Mike Huckabee to "Imperial Court:" Go F*** Yourselves

Well, this could get interesting.

You go, Huck!

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.

"This ruling is not about marriage equality, it's about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the courtís most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny."

"The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment."

You can imagine how I, an agnostic, feel about that bit about "the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove.

But I do approve of the rest of it -- We did not agree to be ruled like subjects.

Our agreement, constructive as it was, is that we shall abide by the laws of a government assuming we have a say in the laws of that government.

The Overclass which rules us has torn up that part of the agreement.

I am not anti-gay. My snarky but truthful answer to all this is that I am more in favor of gay sex than gay marriage.

I do not dispute that gay people should be able to love whom they want. My dispute is this: there is no compelling state interest in recognizing Love. Love is not eternal. Love is not even terribly uncommon. I've been in love a dozen times. Sometimes I've fallen in love in five minutes.

Love is a wonderful feeling, but it is in fact so wonderful the product does not need to be sold. Hollywood makes billions of dollars on stories about love -- they put love stories into shoot-'em-up action movies -- because love itself is such a desirous thing that people will pay actual money to watch other people merely pretending to fall in love.

What the state actually has an interest in -- what is transcendent -- what is eternal, or at least connects one to the cycle of the eternal -- is, get this, childbirth.

It is the bearing and raising of children that actually propagates the species, propagates all species, and has done so now for, checking my watch, about 100,000 years for humans and about 100 million years for animals.

Promoting a stable environment in which children can be cared for and raised to adulthood -- a very time- and money- intensive proposition -- is something the state has a huge interest in. Not only is there that whole Survival of the Species consideration in play, but there are also grubbier concerns like ensuring that there are enough productive citizens in the next generation to cover the massive debts and massive retirement costs of the previous ones.

Tell me-- what interest does the state have in recognizing "Love" absent the expectation that that love will result in children?

I've been in love most of my life. I've had many relationships. None have produced children -- I avoided it.

Why does the State not have a compelling interest in recognizing my past loves and current ones?

Simple: Marriage is not about love, and the state interest in marriage has nothing to do with love.

Love is a lovely thing, and something I wouldn't deny to anyone.

But the idea that it there is no conceivable non-bigoted grounds to say that loves which, per the rules of biology, simply cannot produce anything other than some (usually transient) pleasure for two people is simply not a compelling interest of the state, and hence does not need to be supported or encouraged by marriage laws?

That idea is false.

Only an idiot, frankly, can think that his or her "love" is of any especial interest to anyone else in the world.

The state's only interest in love is frankly the same interest it has in any of us: In taxpayer units.

So, sorry. I respect gay people and don't mind their relationships at all. I do not believe their relationships to be sinful or "in revolt against God" or even all that weird. (Though, being a straight guy with 100,000 years of evolutionary instinct in me: I find gay male relationships a little weird. But I know this is a personal thing and not something I should impose into the code of the law.)

But what they are not, and will never be, is transcendent in the way I mean it, connecting one generation to the next, propagating the species, filling the earth with human life.

And thus there is no state interest in "gay marriage," and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in.


I'm Listening:


This tweet has since been deleted. I assume Spierling simply made a typo -- though an amusing one that I'd like to see discussed more.

Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 Oh my!!

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:02 PM (NOIQH)

2 We did not agree to be ruled like subjects.

Unfortunately, the majority of our neighbors did. Begged for it, even.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:03 PM (ZKzrr)

3 Even a broken clock is right twice a day...



I'd never vote for Huckabee. But given his background, it's no surprise that he'd come out swinging against the decision. And more power to him for that.

Posted by: junior at June 26, 2015 12:05 PM (s1zlc)

4 You can imagine how I, an agnostic, feel about that bit about "the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove.

So, you don't claim to have any rights?

Because your options for claiming rights are A)God gave them to me when He created me in His image or B)You (government) will respect my rights or I will kill you.

You have not historically been a supporter of B) so only A) could apply.

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 12:05 PM (ZbV+0)

5 New thread, same topic.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 26, 2015 12:06 PM (lIU4e)

6 Like the red meat defiance, but it's useless venting.

No president can or will stop such a ruling from changing America. For every governor willing to stand up to it are 49 Governors who will obey. And the one who disobeys will go the route of Judge Roy Moore.

More useful would be to 'win by losing' by lamenting the loss of democracy inherent in this judicial ruling and use it to energize conservative to vote against the Party of Judicial Tyranny (aka Democrats). Yes, I know Oral Hatch, er, Orrin Hatch voted for all those SCOTUS folks who made SSM the law, but
that needs to be fixed too.


Posted by: Keep Calm Cruz On at June 26, 2015 12:06 PM (FLBHk)

7 I hope to get out before its mandatory.

Posted by: blaster at June 26, 2015 12:06 PM (labbd)

8 The Supreme Court has made it's ruling. Now let the IRS enforce it.
(With apologies to Andrew Jackson.)

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 26, 2015 12:06 PM (atDLY)

9 Dred Scott took the first step in imposing a peculiar institution on the entire nation; Obergefell has imposed a peculiar institution on the entire nation.

Posted by: An Inanimate Carbon Rod at June 26, 2015 12:06 PM (FohCt)

10 You can imagine how I, an agnostic, feel about that bit about "the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove.

ace, I believe that line is lifted directly from the Declaration of Independence. Which, granted, is like over a hundred years old, so there is that.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:07 PM (AkOaV)

11 We are now leaving the American sector.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:07 PM (oKE6c)

12 I give it 3 stars and a Zoro Snap.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 26, 2015 12:08 PM (evdj2)

13 "Just say NO" to drugs worked well. We should try it for gay marriage.

Posted by: Thoms Nostrous at June 26, 2015 12:08 PM (uYIF2)

14 Texas is rejecting this ruling, for now.

Our AG has told clerks not to issue gay marriage licenses...for now.

We shall see how this goes.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2015 12:09 PM (MYCIw)

15 ace, I believe that line is lifted directly from the
Declaration of Independence. Which, granted, is like over a hundred
years old, so there is that.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:07 PM (AkOaV)


Dead white males. Pffft.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:09 PM (oKE6c)

16 I have no animosity towards gay couples, but I do have towards those who seek to exact their
"victories" on the back of the rule of law and the Constitution.... Sad days indeed...

Posted by: donna at June 26, 2015 12:09 PM (Bn6aD)

17
Peak Liberalism is reached only at the lowest point of a mass grave.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:09 PM (St6BJ)

18 doesn't "the laws of nature and nature's God." go back to the ancient Greeks? It's not originally a Christian concept.

Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:09 PM (HEa5q)

19 Didn't the invention of the telephone make the Constitution outdated?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (oDCMR)

20 Promoting heterosexual couplings isn't just about continuing the species or the society, it's also about maintaining or increasing the tax base.


I'm an agnostic as well and haven't seen the secular argument above made enough, but I used to go with the "Speciesist" argument too. You touched on the tax part too briefly IMO.


You gotta put it in terms they understand since basic science seems beyond their grasp.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (xSCb6)

21 I have no animosity towards gay couples

I didn't.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (evdj2)

22 The reckoning for leftist shit, when it comes, will be epic.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (oKE6c)

23 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (kff5f)

24 I've been in love most of my life. I've had many relationships. None have produced children -- I avoided it.

Yeah, but were the relationships overseas and now possibly dead, with no independent verification?

Asking for a friend.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (AkOaV)

25 Once again, very well said, Ace. You've put into very clear argument my feelings about the State's interest in gay marriage, which is it has no such compelling interest.

Gays can manufacture babies in test tubes, but they can't create them.

Posted by: elaine at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (Y0Piu)

26 Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (kff5f)

27 connecting one generation to the next, propagating the species, flowering the earth with human life.

Most Americans have stopped thinking a girl should be married before she has babies. Can't end well.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (ZKzrr)

28
So you have first amendment right to gay marriage. Others have a first amendment right to not gay marry you. What happenstwo constitutional rights collide? That's right the supreme court gets to decide.
Countdown to first gay couple that sues over being refused marriage in catholic, orthodox jewish or southern Baptist church. The progressive endgame is to stamp out religion. They will cancel the charitable exemption on those who do not comply and begin confiscation of property.
Explain to me why a civil union wasn't enough? Why marriage?

Posted by: simplemind at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (5vV+V)

29 Meanwhile, conservatives like S.E. Cupp are on CNN saying the GOP must all get on board and give up our outdated opinions blah, blah, blah.

I get that the MSM will use this like a freakin' hammer against any Republican who doesn't not embrace this ruling with sufficient enthusiasm.

I don't get why I or anyone else should have pretend (or re-wire my apparent wrongthink) this is a great ruling for the republic simply because the activists are pretending it's only about "love."
Fcuk that sh%t.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:11 PM (NOIQH)

30 The twitter link is down.

Posted by: thathalfrican at June 26, 2015 12:11 PM (sRKJ3)

31 -
We Had Joy
We Had Fun
We Had Seasons in the Sun,
But the Joy that We Had
Was Just Fucked in the Ass by POTUS/SCOTUS

_

Posted by: Individual Liberty at June 26, 2015 12:11 PM (0MJOU)

32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

Posted by: Thoms Nostrous at June 26, 2015 12:11 PM (uYIF2)

33 I don't like Huck that much, but bless him on this.

Burn everything down. Crush all those Communists-in-waiting.

Posted by: Lark at June 26, 2015 12:11 PM (qpjUF)

34 I have never trusted men who wear robes.

Posted by: Miss Trust at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (VcOqI)

35 >>Most Americans have stopped thinking a girl should be married before she has babies. Can't end well.

Most Americans have stopped thinking a girl should be punished with a baby. Better to get her on the pill or clear the past for aborting any tiny monsters who dare to get in the way of her fabulous career.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (NOIQH)

36 Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 12:05 PM (ZbV+0)

Or, the whole enlightenment and Jeffersonian theory of "natural law" which our entire system of government relies on.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (AkOaV)

37 Yo!

Posted by: Yo! at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (q+zA9)

38
Homosexuality is either a perversion, a mental disorder or some form of both.

I tolerate and have no animosity towards the mentally ill but that does not mean I want them or anyone to dictate the direction of society and law.

Tyranny is here. How does it taste?


Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (St6BJ)

39 Texas is rejecting this ruling, for now.

Our AG has told clerks not to issue gay marriage licenses...for now.


I may have to throw Ken Paxton some $$$ for his re-election campaign.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (kff5f)

40 question: I thought I heard (Fox Business news) that states must recognize the validity of a marriage license in any other state.
Does that mean that every state must issue the marriage license?
Someone clarify, if possible.

By the way, I wonder how Roberts would have voted if he knew Kennedy was going to vote the other way.

Posted by: mallfly at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (qSIlh)

41 Meanwhile, conservatives like S.E. Cupp are on CNN saying the GOP must all get on board and give up our outdated opinions

-----

Those same "conservatives" said the same thing after Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: SH at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (gmeXX)

42 SE Cupp is as much a conservative as I am a liberal.

Posted by: thathalfrican at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (sRKJ3)

43 The government has decided it can offset the loss of biologically produced tax payers by just importing new citizens, much like any other government in the world.

And if those new citizens vote for them, even better.

Posted by: Gaff at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (jPS2y)

44 1995: It's cruel and hateful to think it necessary to pass the Defense of Marriage Act

2005: It's cruel and hateful to deny homosexuals the right to marry

2015: It's cruel and hateful to refuse to participate in weddings between homosexuals.

2025: It's cruel and hateful to refuse to wed a homosexual

2035: Allahu Ackbar

Posted by: Nostradamus at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (FohCt)

45 My view of the Supreme Court has evolved.

Posted by: Not So Deep Thinker at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (VcOqI)

46
So, teh SCOTUS wants to upend society in order to please less than 2% of the population.


So much for the interests of the majority.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (eEb+d)

47 41 Meanwhile, conservatives like S.E. Cupp are on CNN saying the GOP must all get on board and give up our outdated opinions

-----

Those same "conservatives" said the same thing after Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: SH at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (gmeXX)


She has nice Cupps. That's about it.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (St6BJ)

48 Our Founding Fathers picked up guns and killed Brits to stop their imperial court. We're not going to do that. That's kind of an important difference, Mike. Washington didn't blog the British to submission.

Posted by: The Governor at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (K0y5m)

49 Penis+vagina = marriage...me = hater. I'll accept that.

As far as homosexuality being natural...have you ever noticed that in gay relationships invariably one partner takes the 'role' of the male and one the female. Natural? They resort to what is natural even in a gay relationship.

Also, the same people who scream about the laws of nature al la humanity killing gaia are the same ones in general that are rabid advocates of gay marriage. What am I missing here?


Posted by: Just sayin' at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (BjKDP)

50 Apropos - my comment from the other thread:

--- ------
The fuck does that even mean? You clearly don't love the majority of the country who think that the biblical definition of marriage has meaning.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2015 12:00 PM (MYCIw)

It's not even just the biblical definition. it's the definition of humanity long before God revealed Himself to Abraham. It was the definition of all the pagans the Israelites we're surrounded by. It is the definition of the Hindus and Muslims and Animists.

Marriage has only ever been between a man and a woman. The only things that differedis in the number of people a person could be married to. But it has always been that a person could marry only someone of the opposite sex. In polygamous marriages, the wives aren't married to each other.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at June 26, 2015 12:08 PM (shFKH)

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (shFKH)

51
I'll wait for an activist from Hig Homo to try to get married in a mosque...

??

Posted by: Yo! at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (q+zA9)

52 Everybody must get stoned.

Posted by: Dylan Isis at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (VcOqI)

53
"Having forced this on the nation, we can no revert to our previous stance: Marriage is pointless and oppressive."

-- The Left

Posted by: CJ at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (9KqcB)

54 Yeah, but were the relationships overseas and now possibly dead, with no independent verification?

Asking for a friend.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM


ISWYDT.

Posted by: Miss Lindsey at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (h4vJk)

55 42 SE Cupp is as much a conservative as I am a liberal.
Posted by: thathalfrican at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (sRKJ3)

but to be fair, she does have a wonderful rack.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (AkOaV)

56 We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.
_______________________

We must also resist and reject executive/bureaucratic tyranny, which is currently the bigger threat to our freedoms.

Sic semper tyrannis.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (kGrdk)

57 In the war of 1812, the British overran D.C., burned the White House and much more, withal.

Those were the good ol' days.



Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Posted by: Jim at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (RzZOc)

58 Countdown to first gay couple that sues over being refused marriage in
catholic, orthodox jewish or southern Baptist church. The progressive
endgame is to stamp out religion. They will cancel the charitable
exemption on those who do not comply and begin confiscation of property.


The shit won't hit the fan until it gets to a Mosque. Then lib heads will explode - kinda like matter/anti-matter.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (sH832)

59 I'm not going to normalize gay sex any more than I normalize any other sexual perversion. I can tolerate it but I will not be forced to accept that it is normal and subject to a protected class.

Oh noes I said gay sex is a perversion . Don't ban me.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (Q4pU/)

Posted by: No at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (VcOqI)

61 I have no animosity towards gay couples


I don't care what they do, as long as they do it in private, and STFU. Go queer off, spread the virus amongst yourselves, enjoy. But stop doing to society what you do to each other.



Speaking of disease, the shirtlifters dodged a bullet with AIDS, since the discovery of the protease inhibitor cocktail (?) blunted its impact. When the next fatal STD comes along - and it will, eventually - they'd better hope their luck holds. Rampant promiscuity plus communicable disease minus effective treatment means they'll be in deep sewage.


Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (oKE6c)

62 Well if we are going to take back our country from the snarling hoards it will have to be through an Article V convention.

That or outright war and resistance.

Posted by: Kreplach at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (mqYFN)

63 And the time of State approved Churches is now at hand.

Just like the USSR and PRC. And another term 'refusnik.'

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (fEYIa)

64 46
So, teh SCOTUS wants to upend society in order to please less than 2% of the population.


So much for the interests of the majority.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 12:13 PM (eEb+d)


The homosexuals are merely another grievance group used by the Left to advance their goal of total control and destruction of America as founded. They could care fuck-all about them except insofar as they can use them and their considerable finances to advance their goals.

That said, this is a keystone to destroying G-d and the family and replacing them with the Almighty State.

That is the endgame, IMHO.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (St6BJ)

65 Yeah, I'll just sit that next election out.

Posted by: No Vote at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (VcOqI)

66 From Dred Scott to Obergefell, the Supreme Court has been a leader in the Imposition of values repugnant to the people for over 2 Centuries!!

2nd (or 22nd) look at an Art V Convention folks? Beats the heck out of Civil War II.

Posted by: bystander at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (hKyl0)

67 You can imagine how I, an agnostic, feel about that bit about "the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove.

----

My first instinct was that Huck could have said the same thing but avoided this language.

But after thinking about it (a whole 5 minutes) I think it was right for him to say these words. Christian conservatives cannot avoid God.

That being said this ruling offends me on the Constitution - not on the Church. I'm happy with the Church and State having their own definitions of marriage.

Posted by: SH at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (gmeXX)

68 63 And another term 'refusnik.'
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (fEYIa)

We are all Natan Sharansky now.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (St6BJ)

69 Thanks Ace, that was excellent.

I've been saying, quit subsidizing the childless couples then ... it is only for the children that we give pension/entitlement sharing to "the little woman". So no subsidy for gay or straight childless couples ... no providing home raised kids, no reward.

But you give a better, and more legal, explanation of that. Brilliant.

Posted by: Illiniwek at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (8bK1p)

70 >>SE Cupp is as much a conservative as I am a liberal.

Yep, she's a "conservative" in so far as the MSM has to pretend to host conservative voices.

She's as conservative as Andrew Sullivan and Meghan McCain.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (NOIQH)

71 I don't get why I or anyone else should have pretend (or re-wire my apparent wrongthink) this is a great ruling for the republic simply because the activists are pretending it's only about "love."

You don't, and shouldn't.

If the GOP embraces this, they are not embracing "Homosexual marriage," they are embracing Imperial Rule of Men. And should receive no support.

Someone on the Yahoo Group (I'm too lazy to look up who) said something about never sitting out an election because so many other people around the world don't even have the opportunity- that it is a privilege and an duty to vote.

In general I agree with this statement, but I'll take it yet further: I have a duty to vote well. I have a duty to see to it that I cast a vote which will (if combined with enough others) lead to a moral and upright nation - not because I wish to impose my morality, but because it has been proven that moral and upright nations are better providers for their citizens.

If I have no option which will do that, then it is my duty not to support "the lesser of evils." It is enough to say, "They are all evil, and none of them have my consent."

If the GOP listens to the chattering classes and says, "Oh, goody, gay marriage! We were always secretly for it!" then I am done. I cannot support them. I will not support them.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (kff5f)

72 Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (AkOaV)

No doubt.

Posted by: thathalfrican at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (sRKJ3)

73 I'm sorry, Dave, but "open the pod bay doors, HAL" has taken on an entirely new concept.

Posted by: HAL 9000 at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (VcOqI)

74 Sister wives and inviting the cat into the marriage for an extra tax deduction? Throw in the health insurance and you've got a deal.

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (l3vZN)

75 >>> I'm not going to normalize gay sex any more than I normalize any other sexual perversion.

not going to ban you but I tend to find that people enjoy a lot of kinds of "perversions" -- a blowjob is sodomy -- but don't call their own likes "perversions."

People tend to be judgmental only as regards those things they don't do or enjoy themselves.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (bhepQ)

76 38 -- Tyranny is here. How does it taste?


Like ass.

Posted by: elaine at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (Y0Piu)

77 The Supreme Court just issued the entire nation a license to sell hotdogs.... yummy,yummy hotdogs.

You can't imagine how giddy I am over that.

Posted by: Chris Hayes at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (MNzex)

78 The progressive
endgame is to stamp out religion.

-----

They will not win.

Posted by: SH at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (gmeXX)

79 Right, ace. It's not like any gay people have kids. In only personally know several gay families with kids. Some adopted. Some biological. If that's the purpose of marriage, (which it's not), wouldn't having both parents as the kids know them being married add to the stability of that family?

Posted by: seattle slough at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (mCz8+)

80 Oh noes I said gay sex is a perversion.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 26, 2015 12:15 PM (Q4pU/)


Elucidating the obvious.

Crucifying people for calling homosexuality a perversion doesn't change its status as a perversion. It just makes it problematic for anyone to point out that status.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (oKE6c)

81 Tyranny is here. How does it taste?


Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:12 PM (St6BJ)

Like ass.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (2Ojst)

82 Huck can say that all he wants. He'll never be in a position for his words to mean anything.

Posted by: douger at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (eM6QK)

83
We're gearing up.

Posted by: wth - Vomitorium Engineers at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (wAQA5)

84 also from the other thread:

I think when marriage became primarily about romantic love that was the beginning of its downfall. For the vast majority of history, and even in many places around the world today, romantic love is not the reason for marriage. As Ace so eloquently wrote a while ago, marriage is not a government license of going steady.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at June 26, 2015 12:00 PM (shFKH)

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (shFKH)

85 Two women?

Double the child support.

Posted by: Wendy at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (KydDZ)

86 Posted by: The Governor at June 26, 2015 12:14 PM (K0y5m)

You must not have read Common Sense.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (Q4pU/)

87
!

Posted by: Yo! a thought criminal at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (q+zA9)

88 You're not listening to us!!!!1!!!

Posted by: two women at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (kivUY)

89 66 2nd (or 22nd) look at an Art V Convention folks? Beats the heck out of Civil War II.
Posted by: bystander at June 26, 2015 12:16 PM (hKyl0)


I'm a big booster as many know here. That said, I don't think we have the time let alone a real agenda of amendments.

And even if we did, SCOAMF ignores it all and SCOTUS redefines the law to suit SCOAMF.

Massive civil disobedience. Either that or insurrection.

I see no other real alternatives to reversing course.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (St6BJ)

90 I get that the MSM will use this like a freakin'
hammer against any Republican who doesn't not embrace this ruling with
sufficient enthusiasm. Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:11 PM


How strange. Within the past few days, we were being told the exact same thing about contrary views regarding the CBF. We should rip down that soiled banner, tear down the statues of Confederate generals and statesmen, and let the Enlightened have their way.

What shall we give up and tolerate next? I can hardly wait.

Posted by: MrScribbler at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (P8YHq)

91 Real Americans back in the day would not allow the SC to impose its Euroweenie socialist views on the peeps without some heavy pushback.

But the current crop of 'muricans mainlines that same Euroweenie shyt 24/7 via the Tube. My guess? Teh peeps will do as theys told.

Posted by: bystander at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (hKyl0)

92 ***"I have no animosity towards gay couples, but I do have towards those who seek to exact their..."***


That's pretty much all of them. They're like Muslims - there are no moderates. Just as no moderate society can produce such a gigantic "fringe" of people willing to rape, enslave, torture, and behead innocent people; no fringe portion of the gay "community" (a tiny fringe itself) is able to wield this level of power without the support of a vast and silent number of "moderates".


I used to be of the opinion that gay marriage didn't affect anyone other than the couple.


Boy was I stupid and naive.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (xSCb6)

93 Or, the whole enlightenment and Jeffersonian theory of "natural law" which our entire system of government relies on.

That's what I said. Christians can only support the ideas this nation were founded on if the God who reveals Himself in the Bible and the God who reveals Himself through nature are one and the same. Otherwise we are committing idolatry and must abandon those ideas entirely.

We aren't in that position because we know God revealed Himself to Abraham before the Bible was written, and He states several times that He has written His law on the hearts of all mankind (which is where the ideas people have regarding natural law come from).

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 12:19 PM (ZbV+0)

94 Just another chance for failure theatre.

Posted by: dogfish at June 26, 2015 12:19 PM (rdjj7)

95 85 Two women?

Double the child support.
Posted by: Wendy at June 26, 2015 12:18 PM (KydDZ)

And the alimony, so you can support the guy she shacked up with after the divorce and was probably banging beforehand.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 12:19 PM (2Ojst)

96 I will not be ruled, fool.

Posted by: Mr. T's Special Frosted 5.56 Flakes at June 26, 2015 12:19 PM (1v2mO)

97 Good Citizens are chumps.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (evdj2)

98 "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have
been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make
an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to
say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as
for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire
city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror
at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step
on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and
had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen
people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Posted by: Grad School Fool at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (A9KzJ)

99 Ace you hit the same themes that Alito did in his dissent, namely, that the state's traditional interest in marriage was an an interest in the welfare of children. It has nothing to do with the happiness of adults.

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (OD2ni)

100 I want my dead parent's social security, and since ghey marriage is supposedly about "equality," that means that I'm entitled to marry both of them so that I can collect their payments.

Posted by: Sasquatch, the trans-Wookie Original at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (RtXLW)

101 Rush just said that AA is reason Roberts saved TFGCare because no one wants their name associated with anything that undoes accomplishment of first black president. Now that's a possibility!!

Posted by: Carol at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (sj3Ax)

102 My new bumper sticker: I Love My Wives

Posted by: Sticker Shock at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (VcOqI)

103
well said, ace (though I think the final words you were looking for were "go on ...." - though yours are hilarious, too)

However.

And this is much, much broader than just this issue.

"Compelling state interest"

A concept, a phrase, so inherently fraught with existential peril to liberty and rule of law, not sure how it can actually be acceptably used.

In any case, the differential taxation of single vs. married people, and tax breaks for kids, etc. - all of it is ludicrously unacceptable, and indefensible. Pure - and silly - social engineering, of the worst sort.

Lemme see. Before an income tax, and before all the amazing gyrations and distortions in the tax code to reward this/punish that - how did mankind reproduce? Just fine, actually.

So - tax breaks for marriage/kids is an outstanding example of a baseless application of a noxious doctrine (compelling state interest). Understanding how such things are accepted, even cheered, by "conservatives" without apparently any thought makes our comically lawless situation less surprising.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (QDnY+)

104 Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (bhepQ)

As an agnostic you sure don't adhere to the theory of evolution very well.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (Q4pU/)

105
People tend to be judgmental only as regards those things they don't do or enjoy themselves.


Not arguing with you, Ace, but it's interesting that the rote ad hominem that the Left uses is the opposite of that-- that only 'closet cases' are against homosexuality.

It's an unprovable, self-serving assertion, but many people will reflexively recite it as fact.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (oVJmc)

106 Dead white males. Pffft.

-
They're the ones keeping Obama from imposing utopia.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (XUKZU)

107 Article V convention as a nation means we have to get a huge percentage of lefties on board with our changes. Christ, they would use it to push even more ridiculous shit on us. Article V convention without them is the same as secession. It is no remedy.

Posted by: The Governor at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (K0y5m)

108 If that's the purpose of marriage, (which it's not),
wouldn't having both parents as the kids know them being married add to
the stability of that family?

Posted by: seattle slough at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (mCz8+)

"If that's the purpose of marriage, (which it's not)"
Of course it is. Try to keep up. The purpose of marriage is to provide for children. It's not to provide tax breaks, health care, parking privileges or any other crap.
The "stability of the family" argument is pure casuistry. In the first place, homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt, for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (oKE6c)

109 question: I thought I heard (Fox Business news) that states must recognize the validity of a marriage license in any other state.
Does that mean that every state must issue the marriage license?
Someone clarify, if possible.
_____________________

Now that the SCOTUS has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, every state must issue marriage licenses to gay applicants, and every state must also recognize the validity of gay marriages that originated in other states.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (kGrdk)

110 Ace. You rock.

Manage the twitters and roll out a compelling post.

Multi-tasker extraordinaire.

Posted by: Golfman at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (fQAkR)

111 Here's my question for all the people waving their flags in my face today.

What was wrong with civil unions? What does "marriage" give you that a civil union did not?

The only answer is a middle finger to conservative America.

That's what this is about. That's what this has always been about.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (MYCIw)

112 You don't have to be a Christian to believe in the natural inherency of our civil, Constitutional rights. It helps to at least be a Deist, though. Otherwise, the only "rights" you have exist at the sufferance of those in power, and are thus not rights at all.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 12:21 PM (2Ojst)

113 I second to no one in my distaste for Huckabee.

But: The man is right.

I stand with him here.

Who else will?

The next American party will be born on this issue: We are not facing a civil war--we are facing a revolution no less on the same issue as the first American Revolution.

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (ZvKdv)

114 What's really ironic is that in twenty years the Caliphate of America will stones all those deviants to death.

This isn't a nation anymore, it's a gigantic asylum.

Posted by: Lark at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (qpjUF)

115 We're hiring.

Posted by: wth - Vomitorium Engineers at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (wAQA5)

116 Fuck it. Time for work.

Posted by: thathalfrican at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (sRKJ3)

117 76 38 -- Tyranny is here. How does it taste?


Like ass.

Posted by: elaine at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (Y0Piu)


Shut it down... we're done

Posted by: cajun caret at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (UZQM8)

118 Rush just said that AA is reason Roberts saved TFGCare because no one wants their name associated with anything that undoes accomplishment of first black president. Now that's a possibility!!

-
I think that may well be true. I think our fear of the n word is such that we would rather allow our country to be destroyed.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (XUKZU)

119 quit subsidizing the childless couples then

A two-income couple with no children pays way the fuck more taxes than a man with a SAHM and kids. Shit, an unmarried woman with no bastards is gonna be paying more taxes than a man with a SAHM and kids (assuming same income).

Some subsidy.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (ZKzrr)

120 People tend to be judgmental only as regards those things they don't do or enjoy themselves.

I'm not opposed to having my dick sucked, just not by a man. A difference in kind rather than a difference in kind.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (evdj2)

121 79 Right, ace. It's not like any gay people have kids. In only personally know several gay families with kids. Some adopted. Some biological. If that's the purpose of marriage, (which it's not), wouldn't having both parents as the kids know them being married add to the stability of that family?
Posted by: seattle slough at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (mCz8+)

Well, it is the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage. That's why states got in to the "marriage game" and why they used to do blood testing and why we are in this situation.

But clearly the original purpose of marriage was a religious sacrament to bring "a man and a wife together in unity as one flesh in front of God" or some such thing.

I deeply believe that the churches should have NEVER let the state in to the whole marriage game. As an atheist, I find the whole concept of marriage to be ... not to my liking. I don't care about the church part, and its none of the states fucking business who I sleep next to at night.

All of that being said, under no interpretation of the constitution is this a FEDERAL issue.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (AkOaV)

122 The next American party will be born on this issue:
We are not facing a civil war--we are facing a revolution no less on the
same issue as the first American Revolution.


Posted by: RoyalOil at June 26, 2015 12:22 PM (ZvKdv)

I don't like writing this, but I'm afraid the time of parties and democracy is over.

Posted by: Lark at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (qpjUF)

123 The progressive endgame is to stamp out religion.
-----
They will not win.
Posted by: SH

They took gay marriage from impossible to normal in 10 years. They will drive religion underground. I feel weird even thinking about it this way, but I am slowly starting to prepare myself for the kind of persecution Christians experience in the Middle East and in Cuba. To lose my job, be a second class citizen with any decent paying professional forbidden to me, and ultimately my life. It sounds paranoid now. But in 10 years??? Start preparing yourself for the roundups into the camps and the arenas, it's coming.

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (hslAc)

124 dammit

a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (evdj2)

125 If we are lucky we are Sharansky Tovarich Sefton da?

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (fEYIa)

126
I have no animosity towards gay couples peaceful Muslims




Posted by: Zombie Caesar Nero at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (ND90G)

127 I'm a Republican, but Mr. Huckabee's hateful rhetoric concerns me. It appears he has been influenced by the extremists.

Posted by: Susan Olivia Cuthbertson-Klein at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (Ui7Rt)

128 >>>I don't care what they do, as long as they do it in private, and STFU. Go queer off, spread the virus amongst yourselves, enjoy. But stop doing to society what you do to each other.

with respect, this rhetorical gambit is transparently dishonest. I point this out because it is so common, and so... obviously false.

When you say "I don't care what you do" and then finish your thought with four or five negative comments about the thing you claim you don't care that people do -- it is very obvious that you DO care what they do.

We should be honest. And if we're going to lie, we should lie in a way that isn't so obvious.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (bhepQ)

129 Soon, 'marriage combines' will exist as syndicates, group marriages designed solely as benefit-sharing plans. 'Families' will just be contractual arrangements.

And children will become more of simple commodities and accessories than ever, and grow up even more screwed up because of it.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (oVJmc)

130 -- because love eating delicious chocolate eclairs itself is such a desirous thing that people will pay actual money to watch other people merely pretending to fall in love eat delicious chocolate eclairs.


FIFY.



What?


I love delicious chocolate eclairs.

Don't denigrate my sacred love, H8rs!!!!!!!111!!

Posted by: naturalfake at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (0cMkb)

131 Excellent post, Ace, absolutely correct in every way! And, just by the way, is there any chance at all that we could get Scalia to run for Pres?

Posted by: Peaches at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (EgOr3)

132 /sock

Posted by: some random meathead - if you're not drinking, you're not paying attention at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (ND90G)

133 Article V convention as a nation means we have to get a huge percentage of lefties on board with our changes. Christ, they would use it to push even more ridiculous
shit on us. Article V convention without them is the same as secession.


I vote secession. They have already proven that they won't follow the Constitution. They won't follow a new one either.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (kSbCG)

134 No post-menopausal marriage angle?

AGEIST!

Posted by: derit at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (jT+gh)

135 99 Ace you hit the same themes that Alito did in his dissent, namely, that the state's traditional interest in marriage was an an interest in the welfare of children. It has nothing to do with the happiness of adults.

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM (OD2ni)




Bull's eye.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (oKE6c)

136 'xactly. The government has no business monkeying around with love, and Obama's tweet shows just what a shallow thinker and Mr. Mod he is. The only valid reason for government to get involved in marriage is for the promotion of family life (like the Julian laws) and the protection of women and children. Otherwise government has and should have no role.

Posted by: Caliban at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (DrC22)

137 ace your god damn auto play video ad keeps scrolling me up to it.

I do not like it.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (AkOaV)

138 Let's face it, no one wants to be William Wallace.

Posted by: Thoms Nostrous at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (uYIF2)

139 Now that the SCOTUS has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, every state must issue marriage licenses to gay applicants, and every state must also recognize the validity of gay marriages that originated in other states.

Assuming they continue to issue licenses at all.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (evdj2)

140 And thus there is no state interest in "gay marriage," and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in.
==========================

Not sure I understand, Ace. Without "marriage" do you mean to say that the laws of inheritance, pension survivability etc all need to be separately dealt with?

Here is an example of what I mean: I have an acquaintance who is an elderly survivor of a long-time (34 years) relationship with a now-deceased partner. The partner was a college professor and had a generous pension and other assorted benefits.

Our friend is now poverty stricken, because he could not inherit the pension and health benefits previously provided to him via his partner. He did not inherit automatically under the law, as a legally married spouse would have.

If the law had provided a marriage-like Civil Union he might have been OK (its not clear and not relevant anyway because the law didn't so provide). He and his partner did have a good will but they obviously couldn't deal with the pension and health benefits issue. Hence, he now has greatly reduced income and relies on Medicaid/Medicare.

The state clearly does have a compelling interest in this instance, because he is now on relief (having lost the greater part of his income). The state could have avoided this problem (and now has), by way of providing for spouse-like benefits (the state passed SSM) and so, if the partners death had occurred today our friend would have inherited the pension and health benefit.

That sounds like a "compelling state interest" to me. And the state dealt with the problem.

IMO, the Federal involvement is what is unnecessary. And without any legitimate basis in the Constitution.

Posted by: James Madison at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (ck8TA)

141 The Overclass which rules us has torn up that part of the agreement.

When in the course of human events....

Posted by: just saying at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (wkuqO)

142
Oh, and Huckabee (trash be upon him, the slimy authoritarian weirdo), stumbled upon the thing I've been saying forever. And it's not a style point, or a small thing. It's everything, logically.

"Marriage redefinition". That - inarguably - is what we're talking about. If that is not acknowledged, then there's no serious argument to follow.

Maybe marriage *should* be redefined, dunno. No strong feelings about it. But it *is* redefinition, the entire burden *is* on those seeking such redefinition. And the SCOTUS, clearly, has no role in the matter, unless they can demonstrate some equal protection rationale - which they can't. Civil unions. And, for the tax part, outlawing the pernicious tax code discrimination that is rationalized by the bizarre "compelling state interest" doctrine.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (QDnY+)

143 I think when marriage became primarily about romantic love that was the beginning of its downfall.

Also when illegitimacy started to be subsidized by the state and encouraged socially (bit of a chicken-egg thing there? at least a giant feedback loop).

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (ZKzrr)

144 That's a nice Constitution you got there, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it.

Posted by: rebel flounder at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (Vf5rR)

145 In 2014 my state of Maryland voted on gay marriage. At that time I realized that we (by which I mean society) lost the gay marriage argument when we went along with the 'single moms are terrif!' argument. Nobody wants to beat up on single moms, many of whom are not single moms by choice, but by failing to stand up for the children and their basic right to be raised by a mother and a father, by failing to make it clear that the overriding purpose of marriage is to support the nuclear family in raising the next generation, we gave up our best argument against gay marriage.

Posted by: biancaneve at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (HaVMa)

146 I am on the exact same page as Ace (to the chagrin of many here).

as far as this

And thus there is no state interest in "gay marriage," and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in.


The left do not believe in the Constitution. They do not believe in the "States" laws. They do not believe in sovereignty anymore. The push is "one world." One set of laws.

None of what we think matters. It's international or bust.

They are not thinking The United States of America.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (qCMvj)

147 I think that may well be true. I think our fear of the n word is such that we would rather allow our country to be destroyed.


Guess how the destruction will forever be remembered.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (kSbCG)

148 Sweet Baby Jesus here's a point on which I I completely agree with Ace-- 100%.

Posted by: David W at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (Hi6cL)

149 As JJ says, massive civil disobedience.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (LA7Cm)

150 Damn right, Ace. Preach it, bruthah

Posted by: Phil at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (39FGM)

151 It's not about marriage equality and never has been. But some won't
believe that until the first report of a Bible only pastor who is
brought up on charges for refusing to preside over a homosexual
ceremony. I'm not sure they'll believe it even then, but we'll find out
soon enough. Just like sodomites went out looking for businesses who'd
refuse their demands, so sodomites will now be out looking for churches
who refuse their demands. Wait and see.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (bGLSw)

152 Ace, I tried the state interest argument with Gabe in the past - he doesn't like it. Came up with all kinds of equal protection crap.

Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (ztOda)

153
"Right, ace. It's not like any gay people have kids. In only personally know several gay families with kids. Some adopted. Some biological. If that's the purpose of marriage, (which it's not), wouldn't having both parents as the kids know them being married add to the stability of that family?"


The two partners in a SSM cannot procreate between themselves. There has to be an outsider. That was Ace's point and he is absolutely right about the traditional view. And for the SC to rule that a state cannot hold to to this traditional view is preposterous.

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:26 PM (OD2ni)

154
auto-play vid

google chrome - click to play. Problem solved.

New problem created. When you do want a vid to play, you have to jump through hoops while juggling hot cups of coffee and singing the French National Anthem while facing down the German invaders.

Posted by: Thoms Nostrous at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (uYIF2)

155 Huzzah! Three cheers for Ace!

And even a couple of cheers for Huckabee!

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (VAsIq)

156 Whatever, gay marriages are no more real than Bruce Jenner is a woman.


You can call it what you want, but there's always an asterisk beside it.


And this brief moment in time means little. Ask the gays in Europe how great they are feeling now as the Muslim hordes rush in....

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (AC0lD)

157 it's all fun and games until cops show up at your Church and haul your Pastor away in handcuffs...

Strawberry Fields Forever!

Posted by: Shoey at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (vA94g)

158 Now that's a possibility!!
Posted by: Carol at June 26, 2015 12:20 PM


Limbaugh's bucking for the Captain Obvious Award again.

Nothing that has happened to Choom Boy and his administration since he first ran for Preezy has NOT been related to his race. Everyone, including his fanbois, knows that. No action he has taken, no outrageous thing he has said, no piece of legislation or appointment he favored has been scrutinized without the cleansing bath of Affirmative Action washing over it.

If that were not so, the scheming, lazy, America-hating fuckwit would be in prison right now, with many behind-bars years still ahead of him.

No one needs a pontificating, self-important radio talker to tell them that.

Posted by: MrScribbler at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (P8YHq)

159 >>Start preparing yourself for the roundups into the camps and the arenas, it's coming.

Maybe, nothing seems to tin-foil hatty nowadays (even in the last week).
Me? I think I'll buy a shiny new cross pendant. I'm not going to be ashamed of my Christianity.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (NOIQH)

160 So, now that the Conservative base has lost everything, how do you get them to turn up and vote?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (O7MnT)

161 We now have no need to have the several states.

Posted by: Imperial Obama at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (wkuqO)

162 Good for Huckabee (and how odd does it feel to say that)

But now we need a sitting governor to do something.

My suggestion from the other thread for a governor who wants to get the resistance started...

Barack Obama and his allies in the federal government have decided
they have the right to overrule the 1st Amendment by fiat. The freedom
of religion is one of the core values of this nation. He has now put us
in the position of bowing to his wishes or following the Constitution as
clearly written.

I cannot, and will not, allow the President of
the United States to stomp on the rights guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights. As of today, the state of Texas is nullifying this ruling and
the ruling enabling Obamacare. Texas will not abide by these outrages
and will continue to follow the law and specifically the Constitution
instead.

Additionally, as a sufficient number of states have
called for an Article V convention, I am consulting with the other
governors and state legislators across this nation as to the manner and
place of the convention, which I am tentatively scheduling to start this
summer.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (78TbK)

163 133
Article V convention as a nation means we have to get a huge percentage
of lefties on board with our changes. Christ, they would use it to push
even more ridiculous

shit on us. Article V convention without them is the same as secession.





I vote secession. They have already proven that they won't follow the Constitution. They won't follow a new one either.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (kSbCG)


A convention with all the left-wing scum that infests the country now would be a disaster, plain and simple.

But don't worry, it's all going to end soon: http://i.___ur.com/OQxqZUi.png

Posted by: Lark at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (qpjUF)

164
Ace: is protecting children a state interest? Just like straights, a gay woman can get pregnant or a gay man can hire a surrogate. Wd not allowing gay people to marry to protect the raising of children be a state interest? When people get old, it is easier to be married than single. Does the state not have an interest in seeing elderly gay people have their interests protected by the rights they have under marriage?

And we're still getting hitched, right???

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (iQIUe)

165 As usual with you people, you're on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: Carl Gordon at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (vSUh6)

166 #160 You don't.

Posted by: Sticker Shock at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (VcOqI)

167 A long long time ago
I can still remember how
That republic used to make me smile
And I knew if they had a chance
They could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while

But Juneteenth made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn't take one more step

I can't remember if I cried
When I read about his male bride
Something touched me deep inside
The day the republic died
So

Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
And them good ole boys were drinking whiskey and rye
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (XUKZU)

168 Honestly I agree with Rubio here. This is the current law and if you want to be president of the United States, the chief executive of law enforcement at the federal level, you have to work within the law unless it is clearly unconstitutional. I don't agree with this decision, and I don't see it as being mandated by the US Constitution, but I cannot formulate an argument that it was unconstitutional.

As the president, you are going to have to do things you don't like and uphold laws you disagree with. You work to fix them, you don't ignore the laws. Its part of the job to enforce them.

This is where Augustine's concept of two kingdoms come into play: the kingdom of God deals with the morality of the issue. Something can be wrong, sinful, and immoral without needing to be illegal, and something can be legal that is wrong and sinful before God.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (39g3+)

169 There was an article at Breitbart last week about Black and Christian Pastor's calling for civil disobedience if the scoff-laws decided in favor. I wonder if that will happen?

Posted by: Ben Had at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (2bkfv)

170 It was easier to stand against governmental tyranny before I had a wife and children for whom I was responsible, but I'll do what I can to thwart this totalitarianism.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (VAsIq)

171 ace

"Love is not eternal ... I've been in love a dozen times. Sometimes I've fallen in love in five minutes. Love is a wonderful feeling"

I get where you're going with this, but I'm old enough and married long enough to know that this is too small and truncated an idea of love, Ace. What you're describing is what the Greeks called "eros." It's wonderful, and it's temporary.

There is another love which is deeper and more lasting, and for that reason, is both more painful and more profound.

"What the state actually has an interest in -- what is transcendent -- what is eternal, or at least connects one to the cycle of the eternal -- is, get this, childbirth."

Yes, the State has an interest in childbirth to the extent it has an interest in a source of future tax revenue. But I'd argue that a certain kind of State also has an interest far beyond childbirth. (The latter can be artificially managed.) Democracies and republics need heterosexual families to be intact, long-lasting, and procreative.

The reasons are deeply cultural.

Totalitarian societies like the one we're living in do NOT want such families. They present a strong initial barrier to State influence and control.

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (nqR7l)

172 Scalia wrote in his dissent that Kennedy's opinon reads like a fortune cookie. Hilarious.

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (OD2ni)

173 While I was tapping out my argument, someone beat me to it!

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (iQIUe)

174
So, now that the Conservative base has lost everything, how do you get them to turn up and vote?
___
Amnesty, Obamacare subsidies, and siccing the IRS on them.

Posted by: The GOPe at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (78TbK)

175 That sounds like a "compelling state interest" to me. And the state dealt with the problem.

IMO, the Federal involvement is what is unnecessary. And without any legitimate basis in the Constitution.
Posted by: James Madison at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (ck8TA)

Why does the state need to be involved at all? That sounds like an issue between the dead guy and his former employer, no reason for the state to be involved.

If he took the job knowing his pension would only pay out to "legally married opposite sex partners" then, uh...? What do you want the state to do?

He should have negotiated that before he took the job or at least before he retired.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)

176 Indeed, all this talk of love and gay marriage makes it sound more like they're talking about the right to have a wedding day.

Love ain't got nothing to do with it. What does? A man, a woman.

something will pop out. there will be a genetic lineage and presupposition towards monogamy so that the kid is the man's.

Even if gays adopt, it's not their genetic material. If they divorce, who has custody is...messy...for that reason.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (Iv/Hw)

177 I blame the speed of this transformation at the feet of W and Karl Rove. Their use of anti-gay legislation to encourage targeted base voter participation in elections turned gays into victims, enabling them to make the case that they were being persecuted, which--with significant help from the media--improved their standing in society by garnering sympathy for their cause.

On the bright side, making Christians martyrs in the new social war, while costing them numbers of weak adherents, might have a similar effect. Without the hard charge support of the media, however, it seems far less likely.

Today actually made me regret starting a family for the first time ever. The slow downward turning of the wheel of this country's fortune would be easier to bear if I didn't have such a massive stake on the outcome.

Posted by: KillianThyme at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (n2r4H)

178 We are subjects not citizens. Welcome to the camps.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (oDCMR)

179 Hey, those icky rubes in flyover land have to kneel.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (659DL)

180 >> (Though, being a straight guy with 100,000 years of evolutionary instinct in me: I find gay male relationships a little weird. But I know this is a personal thing and not something I should impose into the code of the law.)<<



Ahhhh, Ok with the gals smooching it up though? I'm with you, Ace, as long as they're not the hairy legged Birkenstock wearing lesbians.

How IS that quest for a threesome going?

Posted by: Sphynx at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (OZmbA)

181 ACE -

"the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove. This is straight from John Locke, and you don't approve? Wake up!

Posted by: Mikey at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (q2OWW)

182 "I vote secession. They have already proven that they won't follow the Constitution. They won't follow a new one either. "


Effing. A.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (LA7Cm)

183 That the Supreme Court would "be compelled" to rule on the nature of sodomy is astounding. Welcome to the beginning of the end.

Posted by: Fritz at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (tQZfi)

184 So, now that the Conservative base has lost everything, how do you get them to turn up and vote?

Give them a candidate? Just spitballing here.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (evdj2)

185 "As usual with you people, you're on the wrong side of [ the current regime ]."

FIFY

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:29 PM (nqR7l)

186 156
Whatever, gay marriages are no more real than Bruce Jenner is a woman.

You can call it what you want, but there's always an asterisk beside it.

And
this brief moment in time means little. Ask the gays in Europe how
great they are feeling now as the Muslim hordes rush in....


Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:27 PM (AC0lD)

*yawns, stretches, grabs a cup of coffee*
Time to wake up!



Posted by: Gods of the Copybook Headings at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (ND90G)

187 and ...

the weirdo rewriting of basic legal principles is the tragedy here.

For fuck's sake, the game is changing. People like me seem to be losing, which is life. I'd prefer to lose the old fashioned way and not by a way that challenges core of civil society.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (Iv/Hw)

188 From the previous post - I love the idea.


Let's force mosques to start marrying gay couples. How would we go about that?

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (AC0lD)

189 "I vote secession. They have already proven that they won't follow the Constitution. They won't follow a new one either."

Yep.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (6zSiC)

190 Darwin will be surprised by this news.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (oDCMR)

191 Assuming they continue to issue licenses at all.
Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:24 PM (evdj2)
_________________________

Yes.

The state of Alabama is currently trying to find a way out by passing a bill that stops the state from issuing marriage licenses, and instead makes marriage a matter of private contract. But since the Supremes have now declared gay marriage to be a constitutional right, gays would still have the right to enter into marriage contracts in Alabama, so it's not clear what purpose would be served by the state's proposed law.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (kGrdk)

192 Posted by: Bruce With is a Wang! at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (iQIUe)


Fixed. Because you are a tool.

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (zt+N6)

193 "Today actually made me regret starting a family for the first time ever. The slow downward turning of the wheel of this country's fortune would be easier to bear if I didn't have such a massive stake on the outcome."

This is what gets me, too.

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (nqR7l)

194 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (39g3+)

I didn't read the decision, but if they decided this was constitutional based on full faith and credit, then my carry permit is now valid in all 50 states.

If they had any other reasoning (and are forcing states to issue marriage licenses) then they can fuck off, because marriage is not a federal issue.

Tell me where in the constitution the word "marriage" is mentioned...

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM (AkOaV)

195 "Love is a wonderful feeling"

Yes, why won't you just let me love?

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM (6zSiC)

196 138 Let's face it, no one wants to be William Wallace.


Posted by: Thoms Nostrous

Well, I don't feel like having this law, and that is what it is, jammed down my throat because 5 people in black robes decided they knew what was better.

Posted by: Gmac - Gmac- Pulling in feelers in preparation... at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM (4CRfK)

197 Irony notice: I think I am romatically in love with Antonin Scalia.

CALL ME.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM (659DL)

198 >>>Ahhhh, Ok with the gals smooching it up though? I'm with you, Ace, as long as they're not the hairy legged Birkenstock wearing lesbians.

for some reason, the love between two hot women pretending to be lesbians doesn't weird me out at all. In fact, I kinda like it!

Especially if they're busty lesbians.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM (bhepQ)

199 As usual with you people, you're on the wrong side of history.

The arc of history is long, Carl. And usually ends badly.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM (evdj2)

200 I've said it for a while now- marriage is not something man made up, and could have made up however he wanted.

Marriage is the acknowledgement of biological, psychological, and sociological facts that exist whether we like them or not. You can attribute that to God or to Nature as you choose (I'm not here to have that particular debate).

Men and women are different biologically, psychologically, and sociologically. This is a fact.
A man and a woman are required to propagate the species. This is a fact.

Whether or not a State accepts that truth to the point of venerating it in law is immaterial. Whether or not a State *rejects* that truth to the point of attempting to redefine it by law is immaterial. Marriage is what it is, and no human *can* redefine it.

The SCOTUS can say whatever it likes. They're still not married.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:32 PM (kff5f)

201 "Love is not eternal ... I've been in love a dozen times. Sometimes I've fallen in love in five minutes. Love is a wonderful feeling"

Someone once wrote that you will fall in love with six people in your life, and six people will fall in love with you. And if you are very, very lucky... one your six will be one of the other six.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:32 PM (O7MnT)

202 The state of Alabama is currently trying to find a way out by passing a
bill that stops the state from issuing marriage licenses, and instead
makes marriage a matter of private contract. But since the Supremes
have now declared gay marriage to be a constitutional right, gays would
still have the right to enter into marriage contracts in Alabama, so
it's not clear what purpose would be served by the state's proposed law.

* * *

Shielding pastors and churches, is my guess. If it's a matter of contract, no one (last I heard) can be forced to enter into one. Just a guess.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:32 PM (bGLSw)

203 The solution is simple. Don't issue any marriage licenses, period. Let a church conduct whatever religious ceremony they choose too. End the tax penalty for being married while you're at it, please.

I wonder what the bite into the tax haul would be if religious folk moved their assets en mass into family trusts.

Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2015 12:33 PM (ztOda)

204 with respect, this rhetorical gambit is
transparently dishonest. I point this out because it is so common, and
so... obviously false.



When you say "I don't care what you do" and then finish your thought
with four or five negative comments about the thing you claim you don't
care that people do -- it is very obvious that you DO care what they
do.



We should be honest. And if we're going to lie, we should lie in a way that isn't so obvious.





Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:23 PM (bhepQ)


Not true. Not true at all. I don't care if I don't have to deal with it. I can pretend I don't know about it, and go on with my life if not confronted by the fact on a daily basis.
Your error was in conflating "caring about it" with "condoning it." I don't condone homosexuality, and find it repellent, but I am willing to ignore it if given the opportunity to do so.

My position is totally honest. When I said I don't care about what people do, I meant that I'm not interested in stopping them, not that I don't disapprove. It's rather like my attitude toward users of heavy drugs: I don't approve, wish they wouldn't indulge in that, don't want it legalized, but I recognize that it happens, and I'm willing to ignore it if they'll let me do so.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:33 PM (oKE6c)

205 Well, the good news is G*d wins in the end. But I expect I'll meet Him standing on a pile of expended brass if this keeps up.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my hate cannot be found) at June 26, 2015 12:33 PM (O9qtX)

206
I predict we are going to be the target of one big terrorist hit. The muslims will be storming Marine World with Kalashnikovs.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 26, 2015 12:33 PM (iQIUe)

207 Start preparing yourself for the roundups into the camps and the arenas, it's coming.

Not if you become a good li'l comrade

Posted by: Obama at June 26, 2015 12:33 PM (wkuqO)

208 If it's a matter of contract, no one (last I heard) can be forced to enter into one.


How was your nap, Mr Van Winkle? - Chief Justice Roberts

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (evdj2)

209 Let's force mosques to start marrying gay couples. How would we go about that?
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:30 PM (AC0lD)


mosques believe they are above the law, or more, their religion and laws are intertwined -- that is what they'll try

remember, you aren't allowed to step into many mosques freely, and if you're a woman, don't get me started

which brings up another point, Muslims are going to HATE this ruling, all around the world

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (qCMvj)

210 Didn't some companies issue insurance benefits for "partners' of those employed? Is so, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, do gay couples have to be married to get insurance benefits at those companies or can they have it both ways/

Posted by: Just sayin' at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (BjKDP)

211 If it's a matter of contract, no one (last I heard) can be forced to enter into one. Just a guess

Like my health insurance contract?

Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (ztOda)

212 Give it a different name and spell out new, different traditions - like call it "Horlunkulate" and demand that drapes be given as gifts and people serve up a giant pie made out of chickens.

No. Churchgoer. Would. Give. A. Rancid. Piss.

They would just say, "Hey, good luck on that Holunkulate thing, hope your chicken pie was good!"

But nooooo. Gotta be shitty people getting in our business by stealing the word "marriage" instead of doing the difficult task of making a New Thing.

Lazy fucks.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (ukTrJ)

213 As a white hetro male atheist, I can agree with Ace that marriage has nothing to do with love. However, that's where the agreement ends.

Marriage is a public declaration of joint responsibility, property rights, estate and personal representation appointments and a few other legalistic things. The state needs to know this and a marriage has centuries of case law and is easier to understand than a specific contract.

Propagation is also an interest of the state, but there is no reason to be married to have children.

Leaving religious objections behind, gay marriage is the easiest way to apply centuries of law to a old but only recently recognized class.

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (9ZZd+)

214 I don't agree with this decision, and I don't see it as being mandated by the US Constitution, but I cannot formulate an argument that it was unconstitutional.

It's like I don't even exist over here.

Posted by: The Tenth Amendment at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (kff5f)

215 Ace,

Promoting a stable environment in which children can be cared for and
raised to adulthood -- a very time- and money- intensive proposition --
is something the state has a huge interest in.


Let's be honest, the state gave up on promoting this about 50 years ago with the rise of no-fault divorce. Marriage hasn't been about caring for children for a long time, it's been about publicly declaring you're in love with someone, and if you're not in love anymore a few years later you can just split up and go your separate ways, children be damned.

Posted by: Cave Johnson at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (2jQGY)

216 I agree that to the extent the state has any interest whatsoever in marriage it is exclusively in the shape of family and child rearing.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (39g3+)

217 143 I think when marriage became primarily about romantic love that was the beginning of its downfall.

Also when illegitimacy started to be subsidized by the state and encouraged socially (bit of a chicken-egg thing there? at least a giant feedback loop).
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (ZKzrr)

My point was that if marriages is only about romantic love or even the lust of the moment, then I get rid of my spouse once The butterflies exit my stomach. And who are we to exclude homosexuals? They can love too!


But yeah, everything is messed up. It's hateful to point out that deliberately becoming a single mom isn't good. (I am excluding people whose spouses died or left for reasons they couldn't control, but icluding the single girls - and guys - who refuse to control their passions.)

It's all about adults doing what feels good. To hell with the children(TM).

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (shFKH)

218 "The state could have avoided this problem (and now has), by way of
providing for spouse-like benefits (the state passed SSM) and so, if the
partners death had occurred today our friend would have inherited the
pension and health benefit."

But he didn't earn that benefit. Why should single people fund that benefit? Only those that raise children to benefit society "earn" that special right from others in society.

If that person ends up a ward of the state, it is because he was irresponsible, as any single person might be. Why should a simple marriage license equal a government or corporate funded entitlement?

Posted by: Illiniwek at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (8bK1p)

219 One doesn't "vote" secession. One does it. Not any "one" here, of course, and everyone knows it, so knock that shit off. Obama knows nobody is going to pick up a rifle to oppose him; if he thought we would, we wouldn't be seeing this shit.

Posted by: The Governor at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (K0y5m)

220 All this talk of secession makes me want to move away from Washington, to a place more peaceful.

Posted by: Wilmer McLean at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (l3vZN)

221 I'm looking at the bright side. After the fall of Rome, the Dark Ages lasted only a thousand years. With today's technology, we can get out of this in half th4e time.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (XUKZU)

222
As usual with you people, you're on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: Carl Gordon at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (vSUh6)

Heinrich Himmler, 1933

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (oVJmc)

223 This may have already been said.

Drudge
New York
Gay Pride flag hanging from Government Building.
It offends some people.



Why is it not to be treated the same as the CBF?

Show your work, if you feel that it's OK to be hanging on Government property.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:35 PM (VPLuQ)

224 210 Didn't some companies issue insurance benefits for "partners' of those employed? Is so, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, do gay couples have to be married to get insurance benefits at those companies or can they have it both ways/
Posted by: Just sayin' at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (BjKDP)

no my company is in a gay marriage state thats had gay marriage for a long time.

same sex "domestic partners" can get on health insurance without being married.

opposite sex "domestic partners" canNOT get on my health insurance without being married.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (AkOaV)

225 If it's a matter of contract, no one (last I heard) can be forced to enter into one. Just a guess

The Hell, you say?

Posted by: Some Pizza Joint at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (kff5f)

226 "It is the bearing and raising of children that actually propagates the species, propagates all species, and has done so now for, checking my watch, about 100,000 years for humans and about 100 million years for animals."

True.

So then married couples with no kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. Nor should a post-menopausal woman be allowed to get married.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (0LHZx)

227 It is clear from reading the text of the Affordable Care Act and from examining the procedural process which led to its enactment that Congress intended to fuck the American people and to do so without lubrication. Due to the nature of the process, a hurried, desperate budget reconciliation trick, Congress mistakenly included provisions which could prevent this fucking. Therefore, we remove those provisions so that Congressional intent can be fully and gloriously implemented. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Posted by: The Supreme Court at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (4KoRb)

228 I'm tired of turning the other cheek.
One of these days..........................

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (n6Nt0)

229 So what are the correct terms to address gay married couples? Husband and Wife seem a bit too oppressive. And Lord knows I don't want to oppress them cuz whiny and tantrum. So, what is the correct terminology?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (oDCMR)

230 Teh GOPe Judicial All Stars!!!
1-Earl Warren, still the Master of Disaster, but in a field this competitive, will he always be #1??
2-Harry Blackmun--shall be known for eternity for Roe v Wade and its bloody aftermath
3--Tony Kennedy--sodomy, gay marriage, abortion rights. What a resume'! and what a stain on the judgment of Ronald Reagan
4--John "Tax" Roberts--gate keeper for 21st century socialism. Thanks W
5--John Paul Stevens--Kelo baby!!
6--David Souter--NH turncoat
7--Sandy Daydream O'Connor--quotas and AA shall be her special legacy
8--William Brennan--rode shotgun for Earl Warren, but no slouch when it came to judicial legislation.

Man, what a roster! Thanks GOPe!!

Posted by: bystander at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (hKyl0)

231 Well, we can just look at this as libertarians, except the marriage bestows government rights.




Abolish those special rights, and who would give a shit about getting married?



Only the religious. These non believers want to get married for the government benefits, that is all.


Posted by: Nip Sip at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (0FSuD)

232 Someone once wrote that you will fall in love with six people in your life, and six people will fall in love with you. And if you are very, very lucky... one your six will be one of the other six.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:32 PM (O7MnT)

I'm way behind the curve...

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (2Ojst)

233 I've been saying, quit subsidizing the childless couples then ... it
is only for the children that we give pension/entitlement sharing to
"the little woman". So no subsidy for gay or straight childless couples
... no providing home raised kids, no reward.


That is the biggest problem I see down the road -- who gets the children? Who buys the children? Because I do not have offspring am I entitled to take yours -- for their benefit (and the State's) of course?

That is the biggest slippery slope I see in this whole fiasco. Now the over-hyped marketing of SSM is almost over, where is the next "discriminatory" aspect of biology?

Posted by: mustbequantum at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (MIKMs)

234 >>>My position is totally honest. When I said I don't care about what people do, I meant that I'm not interested in stopping them, not that I don't disapprove.

okay but "I don't care what they do" usually means "I am neutral/agnostic on what they do."

"I don't care" means "I have no feelings on this."

You do have feelings. You should express this a different way because the way you're saying it isn't true.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (bhepQ)

235 It's all about adults doing what feels good. To hell with the children(TM).

-
But it's for the children! How can the children be happy if I'm not happy?

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (XUKZU)

236 He didn't actually tell them to go Fruck themselves did he?

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (CdIQH)

237 I feel like celebrating. Where the little boys at?

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (6zSiC)

238 Something can be wrong, sinful, and immoral without needing to be illegal, and something can be legal that is wrong and sinful before God.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor

The problem, of course, is our current government has assumed the role of both kingdoms and will force people to, if not actively participate in then declare as good things that are in fact wrong, sinful, and immoral. That is where this is headed, and that is what I will fight against.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (VAsIq)

239 Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (0LHZx

Hey Moo Moo, while you're sucking off Anthony Kennedy make sure you don't get any jizz dribbling down your chin.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (n6Nt0)

240
I'll run you one further - the state interest in marriage is tenuous at best. Why do I need a license from the state to get married? I don't need a license to have children. I don't need a license to have sex. I don't need a license to go dating.

The idea that the state is interested in marriage because of children, who will become future taxpayers, is a lot like the commerce clause - taking a legitimate interest (prevent tariffs between states) and stretching where it doesn't need to go.

Ergo, there is no reason for gay marriage being blessed by the state. Gay people want to say they are married? Okey dokey by me. But that is not what this is about. It is about using the state to FORCE everyone to say they are married. Much like we are now being FORCED to say Bruce Jenner is a chick. I say fuck that.

The solutionis simple.Get the government out of the business of defining and regulating our personal relationships such as marriage.There should be no marriage penalty, and no marriage bonus, regarding taxes. Companies want to offer spousal benefits to same sex marriage? fine. They want to withhold that? fine. the courts, the government, has no business directing and controlling such things.

Posted by: Geroge Orwell's ghost at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (/EkKm)

241
"As usual with you people, you're on the wrong side of history."

Using "Wrong side of history"is a dead giveaway for a OFA/Media Matters troll.

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (OD2ni)

242 So the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote (needed the 19th), but it gives women the right to marry other women. Makes total sense!

(I favor gay marriage - but only at the ballot box. This ruling is a horrible precedent)

Posted by: wooga at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (W2mU3)

243 "I vote secession. They have already proven that they won't follow the Constitution. They won't follow a new one either."
_________________________

Yes, what good would an Article V convention be when, as we saw in yesterday's O-Care case, the progs feel perfectly free to change the accepted meaning of the words that make up laws?

If words don't mean anything, or if their meanings can be "re-interpreted" to mean something completely different based on your political needs at the moment, then what the f*ck would be the point of amending the constitution?

No matter what the new amendments say, John Roberts and company will issue rulings saying that the words don't really mean what they say -- just like they did yesterday.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (kGrdk)

244 229 So what are the correct terms to address gay married couples? Husband and Wife seem a bit too oppressive. And Lord knows I don't want to oppress them cuz whiny and tantrum. So, what is the correct terminology?

Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (0NdlF)

245 Gays can manufacture babies in test tubes, but they can't create them.

Still need a uterus or the "Tanks" for the Planet X from Dune. Or was it IX...too lazy to look it up. But they were uterus too, but no longer sentient.

Posted by: Paladin at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (4kpbt)

246 'single moms are terrif!'

I hate that "women giving birth out of wedlock" are conflated with "widows with children." I know it was done on purpose to capture the public sentiment (heck, I think Jesus commanded it) to help the latter, who have had a tragedy befall their family rather than make a deliberate choice. But it's been disaster as a societal standard.

(The widows with children I've known really are all terrif!)

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (ZKzrr)

247 "I don't care" means "I have no feelings on this."

Don't confuse tolerance with indifference.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (evdj2)

248 I feel like celebrating. Where the little boys at?

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky

I love them and am going to marry them.

But I'll share, Jerry. You know I'll share.

Posted by: Harry Reid at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (VAsIq)

249 "Love is not eternal ... I've been in love a dozen times. Sometimes I've fallen in love in five minutes. Love is a wonderful feeling"

A common error. That feeling isn't love, its infatuation. Love is another beast entirely and it doesn't go away.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (39g3+)

250
210 Didn't some companies issue insurance benefits for "partners' of those employed? Is so, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, do gay couples have to be married to get insurance benefits at those companies or can they have it both ways/
Posted by: Just sayin' at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (BjKDP)


You can expect them to fight hard to keep it as a partners only requirement. Because most don't want to get married. The agenda pushers are just mental children that want to stick it to daddy.

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (zt+N6)

251 Ace, I tried the state interest argument with Gabe in the past - he doesn't like it. Came up with all kinds of equal protection crap.



Ask Gabe why my state issued chl isn't accepted in all 50 states like my dl and marriage license vis-a-vis the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (kSbCG)

252 So when will Malor drop by and do his gloating post?

Posted by: Mr. Mxyzptlk at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (kHJ3a)

253 Shielding pastors and churches, is my guess. If it's a matter of contract, no one (last I heard) **can be forced to enter into one**. Just a guess.
Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:32 PM (bGLSw)

____

HA HA HA HA HA!! You're so funny.

Posted by: Obamacare at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (0LHZx)

254 which brings up another point, Muslims are going to HATE this ruling, all around the world

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (qCMvj)

All the more reason to force this ruling down the throats of every mosque in America. Force them to publicly support gay marriage or face ridicule and legal action 'on behalf of the gay community.'

Let's push these two groups together and see what happens.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (AC0lD)

255 CHOKWIT ICE KWEEM !

Posted by: EBT - LIV - Special Snowflake Nation Nation at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (ND90G)

256 171 -- Democracies and republics need heterosexual families to be intact, long-lasting, and procreative.



The reasons are deeply cultural.



Totalitarian societies like the one we're living in do NOT want such
families. They present a strong initial barrier to State influence and
control.

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (nqR7l)
THIS.

Posted by: elaine at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (Y0Piu)

257
Even if gays adopt, it's not their genetic material. If they divorce, who has custody is...messy...for that reason.

Billable hours, baby. Billable hours.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (eEb+d)

258 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:32 PM (kff5f)


Well said.


Marriage evolved because of the substantial time for human gestation and growth to maturity. Females in a state of nature (i.e., for the vast majority of human history) needed protection and support from males, because most of womens' lives post-puberty were taken up in pregnancy, child-bearing, nursing, and child rearing. We're not like tomcats or other animals, whose young come to maturity in a matter of weeks.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (oKE6c)

259 Bolts of cloth need to me fedexed to the supreme court. Make it easy for the next session.

Posted by: just saying at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (wkuqO)

260
213 "Leaving religious objections behind, gay marriage is the easiest way to apply centuries of law to a old but only recently recognized class."


"leaving religious objections behind" is in this case another way to say, "Religious people will be killed if they object because they are not as human as me".

Because if we do not tow the line and deny our faith by your demand, (we will not deny our faith else we would have none) the government (and you) will have us arrested. If we resist, as many of us will, we will be shot and killed.

"leaving religious objections behind" like the Soviets left raped children behind - in the ditches, bleeding to death.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (ukTrJ)

261 I don't like Huck that much, but bless him on this.

Stopped clock, blah, blah, blah. What will be interesting is to see who rallies to the standard Huck has planted.

Jeb! and the Cuban Combover have folded like the cowards they are. I'm watching the others.

And I pray Texas will tell SCOTUS to fuck themselves raw with a straight-edged razor.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (zF6Iw)

262 How was your nap, Mr Van Winkle? - Chief Justice Roberts

Like my health insurance contract?

The Hell, you say?

* * *

Yes, but that was done nationwide. What's the fed going to do: declare all homosexual couples under contract and require all churches to enter into contract? I won't say such is impossible anymore but even now it strikes me as very unlikely to pull off.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (bGLSw)

263 Shoving your cock up someone's ass isn't love.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (CdIQH)

264 239 Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (0LHZx

Hey Moo Moo, while you're sucking off Anthony Kennedy make sure you don't get any jizz dribbling down your chin.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (n6Nt0)

________

What a cogent reply. Gee I wonder why SoCons keep losing these battles.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (0LHZx)

265 >>Why is it not to be treated the same as the CBF?

Because they won.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (NOIQH)

266 Did Roberts not argue both sides of the coin, when one looks at yesterdays and todays rulings?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (VPLuQ)

267 President Obama won't force anything down the throats of Muslims.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (OSs/l)

268 If it's a matter of contract, no one (last I heard) can be forced to enter into one.

-
Chief Justice Roberts made you an offer you can't refuse.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (XUKZU)

269 My new handle,
I live in Massachusetts - first state to start same sex marriage.
It's discrimination to unmarried straight couples!!
Unmarried straight couples should get same benefits.

Posted by: Carol at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (sj3Ax)

270 This ISN'T your country anymore

Ah, Captain Obvious has arrived.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (evdj2)

271 Well, I guess they were wrong. Civilization is going to end with a bang, not a whimper.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (XUKZU)

272 Mr Oink Oink sounds just like a certain servian individual.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (CdIQH)

273 "I vote secession. They have already proven that they won't follow the Constitution. They won't follow a new one either."

----

They've already proven that they won't move to another state that has laws in line with their beliefs--they'll stay and demand YOU conform to THEM. Seceding will just reset the arguments for thirty years down the road for the new country.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (VAsIq)

274
"So then married couples with no kids shouldn't be allowed to get married."


That makes no sense. Did you mean something else?

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (OD2ni)

275 204 jay

really well said, that's my position exactly

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (nqR7l)

276 267 Did Roberts not argue both sides of the coin, when one looks at yesterdays and todays rulings?
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (VPLuQ)


YES

It is the minor court of what is happening now.

Posted by: just saying at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (wkuqO)

277 Muslims are too busy killing each other and us to pay this any attention beyond lip service if that.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (iQIUe)

278 I'm in love with 6 women and I'm considering letting every damn one of them marry me--at the same time. But they have to show me their federal tax returns for the past five years first. I have to be supported in the manner to which I have become accustomed. And no dogs. I don't pick up poop.

Posted by: Sphynx at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (OZmbA)

279 Using "Wrong side of history"is a dead giveaway for a OFA/Media Matters troll.
Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 12:37 PM (OD2ni)

Has to be one of the dumbest phrases ever.

"wrong side of history" Please.

You need to be an idiot who believes societies "evolve" and "progress" naturally to a socialist utopia with some kind of clear path designed by god (Gaia) to success.

It comes from a religious vantage point.

Nobody knows where history is going to "go" dumbasses. Do you think the Romans thought their decedents wouldn't know how to read and write and/or how to build and maintain aqueducts and the engineering marvels of ancient rome?

Of course not. They would have said "those dummies without running water are on the wrong side of history" and they would have looked like stupid fucks for saying that.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (AkOaV)

280
Posted by: old liberal troll at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (iYDSp)

Proving that old commies still can't comprehend what they read.

Posted by: EBT - LIV - Special Snowflake Nation Nation at June 26, 2015 12:41 PM (ND90G)

281 Did Roberts not argue both sides of the coin, when one looks at yesterdays and todays rulings?
___
That's totally different! Obama told me I could vote how I wanted to today.

Posted by: Justice John Souter Roberts at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (78TbK)

282 I've been listening to doomsday prophecy from the right-wing nutjobs since before Obama was elected. The sky-is-falling bullshit just doesn't seem to have come to pass. You've cried wolf too many times.

Posted by: old liberal troll at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (iYDSp)

__________

Speaking of crying wolf....weren't NYC and Florida supposed to be under water by now due to global warming?

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (0LHZx)

283 "
Leaving religious objections behind, gay marriage is the easiest way to apply centuries of law to a old but only recently recognized class."

Because civil unions don't exist?

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (MYCIw)

284 169
There was an article at Breitbart last week about Black and Christian
Pastor's calling for civil disobedience if the scoff-laws decided in
favor. I wonder if that will happen?


The first church that gets hauled into court to defend its tax-exempt status will not be a black church, it will not be a mosque, it will be a white evangelical church.

Later on, when an Islamic group gets challenged, the courts will create a one-off exception for them that applies to no-one else.

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (AWijS)

285 >>>Don't confuse tolerance with indifference.

you're the one confusing things. We tolerate things we don't like.

But to say then "I don't care" is false. If you're tolerating something, you don't like it. (Which is fine -- you don't have to like it. Toleration is all we can demand of people.)

But the "I don't care what these queers do" is transparently false.

Stop saying you don't care! You do care!

Say something like, "I'm not going to stand in their way if they do this, but i don't like it" or whatever.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (bhepQ)

286
What this court did yesterday and today was to prove that they are literally winging it with regards to both the constitution and the laws. The law means what anyone in power wants it to mean, and the constitution can be rewritten on the fly, based on whatever the judges feel like that day.

There is no legitimacy left in any of our federal institutions.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (79zi+)

287 The Supreme Court came up with another Dred Scott decision today. This will probably help Huckabee's standings in the polls.

Posted by: burt at June 26, 2015 12:42 PM (ls8AU)

288
Let's push these two groups together and see what happens.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (AC0lD

Some how the goat fuckers will be exempted. It is only Christians you can persecute.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (n6Nt0)

289 "Why do I need a license from the state to get married?"


Because it's in the state's interest to know you're of age to enter into this type of contract and you're of sound mind.

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (9ZZd+)

290 Gay Pride flag hanging from Government Building.


You have got to be fucking kidding me?

Posted by: dogfish at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (rdjj7)

291 And the gay mafia won't go after Mosques either. They just want to have victory over the Christians. They're too much of weenies to confront Muslims.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (OSs/l)

292
234 >>>My position is totally honest. When I said I don't care about what people do, I meant that I'm not interested in stopping them, not that I don't disapprove. okay but "I don't care what they do" usually means "I am neutral/agnostic on what they do." "I don't care" means "I have no feelings on this." You do have feelings. You should express this a different way because the way you're saying it isn't true.
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (bhepQ)


Yeah, well yesterday the Supreme Court declared that words don't actually mean what they explicitly state they mean and can instead mean whatever you feel like them to mean. So HA!

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (zt+N6)

293 I am glad that the social conservatives have a voice in hucksterbee. And while I might agree with him on his points about judicial tryanny, fuck him, and his legacy four dead Lakewood police officers.

Posted by: rebel flounder at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (Vf5rR)

294 "I wonder why SoCons keep losing these battles"

Oh, I dunno, maybe it has something to do with tools like you who keep putting Proglodytes in office and stacking the courts.

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (nqR7l)

295
And by the by, it pisses me off when someone says the government has a "public interest" in something. What does that even mean? Typically it means some busybodies in the government have a desire to regulate and control some aspect of human existence, to some perceived benefit, which (in all likelihood) accrues to someone else. To that I say get stuffed.

Public interests stop at things like parks, roads, and cops. Much beyond that and there is no public interest, there is just personal ambition.

Posted by: Geroge Orwell's ghost at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (/EkKm)

296 Said a senior NATO (non-US) GOFO to me today: "We'll probably be at war
this summer. If we're lucky it won't be nuclear." Let that sink in.

Posted by: Oddly Comforting Thoughts at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (FwRqg)

297 I know it was done on purpose to capture the public sentiment (heck, I think Jesus commanded it) to help the latter

Hmmm... I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, especially the New Testament, and I don't recall that anywhere.

Certainly there are calls for personal charity to all (the whole Love thy Neighbor thing), and such calls would require kindness to those women. But 1) I don't think Christ ever talked about women having children out of wedlock and b) the closest I do recall anyone getting to it was Paul saying that women under 60 who find themselves widowed should get remarried rather than be given funds from the church (1 Timothy, I think).

Now, that does not invalidate the rest of the point- the two are not the same, and however much we feel for them both, we should be letting our feelings of good will and personal charity for them be setting public policy.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (kff5f)

298 okay but "I don't care what they do" usually means "I am neutral/agnostic on what they do."



"I don't care" means "I have no feelings on this."



You do have feelings. You should express this a different way because the way you're saying it isn't true.





Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (bhepQ)

OK, how about "I don't care to get involved?" It doesn't mean I have no opinion on the matter, just that as long as it's kept sub rosa, I have bigger fish to fry. I hate rap, but if my neighbor likes it, I don't care unless he turns it up so that it blasts into my house. How about that analogy?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (oKE6c)

299 Posted by: Carol at June 26, 2015 12:40 PM (sj3Ax)

I agree!

I told my boss (who is unmarried with a girlfriend) and he said, "you don't want go there. Trust me. But if you DO want to go there, here's the number for the HR people."

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (AkOaV)

300 Gays have been able to be married in churches for decades. The Unitarians, anyone?

What the State is concerned with is the business aspect of marriage, not the interpersonal relationship of the couple.

A marriage license (which costs money to obtain) infers certain legalistic terms like Right of Attorney, debt, contracts etc.

If a couple were to try and get a lawyer to draw up a contract binding the couple to all the things a simple marriage license or even a common law marriage imputes and binds them to, it would impose a financial burden on the couple higher than a marriage license.

So I can see the other side. But it doesn't change the fact that all of the fags I know will never get married. Each of them, in a lapsed moment of honesty admits freely that this whole issue and the discord it has sown is about poking and provoking the Normals for all of the slights and abuses Gays have suffered through the ages.

Now that they have won their battle, where will the next fight be? This all started with AIDS and the unifying effect it had on Gays. It allowed for Gays to be portrayed in sympathetic roles (Philadelphia).

Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won? They're professional non-profiteers, what cause will allow them to keep the galas and fundraising dinners and charitable contributions flowing so they can keep their phony baloney lifestyles?

Posted by: CozMark at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (aKWBd)

301 Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:39 PM (CdIQH)

So a couple...madly in love...married....with five kids....who enjoy anal sex are not in love?

Ace is correct; we need to argue coherently, and this ain't it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (Zu3d9)

302 "Wrong side of history"

This term is used a lot by leftists, and is frighteningly close to the way the Nazis talked. Seriously. They thought they were creating a new future which would sweep away history's errors, a third way that borrowed the good from left and right to craft a better, more scientific approach to government and society. For a while, academics loved it. Some still do, without even knowing it.

The problem, of course, is our current government has assumed the role of both kingdoms and will force people to, if not actively participate in then declare as good things that are in fact wrong, sinful, and immoral.

I agree. We're fast approaching that time when Christians start showing that we're subjects of another kingdom living temporarily on this earth. We follow God's law, and as long as man's law does not conflict with that, we'll go along with it, too. But if you order me to do evil or try to stop me from doing good... your law loses.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (39g3+)

303 "wrong side of history"
***
Whoever has the most guns and men willing to use them at the given moment seems to be the person on "the right side of history."

Posted by: 18-1 at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (78TbK)

304 Say something like, "I'm not going to stand in their way if they do this, but i don't like it" or whatever.



That is what I'm saying. My point was that *you* are not tolerant on this issue, you are indifferent.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (evdj2)

305 It's like I don't even exist over here.
Posted by: The Tenth Amendment at June 26, 2015 12:34 PM (kff5f)


I've got some bad news for you. If it still existed, I'm sure somebody around here would start a blog about it.

Posted by: wooga at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (W2mU3)

306 >>It's discrimination to unmarried straight couples!!

I read a book series once that had two different forms of marriage. I think they were 'MC' Marriage of Convenience that could be dissolved easily and "??" A long term, for real marriage of some sort.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (lIU4e)

307 Tell me where in the constitution the word "marriage" is mentioned...
Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:31 PM


It's in the "Oh sweet mystery of life clause." You know, the one I wrote when I discovered a constitutional right to sodomy?

Posted by: Just Us Kennedy at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (h4vJk)

308 Sometime this year in South Korea, infidelity was no longer criminally prosecutable. I have the feeling they are a few years away from SSM.



I only mention that because...


All cultures are not equal, some cultures are clearly superior to other cultures and culture does matter.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (AC0lD)

309 So I guess I said it backwards, don't confuse indifference with tolerance.

Better, I guess.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (evdj2)

310 Promoting a stable environment in which children can be cared for and

raised to adulthood -- a very time- and money- intensive proposition --

is something the state has a huge interest in.


LBJ really fucked it up good, though.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (ZKzrr)

311 This ruling was about gheys and marriage the same way the Civil War was about freeing slaves.

Money.


Political power.


Always.

Posted by: some random meathead - if you're not drinking, you're not paying attention at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (ND90G)

312 old liberal troll,

I find your thoughts interesting and I have subscribed them to the ban-file.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:45 PM (bhepQ)

313 That must be the first time I agree with Mike Huckabee.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 12:45 PM (OSs/l)

314 It would seem Walker, yet again, has shown himself to be smarter than the early presidential announcers. He can watch them be grilled by the homo press and study their putt. Last man in wins.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:45 PM (oDCMR)

315 And the gay mafia won't go after Mosques either. They just want to have
victory over the Christians. They're too much of weenies to confront
Muslims.


Muslims are their allies in destroying Western Civ and values.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:45 PM (oVJmc)

316 290 "Why do I need a license from the state to get married?"


Because it's in the state's interest to know you're of age to enter into this type of contract and you're of sound mind.

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (9ZZd+)




Sound mind? He did say he wanted to get married, right? /kidding

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:45 PM (oKE6c)

317 BTW, I'm getting an obnoxious security warning constantly like I do at insta's.

I'm going to have to skip out until it goes away.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 26, 2015 12:45 PM (lIU4e)

318 Let's be honest, the state gave up on promoting this about 50 years ago with the rise of no-fault divorce

I have often said that if marriage still included the expectations of chastity beforehand and monogamous commitment afterward, gays wouldn't even want the thing.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (O7MnT)

319 "and you're of sound mind."


Dude....please.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (VPLuQ)

320
This term is used a lot by leftists, and is frighteningly close to the way the Nazis talked.
***
It is a core belief in socialism of all varieties. International Socialism, German National Socialism, and American National Socialism of the Obama variety.

Since they all have a millennial belief in progress, there clearly must be a right and wrong side of history with progress taking things towards the former.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (78TbK)

321 The government will apply the IRS that exempts Islam from 404Care for this. But Christians and Jews, well suck it; either marry Larry and Barry or Marie and Gwen or off to the camps as your place of worship becomes a museum.

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (fEYIa)

322 290 "Why do I need a license from the state to get married?"


Because it's in the state's interest to know you're of age to enter into this type of contract and you're of sound mind.
Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 12:43 PM (9ZZd+)

____________

Wait a second. So the same people who argue for small government that is not intrusive also demand that the govt get involved into the most intimate details of one's life?
Give me a fucking break dude.

The best answer to all of this is to get government out of the marriage business. If you want to get religiously married, go right ahead. But there is no reason for the govt to have any say in it.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (0LHZx)

323 >>>That is what I'm saying. My point was that *you* are not tolerant on this issue, you are indifferent.


not entirely. I do get a little.. wiggy on gay male stuff.

i try to put that to on side, but i'm not going to say i'm a fan of htat.



Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (bhepQ)

324 Any ideas how this will play with teh Hispanics and historic black church crowd?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (oDCMR)

325 I'm dumping the wife and getting married to one of those hot emancipated 15 year old Disney kids.

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (6zSiC)

326 I hate that "women giving birth out of wedlock" are conflated with "widows with children." I know it was done on purpose to capture the public sentiment (heck, I think Jesus commanded it) to help the latter, who have had a tragedy befall their family rather than make a deliberate choice. But it's been disaster as a societal standard.

(The widows with children I've known really are all terrif!)
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:38 PM (ZKzrr)

I know. The two scenarios are completely different. I'd also add to the later category abandoned wives or wives escaping abuse. (No, not you ladies abandoning your marriages for Eat, Pray, Love reasons.)

If a woman who has kids out of wedlock tries her best to provide for them, that's all well and good. But no, she is not an exalted role model.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (shFKH)

327 Ace - best rant in AGES.

more of this, please, and less Flynn infomercials.

Posted by: Connertown at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (bKjXJ)

328 >>>TW, I'm getting an obnoxious security warning constantly like I do at insta's.

i'll ask the ad guy about that.

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:47 PM (bhepQ)

329 Great white Snark,
That should teach electorate that we have had enough "First" for generations. No to a first "woman " president unless it's Carly but it sghed be treated very differently because of R after her name, of course.

Posted by: Carol at June 26, 2015 12:47 PM (sj3Ax)

330 >>Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?

Transgender rights, such as making all bathroom accessible to whatever gender the self-identifies as, and erasing gender from everything - drivers licenses, birth certificates, etc.
They've already started.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:47 PM (NOIQH)

331 I have grown to like Huck. He stepped in it a bit back in 2008, but since then he has been tirelessly fighting the good fight.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 26, 2015 12:47 PM (GsebS)

332 *flurry of feathers*

Posted by: The Chicken at June 26, 2015 12:47 PM (rdjj7)

333 Yeah, I know a 15 years old is bit long in the tooth but after day, all things are possible.

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky at June 26, 2015 12:48 PM (6zSiC)

334 "Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?"

We have plenty of fabulous ideas!

Posted by: NAMBLA at June 26, 2015 12:48 PM (nqR7l)

335 ace, why ban the drive by commenters?

I think they add flavor.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:48 PM (AkOaV)

336 Hmmm... I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, especially the New Testament, and I don't recall that anywhere.


Really? Nothing at all in there about kindness to widows and orphans? I could have sworn...

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:48 PM (ZKzrr)

337 304 "wrong side of history"
***
Whoever has the most guns and men willing to use them at the given moment seems to be the person on "the right side of history."

Posted by: 18-1 at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (78TbK)




Yep. Notice that the leftists never say that the American Indians (or Aztecs, or Incas, etc.) were "on the wrong side of history."

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:48 PM (oKE6c)

338 I now pronounce you, "husband and husband." You may now slice the state-mandated, nuptial pepperoni pizza pie!

Posted by: Fritz at June 26, 2015 12:48 PM (tQZfi)

339 I feel like celebrating. Where the little boys at?

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky

I love them and am going to marry them.

But I'll share, Jerry. You know I'll share.

Posted by: Hairy Reid

Since the day sucks already, I'll share this tidbit with you. The guy who took over my job as sex offense prosecutor showed me one of his cases. It is a child porn case involving thousands of items. He sells them on a file sharing program and his motives include profit. One of his steady customer got mad because he'd been trying to buy some new child porn all day and nothing new was up. The defendant got mad back and informed him that this wasn't the only thing in his life and right now he was taking care of his kids.

Father of the year.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (XUKZU)

340 This is where Augustine's concept of two kingdoms come into play: the kingdom of God deals with the morality of the issue. Something can be wrong, sinful, and immoral without needing to be illegal, and something can be legal that is wrong and sinful before God.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:28 PM (39g3+)
=====================

Well said

Posted by: James Madison at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (ck8TA)

341 I read a book series once that had two different forms of marriage. I
think they were 'MC' Marriage of Convenience that could be dissolved
easily and "??" A long term, for real marriage of some sort.


I think Islam has that.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (ZKzrr)

342
"The government will apply the IRS that exempts Islam from 404Care for
this. But Christians and Jews, well suck it; either marry Larry and
Barry or Marie and Gwen or off to the camps as your place of worship
becomes a museum."

Yep.

What would you predict they'll do against the churches (a minority of them, I'd guess) that have long rejected tax-exempt status out of fear of this very thing?

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (bGLSw)

343
i try to put that to on side, but i'm not going to say i'm a fan of htat.


I believe this decision makes it compulsory, Ace. You are NOW a 'fan of that.'

They So Rule.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (oVJmc)

344

If a woman who has kids out of wedlock tries her best to provide for
them, that's all well and good. But no, she is not an exalted role
model.


See this is a great point.

The idea that exceptions to the rule exist should not mean that the rule is invalid or should be changed.

Forgiveness can't happen until there is shame and then repentance.


Posted by: some random meathead - if you're not drinking, you're not paying attention at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (ND90G)

345 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.

I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (0LHZx)

346 "Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?"

This was only the first battle. The next step is total capitulation of the churches, and eventually, driving Christianity completely underground.

As I said in the last thread, soon The Old Wooden Cross will be as much as symbol of "hate" as the CBF became this week.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (MYCIw)

347 Folks - it's time to organize to encourage state legislators to nullify unconstitutional acts of the FedGov. I'm organizing a group on FB to begin do this. The more we have the better!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/unspinthespin/

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (YYJjz)

348 Shoving your cock up someone's ass isn't love.

It's also not secks, either.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (eEb+d)

349 I don't like Huckabee, except for this one instance.

Posted by: Carol at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (sj3Ax)

350 Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:47 PM (NOIQH)

as a guy, I almost want women to have to use public men rooms.

Then maybe I'll stop hear women bitching about how "oh my god the womens room was so gross! There was like, toilet paper on the floor! ew!"

Yeah? check out a fucking public mens room if you want to see gross.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (AkOaV)

351 Sorry, meant 'It is so ordered.'

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (oVJmc)

352 I know you equate buggery and ass whoredom to love but it isn't. They're all fakes. Ann Coulter is a man. Bill O'Rally is a crusader for Butt Pirates Rights. The silent Majority will ultimately put you catamites in your place.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (CdIQH)

353 Comments inserted with italicans:


Here is an example of what I mean: I have an
acquaintance who is an elderly survivor of a long-time (34 years)
relationship with a now-deceased partner. The partner was a college
professor and had a generous pension and other assorted benefits.



said benefits come from somewhere, be it tuition fees or taxpayers pockets, if it was a state college.


Our friend is now poverty stricken, because he could not inherit the
pension and health benefits previously provided to him via his partner.
He did not inherit automatically under the law, as a legally married
spouse would have.



so he made a poor life decision; why should the taxpayers bail him out?


If the law had provided a marriage-like Civil Union he might have
been OK (its not clear and not relevant anyway because the law didn't so
provide). He and his partner did have a good will but they obviously
couldn't deal with the pension and health benefits issue. Hence, he now
has greatly reduced income and relies on Medicaid/Medicare.



sounds like one way or another, he'd be sucking on the taxpayers' teat


The state clearly does have a compelling interest in this instance,
because he is now on relief (having lost the greater part of his
income). The state could have avoided this problem (and now has), by
way of providing for spouse-like benefits (the state passed SSM) and so,
if the partners death had occurred today our friend would have
inherited the pension and health benefit.



see above


That sounds like a "compelling state interest" to me. And the state dealt with the problem.



IMO, the Federal involvement is what is unnecessary. And without any legitimate basis in the Constitution.

Posted by: James Madison at June 26, 2015 12:25 PM (ck8TA)


Remember, the whole idea of "employment benefits" began as a way for employers to attract workers during WWII when wages controls were imposed, so they are the result of government meddling in the free market.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (+uomA)

354 So will Barky do victory lap during his eulogy and spit in the face of that church that believes homosexuality is a sin? Will he chortle on about the Gay Weddings that will be forced upon them by the KKK Democrats?

Posted by: Mr Wizard at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (eOpVe)

355 Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won? They're professional non-profiteers, what cause will allow them to keep the galas and fundraising dinners and charitable contributions flowing so they can keep their phony baloney lifestyles?
Posted by: CozMark at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (aKWBd)


You still havea job right? Unless you support gay marriage, they'll be working on "correcting" that.

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (zt+N6)

356
I think Islam has that.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (ZKzrr)

Marriage by the hour. It's their end-run on adultery and prostitution prohibitions.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (2Ojst)

357 Any ideas how this will play with teh Hispanics and historic black church crowd?

They'll think its stupid and insane, but those crazy white folks, now let's vote for more of them because the Republicans want to shut us all in a church and burn us while lynching everyone.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (39g3+)

358 While I am not claiming to be as religious as Moses, I'm really starting to understand how he felt when coming down from the Mount, and gazing at the Tribe, cavorting, dancing, and worshiping false Idols.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (VPLuQ)

359 What these Supreme Court decisions do though is reinforce the opinion that voting matters not.

"If" you can get the R's to stand for what they say believe in, then the Court overrules it.

I've decided that I'm just going to become like the rest of the mindless rabble in this country and spend my days in a time consuming search for the next entertainment.

Fuck politics, the game is rigged and, in the end, God will have his way regardless.

Just don't ask me to give a fuck when something goes "boom" in one of our cities or the next time the pols decide we need to go to war.

No more Pledge, no more 4th, no more Star Spangled Banner.

I DO NOT fucking care. America as founded is dead....time to bury it.

Posted by: FITP at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (3jes7)

360 Really? Nothing at all in there about kindness to widows and orphans? I could have sworn...

* * *

It's to be willingly done by individuals out of love, not mandated and enforced at the point of a gun.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (bGLSw)

361 I think they add flavor.

With a lingering greasy, smoky smell after the Head Ewok gets his Zeus on.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (0NdlF)

362 Any society that is interested in surviving will have an institution that nurtures the association of a man and woman, and the children they are rearing. Assuming that our society is interested in surviving (a questionable premise, but assume it for the moment), it will devise such an institution. What this decision means is that that institution will not be called "marriage".

Posted by: Brown Line at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (zcbZo)

363 reading
skip over
reading
skip over
skip over
ignore
skip over
ignore

Ya. I don't care. Really. I don't care anymore. There is nothing I can do about it, so what's the point? There is nothing more I can say. Nothing I can do by myself that will make a difference.

So enjoy your Brave New World. You will be very happy there, of that, I am sure.

Posted by: Thoms Nostrous at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (uYIF2)

364 Ace: "And thus there is no state interest in 'gay marriage,' and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in."

That reminds me. There will now be a state interest in you paying more in taxes so that those in gay marriages can be subsidized for test-tubed equitable future taxpayer units.

Posted by: The Roberts Court at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (1CroS)

365
Any ideas how this will play with teh Hispanics and historic black church crowd?
...........................
Apestoso maricons.

Posted by: Mamuel Labor at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (wAQA5)

366 >>I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other
non-gay person.

How are the local churches and Christian business-owners doing?
Any religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities adoption agency in Boston, have to close because the law violated their beliefs?

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (NOIQH)

367 I hate that "women giving birth out of wedlock" are conflated with "widows with children."



Me too. I'm old enough to remember when "single mother" meant "unmarried mother," and did not include a widowed or divorced mother.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (oKE6c)

368 Really? Nothing at all in there about kindness to widows and orphans? I could have sworn...

Widows and orphans, yes.

Maybe I misread your comment, but it seemed you were saying Jesus commanded assistance for women who had children out of wedlock.

Apparently I misread your comment; I do apologize.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (kff5f)

369 Did Roberts not argue both sides of the coin, when one looks at yesterdays and todays rulings?
______________________________

In the first O-Care case (which upheld the law as a constitutionally permissible tax), John Roberts said it was NOT the Supreme Court's duty to protect voters from the consequences of a bad law passed by their duly-elected representatives.

In yesterday's O-Care case (upholding the payment of subsidies in states that don't have state-established exchanges), John Roberts said that it IS the Supreme Court's duty to protect voters from the consequences of a poorly-written law passed by their duly-elected representatives.

Roberts is not exactly a model of consistency and clarity.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (kGrdk)

370 Anne Frank's Ballpoint Pen is an obvious edomite sodomite Troll.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (CdIQH)

371 >>> Ace - best rant in AGES.

more of this, please, and less Flynn infomercials.

...

really? I shouldn't promote my friend's candidacy even though I think it's important?

on my own blog?

Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:52 PM (bhepQ)

372 I promise you it will all be OK.

You can have your penis cake and eat it too?

Posted by: derit at June 26, 2015 12:52 PM (jT+gh)

373 I live in a state that has had SSM for several
years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of
every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real"
because of it.



I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (0LHZx)

It's all about you, Moo Moo.Ask the baker down the street, or the florist, or the photographer. Soon, the priest.
Or maybe Brendan Eich, or any of the others.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:52 PM (oVJmc)

374 As I said in the last thread, soon The Old Wooden Cross will be as much as symbol of "hate" as the CBF became this week.

Symbol of torturous execution. Very triggering.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 26, 2015 12:52 PM (0NdlF)

375 >>Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?

They will find new causes to keep the movement going and keep the donations to the HRC and other groups rolling in:

- "Anti-bullying" crusades (i.e. outlaw criticism of unhealthy gay behaviors)
- Gay history curricula mandates.
- Affirmative Action for gays
- Lawsuits against churches and religious schools who don't service gay weddings.

This is not the end, this is just one more milestone on the road to Gomorrah.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (O7MnT)

376 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other
non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.




I promise you it will all be OK.




Yeah, about that...

Posted by: Memories Pizza at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (FwRqg)

377
345 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it. I promise you it will all be OK.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (0LHZx)


Yeah nothing happened at all to any non-gay person.

Posted by: Out of business flower store at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (zt+N6)

378 Legalize Sodomy, for the children.

Posted by: Mr. Oink Oink at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (CdIQH)

379 333 Yeah, I know a 15 years old is bit long in the tooth but after day, all things are possible.

I know, right? I can hardly wait.

Posted by: Roman Polanski at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (AWijS)

380 I promise you it will all be OK.

No, No, Moo Moo. It won't be o,k, when lawsuits are relying left and right trying to force churches to marry gays. It won't be alright when organization that help the poor go under because their tax exempt status is removed. You are rather myopic if you don't see the wider implications of this then "Steve and Joe can now marry. Yay."

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (OSs/l)

381 It's also not secks, either.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (eEb+d)

NOW you're starting to feel what I was throwing out there...

Posted by: Bill Clinton at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (AkOaV)

382 As I said in the last thread, soon The Old Wooden Cross will be as much as symbol of "hate" as the CBF became this week.

And it will be Republicans who call for its banning first.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (pUcjZ)

383 so he made a poor life decision; why should the taxpayers bail him out?


Constitutional right, apparently.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (ZKzrr)

384 So when does SCOTUS say we can not have state referendums and constitutional ballot measures?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (n6Nt0)

385 26 Burned it down.
Scattereded the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:10 PM (kff5f)


Updated in the interest of accuracy.

Posted by: jwb7605 at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (M+9nV)

386 i]Yeah? check out a fucking public mens room if you want to see gross.

Take it from me and every person who has ever done janitorial work: the women's restroom is every bit as bad if not worse.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (39g3+)

387 Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:51 PM (VPLuQ)

Now standing in for the Tribe of Levi: The Ace of Spades Morons.



BTW- did you see the post over at the blog I don't have?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (kff5f)

388 The new laws banning manufacturers from inserting anything rod-like into anything slot-like are going to be a bitch....

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (AC0lD)

389 "Any ideas how this will play with teh Hispanics and historic black church crowd? "


Obama's latest tweet is #lovewins

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (VPLuQ)

390 I promise you it will all be OK.

Empty promises. Like the GOP.

"Quit moving while the Left shivs you. I promise you it will all be OK. Shhh, shhh.... "

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (0NdlF)

391 As for continuing to say no to polygamy, don't underestimate how hypocritical they can be. Stuff they still find icky isn't constitutionally protected, stuff they don't mind anymore is. Their mores = law and you roll with it.

This is a kritocracy = rule by judges.

There are worse -ocracies to be.

There are better ones.

Posted by: Knemon at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (dbEhd)

392 Wait a second. So the same people who argue for small government that is not intrusive also demand that the govt get involved into the most intimate details of one's life?
Give me a fucking break dude.

The best answer to all of this is to get government out of the marriage business. If you want to get religiously married, go right ahead. But there is no reason for the govt to have any say in it.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (0LHZx)



Yes, I want a government to check that the two people who are entering into a contract with each other and the state are both of legal age and competent, along with assurances that both are doing this of their own free will.

If you want to go into the woods and have some Druid wedding in front of the Marriage Tree, go ahead. But if you're going to take a deduction or ask for survivor benefits from my tax contributions, you better have the documentation that says it's legal.

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (9ZZd+)

393 It's all about you, Moo Moo.Ask the baker down the street, or the florist, or the photographer. Soon, the priest.
Or maybe Brendan Eich, or any of the others.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:52 PM (oVJmc)

Moo Moo views those people as the enemy, and wants them removed from political participation and the public square. Their persecution would be gravy for him.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (2Ojst)

394 Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?

Monitoring the Churches. Duh.

Check with the Mayor of Houston for the outline.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (oVJmc)

395 Remember, the whole idea of "employment benefits" began as a way for employers to attract workers during WWII when wages controls were imposed, so they are the result of government meddling in the free market.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (+uomA)


Ive tried to explain that to people too. Why insurance is so fucked up, the government got involved. I got the stink eye most of the time.

Posted by: just saying at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (wkuqO)

396 Still wondering what the fallout will be. I just can't see teh gays not playing drama queen and getting all pissy. Its not their archetype. So what other transgressions against them are we guilty of?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (oDCMR)

397 Bravo, ace.

Also, there are always 2 women--the wife, and her mother. Generally, you sleep with one and just get f*cked over by the other.

Posted by: Conservative Crank's iPhone at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (Gosad)

398
Tell me-- what interest does the state have in recognizing "Love" absent the expectation that that love will result in children?

I'm 55 years old. I was interested in marrying the Girl Who Turned Out to be Evil last year. There's no way our union would have produced offspring, but we could have had a totally state-sanctioned, tax-advantaged marriage.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (JtwS4)

399 Yeah? check out a fucking public mens room if you want to see gross.
Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 12:50 PM (AkOaV)


And whose fault is that?

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (lIU4e)

400
#290 "Why do I need a license from the state to get married?"
Because it's in the state's interest to know you're of age to enter into this type of contract and you're of sound mind.

Bullshit. I mean, it is attractive bullshit. Well meaning bullshit. But let's be perfectly clear, that is bullshit.

I'm "of age". Says who exactly? The government? What about the parents, the clergy, my friends, her friends? What about me? Who the fuck is the government to make a decision I can make for myself? "Sound mind"? Define that. People run off to marry in Vegas after knowing each other two days. Are they of sound mind? People get married drunk, stoned. Sound mind?

That is EXACTLY the bullshit justifications that they sell you. the "But what if...(something bad)" They leave out that the "something bad" happens anyway, and that it doesn't happen all that often. Does the government stop every bad marriage? Given our divorce rate of 40% I'd say they are doing a completely shitty job of it.

Seriously - there is some large contingent of under 18 mentally damaged individuals hankering to get married out there? Hordes of 12 year old morons just dying to get hitched? And to prevent thatwe must give the government universal power to define each and every relationship?

Posted by: Geroge Orwell's ghost at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (/EkKm)

401 Apparently (or wiki-parently) it's "kritcarhy," or in Hebrew, shoftim. Huh.

Posted by: Knemon at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (dbEhd)

402 warren buffet and his wife and his long term mistress sent out holiday cards together for years. all three of them

many many very wealthy people do not divorce because it is the quickest way to dissolve wealth

so they have "agreements", joint business and money but separate lives and loves with an agreement to not publically humiliate each other

this is more common than you think. Usually its the man with the wandering eye

but not always

even amoung muslims

the very wealthy do not experiecne marriage the same we the common folk do

it may not be arranged, but it is definately and arrangement (see Bill and Hill, Chelsea and Mr. Zero, etc)

and if thats your perspectives, and you are amounthe ruling elites, than gay marriage is nothing

the constitution is not even a factor

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (zOTsN)

403 While I am not claiming to be as religious as Moses, I'm really starting to understand how he felt when coming down from the Mount, and gazing at the Tribe, cavorting, dancing, and worshiping false Idols.

A common mistake: they weren't worshiping another god. They were trying to worship Jehovah, but by using a golden calf. They were afraid and wanted something familiar and easy to understand, they wanted to change their worship service to be more palatable to people in their culture.

God was not amused.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (39g3+)

404 Personally, I think it is high time we kick off a revolution in this country.

Posted by: Newborn Revolutionary at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (wWBbF)

405 The people that think the government will treat Islam the same as Judaism and Christianity in this are as precious as the people that think this is all fixable with an Art. V convention.



Not. Paying. Attention.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (xSCb6)

406 "I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it. I promise you it will all be OK."

Now you got to admit, that is some funny shit right there.

Moo, nothing changed for you because you're a docile little State subject who does what he's told, thinks what he's told to think, has no strong feelings other than most toys wins, and appears to think no further than his own limited lifespan.

(Which could end today, by the way. You'd better be prepared for what comes next.)

Love, your bud,
Feh

Posted by: NAMBLA at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (nqR7l)

407 Yeah, well yesterday the Supreme Court declared that words don't actually mean what they explicitly state they mean and can instead mean whatever you feel like them to mean. So HA!
Posted by: buzzion



I agree with Buzzion Johnson's HA!
--Howard Johnson

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 12:55 PM (kSbCG)

408 >>I promise you it will all be OK.

Tell that to the kids who might have been placed by Catholic Charities in Boston.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (NOIQH)

409
396 Still wondering what the fallout will be. I just can't see teh gays not playing drama queen and getting all pissy. Its not their archetype. So what other transgressions against them are we guilty of?
Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 12:54 PM (oDCMR)


You still don't approve of them. So you must be "dealt with."

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (zt+N6)

410 Take it from me and every person who has ever done janitorial work: the women's restroom is every bit as bad if not worse.

* * *

Seconded. I've yet to see a mens' with occupants over the age of five with feces fingerprints on the stall walls. Women's rooms? I've seen that, and wiped paper in the tampax box, dirty underwear left laying...gross.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (bGLSw)

411 384 So when does SCOTUS say we can not have state referendums and constitutional ballot measures?
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (n6Nt0)


It just did over the last two days (decisions).

Marijuana is now legal for over the counter sale in all 50 states, apparently.

Subsidized.

Posted by: jwb7605 at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (M+9nV)

412 Oh my god, the rationalizing and case making on various ground for why SSM should or shouldn't be is besides the point.

The vast overwhelming majority of people in this country do not and did not as expressed by numerous votes, state constitutional amendments and their elected representatives at every level of government want to extend the definition of marriage to same sex couples period, stop end of story.

And now the SCOTUS has arrogated to itself the sole discretion and power to decide and impose its will with regards to any and all social issues.

5 people deciding the fates for 320 million people.


We are so far outside the constitutional order that I don't think anything less than dissolution of the Union will suffice.

But because of how intertwined we are as a nation this is all but impossible.

I see nothing but dark days ahead.

Posted by: Kreplach at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (mqYFN)

413 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other
non-gay person.


That's a shitty rationalization. It's like saying pedophilia is fine as long as my kids aren't getting molested.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (O7MnT)

414
I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it. I promise you it will all be OK.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016




Well, what woman would be daft enough to just walk away from a millionaire with a unicorn ranch on the Moon.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (kdS6q)

415 This ruling was about gheys and marriage the same way the Civil War was about freeing slaves. Money. Political power. Always.
Posted by: some random meathead - if you're not drinking, you're not paying attention at June 26, 2015 12:44 PM (ND90G)


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


Plus, the marxist destruction of the church. Let's not forget that these celebrating homos that we're seeing now are just simple pawns in order for those who wish complete power have used for their purposes.

What has been happening this whole week is toward a much larger goal than each of these individual events. What were seeing is the transformation into complete tyranny.

Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (P25Hh)

416 I was in a taxi on the way to the airport in Manila a few weeks ago. We were stuck in traffic across from the U.S. Embassy. Guess what flag was hung across the front of the main building?

Posted by: Alf767 at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (mhUhP)

417 Moo Moo views those people as the enemy,

Moo Moo reminds me of a guy I know called Pete.

Pete's about 50. Center of his own universe. Lies, cheats, steals, thinks it's funny, if it benefits him, he does it. Miserly.

Pete has no value system other than Pete.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (oVJmc)

418 "BTW- did you see the post over at the blog I don't have?"

Yes, even responded in the positive.
I like it.
You did good.






I'll make a deal with you


I'll read your blog
You read your e-mail.



Just kidding on the last part.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:57 PM (VPLuQ)

419
I promise you it will all be OK.



Yeah, about that...
Posted by: Memories Pizza at June 26, 2015 12:53 PM (FwRqg

If it doesn't affect Moo it doesn't affect you.
It only matters to him when it is his check book getting hit.
Moo has the backbone of linguine

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 12:57 PM (n6Nt0)

420 Ace,

Let me go a little further with you. This is anti-science nonsense, the latest in a series of such things.

The whole point, biologically, of having male and female in the first place is is propagation of the species. Gay marriage makes about as much sense as marrying your dog.

It's also worth pointing out that - as with the "transgender" issue (where the anti-science aspect is that if you have a Y chromosome you're a dude, dude - end of story) - that there is no scientific explanation or understanding of the phenomena. Add to that the anti-science Global Warming scam, where a scientific theory is not rejected even when the data refutes it, and we're officially living in a pretty oppressive, f-ed up Orwellian state.

The odd thing about it is that a minority group of anti-American leftists are getting away with forcing this crap on everybody else - often without even bothering to get a law passed.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 26, 2015 12:57 PM (/q6+P)

421 my goodness, so many spelling errors. Been up since 3 and it shows. apologies for that difficult to read incoherant mess. I give myself a D-

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 12:57 PM (zOTsN)

422 Take it from me and every person who has ever done janitorial work: the women's restroom is every bit as bad if not worse.

Are lesbos whittling strap on dildoes out of tapon dispensers, like how their brothers-in-baby-arms have to bore a glory hole through every goddam stall partition they inhabit?

Posted by: derit at June 26, 2015 12:57 PM (jT+gh)

423 really? I shouldn't promote my friend's candidacy even though I think it's important?

on my own blog?
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:52 PM (bhepQ)

I don't live in IL so it's a moot point to me, but I would say you might want to be a bit more front and center with the actual voting dates when you do these things. I take it this is a primary...

Although maybe everyone in IL already knows? IDK.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (lIU4e)

424 "168 Honestly I agree with Rubio here. This is the current law"
This is not a law. Laws are passed by the legislature. This is dictate.

Posted by: Randy M at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (iwy8d)

425 Hey, now we can release me and jail Brendan Eich.

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (6zSiC)

426 Think I will binge watch South Park and Archer this weekend.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (8marX)

427 A common mistake: they weren't worshiping another god. They were trying
to worship Jehovah, but by using a golden calf. They were afraid and
wanted something familiar and easy to understand, they wanted to change
their worship service to be more palatable to people in their culture.



God was not amused.

* * *

Yep. They were equating Him with the pantheon of Egypt that He'd just destroyed.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (bGLSw)

428 I think Advertizing should be so marked so AdBlock can jettison it.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (CdIQH)

429 Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?



Lowering the age of consent to about seven would be a good guess.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (oKE6c)

430 Moo has the backbone of linguine..

Thx; This thread needed a little humor.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM (OSs/l)

431 "I was interested in marrying the Girl Who Turned Out to be Evil last year."

Dodged a bullet there, eh?

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 12:59 PM (nqR7l)

432 Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:17 PM (bhepQ)
----------

No, they are perversions. Deviations from the norm. I just don't see anyone basing their entire life, identity and legal status around it.

Posted by: Saltyron at June 26, 2015 12:59 PM (i6shs)

433 Crap, you guys write fast! From the previous dead thread:

Had a good talk with my sis yesterday about SCOTUS rulings. Told her how
distressed I was over the judges spitting on Constitutional law for
good feels, to stay on the "right" side of history. That I hated that
state's rights are officially dead. She sympathized, she hates it too,
but reminded me that this has happened for a while now, that if states
want their rights intact something should have been done a long time
ago.

As regular commenters know, she is gay, so of course she is
thrilled with this and will have a great time at Pride this weekend in
NYC. She's one of the sane gays whose identity is not defined solely by
who she sleeps with. She genuinely wants a family one day, and I will be
a super proud auntie when that happens. I'm glad she can marry, I
really am.

But what about my religion? The LDS church is no
stranger to the government sitting on its hands and leaving the the
ravenous wolves of society to mete out "justice" against them. Gays in
the church have been respectful of the stance of traditional marriage,
much more respectful than say the militant women in the church screaming
for change. We'll see just how much this changes that.

Mormons escaped to the wilds of Mexican territory when things got tough; where do we escape to now?

Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 26, 2015 12:59 PM (hvf9s)

434 Boy, has this been a shitty week for America.


I can't bear to read the news.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:59 PM (oKE6c)

435
"I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.

I promise you it will all be OK."

Not the point.I also live in a state where SSM is allowed and has not really changed anything.However, like Scalia I am very bothered by the SC's invention of a new constituional right and the trampling of the rights of states to make its own decisions on these issues. Are we to be ruled by the people we elect or by 5 unlected lawyers from Harvard/Yale, most of whom raised in the Northeast as Scalia point out. I am not OK with that.

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 26, 2015 01:00 PM (OD2ni)

436 Apparently I misread your comment; I do apologize.


I may have mixed up "former" and "latter". We're good; I think we're on the same page here.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 01:00 PM (ZKzrr)

437 One of the worst fallacies that immature people spew is the "it doesn't hurt me in an immediate tangible way." Wisdom knows better that harm comes in more subtle forms that don't show up until its far too late to repair. Its like telling young people they can't eat junk food and candy all day long and they say "dude, look at my ripped abs!" because it doesn't seem to hurt them... yet.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:00 PM (39g3+)

438 We are so far outside the constitutional order that I don't think anything less than dissolution of the Union will suffice.

That implies action. No, the Union is going to dissolve itself.

Every living system must work to maintain itself. When it stops doing so, it dies.

RIP, USA, from Progressive cancer.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 26, 2015 01:00 PM (0NdlF)

439 The new laws banning manufacturers from inserting anything rod-like into anything slot-like are going to be a bitch....

I've been against buttsecks for engineering reasons for a long time.

The Concept of Mating Parts: how does it work?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 01:00 PM (eEb+d)

440 ***"I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other
non-gay person."***



Are there tax implications?


Then guess what, you innumerate twat, it affects you.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2015 01:01 PM (xSCb6)

441 "...the Girl Who Turned Out to be Evil."


Yeah, I'm pretty sure I fucked her.

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 01:01 PM (9ZZd+)

442 The tyranny of the minority.

Posted by: @votermom at June 26, 2015 01:01 PM (cbfNE)

443 The people that think the government will treat Islam the same as Judaism and Christianity

On the upside, Islam will treat government differently than Judaism and Christianity do.

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 01:01 PM (ZbV+0)

444 "This is not a law. Laws are passed by the legislature. This is dictate."

Don't confuse him with the facts. The GOPe doesn't want anyone to understand that none of this is legal or lawful.

Judges make law in their world.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 26, 2015 01:01 PM (6zSiC)

445 Woohoo! Yesterday's rulings helped the Rino class more than anyone else. Today's ruling, the Huckleberry/Sanctotum class of Prez candidates.

I love this country. If we could get a Supreme Court ruling that says any father with more than 2 hot daughters has to sell one of them into the pron industry, we could get The Huntsman fired up about running again.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 26, 2015 01:01 PM (TOk1P)

446 ...she is
thrilled with this and will have a great time at Pride this weekend in
NYC.

She's one of the sane gays...




Mutually exclusive.

Posted by: some random meathead - if you're not drinking, you're not paying attention at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (ND90G)

447
No, they are perversions. Deviations from the norm.

A deviation from the norm is a perversion?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (JtwS4)

448 Are lesbos whittling strap on dildoes out of tapon dispensers, like how their brothers-in-baby-arms have to bore a glory hole through every goddam stall partition they inhabit?

Lets just say women aren't as fastidious about cleaning up feminine hygiene products as they ought to be. For starters.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (39g3+)

449 thank you for this Ace.

Posted by: Court at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (xytVe)

450 the worst thing about this decision is the utter disregard for the constitution and the republic

the representative republic is dead

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (zOTsN)

451 Seriously, after reading the decisions and the opinions, the court majority didn't even so much as offer a fig leaf for protections off religious liberty. They essentially greenlighted the coming persecution on the church. This is worse than what I had been expecting since Lawrence.

Posted by: Newborn Revolutionary at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (wWBbF)

452 Justices. Are these removable or censurable even?

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 01:03 PM (CdIQH)

453 Did Roberts wipe his ass with the constitution one day and then express concern for it the next day?

Posted by: The Fool at June 26, 2015 01:03 PM (cGlgB)

454 homosexual couples and pedophilia? why, it can't be, those two things together, that's an outrage

http://tinyurl.com/qaz3auf

I'm not saying it doesn't happen with heterosexual couples, just that it happens with homosexual couples, too

so the phenomenon will likely increase

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 01:03 PM (nqR7l)

455 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.
I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (0LHZx)


When the first church is penalized by the State, or the first pastor jailed for refusing to officiate a gay "marriage," I hope you choke on those words, asshole.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at June 26, 2015 01:03 PM (zF6Iw)

456 That's a shitty rationalization. It's like saying pedophilia is fine as long as my kids aren't getting molested.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (O7MnT)



Yep. It's Doeppelgaenger of the financial argument that someone ran up a huge credit card debt this month, and so far everything is A-OK.


Of course, the bill hasn't turned up, either.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 01:03 PM (oKE6c)

457 The Concept of Mating Parts: how does it
work?


If Chevy is any clue, poorly.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (kSbCG)

458 Posted by: Alf767 at June 26, 2015 12:56 PM (mhUhP)

Ummm...

Confederate Battle Flag?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (AkOaV)

459 Victory!

Posted by: Ernst Röhm at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (7YlUk)

460
I've been against buttsecks for engineering reasons for a long time.

The Concept of Mating Parts: how does it work?


So you're not a fan of blowjobs?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (JtwS4)

461 2 Kings 24:18-20

"Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. His mother's name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, just as Jehoiakim had done. It was because of the Lord's anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end He thrust them from his presence."

In other words, they were "fundamentally transformed".

Posted by: OCBill at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (cPg42)

462 Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


OK.... so now the question... It is nowhere delegated to the United States, to define WHAT is a Right, and what is not. It is not a power given to Congress... the President... nor the COURT (whose powers are explicitly laid out)...

So would not definition of what is a Right, not then devolve to the STATES, as the other party of this contract known as the Constitution?

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (qh617)

463 If that's the purpose of marriage, (which it's not), wouldn't having both parents as the kids know them being married add to the stability of that family?
---------------

A straw man that is often raised. You assume that 'gay marriage' represents a normal marriage. It doesn't. Regardless of commitment.

The welfare of the children is the first and highest priority. The welfare or wishes of the adopters is the lowest priority.

Adoption is the last and least desirable solution for children who would otherwise be abandoned, or removed to state care.

Before anyone starts, that does not mean that many adopted children do not find themselves in loving families, they often do. That does not alter the fact that the best and most desired circumstance would be caring and responsible birth parents

To facilitate the adoption of children by homosexual couples, just to facilitate the wants of those couples, is just about the least responsible thing that can happen. The children are being injected, without choice, into an abnormal situation.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 26, 2015 01:04 PM (9mTYi)

464 When the first church is penalized by the State, or the first pastor jailed for refusing to officiate a gay "marriage," I hope you choke on those words

Still won't affect him directly and materially.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (39g3+)

465 377


345 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other
non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.
I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (0LHZx)



Yeah nothing happened at all to any non-gay person.
-------------
I sadly must agree. The Marxists in Democrats' clothing don't give a hoot about ghey marriage. They are interested in taking down the nuclear family and its protector, the Church. (Also the synagogue, the temple, and even the mosque if it gets in the way.) All other bonds are secondary, what matters is obeying the State and all of its demands.


Posted by: exdem13 at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (ry4ab)

466 "I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other non-gay person."


Somewhat unacquainted with the concept of scandal, are thee. Probably said the same thing about abortion, since he or she doesn't notice the missing kids.

Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (ztOda)

467 The Blaze asks the question. Is Roberts being blackmailed.


I think so.


The only good thing about this? It completely takes The One's race baiting speech in Charleston off the lead story this evening.


Posted by: Nip Sip at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (0FSuD)

468 Read about what adult kids of same sex couples say about their childhood. Not good.

Posted by: @votermom at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (cbfNE)

469 so

what happens when the AME churches

who the JEF will be speaking to

refuse to perform gay marriage

will the IRS come after them

and what about the baptist churches

and why one and not the other

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (zOTsN)

470 I picked up some of that totally ghey grapefruit vodka (Deep Eddy) in celebration of this momentous occasion.

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (EHU9F)

471 "So you're not a fan of blowjobs?"

"mating" parts, bandersnatch

i.e. reproduction

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (nqR7l)

472
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS BEHIND YOU>>>

That's what scares me.

Posted by: The Guy who just dropped his keys. at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (tf9Ne)

473 Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 12:57 PM (VPLuQ)

Comment on the blog, or the Yahoo group?

I guess I didn't see a comment from anyone I recognized as you.

Or I'm high. But that's unlikely.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (kff5f)

474 "Build my gallows high" is a great title

Posted by: derit at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (jT+gh)

475 When the first church is penalized by the State, or the first pastor jailed for refusing to officiate a gay "marriage," I hope you choke on those words, asshole.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at June 26, 2015 01:03 PM (zF6Iw)


Moo Moo would celebrate that. He's a death loving atheist amoral lying shithead.

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (zt+N6)

476 These rulings and Obama's recent luck in shaming southerners seems oddly convenient. Not a conspiracy nut, but Barry seems to be having a splendid week.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (oDCMR)

477 Where will all of these people in the Gay Rights movement go now that they have won?

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


*waves* We're still here. And we love this decision too.

Posted by: NAMBLA at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (P25Hh)

478 101--with all do respect to Rush, little old me has been saying this for the longest time. I'll even go further---the Supremes's might have found "Obamacare" unconstitutional if it wasn't known as "obamacare." It's all about not putting your name on something that will associate you with throwing a wrench into the works and dreams and desires of our first black president. The Supremes suffer from this, so do the GOP elite and the media as well. NOTHING must get in the way of declaring the first AA presidency a resounding success.


All you have to do is close your eyes and imagine that Obama was 100% white instead of 50% white and think about how hard the GOP would have fought him. No white male candidate as liberal as Obama would have gotten near the presidency because the GOP wouldn't have been shy about tearing him to shreds.
It's all about skin color....

Posted by: JoeF. at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (dPnT2)

479
To facilitate the adoption of children by homosexual couples, just
to facilitate the wants of those couples, is just about the least
responsible thing that can happen. The children are being injected,
without choice, into an abnormal situation.



Discourage the best possible situation.

Encourage the lowest common denominator.

The deep soulless gray of socialism.

Posted by: some random meathead - if you're not drinking, you're not paying attention at June 26, 2015 01:06 PM (ND90G)

480 "I promise you it will all be OK."

Really, some people are so stupid. Aside from the absolute destruction of the law, the constitution and country everything is OK.

Hey, Disney called, they want your kid to star in their next movie, "Boystown."

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (6zSiC)

481 This day brought about 300% more fresh hell than average. I wonder if that means we'll get a reprieve next week?

Oh and poo brain, as for your non-sequitur:

So then married couples with no kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. Nor should a post-menopausal woman be allowed to get married.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:36 PM (0LHZx)

That's like saying that because not everyone at school learns as much as the top students, or not everyone who exercises becomes a professional athlete, therefore it's ok to drop out of school and join a gang, or stuff your face with junk food die of a heart attack.

Our human nature means there are optimal ways of living that include *many* goods. You cannot deny that that optimal way is optimal, merely because some people can't experience *all* of those goods.

Posted by: Barack Obama at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (6qR/9)

482 >>> Wrong side of history"
This term is used a lot by leftists, and is frighteningly close to
the way the Nazis talked. Seriously. They thought they were creating a
new future which would sweep away history's errors, a third way that
borrowed the good from left and right to craft a better, more scientific
approach to government and society. For a while, academics loved it.
Some still do, without even knowing it.


My sis is Episcopalian. The pastor of her church specifically stated that they made the decision to be super pro gay because they were not pro black during the civil rights era and it hurt them; they did not want to be on the "wrong side of history" again this time, so they got out ahead of the religious curve.

First off: no real church should is anti gay, you are supposed to love all gods children, even if you disagree with them.

Second: if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. Don't think it is an a church's best interest, long term, to be wishy washy and bend to whatever is going on in the popular culture. Otherwise Moses would have been hip to those golden calves, yo.

but yes this "right side of history" crap is spreading to religion to; the left won't permit it NOT to.


Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (hvf9s)

483 So you're not a fan of blowjobs?

What's the engineering term for a device intended to take objects into it, and for the opposite?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (39g3+)

484 If you want to know what the next target is....the Gay Rights crowd has already said the next target is guns.

No shit, heard it with my own ears.

And think about it.

The Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution.

Take guns away from the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging Christianists.

From that point on it's easy.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (VPLuQ)

485 ***"As regular commenters know, she is gay, so of course she is
thrilled with this and will have a great time at Pride this weekend in
NYC. She's one of the sane gays whose identity is not defined solely by
who she sleeps with. She genuinely wants a family one day, and I will be
a super proud auntie when that happens. I'm glad she can marry, I
really am.


Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 26, 2015 12:59 PM (hvf9s)"***


Then you and your friend are more people who are part of the problem.


She doesn't identify as who she sleeps with, but she's going to a gay pride parade? You should probably think that one through a little more.


You have concern for your religious views but you'll be proud to be a fake family member of a fake family which flies in the view of those religious views?


Then again, the highest court in the land just wrote a bunch of feel-good bullshit too in a legal ruling, so maybe that's just where we are.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (xSCb6)

486 "Is Roberts being blackmailed."

This is worth asking, but it's a way of avoiding other and harder questions.

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (nqR7l)

487 REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS BEHIND YOU>>>

That's what scares me.

--

Soap on a rope!

Posted by: @votermom at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (cbfNE)

488 475 And those are his best qualities.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (CdIQH)

489
"So you're not a fan of blowjobs?"

"mating" parts, bandersnatch

i.e. reproduction


I got that, Feh. He said he was against buttsecks because it doesn't lead to reproduction.

Hence the question about other forms of fun fun play that don't lead to reproduction.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (JtwS4)

490 Flynn support is good ... every day, or more.

That LaHood strong arm guy was wild. And I only learned of the Boehner $1000/plate support here. That stuff should make local news (quincy), but I haven't seen it.

Posted by: Illiniwek at June 26, 2015 01:08 PM (8bK1p)

491 Lizzy@comment 366: Just speaking for myself, I don't care what kind of relationship anybody has with anyotherbody. What I object to here is the orwellian nature of this whole debate. The word marriage has and has had a standard meaning. Now it is decreed that that word means something entirely different. We are expected to accept that some other kind of relationship is the same as the relationship that we know as marriage. We are expected to pretend, as The Party in 1984 expected its subjects to pretend, that one thing is really something else. The point for me, and I believe for our would-be rulers, is not about equality. It is about forcing us to submit to The Party's will by denying what we know to be true and accepting the principle that The Party defines reality. This is unacceptable to me.

Posted by: mikesixes at June 26, 2015 01:08 PM (SSekD)

492
Next for gays? Easy, subsidized children. After all, they have the right to have children, yet they have to either adopt, surrogate, or go to a sperm bank if they want them.

Disparate Impact Baby!

Posted by: nnptcgrad at June 26, 2015 01:08 PM (Mxs5H)

493 Speaking of crying wolf, there is a reality TV show on, Cry Wolfe, which follows a private investigator around on his cases. Many are very interesting. In one, a mom contacts him because she fears her overachiever son is using drugs since his behavior has changed. She tells him to not let dad know because dad would go off the deep end. Wolfe follows the kid and, sure enough, sees and smells him smoking pot with his buds. Wolfe continues to follow him and comes up with something more disturbing. He is spending a lot of time over at the house of this hot Asian chick in her twenties who turns out to be one of his teachers. Mom blows a gasket but Wolfe tells her to slow down, they need more evidenced. The school is having a fund rising car wash and the kid and teacher, both scantily dressed, are way too friendly, hugging and spraying water on each other and what not. Wolfe also meets dad, a member of the school board, at the carwash but honoring mom's wishes doesn't disclose anything. Finally, mom's had enough and demands that they go over to hot teacher chick's house and confront her. Sure enough, one of the family's cars is over there. Mom pounds on the door, hot teacher answers the door in bra and panties and a figure is seen in underwear exiting the rear of the house. Wolfe tackles him and, surprise!, it's not kid, it's dad. Teacher was being nice to kid because she thought she was going to be new step mom in a little while. Dad was screaming, "This is not what it looks like!" as he's standing their in his boxers and a good laugh was had by all.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 01:08 PM (XUKZU)

494 After reading this week's Supreme Court majority decisions, all I have to say is: They write like fags, and their shit's all retarded.

Posted by: 1,000 Comments Before 'Idiocracy' Gets Worked Into It? I Don't Know You People! at June 26, 2015 01:08 PM (DLu2s)

495 Did Kennedy feel any twinges of despotism running down his back when he addresses the concerns of religious institutions maintaining their right to "advocate" for traditional marriages? When I read this on page 27 of Kennedy's opinion I had an immediate vision of Commandant Auschwitz assuring arriving jews that work shall set you free.

Posted by: MantuaBill at June 26, 2015 01:08 PM (mqO5P)

496 I wish there were actual heterosexual men left in this country.

We've got fags that will offer up everything including their kids to the state.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (6zSiC)

497 Can't Emperor Obama give a dispensation to AA churches that refuse to perform gay marriages but not to the rest of us who supposedly have Racism in our genes?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (OSs/l)

498 Lets just say women aren't as fastidious about cleaning up feminine hygiene products as they ought to be. For starters.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:02 PM (39g3+)


This is sort of going to a gross place, but biology is messy.

Not if you're a fake girl, I guess.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (lIU4e)

499 Love can only be expressed through marriage. No other arrangement is satisfactory.

Posted by: The Supreme Court at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (4KoRb)

500
To facilitate the adoption of children by homosexual couples, just
to facilitate the wants of those couples, is just about the least
responsible thing that can happen. The children are being injected,
without choice, into an abnormal situation.

--

Since the government drove the churches out of the adoption business, they can place all of the leftover orphans in homosexual homes. A sort of reparation.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (79zi+)

501 443
The people that think the government will treat Islam the same as Judaism and Christianity

On the upside, Islam will treat government differently than Judaism and Christianity do.
------------

Islam is enjoying favor right now with the Left because they are brown people who are victims of "isms" and because Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm. But one day there will be an Emperor who knows not Obama, with the power of the State at his beck and call, and when the Muzzies demand their "rights" he will be unimpressed, and break them as his predecessors broke the Christians and Jews.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (ry4ab)

502 Did Roberts wipe his ass with the constitution one day and then express concern for it the next day?

Catholicism?

Yesterday was social justice activism, today is sacrament? I dunno.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (oVJmc)

503 Now that a person's sex is irrelevant, there's no reason other than irrational animus to limit marriage to only two people.

If you want to "make it burn," then fight against "duo-normative" oppression and demand plural marriages.

Posted by: The Political Hat at June 26, 2015 01:09 PM (7YlUk)

504 The one thing that I have to say about the Gay Marriage ruling is this:

Thank God I am retired, so I don't have to worry about being fired or "counseled" for not genuflecting quickly or deeply enough before my superior co-equal LBGQTXYZ123 co-workers. I will also not have to do the 40-100 hours of mandatory Gay Marriage diversity training.

BTW: I never discriminated against or mistreated any co-worker for any damn reason. I cannot say the same for all my co-workers,for example, as recently as 5 years ago, I had an Ethnic Muslim male who would not work with an American female. His passive aggressive nonsense was unbearable. Guess what, there was never any damn diversity training to clue in Muslim males that they had to behave well in the work place.

I really hope that all the folks expressing their honest heartfelt outrage at this ruling do not lose their employment, friends, and freedom.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (kXoT0)

505 So you're not a fan of blowjobs?

-
Well, hypothetically, yeah.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (XUKZU)

506 More extremes will be pushed from this, not because the left necessarily wants these extremes but they want and have to have a constant struggle. Its the only way they feel good, so by necessity a new cause will be embraced and pushed.

Posted by: The Fool at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (cGlgB)

507 if they can change the constitution without an amendment

they can get rid of the 2nd amendment

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (zOTsN)

508 >>> nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other

non-gay person.

I bet Christian businesses in your state would beg to differ; have you asked any?

Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (hvf9s)

509 I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016

And the checks in the mail...

And I won't cum in your mouth...


Anytime someone says 'it will all be OK' they KNOW what is going on is wrong... but don't want you to react...

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 26, 2015 01:11 PM (qh617)

510 Media: great victory for America. The greatest victory in the history of the Untied States. etc. etc. etc. The Newspapers, TV, everyone filled with joy.
Just some of the headlines.....The Republicans are done.....on and on.

Posted by: Colin at June 26, 2015 01:11 PM (VVrB8)

511 Why is the Marriage Contract limited to Humans? Speciesist.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 01:11 PM (CdIQH)

512
Not if you're a fake girl, I guess.


Doctor, I've missed my last 500 periods...

Posted by: Caitlyn Jenner at June 26, 2015 01:11 PM (oVJmc)

513 This day brought about 300% more fresh hell than average. I wonder if that means we'll get a reprieve next week?

Greece won't make the required payment next week.

I suspect financial markets will play a significant role in the news.

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 01:11 PM (ZbV+0)

514 We are all buttfuckers now

Posted by: bernverdnardo at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (dLjl3)

515 "Comment on the blog, or the Yahoo group? "

The group.

Including my most recent reply.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (VPLuQ)

516 As to the business of gays raising kids...

A kid is going to be better off being raised by any number of responsible adults, rather than in an orphanage, regardless of whether they perform abnormal sexual acts upon each other - or even LIKE each other very much! This is basically guardianship, and that's what's really going on even with cases of adoption by parents of both sexes. This is what the government should focus on, not whether anybody is married or not. The government need not be involved on that at all, really. Any of the other legal aspects of marriage can be handled better in different ways.

It will be interesting to see if gay people eventually come to regret inviting the government into their bedroom, climbing on board an already-troubled institution in their quest to be better accepted. I'm sure the divorce lawyers are doing high-fives...

Posted by: Optimizer at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (/q6+P)

517 You go, Huck!

--------

Words I never thought I'd read on this blog.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (FsuaD)

518 My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.



I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN


I'm glad it did not affect you personally in a negative fashion.

It will not be OK when the Feds force pastors to act in direct contradiction to their religious beliefs.

Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (/Ho8c)

519 She doesn't identify as who she sleeps with, but she's going to a gay pride parade?

If there are any homosexuals who aren't primarily defined by their sexuality, I'm not aware of them. It seems utterly central to their self identity.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (39g3+)

520 Pope made a treaty with "The State of Palestine"

love this pope

has he commented on ISIS works today?

will he officiate a gay wedding?

he is the perfect pope for our time

an unserious man for deadly serious times

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (zOTsN)

521 Now convicts can marry bubba.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (CdIQH)

522 So, how do we do this Yahoo Group thing?

Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (/Ho8c)

523
345 I live in a state that has had SSM for several years. Guess
what....nothing fucking changed in my life, or the lives of every other
non-gay person. My marriage didn't become any less "real" because of it.
I promise you it will all be OK.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 26, 2015 12:49 PM (0LHZx)





Until you refused to cater to that gay "Wedding" ceremony.....

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (GsebS)

524 She's one of the sane gays whose identity is not defined solely by

who she sleeps with.


To be fair, almost all the straight women I know in meatspace define themselves solely by who's been in and out of their vag.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (ZKzrr)

525 "We are all buttfuckers now"

Yep. The backwards Left wants to celebrate difference and diversity ... as long as none of it matters.

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (nqR7l)

526 So you're not a fan of blowjobs?

From another guy? Disgusting.

How about handjobs? As you can see, this can get absurd real quick.

At some point, there needs to be some agreement that males and females exist for a very good biological reason. Yeah, we can vary from that a bit, but getting too far away from the original design intent is not good.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (eEb+d)

527 ThunderB,

There is probably a reason he was prophesied and the "the last Pope".

If you believe in stuff like that.

Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (/Ho8c)

528 Just don't refuse to do piece work for a gay couple.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (CdIQH)

529 521 Now convicts can marry bubba.
Posted by: Boss Moss at June 26, 2015 01:12 PM (CdIQH)

Now be a good husband and suck your wife's dick.

/just the punchline

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2015 01:13 PM (2Ojst)

530
"And I won't cum in your mouth... "

It's a good thing they didn't put that clause in the wedding vows.

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (9ZZd+)

531 507 if they can change the constitution without an amendment

they can get rid of the 2nd amendment
Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (zOTsN

Yeah, who knows what that 1700s English "Shall not infringe" really actually means.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (n6Nt0)

532
Now convicts can marry bubba.>>>

You want to be the husband or the wife?

Posted by: Bubba at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (tf9Ne)

533 "the state of Palestine"

*shakes head*

Unreal City

Posted by: Feh at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (nqR7l)

534 "Hence the question about other forms of fun fun play that don't lead to reproduction. "

Don't forget about us!

Posted by: Handbabies everywhere at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (VPLuQ)

535 The Republicans are done

Well they aren't wrong with this, but how that's related to homosexual "marriage" I don't understand.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (39g3+)

536 Take guns away from the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging Christianists.



From that point on it's easy.


After that point it's easy but 'take' is, shall we say, frought with uncertainty.

I mean are we all just going to quietly walk onto the boxcars? Surely, someone will muster some sense of self preservation,

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (ZbV+0)

537 504
The one thing that I have to say about the Gay Marriage ruling is this:



Thank God I am retired, so I don't have to worry about being fired
or "counseled" for not genuflecting quickly or deeply enough before my
superior co-equal LBGQTXYZ123 co-workers. I will also not have to do
the 40-100 hours of mandatory Gay Marriage diversity training.



BTW: I never discriminated against or mistreated any co-worker for
any damn reason. I cannot say the same for all my co-workers,for
example, as recently as 5 years ago, I had an Ethnic Muslim male who
would not work with an American female. His passive aggressive nonsense
was unbearable. Guess what, there was never any damn diversity
training to clue in Muslim males that they had to behave well in the
work place.



I really hope that all the folks expressing their honest heartfelt
outrage at this ruling do not lose their employment, friends, and
freedom.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes at June 26, 2015 01:10 PM (kXoT0)

-------

Great post, Sherry.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (FsuaD)

538 RELAX, EVERYONE!!! MOO MOO WASN'T EFFECTED!!!! ALL IS WELL!!!

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 26, 2015 01:14 PM (oVJmc)

539 what happens when the AME churches



who the JEF will be speaking to



refuse to perform gay marriage



will the IRS come after them



and what about the baptist churches



and why one and not the other

Posted by: ThunderB at June 26, 2015 01:05 PM (zOTsN)


You know very wellThere's an official differenceIt's called melanin


Though my pastor's black, which should make things interesting.

Posted by: Just some guy at June 26, 2015 01:15 PM (yxw0r)

540 I don't think Roberts is being blackmailed. I just think he's turned.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 26, 2015 01:15 PM (8marX)

541 So would not definition of what is a Right, not then devolve to the STATES, as the other party of this contract known as the Constitution?

Rights are not, and cannot be (logically, rationally) defined by any human agency. Not the President, not the Congress, not the SCOTUS, not the States.

Rights are *NATURAL.* They exist on their own. Life. Liberty. Property.

Human agencies can punish or venerate Rights in varying degrees. We all accept that the State can and should punish someone exercising his Right of Free Speech when he does so in order to cause material harm (inciting a riot, slander), for instance. We all accept that the State can and should punish someone exercising their Right to Keep and Bear Arms by assaulting or murdering someone.

But the rights exist anyway, and nothing can take them away.

To that end, homosexuals always had the Right (Liberty, and Property in this case) to enter into contract saying they would live in a committed relationship, to have a ceremony with friends and cake and such, and even to bequeath each other property. If they wanted to call it "marriage" they could (they'd still be wrong, though).

This does not create a Right out of thin air. If I thought that simple state acknowledgement of homosexual relationships was as far as it would go, I wouldn't mind (as much). But we all know it won't stop there. This is simply the first step in repressing my Rights of Religious Liberty.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 01:15 PM (kff5f)

542 That was set up as a haiku. Curse you, pixy.

Posted by: Just some guy at June 26, 2015 01:15 PM (yxw0r)

543 What happened to Federalism, ffs?

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at June 26, 2015 01:15 PM (Gbx3O)

544
So now what?

Repeal the 14th amendment?

Posted by: Yo! a thought criminal at June 26, 2015 01:16 PM (q+zA9)

545 Can we haz Gerbil Marriage?

Posted by: Richard Gere at June 26, 2015 01:16 PM (CdIQH)

546 I rejoiced when the USSR fell, thinking that it would put "paid" to the biggest threat hanging over America's head.


Little did I know that the Soviets had, in effect, launched social ICBMs before collapsing, and those social ICBMs are now hitting.


Shit.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 01:16 PM (oKE6c)

547 not entirely. I do get a little.. wiggy on gay male stuff.



i try to put that to on side, but i'm not going to say i'm a fan of htat.









Posted by: ace at June 26, 2015 12:46 PM (bhepQ)


That is tolerance, ace. You tolerate certain things that you personally find unsettling, as long as they don't impinge directly upon you.

Tolerance does not necessarily imply acceptance, and it certainly does not imply endorsement.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at June 26, 2015 01:16 PM (+uomA)

548 Well, yeah. If you're going by "intent" then the court can just decide whatever they want the founders intended by the 2nd amendment. They never intended people to have these guns....

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:16 PM (39g3+)

549 Nood Hillary.

Posted by: rebel flounder at June 26, 2015 01:16 PM (Vf5rR)

550 Well I was right this morning, today is Freaky Friday.

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 26, 2015 01:17 PM (fEYIa)

551 ***"If there are any homosexuals who aren't primarily defined by their
sexuality, I'm not aware of them. It seems utterly central to their
self identity."***


My sister is one. But when it comes to this subject, her usually cool, rational analyses are nowhere to be found. It's just pure emoting.


She's like Malor, talk to her about anything other than gay marriage.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2015 01:17 PM (xSCb6)

552 Le NOOD

Posted by: Handbabies everywhere at June 26, 2015 01:17 PM (VPLuQ)

553 516 Better than an orphanage or better than foster care is a low bar.
You have this image of same sex couples that adopt being stable and loving and fabulous because that's what the media pushes. Some couple are like that, but many more view the kid as an accessory, to be discarded when they break up.
Which reminds me, what's the gay divorce rate now?

Posted by: @votermom at June 26, 2015 01:18 PM (cbfNE)

554
"Until you refused to cater to that gay "Wedding" ceremony....."


I'm far too welthy and important to do any catering.

Posted by: Mr. Doo Doo at June 26, 2015 01:18 PM (OD2ni)

555 Ace, I respectfully suggest that you have this issue wrong, a very rare occasion.


"What the state actually has an interest in -- what is transcendent -- what is eternal, or at least connects one to the cycle of the eternal -- is, get this, childbirth.


It is the bearing and raising of children that actually propagates the species, propagates all species, and has done so now for, checking my watch, about 100,000 years for humans and about 100 million years for animals."

I submit that marriage is not only about bearing and raising children. It is also a sacred commitment to another person to love and honor until death do us part. It might not always work out, but both individuals and the state have an interest in all that couples do and produce and develop together. And individuals of those couples want their productivity, creativity, etc. recognized by the state. It cannot be taken away at the time of one person's death by the deceased individual's family members.

I submit that marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been traditionally.

I wished that people would have wised up during all the "good" reforms of the 1960s and understood that Americans can not exclude from E Pluribus Unum adults of color, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. No matter what the "church" or individual prejudices wish, the states, the nation, the military cannot treat one group of Americans differently from another in their basic inalienable rights under the American constitution -- abilities are a different matter. You cannot take away from couples the fruits of their togetherness and intimacy just because they do not desire an intimate relationship with the opposite sex or just because they cannot procreate within the couple. However, their couplehood could have had a different label, not marriage, so long as all basic rights, privileges, and responsibilities were included. The new form of commitment could then have accrued over time all the qualities, and goodnesses, and sacredness that marriage has given to heterosexuals.


I would like this decision to be redefined, but I fear it is too late.


By the way, propagation of the species does not have to occur within marriage and the family. I shudder to imagine alternatives, but I think others have. Totalitarian states can do what they like and still use the term "marriage". Don't give away the family and marriage to a dislike of gays and lesbians and to limiting their intimacies to sex. It is way more than that.


One last issue. Women for eons have had to put up with and deal with unwanted advances from men. Why should men be uber-sensitive if men proposition them (I'm thinking of the military here -- what about discipline.)? Can't they just say no?

Posted by: pyromancer76 at June 26, 2015 01:18 PM (zvcr8)

556 To the best of my knowledge, most AME churches are very socially conservative.

As I said in the earlier thread, husband's office manager voted for Barry the first election. When he came out pro-gay marriage, she stayed home. She and her fellow church members were furious with him.

The eulogy should be "interesting" if Choom Boy does even a brief victory lap over SCOTUS' decision.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2015 01:18 PM (FsuaD)

557 Lowering the age of consent to about seven would be a good guess.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 26, 2015 12:58 PM


Six. Can't discriminate against the followers of Mohammed, donchaknow.

Posted by: Just Us Kennedy at June 26, 2015 01:18 PM (h4vJk)

558 "Still won't affect him directly and materially."

And he'll likely approve it happening anyway.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 01:18 PM (bGLSw)

559 507
if they can change the constitution without an amendment



they can get rid of the 2nd amendment
----------------

Yes, that is the unaddressed Sasquatch in the room. If First Amendments rights (freedom of religion and speech and press) can be obliterated via judicial ruling and social media bullying with the approval of the President, than what guarantees are left for the other Amendments, or any of the main articles? Obummer gave us fair warning when he said "fundamental transformation" and "managing our decline", and to the eternal shame of the Republic he was not driven into oblivion in 2012 but given another 4 years to pile on the destruction, with the Leftists becoming ever more bold.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 26, 2015 01:19 PM (ry4ab)

560 Off, judicial wind sock!

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at June 26, 2015 01:19 PM (h4vJk)

561 I predict a reunification of Big Homo and NAMBLA within the next 10 years, maybe five.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 01:19 PM (bGLSw)

562 Little did I know that the Soviets had, in effect, launched social ICBMs before collapsing, and those social ICBMs are now hitting.

Yeah they worked long and hard to lay the groundwork for this and the leftists doubled down right after the Soviet Union collapsed. Right as the Iron Curtain came down, political correctness became most pronounced.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:19 PM (39g3+)

563 However, since Huckabee is no longer a Governor
i don't know how much weight there'e behind his "F you". Isn't he an ordained pastor. So unless somebody wants to mess with Huckabee what is he going to do as regards this?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 01:19 PM (OSs/l)

564 What's the engineering term for a device intended to take objects into it, and for the opposite?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:07 PM (39g3+)


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


Catcher and pitcher?

Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2015 01:20 PM (P25Hh)

565 Yeah, who knows what that 1700s English "Shall not infringe" really actually means.



They haven't known what it means since 1934.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2015 01:20 PM (kSbCG)

566 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 01:15 PM (kff5f)

Simple question...

Is it still a RIGHT, if you need a LICENSE to do it? (and yes, this also covers guns Rights)...

I submit that if you need Government permission to perform an act, it cannot be defined as a RIGHT....

ergo, marriage, not a right...

Just like Healthcare... not a right (as someone else has to perform it on you)...

Now, being in a relationship? Right... and one they already have....

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 26, 2015 01:20 PM (qh617)

567 >>> She doesn't identify as who she sleeps with, but she's going to a gay
pride parade? You should probably think that one through a little more.

She's proud to be gay of course, she has gay friends and they want to go to the parade, and she wants to see Ian McKellan who is grandmeister of the parade.

BUT, other parts of her life and personality, her talents, her job, her skills, her cat, her love of freedom and the country and the founding fathers... these are also a part of her, separate from her being gay. And she complains about gay culture all the time and the stupid gays that are too wrapped up in being gay to care about anything else.

Is this really a hard concept to grasp?

Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 26, 2015 01:20 PM (hvf9s)

568 I know that many in the media are saying the GOP is "done" because of this ruling, but how?
Now that anal sex (and Obamacare) is "enshrined" in the Constitution, the issues are now decided in the minds of liberals and low-info slugs, so what's to worry about?

Posted by: JoeF. at June 26, 2015 01:20 PM (dPnT2)

569 >>>So you're not a fan of blowjobs?<<<

Not if there's a second c*ck in the immediate vicinity.

Posted by: Fritz at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (tQZfi)

570
Nood Hillary.
*hesitates to click..., can't be unseen...*

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (9mTYi)

571 533
"the state of Palestine"



*shakes head*



Unreal City
------------
It's been nearly 500 years since the 95 Theses. Time to brush off Father Martin's commentary on papal overreach again. Although these days I find myself supporting Zwingli....

Posted by: exdem13 at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (ry4ab)

572 BTW, LizLem. I met your sister at last year's NYC MoMe and she is absolutely delightful.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (JtwS4)

573 I predict a reunification of Big Homo and NAMBLA within the next 10 years, maybe five.
Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 01:19 PM (bGLSw)


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


There's a conference call going on in the WH right now.

Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (P25Hh)

574 No way will Obama mention gay marriage at an eulogy for a pastor in the AME. He knows his audience. Plus it really would be inappropriate unless at this point the Emperor doesn't care whom he offends.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (OSs/l)

575
Misanthrope at 384 - actually the Prop 8 debacle already achieved this, as I've ranted many times before.

Actually an efficient, brazen, and shameless combination of lawlessness and bad faith by both state and federal types has created a situation in which, depending on the circumstances, ANY state-level initiative or referendum can be simply voided. Simply tossed out. However mundane, constitutionally pristine, and unobjectionable (to, you know, the actual electorate) it might be.

There have actually been other variations of this. Prop 187 was simply killed by a prominent example of absurd legislating (even constitution-amending) from the bench, by a single judge. Prop 8 however had the full arsenal of lawless degradation called into action: ludicrous lawless unprofessional unethical trial judge, faithless state officials refusing to do their duty WRT propositions, and - an especially amusing finale as it has such a "fuck you, kulak" flavor to it - "no standing" at the SCOTUS!

I guess we're not gonna get Gabe to try and construct some sort of reverse-engineered undergraduate rationalization for this latest SCOTUS foray into brazen law-making and constitution-shredding social engineering?



Posted by: rhomboid at June 26, 2015 01:23 PM (QDnY+)

576 She's proud to be gay of course

If its so ordinary and genetic, that's like being proud of having blue eyes. What's there to be proud about?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:23 PM (39g3+)

577 Right as the Iron Curtain came down, political correctness became most pronounced.

It is easiest to strike when the opponent's guard is lowered.

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 01:23 PM (ZbV+0)

578 I don't think Roberts is being blackmailed. I just think he's turned.

It was just the one time at judge camp!

Posted by: John "Goatse" Roberts at June 26, 2015 01:24 PM (rwI+c)

579 570


Nood Hillary.

*hesitates to click..., can't be unseen...*
----------------
Take it from a fan of H.P. Lovecraft, don't go there, mind-blasting horror awaits....

Posted by: exdem13 at June 26, 2015 01:24 PM (ry4ab)

580 They could always marry. They just couldn't marry same sex. Because that was what marriage meant: man, woman --> babies. It was a hetero-normative concept, institution.

Civil unions were supposed to be the compromise for those who wanted to enter a union with someone of the same gender, as marriage had always meant something else. Have the government recognize it as the same; let it be the gay equivalent, the homo-normative concept, institution.

But no. It wasn't enough. They could not tolerate heteros having their own thing. It had to be destroyed. And here we are. Crushing social constructs and institutions in the name of what? Tolerance? Sure doesn't look like it.

And it has been decided by 5 people. Because heaven forbid we let the proles decide for themselves.

Posted by: Nutsy the Buzzard at June 26, 2015 01:25 PM (pS7Ne)

581 Is it still a RIGHT, if you need a LICENSE to do it? (and yes, this also covers guns Rights)...

Yes, it remains a right. The government is illegitimately interfering with it, but it is still a right.

Posted by: Methos at June 26, 2015 01:25 PM (ZbV+0)

582 No way will Obama mention gay marriage at an eulogy for a pastor in the AME

Probably won't mention he voted to keep the confederate flag on the capitol grounds, either.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2015 01:25 PM (39g3+)

583 " I just think Robert's has turned..."

Just got through the excellent A Spy Among Friends" about that traitorous scumbag Kim Philby, and after reading how he got away with it for so long (protected by the old boy network), I would not be surprised to find ANYONE working "for the other side"--however that is defined at any given moment.
Sure Robert's could have been turned or blackmailed or have been a mole all along. Sure.

Posted by: JoeF. at June 26, 2015 01:25 PM (dPnT2)

584 A question for the lawyerly types.

Whatever this would look like, if in a given state marriage is reduced simply to a contract between husband and...whatever...would that give churches an out from having to participate? Yes, they can legally marry, and social pressure against noncompliants would be vicious and massive. But what force besides the IRS (and that only to the ones with 501c3) could the feds conceivably levy?

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 01:26 PM (bGLSw)

585 >>> BTW, LizLem. I met your sister at last year's NYC MoMe and she is absolutely delightful. Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 26, 2015 01:22 PM (JtwS4)

Glad you liked her! She liked you guys too. I need to do better about giving her a heads up when you have MoMees. But unless you have them in NYC it might be hard to convince her to go; she did the typical silly New Yorker whining when I told her it was in Joisey, hahaha.

Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 26, 2015 01:26 PM (hvf9s)

586 Great for the divorce lawyers, lots more customers in the future....

Posted by: Colin at June 26, 2015 01:27 PM (VVrB8)

587 Posted by: BB Wolf at June 26, 2015 01:20 PM (qh617)

That's what I was saying.

I still have a Right to keep (own) and bear (use) a gun, even if the State punishes me for exercising that right without a license. The punishment does not make it not a right.

Similarly with marriage- since marriage is not man-made, it is not controlled by man. Not even the religious ceremony is needed for marriage. According to God, it's the act of sex (for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to (or "be joined to") his wife...) which makes a marriage. (Which is also useful for understanding Christian teaching on divorce).

Health Care is obviously not a Right- you have no Right to what someone else must produce or provide. The government is merely punishing your exercise of your natural rights when you don't buy insurance, or when you (as a health care provider) exercise your property rights by not providing free labor to someone.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 26, 2015 01:27 PM (kff5f)

588 The prediction of "marrying and giving in marriage" just took on a whole new meaning.

Posted by: Doomed at June 26, 2015 01:28 PM (bGLSw)

589 "Great for the divorce lawyers, lots more customers in the future...."

I have a brother-in-law who runs a banquet hall. Business will be booming--- he's thrilled....

Posted by: JoeF. at June 26, 2015 01:28 PM (dPnT2)

590 Take guns away from the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging Christianists.



I was poo pooed for saying the local cops would be involved collecting firearms not long ago.

Posted by: just saying at June 26, 2015 01:33 PM (wkuqO)

591 The culture redefined marriage to be a state-sanctioned romantic relationship 50 years ago. Social conservatives fought and lost then.

The left is not destroying marriage as its own end. They are destroying marriage because in the traditional dominant culture it has Christian connotations, and Christianity is one of the pillars of authority that must be demolished in order to pave the way for social revolution, per Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.

What we saw in the Soviet Union was as soon as the communists consolidated their power, they began to reinstitute the traditional mores, perhaps under a different form, but now with the state as the moral authority, not the church.

We see this same dynamic in embryonic form on college campuses, where now that the left has complete control, they are moving from a libertine to a restrictive sexual ethic, defined in terms of their narratives and values.

Assuming the left wins, eventually they will assert robust two-parent child-rearing as a compelling state interest, and with some combination of punishing heterosexual male promiscuity and incentivizing long-term male-female committed relationships, will in effect reconstruct traditional marriage, even if they call it something else.

Posted by: The Welshman at June 26, 2015 01:36 PM (Ck5RC)

592 Go Huckabee. This is war. That's what I want to hear from these people. No more mouthfuls of marbles about finding "common ground." No more evasions, no more temporizing. #War. They started it, they advance it, they want to destroy us. War.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 26, 2015 01:44 PM (s/yC1)

593 >>>You can imagine how I, an agnostic, feel about that bit about "the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove.

That's subtle antithiesm. The statement in fact is proclaiming that marriage does not belong to the State, rather the order of creation itself, the State having no authority over it. The only objection a libertarian agnostic could possibly have with that in premise is the invocation of a willed order to said creation, which is just antitheism.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 26, 2015 01:48 PM (0q2P7)

594
You cannot take away from couples the fruits of their togetherness and intimacy just because they do not desire an intimate relationship with the opposite sex or just because they cannot procreate within the couple. However, their couplehood could have had a different label, not marriage, so long as all basic rights, privileges, and responsibilities were included. The new form of commitment could then have accrued over time all the qualities, and goodnesses, and sacredness that marriage has given to heterosexuals.



News flash--there already were "civil unions" and "domestic partners". But those were not good enough for the gay militants. The endgame is to destroy marriage and bash Christians. Period.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 26, 2015 01:49 PM (GsebS)

595 You cannot take away from couples the fruits of their togetherness and intimacy

How do you make a fruit cordial?

Posted by: wooga at June 26, 2015 02:05 PM (W2mU3)

596 I think what churches need to do when forced to perform wedding ceremonies that they consider sacrilegious (and this is coming) is to then turn the entire ceremony into a sermon on the sins being committed.

If the bride/groom/thing and the bride/groom/thing getting married don't like the sermon, they can leave/suck eggs.

With no refund.

Make it a straight freedom of speech issue. If our rulers come after them for that, then there will be no doubt what needs to be done.

Posted by: Pluskat's Dog at June 26, 2015 02:09 PM (IbP8q)

597
It is the bearing and raising of children that actually propagates the species, propagates all species, and has done so now for, checking my watch, about 100,000 years for humans and about 100 million years for animals.

An amoeba called to say we've been doing this for the better part for 4 billion years, so screw you, ewok!

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at June 26, 2015 02:17 PM (1hM1d)

598 Why complain about the redefinition of marriage? That ship sailed when we started seeking government sanction for any marriage. Oh yeah, we didn't want the darkies marrying our pure white women or some racist claptrap. I'm wondering if this petard is strong enough to hoist my fat ass.

Posted by: GGinNC at June 26, 2015 02:35 PM (gWmsc)

599 Posted by: GGinNC at June 26, 2015 02:35 PM (gWmsc)

Just like a lefty who have an inability to make logical comparisons.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 26, 2015 02:58 PM (Q4pU/)

600 We are in the express lane to the Book of Revelations. There are no remaining exits. Please ensure your seatbelts are buckled and your seatbacks and tables are in their upright and locked positions.

Posted by: Advo at June 26, 2015 03:21 PM (7hUS8)

601 Ace... you may not believe in God but He surely believes in you.


More saliently, the very institution that you would reject and ban from politics is the institution that allowed the enlightenment and was integral in more ways than one to the founding of this nation. Quite literally, there would be no America as we knew it without God.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 26, 2015 03:42 PM (OrI3J)

602 I read (somewhere, sorry it was over a year ago), in the infancy of the gay agenda and "everything goes" peace, drugs, paradise...they thumbed their collective noses at traditional marriage. Right? But they did not get enough attention so they started destroying churches. I am one who fled a denomination due to this agenda and tithes going to planned parenthood for abortions. It is a free country (sort of). I can leave. I don't have to support liberal agendas or "in your face" behavior (keeping in mind I do not enjoy heterosexuals checking out their partner's tonsils in deep kisses). bah

So, they came to shock, they shocked, they won their game. Now what? I can bet on one thing...the euphoria will be short until the next protest thing. Same with banning Confederate battle flags. One thing I do know is they, meaning liberals and wackos who like to shock and go against the norm, they are NEVER happy nor content with status quo unless they have a "movement" of sorts to protest. I call it Shades of Woodstock Revolution Envy. xoxo

Posted by: ChristyBlinky,aging Redneck Queen supermodel, has a Hobbit foot at June 26, 2015 03:55 PM (FCPu0)

603 I will vote for the first candidate that promises to expand the Supreme Court by 4 members if elected.

Posted by: doug at June 26, 2015 04:20 PM (IYEs/)

604 "BUT, other parts of her life and personality, her talents, her job, her skills, her cat, her love of freedom and the country and the founding fathers... these are also a part of her, separate from her being gay. And she complains about gay culture all the time and the stupid gays that are too wrapped up in being gay to care about anything else.

Is this really a hard concept to grasp?"

and I can assure you that there were people in Russia that when they heard of Stalin's purges they said 'if our beloved leader knew of those things he'd stopped them immediately'

I bet your sister's activism for defending the right to free speech is zero.

I bet when push come to shove she will side with her tribe.

aaah, the moderate ghey...

I don't understand what's there to be proud to be gay and similarly I don't understand you being proud of her.

I had some unpleasant relatives (but not as deranged as militants of a group blatantly against freedom). It did not cost me a thing to avoid them.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 26, 2015 04:27 PM (rnV3B)

605 I'm glad its over and done with. We've made a mountain out of something as basic as marriage. The social right has contorted itself into pretzels trying desperately to find any reason, excuse or acceptable narrative that was a capital B Bad Idea, a red line that should not be crossed, God shall smite thee, children will !gasp! have two fathers or two mothers, and this will irrevocably harm them through transmission of teh gay.

The first and last fight was the point now everyone falling back to after beclowning themselves for years opposing gay marriage: freedom of religion.

Gay marriage is fine. It's forcibly overruling people's religious mores thats wrong and the real danger here. If social conservatives want to salvage both this fight and the general perception of them in public circles they need to abandon this irrational fear of gay marriage.

It's just not a battle you can win. People don't see it as fair. They don't see any merit in the arguments against beyond subjective moral ones.

Embrace gay marriage wholehearted, take the wind out of SJW attack dogs sails and then use that same argument for fairness and equality as the shield on religious freedom in this country. Not one mosque, church, temple or shrine should ever be forced to disobey the dictates of their faith in this country---period.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 26, 2015 11:41 PM (ABCH+)

606 Girls models http://RegModels.Ru

Posted by: RegModels.Ru at June 27, 2015 12:03 AM (z42E8)

607 When you say "Only an idiot, frankly, can think that his or her "love" is of any especial interest to anyone else in the world. The state's only interest in love is frankly the same interest it has in any of us: In taxpayer units." I think you are demonstrably wrong.

There are multiple benefits to the state accruing from people voluntarily committing to a marital relationship.

For one, this voluntarily relationship obligates people to care for and be responsible for each other- reducing their burden on the state. When a married person goes bankrupt or gets sick, it typically falls to their spouse to care for them and assume their debts. Otherwise the partner could just walk away or simply ignore these burdens.

Other marital arrangements provided by the state, such as the passage of property from one deceased spouse to the survivor, may reduce the burden on the state to probate an estate. Furthermore, it may be the will of the people that private property remain in the hands of fairly inheriting private individuals rather than revert to the state, as might happen with a deceased partner in a non-married relationship.

Perhaps more arguably, I assume that married relationships promote monogamous behavior. Certainly not all married people are monogamous but I have to assume married people as a whole are more monogamous than non-married people. Accordingly, marriage, through monogamous behavior, reduces the spread of STDs.

Finally, love is a part of the human experience. One can imagine a variety of societal or even biological reasons for the existence of love, and its necessity to existence. And yet the State is incapable of love. The recognition of love through marriage is perhaps the closest the State can come to love. So I think it is reasonable that people can make it their prerogative to promote love, collectively, through the State's recognition of marriage.

Posted by: Chris Bosken at June 27, 2015 12:05 PM (94jr1)

608 "Gay marriage is fine."

No it's not fine.

It's a made-up right. Gays have always been able to marry. One man to one woman.


"Embrace gay marriage wholehearted"
No. F' U


"then use that same argument for fairness and equality as the shield on religious freedom in this country."

No tard. Nothing will stop the attacks on Christians by the left. Nothing will stop the Marxist assault on the USA and the constitution. This is just another goal post move. Just give us another inch. And FU

"Not one mosque, church, temple or shrine should ever be forced to disobey the dictates of their faith in this country---period.'

Bwahhahahaha...Yeah, right. Sure. God, just exactly how stupid are you? And FU

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 27, 2015 05:39 PM (5itIK)

609 I'm sorry, I'm just sitting here high on the fact that gay marriage is legal right now that I can't even really be irritated by your ad hominem attacks.

You're a shrinking (and aging) segment of society that's not really laying groundwork for the future, so much as bitching over battles you never could win.

I don't think your viewpoint is wrong, necessarily, just not one I share nor care to see realized. Marriage is a universal human institution that has sprung up in one form or another since people learned to write. It has no single religious affiliation, nor has it always been a 1 to 1, man to woman institution throughout human history.

So, you can flip me off or say fuck off all you like. You still lost. If manning a sinking ship out of spite is enough for you, then god bless you.

If you're actually serious about wanting to curtail leftists attack on freedom of religion then its time to adapt and overcome. Make common cause with the people you seem content to despise, but aren't really your enemy, like me.

Whatever floats your boat. I'll still be trying to elect a fiscal conservative, If you'd rather just stay at home and pine for a mythical halcyon yesteryear then by all means---a proverbial social conservative Achilles in his tent---so be it.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 27, 2015 06:19 PM (ABCH+)

610 And a sidenote: the whole "Gay marriage is an invented right" argument is kind of silly.

Every right is invented. The human race did not begin with a perfectly intact Bill of Rights and Constitution. They had to be invented. They were the product of centuries of invention by thinkers and politicians who felt that segments of human civilization were being let down by the current guarantees of whatever law they followed.

Women's rights? Invented.

Right to not be a slave? Invented.

Right to vote? Invented.

Right to bear arms? Invented.

All rights are artificial. That's what is great about being a human. We can fix mistakes that nature stuck us with, we aren't bound by some mystical "natural law". We aren't subject to the brutal state of nature.

The right to bear arms? That's a pretty rare one in the grander scheme of human society. Very few civilizations outside the Western European and North American variety thought giving everyone the means to defend themselves from foreign and domestic threats alike was a good idea.

Rights for gay people? Invented, and justly so. Gay people may be a very small minority, but until recently it was a minority maltreated by society at large. Gay people have been around since humanity began. Some cultures were accepting and tolerant of them going far back, others not so much. They're a part of humanity and approve of them or not, deserve the same liberties and pathways to happiness as everyone. Do gay activists abuse and commit atrocious acts of social violence against otherwise good and decent people, Christians especially? Yes, and they ought to be called to account by the rest of us.

Every group has its loudest and dumbest members with a bent for cruelty. This is magnified by the social media system which tends to take a minority of a minority and spin some tale of mass outrage at the slightest provocation.

I dislike the gay SJW mafia as much as I dislike the people bash all LGBT people as some sort of monolithic attack on their beliefs.

Anyways, just thought I'd share this view, even if its unpopular with the rest of you. I'm bi, married to a woman, a social liberal and hardline fiscal and foreign policy conservative---and I really want an end to this back and forth while the real enemies: crony capitalists marching hand in hand with socialists are tunneling us deeper into a foreign and fiscal policy nightmare for future generations.

And Birthers are Right, I wish you well.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 27, 2015 06:34 PM (ABCH+)

611 "So, you can flip me off or say fuck off all you like. You still lost. If manning a sinking ship out of spite is enough for you, then god bless you."

No we didn't lose. It was stolen from us. Of course, you are happy with the outcome. You couldn't do it legally nor with the consent of the population. If the people of my state had voted for gay marriage I would have accepted it on a legal/political level because that is the way our system is suppose to work (I will never accept your pretend marriages on a personal, religious level) but that's not what happened here. Illegal, unconstitutional and dictatorial. So again FU you thief.

You are part of the mob that you claim to want to stop. You are too stupid to figure out that you've opened the flood gates for every group that ultimately wants your demise.

This primarily Christian country and the constitution are the only things that have been keeping your asses safe for over 200 years. The world is not kind to your type as ISIS throwing homosexuals off buildings shows.

You didn't know a good thing when you had it. And spare me you and your wife's perversions or pseudo-political pedigree because you won't like my answers.

I've always been a live and let live but you've broken into my house now, you thief.


Posted by: Birthers are right at June 27, 2015 07:11 PM (5itIK)

612 "I dislike the gay SJW mafia"

Liar. Without their tactics you couldn't have pulled off your theft.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 27, 2015 07:30 PM (5itIK)

613 And by the way, polygamy and child brides, the next steps here is not intended for your friendly Mormons it's for the Muslims (and their sharia law) you and your SJW buddies are flooding the country with.

Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.




Posted by: Birthers are right at June 27, 2015 08:10 PM (5itIK)

614 Lol, wow, now I'm a "thief". So if my state voted for gay marriage then a Supreme Court decision rendered it invalid, would you be a thief?

I see my olive branch was firmly pissed on prior to its immolation, as was any attempt at trying to reach out and work with social conservatives to address actual issues beyond subjective moral ones.

You claim this country was built on Christian values, apparently disregarding the millennia of Greek and Roman groundwork laid out in cultures far more tolerant and open to sexual minorities than you are.

As for Pyrrhic, I don't think it will be. As much as I'd love for Conservatives to actually be united in common cause to real effect of shrinking governmental leviathan while promoting strong national defense and protecting religious freedom for all---I see that your style of intransigence might likely doom it.

Demographics and opinion have shifted. Ten years ago this would not have been possible, and contrary to your assumption, it wasn't SJW idiots who made it possible. They are the loudest and most extreme and therefore get undue attention in this story-a-minute internet media world.

It was millennials like myself who grew up with openly gay neighbors, friends and coworkers---or were part of the greater sexual minority themselves. They don't see them as sinful nor subhuman. And the desire to be marriage, to have a greater monogamous commitment is something they aspired to. Some of them even aspire to it in a religious context. Its a noble goal, one that might actually have a good effect on the LGBT community in general.

Now gay marriage has a plurality of support. It should never have been a major issue to begin with. It doesn't mean polygamy and child brides are next. Nor does it mean we're two steps away from ISIS style sharia law.

You have basically said that you can't be LGBT or LGBT friendly without also being a culturally relativistic SJW loon. This is wrong. Just like I know all Christians aren't the hateful stereotypes SJW's like to pass off, I also know the LGBT community is more ideologically diverse and ripe ground for drawing conservative agenda support.

Gay people pay taxes, start businesses, serve militarily and do pretty much everything straight people do, including raising children. A lot of them can see fiscal stupidity or recognize the threat of totalitarian Islam.

Basically, gay marriage is a non-issue blown so far out of proportion it can't truly be quantified. And you lost, today and tomorrow.

I will still be voting on lines of fiscal conservatism and religious freedom, I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming all conservatives are like you. But I can only speak for myself, and if your kind of hate drives more and more people into the other camp, you'll get to own your own grim future and reap what you've sown.

We all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.

I wished you well, your response was: "thief, liar, idiot, pervert (not to mention insulting my wife)", etc...

So, Birthers are Real: I sincerely wish you well. Have a good day and think about what I've said.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 27, 2015 09:09 PM (ABCH+)

615 "Lol, wow, now I'm a "thief". So if my state voted for gay marriage then a Supreme Court decision rendered it invalid, would you be a thief?"

That's a non-sequitur, of course. The results of a very real case that was revealed yesterday compared to your pretend hypothetical. Nice try at deflection.

So yes, you are a thief. We did not lose. You and SCOTUS' overturned the constitution and ALL rational legal reasoning and jurisprudence for your little irrational whims.


To quote: Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 01:06 PM (MQEz6)

"Except that it didn't uphold law, it struck down the law and overturned constitutions in 13 different states. What the SC did was decree that the state constitutional amendments, duly voted on by state's citizens in various states such as Michigan, are null and void."


That's what happened. Not your lame hypothetical.

"I see my olive branch was firmly pissed on prior to its immolation, as was any attempt at trying to reach out and work with social conservatives to address actual issues beyond subjective moral ones."

Why would I want to be work with a thief who has no understanding of the damaged they have caused the free people of this country?


"You claim this country was built on Christian values,"

I don't claim it. It's fact. Open a history book sometime. Try one written before 1995. They have actual facts in there. I know that's something that a millennial is not used to hearing about. Facts not feelings.



"apparently disregarding the millennia of Greek and Roman groundwork laid out in cultures far more tolerant and open to sexual minorities than you are."

Uh? So what? One of the most telling signs that a society is about to collapse is the adoption of homosexuality as something good. It's a bad omen not a good thing. Again, open and read a history book sometime. Your indoctrination in the homosexual-feel-good-lore telling and delusional.



"As for Pyrrhic, I don't think it will be. As much as I'd love for Conservatives to actually be united in common cause to real effect of shrinking governmental leviathan while promoting strong national defense and protecting religious freedom for all---I see that your style of intransigence might likely doom it."

You can't be a conservative and want to steal rights from your fellow citizens. You can't be a conservative and be happy that SCOTUS became a dictatorship of 5.

Idiot, yesterday you just had the leviathan oligarchy grant itself even more powers, powers it's been drooling over for decades. Finally they can go after the churches.

You are not conservative. You are a troll. A stupid, ignorant troll.



"Demographics and opinion have shifted. Ten years ago this would not have been possible, and contrary to your assumption, it wasn't SJW idiots who made it possible. They are the loudest and most extreme and therefore get undue attention in this story-a-minute internet media world."

And they still couldn't get the vote of the people aside from states like ASSACHUSSETTS. It was STOLEN from the the bulk of the states and people.

You are a liar. You talk in generalizations, but there are very real facts of judges -without authority - overturning the will of the people. It's a rigged game. But you lie to yourself daily so there is really no point in discussing reality and facts with you.


"It was millennials like myself"

Oh great, I'm speaking with a millennial. A font of wisdom, history and experience. *Snicker*


"who grew up with openly gay neighbors, friends and coworkers---or were part of the greater sexual minority themselves."

I don't care who you grew up with. Ewww...I don't know my neighbors sexual practices. That's just creepy and weird.


"They don't see them as sinful"

Biblically it is. That's just a fact whether you believe the bible or not. It's written right there.

"nor subhuman."

Subhuman? Put words in peoples' mouths much? Project much?

"And the desire to be marriage, to have a greater monogamous commitment is something they aspired to."

Aspire to monogamy and commitment? Haha. Hopefully? Fingers crossed? Sounds like a fat guy marrying a salad to keep him from the donuts. You really don't understand the SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE. I won't even try to explain it to you.

"Some of them even aspire to it in a religious context."

Ah, a warning for the coming onslaught. What you want to have anal sex on the altar or something? Oh, you want the church to change for you. That's it. You can't change so the church must bend to you will.

Its a noble goal, one that might actually have a good effect on the LGBT community in general."

WTF? I don't give a rat's ass about the LGBT community. Really, the self-absorption and selfishness is truely remarkable.


"Now gay marriage has a plurality of support."

No it doesn't. It might in your state but not in mine, and not in the country in shear numbers. Push polls and fake polls are not facts. Keep spewing the lies.


"It should never have been a major issue to begin with."

It will always be an issue you can't make 1+1 =5.

"It doesn't mean polygamy and child brides are next. Nor does it mean we're two steps away from ISIS style sharia law."

The hell it doesn't. Hey, Mr. Millennial, history didn't start in 1990. Again, open a history book sometime.

"You have basically said that you can't be LGBT or LGBT friendly without also being a culturally relativistic SJW loon."

Without the SJW loons you wouldn't be celebrating your Pyrrhic victory. They bullied and blackmailed corporations. They've gotten powerful millionaires fired from their own companies. They've stalked Christian bakers. You are a liar. They've either pressured judges or put on the black robes themselves - Kagan, et al. You are thrilled they did the dirty work for you.


"Gay people pay taxes, start businesses, serve militarily and do pretty much everything straight people do, including raising children. A lot of them can see fiscal stupidity or recognize the threat of totalitarian Islam."

You really don't get the big picture. You are so myopic.


"Basically, gay marriage is a non-issue blown so far out of proportion it can't truly be quantified."

Oh it's a HUGE deal because along with the Obamacare ruling because it LITERALLY just took us over the cliff. Words have no meaning. Laws have no meaning. No of us have no rights.

"And you lost, today and tomorrow."

Oooo..gloat, gloat, gloat. This means disregard all your phoney olive branches. We won. We stole it. Haha Suckers...gloat, gloat, gloat.


"I will still be voting on lines of fiscal conservatism and religious freedom,"

You won't have fiscal conservatism without religious freedom.

"I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming all conservatives are like you.But I can only speak for myself, and if your kind of hate drives more and more people into the other camp,"

Oh, there's the "hate" word. H8ter. If they took that word away from you millennials your vocabulary would be cut in half.


"you'll get to own your own grim future and reap what you've sown."

Right back at you. You are like the Pharaoh that cursed Moses. You've no idea the damage you've done not only to all of us but to yourselves.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 27, 2015 11:16 PM (5itIK)

616 *shakes head*

Birthers, you will live a life of regret, frustration and rage---most of it self-induced.

"Uh? So what? One of the most telling signs that a society is about to collapse is the adoption of homosexuality as something good. It's a bad omen not a good thing. Again, open and read a history book sometime. Your indoctrination in the homosexual-feel-good-lore telling and delusional. "

Which history book? Thucydides, Xenophon, Arrian, Justin (whose Latin is atrocious but necessary given that he's the only person to transcribe lost works like the historian Pompey Trogus), Polybius, Livy, Velleius Paterculus or Herodotus? I have them all, some in the original Attic or Latin with my footnotes. All from the era. If we include classical philosophers for their view into the daily life of these great founding pillars of our civilization I'd add Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Epicurus and some Epictetus for some stoic flavor. Pythagoras too considering he was downright revolutionary in his ideal of an egalitarian society with equal rights for women. I've read that wonderful poetess Sappho (whose love for women was downright beautiful in metered verse), my Homer and Virgil in complete, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides (plus some fragments of Menander from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri).

I've got a volume of Pliny's letters to the Emperor Trajan (considered one of the most successful Romans emperors and---gay "Felicior Augsuto, melior Traiano" common salute to new Emperors: "May you be as lucky as Augsutus, and as good as Trajan (the gay one, also later considered ascended to heaven by Catholic popes for the general righteousness of his reign)". For Roman philosophy I've also got some Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and St. Augustine of Hippo to round it out---City of God and Confessions.

Now from this vast collection of books you say I ought to read, including some more recent works by Victor Davis Hanson and John Keegan, not to mention truly great historians like William Woodthorpe Tarn for the Hellenistic era after the Wars of Diadochi and rise of the big post Alexander (that bisexual man who conquered the world) empires, I have come to the following inescapable conclusion.

Homosexuality was not only open in ancient Greece but celebrated as a beautiful expression of both male camaraderie and romantic love. From these homophilic Greeks came one of the most scientifically, artistic politically and militarily dynamic explosions of thought in human history. Everything we are today we owe to this massive foundation laid for every other advance in human society from early Athenian democray, to the oligarchic Roman republic to this democratic republic we live in today.

The true downfall of the Greeks was not their wanton embrace of homo-eroticism, but their propensity for civil wars and killing their fellow Greeks. Socrates himself (that bisexual lover of young Alcibiades and inventor of our philosophy) was taking the field in Greek on Greek internecine conflict, most of it due to rival schools of thought on government: Athenian imperial democracy against the Spartan oligarchic apartheid military state.

Greece's biggest blows came when the very homoerotic and proud of it Macedonians under that bisexual Philip II conquered them, taken over by his aforementioned son Alexander, whose campaigns and conquest of Asia resulted in Greece being dramatically drained of its manpower, both by immigration to the newly formed eastern provinces and by very bloody Hellenistic wars to follow. Had they stayed in Greece with their sexually liberal state and dynamic economy, and open system of early scientific inquiry, they might have endured far beyond their time. Instead they spread out too thin, then got absorbed into the maelstrom of Asian migration and political upheaval.

Even the later Romans, while not nearly as open in their embrace of homosexuality, just didn't mind if people engaged in it. Julius Caesar got ribbed more than a few times about getting a fleet out Bithynia's King Nicomedes on his back.

In fact, the general period of Roman downfall came not at a time when homoerotic affections were open and accepted, but actually at a time when the empire was rapidly adopting early Christianity. So could it be, by this logic that sexual mores make or break of a civilization----that not embracing open displays of homoerotic affection----brought about the inevitable decline and fall of the Roman Empire?! Could gayness have saved the from its tragic ruin---instead making it into the flamboyantly out and proud phoenix from the ashes?!?!?!

No, because your argument is fucking stupid.

Debt, unchecked immigration, devaluation of the currency, nationalization of what once was a nascent capitalist economy into a system of regimented state-run enterprises, the general collapse in the quality and discipline of the late Roman army and its foederati---all of these are the real culprits in the fall of the Western Roman Empire, not its newly found prudishness or lack thereof.

And wouldn't you know it: debt, unchecked immigration, a devalued currency (now completely un-moored to any sort of silver or gold standard), vast swathes of nationalization of huge parts of the economy seems to be ailing America today, not its newfound sexual openness or lack thereof. Our military I'm proud to say firsthand is both professional and utterly devoted to the preservation of America. Rome in its heyday could not fuck people up with the speed and efficiency with which we can today, even with sequester and the debacle that is the F-35 procurement program.

Here's what I believe in: a strong capitalist economy with minimal government intervention, if at all, a strong, technologically cutting edge volunteer fighting force that we still have, low taxes, actual enforcement of existing immigration laws and a policy of linguistic and cultural assimilation regardless of multi-cultural types objection, freedom of religion, rights including marriage for the LGBT community. That's my platform, that's my America.

In retrospect, I will grant you this and admit it myself: I dislike that this was the result of a court ruling. Given the current popularity gay marriage is gaining, a few years of campaigning and taking it to the ballot box would have made it legal---if not in all 50 states, then in most of them.

The fact that it was an imposition by the courts---I'll grant that this is grating, and a bad example to future legislators who might use the Supreme Court to save themselves from doing any work at all, turning our judiciary into an arm of the legislative branch.

So yes, I regret the source of ruling, if not the actual result. I would have rather just fought for it and won.

You have made yourself singularly unpleasant to me without cause, Birthers are Right. I spoke my mind, you proceeded to attack my beliefs, my integrity and even my wife. By rights I ought to give as good as I've gotten. I did just call your notion idiotic, but there I'll stay.

Instead I'll wish you well, and leave it at that. Good day and best of luck in all your future endeavors.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 28, 2015 05:06 AM (ABCH+)

617 Thanks for proving my point by using Greece and their love of pederasty. That's part and parcel of your SWJ warriors' plans. Acceptance of pederasty is one of the ultimate goals of ridding the US of Christianity.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Herodotus,[1] Plato,[2] Xenophon,[3] Athenaeus[4] and many others explored aspects of same-sex love in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their thirties commonly taking wives in their early teens).[5] Though homosexual relationships between adult men did exist, at least one member of each of these relationships flouted social conventions by assuming a passive sexual role. It is unclear how such relations between women were regarded in the general society, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[6]

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[6] This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[6]

Pederasty

The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. A boy was considered a "boy" until he was able to grow a full beard. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos, whose reward for him lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

The roots of Greek pederasty lie in the tribal past of Greece, before the rise of the city-state as a unit of political organization. These tribal communities were organized according to age groups. When it came time for a boy to embrace the age group of the adult and to "become a man," he would leave the tribe in the company of an older man for a period of time that constituted a rite of passage. This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood.

The rite of passage undergone by Greek youths in the tribal prehistory of Greece evolved into the commonly known form of Greek pederasty after the rise of the city-state, or polis. Greek boys no longer left the confines of the community, but rather paired up with older men within the confines of the city. These men, like their earlier counterparts, played an educational and instructive role in the lives of their young companions; likewise, just as in earlier times, they shared a sexual relationship with their boys. Penetrative sex, however, was seen as demeaning for the passive partner, and outside the socially accepted norm.[7]

An elaborate social code governed the mechanics of Greek pederasty. It was the duty of the adult man to court the boy who struck his fancy, and it was viewed as socially appropriate for the younger man to withhold for a while before capitulating to his mentor's desires. This waiting period allowed the boy to ensure that his suitor was not merely interested in him for sexual purposes, but felt a genuine emotional affection for him and was interested in assuming the mentor role assigned to him in the pederastic paradigm.

The age limit for pederasty in ancient Greece seems to encompass, at the minimum end, boys of twelve years of age. To love a boy below the age of twelve was considered inappropriate, but no evidence exists of any legal penalties attached to this sort of practice. Traditionally, a pederastic relationship could continue until the widespread growth of the boy's body hair, when he is considered a man. Thus, the age limit for the younger member of a pederastic relationship seems to have extended from 12 to about 17 years of age.

The ancient Greeks, in the context of the pederastic city-states, were the first to describe, study, systematize, and establish pederasty as a social and educational institution. It was an important element in civil life, the military, philosophy and the arts.[8] There is some debate among scholars about whether pederasty was widespread in all social classes, or largely limited to the aristocracy.

Love between adult men

Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greek males who engaged in passive homosexuality after reaching the age of manhood - at which point they were the expected to take the reverse role in pederastic relationships and become the active and dominant member - thereby were feminized or "made a woman" of themselves. There is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium and shame ("atimia") heaped upon them by their society.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 28, 2015 10:27 AM (7kUvg)

618 "So yes, I regret the source of ruling, if not the actual result. I would have rather just fought for it and won."

No you would not have won. This war on marriage and Christianity has from it's inception in the 60s, 70s and 80s has always been about propaganda, and through any means possible.

It's success has been built upon lie after lie. Stolen victory after stolen victory. Corrupt judge after corrupt judge. Unrelenting media, entertainment and news agencies masquerading as unbiased, disinterested, dispassionate which couldn't be further from the truth.

They've successfully brainwashed millennials for sure but their ignorance does not recommend them.

So, you are more than happy to take the bounty of stolen goods.

"You have made yourself singularly unpleasant to me without cause, Birthers are Right. I spoke my mind, you proceeded to attack my beliefs, my integrity and even my wife."

You've made yourself singularly unpleasant to me by forcing me to accept your stolen 'gay marriage' ruling at the expense of ALL known constitutional understanding and rights.

Your beliefs are not my concern. You might believe in unicorns. And you are the one who brought your wife into this not me. Believe me I have not shared my opinion on her.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 28, 2015 10:45 AM (7kUvg)

619 lol, wow, I use actual history and you cut and paste a Wiki page to explain some grand plan to make pederasty legal behind gay marriage.

Point 1: no it isn't, not unless you count the lunatic fringe of either pedophiles or more bizarrely ethicists.

Point 2: you called my wife a pervert.

Point 3: you are wallowing shitstain on humanity. I have been cordial, argued from the heart and been wholly honest. You have been unpleasant priggish fuckface, a rolled amorphous blob of sexual insecurities coupled with intellectual ones. You are tilting and windmills, and what's worse, you're just a downright nasty human being.

I will not wish you well a fourth time, I would be lying at this point. Go fuck yourself, and take your hate and insecurity with you.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 28, 2015 05:32 PM (ABCH+)

620 What? The truth about Man-Boy love really set you off. You were waxing romantically about the Greeks and their love for homosexuality and the wonders and success of their culture because of it. Don't blame me because the truth hurts.

You and your homosexual cohorts will never tell the truth about the molestation and sexual abuse of children and teens, the mental instability, the drugs, and the lifestyle. And if you don't understand who you are in bed with...NAMBLA, the polygamist Muslims, the communists then you are in for a rude awakening.

Unfortunately, for the rest of us who already understand this, we are left with what you've done.

"you are wallowing shitstain on humanity."

Shitstain? Haha. Isn't that blasphemous against anal sex or something? With the new sodomite world order I'm not sure if you are giving me a compliment or not.

I don't have time to write dissertations nor address each of your delusions. So yeah, you'll get the cut and paste version. Many posters here on this thread and other threads along with citations on other conservative sites have answered and explained it all but that won't matter to you.

"Go fuck yourself, and take your hate and insecurity with you."

H8ter! Haha.

And insecure is the need to force people to validate your warped concept that same-sex couplings have the same worth and weight as a man and a woman especially in a religious sense.

And your petty little homophobic-psycho-word-games don't work on me.


Posted by: Birthers are right at June 28, 2015 06:23 PM (7kUvg)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0838 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.018 seconds, 629 records returned.
Page size 383 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat