T1B

Awaiting a SCOTUS decision on Prop 8 and DOMA...

wanting so badly to rush in here and crow that he was right, scared witless that the cards won't fall his way.

He's like a kid at Christmas, the eager anticipation is killing him. He's upped his oxycodone dosage to calm the nerves and let sleep mercifully come, waiting to tear into his presents yet afraid of the lump of coal that may await.

I figured something was up when I checked into Facebook for the first time in a while and saw folks with those stupid equality signs in their profiles.

Gays want to marry? Fuck it let 'em. If I'm going to fight for equality, it will be to abolish marriage.

I'll go out on a limb here and say the vote goes 5-4 against as the SCOTUS doesn't have any business overturning a states rights issue.

There will be much gnashing of teeth, either way.

R-Jack wrote:...Facebook...



Gays...

:doh:

War Wagon wrote: There will be a lot of butthurt people out there tonight, either way.

A topic specific FTFY

War Wagon wrote:I'll go out on a limb here and say the vote goes 5-4 against as the SCOTUS doesn't have any business overturning a states rights issue.

There will be much gnashing of teeth, either way.

States don't have the right to pick & choose which parts of the United States Constitution they'll follow, dumbass.

Sudden Sam wrote:Shit, everybody should have to endure a couple shitty marriages.

Let 'em marry. They deserve to suffer just as much as I did. :grin:

At first you don't succeed, try and try again, right?

Jsc810 wrote:

Meanwhile, please have your Republican friends bitch about this, and fight this progress as much as possible. By all means, run campaigns with it, include it in the national platform again, keep it as a purity standard for Republicans running for office. It sure will make campaigns much easier.

Of course. That will deflect the attention away from your boy Barry and his homies prostituting the Constitution, failing to deal with a failing US and world economy, inciting a Middle East war, and attempting to completely disarm the American people.

Better they focus attention on dudes right to buttfuck each other and dykes making sure their cunt lapping partners have all the benefits of married folks.

Jsc810 wrote: Meanwhile, please have your Republican friends bitch about this, and fight this progress as much as possible. By all means, run campaigns with it, include it in the national platform again, keep it as a purity standard for Republicans running for office. It sure will make campaigns much easier.

Most of all it means they won't be talking about or making campaign issues about the $16.7 Trillion National Debt, or our corrupt Attorney General running guns to Mexico, or shoveling Hundreds of Billion$$$ at "Green" cronies who then go bankrupt, or the way the "Arab Spring" has turned into a huge ball of shit, or the Obama's lavish vacations at public expense every other week, or Obama's illegally appointed Labor Board, or how "We don't have a spending problem", or the Administration's stonewalling FOIA requests, or an Ambassador who managed to get beaten & raped to death while the president had a much more important Las Vegas fundraiser to prepare for, or North Korea launching missiles and setting off nukes and declaring an end to the 1953 armistice, or...

All gay marriage means is gay divorce.

Gay Divorce Court could be some entertaining shit.

Derron wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

Meanwhile, please have your Republican friends bitch about this, and fight this progress as much as possible. By all means, run campaigns with it, include it in the national platform again, keep it as a purity standard for Republicans running for office. It sure will make campaigns much easier.

Of course. That will deflect the attention away from your boy Barry and his homies prostituting the Constitution, failing to deal with a failing US and world economy, inciting a Middle East war, and attempting to completely disarm the American people.

Better they focus attention on dudes right to buttfuck each other and dykes making sure their cunt lapping partners have all the benefits of married folks.

Funny how you think this diverts attention away from other pressing issues, yet you have no quarrel with proposals to create such legislation (like Prop .

Hypocritical dumbfuck.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Funny how you think this diverts attention away from other pressing issues.

Monsanto protection act is on line one

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Funny how you think this diverts attention away from other pressing issues, (like Prop .

What has been on the news every fucking hour, and above the fold for the last 5 or so days ?? That's right..gay marriage.

Looks like a money driven thing..as R Jerk alluded too, you will now have gay divorce with the resulting money pits with lawyers eagerly awaiting the money to be swindled, and can you just see the wedding business blowing up...Let the fags and dykes marry,I could care less.

The politicos in this country should address real issues, if the lib's have any other issues right now..But pretty funny seeing the usual suspects here melt...

And Prop 8 got heavy rotation in the news cycle when it was on the ballot. Why is it different now?

Using your logic one could conclude that 9/11 happened because the GOP was too busy being distracted by their own efforts to ban same-sex marriage. Is this what you're admitting to?

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Using your logic one could conclude that 9/11 happened because the GOP was too busy being distracted by their own efforts to ban same-sex marriage. Is this what you're admitting to?

And using your logic, you assume that the GOP knew 9/11 was coming, versus Barry and crew ignoring everything around them to concentrate on Obortion care, gay marriage, and getting reelected. After all, going into the second four years of Obongo, you can leave the blame Bush shit out of it now.

Love the liberal logic.

R-Jack wrote:All gay marriage means is gay divorce.

It will be interesting to see what % of gay marriages end up in divorce court, and how they handle the child support/alimony issue that ensues. Child support for adopted kids, that is. Should be a hoot, if and when it comes to that.

Think about a kid being adopted by a "loving" gay couple who eventually wind up in divorce. Nope, no problems here.

Jsc doesn't really understand the tangled web he weaves, just how his estrogen fueled hormones feel. He wishes he could marry himself.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Derron wrote:Of course. That will deflect the attention away from your boy Barry and his homies prostituting the Constitution, failing to deal with a failing US and world economy, inciting a Middle East war, and attempting to completely disarm the American people.

Better they focus attention on dudes right to buttfuck each other and dykes making sure their cunt lapping partners have all the benefits of married folks.

Funny how you think this diverts attention away from other pressing issues, yet you have no quarrel with proposals to create such legislation (like Prop .

Hypocritical dumbfuck.

Derron's list includes nothing but Federal Government issues. When has the Federal Government ever gotten involved in any attempts to create legislation pertaining to gay marriage? Individual states have, but never the Federal Government or the SCOTUS...until (perhaps) now.

True, though it primarily pertains to Federal benefits. It certainly doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages.

War Wagon wrote:It will be interesting to see what % of gay marriages end up in divorce court, and how they handle the child support/alimony issue that ensues. Child support for adopted kids, that is. Should be a hoot, if and when it comes to that.

Think about a kid being adopted by a "loving" gay couple who eventually wind up in divorce. Nope, no problems here.

No problems beyond those encountered in straight divorces. How do you figure it would be any different? The judge makes a determination of parental suitability to rule on custody, and relative incomes to arrive at alimony & child support amounts. I don't see any major problems there.

Van wrote:True, though it primarily pertains to Federal benefits. It certainly doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages.

Again, see the 14th Amendment.

Smackie Chan wrote:

War Wagon wrote:It will be interesting to see what % of gay marriages end up in divorce court, and how they handle the child support/alimony issue that ensues. Child support for adopted kids, that is. Should be a hoot, if and when it comes to that.

Think about a kid being adopted by a "loving" gay couple who eventually wind up in divorce. Nope, no problems here.

No problems beyond those encountered in straight divorces. How do you figure it would be any different? The judge makes a determination of parental suitability to rule on custody, and relative incomes to arrive at alimony & child support amounts. I don't see any major problems there.

Whitey's just trying to make mountains out of molehills. Faced with a future he wants no part of and refuses to understand, he's just being obtuse. Like a gay divorce with kids can be any worse than a divorce of a "loving" heterosexual couple with children. I mean we all no nothing bad happens to children in those situations, right Whitey?

Screw_Michigan wrote: I mean we all no nothing bad happens to children in those situations, right Whitey?

I think we also no there is know fukking way anyone would ever pay you to right knothing.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Van wrote:True, though it primarily pertains to Federal benefits. It certainly doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages.

Again, see the 14th Amendment.

Again, show me where anything here...

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

...makes any mention of the right to marry. Life, liberty and property, sure. Equal protection under the law? Yep. Marriage, whether same-sex, hetero, bestiality or betrothing your favorite Justin Bieber voodoo doll? Not a single word. The Constitution does not cover marriage, which is a civil union licensed and performed by the individual states.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

War Wagon wrote:I'll go out on a limb here and say the vote goes 5-4 against as the SCOTUS doesn't have any business overturning a states rights issue.

There will be much gnashing of teeth, either way.

States don't have the right to pick & choose which parts of the United States Constitution they'll follow, dumbass.

What part of the United States Constitution says that states have to recognize same sex relationships at all, let alone as "marriages"?

How about this one?

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV wrote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, if you want to get hyper-technical about it, that doesn't require states to recognize homosexual marriage . . . if they don't recognize any form of marriage at all. So long as they do, however, they can't deny homosexuals the right to enter into the institution as well.

As for the rational basis test employed as to alleged equal protection violations, I'll concede that the states have a legitimate interest in protecting marriage as an institution. But I fail to see how precluding homosexuals from entering into marriage is rationally related to that interest. Based on numbers alone, it's highly doubtful that homosexuals possibly could do more damage to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have done.

And while you didn't bring it up, I have no doubt that there's someone from the right on this board stupid enough to bring up the "marriage is for procreation" argument. As to that point, all women, if they live long enough, eventually become infertile. But we don't prevent infertile women from marrying.

War Wagon wrote:It will be interesting to see what % of gay marriages end up in divorce court,

Higher than 50%? That's the number of heterosexual marriages that end up in divorce court now.

In any event, from a sheer numbers standpoint, there's no way that the number of gay marriages in divorce court will ever come close to the number of straight marriages in divorce court.

A real Defense of Marriage Act would simply abolish divorce.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: How about this one?

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV wrote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, if you want to get hyper-technical about it, that doesn't require states to recognize homosexual marriage . . . if they don't recognize any form of marriage at all. So long as they do, however, they can't deny homosexuals the right to enter into the institution as well.

As for the rational basis test employed as to alleged equal protection violations, I'll concede that the states have a legitimate interest in protecting marriage as an institution. But I fail to see how precluding homosexuals from entering into marriage is rationally related to that interest. Based on numbers alone, it's highly doubtful that homosexuals possibly could do more damage to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have done.

And while you didn't bring it up, I have no doubt that there's someone from the right on this board stupid enough to bring up the "marriage is for procreation" argument. As to that point, all women, if they live long enough, eventually become infertile. But we don't prevent infertile women from marrying.

Terry's nailed it. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny gay marriage a few years ago, and the backlash got 3 of the Justices voted off the bench, but they did the right thing and upheld the State Constitution. I know that there's been a number of gay marriages performed in Iowa, even though I don't know of any personally, and that it's had no effect on my life or anyone else that I know. The homophobes have even calmed down and it seems that the majority of Iowans don't have any problem with allowing gays to marry, even if they find the behavior to be disgusting.

And let's not forget polygamy. If restricting any two people from marrying, what about those who want 2 wives or 7 wives or 4 wives and 12 husbands?

Fukk it, let everyone marry everyone. That is sort of kind of what full blown communism is anyway, right?

Personally, I could give two fukks what pervs do or what legal unions they form, but let them do it through normal legal channels, which they've pretty much done, anyway. The problem is, it ain't about legality with them, it is about forcing the rest of the world to recognize them as normal. And they are willing to do it buy gubmint decree, no matter what laws they have to smash/make up to get there.

So it should be up to the individual states to determine if gay marriage should be legalized? Denying consenting adults the freedom to marry whomever they want is fundamentally wrong. I seem to recall a group of states who thought slavery was a good idea too until the Feds stepped in to let them know it wasn't. This isn't about having a Constitutional "right" to marry, only guaranteeing the freedom to do so, and a freedom that is clearly covered in the 14th Amendment.

Mace wrote:So it should be up to the individual states to determine if gay marriage should be legalized? Denying consenting adults the freedom to marry whomever they want is fundamentally wrong. I seem to recall a group of states who thought slavery was a good idea too until the Feds stepped in to let them know it wasn't.

The Feds abolished slavery using the accepted method of changing laws, though - Constitutional amendment.

Mace wrote:So it should be up to the individual states to determine if gay marriage should be legalized?

Kind of like that thing where states rights cannot supersede Federal laws ?

Like the Fed's insane laws against possessing and using cannabis are routinely given the bird by Washington and Colorado?

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:Again, show me where anything here......

...makes any mention of the right to marry. Life, liberty and property, sure. Equal protection under the law? Yep. Marriage, whether same-sex, hetero, bestiality or betrothing your favorite Justin Bieber voodoo doll? Not a single word. The Constitution does not cover marriage, which is a civil union licensed and performed by the individual states.

Van, the Constitution does not, and was not intended to, articulate all of your rights.

Please see the 10th Amendment.

Tell that to Diego. He constantly (and erroneously) points to the 14th Amendment. Besides, the 10th Amendment supports the argument of those who feel the states and the people should make these decisions, not the Federal Government or the SCOTUS...

10th Amendment

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.

Regarding gay marriage, the people of each state have made their wishes clear, including those in California. The SCOTUS has no business taking a look at this issue, and certainly not on any Constitutional grounds.

88 wrote:You are comparing an apple to an orange, and saying the fruits are the same. They are not.

What about fruit cakes?

There are no Constitutional standards regarding marriage. The SCOTUS never should have addressed any such issues. They were wrong to do so before and they will be wrong to do so again.

In the case of California the issue was decided as the Constitution states: by the will of the people. There was no reason for the California Supreme Court to stick its nose in there.

Gay marriage is not the same thing as interracial marriage and you are too much of a lying, asshole faggot to get it.

Die of AIDS already.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:
But no, merely because same sex marriages are recognized does not mean that incest and bestiality will necessarily follow. Those issues will stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof.

The entire South and the state of Iowa just headed for the shower rod with that post.

Derron wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:
But no, merely because same sex marriages are recognized does not mean that incest and bestiality will necessarily follow. Those issues will stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof.

The entire South and the state of Iowa just headed for the shower rod with that post.

Bullshit. I headed for the barn to get a quicky.

mvscal wrote:Gay marriage is not the same thing as interracial marriage and you are too much of a lying, asshole faggot to get it.

Since you're such a predicable fucktard, I'll go ahead & lay out your argument. You're going to say that sexuality is a choice.

I got news for you, dumbfuck....it doesn't matter one way or another whether it's a choice or not.

If sexuality is genetic then those people would be considered a protected class.

If it's a choice (which most scientific studies show it isn't), then you're still left with having to establish why your sexual choices entitle you to more rights & privileges than other people (you can't...at least not in a way that would satisfy the 14th Amendment).

Go star in a snuff film.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Mace wrote:So it should be up to the individual states to determine if gay marriage should be legalized? Denying consenting adults the freedom to marry whomever they want is fundamentally wrong. I seem to recall a group of states who thought slavery was a good idea too until the Feds stepped in to let them know it wasn't.

The Feds abolished slavery using the accepted method of changing laws, though - Constitutional amendment.

The Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves was not an amendment. That came later.

R-Jack wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Funny how you think this diverts attention away from other pressing issues.

Monsanto protection act is on line one

You mean what the Republicans slipped into H.R. 933 knowing that Obama would sign it to avoid a government shutdown, and also included the Violence against Women and S.N.A.P. assistance for poor families?