PDA

View Full Version : DOMA decision day.


Pages : [1] 2

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:00 AM
Any minute now the decision is expected to be released.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Keep-Calm-Love-is-Love.jpg

http://www.scotusblog.com/

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
10:02
Amy Howe: 5-4 per Kennedy.
10:02
Amy Howe: Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. Equal protection.



DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 09:05 AM
Link to SCOTUS Blog here for anyone who wants to follow the play by play this morning

http://www.scotusblog.com/

Link to opinion here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Scalia will be breathing fire in his dissent:chuckle:

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:05 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

the opinion

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNsQscUCQAAXLr8.png:large

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:12 AM
10:11
Amy Howe: Page 4 of hte Roberts dissent, talking about Prop 8: "We hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v. Perry."
10:12
Amy Howe: To be clear, the Court has not yet released the decision in Prop 8, but there is language in Windsor telegraphing that the Court will dismiss on standing.

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:22 AM
What this means, in plain terms, is that same-sex couples who are legally married will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law-- with regard to, for example, income taxes and Social Security benefits.

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:24 AM
Dan, remind me. Doesn't a punt on the Prop 8 case leave the trial court decision invalidating Prop 8 in effect?

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 09:34 AM
Dan, remind me. Doesn't a punt on the Prop 8 case leave the trial court decision invalidating Prop 8 in effect?

Yep - this is the last paragraph of the majority opinion in Hollingsworth that dismisses the challenge to Prop 8 on standing grounds

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-357_q8l1.pdf

Funky majority of Robert, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg & Kagan

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:38 AM
I just couldn't remember what the final state ruling was.

JonM229
06-26-2013, 09:38 AM
Married same-sex couples can now enjoy federal benefits:

CNN's Live Blog on DOMA, Prop 8 (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1)

The Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits.

They are currently waiting on the ruling regarding California's Prop 8

JonM229
06-26-2013, 09:38 AM
Fuck, I put this in the wrong forum. Can a mod help me out on this?

JonM229
06-26-2013, 09:39 AM
I believe DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the lower court

steelax04
06-26-2013, 09:40 AM
Well, this could be NFL news... players will probably start coming out now and destroy the sanctity of marriage that people like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian have worked so hard to uphold.

JonM229
06-26-2013, 09:40 AM
Dan, remind me. Doesn't a punt on the Prop 8 case leave the trial court decision invalidating Prop 8 in effect?

Yes, if Prop 8 is dismissed as well, the lower court's ruling invalidating it will remain in effect.

JonM229
06-26-2013, 09:41 AM
Well, they did just discuss gay tolerance in the latest rookie symposium

Vis
06-26-2013, 09:43 AM
I believe DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the lower court

I'm on the Prop 8 case now.

So gays in California can get married and the Federal government cannot deny marriage benefits to anyone legally married in any state but the Court dodges the question of whether states can ban gay marriage constitutionally.

Tee up the next one where the married gay couple tries to move to a red state and stay married.

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 09:46 AM
I just couldn't remember what the final state ruling was.

California Supreme Court held proponents of Prop 8 had standing to defend Prop 8 if the Governor would not

The California Supreme Court agreed to decide the certified question, and answered in the affirmative. With out addressing whether the proponents have a particular ized interest of their own in an initiative’s validity, the court concluded that “in a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.

Relying on that answer, the Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioners had standing
under federal law to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. ...

On the merits, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf (slip opinion at pp. 4-5)

JonM229
06-26-2013, 09:47 AM
Mandatory gay marriage and government healthcare for everyone!

OX1947
06-26-2013, 09:51 AM
You know how I know you're gay......?

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 09:53 AM
I'm on the Prop 8 case now.

So gays in California can get married and the Federal government cannot deny marriage benefits to anyone legally married in any state but the Court dodges the question of whether states can ban gay marriage constitutionally.

Tee up the next one where the married gay couple tries to move to a red state and stay married.

Scalia raises that question in his Windsor dissent

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with. ...

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. ...

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to
its traditional definition.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf (Scalia dissent at pp. 21-24)

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 09:56 AM
This from SCOTUS blog on the Prop 8 case

10:40 Amy Howe:
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

Well so much for that - back to Hernandez (CBS affiliate in Boston bumped Hernandez coverage for DOMA/Prop 8 coverage - bet they got some calls on that:chuckle:)

caplovestroyp43
06-26-2013, 10:14 AM
Sick, sick, sick. God help us all.

Vis
06-26-2013, 10:20 AM
Sick, sick, sick. God help us all.

Thank's for the input Ms. Deen

Vis
06-26-2013, 10:25 AM
..... - repeat

Vis
06-26-2013, 10:26 AM
David Boies, one half of the star legal team that argued the Prop 8 case, emerged victorious from the Supreme Court this morning despite scoring only a partial victory.

Boies, along with Ted Olsen, had been pushing for the court to recognize that a constitutional right existed for same-sex marriage. The justices instead said that defenders of Proposition 8 lacked standing –- in the process, making gay marriage legal in California but not across the country.

Boies argued that the path had nevertheless been set -– both by the Prop 8 decision and the ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional -- for a broader ruling down the road. And he pledged to keep pursuing that decision.

Everything that the Supreme Court said in the Defense of Marriage opinion where they did reach the merits, demonstrates that when [the Prop 8] case finally does come to the United States Supreme Court on the merits, marriage equality will be the law throughout this land ... The Supreme Court's decision on standing is important for another reason. When we started out in this case, we said we were going to prove three things. We were going to prove that marriage was a fundamental right. And the other side accepted that. We said second we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they love seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children they were raising. And even the opponents agreed with that. And third we said we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person that they loved, regardless of sexual orientation, did not, could not harm anyone. And not only did the proponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today the United States Supreme Court said as much, because they said the proponents have no concrete injury. They cannot point to anything that harms them, because these two loving couples and couples like them throughout California are now going to be able to get married. And so this is a wonderful day for our plaintiffs. It's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and in California in particular that wants to be able to marry the person they love. But it's a wonderful day for America.

JonM229
06-26-2013, 10:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXhO_-e3bM

Vis
06-26-2013, 10:31 AM
merge the threads, powerful overlords

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 10:34 AM
merge the threads, powerful overlords

Trying to do that but have not done so before (this will be like General Zod first getting used to his powers under a yellow sun on Earth:chuckle:)

OX1947
06-26-2013, 10:36 AM
Thank's for the input Ms. Deen

"This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion."

-Fuzzy Zoeller

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 10:37 AM
Threads merged:thumbsup:

teegre
06-26-2013, 10:38 AM
"This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion."

-Fuzzy Zoeller

This is no joking matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Richards

ebsteelers
06-26-2013, 11:19 AM
buddha and pczazh and teegree= together 4ever now

ebsteelers
06-26-2013, 11:21 AM
so gays are fired up and excited that they can marry their partners in crime

and straight dudes everytime they hear the word "marriage" they run to the nearest singles bar


^THats AMERICA FOR YOU!!

Vis
06-26-2013, 11:26 AM
so gays are fired up and excited that they can marry their partners in crime

and straight dudes everytime they hear the word "marriage" they run to the nearest singles bar


^THats AMERICA FOR YOU!!

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67241000/gif/_67241004_gay_marriage_624-03.gif

That's more countries everyday. You know, the free ones.

SteelCityMom
06-26-2013, 11:26 AM
:applaudit: :applaudit: :applaudit:

Excellent news...federal gov't had absolutely NO business deciding who can or can't enter into a contract with each other.

I realize there are a lot of people who are against this...but they'll just have to sit back and sulk on this one. This decision is going to matter as much as allowing interracial couples the right to marry in the long run...which is to say that it's not going to affect any one else's life or rights in any way. So deal with it.

SteelCityMom
06-26-2013, 11:28 AM
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67241000/gif/_67241004_gay_marriage_624-03.gif

That's more countries everyday. You know, the free ones.

I'm surprised that Australia and UK don't allow them...I could have sworn they did, or at least had some more lenient laws on the matter. I honestly haven't been keeping up with them, so I don't know.

teegre
06-26-2013, 11:30 AM
:applaudit: :applaudit: :applaudit:

Excellent news...federal gov't had absolutely NO business deciding who can or can't enter into a contract with each other.

I realize there are a lot of people who are against this...but they'll just have to sit back and sulk on this one. This decision is going to matter as much as allowing interracial couples the right to marry in the long run...which is to say that it's not going to affect any one else's life or rights in any way. So deal with it.

Wait a second... interracial couples can marry!?!

It's bad enough that they were eating Cheerios... but, married!?!

teegre
06-26-2013, 11:32 AM
buddha and pczazh and teegree= together 4ever now

FYI: It's called a throuple.

ebsteelers
06-26-2013, 11:34 AM
Wait a second... interracial couples can marry!?!

It's bad enough that they were eating Cheerios... but, married!?!

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/I-LOVE-BLACK-GIRLS-Vinyl-DECAL-Sticker-FUNNY-Truck-Car-Laptop-DIESEL-FUMES-/00/s/NDg1WDU4NA==/$(KGrHqN,!ksE7!N2!ZEWBPDQeCr!Hw~~60_35.JPG


got a problem take it up with my boy robin thicke

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tYTIVZZm8gc/SwS-_61zzSI/AAAAAAAAAVU/IXVH_kQowrA/s320/robin+thicke.jpg

Vis
06-26-2013, 11:37 AM
I'm surprised that Australia and UK don't allow them...I could have sworn they did, or at least had some more lenient laws on the matter. I honestly haven't been keeping up with them, so I don't know.

The UK has civil partnerships and full marriage has been approved by both houses of parliament.

Australia's new PM is in favor. It will take time there.

ebsteelers
06-26-2013, 11:37 AM
:applaudit: :applaudit: :applaudit:

Excellent news...federal gov't had absolutely NO business deciding who can or can't enter into a contract with each other.

I realize there are a lot of people who are against this...but they'll just have to sit back and sulk on this one. This decision is going to matter as much as allowing interracial couples the right to marry in the long run...which is to say that it's not going to affect any one else's life or rights in any way. So deal with it.

Amen to this..


I never understand why anyone else cares what other people do in relationships..


At the end of the day you have to go home to that person, and if i want to go home to my beautiful chocolate princess then I'll do just that. And if teegree wants to go home to man meat pczach then he should be allowed to do that, and if SCMOM wants to go home to lady steel, well then they should video tape that.

Bane
06-26-2013, 11:38 AM
It's about time. Hopefully more and more states start legalizing it, so this whole situation can be done and over with. DOMA was unconstitutional at best, hateful and oppressive at worst.

Wait a second... interracial couples can marry!?!

It's bad enough that they were eating Cheerios... but, married!?!

I thought eating Cheerios was what they meant by "consummating the marriage"?

Vis
06-26-2013, 11:59 AM
10 Ways The DOMA Repeal Will Affect 'Traditional Marriage'

After the Supreme Court's landmark decision that the Defense Of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it's time to look at the top 10 ways heterosexual marriage will be affected now that it's not being defended.

1. Uh...



2. Uhhh...



3. Hmm...



4. Just a sec...



5. It's like... You know how... It's like when things... Right?



6. We swear we just had one



7. It's coming... Wait for it...



8. Hey! Look over there!



9. Wait, where are you going?



10. Global warming?

Vis
06-26-2013, 12:05 PM
ChickfilA, any specials today

JonM229
06-26-2013, 12:08 PM
ChickfilA, any specials today

Chicken is much more delicious when it's battered in bigotry.

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 12:28 PM
Clinton Hails Supreme Court Overturning Law He Signed

President Bill Clinton released a statement, together with his wife Hillary Clinton, hailing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he signed into law in 1996.

"By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory," the Clintons' statement reads.

The statement makes no mention of their previous support for the law.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/clinton-hails-supreme-court-overturning-law-he-signed_737939.html

JonM229
06-26-2013, 12:34 PM
If I remember correctly, Clinton signed DOMA as a quid pro quo to get something he wanted passed as well.

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 12:47 PM
If I remember correctly, Clinton signed DOMA as a quid pro quo to get something he wanted passed as well.

And ran ads in his 1996 re-election campaign boasting about having signed DOMA

Some history on Bubba being for DOMA before he was against it

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/bill_clinton_doma_and_history/

JonM229
06-26-2013, 01:04 PM
It's certainly appalling for someone to go against their beliefs for the sake of votes. To suggest someone else do the same thing is really, really bad.

Although, this is the same person who was getting some poon on the side while he was in office. Maybe Clinton shouldn't be the moral example we look towards.

ebsteelers
06-26-2013, 01:06 PM
I wonder when gays get married, if their sex life goes in the crapper?

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2013, 01:24 PM
It's certainly appalling for someone to go against their beliefs for the sake of votes. To suggest someone else do the same thing is really, really bad.

Although, this is the same person who was getting some poon on the side while he was in office. Maybe Clinton shouldn't be the moral example we look towards.

I actually like Bubba but he is completely shameless - if you were going to spend a weekend in Vegas with a living ex-President he would be my choice - JFK if you could party with any President who has ever held the office:thumbsup:

Vis
06-26-2013, 01:26 PM
I actually like Bubba but he is completely shameless - if you were going to spend a weekend in Vegas with a living ex-President he would be my choice - JFK if you could party with any President who has ever held the office:thumbsup:

JFK was limited by his back. Clinton is just bent.

Vincent
06-26-2013, 01:42 PM
Threads merged:thumbsup:

I'm offended by the sexual overtones of that comment.

Vis
06-26-2013, 02:30 PM
The purpose of DOMA was about stigma and what the court has called “animus” against one group, for no reason other than dislike (which, really, amounts to prejudice). In my favorite moment of the argument in March, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that DOMA “does something that’s really never been done before,” continuing, “I’m going to quote from the House report here: ‘Congress decided to reflect and honor collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’ ”

She took the lawyer arguing to uphold DOMA, Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement, by surprise. “Does the House report say that?” Clement asked, before catching himself: “Of course the House report says that. And if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute.” He called it right there.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/supreme_court_and_doma_kennedy_s_opinion_is_a_hist oric_thrilling_full_throated.html

Bane
06-26-2013, 02:35 PM
Threads married:thumbsup:

Fixed for you. Since that's more legal now, and all.

Lady Steel
06-26-2013, 02:53 PM
Thank's for the input Ms. Deen

Told ya. :wink:

Vis
06-26-2013, 06:13 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/999009_10151508565266275_2013371336_n.jpg

Buddha Bus
06-26-2013, 06:15 PM
Hooray for common sense and decency!

MasterOfPuppets
06-26-2013, 06:23 PM
http://augustawright.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/divorce.png

JonM229
06-27-2013, 07:05 AM
A 30-Second Guide to How the Gay Marriage Ruling Affects You (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/)

Some Excerpts:

If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Is Not Currently Married:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:

This decision does not affect you in any way.


The list goes on...

caplovestroyp43
06-27-2013, 08:14 AM
Chicken is much more delicious when it's battered in bigotry.

No chicken is much more delicious when its battered in morality and a strong belief in God's Holy Word.

JonM229
06-27-2013, 08:21 AM
http://cdn.betacie.com/viedemerde/alan/932/6-religion.jpg

Vis
06-27-2013, 08:32 AM
http://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/marriage-legal-worldwide.png

steelax04
06-27-2013, 08:55 AM
Chicken is much more delicious when it's battered in bigotry.

I think it's delicious because it's pimped by cows.

John 4:69
"And he shall save the herds of cattle by battering and deep frying the breasts of a small beast created with wings, but cannot fly. Hark! These wings do serve purpose for God's intelligent design provides the means for ladies in orange shorts and white tank tops to earn a decent wage and serve these magnificent wings by the dozens!"

Atlanta Dan
06-27-2013, 09:08 AM
No chicken is much more delicious when its battered in morality and a strong belief in God's Holy Word.

Including these Holy Words:noidea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

I find these Holy Words regarding the treatment of slaves in Exodus 21 to be of particular value in establishing what is permissible conduct these days

“These are the laws you are to set before them:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money....

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV

Consider the possibility that one can still be a devout Christian while also acknowledging some parts of an ancient text written by those living in a far different society perhaps do not stand up particularly well after the passage of several millenia

:drink:

SteelCityMom
06-27-2013, 09:51 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/945330_485941111493597_1746099811_n.jpg

SteelCityMom
06-27-2013, 10:01 AM
Including these Holy Words:noidea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

I find these Holy Words regarding the treatment of slaves in Exodus 21 to be of particular value in establishing what is permissible conduct these days

“These are the laws you are to set before them:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money....

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV

Consider the possibility that one can still be a devout Christian while also acknowledging some parts of an ancient text written by those living in a far different society perhaps do not stand up particularly well after the passage of several millenia

:drink:


Don't you know Dan...those are Old Testament laws and are not applicable post Jesus.

Except for the gay one, obviously.

teegre
06-27-2013, 10:33 AM
No chicken is much more delicious when its battered in morality and a strong belief in God's Holy Word.

Morality...

First of all, it is not my place to state whether something is or is not a sin. Whether I think that "being gay" is a sin is not important to the discussion. For the Atheiests, it's not a sin; for the Cathloics, it is a sin. Who am I to tell anynone else what is or is not a sin???

With that out of the way, let's assume that one's religion does indeed believe that "being gay" is a sin. Again, let's assume that it is a "sin" (I am not at all saying that this is true, but saying this for argument's sake). Well, using a religion that I know a little about (Chrisitanity), I want to bring up a few major points from that religion.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Assuming it's a sin... who are we (you) to judge anyone else? That is for God & God alone ...right?

"Let ye without sin cast the first stone."
I guess that we'll be waiting a long time...

Most importantly, (assuming that "being gay" is a sin) please, someone tell me how "being gay" is any more or less of a sin that premarital sex? I am sure that there are plenty of people who have had premarital sex... and yet, they are not being harangued as sinners.

How about "coveting thy neighbor's wife"? I am sure that every single one of us has looked at a picture of some woman (or man) other than our wife (or husband) in a lascivious manner. Is that not a sin? And, before you tell me that it is a "minor sin", it is one the effing Commandments; so I'd say it's pretty effing major. Likewise, "taking then Lord's name in vain"... who is not guilty of that!?! Or, how about "Keeping the sabbath holy"... uh... football is played on the sabbath. so, aren't ALL football players sinners???

Yep, looks like we are all sinning... a lot. So, let's put down the morality stones.

JonM229
06-27-2013, 10:36 AM
Most importantly, (assuming that "being gay" is a sin) please, someone tell me how "being gay" is any more or less of a sin that premarital sex?

It isn't. There's nothing in either the Old or New Testaments that put greater emphasis on homosexuality. It's basically a case of people picking and choosing what to follow, which in and of itself is a sin if the Bible is indeed infallible.


Yep, looks like we are all sinning... a lot.

Go big, or go home

teegre
06-27-2013, 10:49 AM
It isn't. There's nothing in either the Old or New Testaments that put greater emphasis on homosexuality. It's basically a case of people picking and choosing what to follow, which in and of itself is a sin if the Bible is indeed infallible.

It's a case of people saying:
"I don't do A, and so A is really, really bad. I partake in B, but B isn't nearly as bad as A... because... uh... because... because I don't do A."

Whew... kindergarten logic prevails again!!!

Actually, that's derisive to kindergarteners; five year olds make far more sense than that.

JonM229
06-27-2013, 01:10 PM
After DOMA is Struck Down, Judge Stops Deportation of Married Gay Man (http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/06/26/2220411/doma-immigration-judge-stops-deportation/?mobile=nc)

A New York City immigration judge immediately stopped the deportation proceedings of a gay Colombian man who is legally married to an American citizen soon after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for being unconstitutional, as was first reported by Americablog on Wednesday. The federally-sanctioned DOMA only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, so Sean Brooks and his Colombian husband Steven’s marriage did not exist in the eyes of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Therefore, USCIS cancelled Steven’s green card petition.

The ordeal for the couple started in 2011 when Sean, the American citizen, tried to file a green card petition for his husband based on their same-sex marriage. This left Steven in a visa limbo and vulnerable to deportation. Steven, who had not been back to Colombia for twelve years, applied to have his deportation cancelled based on the hardship that his deportation would incur on his spouse. The request was denied because federal law did not recognize same-sex couples.

As seen in the immediate cessation of Steve’s deportation, the Supreme Court’s ruling has a profound impact on the LGBT community. Roughly 24,700 other binational same-sex couples can now breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that they will not be torn away from the people they love. For a population of about 267,000 LGBT undocumented individuals, the Supreme Court ruling comes as a future goal post to look forward to now that federal laws has ended the discrimination against their love. It also will finally allow the federal government to treat all LGBT families equally by allowing them access to federal benefits and protections.

Vis
06-27-2013, 01:18 PM
After DOMA is Struck Down, Judge Stops Deportation of Married Gay Man (http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/06/26/2220411/doma-immigration-judge-stops-deportation/?mobile=nc)

But my religion says we must do everything we can to punish gays and make them unhappy....

Fire Arians
06-27-2013, 01:33 PM
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/attachments/politics/24294d1372354453-%2A-congratulations-same-sex-couples-130427-doma-repeal-fiscal-responsibility-edition.jpg

JonM229
06-27-2013, 01:49 PM
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/attachments/politics/24294d1372354453-%2A-congratulations-same-sex-couples-130427-doma-repeal-fiscal-responsibility-edition.jpg

Thanks for nothing

Fire Arians
06-27-2013, 01:53 PM
if you have a Boehner lasting more than 4 hours, seek medical attention immediately

SteelCityMom
06-27-2013, 10:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:17 AM
DOMA fallout on House floor
Published by Karen Langley on Friday, 28 June 2013 1:11 am.
Fallout from the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling has been on display on the floor of the Pennsylvania House, where on Thursday an openly gay state representative asked colleagues to reprimand a member who had prevented him from speaking about the case.

Rep. Brian Sims, a Philadelphia Democrat, had attempted to address the House on Wednesday under "unanimous consent," but at least one member objected.

On Thursday, Sims, the first openly gay member elected to the House, stood under a different parliamentary rule to read from an interview Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the conservative Republican from Cranberry, had given about the episode.

"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe had told WHYY of Philadelphia.


"I think that my actions in no way have been against the law of any god, and I would ask that the maker of the comments be reprimanded for doing so," Sims said on the floor.

"My understanding of the rules of this body is that I could never call another member a bigot, a homophobe or a racist, nor would I," Sims continued. "But I do ask that this body recognize that the language that was used against me as a member does not live up to the standards set by this body."

Metcalfe told the Associated Press later Thursday that he stands by his remarks.

"For me to alllow him to say things that I believe are open rebellion against God are for me to participate in his open rebellion," he told the AP. "There's no free speech on the floor."

House Speaker Sam Smith told Sims his request would be addressed through an action of the Ethics Committee or a resolution of the House.

Sims said he has received supportive comments from members of both parties.

http://earlyreturns.post-gazette.com/home/early-returns-posts/5622-doma-fallout-on-house-floor

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:29 AM
States still to legalize

New Jersey, 64% support - 30 % opposition (3/2013)
Michigan, 57% support - 38 % opposition (5/2013)
Virginia, 56% support - 33 % opposition (5/2013)
Arizona, 55% support - 35 % opposition (5/2013)
Hawaii, 55% support - 36 % opposition (1/2013)
Nevada, 54% support - 43 % opposition (2/2013)
Oregon, 54% support - 40 % opposition (12/2012)
Pennsylvania, 54% support - 41 % opposition (5/2013)
Colorado, 51% support - 43 % opposition (4/2013)
Illinois, 50% support - 29 % opposition (2/2013)
Tennessee, 49% support - 46 % opposition (5/2013)
Ohio, 48% support - 44 % opposition (4/2013)
Texas, 48% support - 48 % opposition (1/2013)
Indiana, 45% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
New Mexico, 44% support - 51 % opposition (5/2013)
North Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
South Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wisconsin, 44% support - 46 % opposition (2/2013)
Florida, 43% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
Montana, 43% support - 49 % opposition (2/2013)
North Carolina, 43% support - 46 % opposition (4/2013)
Alaska, 40% support - 57 % opposition (2/2013)
Idaho, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wyoming, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Missouri, 36% support - 52 % opposition (6/2012)
Oklahoma, 35% support - 56 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Kansas, 34% support - 63 % opposition (2/2013)
Alabama, 32% support (4/2013)
Nebraska, 32% support (10/2012)
Louisiana, 29% support - 59 % opposition (2/2013)
Utah, 29% support - 71 % opposition (7/2012)
Georgia, 27% support - 65 % opposition (12/2012)
Kentucky, 27% support - 65 % opposition (4/2013)
West Virginia, 26% support - 61 % opposition (9/2011)
South Carolina, 21% support - 69 % opposition (9/2011)
Arkansas, 18% support - 75 % opposition (10/2012)
Mississippi, 13% support - 78 % opposition (11/2011)

SteelCityMom
06-28-2013, 09:35 AM
Thanks for being an embarrassment to the area, Metcalfe. We've got a lot of backward hicks around here, so I'm not totally surprised at his comments. This is why I hide out in the woods now.

JonM229
06-28-2013, 09:38 AM
Thanks for being an embarrassment to the area, Metcalfe. We've got a lot of backward hicks around here, so I'm not totally surprised at his comments. This is why I hide out in the woods now.

Don't you know that the woods are bigots' natural environment?

SteelCityMom
06-28-2013, 09:41 AM
Don't you know that the woods are bigots' natural environment?

Shit, now I feel bad for popping those two gay chipmunks with my .22.

They had it coming. They were flaunting it right on my porch.

JonM229
06-28-2013, 09:45 AM
Illinois, 50% support - 29 % opposition (2/2013)

Yet somehow the Illinois House cannot secure enough votes to pass marriage equality.

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:48 AM
Sometimes they come out of the woods and spew.

JonM229
06-28-2013, 09:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouDDj6kr1qo

caplovestroyp43
06-28-2013, 09:50 AM
[QUOTE=Vis;1137525]States still to legalize

New Jersey, 64% support - 30 % opposition (3/2013)
Michigan, 57% support - 38 % opposition (5/2013)
Virginia, 56% support - 33 % opposition (5/2013)
Arizona, 55% support - 35 % opposition (5/2013)
Hawaii, 55% support - 36 % opposition (1/2013)
Nevada, 54% support - 43 % opposition (2/2013)
Oregon, 54% support - 40 % opposition (12/2012)
Pennsylvania, 54% support - 41 % opposition (5/2013)
Colorado, 51% support - 43 % opposition (4/2013)
Illinois, 50% support - 29 % opposition (2/2013)
Tennessee, 49% support - 46 % opposition (5/2013)
Ohio, 48% support - 44 % opposition (4/2013)
Texas, 48% support - 48 % opposition (1/2013)
Indiana, 45% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
New Mexico, 44% support - 51 % opposition (5/2013)
North Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
South Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wisconsin, 44% support - 46 % opposition (2/2013)
Florida, 43% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
Montana, 43% support - 49 % opposition (2/2013)
North Carolina, 43% support - 46 % opposition (4/2013)
Alaska, 40% support - 57 % opposition (2/2013)
Idaho, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wyoming, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Missouri, 36% support - 52 % opposition (6/2012)
Oklahoma, 35% support - 56 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Kansas, 34% support - 63 % opposition (2/2013)
Alabama, 32% support (4/2013)
Nebraska, 32% support (10/2012)
Louisiana, 29% support - 59 % opposition (2/2013)
Utah, 29% support - 71 % opposition (7/2012)
Georgia, 27% support - 65 % opposition (12/2012)
Kentucky, 27% support - 65 % opposition (4/2013)
West Virginia, 26% support - 61 % opposition (9/2011)
South Carolina, 21% support - 69 % opposition (9/2011)
Arkansas, 18% support - 75 % opposition (10/2012)
Mississippi, 13% support - 78 % opposition (11/2011)[/QUOTE

Thank God these states still see morality and know how WRONG it is to support such IMMORALITY. No state should be forced to accept it or revote on it once they have said they don't want it. What part of NO do people NOT understand?

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:50 AM
See - spew

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:51 AM
http://media2.policymic.com/7ea2a55ca8db1aea9cb44d91569b3f51.png

teegre
06-28-2013, 09:54 AM
I see that in my home state of West Virginia, only 26% of the people support gay marriage.

Sooo... it's okay to marry your own sister, but not for two gay people to wed. Riiight. Ugh.

My only hope is they the verbiage was confusing (as Prop 8 was here in California: people didn't know what a "yes" or "no" vote actually meant).

Or, of course, my kin simply might not have been able to read the ballot at all. "Whattuz dis here piece o paper have scribed on it?"

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:56 AM
[QUOTE=Vis;1137525]States still to legalize

New Jersey, 64% support - 30 % opposition (3/2013)
Michigan, 57% support - 38 % opposition (5/2013)
Virginia, 56% support - 33 % opposition (5/2013)
Arizona, 55% support - 35 % opposition (5/2013)
Hawaii, 55% support - 36 % opposition (1/2013)
Nevada, 54% support - 43 % opposition (2/2013)
Oregon, 54% support - 40 % opposition (12/2012)
Pennsylvania, 54% support - 41 % opposition (5/2013)
Colorado, 51% support - 43 % opposition (4/2013)
Illinois, 50% support - 29 % opposition (2/2013)
Tennessee, 49% support - 46 % opposition (5/2013)
Ohio, 48% support - 44 % opposition (4/2013)
Texas, 48% support - 48 % opposition (1/2013)
Indiana, 45% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
New Mexico, 44% support - 51 % opposition (5/2013)
North Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
South Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wisconsin, 44% support - 46 % opposition (2/2013)
Florida, 43% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
Montana, 43% support - 49 % opposition (2/2013)
North Carolina, 43% support - 46 % opposition (4/2013)
Alaska, 40% support - 57 % opposition (2/2013)
Idaho, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wyoming, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Missouri, 36% support - 52 % opposition (6/2012)
Oklahoma, 35% support - 56 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Kansas, 34% support - 63 % opposition (2/2013)
Alabama, 32% support (4/2013)
Nebraska, 32% support (10/2012)
Louisiana, 29% support - 59 % opposition (2/2013)
Utah, 29% support - 71 % opposition (7/2012)
Georgia, 27% support - 65 % opposition (12/2012)
Kentucky, 27% support - 65 % opposition (4/2013)
West Virginia, 26% support - 61 % opposition (9/2011)
South Carolina, 21% support - 69 % opposition (9/2011)
Arkansas, 18% support - 75 % opposition (10/2012)
Mississippi, 13% support - 78 % opposition (11/2011)[/QUOTE

Thank God these states still see morality and know how WRONG it is to support such IMMORALITY. No state should be forced to accept it or revote on it once they have said they don't want it. What part of NO do people NOT understand?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2013/06/28/the-nine-states-most-likely-to-legalize-gay-marriage-next.html

1. Illinois
Likelihood of legal same-sex marriage: Very good

Population in support of gay marriage: 50%
Legislative support: Yes
Governor support: Yes
State law: Legal civil unions or domestic partnerships; equality banned
Same-sex marriage constitutional ban: No
Current status: Marriage equality bill passed in the Senate in February but is still awaiting action in the House; it could be voted on as soon as July. Proximity to Minnesota and Iowa, which both have gay marriage, could influence.

2. Hawaii
Likelihood of legal same-sex marriage: Very good

Population in support of gay marriage: 55%
Legislative support: Yes
Governor support: Yes
State law: Legal civil unions or domestic partnerships; equality banned
Same-sex marriage constitutional ban: Not explicitly—the constitution gives legislature power to ban same-sex marriage.
Expert Opinion: “The legislature has the option of going back into a special session right now and changing the law so that gay people can get married right away. The leaders of the House and Senate now have never been supporters of gay marriage, but the majority of the Democratic caucuses are filled with people who support it.”—Richard Borreca, political columnist, Honolulu Star-Advertiser

3. New Jersey
Likelihood of legal same-sex marriage: Good

Population in support of gay marriage: 64%
Legislative support: Yes
Governor support: No
State law: Legal civil unions or domestic partnerships
Same-sex marriage constitutional ban: No
Current status: In order to pass a legislative gay marriage agenda, and override Gov Chris Christie’s veto of a 2012 gay marriage bill, the state needs support of two thirds of the legislature.

etc....

Vis
06-28-2013, 09:59 AM
I have heard of no momentum going the other way. Is there a state that now allows gay marriage that anyone thinks will ever return to discrimination?

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2013, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=Vis;1137525]States still to legalize

New Jersey, 64% support - 30 % opposition (3/2013)
Michigan, 57% support - 38 % opposition (5/2013)
Virginia, 56% support - 33 % opposition (5/2013)
Arizona, 55% support - 35 % opposition (5/2013)
Hawaii, 55% support - 36 % opposition (1/2013)
Nevada, 54% support - 43 % opposition (2/2013)
Oregon, 54% support - 40 % opposition (12/2012)
Pennsylvania, 54% support - 41 % opposition (5/2013)
Colorado, 51% support - 43 % opposition (4/2013)
Illinois, 50% support - 29 % opposition (2/2013)
Tennessee, 49% support - 46 % opposition (5/2013)
Ohio, 48% support - 44 % opposition (4/2013)
Texas, 48% support - 48 % opposition (1/2013)
Indiana, 45% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
New Mexico, 44% support - 51 % opposition (5/2013)
North Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
South Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wisconsin, 44% support - 46 % opposition (2/2013)
Florida, 43% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
Montana, 43% support - 49 % opposition (2/2013)
North Carolina, 43% support - 46 % opposition (4/2013)
Alaska, 40% support - 57 % opposition (2/2013)
Idaho, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wyoming, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Missouri, 36% support - 52 % opposition (6/2012)
Oklahoma, 35% support - 56 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Kansas, 34% support - 63 % opposition (2/2013)
Alabama, 32% support (4/2013)
Nebraska, 32% support (10/2012)
Louisiana, 29% support - 59 % opposition (2/2013)
Utah, 29% support - 71 % opposition (7/2012)
Georgia, 27% support - 65 % opposition (12/2012)
Kentucky, 27% support - 65 % opposition (4/2013)
West Virginia, 26% support - 61 % opposition (9/2011)
South Carolina, 21% support - 69 % opposition (9/2011)
Arkansas, 18% support - 75 % opposition (10/2012)
Mississippi, 13% support - 78 % opposition (11/2011)[/QUOTE

Thank God these states still see morality and know how WRONG it is to support such IMMORALITY. No state should be forced to accept it or revote on it once they have said they don't want it. What part of NO do people NOT understand?

The pre-1865 South supported slavery and Pennsylvania stores were closed on Sundays when I was growing up there in the 1960s - times change and voters change with them

The 2 decisions this week held this is a matter for the States to decide - are you afraid to let people make that decision?

You can always move to Georgia

Vis
06-28-2013, 10:03 AM
Same-Sex Marriage Availability Set to Double in One-Year Span

By NATE SILVER
The Supreme Court’s rulings on a pair of landmark cases on Wednesday, which overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act and effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, are the latest in a recent series of legal and legislative victories for same-sex marriage advocates worldwide.

By Aug. 1, same-sex marriage will be legal in California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Washington — all states where it was not legal one year earlier.

There are about 59 million people living in these seven states, which means that the availability of same-sex marriage in the United States as a percentage of population will have more than doubled within the year. As of early last year, same-sex marriage was legal only in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia, which have 35 million people among them.

The availability of same-sex marriage is increasing almost as rapidly on a global scale. It was legalized in Brazil and France earlier this year and will become legal in Uruguay and New Zealand by August.

A decision last month by a Brazilian judicial panel that is generally seen as legalizing same-sex marriage, but could be subject to appeal, is especially important to this math. Brazil has a population of about 194 million — more than the combined 169 million in the nine countries in Europe where same-sex marriage is now legal. The most recent decision followed court rulings that had authorized same-sex marriage in more than a dozen Brazilian states.

Earlier this year, France, with a population of about 64 million, became the largest European country to legalize same-sex marriage, and the largest in the world to do so by legislative action.

By August, there will be about 585 million people living in countries or jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal. That is roughly double the 289 million people living in such places in August 2012. (These calculations are based on the most recent population estimates and do not account for population growth.)

Still, that represents only about 8 percent of the global population. No country in Asia, which has well more than half the world’s people, has authorized same-sex marriage.

Instead, it’s the New World that has taken the lead. Of the 585 million people living in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage will be legal by August, about 360 million are in the Americas.

With the coming resumption of same-sex marriage in California, where it was legal for a brief period in 2008 before voters passed Proposition 8, the United States will surpass Europe in the availability of same-sex marriage as measured by share of the population. By August, about 95 million Americans out of a population of 314 million — about 30 percent — will live in states where same-sex marriage is legal. In Europe, that number is 169 million residents out of a population of 736 million, or about 23 percent.

teegre
06-28-2013, 10:07 AM
Cap,

Out here, in California, there are many (maaany) gay-friendly churches. In fact, I work with a gay man, who goes to church every Sunday. (Great guy.) These gay church-goers are probably more "moral" than most of the heterosexual people in the world.

So, I ask you:
If a heterosexual murderer and a gay church-going man are walking down the street, would you honestly point to the gay man & say that he's just as "immoral" as the murderer?

I really want to know...

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2013, 10:11 AM
I have heard of no momentum going the other way. Is there a state that now allows gay marriage that anyone thinks will ever return to discrimination?

Probably not

The will of the people isn’t what it used to be. In states where voters once passed ballot measures against same-sex marriage, they now support it. The country as a whole supports it. The court, in striking down what voters believed 10 or 20 years ago, is upholding what voters believe today....

Cheer up, conservatives. The court, at long last, has done what the people want. Unelected judges are no longer the nosy outsiders defying the country’s values. You are.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/06/gay_marriage_polls_and_public_opinion_the_supreme_ court_s_rulings_upheld.html

But magazine covers like this do not help rational discourse on the issue

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/06/28/newyorker_bert_ernie.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

You see, Bert and Ernie aren’t lovers. Back in 2007, the president of the Children’s Television Workshop said that they “do not exist beneath the waist.” Then, two years ago, the Children’s Television Workshop declared:

Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.

That’s not the only lesson Bert and Ernie have to impart. You see, straight America, there’s a difference between same-sex friends and gay lovers. Does America contain households in which lovers pass themselves off as best pals? No doubt. And as prejudice against gays and lesbians fades, more of these ambiguously gay couples will declare themselves. But that doesn’t mean that every pair of co-habiting friends is madly making out on a nightly basis.

Bert and Ernie clearly love each other. But does Ernie suck Bert’s c**k? I don't think so.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/06/28/bert_and_ernie_on_new_yorker_cover_for_gay_marriag e_a_terrible_way_to_commemorate.html

SteelCityMom
06-28-2013, 10:12 AM
Thank God these states still see morality and know how WRONG it is to support such IMMORALITY. No state should be forced to accept it or revote on it once they have said they don't want it. What part of NO do people NOT understand?

An individuals rights are not supposed to be up for a popular vote. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept to follow. It's like if the tide ever started to (actually) turn on Christianity and the majority of people in a state wanted to ban churches and religion. Can't do it, even if the majority of people in a state want it, because it violates this thing we have in the US...the Constitution.

You keep making it a religious and personal opinion issue, and I don't think you realize that your own personal opinion means squat when it comes to inherent rights of others. Live your life in your way, and let others do the same (within limits of consenting adults).

To make statements such as yours is anti-constitution and pro-theocracy.

JonM229
06-28-2013, 10:19 AM
I think we should pass a law banning Sharia Law, but base all of our laws on the Bible

JonM229
06-28-2013, 10:22 AM
An individuals rights are not supposed to be up for a popular vote. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept to follow. It's like if the tide ever started to (actually) turn on Christianity and the majority of people in a state wanted to ban churches and religion. Can't do it, even if the majority of people in a state want it, because it violates this thing we have in the US...the Constitution.

You keep making it a religious and personal opinion issue, and I don't think you realize that your own personal opinion means squat when it comes to inherent rights of others. Live your life in your way, and let others do the same (within limits of consenting adults).

To make statements such as yours is anti-constitution and pro-theocracy.

A ban on marriage equality is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment:

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.

Vis
06-28-2013, 10:25 AM
If i were to make a prediction it would be that the Supreme Court will eventually rule all bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional and, as a result, some few gay people in some very red states will be hurt and killed by some professed Christians.

Agree or disagree?

JonM229
06-28-2013, 10:29 AM
Agree

It will be eerily similar to the violence surrounding the Civil Rights movement. I wonder where most of the violence will take place this time...


(Hint: Same place as last time)

teegre
06-28-2013, 10:31 AM
An individuals rights are not supposed to be up for a popular vote. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept to follow. It's like if the tide ever started to (actually) turn on Christianity and the majority of people in a state wanted to ban churches and religion. Can't do it, even if the majority of people in a state want it, because it violates this thing we have in the US...the Constitution.

You keep making it a religious and personal opinion issue, and I don't think you realize that your own personal opinion means squat when it comes to inherent rights of others. Live your life in your way, and let others do the same (within limits of consenting adults).

To make statements such as yours is anti-constitution and pro-theocracy.

Well said.

That is a great retort. The next time that someone talks about outlawing gay marriage, because the "Bible doesn't condone it", I can simply reply, "We're going to vote to outlaw the Bible next."

Freedom of choice... freedom of religion... get rid of all of that malarky.

teegre
06-28-2013, 10:32 AM
If i were to make a prediction it would be that the Supreme Court will eventually rule all bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional and, as a result, some few gay people in some very red states will be hurt and killed by some professed Christians.

Agree or disagree?

Alas... yes... yes, that will happen.

SteelCityMom
06-28-2013, 10:48 AM
You know what always amazes me... There's is a large vocal faction of conservatives who proudly tout that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy (which is mostly true), but only when it suits them. Gay marriage rights is a perfect example. All the sudden, they want this issue to be set up like a direct democracy where popular vote makes the laws. It's blatantly hypocritical.

Can't have it both way folks. If you support the notion that an individuals rights can be trampled on by the majority means that someday you will have to accept when your own individual rights are trampled upon by a majority. If you truly support the Constitution and individual freedoms, then you can in no way reconcile being opposed to allowing two consenting adults to enter into a contract. It's really as simple as that.

You still have yet to address these points at all, Cap. I'd honestly love to hear your thoughts on this.

Vis
06-28-2013, 10:50 AM
Oh, Pat Robertson, you never disappoint. Pat's first instinct as to why even this current conservative Supreme Court might not be fully down with Robertson's particular brand of moralizing bigotry is so very wonderful. And so very terse.

ROBERTSON: Jay Sekulow for the American Center for Law and Justice is with us now. Jay, let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?

SEKULOW: Well I have no idea …


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/27/1219494/-Pat-Robertson-s-deep-thoughts-on-the-DOMA-defeat

JonM229
06-28-2013, 10:56 AM
Oh, Pat Robertson, you never disappoint. Pat's first instinct as to why even this current conservative Supreme Court might not be fully down with Robertson's particular brand of moralizing bigotry is so very wonderful. And so very terse.

ROBERTSON: Jay Sekulow for the American Center for Law and Justice is with us now. Jay, let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?

SEKULOW: Well I have no idea …


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/27/1219494/-Pat-Robertson-s-deep-thoughts-on-the-DOMA-defeat

I've said this before and I'm sure I will say it again in the future (but hopefully for not too much longer):

Fuck Pat Robertson

teegre
06-28-2013, 10:59 AM
As my wife said:
A hundred & fifty years ago, the "popular vote" was for African-Americans to be slaves. Likewise, a hundred years ago, it was a "popular vote" was that women were lesser than men. Seventy-five years ago, in Germany, the "popular vote" was to shove Jews into ovens.

Popular does not equal right... and, in some cases, it doesn't even equal sane.

My retort:
Man... what happened to the good ol' days, where a white, Christian male could shove a black, Jewish woman into the oven, without fear of reprisal???

JonM229
06-28-2013, 11:10 AM
I don't know about you, but oven-roasted black Jewish women sound delicious

JonM229
06-28-2013, 11:45 AM
Edith Windsow is Owed $638,000 Plus Interest (http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/28/pf/taxes/same-sex-marriage-windsor/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

The Supreme Court decision this week striking down the Defense of Marriage Act means a lot of things to a lot of people.

But to Edith Windsor, the plaintiff who brought the case, the landmark ruling also means she will finally get back the $638,000 in estate tax payments she had to make to the IRS and to New York State after her spouse -- Thea Spyer -- died in 2009.

Normally, surviving spouses are entitled to inherit the estate of their late husband or wife tax free.

But because DOMA only recognized marriage between a man and a woman as legitimate for the purposes of federal law, same-sex spouses have not been entitled to the same privilege.

As a result, Windsor had to pay the federal government roughly $363,000, as well as $275,000 to New York state, where estate tax rules track the federal ones.

That money has been in limbo since Windsor sued to get it back in November 2010. Her case first went before a federal trial court judge in New York, then to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Windsor will also be paid interest on her refunds. Paul, Weiss, the law firm that represents her, estimates she will receive about $45,000 in interest on her federal refund and $25,000 on her New York State refund.

The other good news for the 83-year-old Windsor? Her lawyers won't be getting a cut because Paul, Weiss took the case pro bono.

Exactly when she'll receive her checks isn't clear yet, although the law firm says it expects it will be in a "reasonable amount of time."

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2013, 11:53 AM
You know what always amazes me... There's is a large vocal faction of conservatives who proudly tout that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy (which is mostly true), but only when it suits them. Gay marriage rights is a perfect example. All the sudden, they want this issue to be set up like a direct democracy where popular vote makes the laws. It's blatantly hypocritical.

Can't have it both way folks. If you support the notion that an individuals rights can be trampled on by the majority means that someday you will have to accept when your own individual rights are trampled upon by a majority. If you truly support the Constitution and individual freedoms, then you can in no way reconcile being opposed to allowing two consenting adults to enter into a contract. It's really as simple as that.

You still have yet to address these points at all, Cap. I'd honestly love to hear your thoughts on this.

The hypocrisy goes both ways

On Tuesday a majority of the Court held section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and the dissenting Justices said the Court should defer to Congress in having enacted that statute

On Wednesday, the dissenting Justices who held on Tuesday that the Court should defer to Congress and not toss out a portion of the Voting Rights Act because Congress merited deference voted as part of the majority that DOMA is unconstitutional. The conservative Justices who as part of the majority said screw Congress on Tuesday in the voting rights case said as the minority dissenting Justices on Wednesday the Court should defer to the wisdom of Congress when it passed DOMA.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it is time for the court to strike down a federal statute in order to advance a liberal policy goal rather than a conservative policy goal. Justice Scalia’s paean to the democratic process in his dissent sounds a little hollow, coming in the wake of his votes to strike down affirmative action programs and Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act—both of them the result of the democratic process, as much as DOMA was. Meanwhile, none of the liberals pipe in to explain how to reconcile the outcome of this case with the concerns about democracy that they expressed in dissenting opinions in the other cases. (Ginsburg, in Shelby County: “That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments ‘by appropriate legislation’ merits this Court’s utmost respect.”)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/kennedy_s_doma_opinion_and_supreme_court_there_was _no_strong_constitutional.html

Vis
06-28-2013, 12:15 PM
The hypocrisy goes both ways

On Tuesday a majority of the Court held section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and the dissenting Justices said the Court should defer to Congress in having enacted that statute

On Wednesday, the dissenting Justices who held on Tuesday that the Court should defer to Congress and not toss out a portion of the Voting Rights Act because Congress merited deference voted as part of the majority that DOMA is unconstitutional. The conservative Justices who as part of the majority said screw Congress on Tuesday in the voting rights case said as the minority dissenting Justices on Wednesday the Court should defer to the wisdom of Congress when it passed DOMA.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it is time for the court to strike down a federal statute in order to advance a liberal policy goal rather than a conservative policy goal. Justice Scalia’s paean to the democratic process in his dissent sounds a little hollow, coming in the wake of his votes to strike down affirmative action programs and Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act—both of them the result of the democratic process, as much as DOMA was. Meanwhile, none of the liberals pipe in to explain how to reconcile the outcome of this case with the concerns about democracy that they expressed in dissenting opinions in the other cases. (Ginsburg, in Shelby County: “That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments ‘by appropriate legislation’ merits this Court’s utmost respect.”)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/kennedy_s_doma_opinion_and_supreme_court_there_was _no_strong_constitutional.html

There is a difference. The Court didn't say the VRA couldn't be valid, it said the method Congress chose to determine the states was outdated. In the DOMA case, it said legislating from malice is wrong.

Vis
06-28-2013, 12:28 PM
For A Mom, Learning To Accept A Gay Son Was 'Nonnegotiable'

Samuel Taylor was raised in a religious family. When he came out to his mother, Connie Casey, she sent him to a series of conversion therapy ministries affiliated with Exodus International, the Christian organization that folded this month and apologized to the gay community for trying to "correct" same-sex attraction.

Samuel, now 22, was in therapy from the age of 15 to 18. "You feel like being gay is like a virus," he told Connie during a visit to StoryCorps. "It's like, you have to get rid of this because this is what you're doomed for. And I remember, I thought, 'Well, I can of course behave like a straight man.' "

When Samuel came out, Connie says, she blamed herself. "It's because I'm a single-parent mom, and I don't know how to raise a son and there needs to be a man around here," she thought at the time. "Somehow I did this to you. And now you were going to be relegated to a life of horror."

Those years were very difficult for both mother and son, Samuel says. But then Samuel went away to school, and things began to change.

"Your first year of college, when you went away to school and came back, and we had this conversation again, [that] was the first time that I really felt in my heart that it was time to take a look at everything that I'd ever been taught to believe," Connie says.

"I can just be completely honest; I didn't care at that point whether you accepted me or not," Samuel tells her. "But it ended up being more important than I thought it would."

When Samuel came home again after his sophomore year, he noticed a magnet on the fridge. "And on the magnet was a rainbow heart that says, 'Love is spoken here.' And so, what kind of advice could you give to a parent who has not come to that same conclusion?"

"I guess the overriding feeling is that, no matter how strongly you think you believe something, at the end of the day, you just always have to love and accept your kid," Connie says. "It's nonnegotiable as far as I'm concerned."


"I don't think I've ever told you that I completely and 100 percent forgive you," Samuel tells his mother. "It's part of what we had to go through to get to where we are today. And for that, I'm not only forgiving. I am grateful."

"If this were to be the last five minutes of conversation that I ever got to have with you — and I think you already know these things but it doesn't hurt to say it again — I'm so sorry, and I could not be more proud of the human being that you are," Connie responds. "You're just an amazing, awesome human being."



The horror gays go through is simply how others treat them. End the horror.

teegre
06-28-2013, 12:37 PM
I don't know about you, but oven-roasted black Jewish women sound delicious

The best part: it's kosher.

JonM229
06-28-2013, 12:39 PM
The best part: it's kosher.

That made me laugh pretty hard, good thing I've been relegated to the server room at work for the day, lest people know that I don't actually get anything done around here.

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2013, 01:14 PM
There is a difference. The Court didn't say the VRA couldn't be valid, it said the method Congress chose to determine the states was outdated. In the DOMA case, it said legislating from malice is wrong.

Some commentators disagree

With regard to the Windsor (DOMA) opinion

The problem faced by opponents of DOMA is that there was no clear constitutional hook for striking it down. The Equal Protection Clause does not seem to apply because gay people (unlike, say, African-Americans) have not been regarded as politically weak enough to be a “suspect class,” justifying heightened review. That means that only a rational basis is necessary to uphold DOMA and a rational basis is easy to find (uniformity, efficiency, blah, blah, blah). The Due Process Clause does not seem to apply because that clause protects only rights that are rooted in history and tradition, and the right of same-sex marriage, however compelling a moral issue it may seem today, is not such a right. Federalism says that (under ill-defined conditions) the U.S. government cannot trump state law, especially in an area like family law, but in fact there are plenty of federal laws that regulate marriage, at least along the margins.

In a remarkable opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy manages to hit on all these theories without really endorsing any of them. After a long peroration on the importance of federalism, he disclaims it as a basis for the opinion—for the reason, I suspect, that if the unconstitutionality of DOMA is based on federalist principles, this case will not be a precedent that can be used to strike down state laws that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage in the future. He then vaguely invokes both due process and equal protection, without explaining how he overcomes the limits on those doctrines that I describe above. He does not, for example, declare homosexuals a suspect class, nor does he (or could he) claim that same-sex marriage has roots in history and tradition. In the end, he seems to hold DOMA unconstitutional because he is convinced that the purpose of the statute was to stigmatize gay people, and indeed there is some precedent for the idea that statutes based on animus are unconstitutional. But he does not provide a very convincing account of the motives of the legislators. Isn’t it possible to oppose same-sex marriage without hating gay people?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/kennedy_s_doma_opinion_and_supreme_court_there_was _no_strong_constitutional.html

With regard to the Shelby County (Voting Rights Act) opinion, Circuit Judge Ricahrd Posner (who would be on the Supreme Court if nominations were based more on talent and less on being a stealth candidate without a paper trail) has written

Shelby County v. Holder, decided Tuesday, struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (the part requiring certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal permission in advance to change their voting procedures—called “preclearance”) as violating the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” of the states. This is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that, as Eric points out and I will elaborate upon briefly, there is no such principle....

It’s possible that the federal government would subject a state to unequal treatment so arbitrary and oppressive as to justify a ruling that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s very impressive opinion (in part because of its even tone), at a length (37 pages) that, remarkably, one would not like to see shortened—marshals convincing evidence that the reasons Congress has for treating some states differently for purposes of the Voting Rights Act are not arbitrary, though they are less needful than they were in 1965, when the law was first enacted.

That evidence—the record before Congress—should have been the end of this case. For apart from the spurious principle of equal sovereignty, all that the majority had on which to base its decision was tenderness for “states’ rights.” One doubts that this actually is a primary value for any of the justices. The same conservative majority that decided Shelby had rejected a more cogent argument for states’ rights when it held three years ago in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment—a provision of the Constitution designed to secure state autonomy—specifically, the right of states to maintain their own little armies, the militias, against federal abolition—creates rights against states’ limiting gun ownership. It seems that the court’s regard is not for states’ rights in some abstract sense but for particular policies that a majority of justices strongly favors.

The majority opinion in Shelby acknowledges that racial discrimination in voting continues, but notes that the situation has improved since 1965 and that the procedures in the current Voting Rights Act do not make a clean fit with the current forms and pattern of discrimination. Ordinarily however a federal statute is not invalidated on the ground that it’s dated. I hardly think the Supreme Court justices believe (as did Alexander Bickel) that “desuetude” is a constitutional doctrine. And the criticisms of the statute in the majority opinion are rather tepid. That’s why the court’s invocation of “equal sovereignty” is an indispensable prop of the decision. But, as I said, there is no doctrine of equal sovereignty. The opinion rests on air.

Which leads to this observation

Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said it will not be good for the court if the term is remembered for the Voting Rights Act and DOMA decisions, both of which he found poorly reasoned. When the court appears to be striking down legislation with which it simply disagrees, he said, “that can create a backlash.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-conservative-supreme-court-swerves-to-avoid-easy-definition/2013/06/27/dff92aee-df5d-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story_1.html

Vis
06-28-2013, 01:19 PM
But read Brazelton on Slate.

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2013, 01:29 PM
But read Brazelton on Slate.

As you might have guessed from my links, I have:chuckle:

Not saying you cannot make an argument defending the rationale in Windsor while scorning the rationale in Shelby County. Just saying a lot of jurisprudence comes down to the nature of the ox being gored and is a matter of the majority's predisposition on the matter

Vis
06-28-2013, 01:31 PM
As you might have guessed from my links, I have:chuckle:

Not saying you cannot make an argument defending the rationale in Windsor while scorning the rationale in Shelby County. Just saying a lot of jurisprudence comes down to the nature of the ox being gored and is a matter of the majority's predisposition on the matter

All three big cases this week had strange mixes in the majority.

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2013, 01:48 PM
All three big cases this week had strange mixes in the majority.

Agreed - wonder if that combo platter 5-4 majority of Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan in Hollingsworth has ever been assembled before?:noidea:

:drink:

MasterOfPuppets
06-28-2013, 02:19 PM
I see that in my home state of West Virginia, only 26% of the people support gay marriage.

Sooo... it's okay to marry your own sister, but not for two gay people to wed. Riiight. Ugh.

My only hope is they the verbiage was confusing (as Prop 8 was here in California: people didn't know what a "yes" or "no" vote actually meant).

Or, of course, my kin simply might not have been able to read the ballot at all. "Whattuz dis here piece o paper have scribed on it?"
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6180533760/hD50F8459/
http://i.qkme.me/3oybbg.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
06-28-2013, 02:28 PM
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/gallery/redneck-randal/redneck-randal-were-all-gods-children.jpg

Bane
06-28-2013, 11:07 PM
My Facebook has been flooded with hilarity the past couple of days. The religiously devout have been crying like children, conveniently forsaking the Constitution a lot of them wield as the end of all arguments.

But, hey! Those angry men wrote to ban gays (kind of) in a book, right? So that means it needs to be illegal in the very country that said that book can't determine our law!

Seems legit.

OX1947
06-29-2013, 01:19 AM
For all those poking fun on all the southern baptists who are white, racists, bigots with no teeth, which is hilarious because that is blatant racism and stereotyping right there, how bout you guys go pull the percentages of black and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in 2008. Maybe then you guys can continue to sound just as ignorant, racist and hypocritical as all other who frequent the Blue Oyster in West Hollywood.

teegre
06-29-2013, 02:00 AM
For all those poking fun on all the southern baptists who are white, racists, bigots with no teeth, which is hilarious because that is blatant racism and stereotyping right there, how bout you guys go pull the percentages of black and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in 2008. Maybe then you guys can continue to sound just as ignorant, racist and hypocritical as all other who frequent the Blue Oyster in West Hollywood.

Are you referring to West Virginia? If so, that's not the south.

And, where did it say white Baptists?

Wait... you're the guy who said that Aaron Hernandez was innocent, and were chastising all of us for jumping to asinine conclusions... a few hours before his arraignment (for murder in the first degree).

You're the guy who swears that Ray Lewis was a good guy, because he refused to rat on his buddies... yet, the reason that he didn't go to jail, is because he indeed ratted out his buddies.

So...

I'm guessing that you're wrong... again.

Bane
06-29-2013, 08:43 AM
All while jumping to conclusions over a couple of meme images.

Atlanta Dan
06-29-2013, 09:06 AM
For all those poking fun on all the southern baptists who are white, racists, bigots with no teeth, which is hilarious because that is blatant racism and stereotyping right there, how bout you guys go pull the percentages of black and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in 2008. Maybe then you guys can continue to sound just as ignorant, racist and hypocritical as all other who frequent the Blue Oyster in West Hollywood.

There does seem to be some correlation between opposition to gay marriage and being located in the Old Confederacy (unless you live in Utah, home office of the Mormons) - whether that position is ignorant or enlightened, it has something to do with where you live (data previously posted by Vis - I added the link)

It's interesting to note that the states that have not yet legalized gay marriage but show the highest levels of support are generally those adjacent to states that have passed such laws. The region with the lowest level of support for the legislation is the South, with the exception of Florida.

States still to legalize

New Jersey, 64% support - 30 % opposition (3/2013)
Michigan, 57% support - 38 % opposition (5/2013)
Virginia, 56% support - 33 % opposition (5/2013)
Arizona, 55% support - 35 % opposition (5/2013)
Hawaii, 55% support - 36 % opposition (1/2013)
Nevada, 54% support - 43 % opposition (2/2013)
Oregon, 54% support - 40 % opposition (12/2012)
Pennsylvania, 54% support - 41 % opposition (5/2013)
Colorado, 51% support - 43 % opposition (4/2013)
Illinois, 50% support - 29 % opposition (2/2013)
Tennessee, 49% support - 46 % opposition (5/2013)
Ohio, 48% support - 44 % opposition (4/2013)
Texas, 48% support - 48 % opposition (1/2013)
Indiana, 45% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
New Mexico, 44% support - 51 % opposition (5/2013)
North Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
South Dakota, 44% support - 46 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wisconsin, 44% support - 46 % opposition (2/2013)
Florida, 43% support - 45 % opposition (12/2012)
Montana, 43% support - 49 % opposition (2/2013)
North Carolina, 43% support - 46 % opposition (4/2013)
Alaska, 40% support - 57 % opposition (2/2013)
Idaho, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Wyoming, 40% support - 51 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Missouri, 36% support - 52 % opposition (6/2012)
Oklahoma, 35% support - 56 % opposition (aggregated by region, 11/2012)
Kansas, 34% support - 63 % opposition (2/2013)
Alabama, 32% support (4/2013)
Nebraska, 32% support (10/2012)
Louisiana, 29% support - 59 % opposition (2/2013)
Utah, 29% support - 71 % opposition (7/2012)
Georgia, 27% support - 65 % opposition (12/2012)
Kentucky, 27% support - 65 % opposition (4/2013)
West Virginia, 26% support - 61 % opposition (9/2011)
South Carolina, 21% support - 69 % opposition (9/2011)
Arkansas, 18% support - 75 % opposition (10/2012)
Mississippi, 13% support - 78 % opposition (11/2011)

States where it's already legal (or will be soon)

New York, 60% support - 33 % opposition (12/2012)
Rhode Island, 60% support - 26 % opposition (2/2013)
California, 58% support - 36 % opposition (6/2013)
Massachusetts, 58% support - 32 % opposition (5/2013)
Vermont, 58% support - 33 % opposition (8/2011)
Maryland, 57% support - 37 % opposition (11/2012)
New Hampshire, 56% support - 34 % opposition (4/2013)
Delaware, 54% support - 37 % opposition (3/2013)
Maine, 53% support - 43 % opposition (1/2013)
Washington, 52% support - 42 % opposition (11/2012)
Connecticut, 51% support - 48 % opposition (8/2012)
Iowa, 49% support - 42 % opposition (10/2012)
Minnesota, 49% support - 45 % opposition (5/2013)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/gay-marriage-state-polls-mapped-ranked/66626/

JonM229
06-29-2013, 09:15 AM
For all those poking fun on all the southern baptists who are white, racists, bigots with no teeth, which is hilarious because that is blatant racism and stereotyping right there, how bout you guys go pull the percentages of black and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in 2008. Maybe then you guys can continue to sound just as ignorant, racist and hypocritical as all other who frequent the Blue Oyster in West Hollywood.

So gays are ignorant, racist, hypocrites? That came out of left field (and the closet).

I've actually been blaming the baptists (white and black) for delaying the passage of marriage equality in Illinois. They hold a lot of sway over the democrats in Chicago, which is really all you need to have legislation passed in Illinois. Unfortunately, the dems in Illinois, much like the ones in Washington, are a bunch of pussies.

You cannot pass laws in this country based on a religious doctrine's sense of morality. It's that simple.

JonM229
06-29-2013, 09:20 AM
There does seem to be some correlation between opposition to gay marriage and being located in the Old Confederacy (unless you live in Utah, home office of the Mormons) - whether that position is ignorant or enlightened, it has something to do with where you live

It's definitely starting in the more liberal states. I think more and more homosexuals are feeling safe enough to come out to friends and family. Those people, in turn, are realizing that homosexuality isn't some horrible, god-forsaken ailment or lifestyle choice. This is why we've been seeing the acceptance of marriage equality growing at exponential rates. Hopefully, more and more people will also come to realize this.

I've mentioned this previously, but the American Psychological Association hasn't classified homosexuality as a psychological disorder for about 40 years now. Even Freud refused to treat patients' homosexuality, because he didn't believe it to be a psychological problem.

Fire Haley
06-29-2013, 10:15 AM
Bill to allow gay marriage in Pennsylvania

One day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its rulings on gay marriage, two state House Democrats said Thursday that they will introduce a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

"LGBT Pennsylvanians are seeing their neighbors in New York, Maryland and Delaware, among other states, now qualify for the approximately 1,000 federal rights and benefits that come with civil marriage and they are increasingly asking why they don't have those same rights, as well as the state rights and benefits," Sims said in the statement.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/06/bill_to_allow_gay_marriage_in.html#/0

MasterOfPuppets
06-29-2013, 11:35 AM
i'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the financial impact that gay marriage will have on the economy. everybody keeps saying how gay marriage will not effect anybody else , but considering the government subsidies marriage how can it not effect taxpayers ?

JonM229
06-29-2013, 11:47 AM
i'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the financial impact that gay marriage will have on the economy. everybody keeps saying how gay marriage will not effect anybody else , but considering the government subsidies marriage how can it not effect taxpayers ?

What about the money those couples will be putting into the economy for their weddings?

Atlanta Dan
06-29-2013, 11:48 AM
i'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the financial impact that gay marriage will have on the economy. everybody keeps saying how gay marriage will not effect anybody else , but considering the government subsidies marriage how can it not effect taxpayers ?

Apparently the government subsidies are most significant when you pass on (the Windsor decision that ruled DOMA unconstitutional involved an estate tax issue)


One of the most direct and immediate impacts of the ruling could be how married gay couples are treated under federal tax laws—and the news isn't all good.

Experts said many two-earner, same-sex, married couples will likely see an annual federal income-tax increase of hundreds or thousands of dollars. The penalties are more likely for two partners with similar incomes, especially if they have children.

The demise of DOMA is a boon to wealthy same-sex couples planning estates. The current estate and gift-tax exemption is $5.25 million per individual, so married couples qualify for more than $10 million of exemption. In addition, a surviving spouse can use the unused portion of the partner's exemption to shelter assets in his or her own estate.

Less clear after the ruling is how the Internal Revenue Service will treat married couples who reside in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage. Under past IRS practice, federal filing status has been determined by the state in which taxpayers live. An IRS spokeswoman declined to comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578569973776975916.html

MasterOfPuppets
06-29-2013, 11:58 AM
What about the money those couples will be putting into the economy for their weddings?
i've never made a dime off of any wedding , but i do pay taxes and social security. things the government keeps wanting more of.
social security is already a sinking ship , i don't see how writing more, or bigger checks will help.

Fire Haley
06-29-2013, 02:47 PM
Let me explain one thing to all y'all...


from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead a pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return

SteelCityMom
06-29-2013, 02:52 PM
Yeah, cause we have a problem with not enough people on this planet lol.

I doubt the destruction of the human race is going to come from non-breeders. Just call it a hunch.

SteelCityMom
06-29-2013, 02:53 PM
As to the tax benefits...yes, it is going to be a drain on the economy. Actually, I HOPE it's a drain on the economy...maybe this will push the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. It had no business being in it in the first place.

Fire Haley
06-29-2013, 03:05 PM
Yeah, cause we have a problem with not enough people on this planet lol.

I doubt the destruction of the human race is going to come from non-breeders. Just call it a hunch.

well we gotta do something to curb the human infestation of this planet


I be they can make an agent orange type gay spray these days - - chemtrails over China for a start?

knock outta billion or so of the next generation with the genetically modified gay spray on the rice paddies - I bet it could work

Atlanta Dan
06-29-2013, 03:05 PM
Let me explain one thing to all y'all...

from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead a pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return

Well gay couples are not going to procreate whether or not society gives them the benefits associated with marriage

Unless of course what you are advocating is that the gays please stay in the closet and enter into loveless "real" marriages and have children :noidea:

That would be so much better for everyone:coffee:

Fire Haley
06-29-2013, 03:28 PM
I don't advocate anything, it was just a suggestion - I have no problem with gay women kissing, for example

but if you anger the sky gods we will be throwing your virgin daughters in the volcano - just to be sure

MACH1
06-29-2013, 03:34 PM
As to the tax benefits...yes, it is going to be a drain on the economy. Actually, I HOPE it's a drain on the economy...maybe this will push the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. It had no business being in it in the first place.

It's doubtful the governments willing to give up the obamacare marriage tax penalty.

caplovestroyp43
06-29-2013, 04:20 PM
Let me explain one thing to all y'all...


from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead a pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

Bane
06-29-2013, 05:08 PM
Let me explain one thing to all y'all...


from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead a pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return

You argue the biological standpoint, then follow up with, "God created..."

Good troll. +1 Gay marriage.

On a less logical note, I highly doubt every married Christian man and woman on the planet bear the names "Adam" and "Eve", respectively. So there's that. No more heterosexual marriages either.

caplovestroyp43
06-29-2013, 06:35 PM
It had no business being in it in the first place.
__________________

Exactly right. Stay the hell out of it and we wouldn't have worry at all about this gay marriage abomination.

SteelCityMom
06-29-2013, 07:15 PM
It had no business being in it in the first place.
__________________

Exactly right. Stay the hell out of it and we wouldn't have worry at all about this gay marriage abomination.

Well, the governments not being involved wouldn't erase the fact that same sex couples could pair bond in exactly the same way as straight couples. So no, it wouldn't have done away with the "abomination".

As someone else pointed out, there are churches that will willingly marry gay couples. Would you try to stop them from doing so...even if it meant violating the 1st amendment?

Would you continue to want the 14th amendment violated by not allowing same sex couples to enter into private contracts?

Bane
06-29-2013, 07:31 PM
It had no business being in it in the first place.
__________________

Exactly right. Stay the hell out of it and we wouldn't have worry at all about this gay marriage abomination.

The only abomination is your hatred for people who don't affect you in the slightest. For someone who's been open about never getting married, you sure love telling others how their marriages have to go.

Marriage isn't yours. It's not Christianity's. It's not God's. It's between people, and was around long before Christianity, and will be around long after.

I advise you read this:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

MasterOfPuppets
06-29-2013, 10:35 PM
Let me explain one thing to all y'all...


from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead a pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6235011584/h15C2E50C/

http://t.qkme.me/3tjedj.jpg

Fire Haley
06-30-2013, 07:04 AM
You argue the biological standpoint, then follow up with, "God created...".

I don't "argue" anything - I made a couple of observations

and who says I can't mention the gods and biology?

every civilization on earth says the gods created us, maybe they did

Fire Haley
06-30-2013, 04:03 PM
another slap in the face to the godless heathens in the new world led by the anti-Christ


Russia passes anti-gay-law

Vladimir Putin signs bill that means people disseminating 'propaganda' about homosexual relationships to minors risk fines

Hefty fines can now be imposed on those who provide information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors or hold gay pride rallies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/russia-passes-anti-gay-law

Vis
06-30-2013, 04:40 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/19899_541575982577083_1990579224_n.jpg

Bane
06-30-2013, 05:03 PM
another slap in the face to the godless heathens in the new world led by the anti-Christ

The what?

http://biblehub.com/2_john/1-7.htm

I think you God-fearing Christians should read up on your book a little more. :chuckle:


Russia passes anti-gay-law

Vladimir Putin signs bill that means people disseminating 'propaganda' about homosexual relationships to minors risk fines

Hefty fines can now be imposed on those who provide information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors or hold gay pride rallies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/russia-passes-anti-gay-law

I heard a funny bit someone did about wanting to get a Russian lawmaker into a classroom with children, and ask him about the law. By definition, he breaks the law simply for describing it.

OX1947
06-30-2013, 05:16 PM
Stop pushing your damn bullcrap on us. That goes to BOTH of you.

Bane
06-30-2013, 05:19 PM
Stop pushing your damn bullcrap on us. That goes to BOTH of you.

I'm not pushing anything except tolerance. I also don't appreciate seeing conspiracy laden accusations spewed around by others, especially when they're using the Bible without even using the its actual definitions.

I was raised a Christian, and to this day don't identify as an Atheist. So re-think what you might accuse me of.

OX1947
06-30-2013, 05:23 PM
I'm not pushing anything except tolerance. I also don't appreciate seeing conspiracy laden accusations spewed around by others, especially when they're using the Bible without even using the its actual definitions.

I was raised a Christian, and to this day don't identify as an Atheist. So re-think what you might accuse me of.

I was raised to be a badass. Love me or I will make a law saying you have to. :mad:

Bane
06-30-2013, 05:24 PM
I was raised to be a badass. Love me or I will make a law saying you have to. :mad:

This was pretty much the entire plot of The Dark Knight Rises, wasn't it?

Vis
06-30-2013, 05:25 PM
Ban badass marriage

OX1947
06-30-2013, 05:26 PM
This was pretty much the entire plot of The Dark Knight Rises, wasn't it?

Damn, you are good.

Vis
06-30-2013, 06:28 PM
Jim DeMint:

He is denying dignity to the millions of Americans who for moral or religious reasons believe that gay marriage is wrong. As you just said, you’ve got 37 states where the people have decided that they want to protect marriage between a man and a woman, because they know that that’s the environment where children can thrive and succeed. I mean that’s been proven. So it’s not about the desires of adults, it’s really about the best environment for children. We’re talking all about politics, but the reason why governments at the state level at the federal level have recognized marriage between a man and woman is because it is better for our country, and it is better for children.


Rachel Maddow:

Justice Kennedy addressed that issue specifically in his ruling. He says that by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples who have kids, you’re humiliating and demeaning those kids. By denying their families equal protection under the law, by the parents who are raising, them and who love them and who make their family. So we can put it in the interests of children, but I think that cuts both ways. And the ruling cuts against that argument. I mean, gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy can do to make more of us exist or less of us exist. And you guys for a generation have argued that public policy ought to essentially demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist. But you don’t make any less of us exist. You are just arguing for more discrimination. And more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/30/rachel-maddow-obliterates-jim-demints-gay-hate-meet-press.html

harrison'samonster
06-30-2013, 06:30 PM
won't somebody please think of the children

Vis
06-30-2013, 06:33 PM
So proud DeMint is from my town.

Vis
06-30-2013, 06:35 PM
WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, and Samuel Alito reportedly realized today that they would someday be portrayed as villains in an Oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. “Oh, God, the major social ramifications, the political intrigue, all the important people involved in the case—I’m going to be played by some sinister character actor in a drama with tons of award buzz, aren’t I?” said Scalia, joining his fellow dissenting justices in realizing they would be antagonists in a film potentially titled Defense Of Marriage and probably written by Tony Kushner. “I’m going to be portrayed as a closed-minded Neanderthal and the very symbol of backward thinking. And at the end of the movie, when my character realizes he’s on the wrong side of history, the audience will feel emotionally fulfilled because the hero attorney, probably played by George fucking Clooney, will have won. Great.” While they added that they aren’t looking forward to being vilified on screen, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all agreed that the movie would probably be pretty good, and that they could see Paul Dano getting his first Academy Award nomination for his supporting role as a gay rights crusader.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they,32972/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:Week1:Default

caplovestroyp43
06-30-2013, 07:36 PM
>>It's not Christianity's. It's not God's<<

It most certainly is God's for HE was the One who said it was an abomination and detestable to BEGIN with. I suggest YOU read the Bible.

Vis
06-30-2013, 07:44 PM
>>It's not Christianity's. It's not God's<<

It most certainly is God's for HE was the One who said it was an abomination and detestable to BEGIN with. I suggest YOU read the Bible.

Some bronze age cleric wrote it after he condemned shrimp eaters. God hasn't spoken on the subject, he's too busy ignoring the parents of kids with bone cancer and making sure some narcissistic southern baptist thinks he got their aunt a favorable mortgage rate.

Bane
06-30-2013, 07:52 PM
>>It's not Christianity's. It's not God's<<

It most certainly is God's for HE was the One who said it was an abomination and detestable to BEGIN with. I suggest YOU read the Bible.

I did, and it is not clearly stated regardless. The Bible does mention, however, that if you are not married, you should not seek marriage again, and that if you haven't yet been married, that you should not. This is New Testament, as many Christians like to fall back on the, "THAT'S OLD TESTAMENT! IT DOESN'T COUNT!" argument.

Marriage, again, was around before Christianity. It was adopted by Christians, and at the time had permitted same sex unions, after it had been around for a couple thousand years. It's one of many things organized religion has taken and twisted for the sake of control.

You don't even want to get married, so why do you give a damn? Just like meddling in others' lives, huh?

Atlanta Dan
06-30-2013, 08:01 PM
>>It's not Christianity's. It's not God's<<

It most certainly is God's for HE was the One who said it was an abomination and detestable to BEGIN with. I suggest YOU read the Bible.

So based on these rules of the road from Exodus 21 God supports slavery?:noidea:

“These are the laws you are to set before them:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money....

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

SteelCityMom
06-30-2013, 08:32 PM
>>It's not Christianity's. It's not God's<<

It most certainly is God's for HE was the One who said it was an abomination and detestable to BEGIN with. I suggest YOU read the Bible.


Haven't we been over this already? Aren't you the one that told me the laws from the OT were the old laws and not applicable anymore? You know, laws that deal with mixed fabrics, shellfish, rapist marriage, child stoning...things of that nature.

Why are you still touting ONE verse from the OT as God's law, but ignoring the rest?

Why are you ignoring the US Constitution?

Will you PLEASE answer these questions, just once, instead of constantly deflecting and resorting to using your own personal opinion as the basis for your argument (because if you were truly interested in God's laws, you would be for the things I mentioned above).

Atlanta Dan
06-30-2013, 09:30 PM
Haven't we been over this already? Aren't you the one that told me the laws from the OT were the old laws and not applicable anymore? You know, laws that deal with mixed fabrics, shellfish, rapist marriage, child stoning...things of that nature.

Why are you still touting ONE verse from the OT as God's law, but ignoring the rest?

Why are you ignoring the US Constitution?

Will you PLEASE answer these questions, just once, instead of constantly deflecting and resorting to using your own personal opinion as the basis for your argument (because if you were truly interested in God's laws, you would be for the things I mentioned above).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNGzaeLJrNU

Vis
06-30-2013, 09:35 PM
Leave her Bible quoting alone. This is her only prejudice she can crow about proudly. Onward Christian soldiers and all that. The other ones need hushed voices an apologies for offending. (Not for the content just for the offense others took)

MasterOfPuppets
06-30-2013, 10:19 PM
>>It's not Christianity's. It's not God's<<

It most certainly is God's for HE was the One who said it was an abomination and detestable to BEGIN with. I suggest YOU read the Bible.
cap, perhaps YOU should read the bible and pay special attention to the numerous verses where "god" says its his job to pass judgement not mans.
are you afraid that gayness is contagious ? is other peoples personal lives some how going to reflect on you when you stand before the pearly gates ?

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 05:35 AM
won't somebody please think of the children

they are - children are next on the radical homosexualist's agenda - pedophilia is next to be "legitimized"

who do you think the 17 y/o homosexuals will be recruiting now? that's right - your 10-12 y/o children will be their targets


Homosexual marriage: NAMBLA (National Man-Boy Love Association)

Once homosexuality is accepted as normative, pedophiles will seek the same treatment, and indeed that it was already happening.

The belief that there is a close tie between homosexuality and pedophilia is not ill-founded.

Someone forwarded to our attention an article concerning an organization of homosexuals in Massachusetts who, in response to a sensational child molestation case involving homosexuals in the Boston area, defended the pedophiles, claiming that sex between adults and adolescents was, and should be regarded as, normal.

The argument asserts that adolescents should not be treated as children, and that many homosexual boys seek and seduce older homosexual men; further, that large numbers of homosexual men were introduced to sexual relations that way.

They seek an adjustment to the age of consent, tentatively suggesting fourteen (in a way that makes it sound as if they'd be happier with twelve). They seem to think that fourteen year olds "just need sex all the time", and thus that adult men ought to be able to provide it for them.

http://www.examiner.com/article/homosexual-marriage-nambla

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 05:40 AM
Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Ruling: "Nuclear family not the majority anymore"

The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.

Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, “Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.”

key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.

“If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it,” Wilde reasoned. “They might say, you have to make so much money, you can’t have any more than four like it says in the Koran.” ....it seems like if more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would follow that polygamist marriage wouldn’t be criticized quite so much.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygamists-celebrate-supreme-courts-marriage-rulings

Vis
07-01-2013, 05:41 AM
they are - children are next on the radical homosexualist's agenda - pedophilia is next to be "legitimized"

who do you think the 17 y/o homosexuals will be recruiting now? that's right - your 10-12 y/o children will be their targets


Homosexual marriage: NAMBLA (National Man-Boy Love Association)

Once homosexuality is accepted as normative, pedophiles will seek the same treatment, and indeed that it was already happening.

The belief that there is a close tie between homosexuality and pedophilia is not ill-founded.

Someone forwarded to our attention an article concerning an organization of homosexuals in Massachusetts who, in response to a sensational child molestation case involving homosexuals in the Boston area, defended the pedophiles, claiming that sex between adults and adolescents was, and should be regarded as, normal.

The argument asserts that adolescents should not be treated as children, and that many homosexual boys seek and seduce older homosexual men; further, that large numbers of homosexual men were introduced to sexual relations that way.

They seek an adjustment to the age of consent, tentatively suggesting fourteen (in a way that makes it sound as if they'd be happier with twelve). They seem to think that fourteen year olds "just need sex all the time", and thus that adult men ought to be able to provide it for them.

http://www.examiner.com/article/homosexual-marriage-nambla

The states set the age of consent and the age of marriage. They should set it at the same age as any other contract. That would stop the stupidity of this type of post. I expect the marriage to animals next killer, you hit all the cliches.

Vis
07-01-2013, 05:46 AM
Kansas

The minimum age to get married is 15 in Kansas. This legislation can be waived only by a district court judge who thinks that getting married at such a young age would be in that individual's best interest.

See, this is just as bad for hetero couples as gays. Killier doesn't need NAMBLA to marry a little girl, he can do that now. Won't someone stop him, he's a slippery slope.

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 05:56 AM
why do you hate the Mormons?

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh59/pociuscindy/1002385_584691858220391_770182427_n.jpg

Vis
07-01-2013, 06:01 AM
why do you hate the Mormons?

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh59/pociuscindy/1002385_584691858220391_770182427_n.jpg

Because it's a total con job. Joseph Smith is the most successful con artist in the history of the world and everybody who believes anything he ever said is merely his patsy

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 06:09 AM
Because of the total con job Joseph Smith is the most successful con artist in the history of the world and everybody who believes anything he ever said is merely his patsy

so you DO hate Mormons....

they do get extra wives you know

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/26/15/enhanced-buzz-3075-1372275826-28.jpg

Vis
07-01-2013, 06:13 AM
so you DO hate Mormons....

they do get extra wives you know

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/26/15/enhanced-buzz-3075-1372275826-28.jpg

The biggest problem with that polygamy argument is that it isn't non-traditional. Polygamy is the most common Biblical marriage. It has existed as long as the idea of marriage has existed, marriage traditionally being a property arrangement. So has marrying children.

Equal partnership of 2 consenting adults is non-traditional and modern.

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 06:48 AM
Equal partnership of 2 consenting adults is non-traditional and modern.

So you're saying incest is best?

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 07:12 AM
God hasn't spoken on the subject, he's too busy ignoring the parents of kids with bone cancer and making sure some narcissistic southern baptist thinks he got their aunt a favorable mortgage rate.

Preach it Vis! - let all your hate flow

oh wait - maybe that should be Pastor Vis



ha ha - It's a Sign!!



Inching Towards Becoming A Full Blown Religion, Atheists Create Their Religious Symbol

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1219416/thumbs/s-ATHEIST-MONUMENT-large300.jpg

STARKE, Fla. — A group of atheists unveiled a monument to their nonbelief in God on Saturday to sit alongside a granite slab that lists the Ten Commandments in front of the Bradford County courthouse.

"When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/atheists-monument_n_3523762.html

Vis
07-01-2013, 07:23 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-27-2013/america-comes-out-of-the-closet---republican-reactions

Vis
07-01-2013, 07:27 AM
So you're saying incest is best?

No, I didn't know those 4 were also your sisters. (Or 3 if that's actually you in the periwinkle)

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 07:38 AM
So proud DeMint is from my town.

well, he IS against abortion, I applaud him for that


http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Jim_DeMint_Abortion.htm

Jim DeMint on Abortion:

Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment.

Prohibit federal funding for abortion.

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Voted No taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood; protect the unborn

Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.




Jim DeMint: Women want to be forced to have ultrasounds

“The more the ultrasounds have become part of the law, where a woman gets the opportunity to see that there’s a real child, it’s beginning to change minds, and I think that’s a good thing,” DeMint said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“It’s time that the 3,000 babies we lose every day have some people speaking up for them.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/jim-demint-women-want-to-be-forced-to-have-ultrasounds/

teegre
07-01-2013, 07:41 AM
Haven't we been over this already? Aren't you the one that told me the laws from the OT were the old laws and not applicable anymore? You know, laws that deal with mixed fabrics, shellfish, rapist marriage, child stoning...things of that nature.

Why are you still touting ONE verse from the OT as God's law, but ignoring the rest?

Why are you ignoring the US Constitution?

Will you PLEASE answer these questions, just once, instead of constantly deflecting and resorting to using your own personal opinion as the basis for your argument (because if you were truly interested in God's laws, you would be for the things I mentioned above).

She never answers questions. I've asked her numerous times... to no avail.

She's sort of like Quackjack: neither person really adds anything to the discussion, except for a broad-sweeping generalization rife with anger... and caps.

Guess which post is from which person:

"Homosexuals are EVIL!!!"

"Christians are EVIL!!!"

Vis
07-01-2013, 07:43 AM
She never answers questions. I've asked her numerous times... to no avail.

She's sort of like Quackjack: neither prrson really adds anything to the discussion, except for a broad-sweeping generalization rife with anger... and caps.

Guess which post is from which person:

"Homosexuals are EVIL!!!"

"Christians are EVIL!!!"

Lets have fun with the associative property

JonM229
07-01-2013, 07:43 AM
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Wouldn't a great way to reduce abortions be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? Abstinence-only education has been proven not to work.

teegre
07-01-2013, 07:45 AM
hate + (post + caps) = (hate + post) + caps

Vis
07-01-2013, 07:46 AM
hate + (post + caps) = (hate + post) + caps

That's all caps

(edit - i deserve the hiss button)

caplovestroyp43
07-01-2013, 08:58 AM
well, he IS against abortion, I applaud him for that


http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Jim_DeMint_Abortion.htm

Jim DeMint on Abortion:

Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment.

Prohibit federal funding for abortion.

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Voted No taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood; protect the unborn

Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.




Jim DeMint: Women want to be forced to have ultrasounds

“The more the ultrasounds have become part of the law, where a woman gets the opportunity to see that there’s a real child, it’s beginning to change minds, and I think that’s a good thing,” DeMint said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“It’s time that the 3,000 babies we lose every day have some people speaking up for them.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/jim-demint-women-want-to-be-forced-to-have-ultrasounds/

Yet we have a jackass president who says "God bless you for the work you do" to Planned Parenthood. Blasphamy because he doesn't even believe in God according to what I have seen. Abortion is cold blooded murder. Period.

teegre
07-01-2013, 09:18 AM
Yet we have a jackass president who says "God bless you for the work you do" to Planned Parenthood. Blasphamy because he doesn't even believe in God according to what I have seen. Abortion is cold blooded murder. Period.

You forgot your obligatory "all CAPS."

JonM229
07-01-2013, 09:18 AM
Yet we have a jackass president who says "God bless you for the work you do" to Planned Parenthood. Blasphamy because he doesn't even believe in God according to what I have seen. Abortion is cold blooded murder. Period.

Planned Parenthood provides many other services. How do you view increased access to contraception? What about providing preventative care for low-income women such as mammograms?

teegre
07-01-2013, 09:23 AM
Planned Parenthood provides many other services. How do you view increased access to contraception? What about providing preventative care for low-income women such as mammograms?

I knew a man, who smoked. He altruistically gave to charities, and volunteered his time to help rebuild homes of flood, earthquake, & hurricane victims. He also started a program, to get inner-city children off of the streets, and into organized sports.

But, again, he smoked.

What an a$$hole.

JonM229
07-01-2013, 09:25 AM
All smokers shall burn in hell.

It's been written (just now) so it must be true.

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2013, 09:27 AM
[H]e doesn't even believe in God according to what I have seen.

As requested previously, when you claim something is based on a source and not just your personal opinion, it would be helpful to respond to your statement if you could provide a link to that source of information.

Where have you "seen" that Obama does not believe in God?:noidea:

JonM229
07-01-2013, 09:29 AM
Where have you "seen" that Obama does not believe in God?:noidea:

He said "God bless Planned Parenthood" which God would never do. Therefore, Obama must believe in Allah, praise be unto Him.

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2013, 09:35 AM
why do you hate the Mormons?

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh59/pociuscindy/1002385_584691858220391_770182427_n.jpg

Official Mormon position apparently is that God does not support polygamy except when he does

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”...

At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1). At other times the Lord has given other instructions. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord told the prophet Jacob “for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife: and concubines he shall have none... for if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (Jacob 2:27-30).

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage

The Lord’s law of marriage is monogamy unless he commands otherwise to help establish the House of Israel

http://mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy

No word yet on whether a revelation may be forthcoming with regard to same sex marriage

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2013, 09:36 AM
He said "God bless Planned Parenthood" which God would never do. Therefore, Obama must believe in Allah, praise be unto Him.

So it is your personal opinion and what you have "seen" with regard to Obama not believing in God is one of your visions. Got it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4beP5nKtruo

SteelCityMom
07-01-2013, 09:40 AM
Wouldn't a great way to reduce abortions be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? Abstinence-only education has been proven not to work.

Best way to reduce abortions and teen pregnancy would be my first initiative as supreme leader.

That would be mandatory vasectomies for all males until they are financially able to support a family.

I'm completely libertarian...unless it involves your balls. :heh:

JonM229
07-01-2013, 09:46 AM
Best way to reduce abortions and teen pregnancy would be my first initiative as supreme leader.

That would be mandatory vasectomies for all males until they are financially able to support a family.

I'm completely libertarian...unless it involves your balls. :heh:

Why is it that the conversation on this issue has been dominated by men in Washington? Until the movie Junior becomes a reality, leave this discussion to the womenfolk.

SteelCityMom
07-01-2013, 09:46 AM
It's too bad the men who govern our nation would never go for an initiative like that though. It would be way too intrusive on their bodies is what I'm supposing. Go figure. Hypocrites.

JonM229
07-01-2013, 09:48 AM
Mom for President!

Vis
07-01-2013, 10:34 AM
It's not that men are hypocrites, we just don't want women having sex for pleasure unless it's with me and then get there quickly, my jaw is cramping.

Bane
07-01-2013, 10:47 AM
As requested previously, when you claim something is based on a source and not just your personal opinion, it would be helpful to respond to your statement if you could provide a link to that source of information.

Where have you "seen" that Obama does not believe in God?:noidea:

Better question, if he doesn't believe in God, who cares? This country is not a Christian one inherently, and was not founded by Christians. Hell, it was founded by people who advocated the questioning of God's existence, even as devout Christians.

Christian or not, I want a good leader, and one whose religion does not affect or guide his leadership, especially considering that, according to the Constitution, that's really illegal.

Vis
07-01-2013, 10:49 AM
Better question, if he doesn't believe in God, who cares? This country is not a Christian one inherently, and was not founded by Christians. Hell, it was founded by people who advocated the questioning of God's existence, even as devout Christians.

Christian or not, I want a good leader, and one whose religion does not affect or guide his leadership, especially considering that, according to the Constitution, that's really illegal.

I would care. i would love to think this country would elect an atheist. I don't think it would, yet.

Bane
07-01-2013, 11:05 AM
I can't wait to see a gay, married, pot smoking president from Washington. :chuckle:

OH, THE HILARITY.

Vis
07-01-2013, 11:10 AM
I can't wait to see a gay, married, pot smoking president from Washington. :chuckle:

OH, THE HILARITY.

HILARITY FOR PRESIDENT - 2016

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2013, 11:23 AM
another slap in the face to the godless heathens in the new world led by the anti-Christ

Russia passes anti-gay-law

Vladimir Putin signs bill that means people disseminating 'propaganda' about homosexual relationships to minors risk fines

Hefty fines can now be imposed on those who provide information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors or hold gay pride rallies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/russia-passes-anti-gay-law

So between signing that bill and this statement it looks like Putin is laying the foundation for a run at the 2016 GOP nomination

President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that Russia would not hand former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden over to the United States but that if Snowden wants to stay in Russia he "must stop his work aimed at harming our American partners".

http://www.trust.org/item/20130701150912-32vwb/?source%20=%20hpbreaking

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 02:17 PM
Russia doesn't want it's children adopted by gay couples in America, I can understand that



Gay couple sexually abused adopted Russian boy for years

An American pedophile has been convicted to 40 years in prison for years of sexual abuse of adopted Russian boy. His boyfriend from New Zealand who assisted in meticulously recording acts of sexual offence is going on trial at home.

Two members of the pedophile porn exchange ring Boy Lovers network, Mark J. Newton, 42 and his long-term partner Peter Truong, 36, were busted in 2011 on suspicion that they were sexually molesting their son, born to Russian mother in 2005.

“Russian orphans always attracted foreign perverts because of accessibility. The foreigners were simply coming and taking children for money,” Russian Ombudsman for Children’s Rights Pavel Astakhov .

http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/

SteelCityMom
07-01-2013, 02:52 PM
:blah::blah::blah:

I wonder how many adopted Russian children were molested by straight couples.

Keep digging the hole deeper...

What will this link tell you? It takes all kinds... and that the Nason's were truly scary people.

http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/20817

JonM229
07-01-2013, 02:55 PM
Russia doesn't want it's children adopted by gay couples in America, I can understand that

Why?

Kids With Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html)

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls," says Gartrell. "I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."

In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.

MasterOfPuppets
07-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Best way to reduce abortions and teen pregnancy would be my first initiative as supreme leader.

That would be mandatory vasectomies for all males until they are financially able to support a family.

I'm completely libertarian...unless it involves your balls. :heh:
http://tubegator.com/content/uploads/hillary_testicle_lockbox.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
07-01-2013, 03:07 PM
HILARITY FOR PRESIDENT - 2016
http://digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/8/i/2/3/5/o/hillaryclinton.jpg

Vis
07-01-2013, 03:17 PM
http://tubegator.com/content/uploads/hillary_testicle_lockbox.jpg

You need a bigger box

MasterOfPuppets
07-01-2013, 03:27 PM
You need a bigger box
its full of cold water.

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 03:29 PM
Keep digging the hole deeper...

there's no hole - I'm just reporting the facts ma'am


looks like Africans reject Obama's homosexual agenda too


Obama clashes with African host over gay rights

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage as a “victory for American democracy” but clashed with his African host over gay rights in a sign of how far the movement has to go internationally.

Senegalese President Macky Sall rebuffed Obama’s call for Africans to give gays equal rights under the law.

“We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality,” Sall said, while insisting that the country is “very tolerant” and needs more time to digest the issue without pressure. “This does not mean we are homophobic.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clashes-african-host-over-gay-rights-134627018.html

JonM229
07-01-2013, 03:37 PM
looks like Africans reject Obama's homosexual agenda too

To Obama's credit, Africans don't really get how homosexuality works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 03:47 PM
To Obama's credit, Africans don't really get how homosexuality works

de-poo-poo?

Bwahahahaha!

hilarious - you Ravens fans can be pretty funny sometimes

karma

MasterOfPuppets
07-01-2013, 03:55 PM
"the human right , to eat the poo poo..." :sofunny:

SteelCityMom
07-01-2013, 03:59 PM
there's no hole - I'm just reporting the facts ma'am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk


I think the words you're looking for are hypocritical bullshit. Because that's what it is if Russia is only worried about gay couples molesting adopted Russian children.

But keep reporting on the "gay agenda" if it makes you feel any better...everyone else sees right through it.

JonM229
07-01-2013, 04:02 PM
http://fafathinks.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/song-chart-memes-gay-agenda.jpg

Buddha Bus
07-01-2013, 04:08 PM
I can't wait to see a gay, married, pot smoking president from Washington. :chuckle:

OH, THE HILARITY.


It's "gay, married, pot smoking, dog fucker, Atheist, abortionist president". :wink02:

MasterOfPuppets
07-01-2013, 04:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6eIOAnkAXjc#t=65s

SteelCityMom
07-01-2013, 04:13 PM
Yeah...to be quite honest, posting about how African nations and Russia are rejecting the "gay agenda" is actually just strengthening the argument for gay marriage...not hurting it, so I guess thanks for that Killer.

Buddha Bus
07-01-2013, 04:20 PM
Yeah...to be quite honest, posting about how African nations and Russia are rejecting the "gay agenda" is actually just strengthening the argument for gay marriage...not hurting it, so I guess thanks for that Killer.

Shouldn't we be killing the Russians right now? I mean, they were American-hating enemies of ours at one time in history. We should really be preemptively bombing them, the Japanese, and the Germans right about now. Maybe do a drive-by musket shooting through Great Britain on the way back just to let those uppity bastards know we haven't forgotten that whole "Revolutionary War" thing. :wink02:

Bane
07-01-2013, 04:21 PM
It's "gay, married, pot smoking, dog fucker, Atheist, abortionist president". :wink02:

:toofunny:

My girlfriend added, "Antichrist, you forgot about that."

SteelCityMom
07-01-2013, 04:22 PM
Shouldn't we be killing the Russians right now? I mean, they were American-hating enemies of ours at one time in history. We should really be preemptively bombing them, the Japanese, and the Germans right about now. Maybe do a drive-by musket shooting through Great Britain on the way back just to let those uppity bastards know we haven't forgotten that whole "Revolutionary War" thing. :wink02:

Screw that...I want those cheese eating Frenchies next. They've had it coming for a long time.

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 04:25 PM
Yeah...to be quite honest, posting about how African nations and Russia are rejecting the "gay agenda" is actually just strengthening the argument for gay marriage...not hurting it, so I guess thanks for that Killer.

oh yeah - Moscow now speaks for American values - that's how fucked up this country is

Bane
07-01-2013, 04:40 PM
oh yeah - Moscow now speaks for American values - that's how fucked up this country is

Don't worry, your posts have perfectly exemplified how awful a handful of Americans' values really are just fine. You didn't need Moscow's help.

Buddha Bus
07-01-2013, 04:45 PM
Don't worry, your posts have perfectly exemplified how awful a handful of Americans' values really are just fine. You didn't need Moscow's help.

MOO!!!

Vis
07-01-2013, 05:00 PM
there's no hole - I'm just reporting the facts ma'am


looks like Africans reject Obama's homosexual agenda too


Obama clashes with African host over gay rights

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage as a “victory for American democracy” but clashed with his African host over gay rights in a sign of how far the movement has to go internationally.

Senegalese President Macky Sall rebuffed Obama’s call for Africans to give gays equal rights under the law.

“We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality,” Sall said, while insisting that the country is “very tolerant” and needs more time to digest the issue without pressure. “This does not mean we are homophobic.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clashes-african-host-over-gay-rights-134627018.html

Good, call bigots on it wherever you find them.

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 05:05 PM
http://digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/8/i/2/3/5/o/hillaryclinton.jpg

I'm voting for her!



I'd love to see Slick Willy back sneaking around the interns in the white house - what fun that will be!

Fire Haley
07-01-2013, 05:50 PM
You didn't need Moscow's help.

hahaha - not when I have the Africans

It seems the whole world hates Obama - except for maybe his gulag apologists here


Anti-Obama protests dispersed by South Africa police

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/06/29/1372516181000-AFP-520992102-1306291030_4_3_rx404_c534x401.jpg?87cc7ae5b5e3d133 be9f113f907a13faa9f8741e
South African police fire rubber bullets at protesters rallying against President Obama's visit to South Africa

South Africa's biggest trade union, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) also said they would be protesting, while the Muslim Lawyers Association called for the president's arrest for war crimes.

"He's here for our African resources," said Nomagugu Hloma, 19, a student at what she called the "sell out" university. "Hands off our gold, oil, diamonds and land," she said.

"I feel my rights are being infringed," said 24-year-old Bilaal Qibr, who was at the protest. "We can't protest anymore. Personally, I feel like this is an extension of the U.S."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/29/obama-south-africa/2475133/

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

Hope & change!

teegre
07-01-2013, 06:16 PM
Yeah...to be quite honest, posting about how African nations and Russia are rejecting the "gay agenda" is actually just strengthening the argument for gay marriage...not hurting it, so I guess thanks for that Killer.

Yep.
A continent that currently still has genocide going on... probably not the continent to idolize.

Likewise, is he really advocating to be more like the USSR... uh, okay. :noidea:

What's next, people here will want their bridges built by Haitian architects!?!
(Too soon?)

teegre
07-01-2013, 06:22 PM
MOO!!!

I am in no moood for these shenanigans, duuude. It woould behooove yoou to uuuse a newww style that is more conduuucive to conveying truuuth to other uuusers.

Vis
07-01-2013, 07:35 PM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-130701-gay-marriage-da-03.photoblog900.jpg

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2013, 09:18 PM
I would care. i would love to think this country would elect an atheist. I don't think it would, yet.

A majority claimed in 2012 they might vote for an atheist

The Gallup poll reports that a majority of Americans would vote for an atheist for president.

The latest survey, from June, found that 54 percent of those asked said they would vote a "well- qualified" atheist into the Oval Office— the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1958, when only 18 percent said they would back a nonbeliever.

On the other hand, the survey showed that those who do not believe in God still come in behind every other group polled for, including gays and lesbians (68 percent) and Muslims (58 percent).

Still, an imaginary atheist candidate passed the 50 percent threshold for the first time when Gallup asked the question in August 2011, so the trend is upward.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-26/athiest-poll-president/56516466/1

No surprise Dems are more likely to consider voting for a non-believer

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ztel74zvk0cdjg1u0r6org.gif

But the divide actually skews more according to age than political affiliation

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iojka3y8vkqmjmkd9l1row.gif

So over time I would guess the chances of an uncloseted atheist being elected will, as with other potential non-white Christian male candidates, become ever more acceptable

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/7h2m-noudeoqryyw7jv9mw.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential-Candidates.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

Of course we may already have elected an atheist President:coffee:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” -(Matthew 7:15)...

President Obama is an atheist and should come clean about it. He’s worn the costume of Christianity but his words and his actions tell us who he really is. What may be in his bible may not be in his heart. At the very least he’s a carnal Christian hypocrite, at worst he’s an atheist using the Gospel and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ for his own political gain; which is far worse that being an outright God denier.

http://www.redstate.com/tomjeffersonsghost/2013/01/22/americas-first-atheist-president/

Vis
07-02-2013, 05:01 AM
We most assuredly have elected atheist presidents, probably many, they just couldn't be open about it. Reason once was respected above all else. Now you get science deniers and young earthers as America falls behind other countries. We no longer strive as a nation to accomplish wonderous things.

I heard an interesting criticism of the immigration bill. It doesn't allow enough scientists and engineers from Asia for high tech industry. That's needed because our kids aren't going into those fields and most who do are far behind students in other countries. Why? Because science doesn't get respect. We have hordes of people who don't believe in evolution or global warming or even in physics. No other modern country is handicapped with this idiocy born of religion, even where the populations claim some sort of faith.

JonM229
07-02-2013, 07:24 AM
If I remember correctly, John Quincy Adams was sworn in using a stack of law books instead of a Bible

Atlanta Dan
07-02-2013, 07:42 AM
If I remember correctly, John Quincy Adams was sworn in using a stack of law books instead of a Bible

Although he was a devout Christian, John Quincy Adams took his presidential oath upon a "Volume of Laws" because, he wrote in a March 1825 diary entry, it was the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend.

But Adams is the exception.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/18/nation/na-inaug-religion18

That definitely would have hurt his poll numbers if there were polls back then

Vis
07-02-2013, 07:51 AM
Although he was a devout Christian, John Quincy Adams took his presidential oath upon a "Volume of Laws" because, he wrote in a March 1825 diary entry, it was the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend.

But Adams is the exception.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/18/nation/na-inaug-religion18

That definitely would have hurt his poll numbers if there were polls back then

He and daddy came from puritan stock.

JonM229
07-02-2013, 08:15 AM
Maybe not so puritan after all:

Presidential Controversies (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/11/presidential-controversies/)

In the case of John Quincy Adams....Adams was fond of swimming nude in the Potomac River. Respectable Washingtonians disapproved, but Adams kept bathing au naturel even after someone once stole his clothes as he swam, and even after a reporter cornered him in the river and refused to let him dress until Adams had given her an exclusive interview.

Vis
07-07-2013, 11:53 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Supreme Court struck down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice Anthony Kennedy took pains in his majority opinion to say the ruling applied only to legally married same-sex couples seeking benefits from the federal government.

But judges and lawyers representing same-sex couples are already using Kennedy's language and reasoning in other cases about the right to marry.

It's a predictable next step in a long-term, incremental legal strategy that is being used at both the state and federal levels, and in state legislatures and executive mansions as well as the courts, to build public and official acceptance of gay marriage. Much the same approach was used decades ago by civil rights lawyers fighting state-sanctioned discrimination; one decision becomes a steppingstone to the next.

In the fight over gay marriage, Kennedy's words also figured in an earlier example. He insisted in June 2003 that his opinion overturning state sodomy laws had nothing to do with governments' recognition of same-sex marriage. Five months later, language from his opinion showed up in the second paragraph of a state court ruling that made Massachusetts the first state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.


In the June 26 decision in U.S. v. Windsor, Kennedy said the provision denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples relegates those marriages to second-class status, and "it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples."

He framed his argument with reference to states' "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation."

But it doesn't take too much creativity to reframe his opinion to challenge state bans on same-sex marriage, said Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

"It's stigmatizing and it's harmful to people and particularly harmful to children when their parents' relationship is treated as inferior by the government. Those points are points we will be making in all of our marriage cases," Davidson said.

Davidson's group is relying on the invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act provision in a state lawsuit to force New Jersey to allow same-sex couples to wed. In that case, the new argument is that the New Jersey Constitution does not allow the state to essentially keep same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits by prohibiting them from marrying.

Like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, other state court rulings in favor of gay marriage have relied on provisions of their state constitutions. That has not happened by accident. The litigation plan had been to pursue marriage in liberal states, based on state constitutions, and generally avoid federal courts where judges appointed by conservative Republican presidents had, until recently, been in the majority.

Federal courts in California are so far the only ones that have said that a state same-sex marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court did not decide that issue one way or the other in its gay marriage rulings, and instead relied on a technical legal argument to resolve the California case and clear the way for same-sex marriage in the state, which resumed at the end of June.

Same-sex marriage is legal, or soon will be, in 13 states and the District of Columbia, representing about 30% of the U.S. population. The states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

But now federal challenges are popping up as well, in Nevada, Hawaii and Michigan, among other states.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which struck down the California prohibition on same-sex marriage, will consider the Hawaii and Nevada bans together, but that case is in its early stages.

In Michigan, a federal judge prominently cited the Windsor decision in allowing a challenge to the state's marriage ban and its prohibition on same-sex couples jointly adopting children to go forward.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, quoted Kennedy in concluding that "plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court and they shall have it."

A separate case in Michigan also "might cast a large shadow over a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman wrote on scotusblog.com.


In this March 6, 2013 file photo Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks in Sacramento, Calif.(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, AP)
In that dispute, public employees are challenging a Michigan law that cuts off domestic partner benefits for unmarried couples.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson, appointed by President Bill Clinton, partly relied on the recent Supreme Court case in saying, "It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose, indeed, perhaps the sole purpose, of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose." Lawson blocked the law for now, pending a trial.

When civil rights lawyers began their decadeslong quest to end official discrimination against black Americans, they pursued cases in state and federal courts that typically stopped short of the ultimate goal of overturning the Supreme Court decree in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that "separate but equal" treatment of the races was permitted by the Constitution.

In a series of cases, the court chipped away at discrimination in higher education, including its 1950 decision in Sweatt v. Painter that said the University of Texas had to admit a black student to its law school because the one it created for black students did not offer an equivalent education. But even in June 1950, the court refused to re-examine the Plessy case.

Four more years elapsed before the court issued its seminal ruling in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing discrimination in public schools.

The prominent odd-couple lawyers who brought the California case to the Supreme Court, Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies, hoped the court would in one fell swoop get rid of 30 state constitutional bans on gay marriage and a few state statutes and declare that the right to marry cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.

They failed to win that big victory, although their clients got married two days after the court decision.

For a time, Olson and Boies were at odds with many gay rights advocates who feared that asking the court to rule too broadly too soon could backfire. It turned out that the California case helped focus attention on gay marriage and perhaps sped up the shift in public opinion that now shows a majority in favor of same-sex marriage in most polls.

The different approaches have sometimes coexisted uneasily. That, too, is reminiscent of the civil rights movement, said Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet, who has written about the legal strategy of civil rights lawyers. "There were lawsuits that the NAACP didn't want because they were seen as sure losers, but local lawyers went ahead and brought them anyway. They weren't part of the plan," Tushnet said.

Ten years ago, 13 states still had laws against sodomy when the court said that states have no right to intrude on the private, personal conduct of people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Interracial marriage still was illegal in 16 states in 1967 before the high court outlawed race-based state marriage bans.

In 1954, when the court issued its landmark Brown decision, 17 states had formally segregated school systems.

No one is sure what the magic number needs to be for the court to set a nationwide rule. Tushnet predicts that when roughly 40 states allow same-sex marriage, "it is going to seem all right to tell Mississippi that it has to recognize gay marriage."

Justice Antonin Scalia, a dissenter in 2003 and again this year, saw the seeds of same-sex marriage in the court's 2003 decision and he saw them again in the Windsor case, despite Kennedy's insistence that the opinion was limited.

"How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status," Scalia said.

Vis
07-07-2013, 11:55 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

Poll: Support for gay marriage hits high after ruling

Among the findings:

• By an unprecedented 55%-40%, Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights of traditional marriage. That's the highest level of support since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. Then, fewer than half that number, 27%, backed the idea.

Last year was the first time a majority of Americans had backed gay marriage.

The only major demographic groups in which a majority oppose same-sex marriage are Republicans (68%) and seniors 65 and older (51%). Even in the South, which continues to be the only region that doesn't show majority support for gay marriage, opposition has slipped below 50%.

• By a narrower margin, 48%-43%, those surveyed favor the Supreme Court's decision declaring unconstitutional part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex spouses. Views on the issue are intense. Those who feel strongly about the issue split 29%-29% in favor and against the ruling.

fansince'76
07-07-2013, 02:00 PM
We most assuredly have elected atheist presidents, probably many, they just couldn't be open about it. Reason once was respected above all else. Now you get science deniers and young earthers as America falls behind other countries. We no longer strive as a nation to accomplish wonderous things.

I heard an interesting criticism of the immigration bill. It doesn't allow enough scientists and engineers from Asia for high tech industry. That's needed because our kids aren't going into those fields and most who do are far behind students in other countries. Why? Because science doesn't get respect. We have hordes of people who don't believe in evolution or global warming or even in physics. No other modern country is handicapped with this idiocy born of religion, even where the populations claim some sort of faith.

Yes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the persistent mollycoddling or the pervasive "everyone is a winner and everybody gets a trophy and a pizza party for participation" mindset and the rampant entitlement mentality that American kids are now largely being raised with. It also has nothing to do with a dismally failing school system where kids are being "taught" solely to a standardized test and where teachers are literally in danger of being fired for failing a kid who deserves it when their parents pitch a loud enough bitch about it while the ones who can't teach worth a lick are retained in perpetuity thanks to their all-powerful union. Not at all. It's all the fault of religion.

What a cop out.

Vis
07-07-2013, 02:14 PM
Yes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the persistent mollycoddling or the pervasive "everyone is a winner and everybody gets a trophy and a pizza party for participation" mindset and the rampant entitlement mentality that American kids are now largely being raised with. It also has nothing to do with a dismally failing school system where kids are being "taught" solely to a standardized test and where teachers are literally in danger of being fired for failing a kid who deserves it when their parents pitch a loud enough bitch about it while the ones who can't teach worth a lick are retained in perpetuity thanks to their all-powerful union. Not at all. It's all the fault of religion.

What a cop out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.

Another practice that isn't science is embracing ignorance. Yet it's fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don't know what this is.... So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.

“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.' - Neil deGrasse Tyson, New York, Dec. 19, 2006. "Letter to the Editor" New York Times published December 21, 2006 in the Read section”

SteelCityMom
07-07-2013, 02:17 PM
Yes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the persistent mollycoddling or the pervasive "everyone is a winner and everybody gets a trophy and a pizza party for participation" mindset and the rampant entitlement mentality that American kids are now largely being raised with. It also has nothing to do with a dismally failing school system where kids are being "taught" solely to a standardized test and where teachers are literally in danger of being fired for failing a kid who deserves it when their parents pitch a loud enough bitch about it while the ones who can't teach worth a lick are retained in perpetuity thanks to their all-powerful union. Not at all. It's all the fault of religion.

What a cop out.

Both are valid reasons. Just yesterday I was involved in a thread on a libertarian board (of all places...it made me a little ashamed), about the science behind evolution. You wouldn't believe the number of people who think Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory and at least 10 people directly quoted Walter Veith (scientist turned guru for creationism and Seventh Day Adventism).

But you make a very good point yourself. It doesn't help that our schools are basically some of the worst (if not the worst) in industrialized society.

JonM229
07-07-2013, 02:21 PM
But you make a very good point yourself. It doesn't help that our schools are basically some of the worst (if not the worst) in industrialized society.

It most likely has something to do with the fact that there's no money for schools since an extremely large portion goes to the Defense budget. Just think about how much money there'd be if we spent only as much as the next country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/204c21cc52b7386a825bd07dc6ee7577.png

It's only about $500 billion. Good to see we have our priorities in order.

Vis
07-07-2013, 02:23 PM
It most likely has something to do with the fact that there's no money for schools since an extremely large portion goes to the Defense budget. Just think about how much money there'd be if we spent only as much as the next country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/204c21cc52b7386a825bd07dc6ee7577.png

It's only about $500 billion. Good to see we have our priorities in order.

Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense.


- one of my favorite Sorkin quotes

fansince'76
07-07-2013, 02:32 PM
I still think the larger problem is that catering to the lowest common denominator has become the norm for all education.

Schoolbook Simplification and Its Relation to the Decline in SAT-Verbal Scores

That is exactly what is reported in one of education's most widely respected journals.

Writing in the American Educational Research Journal, Cornell University researchers D. P. Hayes, L. T. Wolfer, and M. F. Wolfe show that not only are reading levels lower but that a well-intentioned schoolbook simplification of the late 1940s may have created the broad-based educational decline that the education standards movement has been trying to reverse for over a decade.

Between 1963 and 1979, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores dropped abruptly and unexpectedly. The SAT was and is America's best-known college entrance exam and declining scores indicated that students were increasingly less well prepared for college. It was the single most visible indicator that something was wrong in America's schools. Suspected causes included everything from family birth order to weak discipline, poor nutrition, excessive television, and even lead poisoning. An increase in the number of disadvantaged students going to college became the most popular explanation among educators. In truth, it now seems likely that the problem was self-inflicted.

Using a computer-based assessment of elementary school reading books, Hayes, Wolfer, and Wolfe show that SAT-Verbal scores began to decline sharply as students who were taught with the easier schoolbooks began to enter college. Publishers began simplifying schoolbooks shortly after World War II because American reading experts believed that simplification would make schooling accessible to a broader range of students. Popular educational doctrines of the time called for reducing the academic curriculum to a lower common denominator. British educators, by contrast, did not adopt the trend until 1963-some years after it had gained sway in the U. S.

Read more: Schoolbook Simplification and Its Relation to the Decline in SAT-Verbal Scores (http://www.education-consumers.org/research/briefs_0801.htm)

Vis
07-07-2013, 02:33 PM
How old are you?

fansince'76
07-07-2013, 02:41 PM
How old are you?

Is that an honest question, or some kind of "jab" at some perceived naivete on my part by yourself?

fansince'76
07-07-2013, 02:47 PM
It most likely has something to do with the fact that there's no money for schools since an extremely large portion goes to the Defense budget. Just think about how much money there'd be if we spent only as much as the next country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/204c21cc52b7386a825bd07dc6ee7577.png

It's only about $500 billion. Good to see we have our priorities in order.

Even though the U.S. is among the highest in education spending per student in the world (http://www.educationdive.com/news/report-us-education-lags-despite-highest-per-student-spending/144631/)?

Vis
07-07-2013, 02:48 PM
Is that an honest question, or some kind of "jab" at some perceived naivete on my part by yourself?

Wondering if you went to school before WWII

Buddha Bus
07-14-2013, 07:49 PM
Just stumbled onto this and couldn't help it. :sofunny:




http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/attachments/off-topic-discussion/150832d1336625356-funny-pictures-jesus.jpg