someone dumb who criticizes a bad investment is just TFF."
Advice: Don't call anyone else dumb. Social Security has put away trillions in assets, it is solvent until approximately 2036 even if we change nothing about SS except let the payroll tax extension expire.

#78 | Posted by truthhurts
Your socialist programs need my tax dollars
Isn't it a fact that Red States get more than they give?
#72 | Posted by Corky shhhh corky you will cause cognitive dissonance to all those red state republican voters who dont quite realize they are voting against their own economic self interest.
------------------
The biggest % of outlays by the federal government go to seniors, most seniors go south to retire, because it's not run by liberals. Whether they have S.S or not seniors will still go south to retire, because it's not run by liberals.

As for other economic interest the Southern economies would fare much better if the federal government were not in the way. A perfect example would be the Keystone pipeline project; the south would build it in a NY minute.

That said, the south loses far more in economic activity then they gain from the pennies they get from the federal government.

"That said, the south loses far more in economic activity then they gain from the pennies they get from the federal government."

Do you just type random words or what? That last statement is absolutely ridiculous. It isn't even slightly true.

"I agree, but you cannot have a contract dissolved by one party alone without breach and that breach would result in penalty for the offending party."

Nonsense. You can include a clause in the contract. I know: call it no-fault divorce!

BOAZ -

"Nonsense. You can include a clause in the contract. I know: call it no-fault divorce!"

So you want a contract that has no binding effect?

So,
"Party A agrees to abide by said provisions until a time whereas party a or b no longer feels like it"

Remind me never to have you write up a contract for me.

"So you want a contract that has no binding effect?"

Look, call it what you want. Whatever it is, to offer it to one group, but deny it to another group, is unequal.

"Party A agrees to abide by said provisions until a time whereas party a or b no longer feels like it"

Sounds like the current state of marriage. And aren't there penalties, as you put it...like, say, alimony?

"Whatever it is, to offer it to one group, but deny it to another group, is unequal."

I believe that the right should be extended, but the social aspect and the term should be up to society. Separating the legal aspect from the societal completely. Again, it is not about rights, if all the gays wanted was equal rights under the law i am sure society would give them to them but asking for an embracement as opposed to tolerance and asking the government to force it upon us is what is prohibiting the granting of those rights.

"Sounds like the current state of marriage. And aren't there penalties, as you put it...like, say, alimony?"

Alimony is not a penalty and does not usually consider cause, at least in most no fault states. If it were to be that the offending party had to compensate the offender because of their actions then it would be a penalty.

#93 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

No one enters a marriage based on commercial pretenses. The contract is present and it is legally binding.

A useful starting point is to think of marriage as a contract between two parties
and divorce as resulting from breach of contract, although it should be noted
that marriage predated the development of contract. A purely contractual
starting point would be modern, although contractual elements are present in
the case law (Lloyd Cohen, 1987, p. 270). A contractual approach is also
capable of considerable sophistication and it is unhelpful to dismiss it out of
hand, particularly where inherently economic issues like asset division are at
stake...
Lloyd Cohen (1987) describes marriage as an unusual contract in which the
parties exchange promises of spousal support, where the value of the support
is crucially dependent on the attitude with which it is delivered.

"No one enters a marriage based on commercial pretenses."
Plenty do, ever hear of a marriage of convenience? essentially lowering the overhead and increasing profits.

As to your link,
It is the opinion of a professor and even states that it is merely a way to think of it. On top of that it is from england and is not indicative of our laws.

The State courts, for the most part, do not consider it a contract based on the fact that it would fall under a set of laws that would enable civil lawsuits to be filed against an offending spouse. I wish it was not that way and that people would be held accountable for their actions but that would make divorce harder and force personal responsibility onto people and modern society can not tolerate that.

#97 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

I just want to get this straight. You support equality in marriage, but simply argue the contractual basis of a marriage?

On top of that it is from england and is not indicative of our laws.
#97 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Oh really?

The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[15] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[16] and general search warrants.[17]

As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[18] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[19]

most states specifically deny that marriage is a contract.
#39 | Posted by salamandagator
The State courts, for the most part, do not consider it a contract
#97 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

So then you acknowledge there are states that consider marriage a legally binding contract, no?

If so, why not just state that as your opinion and call it a day? I doubt you will convince anyone otherwise at the rate you offer above.

#99

Our law is based in a lot of English common law but English law hold no weight in our courts. It is only the laws we have derived from them that matter.

#98
I do not support gay marriage, i support equal rights to them but that does not contain the term marriage. I believe that the individual rights should be extended but the societal portion of marriage should be left up to society. Society does not embrace gay marriage, but much of it does, like me, support the rights it grants. Because of this the gay marriage issue is one that falls into my against column. Each time it is brought up it only becomes clearer that it not about equal rights at all. Take Washington, where i live, they had existing civil union laws that granted gay couples the exact same rights as marriage under state law. Recently the law was changed and gay marriage is allowed. Obviously it was not about rights on equality but about societal acceptance and embracement and to have the government force that on socity is just wrong.

"So then you acknowledge there are states that consider marriage a legally binding contract, no?"

There are still states that have an at fault option. I have not looked into how their laws are worded. But as such there is no state that does not have a no fault option.

Along those lines, i would have to believe that a state that considers it a contract would not allow a party to leave said contract if the other party has not breached it and does not wish to dissolve it. To me if a contract can be dissolved by either party for any reason without consent of the other party then it is really no contract at all.

"I doubt you will convince anyone otherwise at the rate you offer above."

Like i said if the law does not consider divorce a breach of contract then it cannot be a contract.

Obviously it was not about rights on equality but about societal acceptance and embracement and to have the government force that on socity is just wrong.
#101 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

This doesn't make any sense. Even if your conspiracy theory is correct, how can anyone be forced to accept anything? Your view of what is or isn't acceptable is not determined by the government. Even if this issue is maintained by the SCOTUS, you will still maintain your views - homosexuality is not acceptable.

Just to the same that you may view gambling unacceptable, or prostitution unacceptable, the rights afforded by those individuals in Nevada have no bearing on you or your views.

The idea that this decision imposes anything on anybody is simply ridiculous and borderline chicken-little status.

The sky is not falling, Sal. You can live your life anyway you like. This decision makes no bearing on that fact. Be rest assured. And your welcome.

"Obviously it was not about rights on equality but about societal acceptance and embracement and to have the government force that on socity is just wrong."

Were you black, Native American, handicapped, or a woman you might have a different opinion about that.

"if the law does not consider divorce a breach of contract then it cannot be a contract."

Is this really about the semantics of wording?

How do you reconcile preferential treatment offered to one group, but not another?

"Because of this the gay marriage issue is one that falls into my against column. Each time it is brought up it only becomes clearer that it not about equal rights at all."

IOW, you lesser people, drink at that drinking fountain...it's all the same!

To me if a contract can be dissolved by either party for any reason without consent of the other party then it is really no contract at all.
#102 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Than we are arguing about semantics. Some are able to accept the idea of marriage as a contract beside its unusual nature. Although marriage has not always had this unusual nature.

If no-fault divorce is the basis of your argument, than you would have to agree that the idea marriage is not a contract is a relatively new concept. Prior to no-fault divorce decision, was marriage still not considered a contract?

#105. what's interesting is that they used rational scrutiny, not intermediate or strict scrutiny in their analysis. so, they are not equating sexual preference to skin color.

People should be able to marry as many people as they want.

They should allow hundreds of people to marry each other.

There should be no limits to how many.

OR

Change the laws of beneficiary. My life insurance allows me to pick my beneficiaries. The law shouldn't dictate that it goes to a spouse but to the person(s) I name.

If I'm stupid enough not to name someone, let it go to next of kin or the State.

If I want more people under my insurance, then I should be allowed to include them and pay for them, too.

IMO, I have no problems changing the rules regarding how benefits are distributed. It should have nothing to do with marriage and have all to do with naming everybody I want (percentages given)

"Your view of what is or isn't acceptable is not determined by the government."

No, but my views have nothing to do with my argument. It is the views as a society that are being infringed upon as we are forced to equate marriage and gay marriage. If a society wishes to accept it as equal then i have no argument against it. That is not the case, it may be approaching a 50/50 split but i doubt that would be the case if my third option was available. As a function of society, the traditional concept of marriage hold a lot of weight for the majority of Americans. To lose societal control over the term to the government is unacceptable.

Drinking age shouldn't be 21.

If I can be drafted at 18, I should be allowed to drink at 18.

I can vote at the age of 18, I can't drink.

I can obtain a license, I can't drink.

The majority believes 18 isn't mature enough to drink - but mature enough to drive, vote, and die for their country.

So, why does the majority get to tell 18 years old that they can't drink?

"Prior to no-fault divorce decision, was marriage still not considered a contract?"

At that point there were penalties, it was also necessary to prove a reason to dissolve a marriage. So it would have been considered a contract or very close to one.

How do you reconcile preferential treatment offered to one group, but not another?"

Come off it, there is no preferential treatment. Everyone has access to the same laws. They are not prevented from anything that you and i are not.

Why does the majority get to choose that only men can be drafted?

Selective Service - 18 years old - men only.

"you lesser people, drink at that drinking fountain...it's all the same!"

The same argument could be made against mens and womens bathrooms.

What a pile of shit. I sign contracts all the time with two-week-notice clauses. They're still contracts.

Ultimately, this is silly semantics. One group is being denied equality because God made them gay. Don't like it? Take it up with the manufacturer.

Age as a defense.
Age of maturity.

Both defined by the majority.

"The same argument could be made against mens and womens bathrooms."

With all due respect...no, it couldn't. If we've learned anything from separate but equal, it's that it's always separate, but never equal.

"Come off it, there is no preferential treatment. Everyone has access to the same laws. They are not prevented from anything that you and i are not."

Of course they are. I got to marry the woman I wanted. You want to deny them equality unless they marry whom YOU want.

So...your advice to a gay woman seeking equal rights is...what, marry a male? You're really going to go with the cruelty response?

Looking over this thread and a lot of other comments around the Internet, it looks a lot like the right doesn't like how the fight it picked is going.

In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) The Court, in finding that Congress lacked the power to compel states to guarantee persons over the age of eighteen to vote in state elections, indicated that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment does not give Congress the power to enforce a broader interpretation of the reach of the 14th Amendment than given by the Supreme Court. Because the Court found the denial of the vote to 18 to 20 years olds not to offend the Equal Protection Clause, Congress lacked the power under Section 5 to legislatively mandate that states allow persons in that age group to vote.

Age discrimination allowed under the 14th Amendment.

"With all due respect...no, it couldn't."

Really?

So one group has to use one set of facilities based on their genetics and the other has their own, and you don't see a direct parallel?

"I sign contracts all the time with two-week-notice clauses."

You can put anything you want in a contract, but if there is a clause that allows the dissolution of that contract for no reason then it is not much of a contract anyways now is it? Most likely i would think that a contract like you state that has exit clauses would be work related as far as end of necessity on an a non finite project or something similar. But if marriage were to be a contract it would have to be specifically written in that there is either a sunset to its validity or that either party can exit for any reason. Technically it would still be a contract, but then again so would an agreement to meet someone scrawled on a bathroom wall with signatures. In a way it is semantics but there are very important differences between the two in the eyes of the law. A breach of contract, unless specific remedies are spelled out in that contract, is susceptible to compensation and civil penalties. A marriage is not.

"I believe that the right should be extended, but the social aspect and the term should be up to society."

In other words, blacks should be allowed to drink, just not from our water fountain until the majority of society agrees.

Federal law- for rifles and shotguns and their ammo is 18, for handguns 21.

Majority Rules.

Too bad 18 year olds. No handguns for you. But, you may bleed your guts out on some godforsaken desert while carrying one.

Thank the majority, and usually the elderly, for screwing your rights and sending you to die on their behalf.

The Constitution sets age limits on members of the House, Senate, and the White House. Yet none seem to be living up to the maturity the majority expected exists.

Majority ruled. Majority sucks.

"Of course they are. I got to marry the woman I wanted."

And so does every other man.

Sorry buddy but it is not about hate or denying right to others as some would have you believe. That is just petty fear mongering, it does not work on me, sorry.

#124

I hope you recycle that pamphlet when you are done parroting poor talking points from it.

Fishing is a right. I shouldn't need a license to fish.

Screw the majority.

The Whole Constitution and its Amendments were all passed by the majority to screw the minority.

#130

Speaking of fishing...

Equal rights for all and not just idiots like Murphy.

"And so does every other man."

Like I said: the cruelty response.

How would you feel if the tables were turned, and the majority gay population told you if you wanted equal rights, you had to marry a guy?

"Sorry buddy but it is not about hate or denying right to others as some would have you believe"

Bullshit. It's ALL about that. You and I have rights we get to take for granted, and you want to deny other those same rights unless they do what you tell them.

Looking over this thread and a lot of other comments around the Internet, it looks a lot like the right doesn't like how the fight it picked is going.

#120 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

too too bad for the Talibaptist Haters. They'll have to come up with a new strategy to impose a Theocracy on Americans.

"I hope you recycle that pamphlet when you are done parroting poor talking points from it."

I hope your IQ reaches double digits some day.

" you had to marry a guy?"

Nobody is forcing marriage on anybody.

"and you want to deny other those same rights unless they do what you tell them."

Please read my comments before assigning me a boogyman under your bed position.

"I hope your IQ reaches double digits some day."

It may, Alzheimer's can strike anyone.

"if there is a clause that allows the dissolution of that contract for no reason then it is not much of a contract anyways now is it?"

Oh, so now the goalposts move from not a contract to not "much" of a contract.

"Please read my comments before assigning me a boogyman under your bed position."

I did. You've basically said for a gay woman to have equal rights, she has to do the equivalent of you marrying a man. Are you pretending you wouldn't be outraged if that were the only deal offered to you?

"Nobody is forcing marriage on anybody."

To get equal rights you are.

#138

Unfamiliar with common vernacular are we?

And obviously you did not. If you want to have a conversation with me please use the scroll bar located to the right of your screen.

Fisting is a right. I shouldn't need a license to fist.

Screw the majority.

#129 | Posted by Petrous at 2012-02-07 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

There, all done.

rwd

"It may, Alzheimer's can strike anyone."

Yeah, but Alzheimers usually drops the IQ.

"obviously you did not."

How else are you offering equal marital rights to a gay woman, other than forcing her to marry a male?

#139

Those poor single people having marriage forced upon them. Lets all just weep a bit for them.
Yeah, forced.

And again, if you are not going to bother to read my opinion i will not bother to respond. I am not the fictional character those who gave you your opinion told you every one who disagrees with is.

But it does not matter, it's my brothers birthday and it is time for me to take him to put some holes in paper.

And why have you avoided the repeated question:

How would you feel if "society" told you the only way you could get equal marital rights was to marry a man?

#142

If you can read, try it.

Bye.

"Yeah, forced."

Gee, and all I have to do is page up to see me saying:
"Of course they are. I got to marry the woman I wanted."

And your response of:
And so does every other man.

IOW, you're telling the gay woman if she wants marital rights, marry a male.

So yeah...forced.

"How would you feel if "society" told you the only way you could get equal marital rights was to marry a man?"

Stop it, i am trying to get out of here.

Ok last time.
I would ask for the rights without the marital status just like i have stated many time already if you had made the effort to read my comments.

But now i truly am leaving, i will close my eyes after i hit post as to avoid being drawn in again so if i miss your apology i am sorry.

#145
Does that post actually have any meaning, other than to give pseudo-cover while you slink away?

"I would ask for the rights without the marital status"

Sorry, can't file federally without the marital status. Can't get SS survivors benefits despite the fact they pay in at the same rate as my wife and I without the marital status. Can't do a thousand other things without jumping through hoops and/or hiring lawyers without the marital status.

But you'd marry a guy to get equality, wouldn't you?

Law should be 100% supported or not passed at all.

Otherwise, the minority, even one person, is screwed.

" if i miss your apology i am sorry."

Too bad you're going to miss my apology:

I'm really, really sorry you're such a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.

#151 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Don't bother. Sal will fall to the wayside of history just like Governor George Wallace.

really Danforth, if you ever decide to join the conversation then you may want to look into what you are arguing against.

but in case you have a browser that does not allow you to read what has been previously posted on this page, which your ignorance of my argument would lead me to believe, let me state it one more time.

I support equal rights for gay couples. I do not support gay marriage. I don't think I can make it any simpler. frankly I don't care to for someone and close minded and intentionally self blinded to feed your bigotry.

You can count on the 9th Circuit. Has it not been the most reversed of all the circuit courts? I take no position on the ins and outs of the law.
I really don't see why the gays and lesbians want to be married anyway. Do not most states allow the same legal and economic benefits?
"Modern thinkers" don't think fathers are needed anyway. Maybe some think mothers are not needed either. I perceive that children with loving and nurturing father and mother have enough problems without adding additional ones to children without those anchors.

"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry," the panel majority said.

Except when taxing the minority.

- The left.

Don't bother. Sal will fall to the wayside of history just like Governor George Wallace.

#152 | Posted by rstybeach11

Followed shortly by the willing slaves of the modern era. Every society has a crashing point, liberalism and the ideology of "Do what thou will" is only bringing it closer. After the morbid mass we call modern culture fizzles out the ones that held proper morals and traditions close will carry the banner forward.

Either that, or the elites will realize that after they have placed the burden of world peace upon their shoulders their appeasement of the common people's inclinations is sucking the strength out of their power base. Right-wing backlashes occur all the time. Imagine how much more efficient the Hitler murder machine would have been if it had digital records available to it.

It was fun listening to Rush get all frothy over this today lol...

"I support equal rights for gay couples. I do not support gay marriage. "

That's like supporting blacks drinking from water fountains, just not yours.

"if you ever decide to join the conversation then you may want to look into what you are arguing against. "

Did you miss the part where you went on record saying a gay woman can get marital rights if she marries a man?

""That's like supporting blacks drinking from water fountains, just not yours.""

Pardon the interjection, but co-opting the legitimacy of a worthy cause doesnt lend creedence to your argument. There is no comparison to the trials of the American black man and the pursuit of financial benefits by the gay community.

"There is no comparison to the trials of the American black man and the pursuit of financial benefits by the gay community."

In one case, the group was treated as second-class citizens. In the other case, the group is treated as second-class citizens.

"and the pursuit of financial benefits "

You mean the financial benefits you get to take for granted but want to deny others? Those "benefits"...?

Leveling the playing field instead of subsidizing bigots?

You mean the financial benefits you get to take for granted but want to deny others? Those "benefits"...?

#160 | Posted by Danforth

You've said that a hundred times. Just because you woke up one day and determined that marriage is "Voila" a constitutional right doesnt make it so. Gays are not treated as second class citizens. They arent forced sit in separate parts of the diner, they have never been in fear of getting harrassed by the cops because they "fit the description".

Gays can own property together, just the same as a straight couple.
Gays can designate an heir.
Gays can designate a power of attorney, general and medical.

No, they cannot file taxes jointly. So damn what. I cant file taxes with my widowed grandmother. I cant assume the responsibilities of caretaker of my widowed grandmother and then claim her social security when she passes away. My relationship with her as her grandson is important. Why should the fact that we arent married and romantic have any bearing on me not receiving her social security when she dies?

Why cant I have a civil union with my non-sexual best friend of the same sex? Why do I have to be fucking him to enjoy the benefits of companionship under the law?

Why cant I have a civil union with my non-sexual best friend of the same sex? Why do I have to be fucking him to enjoy the benefits of companionship under the law? Why would I have to fake homosexuality to receive the benefits if me and my buddy want to have the benefits of marriage without the relationship?

"You've said that a hundred times."

It's been accurate a hundred times.

"Just because you woke up one day and determined that marriage is "Voila" a constitutional right doesnt make it so."

That wasn't me; that was the Supreme Court. 14 times.

"Gays are not treated as second class citizens."

Try making a financial plan for a married couple, and then a gay couple, and you'll soon disagree.

"They arent forced sit in separate parts of the diner, they have never been in fear of getting harrassed by the cops because they "fit the description"."

Don't be a moron. Folks don't have to be treated like total shit to be treated unfairly.

"Gays can own property together, just the same as a straight couple."

But if one inherits, she only does after estate taxes, unlike my wife and me.

"Gays can designate an heir."

But a gay spouse doesn't have automatic first rights to their partner's pensions, unlike my wife and me. Nor are they the automatic heir in the absence of a will, unlike my wife and me.

"Gays can designate a power of attorney, general and medical."

My wife and I already have that, automatically. We don't have to file any papers, and don't have to hire lawyers to do so. Unlike a gay couple, who either have to file papers, hire a lawyer, or, in the case of SS survivor's benefits, can't get no matter what they do. despite the fact they pay in at the same rate as my wife and me.

"No, they cannot file taxes jointly."

There are a lot more differences: only one partner can be the legal parent; they can be forced to testify against each other, there are no unlimited marital gifts, like between my wife and me,

"So damn what."

If you're too stupid to know the advantages of joint filing, there's not enough bandwidth to educate you.

"I cant file taxes with my widowed grandmother..."

And you just bitched about dumbass examples???

"Why cant I have a civil union with my non-sexual best friend of the same sex?"

You can, in a lot of states.

"Why do I have to be fucking him to enjoy the benefits of companionship under the law?"

You don't. But straights have a choice whether to get married and get all the federal and state advantages and protections. Gays don't.

I got my first piece that way Ply. I was like, hey girl, lets just make pretend and stuff.

Next thing, balla bing.

"I cant file taxes with my widowed grandmother..."

And you just bitched about dumbass examples???

Far from a stupid example. If you want to revise the understanding of what a couple is, then all types of relationship should be taken into consideration. Why should love and affection be the basis of having another half?

Second question, mostly rhetorical. How can you argue for fairness and equality by giving tax benefits to someone that has another person's income at his/her disposal? Why do I as someone who CHOOSES to not be involved with someone of either sex be denied tax benefits?

I digress. The tax system in this country is unfair. It is unjust and hypocritical for a person to argue that someone based on income should pay a higher percentage than someone else.

Lobbying for gay marriage based upon a desire for financial gain is immoral. The incentives provided through the tax system are given to make it easier for a man and woman who have chosen to build a home and a family together. A man and a woman marry because nature has brought them together to perpetuate the species. As such, their union benefits society. Handing the benefits of marriage over to gay couples rewards behavior that is contrary to history and the established understanding that it is normal healthy behavior for a person to pursue someone of the opposite gender. It is not common in gay culture for a couple to have children. It is a normal tenet of nature that you have to attract someone of the opposite sex to start an actual family. This is a noble check, and should be kept.

There is no second class gay citizen. While they may not have the same route as a heterosexual couple, they do have the same protections available. If they have to file papers, so be it. Its up to the government to make it easy or difficult to access the legal system.

--------------

''Don't be a moron. Folks don't have to be treated like total shit to be treated unfairly.""

If you are going to draw parallels, they should at least be somewhat similar. Someone not getting a big tax-return doesnt hold a candle to having police dogs set on your children, or being hung from a tree for winking at a white woman.

being hung from a tree for winking at a white woman

Well, there's always being shot, beaten, or dragged behind a pickup truck... but yes, it seems the American redneck forgot how to tie a good noose somewhere around 1974.

"Far from a stupid example."

Only if you want to marry your grandmother.

"How can you argue for fairness and equality by giving tax benefits to someone that has another person's income at his/her disposal? "

You're assuming facts not in evidence. And there are such things as two-earning couples.

"Why do I as someone who CHOOSES to not be involved with someone of either sex be denied tax benefits? "

Because you have the option.

"It is unjust and hypocritical for a person to argue that someone based on income should pay a higher percentage than someone else."

You're only focusing on one aspect, and only a third of the government's revenue. Other taxes are regressive, or, in the case of SS, super-regressive. On top of that, minimum wage workers don't need the SEC quite as much.

"Lobbying for gay marriage based upon a desire for financial gain is immoral. "

Lobbying for gay marriage based upon a desire for equal financial footing is moral. As it is, gays are subsidizing you.

"The incentives provided through the tax system are given to make it easier for a man and woman who have chosen to build a home and a family together. "

Then why not a woman and a woman who build a home and a family together?

"A man and a woman marry because nature has brought them together to perpetuate the species. As such, their union benefits society"

That's a completely bogus argument: you're not about to deny marriage to infertile or post-menopausal couples.

"It is not common in gay culture for a couple to have children."

Yet.

" It is a normal tenet of nature that you have to attract someone of the opposite sex to start an actual family. "

Go fuck yourself. Families with gay parents are just as much a family as the one you grew up in.

"There is no second class gay citizen."

You're clueless.

"While they may not have the same route as a heterosexual couple, they do have the same protections available."

Now you're stupid. I could list protections they can't get.

"If you are going to draw parallels, they should at least be somewhat similar."

In one case, they were treated like second-class citizens. In the other case, they are treated like second-class citizens.

"It is not common in gay culture for a couple to have children."

Yet.
______

And there-in lies the main reason for social conservatives and anyone who genuinely cares about how we progress as a country to oppose gay marriage. Preventing inroads into the family structure by this unsavory model is paramount. Homosexuality is not optimal for building a strong, well-oriented individual. Homosexuality itself comes from having a flawed development. The mechanics of it are dysfunctional.

Men should behave as men. Women, as women. Strong men are providers. They do what is right, they are good at things physical and mechanical. They teach their sons to be upright and brave. They are independent and resourceful. They do not grovel. They place themselves at the service of their family and protect them.

Women are loving and maternal. They build an atmosphere of love and nurturing in the home. They temper their husbands and moderate them. They are the foundation for the home. They teach their daughters to be upright and virtuous.

If someone is gay, they undoubtedly had less than optimal parenting. Making a copy of a bad copy leads to even worse results. The whole concept of alternative lifestyles, even mainstreaming them, creates an atmosphere of ambiguity. It confuses the situation and leads to alot more mistakes. Life indeed is about happiness, but it is also about doing the right thing. It easy to give yourself to impulses, but the fact of the matter is, is that the ones that stay the course, that take the moral and decent path flourish. this country went from a collection of weak, sparsely populated colonies to a world power in a matter of 100 years by serving God and one another. The gay lifestyle is an abandonment of a proven record of success. Its a given that heterosexuals are as complicit in abandoning the wisdom of our forefathers, but taking a step to the left of them only magnifies the problem.

In one case, they were treated like second-class citizens. In the other case, they are treated like second-class citizens.

#169 | Posted by Danforth

No, in one case they were treated like animals, not citizens of any grade. In the other, they simply dont fit the criteria for a legal arrangement.

Now you're stupid. I could list protections they can't get.

You listed ways that they have to go about getting the same things that heterosexuals enjoy. Gay couples can in fact hold title to real estate in the same manner that a heterosexual couple does. While there is a specific manner of holding title for married couples, joint tenants have the same rights of survivorship that a married couple that has tenancy in the entirety. The big difference is that the joint tenants can sell their individual share of the property whereas the married couple cannot without the consent of the other spouse, sell their interest. Thats a plus for gay couples that hold the title that way.

"And there-in lies the main reason for social conservatives and anyone who genuinely cares about how we progress as a country to oppose gay marriage."

You must have missed the recent study showing a dramatically lower rate of child abuse in homes with lesbian parents.

"Preventing inroads into the family structure "

Again, you're way off-base. A family structure is based on love, safety, and trust. Pretending it's only the purview of straight people is the height of narrowmindedness.

"Men should...
"Women are..."

What a load of crap. You don't know many gay couples, do you?

"If someone is gay, they undoubtedly had less than optimal parenting"

Wow, you're just full of bullshit, aren't you?

"Life indeed is about happiness, but it is also about doing the right thing."

Including letting others pursue happiness as they see, not as you see.

"It easy to give yourself to impulses"

Then you must be bisexual, or a closet case. I've never had that kind of "impulse".

Go fuck yourself. Families with gay parents are just as much a family as the one you grew up in.

#168 | Posted by Danforth

No, while I cannot claim to have had a good family life growing up, there is a huge difference between families with two gay parents and two heterosexuals. There is something morbid about the concept of having two women or two men in the master bedroom. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, because nothing can be said, beyond that, of any relevance.

Congratulations to homosexuals.

Fuck you to all you haters. Figure out how to fix your own shitty lives and stop hating others for living their lives the way they want to.

Get over it you religiously blinded morons.

Equality is liberty and freedom.

"You listed ways that they have to go about getting the same things that heterosexuals enjoy."

And a pile of things they can't get regardless, like unlimited marital gifts, protections from being forced to testify against each other, joint legal rights as parents, SS survivors benefits, unlimited inheritance, marital trusts, disability benefits, veterans benefits, guaranteed acceptance on spouse's insurance plan, family leave, visitation rights, etc.

Pretending gays have the option of getting all the protections of marriage is just that: pretense, and wildly uninformed at that.

It's called values. Liberals dont have them, so I understand.

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You're values are shit Boaz. You are a hate filled piece of shit living off Uncle Sam for killing innocent people in the name corporate greed.

Fuck you.

"there is a huge difference between families with two gay parents and two heterosexuals."

The one thing I've noticed is the kids of gay parents are, to a person, tolerant of others.

""What a load of crap. You don't know many gay couples, do you?""

I dont have to know gay couples. I know of the concept, my understanding of the culture doesnt have to go beyond that. Its pretty disgusting for a man to take the passive role, and despite what my base impulses (Theres that phrase again!, just as disgusting for a chick to munch on vag. There is a concept that has gone way out of fashion, and its the concept of decency. People dont act with dignity anymore.
------------------
""Again, you're way off-base. A family structure is based on love, safety, and trust. Pretending it's only the purview of straight people is the height of narrowmindedness.""

You forgot discipline and strength. This ridiculous idea that "Love makes a family" leads to a household constructed out of a deck of cards. Strong values make strong people. I'm sure the people that take their children to the gay pride parades love their children, their just too stupid to realize how messed up it is bringing children to an event where men are riding around on bikes nude and people are walking up and down the street in nothing but a jock strap and making out with 20 different people.

Fuck you to all you haters. Figure out how to fix your own shitty lives and stop hating others for living their lives the way they want to.

Get over it you religiously blinded morons.

Equality is liberty and freedom.

#175 | Posted by ClownShack

Nobody is telling them how to live their lives. There is simply a lot of resistance to this forced revision of our societies concept of decency and goodness. For someone that has such strong words for haters you seem to be pretty full on vitriol yourself.

"I dont have to know gay couples. "

...to make wildly uninformed statements of bullshit about them.

"This ridiculous idea that "Love makes a family" leads to a household constructed out of a deck of cards."

And you say this with --admittedly-- no knowledge of the facts.

BTW, I'm sorry you had a tough childhood.

"Nobody is telling them how to live their lives. "

Just to sit down and shut the fuck up about equal rights.

#179 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-08 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Hates freedom

Freedom isn't just for you. Your anti-American stance is noted. You hate freedom for anyone different from you. You are a judgemental asshole. For you to use the word American in your name is an insult to all Americans.

The gay family model is just another example of a decadent, morbid, and indulgent culture. Its no different than modern art, vulgar.

Nobody is threatening these people. The reason that they dont have marriage across the board is quite simply because they dont deserve it. It wasnt constructed with them in mind. No references to pre-civil rights black america is going to change that.

So, engage in whatever underhanded tactics you wish to muscle this through. Whether its overturning the mechanism of due process or filling the school curriculum with alot of nonsense, just know that the advent of this unwholesome way of life goes hand in hand with the decline of this country. As I said before, the ones that hold true to their traditions will survive to start over. I hope the next time we get it right.

I dont want my kids exposed to the gay lifestyle. That means I dont want my kids to see two men doing their hedonistic lifestyle in public. I dont want them seeing a naked man in public.

#17 | POSTED BY BOAZ

God I wish you were born a hundred years ago so much Boaz. Replace the word gay with the word black and your disgusting statement should become apparent even to you.

But, you also hate black people.

You hate. So much.

No wonder you like killing children for the government teet.

"The reason that they dont have marriage across the board is quite simply because they dont deserve it."

Get to know three gay people. You'll change your mind.

Just to sit down and shut the fuck up about equal rights.

#182 | Posted by Danforth

Correct. Their malcontent is spilling forth into the political arena. They should be satisfied with the overturning of sodomy laws and the freedom to walk down the street with the same expectations of safety that we all have.
----------------

Freedom isn't just for you. Your anti-American stance is noted. You hate freedom for anyone different from you. You are a judgemental asshole. For you to use the word American in your name is an insult to all Americans.

#183 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Being American has always been about being upright, intuitive, and independent. The Left is by definition un-American, as is the push for gay-marriage for two reasons.

1. It seeks another benefit, another hand-out from the government.
2. It seeks government validation.

If these people were really comfortable with what and who they were, they wouldnt need gay marriage or society to validate their relationship, they would just live their lives, and i'm sure plenty of them do.

Get to know three gay people. You'll change your mind.

#186 | Posted by Danforth

Ill say it again, marriage wasnt made for them. In modern politics, there has been a lot of thumbs being stuck in peoples eyes, on both sides. This whole thing is just another example. Im not going to be one of these flaccid conservatives who pretends to know black and gays and asians and 8 toed midgets. I dont have to diversify my outlook, but I do have to be respectful. In person I am polite, professional, and non-judgemental. All the same, my beliefs are my beliefs. They are time-tested and well pondered on. They arent hateful, they are direct. You dont hold a more enlightened or American view just because you say so. Liberalism is faddish and unrealistic. Its changes over time, and that precisely what makes it unreliable.

Freedom isn't just for you. Your anti-American stance is noted. You hate freedom for anyone different from you. You are a judgemental asshole. For you to use the word American in your name is an insult to all Americans.

#183 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Besides that Bob you have defended the use of the courts to censor the religious expression of others. I'll not accept such an assenine statement, especially coming from the likes of you.

" It seeks another benefit, another hand-out from the government.'

No, dufus, they seek the same benefits my wife and I get to take for granted. And ones they're currently paying for, meaning they're subsidizing YOU.

"Ill say it again, marriage wasnt made for them."

You say it out of admitted ignorance about gay couples.

"You dont hold a more enlightened or American view just because you say so."

Ah, but gays don't deserve marital rights because you say so.

It seems like you have a lot of problems with all kinds of equality.

"Their malcontent is spilling forth into the political arena"

Yes or no: would you be malcontent if society told you to marry a man if you wanted equal rights?

"They should be satisfied"

Why? You wouldn't be if the tables were turned.

""No, dufus, they seek the same benefits my wife and I get to take for granted. And ones they're currently paying for, meaning they're subsidizing YOU.""

No Manfroth, they're seeking a financial edge. They arent subsidizing me, anymore than I'm subsidizing Public Health initiatives that cater to people who refuse to engage in safe sexual practices. The reality of the situation is, marriage mean a vagina and a penis. Only in the mind of a sky-high liberal could such a simple concept become a matter of debate.

Put whatever icing you want on that cake, this is about money and hegemony. Otherwise this would have stopped when the SCOTUS overturned sodomy laws.

Why? You wouldn't be if the tables were turned.

#192 | Posted by Danforth

Im sure the tables are going to be spinning for decades. Less than a week after the repeal of DADT outserve was clamoring for housing and dependency benefits for gay couples.

AmericanPly, look forward to becoming a minotry on this topic and once you die your hate will die with you.

#195 | Posted by ClownShack

Yeah, you're all gumdrops and rainbows. Tell you what, you first.

"they're seeking a financial edge."

The same one my wife and I get. That's not an edge, that's equality.

"They arent subsidizing me"

Okay, so we'll add math to the list of your short subjects. If a gay couple pays into the SS system at the same rate as a married couple, yet gets none of the survivors benefits, the gay couple's SS taxes are subsidizing the straight couples. Same with a single person: if gays are left out of the actuarial pool of recipients, those left in are all being subsidized by those outside the pool. (This is a basic macro statistic fact, btw.)

"The reality of the situation is, marriage mean a vagina and a penis."

The reality of the situation is, you're a Neanderthal whose bigotry will soon be viewed the same way we view segregated drinking fountains. As Zat might say, enjoy your extinction. Your type will not be missed.

"Less than a week after the repeal of DADT outserve was clamoring for housing and dependency benefits for gay couples."

Good. Equality is equality. Straights already get that, don't they?

No Manfroth, they're seeking a financial edge.

No they aren't, you are full of shit.

They arent subsidizing me, anymore than I'm subsidizing Public Health initiatives that cater to people who refuse to engage in safe sexual practices.

Your logic is backwards idiot. If homosexuals get married and are able to form committed relationships the rates of STDs in homosexuals would drop.

The reality of the situation is, marriage mean a vagina and a penis.

That's pretty much the stupidest, most bigoted ideology ever.

Only in the mind of a sky-high liberal could such a simple concept become a matter of debate.

Only in the mind of an intolerant bigot can freedom and liberty for others become a matter of debate.

Put whatever icing you want on that cake, this is about money and hegemony. Otherwise this would have stopped when the SCOTUS overturned sodomy laws.

Hate it as much as you want but every day more people figure out they really don't give a shit what other people are doing with their lives.

#193 | POSTED BY AMERICANPLY

Besides that Bob you have defended the use of the courts to censor the religious expression of others. I'll not accept such an assenine statement, especially coming from the likes of you.

#189 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-08 02:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

The point stands. You think freedom is just for you. I don't know wtf you are talking about with the rest of that post, but whatever it is, it doesn't mitigate your anti-American anti-freedom stance. You should lose your citizenship. You fight against all America stands for. You are an enemy within.

Good. Equality is equality. Straights already get that, don't they?

#198 | Posted by Danforth

The military provides that so servicemembers' families are taken care of. As it is, most bases already have an extensive wait list for on-post housing. It doesnt need to be lengthened because some weirdo and her girlfriend want to live close to work and shop at the PX.

-----------

""Okay, so we'll add math to the list of your short subjects. If a gay couple pays into the SS system at the same rate as a married couple, yet gets none of the survivors benefits, the gay couple's SS taxes are subsidizing the straight couples. Same with a single person: if gays are left out of the actuarial pool of recipients, those left in are all being subsidized by those outside the pool. (This is a basic macro statistic fact, btw.)""

Sure, whatever. Maybe if FDR wasn't such a homophobic asshole, he would have worked gays into the picture when he instituted the system. Then again, i'm tired of paying medicaid taxes so some pervert can keep in his medications and his bathhouse membership. I guess we all support something we dont agree with.

""The reality of the situation is, you're a Neanderthal whose bigotry will soon be viewed the same way we view segregated drinking fountains. As Zat might say, enjoy your extinction. Your type will not be missed.""

Well I hate to break it to you, but this little flash in the pan you call "enlightenment" is just another textbook footnote. Given the mechanics of what you are argueing for, you're doing a good enough job of breeding yourselves into extinction, the odds are not in your favor, but if that's a good salve, rub it on.

""You fight against all America stands for. ""

I'll ponder that during my morning shit.

""You are an enemy within.""

and you're a lunatic with a keyboard. Hit the call button Bob, they'll change your diaper and give you another pill.

#200 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

""Your logic is backwards idiot. If homosexuals get married and are able to form committed relationships the rates of STDs in homosexuals would drop. ""

Yes, because what is stopping these people from fucking four different people in a week is the lack of a marriage certificate.

You know, if you say with just little more force and add a few more insults, it actually becomes more true.

""Hate it as much as you want but every day more people figure out they really don't give a shit what other people are doing with their lives.""

Oh yeah, I hate it so much I drummed up the idea of creating a political movement to legalise gay marriage so that Americans knew that there were people out there that enjoy fucking someone of the same gender. Brilliant wasnt it?

Yes, because what is stopping these people from fucking four different people in a week is the lack of a marriage certificate.

#203 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-08 03:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is the same thing that stops you from fucking four different people in a week. The point stands.

America stands for freedom amd equality.

You are against freedom and equality.

You are against America.

It's called logic.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

""It is the same thing that stops you from fucking four different people in a week. The point stands.""

Yeah, whats the point Bob? Did you even read what that was a response to?

""It's called logic.

#205 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob""

...and you dont have it. Did you call the nurse Bob?

and you dont have it. Did you call the nurse Bob?

#206 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-08 03:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

You see, in order to score a point, you have to refute the logic. Otherwise you lose the point, and others see you for the dim bulb you really are. Calling names with a personal attack shows a lack of character, logic, and morality. The point stands.

America stands for freedom amd equality.

You are against freedom and equality.

You are against America.

It's called logic.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

""You see, in order to score a point, you have to refute the logic. Otherwise you lose the point, and others see you for the dim bulb you really are. Calling names with a personal attack shows a lack of character, logic, and morality. The point stands.""

Oh, excuse me. You were talking to the liberals on the thread.

Put the keyboard down, Bob. You need your rest. Call the nurse, she has applesauce and a clean pillow for you.

#208 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-08 03:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Loses point. Can not refute the point that americanPLY hates America and the concepts America was founded on---Freedom and equality.

America stands for freedom amd equality.

americanPLY is against freedom and equality.

americanPLY is against America.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

""Fundie types who claim that one man one woman is "traditional marriage" obviously haven't read their bibles.""

Way to stay on target. I missed the last Heritage Foundation press conference where they laid out the "Spouse as Chattel" initiative they're planning for the spring.

""Hey, now that the 9th have declared PropH8 unConstitutional (as Spud was sure they were gonna) ""

Tough call there, guess theres no pulling the wool over your eyes.

""does that mean the Mormons get a refund?""

You might think you're nickel slick, but here, I got your penny change.

Be Swell

Aply

Way to stay on target. I missed the last Heritage Foundation press conference where they laid out the "Spouse as Chattel" initiative they're planning for the spring.

Way to miss the point. That point being that the definition of traditional marriage as derived from the bible, the number one fallback argument people who are anti-marriage for gays, is bullshit.

"Here's a penny for your thoughts.

Incidentally, you can keep the change."

~Noel Coward.

Be Well.

Anti-AmericanPly: The military provides that so servicemembers' families are taken care of. As it is, most bases already have an extensive wait list for on-post housing. It doesnt need to be lengthened because some weirdo and her girlfriend want to live close to work and shop at the PX.

So you are flat out stating that a gay couple are less than a straight couple in your wee feeble pathetic excuse for a brain?

Wow, you fail hard at being a human being not just at being an American.

Bob's right, America stands for equality and freedom and you are now officially against those things.

Not just you, of course.

The vast majority of GOP as well.

GL w/ that.

Be Well.

""Way to miss the point. That point being that the definition of traditional marriage as derived from the bible, the number one fallback argument people who are anti-marriage for gays, is bullshit.""

You're doing the same thing that you accuse the bible thumpers of doing, cherry-picking whatever makes your point. No reasonable Christian today advocates any of those relationships today, anymore they advocate stoning gays or people that work on the sabbath. Its dishonest to draw the parallel and you know it.

""So you are flat out stating that a gay couple are less than a straight couple in your wee feeble pathetic excuse for a brain?""

In the allocation of resources, I dont see the need for straining the supply of housing and benefits for a political ploy. Critical support goes to real families, not a couple of lesbians playing house.

""Bob's right, America stands for equality and freedom and you are now officially against those things.""

Bob makes about as much sense as a Canadian telling me what America stands for. Stick to what you know... uhmm nothing.

Be swell

Aply

You're doing the same thing that you accuse the bible thumpers of doing, cherry-picking whatever makes your point. No reasonable Christian today advocates any of those relationships today, anymore they advocate stoning gays or people that work on the sabbath. Its dishonest to draw the parallel and you know it.

Looking at the big picture is not cherry picking.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Spud finds the fact that you recognize the logic of evolving morally past our ancient ancestors to be interesting and encouraging but that is not in line with your belief that we should, apparently, stop evolving now and actually regress morally by making a percentage of your fellow citizens officially second class.

In the allocation of resources, I dont see the need for straining the supply of housing and benefits for a political ploy. Critical support goes to real families, not a couple of lesbians playing house.

There you did it again.

And that is why you fail.

Bob makes about as much sense as a Canadian telling me what America stands for.

The fact that Spuds knows far more about your country's history and heritage than you ever will is amusing to Spud as well.

Be Well.

Looking at the big picture is not cherry picking.

Spud finds the fact that you recognize the logic of evolving morally past our ancient ancestors to be interesting and encouraging but that is not in line with your belief that we should, apparently, stop evolving now and actually regress morally by making a percentage of your fellow citizens officially second class.""

We went over the second class red herring earlier. Not fitting the criteria for a legal arrangement isnt an argument for equality. If thats your case, then you should be in favor of doing away with progressive tax brackets. After all, treating people differently based on their financial lifestyle is just immoral.

Coincidentally, you arent evolving morally, your simply doing away with them. It might seem like a warm, fuzzy, noble and decent thing by validating the gay thing, but what you're doing is mainstreaming productless sex, ie masturbation.

What Spud needs to realize is that just because you say something doesnt make it the truth. We all want to live in a world where silly little things like where we put our penis doesnt matter, unfortunately there is a little thing called consequence that does play a role. This "second class citizen, marriage is a constitutional right" thing is something that somebody pulled out of their ass in the not too distant past. Its a fad. One the a majority of the states clamped down on. You guys did win here, destroyed due process in the course of it, but you won.

You'd think that in a country with only about 35m people you'd be a little friendlier to more productive means.

""The fact that Spuds knows far more about your country's history and heritage than you ever will is amusing to Spud as well.""

Apparently Spud isnt as keen on American history as he thinks he is because I see a whole of Christian, traditional family material and not too much on gay. But maybe if you tell me one more time it will manifest itself into reality.

Another reason you guys on the left cant be taken seriously is because you have no credibility. You guys scream equality, liberty, blase blase, but you have no sense of it. You argue for equality before the law at the same time you legislate special protections for certain people. You have absolutely no street-cred when it comes to Freedom of Speech, especially after the Fairness Doctrine. You sue to stop municipalities from putting up religious symbols, you crowd out and shout down the gatherings of the opposition. You demand bigger and bigger shares of the middle and upper class to enrich your social benefits. When you dont get your way at the ballot box you ram it through the courts.

Freedom? Liberty? Bullshit. the left is about dictating to society what is and isnt acceptable. Here, you lose. You're weak little accusations of hate are going to fall on deaf ears. Im not hateful, im just too smart to see when the Left again reveals its contempt for life. The Conservatives say "rise to the standard", the Liberals say "Go to sleep." No sir, not me. People like you have to stood up to. Children must be disciplined. Defeat itself must be defeated.

I see a whole of Christian, traditional family material and not too much on gay.

Spud sees you trying to pretend that gay people are somehow lesser than straight people.

Spud sees you trying to assert you hold the high moral ground while attempting to justify your bigotry.

So, yeah... Spud sees an "a whole" here too.

Be Well.

/In case ya missed it... that "a-hole" be you.

We went over the second class red herring earlier. Not fitting the criteria for a legal arrangement isnt an argument for equality. If thats your case, then you should be in favor of doing away with progressive tax brackets. After all, treating people differently based on their financial lifestyle is just immoral.

In no way shape or form do gay people "not fit the legal criteria for a legal arrangement" that we call marriage.

Your anti-progressive tax argument is the red herring here.

The idea behind progressive taxes (which every civilized country in the world utilizes, btw) is that wealth inequality exists, will always exist and to a certain degree needs to exist. That noted, there is a point beyond which it is healthy and progressive taxes are not supposed to make everyone exactly equal as you rtards tend to assert but to make the whole system more equal.

Arguing that being for progressive taxation is being against equality is a ridiculous canard and you should stop making a fool out of yourself by spreading it.

You argue for equality before the law at the same time you legislate special protections for certain people.

Equal rights are not special rights.

Affirmative action legislation was put into being to combat the deeply instilled and systemic racism that once pervaded the American psyche that is slowly dying away now.

You have absolutely no street-cred when it comes to Freedom of Speech, especially after the Fairness Doctrine.

Before the Fairness Doctrine was destroyed by rtards the US media was a fairly responsible (albeit status quo enabling), credible (in the eyes of the world) and sane.

Post Fairness Doctrine we've seen the rise of notorious asswipes like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mike Savage and the like.

We see FOX spewing slanted, biased, often incorrect political sound bytes in their opinion shows which are then backed up by using a selection of cherry picked and slanted "hard" news stories.

We see a nation where watching FOX news makes people less smart than people who watch little to no news at all.

The party of loyalty oaths and free speech zones doesn't get to lecture anyone about freedom of speech.

Particularly in light of all the ugly anti-OWS shiat they've been spewing lately.

Be Well.

You sue to stop municipalities from putting up religious symbols,

You don't believe in the seperation of church and state?

you crowd out and shout down the gatherings of the opposition.

You mean like the teatards did at town halls across the nation when the Koch brothers whipped their little racist asses into a frenzy over "Obamacare"?

Meh, at least those guys weren't crushing toes.

You demand bigger and bigger shares of the middle and upper class to enrich your social benefits.

Here's the thing you don't get, AP.

The upper class have been getting away with murder in terms of not paying their fair share of taxes. They've gotten ridiculously fat over the last 30 years while 99% of America has gotten leaner. Returning the tax rates back to the levels they were at during Clinton's term, or better yet Reagan's, is not some wild-eyed radical socialist notion it's actually being fiscally conservative. It's going back to what we know worked better for all. You morons act like liberal hate rich people and want to take all their money away or something. You shouldn't do that. That's purely retarded.

When you don't get your way at the ballot box you ram it through the courts.

Sometimes the Constitution runs ahead of and trumps popular bigotry.

Making "race mixing" legal, repealing Jim Crow Laws, enacting civil rights legislation are all examples of the Constitution trumping popular prejudice at the time.

Gay marriage is no different.

Freedom? Liberty? Bullshit. the left is about dictating to society what is and isn't acceptable. Here, you lose.

You are standing here trying to stop gay people from exercising their equal rights under the law and at the same time lecturing Spud about how the left is all about dictating?

And that is why you fail.

You're weak little accusations of hate are going to fall on deaf ears. Im not hateful, im just too smart to see when the Left again reveals its contempt for life.

Respecting gay people's desire to live in dignity and equality with their fellow citizens does not equal "contempt for life".

The Conservatives say "rise to the standard", the Liberals say "Go to sleep." No sir, not me. People like you have to stood up to. Children must be disciplined. Defeat itself must be defeated.

Was that supposed to mean something?

Look here's the long and short of it.

The only people who really don't like the idea of gay marriage are old and will be dead within 10 to 20 years time. The leaders of the religious right with half a brain in their head have already recognized this reality.

And by that time if they're still alive the grandkids of the hidebound immoral dinosaurs will look at them like Spud look at his crazy ole racist Uncle who still thinks race mixing is a pretty bad idear.

ie. With pity and horror.

TL,DR?

You are fighting a war you've already lost.

GL w/ that.

^__^

Be Well.

Freedom? Liberty? Bullshit. the left is about dictating to society what is and isnt acceptable.

You are the one dictating to the world what is or is not acceptable.

You are blinded by your hate and fear. We get it.

I get it. Haters unite behind santorum. Slimy bastards!

americanPLY = BiasPly

Boaz. Replace the word gay with the word black and your disgusting statement should become apparent even to you.

But, you also hate black people.

#185 | Posted by ClownShack

Hate to break it to y'a, but I believe Boaz is black people.

Self loathing perhaps then?

"You are fighting a war you've already lost."
How true, at this point I don't care anymore. I don't agree with the life style, but after the continuous blows to the head you have to realize it's a done deal.
I think it's time that others on this post who have a problem with it come to accept reality. If your not gay why should you care at all.
One thing ,for the gay community to be taken seriously they should stop the circus parades. It only serves to reinforce the beliefs people like myself have.

What is sad is how a few issues like this define and bastardize our political and legal process. Like Guns, Gays and Abortion.
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say we allow abortion, nor does it protect Gays, but yes to guns. The issue is that we elect bizarre people to office often based on the sole qualification the politician is for (or against) these legal issues. Then these bizarre politicians put crazy judges in place who use obscure logic to support their position thus the system is being corrupted because we are trying to change policy without changing laws. More importantly we end up with bad leaders – who are well versed in answering questions about abortion, gay rights and guns but are clueless on about everything else.

That's where we are at right now, a bunch of bad leaders who WE elected not on merit but mostly on some personal believes on a few issues.
I have options on gays, guns and abortion but I also see them as secondary issues right now –having a job, a roof– and overwhelming debt that will DESTROY our WAY OF LIFE are my primary issues.

"When you dont get your way at the ballot box you ram it through the courts."
Oh but when conservatives lost on Obamacare where did they go??? That's right, to court. Hypocrite much?

One thing ,for the gay community to be taken seriously they should stop the circus parades. It only serves to reinforce the beliefs people like myself have.

#227 | Posted by patron

Why? Those gay pride parades/events are a lot of fun. Really not much different than the freak show(s) that turns out for Mardi Gras. Seen any footage of Mardi Gras in Rio or BA? Wow!! And I do mean Wow!! N'Orleans ain't got nothin' on them folk for party down at Mardi Gras. I think that too many Americans have a stick up their butts, are less concerned with the "live and let live" ideal and more with the "live as I preach because I don't like what you do." This is the Saint Santorum crowd, BTW.

I would imagine that there are a lot of life "styles" that you don't particularly agree with, as there are some I don't. But as long as they aren't bothering me, robbing me, harming me, I am not going to go out and actively lobby against them, create law that inhibits them and makes them into criminals.

Gays don't do anything to nobody. They really don't want this thing called gay rights, they just want equal rights and equal treatment under the law, as guaranteed by the US Constitution. (Though I don't believe the Framers had specifically gays in mind. But considering how men dressed in those days, all white powder wigs and fluffy sleeves and bows on their high rise pantaloons, y'a gotta wonder...)

I have options on gays, guns and abortion but I also see them as secondary issues right now â€"having a job, a roofâ€" and overwhelming debt that will DESTROY our WAY OF LIFE are my primary issues.

And THAT is why Obama will win.

People are giving less and less of a fuck over abortion and gay rights and that trend will continue.

But on basic economic questions the US is at a crossroads.

Continue on with Obama slowly bringing the economy back or let the assholes who got you into this mess with trickle down voodoo supply side economics, unfunded wars, excessive tax cuts and irresponsible spending finally flush the economy down the toilet.

Them's yer choices.

Life is choice.

Choose well.

Be Well.

"When you dont get your way at the ballot box you ram it through the courts."

Civil rights should never be decided by popular vote.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say we allow abortion, nor does it protect Gays, but yes to guns.

The reason we have a Supreme Court is because the Constitution is not a narrow recitation of rights. It's a broad document that requires interpretation as time passes.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

#233 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 10:48 AM |

Mr. Rcade, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."

Be Well.

#230 | Posted by ZOT
I'm not the Santorum crowd BTW. If you read what I said and get past the last statement, I agree it does not bother me anymore.
My point is that people such as me have a hard time taking the gay issue seriously when I see those parades. It's continuously brought as a correlation to the civil rights movement. Well how far do you think that movement would have gone if they dressed as gay nuns and ran around in open leather chaps?.
The Mardi Gras is what it is a party, the gay PRIDE parade is to represent pride( I assume). So how do you think people look at that and wonder how is that pride? proud to be a clown? Maybe it's just me and I don't get it.

"The reason we have a Supreme Court is because the Constitution is not a narrow recitation of rights. It's a broad document that requires interpretation as time passes."

#234 | Posted by rcade

Question: When has the SC ever ruled opposing the constitutions of more than half the states?

Answer: never

It's a broad document that requires interpretation as time passes.
#234 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 10:50 AM

The problem is you libs pretend anything is up for interpretation. Usually it is in some selfish manner such as this.

Mr. Rcade, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore

What can I say? This news makes my arc bend. Schwing!

The problem is you libs pretend anything is up for interpretation. Usually it is in some selfish manner such as this.

Denying gays the same marriage rights as straights is selfish. The same Constitutional interpretation that extended marriage rights to interracial couples in Loving v. Virginia are being employed today for gays. Would you deny the right of an interracial couple to marry?

The desire for equal rights is selfish?

Civil rights should never be decided by popular vote.

#232 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-08 10:43 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

#233 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2012-02-08 10:48 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I think what both of you should realize is that the courts are looking at this under a rational relationship measure. the SC will find a rational relationship between the legislation and the discriminatory act. what should happen is that they use strict scrutiny and make same sex couples a protected class. if they don't the 9th will be overturned yet again.

Apparently the desire for equal protection under the law is selfish.

The same Constitutional interpretation that extended marriage rights to interracial couples in Loving v. Virginia are being employed today for gays. Would you deny the right of an interracial couple to marry?
#241 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 11:30 AM |

I deny they are even in the same ballpark, and as usual a worthless argument. This is strictly gender and not race. There is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries. What they have not accepted is same sex marriage being the norm. It has been tried and failed.

"The desire for equal rights is selfish?"

More like selfishly wanting gender rights.

It has been tried and failed.
#245 | Posted by crispee_oc

LOL. Are you trying to make it easy?

There is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries.

For centuries? It was illegal in a dozen states when that 1967 Supreme Court decision overturned those laws.

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights." -- Mildred Loving, coplaintiff in Loving v. Virginia

You've already lost the gay marriage fight, Crispee. The news just hasn't reached you yet.

Hate to break it to y'a, but I believe Boaz is black people.
Self loathing perhaps then?

#226 | POSTED BY ZOT

I am fully aware Boaz is black.

He still looks down on black people.

He still wishes he was born white.

Talk to him about it.

He's got self esteem issues he wishes to ignore by murdering innocent people in the name of capitalism.

"There is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries. "
" Centuries" really? I remember the 70's when some people still had a problem with my interracial marriage.

"For centuries? It was illegal in a dozen states when that 1967 Supreme Court decision overturned those laws."

Good one rcade... Way to set me straight. You ignorantly imply gay marriage is akin to racial marriages, and I reply with societies for the last umpteen centuries respect one and not the other, and you bring up one fucking society which of course has only been around about 235 years.

Again, you libs are blinded by something I hope to never see.

"you libs are blinded by something I hope to never see."

Equality?

-Equality?

Reality.

You've already lost the gay marriage fight, Crispee. The news just hasn't reached you yet.
#248 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 11:53 AM

Actually I didn't lose anything. Nor did I have anything to gain. You on the other hand have this need for a Chris Matthews tingly feeling and somehow feel supporting a selfish bunch who have every right as any other american to marry.

Also, you fools forget this was a voter approved measure which is being challenged. Sadly it was necessary because somehow homos and freaks were immune from the traditional marriage laws being a man and a woman. Not some tranny and shemale which is apparently a favorite among libs.

Equality?

#252 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-08 12:05 PM |

Naw... More like emotions, and some need to think you made a difference which cloud your thinking.

Nice of you to admit you are lib though dancing dan. Not that anyone thought otherwise...

"When you dont get your way at the ballot box you ram it through the courts."
Oh but when conservatives lost on Obamacare where did they go??? That's right, to court. Hypocrite much?

#229 | Posted by danni

Thats because Obamacare is unconstitutional. You cant force someone to buy healthcare.

-------
""Post Fairness Doctrine we've seen the rise of notorious asswipes like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mike Savage and the like.""

Those guys with the opposing views talking about them over the public airwaves really burns your ass doesnt it? No, the Fairness Doctrine was an outright bullet to the head of the first amendment. Fuck if you think that they're crazy, millions of Americans dont. Just because Air America couldnt get a foot off the ground doesnt make it OK for the government to legislate balance in the media, IE forcing the news media to prop up liberal bullshit.

So, heres the long and short of it.

The states that have passed gay-marriage, either by hook or crook, are screwed. Always have been, always will be. Despite your cheerful little disposition and a whole lot of bullshit polling and news stories, gay marriage is far from a lock.

"Actually I didn't lose anything."
Now, if you could understand that you could stop worrying so much about what other people do.

"Despite your cheerful little disposition and a whole lot of bullshit polling and news stories, gay marriage is far from a lock."

If you look at the age demographics on the support for gay equality you'll see that yours is a losing battle, younger folks favor equality by a very wide margin. Every group under 55 favors gay equality, only the old farts still have a majority opposed to it. Time is definitely on our side.

"supporting a selfish bunch"

What a pile of crap. First, "selfish" is wanting what others automatically get, and second, if anyone with a brain looks at the macro numbers, they'll have to admit gays subsidize straights. For example: gay couples pay into the SS system at the same rate as my wife and me, yet have no survivors' benefits.

If anyone is "selfish" in this equation, its those with rights they get to take for granted while denying the humanity in their fellow man.

"There is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries. "
" Centuries" really? I remember the 70's when some people still had a problem with my interracial marriage.

#250 | Posted by patron at 2012-02-08 11:57 AM |

WTF is it with you idiots? Rcade brings up some fucking court ruling, and now you brng up a fucking decade from the perspective of the shithole you lived.

This is a 21st century argument, and IMO a reach...

"With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000."

"Just because Air America couldnt get a foot off the ground doesnt make it OK for the government to legislate balance in the media, IE forcing the news media to prop up liberal bullshit."

Even 8 years of Bush, two wars and a collapsed economy haven't convinced you that allowing one side to continuously bombard viewers and listeners with propaganda is a bad idea. Some people can't learn.

You've already lost the gay marriage fight, Crispee. The news just hasn't reached you yet.

#248 | Posted by rcade

The only thing that was lost, RCADE, was due process. You guys lost the vote in California so you turned to a judge to do what you couldnt make happen legitimately.

... supporting a selfish bunch who have every right as any other american to marry.

So gays have the right to marry straight people, and that's just the same as if they could marry the gay person of their choice?

You really are running through all the dumb arguments against gay marriage, one by one. I should put them on a card and yell bingo when you cover them all.

"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

The only thing that was lost, RCADE, was due process.

Proposition 8 had its day in court. It lost and has now lost in the appeals court as well.

"You guys lost the vote in Congress so you turned to a judge to do what you couldnt make happen legitimately about Obamacare.

You guys lost the vote in Florida so you turned to a judge to do what you couldnt make happen legitimately about electing George Bush.

You guys lost the vote in Congress so you turned to a judge to do what you couldnt make happen legitimately about corporate campaign donors.

Even 8 years of Bush, two wars and a collapsed economy haven't convinced you that allowing one side to continuously bombard viewers and listeners with propaganda is a bad idea. Some people can't learn.

#261 | Posted by danni

For starters, the first amendment says the government cannot interfere with public discourse. Second, that little gem is precisely why I view the left with a whole lot of skepticism.

YOU ARE NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHAT IS GOOD AND RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.

"What a pile of crap. First, "selfish" is wanting what others automatically get, and second, if anyone with a brain looks at the macro numbers, they'll have to admit gays subsidize straights. For example: gay couples pay into the SS system at the same rate as my wife and me, yet have no survivors' benefits."

Do surviving brothers and sister get each other's benefits that all paid into? How about their kids? Not that is has shit to do with gay marriage. Last I looked survivor's benefits were not on the ballot.

Does the fact dictionaries are updating centuries old defintitions not prove this is about changing the traditional sanctity of marriage and ignoring religious overtones? HTF is that not selfish?

It is simpler Danni. PNAC needed a pawn in the White House. JEB signed PNAC. JEB appointed kathrine Harris.

YOU ARE NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHAT IS GOOD AND RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.

But somehow you think you do. Hilarious!

"It is simpler Danni. PNAC needed a pawn in the White House. JEB signed PNAC. JEB appointed kathrine Harris."

Very logical, I never put that all together before. Makes me fear a Jeb presidency much more.

So gays have the right to marry straight people, and that's just the same as if they could marry the gay person of their choice?

You really are running through all the dumb arguments against gay marriage, one by one. I should put them on a card and yell bingo when you cover them all.
#263 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 12:19 PM |

You are the fool who tried to claim interracial marriage is akin to gay marriage, not me. Even better you argue it is not a gender thing when compared to the useless racial strawman...

Like I said rcade... If you clowns want society to accept a couple of freaks confused about their gender, and equivocate that to traditonal marriage, have at it. Maybe your kids will have a crossdressing teacher and you can support him by dressing your boy up in a dress for his class.

Proposition 8 had its day in court. It lost and has now lost in the appeals court as well.

#265 | Posted by rcade

Thats just the point rcade, it shouldnt have gone to court. Its within the purview of the state to determine the qualifications for marriage. The people of the State of California said they wanted marriage to be between a man, and a woman. Done.

Getting a gay judge to overturn the process of the law damages the credibility of the system. It screwed propriety. It screwed the sanctity of legal process. Thank you, for yet again taking the concept of a fair and impartial legal system and throwing it right in the trash.

"The people of the State of California said they wanted marriage to be between a man, and a woman. Done."

Can somebody please explain to APly that we're not a democracy and that we have a constitution.

But somehow you think you do. Hilarious!

#272 | Posted by danni

My reasoning is based on a way of life that goes back as far as time itself. I dont base my beliefs on the shifting sands of modern culture, such as the left, who have even gone to this extent to embrace a troubled lifestyle.

The American society in general continuously defines marriage as between one man and one woman, so apparently I'm not alone.

AMERICANPLY doesn't believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently he thinks that if voters decide contrary to the Constitution their decision trumps it. So far, the courts have decided otherwise. When, and if, it goes to the SC we'll get finality on all of this unless the anti-gay people think they have the necessary votes to pass an amendment and that is extremely unlikely.

"Do surviving brothers and sister get each other's benefits that all paid into?"

No, and single folks don't get to bequeath social security. But straight folks have the option to marry and get these rights, and gays don't. Everything else you're barfing up is a deflection.

"Does the fact dictionaries are updating centuries old defintitions not prove..."

Prove? No. Not any more than when the flat-earth writings had to be fixed.

"HTF is that not selfish?"

Because they're correcting inequality. Wanting what someone else gets to take for granted isn't selfish.

"a couple of freaks confused about their gender"

And here we have the limits of Crispee's thinking.

#276 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Can someone please explain to Hagbard that our Constitution does not in any way grant homosexuals the right to marriage?

"Can somebody please explain to APly that we're not a democracy and that we have a constitution."

The Marriage Protecton Act is part of the California Constitution. Last I looked nobody in DC has passed anything trumping that law...

"Thats just the point rcade, it shouldnt have gone to court. Its within the purview of the state to determine the qualifications for marriage. The people of the State of California said they wanted marriage to be between a man, and a woman. Done."

Flag: // Civics Flunkee

"My reasoning is based on a way of life that goes back as far as time itself." Slavery did too and it was mentioned in the Christian Bible with instructions on how to treat your slave and how your slave should deal with you, does that mean that for all time forward slavery should be legal? The amount of time that something has been legal or illegal, accepted or not accepted is irrelevant to today. We are thinking creatures who learn as time passes and we can correct wrongs which have existed throughout man's history on the planet. The way gay people have been treated for thousands of years needs correcting.

"The Marriage Protecton Act is part of the California Constitution. "

State Constitutions don't trump the US Constitution.

Getting a gay judge to overturn the process of the law damages the credibility of the system.

Ahh, now the gay judge argument. So only heterosexuals are allowed to rule on gay marriage? Vaughn Walker's decision was just upheld by appellate judges who are probably straight. That should put you at ease.

"Can someone please explain to Hagbard that our Constitution does not in any way grant homosexuals the right to marriage?"

Can someone please explain to AmericanPly that our Constitution does not in any way grant anyone the right to marriage, but the Supreme Court has upheld it as a right 14 times?

"Can someone please explain to Hagbard that our Constitution does not in any way grant homosexuals the right to marriage?"
It grants everyone equal treatment under the law.

AMERICANPLY doesn't believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently he thinks that if voters decide contrary to the Constitution their decision trumps it. So far, the courts have decided otherwise. When, and if, it goes to the SC we'll get finality on all of this unless the anti-gay people think they have the necessary votes to pass an amendment and that is extremely unlikely.

#278 | Posted by danni

You guys feel the same way about religious expression, taxation, ownership of guns, speech, property (Kelo v New London)...

The list goes on. You guys have no credibility when it comes to Constitutional rights. Until you knuckleheads embrace the whole document, and not what fits your mood at the time, then come back and talk to me.

The Constitution and many successive rulings do guarantee the right for a citizen to marry someone of their choice who agrees to marry them.

It doesn't get into who they are.

"a couple of freaks confused about their gender"

And here we have the limits of Crispee's thinking.
#279 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-08 12:34 PM

As opposed to your ignorance and sheer stupidity? You are the fool supporting some made up rights of bi-sexuals, trnasgendered and whatever other freaks has linked up.

"Last I looked nobody in DC has passed anything trumping that law..."

Flag: // Another Civics Flunkee

It grants everyone equal treatment under the law.

#287 | Posted by danni

Quite right. So when do we get rid of gender and race preferences in regard to federal education grants?

"You are the fool supporting some made up rights"

You're denying others rights you have. Selfish.

""The Constitution and many successive rulings do guarantee the right for a citizen to marry someone of their choice who agrees to marry them.""

Where. This ought to be fun.

My reasoning is based on a way of life that goes back as far as time itself.

The institution of marriage has changed dramatically over the centuries. Even today, it's often a business deal between a husband and his wife's family, and the husband looks elsewhere for love.

But there were same-sex marriages going all the way back to ancient Greece, so that should put you at ease.

Actually, the constitution does provide for gay marriage. See, after the civil war, there were amendments passed that basically said states could not deprive some of privileges they give to others. That would include marriage.

"You are the fool supporting some made up rights of bi-sexuals, trnasgendered and whatever other freaks has linked up."

Overlooking the unnecessary crudeness of your post, those "freaks" are human beings and citizens of this country who deserve 100% of the same rights that you have whether or not you like it. I think that, in fact, I am happier about this ruling knowing how unhappy it is making you. Nothing is funnier than a frustrated bigot.

You are the fool supporting some made up rights of bi-sexuals, trnasgendered and whatever other freaks has linked up.

You should just admit that you don't want gays to marry because you think they are freaks. Stop dressing it up with other reasons.

Even today, it's often a business deal between a husband and his wife's family, and the husband looks elsewhere for love.

often? in this country? gee, I can't think of anybody I personally know that married under such circumstances....ever.

so you must know a lot, then.

tell us about them.....

"You are the fool supporting some made up rights"
King George

State Constitutions don't trump the US Constitution.

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-08 12:36 PM

Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee"

"Where. This ought to be fun."

The Supreme Court.

"Since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right" Olson said on the Fox News Sunday program yesterday. "We're not talking about a new right here."

Or perhaps you could explain how marriage is not involved in commerce (ie contracts)

#15 | Posted by truthhurts

It's not.

------

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.

"You are the fool supporting some made up rights of bi-sexuals, trnasgendered and whatever other freaks has linked up."

You should just admit that you don't want gays to marry because you think they are freaks. Stop dressing it up with other reasons.
#298 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 12:41 PM |

LMAO... Why are you cowards running away from those freaks I mentioned? YOU ALL SUPPORT GLBT.

""The institution of marriage has changed dramatically over the centuries. Even today, it's often a business deal between a husband and his wife's family, and the husband looks elsewhere for love.

But there were same-sex marriages going all the way back to ancient Greece, so that should put you at ease.""

How has it changed Rcade? Not withstanding the Chinese Emperor's harem, was there ever a point where marriage involved more than a man and a woman?

Lets narrow it down to the lineage of our culture. Has there ever been a point in European history where marriage was anything but between man and wife?

"You should just admit that you don't want gays to marry because you think they are freaks."

I will admit that as soon as you admit I should be able to marry multiple partners.

BTW... Do homos support polygamy?

Where. This ought to be fun.

#294 | Posted by americanPLY

I'd suggest you read the court docs submitted by the plaintiffs' attorneys, conservative Theodore Olson and liberal David Boies.

Lacking that, you might learn something here:

or you could read Dan's #302

But there were same-sex marriages going all the way back to ancient Greece, so that should put you at ease.

#295 | Posted by rcade

So ancient Rome and Greece allowed same sex unions.

Like Nero--who did that twice with two different men.

We all know how those civilizations worked out...

"I'd suggest you read the court docs submitted by the plaintiffs' attorneys, conservative Theodore Olson and liberal David Boies."

Well there you have it. If opposite sides of the political spectrum agree, that is enough for a moron like Corky...

#274 | Posted by crispee_oc
No you were the fool who said interracial marriage was accepted for centuries!

=If opposite sides of the political spectrum agree

Sorry, Punky. Facts are facts and these are facts.

"Since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right" Olson said on the Fox News Sunday program yesterday. "We're not talking about a new right here."

Why all this uproar over homosexual activity? I don't understand it. It's all in good fun. I remember one night at the Frat House about ten years ago, right before Spring Break, a party we threw. The FREAK was on that night fo sho! I didn't get involved of course. I was just there.

No citation necessary.

"I will admit that as soon as you admit I should be able to marry multiple partners."

You should be able to marry multiple partners.

It nullifies most of the advantages of marriage, but if everyone is an adult and consents, go for it. Get the law changed.

"Since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right" Olson said on the Fox News Sunday program yesterday. "We're not talking about a new right here."

Meaning for the last 124 years the USSC has not decided on one suit wanting to change the traditonal marriage laws which are between a man and a woman. Right moron?

"It nullifies most of the advantages of marriage, but if everyone is an adult and consents, go for it. Get the law changed."

I'm not fighting for it. You on the otherhand are.

"I'm not fighting for it. You on the otherhand are."

The right to polygamy? Where did you get that?

They haven't decided that you are an unfit mother either, but that doesn't mean you're not.

If the right to marriage is a fundamental right, then it is a fundamental right.

Is there something about this you don't understand?

(now there's a stupid question...)

#274 | Posted by crispee_oc
No you were the fool who said interracial marriage was accepted for centuries!
#311 | Posted by patron at 2012-02-08 12:57 PM |

Man... The stupidity is thick with this idiot. How many times are you going to need an explanation? How stupid are you to miss the context of societies accepting interracial marriage and not same sex? You do understand the USA in one society and only been around for about 235 years, right dumbfuck?

The FREAK was on that night fo sho! I didn't get involved of course. I was just there... watching... encouraging....

#313 | Posted by BradfordWinston

often? in this country?

No. In other countries where dowries and arranged marriages are common.

How has it changed Rcade? ... Lets narrow it down to the lineage of our culture. Has there ever been a point in European history where marriage was anything but between man and wife?

Greece is in Europe.

Among the changes, parental consent is no longer required to marry, as it was in the 16th century. Marriages are no longer arranged as early as birth, at least in most of the world today. Marriages are no longer solely the province of religious authorities -- the state got involved in recording them after the Protestant Reformation. Formal marriage ceremonies are no longer required. Dual approval of the state and a church are no longer required. Dowries and bride prices are no longer required, in most of the world. Divorce no longer requires proving fault in your spouse, a change that began in the '60s.

Other than that, though, marriage is exactly the same and has never, ever changed and must never, ever be allowed to change. Ever.

"How stupid are you to miss the context of societies accepting interracial marriage and not same sex? "

Why did you ignore the Greco-Roman societies?

#316 | Posted by crispee_oc
Give up Cripee you have become a punching bag. and your arguments are all over the place.

It nullifies most of the advantages of marriage, but if everyone is an adult and consents, go for it. Get the law changed.

If polygamists want to fight for their right to marry multiple people, it doesn't affect me. Good luck getting the courts to sort things out in a divorce, though.

The right to polygamy? Where did you get that?
#317 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-08 01:02 PM

How is wanting to change the marriage laws for same sex couples any different from someone wanting multiple wives? If one becomes legal, then the other will as well.

Who knows, maybe adults will be able to marry their kids. Or brothers and sisters, or cousins... Or will they all have to be the same gender, seeing as that is what this is all about...

"How stupid are you to miss the context of societies accepting interracial marriage and not same sex? "

Why did you ignore the Greco-Roman societies?

#322 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-08 01:06 PM

Why do you find one and ignore the rest? What part of becoming the norm is troubling you? Does accepted by society help you out and make it clearer?

Better yet, simply come up with any Gov the last 500 years who recognize same sex marriage, and still do today.

"How is wanting to change the marriage laws for same sex couples any different from someone wanting multiple wives? "

The conferring of superseding rights to one person. Marriage does it; polygamy would negate it.

"If one becomes legal, then the other will as well."

Ah, that old tactic: make up a lie.

"Who knows, maybe adults will be able to marry their kids. Or brothers and sisters, or cousins..."

Godwin ought to have a tangent when the argument debases to ignorance of consent and biology.

"What part of becoming the norm is troubling you?"

Because at some point, someone will decide YOU'RE not the norm.

"Better yet, simply come up with any Gov the last 500 years who recognize same sex marriage, and still do today."

Are those goalposts heavy?

How is wanting to change the marriage laws for same sex couples any different from someone wanting multiple wives? If one becomes legal, then the other will as well

And this affects you how?

"Does accepted by society help you out and make it clearer?"

It makes me want to restate the belief civil rights should never be put up to a popular vote.

#321 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 01:06 PM

So the answer is no. You couldn't find anything in Eurpoean history where marriage wasn't between a man and woman...

Good luck getting the courts to sort things out in a divorce, though.
#324 | Posted by rcade

Imagine that. Custody and visitation too.

You do understand the USA in one society and only been around for about 235 years, right dumbfuck?

#319 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-08 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Idiot
Who you calling a dumbfuck? is that how you need to justify you stupid fucking post that interracial marriage was excepted for centuries. Then try to back pedal saying the US is a new society so it don't count. Well there's some pretty old societies in Asia that still look down on interracial marriage. God your such a fucking idiot! you need to stop posting and making an ass of yourself.

How is wanting to change the marriage laws for same sex couples any different from someone wanting multiple wives? If one becomes legal, then the other will as well

And this affects you how?
#329 | Posted by JOE at 2012-02-08 01:12 PM

They don't. Now what? Why the stupid question? Both would be selfish and self serving. As would any individuals wanting to change what society for thousands of years deem the norm. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Worked pretty fucking well if you ask me, but then again I have only been here 50 years out of more than 5000.

Ok, smart legal people, how do you reconcile this:

The American society in general continuously defines marriage as between one man and one woman, so apparently I'm not alone.

#277 | Posted by americanPLY

Totally ignoring that growing and significant percentage of the same American society (of which 10% is purported to be gay, depending on what stats one's cites) that is for ensuring that all American citizens have the same protections under the law, the same rights, access to the same opportunities.

Damn obvious you ain't one of them, eh, biasPly?

Divorce is a big problem when it come to polygamy. I mean could I divorce some of my wives but not all of them? And would I have to pay more alimony to those wives who I have been married to longer? And who gets the house? Do we divide it into different sections? I was only married to one woman and believe me that divorce set me back a pretty sum. She has full possession of the Condo in Chicago AND the main spread outside Phoenix!

No citation necessary.

God your such a fucking idiot! you need to stop posting and making an ass of yourself.

#333 | Posted by patron at 2012-02-08 01:18 PM |

I know... "your" so right. Only an idiot would take the time and explain to you for the last several thousand years 99.9% of cultures, societies, governments all define marriage as between a man and a woman...

"(basically, it means that 1 of the spouses or partners was physically incapable of â€Å"consummating” the relationship)"

Where are you getting your definition of "physically incapacitated?"

My bet is that the government doesn't take it to mean what you assert.

OK Zot. You guys are always bringing up these polls. You know what? Every election cycle you get proven wrong. To hell with your dumbass polls.

"So the answer is no. You couldn't find anything in Eurpoean history where marriage wasn't between a man and woman..."

No, the answer was yes, and then you moved the goalposts.

there is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries.
#245 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-08 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:
I'm the dumb fuck in your mind but here's your words. Spin it again for me stupid!

there is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries.
#245 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-08 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:
I'm the dumb fuck in your mind but here's your words. Spin it again for me stupid!

#342 | Posted by patron at 2012-02-08 01:31 PM |

Spin what stupid? Are you really this fucking retarded? Did you even understand the retort dumbass? Some clown brought up the stupid argument about racial marriages being akin to gay marriages. Now maybe you need a fucking cattle prod to wake your fucking brain up. Have societies accepted racial marriage for the last 5000 years? Yes. Have the same societies accepted same sex marriage? No you fucking moron. Get the point.

"Where are you getting your definition of "physically incapacitated?"
My bet is that the government doesn't take it to mean what you assert.

#339 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

No, that definition is directly quoted from the california government website; Here is their direct quote again:

"(basically, it means that 1 of the spouses or partners was physically incapable of “consummating” the relationship) and the incapacity continues and appears to be “incurable."

So you lose your bet.

"So the answer is no. You couldn't find anything in Eurpoean history where marriage wasn't between a man and woman..."

No, the answer was yes, and then you moved the goalposts.

#341 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-08 01:30 PM |

It was? Point it out. Show one fucking word about changing the defintion between a man and a woman. You and those goalposts as usual are on the wrong field...

"Among the changes, parental consent is no longer required to marry, as it was in the 16th century. Marriages are no longer arranged as early as birth, at least in most of the world today. Marriages are no longer solely the province of religious authorities -- the state got involved in recording them after the Protestant Reformation. Formal marriage ceremonies are no longer required. Dual approval of the state and a church are no longer required. Dowries and bride prices are no longer required, in most of the world. Divorce no longer requires proving fault in your spouse, a change that began in the '60s."

Better yet, simply come up with any Gov the last 500 years who recognize same sex marriage, and still do today.

*off to the wikimobile*

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships/Marriage

1)Argentina
2)Belgium
3)Canada
4)Iceland
5)Netherlands
6)Norway
7)Portugal
8)South Africa
9)Spain
10)Sweden

There's 10 at the moment.

Performed in some jurisdictions
Brazil: AL
Mexico: Mexico City
United States: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT

And 6 US states as well.

If you are capable of reading a chart read this one...

"It aint rocket surgery!"

Wow... When did they all start Spudspew? 2001? Let's see 5000 years compared to 11... HTF did I miss that?

Nice Meth-dud, now pull up the chart that shows specifically how many states have amended their laws to specifically define the peen-vag marriage concept.

You couldn't find anything in Eurpoean history where marriage wasn't between a man and woman...

What part of "Greece is in Europe" did you have trouble understanding?

How is wanting to change the marriage laws for same sex couples any different from someone wanting multiple wives?

One involves two people. The other involves more than two.

Why would same-sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy if opposite-sex marriage didn't?

No-fault divorce has changed marriage far more than gay marriage ever could. You folks against that, too?

"Nice Meth-dud, now pull up the chart that shows specifically how many states have amended their laws to specifically define the peen-vag marriage concept."

#348 | Posted by americanPLY

You are correct, the majority of the 58 states have either a constitutional ammendment or law defining the one man one woman concept.

"Have societies accepted racial marriage for the last 5000 years? Yes."
So now it's just racial marriage for 5000 years? What happened to your interracial marriage comment? I think it's you who needs the cattle prod ,but stuck up your ass cause that's where your brain is!

One involves two people. The other involves more than two.

Why would same-sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy if opposite-sex marriage didn't?
Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 01:47 PM | R

Gee Wally why would changing the thousand years old traditional definition of marriage lead to other groups outside the homo community wanting their own defintion? Simply add an s to partner and there you have it.

Hell in Cali the law "now" requires homos are inlcuded in history lessons. Who would have thunk it? LMAO!!!

"One involves two people. The other involves more than two."#350 | Posted by rcade

So? Stop being so closed-minded. If I want to marry my mother or my father or both I should be allowed to. And certainly prisoners should be allowed to marry their cell mates. EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!!!!!

Ancient Greece is a long dead culture. You would be Pained to provide an example of gay marriage because their traditions evolved significantly under Roman rule (the birthmother of european culture). Even the profundity of homosexuality in pre-roman greece is under question. The scope of the gay practice caried too greatly to define ancient greece as a culture that tolerated homosexuality. In some places, the relationship between the older man and younger man was mentorship only, which is probably where the practice started where it progressed to sexual. In all cases, the younger man was expected to grow up out of the relationship and take a wife to start a family.

You fail.

"Have societies accepted racial marriage for the last 5000 years? Yes."
So now it's just racial marriage for 5000 years? What happened to your interracial marriage comment? I think it's you who needs the cattle prod ,but stuck up your ass cause that's where your brain is!

#353 | Posted by patron at 2012-02-08 01:50 PM |

Are you related to Zed? Trig? Sully? Here is the context dumbfuck STFU already...

The same Constitutional interpretation that extended marriage rights to interracial couples in Loving v. Virginia are being employed today for gays. Would you deny the right of an interracial couple to marry?
#241 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 11:30 AM |

I deny they are even in the same ballpark, and as usual a worthless argument. This is strictly gender and not race. There is nothing selfish about mixed races wanting to marry. Society has accepted it for centuries. What they have not accepted is same sex marriage being the norm. It has been tried and failed.

-No-fault divorce has changed marriage far more than gay marriage ever could.

I wouldn't go that far. We have no way of knowing that really.

why would changing the thousand years old traditional definition of marriage lead to other groups outside the homo community wanting their own defintion?

There is no thousand-years-old traditional definition of marriage.

So you lose your bet.
#344 | Posted by FreddyK

By your understanding of the term consummate then, a paraplegic is unable to get married either. Interesting.

There is no thousand-years-old traditional definition of marriage.
Posted by rcade at 2012-02-08 01:56 PM |

ROTFLMAO... I know rcade. Let me guess, you have a bible where Adam and Eve are Adam and Steve?

They don't. Now what? Why the stupid question?

Because you're the one fear-mongering by saying "IF WE LET GAYS MARRY THEN PEOPLE WILL WANT MULTIPLE WIVES TOO." Just wanted to see if you have any reason to care about that happening.

As would any individuals wanting to change what society for thousands of years deem the norm. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Worked pretty fucking well if you ask me, but then again I have only been here 50 years out of more than 5000.

Why is it the government's job to prevent changes in societal norms which, as you've admitted, do not affect you in any way?

Why is it the government's job to prevent changes in societal norms which, as you've admitted, do not affect you in any way?
#362 | Posted by JOE

I don't if this describes Crispy in any way, but some people with poor self control need to restrict their options in order keep them from making choices they'd rather not make. Like when a person on a diet won't keep any ice cream in the house.

I know rcade. Let me guess, you have a bible where Adam and Eve are Adam and Steve?

So the Bible defines traditional marriage and that must never be changed?

Here's one of the Bible's rules for marriage:

"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her."

"Because you're the one fear-mongering by saying "IF WE LET GAYS MARRY THEN PEOPLE WILL WANT MULTIPLE WIVES TOO." Just wanted to see if you have any reason to care about that happening."

I couldn't give a rat's ass. Doesn't affect me in the least. Except when it comes up on a ballot. Then of course I am asked to ignore the traditional definition of marriage in order to accomodate a group of selfish individuals who THINK they are different and deserve a platform.

As for the multiple wives, does the new definition define it as one partner and one partner? I am assuming it will be open for interpretation. Hell one man and one woman is now unconstitutional?

#357 | Posted by crispee_oc
So you did say accepted for centuries. It wasn't! Now tell me where I'm wrong or a dumb fuck. Don't you even understand your own post? Or are you just so confused on how to rationalize your thinking.It's lunch time don't miss your little yellow bus to take you home.

#364 That of course would be ancient Jewish religious law meant for a given people at a given time.

Not a part of modern Jewish or Christian practice.

So as you say, it did change.

Why is it the government's job to prevent changes in societal norms which, as you've admitted, do not affect you in any way?
#362 | Posted by JOE at 2012-02-08 01:59 PM

You tell me? How is it going to become the norm by changing the defintion of marriage? The Gov recognizes same sex partners via civil unions. This is now about the sanctity of marriage.

Why does the society not recognize or prevent interfamily marriages, like cousins?

Crusty is like one of those dinosaurs that were so big the head did even know the body was dead for ten minutes.

Have you figured out we are laughing at you and your quaint "thousand-years-old traditional definition" of marriage yet?

I thinks it's nap time old codger.

You'll feel much better after your nap.

"So you did say accepted for centuries."

Last time Trig... Interracial marriage and same sex marriage are NOT recognized equally. Nor should they even be on the same page. I know you are stupid as sand, but one is still a man and a woman, the other is your preference of man and man...

CrispeeCriminal, you should go back to defrauding people with faulty financial paper. At least in that pursuit you have a cover for your total stupidity and callous disregard for other humans.

I'm making a BIG stretch with the assumption that you're human.

"That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."

That there is some funny stuff... I don't care who you are!

This is now about the sanctity of marriage.
#368 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC

The sanctity based in your religion. Which is where the separation must be made in terms of government and religion. Just because your religion says one thing doesn't mean that every other religion must adhere to it.

Thank you for admitting the truth surrounding your argument - it's based on speculative religious belief.

Your speculative religious belief should not be forced upon anyone - which is the underlying logic in your argument.

"Oh and uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh.....Your welcome."

"That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."

Mitt Romney's genealogy reveals he comes from a related branch of the group known as "The Flip-Flops."

Interracial marriage and same sex marriage are NOT recognized equally.

#370 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2012-02-08 02:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

There's the only correct thing I've ever heard you say. The reason they're not equally recognized is that hate group members, such as you, have fought so hard to ensure inequality.

"Have you figured out we are laughing at you and your quaint "thousand-years-old traditional definition" of marriage yet?"

If I gave a rat's ass about some loser named donnerboy who cant even afford basic cable, I would mention it. As it is, that group YOU claim is laughing are rcade, danforth, and some loser names patron. Inlcuding you, a superfecta of sad sac libs...

Here donneretard...

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250-1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin mar meaning to provide with a husband or wife and mar meaning to get married. (The adjective mar-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife." The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[14]

"Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam."

Your speculative religious belief should not be forced upon anyone - which is the underlying logic in your argument.

"Oh and uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh.....Your welcome."

#373 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-02-08 02:19 PM

Uhhh read #376 Einstein....

Here's one of the Bible's rules for marriage:

Here it is in handy easy to comprehend chart form: