Appeals court overturns federal gay-marriage law
A federal appeals court in Boston has ruled unanimously that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, in effect reaching the same conclusion as the Obama Justice Department.
The case is almost certainly destined to be decided by the Supreme Court, a fact the appeals court noted in delaying implementation of its ruling until the Supreme Court gets a shot at it.
The ruling is certainly founded in logic and reason. The court ruled that the federal government cannot confer benefits on those who were married under Georgia law or Kansas law and then deny benefits to those married under Massachusetts law, which allows gay couples to marry.
In one example, federal law allows the spouses of military veterans to be buried alongside them in military cemeteries. But DOMA would deny that right to gay spouses of veterans. The court found that violates both the right of gay Americans to equal protection under the law and violates the authority of states to regulate marriage.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
538 comments Add your comment
Keep Up the Good Fight!
May 31st, 2012
11:39 am
Oh the protest we shall hear about activist judges!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
11:40 am
Heading to an SC near you
SomaAtl95
May 31st, 2012
11:43 am
A win for personal freedoms. Its a shame the so-called “Party of Personal Freedoms” will do everything they can to decry this ruling.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
11:46 am
Posts about zoophilia in 3…2…1….
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
11:46 am
This one’s likely to produce a few facepalm worthy posts…
gotta get’em lined up and ready to go…
josef
May 31st, 2012
11:46 am
Be still my jerking knee…
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
11:49 am
Bro
Line them up……………….
1. Are you ok with 3 people or more getting married?
2. Are you ok with people marrying animals?
3. Do you know this is not what is in my Bible?
Those a few to get us going
Adam
May 31st, 2012
11:50 am
Appeals court overturns federal gay-marriage law
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!
B
O
O
O
M
!!!!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
11:50 am
Josef
I would tell you to keep “jerking”, but that doesn’t sound right
Adam
May 31st, 2012
11:50 am
1. Are you ok with 3 people or more getting married?
2. Are you ok with people marrying animals?
3. Do you know this is not what is in my Bible?
Damn, beat me to it
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
11:51 am
At last a judge has read the
constitution and ruled
appropriately. He won’t last long.
Tom(Independent-Viet Vet USAF)
May 31st, 2012
11:52 am
States should decide what is best for their citizens, not some federal govt (Democrats or Repubs)! Federal govt needs to stay out of our lives!!!!!!!
josef
May 31st, 2012
11:53 am
I’ll refrain from comment until such time as I’ve read and digested the decision. But that it tackles head on the Social Security survivors’ benefits is getting to the heart of the matter, imauo.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
11:53 am
Tom
Exactly. Let gays marry and be done with it
Thanks for concurring
Peadawg
May 31st, 2012
11:54 am
“Federal govt needs to stay out of our lives!!!!!!!” – I’m glad you agree with the ruling.
jm
May 31st, 2012
11:54 am
ok by me
freedom for all
wish Libs would get on this page for economic issues and social issues that they don’t just happen to be in favor of
Adam
May 31st, 2012
11:54 am
Marriage is a defined legal contract between two people and according to a previous Supreme Court decision, cannot apply to more than two people. Whether or not one is ok with such a thing, to legally enforce a contract with more than two people in such a situation would be a nightmare, if not impossible.
Also, 2 people consists of 2 consenting adults. Toasters, dogs, and fruit salads cannot sign legal contracts as they have no legal standing as a consenting adult.
The Bible has zero standing in legal terms. People have to pretty much agree to a law for it to stand, and it has to not violate the Constitution. For example, one cannot sell their daughter because the Bible says so: Slavery is illegal as ratified in the Constitution.
Hope I got that out of the way early enough this time so I can just link people here when they start bellyaching about those side issues.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
11:55 am
Wow!
Jay saw my post below and decided to make it his subject!
Peadawg
May 31st, 2012
11:55 am
“Heading to an SC near you”
^^^this^^^
josef
May 31st, 2012
11:55 am
TOM
Hell, yes! And we can get back to the segregated water fountains and Sue Ellen can have another epiphany…
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
11:56 am
Tom — “States should decide what is best for their citizens, not some federal govt (Democrats or Repubs)! Federal govt needs to stay out of our lives!!!!!!!”
I think that PEOPLE can decide what’s best for themselves.
Explain to me why Federal government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, but state government should, please.
jm
May 31st, 2012
11:58 am
Fewer stupid laws for all. Please.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
11:59 am
OK, good for the courts…Now, on to women’s right to choose…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
11:59 am
I heard that Sue Ellen’s epiphany was truncated.
By Professor Plum, in the conservatory, with a knife.
TGT
May 31st, 2012
11:59 am
Again, I ask: How would you libs discriminate and define marriage?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
11:59 am
K’Chak — “I heard that Sue Ellen’s epiphany was truncated. By Professor Plum, in the conservatory, with a knife.”
Did you hear the screaming, too?
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:00 pm
Bro
Can we get a facepalm please?
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
12:01 pm
VERY, VERY, VERY interesting……Wonder if they will overturn the Morrill Act of 1862, the Edmunds Act of 1882 and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887…..which outlawed polygamy…..These acts targeted the Church of LDS…….If the defiinition of marriage is handed over to the states, then states can legalize polygamy…..
I’m sure that Senate Leader Reid would be GLAD to bring the bill to a vote….and “President Romney” would be glad to sign it…..!!!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:01 pm
TGT — “Again, I ask: How would you libs discriminate and define marriage?”
Oh, we’d permit all manner, variety and permutations of legally semi-permanent relationships between men, women, wee beasties and Coke machines.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:02 pm
K’chak,
Heh, I like the sound of that, too…but I digress…at least it wasn’t Professor Plum, in the Conservatory, without a condom…wait! What does Truncate mean again?
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:02 pm
Straw man on 11:59…………
Straw man on 11:59
Going to need a clean up once the same person tears it down………….
But please watch the “red herrings” and “slippery slopes” on your way to the straw man clean up on 11:59
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:03 pm
TGT
Oh, I’d say 35+ years in a forsaking all others relationship sharing bed, blankets, bathroom and bankbook would come close…how about you? Do you mean how would we define civil union? Looks like that’s for the courts to decide since the legislative is having such a hard time getting it through their pointy l’il haids…
Erwin's cat
May 31st, 2012
12:03 pm
Adam – “to legally enforce a contract with more than two people in such a situation would be a nightmare, if not impossible….”
??? happens everyday!…hardly a nightmare or impossible
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
12:04 pm
What does Truncate mean again?
To lop off.
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:04 pm
But can a coke machine and a pepsi machine get married…?
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
12:04 pm
Problem with states rights deal is you end up with backassward states like GA. I’m an American 1st, Georgian 2nd. The folks who can fix the problems with state gov’t are the same ones who cause the problems and in this case it is the GOP.
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:06 pm
Me? I can’t wait until I can get married in North Carolina…talk about sweet revenge!
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:07 pm
But can a coke machine and a pepsi machine get married…?
Yes and become Coksies happily ever after…or Pepcocks…what ever
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
12:08 pm
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:04 pm
But can a coke machine and
a pepsi machine get
married…?
…………
with a blood test from
Dr. Pepper.
Logical Dude
May 31st, 2012
12:08 pm
Yep, this is heading the same direction as interracial marriage.
What? somebody is actually against interracial marriage? In the 21st century???
Ennis
May 31st, 2012
12:08 pm
I wish all the gays and lesbians would get hitched up. That way, within a generation they will all have been bred out of the gene pool. Seems fair and right to me. However, I do not subscribe to the belief that “those” people don’t have a right to do as they please, as long as it stops appx 1 inch from my nose. The Guvment created this mess, let them sort it out. And please all you people that complain about the BIBLE forbidding it, get over it. Your children, if properly taught at home and Church, aint gonna marry any homo anyway.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:09 pm
Can a lemon marry a lime or as that already legal because we have Sprite?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:09 pm
Erwin’s Cat: ??? happens everyday!…hardly a nightmare or impossible
Polygamy is illegal. So no, it doesn’t happen every day. Note my comment included “in such a situation”
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:09 pm
NORMAL
It ain’t natural, I tells you. The Good Book says “like shall seek like.” Oh, wait a minute, I mean…oh, dear…nevermind…
Refugee from the "Sahara of the Bozart" (Thank God and H.L. Mencken We Escaped)
May 31st, 2012
12:10 pm
This could be another War Between The States issue. Even the most progressive “Hate State” North Carolina just voted overwhelmingly “agin it” as Pastor Worley says as he calls for all “queers and homos” to be put inside a big fence so they can be kept from reproducing(?) and exterminated. Shorter University and 2 other TaliBaptist colleges in Jawja are decimating their faculties with their gay hate tactics. Don’t expect to see this reported in the AJC.
Same-sex marriage in the “Hate States”?
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
12:10 pm
I wish all the gays and lesbians would get hitched up. That way, within a generation they will all have been bred out of the gene pool.
Teh stoopid is strong in this one.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:11 pm
“That way, within a generation they will all have been bred out of the gene pool. ”
Dumbest post of the day (maybe the YEAR) and I am proud to call it out……
So straight people will stop having gay kids if gays are allowed to marry.
bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaahha
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:11 pm
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:09 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:11 pm
Logical Dude: What? somebody is actually against interracial marriage? In the 21st century???
Wellt hey’re not ALL dead yet. People who were against it then SAY they aren’t against it anymore… It’ll be the same story in 40 years when it comes to same-sex marriage.
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:11 pm
ENNIS
Our kids were properly raised at home, and, yep, you’re right. Not one of the three married a homo…
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:12 pm
josef
Thanks for playing nice with Ennis. I was unable to get past the stupidity and ignorance
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:12 pm
Ennis: I wish all the gays and lesbians would get hitched up. That way, within a generation they will all have been bred out of the gene pool.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA
Right, because gay people having sex is what produces gay children.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
12:13 pm
What is it called when someone presents an arguement that had not been offered in the current discussion and then proceeds to refute the arguement that only they presented?
BTW, this is the correct ruling.
getalife
May 31st, 2012
12:13 pm
Get your big oppressive government out of our bedrooms pervs.
skipper
May 31st, 2012
12:13 pm
Betcha “Lickity-Split” Maddow will be “progressively” and “liberally” glowing tonight……………….
the cat
May 31st, 2012
12:14 pm
Wait-Ennis wasn’t satire? OMG
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:14 pm
Adam — “Right, because gay people having sex is what produces gay children.”
Clearly his two dads never had “the talk” with him.
Erwin's cat
May 31st, 2012
12:14 pm
Adam..Polygamy is illegal here in the US, but not everywhere…those multi-party contracts are manageable…. hardly a nightmare or impossible…just sayin’
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:15 pm
skipper — “Betcha “Lickity-Split” Maddow will be “progressively” and “liberally” glowing tonight……………….”
You’re just jealous because she gets more action from women than you do.
Aquagirl
May 31st, 2012
12:15 pm
I can’t wait until I can get married in North Carolina…talk about sweet revenge!
There must be a suitable location somewhere with a big ‘ol statue of Jesse Helms.
Tom(Independent-Viet Vet USAF)
May 31st, 2012
12:16 pm
Jefferson@12:04 – Perhaps you should be an American 1st and then Californian 2nd? If you don’t care for Georgia, then move to the Left Coast, makes sense to me?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:17 pm
TBG: What is it called when someone presents an arguement that had not been offered in the current discussion and then proceeds to refute the arguement that only they presented?
I *think* it’s a straw man, technically. But if someone is presenting an argument that they have actually heard presented seriously elsewhere on the same subject, it’s technically not. Tough call.
getalife
May 31st, 2012
12:17 pm
tom,
Self deport.
Thanks con.
GT
May 31st, 2012
12:18 pm
Makes sense. In the logic of the backwoods, one state does not have to honor another state’s definition of marriage. A man could get married 50 times in fifty different states and maybe even a few more times off shore.
What this law says is a man married to a man or woman cannot be married again until he or she has divorced the one partner and that stands in all 50 states. So all gay people will go to Mass. the home of Romney
get married and then come back to Atlanta legally married.
I think that is brilliant, and also I wonder if some of a gay persons tax money can’t be traced to the benefits given to hetrosexual spouce benefits. You are paying for drinks and denied entry to the bar.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
12:18 pm
“Again, I ask: How would you libs discriminate and define marriage?”
And again I answer: a legal contract between 2 consenting adults.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:19 pm
Tom
Based on some of your previous post I believe that you are not an Obama fan. Based on that, when are you leaving the US? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Or is it just individual states?
Ennis
May 31st, 2012
12:19 pm
Okay Okay I was just poking fun at the let them get married thingy. I was right however about children being brought up to respect other people, have manners, and all that other “old fashioned” stuff. Also a strong religious teaching thrown into the mix makes for some well educated, bright young people to take the place of us elderly people that have grandchildren by now and are looking at the prospect of studying for that “BIG” final exam.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:19 pm
Erwin’s Cat: Ok. If they are manageable (maybe I just think it’s too complicated for me personally to get a grasp on) then polygamy is a possibility in legal terms. If that is the case, does this ruling open the door for polygamy?
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
12:19 pm
the cat
May 31st, 2012
12:14 pm
Wait-Ennis wasn’t satire? OMG
______________________________________________________
I pray he was.
TBS @ 12:11, That was the 1st thing that popped into my head.
skipper
May 31st, 2012
12:20 pm
@ JH Mama,
OK, I gotta admit that was funny…..remind me not to get into a insult/joke contest with you…you are quick on the draw even if I don’t agree with you!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:21 pm
Ennis
Thanks for taking the time to clarify
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:21 pm
GT — “Makes sense. In the logic of the backwoods, one state does not have to honor another state’s definition of marriage. A man could get married 50 times in fifty different states and maybe even a few more times off shore. ”
This seems plausible. It would explain the disconnect between the whole MARRAIGE ARE SAKRID meme and all the adultery, hooker-renting, page-grabbing and shoe-tapping in men’s rooms that seems to permeate the GOP’s ranks.
SomaAtl95
May 31st, 2012
12:21 pm
So let me get this straight, You “conservative” posters want the Guvmint out of your lives, but want them to control everyone elses? You don’t want Islam sharia law in America but are fine with America being a “Christian Nation”? You don’t want women to have the power to choose what they want to do with their own bodies but have no use for poor and underprivileged children until they’re old enough to fight wars and die for your causes?
How much sense does that make?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
12:22 pm
Okay Okay I was just poking fun at the let them get married thingy.
Walking it back using the ol’ “I was just joking/fooling/funnin’ around” card.
Sounds awful familiar.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:23 pm
skipper — “OK, I gotta admit that was funny…..remind me not to get into a insult/joke contest with you…you are quick on the draw even if I don’t agree with you!”
Thank you for taking that in the spirit intended — I saw the opening and just couldn’t resist.
We have lots of posters here who could stand to show the same kind of good sportsmanship you just displayed.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:24 pm
JHM: http://gayhomophobe.com/
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:25 pm
Walking it back using the ol’ “I was just joking/fooling/funnin’ around” card.
Sounds awful familiar.
Gaslighting is the term.
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:26 pm
Let’s see…New Jersey and New York permit first cousins to marry, Mississippi and Louisiana don’t…does that mean that if you marry your cousin in New Jersey or New York, Mississippi and Louisiana don’t have to recognize it…? In Texas and Oklahoma it’s a criminal offense, does that mean if you go there you can be prosecuted?
*****************
Oh, no, my Mama was a d*ke and my Daddy was a f*ggot…!
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
12:26 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:17 pm
TBG: What is it called when someone presents an arguement that had not been offered in the current discussion and then proceeds to refute the arguement that only they presented?
I *think* it’s a straw man, technically. But if someone is presenting an argument that they have actually heard presented seriously elsewhere on the same subject, it’s technically not. Tough call.
___________________________________________________________________
I just wanted to put a name to it before those stuck in 1850 start with their BS.
Thanks
skipper
May 31st, 2012
12:26 pm
@JH Mama,
10-4….I toted my butt whoopin’ like a man………
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
12:26 pm
Gaslighting is the term.
I was thinking more in terms of a certain individual.
real john
May 31st, 2012
12:26 pm
Jay,
On a side note, the US GDP was revised LOWER (AGAIN!) in the first quarter. Growth was a meager 1.9% versus the 2.2% that Obama was touting.
Of course, you, and your fellow Democrats will keep trying to steer the conversation to social issues or other things.
Now all reports are showing a dismal May jobs report coming out tomorrow. If it was so sad for our country, it would be almost funny trying to watch Democrats and their continued failures on the economy. If Obama and the Dems stay in controll, our countries finances will be in the toliet after four more years.
But I’m sure you will have some really in depth stories about our soaring defecit, crappy housing market, unsubstainable spending, and long term umemployment problem. Now CNN and some other liberal media are complaining that if we don’t extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts, the economy will nosedive…Well, which is it?….They say our whole problem is the Bush tax cuts, now they act like we have to extend them…The Democrats literally have no clue on how the economy works. They ONLY know how to spend money…regardless if they actually have the money to spend…Pathetic
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
This is totally OT, but I was reading the news while eating my soup, and I thought this was very interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47623025/ns/technology_and_science-science/
It’s not a hugely momentous story, but I find it intriguing and diverting. A detective story where there’s no perp, if you will.
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
the same DOMA that Bill Clinton (D) signed into law? Good news indeed. Couple that with DADT(also signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton) being overturned and Obama’s recent endorsement for “States’ Rights”, and us fans of personal liberty can smile somewhat.
real john
May 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
I apologize for the terrible spelling. I’m at work so I don’t have a whole lot of time to spell check
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
ENNIS
Okay, but what I said still stands…
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
Adam and Kam
I haven’t seen Ennis post on here before and I blasted him pretty good. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt this time. I see what you are saying without a doubt, however I’m going to see what other morsels he brings to the table.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
Time for all of the homophobes to go back in the closet!
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
12:29 pm
Marriage is a defined legal contract between two people and according to a previous Supreme Court decision, cannot apply to more than two people.
__________
And since the court has ruled corporations are people, 0 just ask Mitt _ then that should mean that I could marry a corporation, or two corporations could marry.
Can anyone step up and stop this nonsense. Corporations are not people.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:29 pm
Oh, no, my Mama was a d*ke and my Daddy was a f*ggot…!
And I’m your brother/sister…
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
real john: Of course, you, and your fellow Democrats will keep trying to steer the conversation to social issues or other things.
Now THAT’S funny….
What, social issues not working for you guys this go around?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
They BOTH suck
“Ennis” isn’t a newbie here.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
Bro
Can we get a facepalm please?
……………………………………..________……………………
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,………………
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,…………
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,……..
…………………,?………………………………………………\,…..
………………./…………………………………………………..,}….
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}….
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/…..
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../…..
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./……..
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/………..
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}………..
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../…………
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../………….
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”……………
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\……………….
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__………..
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,….
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\……………………
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\…………………..
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__..
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“…….
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\……………
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\…………..
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
K’Chak — “I was thinking more in terms of a certain individual.”
I feel certain that I know to whom you refer.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
And there was much rejoicing in the stalls of the highway rest areas!
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:31 pm
Now all reports are showing a dismal May jobs report coming out tomorrow
I remember a prediction similar to this prior to a jobs report that had over 200k jobs and a lower unemployment rate, TWICE. I think I’ll wait for the report before declaring it “dismal” or “glowing.”
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
12:31 pm
skipper
May 31st, 2012
12:20 pm
@ JH Mama,
OK, I gotta admit that was funny…..remind me not to get into a insult/joke contest with you…you are quick on the draw even if I don’t agree with you!
_____________________________________________________________________
skipper, JHM is the Bruce Lee of quick wit.
If you listen real close you can hear him making those Bruce Lee sounds as he types out a quick retort.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
12:32 pm
does that mean that if you marry your cousin in New Jersey or New York, Mississippi and Louisiana don’t have to recognize it
+++++++++++
The court ruling says the oppostite, that it does have to be recognized.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:32 pm
real john — “defecit”
This is when you can’t go pewp.
And I think it’s PRECIOUS how you put it right next to the word “crappy.”
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:32 pm
Kam
Got you. For some reason I do not recall his name or he is a regular posting under another. I do not know which one
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:32 pm
1.9 raise? I see any rise as a good thing. It has been rising a little every time. It all will add up in time.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
12:32 pm
I feel certain that I know to whom you refer.
Yep, that one.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:32 pm
ty: the same DOMA that Bill Clinton (D) signed into law? Good news indeed. Couple that with DADT(also signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton) being overturned and Obama’s recent endorsement for “States’ Rights”, and us fans of personal liberty can smile somewhat.
So…. NOT the worst President ever then?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:33 pm
ty: NOT the uber Socialist? NOT all about Federal Government getting in everyone’s business?
Ennis
May 31st, 2012
12:34 pm
Adam @12:25 Crawfishing, backpeddling, or whatever you want to call it never entered my mind. I guess the saying on this blog about people being extremely closed-minded is absolutely true. All forms of government should get out of the bedroom peeping bizness.
Why a person with a little sense of humor that makes fun of Government stoopided rules and regulations gets slammed all the time boggles even my country living soul
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:34 pm
adam,
I’ve never said that.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:34 pm
I feel certain that I know to whom you refer.
Yep, that one.
So tell me, tell me , tell me! TELLLLL MEEEEE!!!
Paul
May 31st, 2012
12:34 pm
Damn federalism and strict constructionist justices!!!!
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:34 pm
adam,
nor that or that.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
12:35 pm
The Federal government should not be “conferring benefits,” whether to homosexuals or to heterosexuals.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:35 pm
ty
Have you agree with every law that any President you voted for signed?
real john
May 31st, 2012
12:35 pm
Joe:
Hahaha…good catch
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:37 pm
real john — “Hahaha…good catch”
TBG — just remember, Bruce Lee kicked Chuck Norris’ hiney.
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:37 pm
they both suck,
no.
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:37 pm
OSCAR
On hold, however, til the SC weighs in….
killerj
May 31st, 2012
12:38 pm
Well,well,well,we now do as the roman,s do,a pitiful end to a country as we know it,end the end it all turn,s out the same,history does repeat itself.
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
12:40 pm
Tom you can move, I’ll vote for changes.
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
12:40 pm
God is against this…….Queers….You all call them gay, I was raised 2 call them queers. Still, god is against it and will smite those who are for it.
I pray God can put an end 2 this mayham
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:40 pm
ty: Come onnnnn, you like him *just a little* doncha?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cb6c0e144b/obama-s-sexy-rebuttal
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
12:40 pm
josef@12:06 pm
Me? I can’t wait until I can get married in North Carolina…talk about sweet revenge!
——————————————————————————-
Come on up I would love to see it
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:41 pm
ty
I didn’t think so. Thanks for the reply
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:42 pm
“Come onnnnn, you like him *just a little* doncha?”
as a person? yes.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
May 31st, 2012
12:42 pm
I love happy news…and this is FABULOUS news.
the cat
May 31st, 2012
12:43 pm
I find the word “smite” interesting. What does “smite” mean? knock down, throw down, throw up, toss up?
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
12:44 pm
I dont no why I even reed this stuff N E more. Its all bad news that makes me sick 2 my stomache. Can U all print some good news?
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:44 pm
they both suck,
no problem.
GT
May 31st, 2012
12:45 pm
The humor in this is too rich for reality. The GOP run about every skirt chaser they could round up for president. I was shocked at Romney allowing Trump to run his campaign then I thought back about who this guy has shared a stage with in the past. I can only imagine huge fire hoses washing off those stages five seconds after the debate is completed. CNN, in post summary, trying to talk over the roar of water colliding with the podiums, floor and GOP emblems. A man dress in a outfit like Dustin Hoffman in Outbreak hosing down the infected area, stumbling over a passionate Newt rolling on the floor with a new employed female, while Herman takes close up pictures and sings Barry White songs.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
May 31st, 2012
12:45 pm
Gwinnett Mom
Which God?
Jesus’ Dad? That one. Nope. You are wrong.
Your hateful thoughts will get you a cold reception at the pearly gates.
I pray to God he heals your sickness. (Don’t want him to smite you though….way to messy)
Paul
May 31st, 2012
12:45 pm
“It ain’t natural, I tells you. The Good Book says “like shall seek like.” Oh, wait a minute, I mean…oh, dear…nevermind”
heh, heh heh
This wouldn’t be an issue if government civil authorities performed civil unions for heterosexual and homosexual couples and religious authorities performed marriages for whichever heterosexual or homosexual couples they wanted to marry.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
May 31st, 2012
12:47 pm
Well, the end is near. It won’t be long now till us rednecks are lined up and made to marry big hairy Bubba. It also means my marriage is worthless, like the preacher said would happen if Gay Marriage was made legal. I feel like I’m living in Sin already.
This nation is becoming a Sodom and Gonorrhea. We’ll all be turned into Pillows of Salt. It was bound to happen when they took God out of the schools and the laws. You can’t even post the 10 Commandments anymore. What’s next? Farmers marrying their cows? Cowboys marrying their horses? People suing because they can’t bring the dog they just married into a restaurant? I just hope none of these Gay Married couples move into Simpsons Trailer Park.
I’ll keep hauling and humping, but my heart ain’t in it today. These danged Activist Courts! Have a good p.m. everybody.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:47 pm
Paul: This wouldn’t be an issue if government civil authorities performed civil unions for heterosexual and homosexual couples and religious authorities performed marriages for whichever heterosexual or homosexual couples they wanted to marry.
You’re missing the point. This isn’t about FREEDOM. It’s about MY ability to force EVERYONE ELSE into MY way of thinking. DURRRRR
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:48 pm
Common Sense
We’re considering Newton, I hear the calla lillies are lovely this time of year, dear!
Fedup
May 31st, 2012
12:48 pm
Dear Suck, Majority of my consevative and mainly the bible thumpers practice the first two lines. Except they are married to one and they are constantly whor@#g around in bars and go out of town to do it.
jm
May 31st, 2012
12:49 pm
economy in toilet. so is Europes.
Good job Obama.
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
12:49 pm
@ Granny
God is against it it say so in the bible that man should not lay with another man. Its unatrual. How R 2 mens supposed 2 make babies? If it is OK why come it is against the law still? Its U librals that R tryin 2 change the law that will infect my children well it aint gonna happen cuz we will fight !
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:50 pm
Normal Free — “So tell me, tell me , tell me! TELLLLL MEEEEE!!!”
He’s around most afternoons and not hard to spot.
the cat
May 31st, 2012
12:50 pm
Pillow of Salt!!!!!!! Love this
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:50 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY
BTW.
Mama Says
May 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
The entire argument comes down to money.
I have yet to hear one gay rights activist who can explain why or how an act that is condemned in the bible should be blessed by any church via a church marriage. I am open to hear how that works.
Aside from the religious aspect, I agree the government should have no right to decide who you’re benefits go to or who you live with or who you have sex with, if you are an adult.
So isn’t the answer civil unions ? a certificate issued by the government without the church involved ?
Unless of course homosexuals wish to force the church into saying God loves them no matter what they are doing, which would really make this story about the homosexual community wanting to feel God is ok with what they are doing.
I mean which is it about religion or benefits ?
sheepdawg
May 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
when all the old lilly white republican males that currently run this country are dead and gone, this question will seem really stupid
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
GG — “Gwinnett Mom Which God?”
Well, aren’t YOU a fine, fresh fish!
Your attention please, GG. YHBT. That is all.
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:52 pm
GWYNNETTE
I trust you’re being funny…I mean you can’t possibly make that many grammatical-spelling-syntax errors in one post that short without it being intentional…
Erwin's cat
May 31st, 2012
12:53 pm
so if ya get divorced in Alabama…are you still cousins?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
12:53 pm
Adam
Dont’cha’ just love control freaks?
From yesterday: From the abort the mission thing? I did see what the other poster was attempting. I just wanted him to explicitly state why Obama would have aborted the mission. I think I have a fair understanding of the sequence and was looking forward to him getting wrapped around the axle, but alas, he dropped off as soon as the question was asked.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:53 pm
m
May 31st, 2012
12:49 pm
Please enlighten us…How is Europe’s economy President Obama’s fault? (This ought to be good)
DawgDad
May 31st, 2012
12:53 pm
“The GOP run about every skirt chaser they could round up for president.” That is funny, considering Clinton’s skirt chasing got him impeached and dis-barred for lying in court and Edwards is still on trial for misappropriating campaign funds to cover up his dalliance (unless I missed the climax).
Misty Fyed
May 31st, 2012
12:53 pm
But wait….Didn’t Obama just say this wasn’t a federal issue?????funny Sheepdawg…hes neither white nor republican.
GT
May 31st, 2012
12:53 pm
Redneck Convert (R–and proud of it), the movie Deliverance established that fact a long time ago.
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
12:54 pm
“when all the old lilly white republican males that currently run this country are dead and gone, this question will seem really stupid”
yeah, cause it’s just them…and the mormons!
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:54 pm
Mama Says — “Unless of course homosexuals wish to force the church into saying God loves them no matter what they are doing, which would really make this story about the homosexual community wanting to feel God is ok with what they are doing.”
I think the issue is more about those who are intolerant of gays wanting to make GOVERNMENT hew to their interpretation and bow to their claims about what their god wants.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
12:54 pm
The Bible is a man made up book, to keep folks in line, and example how to be a good person period….All the rest is no different then believing in the EASTER bunny.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
Is Gwinnett Mom Bill Orvis White in drag?
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
Gwinnett Mom, must be married to RB…
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:37 pm
real john — “Hahaha…good catch”
TBG — just remember, Bruce Lee kicked Chuck Norris’ hiney.
______________________________________________________
And Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
Gwinnett mom
Are you speaking of the Old or New Testament? I don’t recall the new saying much about gays.
If you are speaking of the Old, can I assume you are adhering to ALL the laws of the Old and not just picking and choosing?
can’t wait for your reply
Paul
May 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
So…. does anyone see any negative implications for religious institutions if gay marriage is held to be a right without regard for religious belief and practice? (Be it Christian, Islam or Judaism?)
skipper
May 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
@GT,
Talking about Repub skirt chasers? Clinton (yo Dem guy) unseated FDR and Kennedy as the true master, although a look at Hillary in those XXX pants-suits will do that to a guy, so he gets a pass…………………
Peter
May 31st, 2012
12:56 pm
I am amused by the preacher getting bitten via the snake and dying……. Just proves how many dumb folks there are out there and the LEMMINGS THAT FOLLOW THEM.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
12:56 pm
DawgDad — “That is funny, considering Clinton’s skirt chasing got him impeached and dis-barred for lying in court and Edwards is still on trial for misappropriating campaign funds to cover up his dalliance (unless I missed the climax).”
But but but . . . THE CLENIS!!!
And y’all complain when *we* bring up President Bush. Hell, y’all are still pizzed off about Carter, for crying out loud.
Mama Says
May 31st, 2012
12:56 pm
DogDad
Which is it did Clinton get impeached b/c he lied in court or because he chased skirt ?
One is against the law (perjury) and the other isn’t (well it’s not enforced)
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:56 pm
Jam @ 12:55
Too funny…….. I was thinking the same thing
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:57 pm
MAMA
Benefits. And the same certificate of civil union for one and all. If I want religious institution sanction, I can get that already in my particular brand name.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
12:57 pm
Peter
The Koran’s included in that, right?
And the Vedas, right?
Peter
May 31st, 2012
12:58 pm
Question…… so if ya get divorced in Alabama…are you still cousins? Yes
josef
May 31st, 2012
12:58 pm
BOTH
Nyah. She’s got one of them Get Out of Leviticus Free cards the Imam was issuing!
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
12:59 pm
We only foloow Gods laws and rules if that what U R asking. God did not make men to love other men. If they choose 2 live like this then dont share it with us cuz it makes us sick and I dont want them infecting my children with there sickness. U have to be realy messed up 2 want to do what they do.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:59 pm
Gwinnett
I will make it easy for you. Do you adhere to the following? I have more if you would like for me to post
1) anyone who acts as a medium or fortune-teller shall be stoned to death (Lev 20:27); 2) anyone who curses his parents shall be put to death (Lev 21:9); 3) homosexuals who lay together shall both be put to death (Lev 20:13); 4) the daughter of a priest who dishonors herself by fornication shall be burned to death (Lev 21:9); 5) anyone who blasphemes the Lord shall be stoned to death (Lev 24:14); 6) anyone who kills shall be put to death (Lev 24:17); 7) “A life for a life! Limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Lev 24:18);
the Lord forbids bloody lacerating and tattooing (Lev 19:26); 9) You shall treat an alien who resides in your land no differently than the natives born among you (Lev 19:33); 10) if anyone commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, they shall both be put to death (Lev 20:10), but adultery with a slave permits of a lesser punishment since she is not free (Lev 19:20).
Peter
May 31st, 2012
12:59 pm
Paul.
All religion is man made period……..Theology is a way to show us a nice path to live on, and keep the masses in order.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
12:59 pm
Mama Says: I have yet to hear one gay rights activist who can explain why or how an act that is condemned in the bible should be blessed by any church via a church marriage. I am open to hear how that works.
Funny, but I have yet to see anyone suggest this at all.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
12:59 pm
josef @ 12:58
Tell it all brother, tell it all
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
1:00 pm
So does that mean we can now have gay polygamy? or maybe a mix of each and every?
The possibilities seem endless LOL
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:00 pm
“I can get that already in my particular brand name.”
I like that
Soothsayer
May 31st, 2012
1:00 pm
I think Gwinnett Mom is punking us. Probably Little Davy Crybaby posting down at the Liberry.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
1:01 pm
Mama Says
May 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
Since it’s been pretty much established that being Gay is genetic, wouldn’t you say that God made them too? According to Christianity, as I understand it, God made all people in His image. Since he made some people Gay, do you ever wonder if He’s Gay too? Or at least, Bi-. Just food for thought…
Bottom line There isn’t a thing about being Gay that is in any way, shape, or form, religions business.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
1:01 pm
If they choose 2 live like this…
When and where exactly, did you choose 2 live like a hetero?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:02 pm
God did not make men to love other men.
Yeah I’m tellin ya! God said HATE every man you know if you’re a man, and every woman you know if you’re a woman!
Mighty Righty
May 31st, 2012
1:02 pm
As I have said before, I don’t care if you want to marry your goat, sheep, pig or chicken. That is your business. Just don’t expect me to pay for your marriage, your abortions or your venerial desease.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:02 pm
“We only foloow Gods laws and rules if that what U R asking.”
Really?
Surely you jest…………….
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
1:02 pm
SomaAtl95
May 31st, 2012
12:21 pm
So let me get this straight, – You can try, but I doubt you’ll succeed.
You “conservative” posters want the Guvmint out of your lives, but want them to control everyone elses? – Fail #1. The vast majority of “conservatives” on this blog including me, support this ruling thus far.
You don’t want Islam sharia law in America but are fine with America being a “Christian Nation”? – Nope. Keep your religion out of our government.
You don’t want women to have the power to choose what they want to do with their own bodies – False, I support a womans right to chose.
but have no use for poor and underprivileged children until they’re old enough to fight wars and die for your causes? – that is so dumb it’s stoopid
How much sense does that make? – NONE! So why are YOU saying it?
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:03 pm
YES to this…….. Bottom line There isn’t a thing about being Gay that is in any way, shape, or form, religions business.
But then why are the GOP folks making it their business ?
skipper
May 31st, 2012
1:03 pm
@They BOTH suck;
I never coveted my neighbor’s wife (unless I had a neighbor, and he had a wife……………..)
Old Retired English Professor
May 31st, 2012
1:03 pm
Court Administrator Yolanda Lewis said in an e-mail that she won’t release figures until Friday.
“I will say that there have been thousands of people who have actually took advantage of the opportunity to reschedule their service,” she said—AJC, 05/31/2012
Oh, for Pete’s sake! Is it asking too much to expect the Fulton County Court Administrator to know how to form the past participle of a verb?
Never mind. Just carry on. My bilge started overflowing.
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:04 pm
ADAM
@ 1:02
Yeah, thass the ticket!
Joseph
May 31st, 2012
1:04 pm
Before you jump up and down and break out the pink bandana know that this changes nothing… The Supreme’s will uphold this law along with all the other laws forbiding the lefts attempts at making marriage more about perversion than family…
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:04 pm
Peter
I understand atheists hold that as an article of faith?
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:04 pm
skipper
Good one
Erwin's cat
May 31st, 2012
1:04 pm
Normal Free..
“…Since it’s been pretty much established that being Gay is genetic…”
do tell
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
1:06 pm
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:03 pm
“But then why are the GOP folks making it their business ?”
Because they have nothing else…
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:06 pm
OREP
Howdy! Always good to hear from you.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:06 pm
Peter
“All religion is man made period……..Theology is a way to show us a nice path to live on, and keep the masses in order.”
What about religions that don’t have a theology?
Aquagirl
May 31st, 2012
1:06 pm
I think Gwinnett Mom is punking us. Probably Little Davy Crybaby posting down at the Liberry.
txtspk postings the week after school lets out? Screamingly obvious.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:06 pm
M. Righty — “As I have said before, I don’t care if you want to marry your goat, sheep, pig or chicken. That is your business. Just don’t expect me to pay for your marriage, your abortions or your venerial desease.”
Pig abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
1:07 pm
Seems like Gwinnett Mom doesn’t mind 2 women getting married, she is being sexist
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
1:07 pm
sheepdawg
May 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
when all the old lilly white republican males that currently run this country are dead and gone, this question will seem really stupid
_____________________________________________________________________________
Are you saying there are no Black women that are opposed to this?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:08 pm
We only foloow Gods laws and rules if that what U R asking
“You talk to God? You’re religious. God talks to you? You’re psychotic.”
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
1:08 pm
“This wouldn’t be an issue if government civil authorities performed civil unions for heterosexual and homosexual couples and religious authorities performed marriages for whichever heterosexual or homosexual couples they wanted to marry”
And I don’t agree. I think religion should get out of the marriage BUSINESS. A marriage is a LEGAL contract. Government has a place in safeguarding the interests of the signees to that contract. Religion has no place in it.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:08 pm
BOTH suck 12:59
Somehow, I don’t think Gwinnett’s orthodox Jewish – more like a fundamental Christian who’s searching for a scriptural basis to support her bias.
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
1:09 pm
“Are you saying there are no Black women that are opposed to this?”
or black men?…hispanic men?…hispanic women?…
getalife
May 31st, 2012
1:09 pm
Do you hear that?
That is the sound of our cons being marginalized as kooks.
Sounds good doesn’t it?
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:10 pm
“Are you saying there are no Black women that are opposed to this?”
The memo only said “old lilly white republican males “
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
1:11 pm
Off topic, but how does this count on the unemployment rolls??
http://www.papercutsinc.com/
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:11 pm
Why can’t I own a Canadian…the Bible says I can…
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
May 31st, 2012
1:11 pm
Gwinnett Mom
No punkin – you got it wrong. Leviticus was telling nomadic tribesmen that laying with a man instead of their wives was adultery.
Ever consider same sex couples were designed by God so that they could take care of the children that are orphaned?
You’re gonna fight are ya’? Well, well….aren’t I just shivering
in my sandals.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:11 pm
Paul
I figured that out quickly, just attempting to show her that she is choosing which of “God’s laws” to apply and not apply
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:11 pm
Peter
“But then why are the GOP folks making it their business ?”
You may want to think about the party alignment of African Americans and check our their support or opposition to gay marriage, particularly thru their churches, before you go down that path.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
1:12 pm
“So…. does anyone see any negative implications for religious institutions if gay marriage is held to be a right without regard for religious belief and practice?”
The only one I can see is that a presiding religious authority could no longer be deputed to do a legal function. They could perform any sort of church ceremony they like, but it would not be a legal marriage until the couple is married by a legal authority.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:12 pm
Paul……. What about religions that don’t have a theology?
Please name a few you are speaking about.
Recon 0311 2533
May 31st, 2012
1:12 pm
The ruling has no effect on states that don’t recognize same sex marriage and doesn’t rule on the question of do homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry. This will go to the SCOTUS where it has always been expected to end up.
godless heathen
May 31st, 2012
1:12 pm
the Lord forbids bloody lacerating and tattooing (Lev 19:26); 9)
That one I can go along with. I’m sick of piercings and body ink.
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:13 pm
How about Axlerod getting heckled and booed off the Stage in BOSTON this morning. Not Mississippi, or South Georgia, but Boston. Now I tell you Libs on here this because IT WON’T SHOW UP ANYWHERE on the news that YOU watch or listen to….but the tape & audio don’t lie. Do you think they pulled a Sharpton and had a bus bring them in from Alabama……. A bus load of redneck racist I mean….LOL
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
1:14 pm
if a “homophobe” tree of color falls in the woods and people refuse to hear it, does it still make a noise?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:14 pm
Peter — “Please name a few you are speaking about.”
Any nontheistic religion would do. Or something pretheistic, like animism.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
1:14 pm
I’m sick of piercings and body ink.
I’ll second that!
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:15 pm
Paul….. You may want to think about the party alignment of African Americans and check our their support or opposition to gay marriage, particularly thru their churches, before you go down that path.
I am not sure of your meaning here.
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:15 pm
Skipper
@ 1:03
I never coveted my neighbor’s wife either…now his ass…?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:15 pm
Ima Librul — “Now I tell you Libs on here this because IT WON’T SHOW UP ANYWHERE on the news that YOU watch or listen to….but the tape & audio don’t lie.”
I see the coffeemaker on your ward only had decaf this morning.
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
1:16 pm
Dont put words in my mouth. I am against all things that God is against. It make me sick 2 see some of you think this is OK. U all R prolly against prayer in schol 2. I no I wont see U in heaven.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
1:16 pm
I spoke to g0d this morning concerning this issue
And SHE said.
Lighten Up Francis
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:17 pm
ty: Are there more people who are NOT old white males than old white males who do not support this decision? Is there any group that has more a majority opposed, compared to old white males? Because if so, THAT is your argument against someone saying that when they die off the attitude in this country will change. Not “a couple of black people don’t agree TOO”
godless heathen
May 31st, 2012
1:17 pm
josef,
You can’t own a Canadian because you could never afford the beer.
(BTW, I love linkee.)
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:19 pm
Any nontheistic religion would do. Or something pretheistic, like animism.
All the examples I saw……Examples of Animism can be found in forms of Shinto, Serer, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Paganism, and Neopaganism…….. Can be traced back to man…..How can they not be man made up ?
Personally I like Buddhism, and Eastern philosophy which states all living things are connected.
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
1:19 pm
And where R some of my fellow christans to defend me? I no there R more like me I see them ever Sunday.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:20 pm
Funny statement….. I am against all things that God is against.
Really ????? Just what is God against ?
Don't Tread
May 31st, 2012
1:20 pm
“I’m sick of piercings and body ink.”
+1
Mr_B
May 31st, 2012
1:21 pm
“Why can’t I own a Canadian…the Bible says I can…”
Oh, alright, but I don’t know how you can stand those plaid flannel caps with the ear flaps.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
Doggone/GA
There are a couple of concerns. To name one: the California Supreme Court has held marriage is a ‘fundamental right.’ As such, it could be held action could be taken against religious institutions that refuse to place adoptive children in gay households, regardless of whether or not the institution receives government funds to aid in the adoption process.
There are more examples, which is why it wold be helpful to early on carve out how such a right does not take precedence over private religious practice.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
“And where R some of my fellow christans to defend me? I no there R more like me I see them ever Sunday.”
I would imagine that some of your fellow Christians that are on here, regardless of political leanings, are appalled that you are attempting to group them into your narrow mindedness.
Aquagirl
May 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
And where R some of my fellow christans to defend me?
Check the men’s restroom at Hartsfield, honey. Lots of them there.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
Oh, alright, but I don’t know how you can stand those plaid flannel caps with the ear flaps.
Ownership means you can also tell them what to wear.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
“I’m sick of piercings and body ink.”
WOW….. allot of judging going on here ! That is definitely NOT Christian now is it !
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
I care as much about this headline as I do who wins the NHL Finals…go ahead and post another opinion piece
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
1:23 pm
Something on Native Americans and Gays…
The term “Two-Spirit” refers to a belief among some tribes that there are people who manifest both masculine and feminine spiritual qualities. According to Native American scholars, many tribes once revered Two-Spirits, viewing them as a third gender with a special spiritual connectedness. In these tribes, Two-Spirits filled important tribal roles as counselors, storytellers and healers.
This belief, scholars have also observed, has been eroded in many places by the imposition of Judeo-Christian views of homosexuality as sinful.
http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/native/dialogue_opinion_letters/pns_gay_twospirits_0305.asp
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:23 pm
GWYNNETTE
“. I no I wont see U in heaven.”
That’s true, gotta be there yourself…everbody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there…
getalife
May 31st, 2012
1:24 pm
It was on cnn I’m a con.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
1:24 pm
…and another…
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/two-spirits-rising/Content?oid=24792
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:24 pm
uh oh……………1st qtr corporate profits released today and they were the lowest in 3 years.. ( not that a lib would care, who wants the pie divided up equally ever month). Not a good climate for hiring…….But Obama at least has gotten gas prices down for us….although it was crickets and blame when they were going up…….Just more good news for this President. Maybe he’ll address the evils of capitalism and profits on his radio broadcast this Saturday. I’ll know I’ll be listening.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:24 pm
“I no I wont see U in heaven.”
About the time you ask why isn’t the a/c on, is about the time you will realize that you didn’t get to heaven.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:24 pm
Gwinnett Mom — “U all R prolly against prayer in schol 2.”
I think you should have been more for STUDYING in school and less for praying in it.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
May 31st, 2012
1:25 pm
Gwinnett Mom
No you won’t see us in heaven…..
That’s a given for faux Christians like yourself.
Fellow Christians? Hardly. We true followers of the fisherman will
call you out for the Pharasee-ette you are!
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:25 pm
josef: everbody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there…
I was just there the other night fighting Diablo and the minions of hell… oh sorry I didn’t realize you weren’t talking about a video game XD
Cosby
May 31st, 2012
1:25 pm
Rights..what rights…Or is this another special interest group receiving special privalegs….wonder what the Gay’s will think after a few divorces….I’ll bet someone will be screaming fowel…and by the way, why do gay’s get the right to promote thier interest groups in lessons in schools – see Maryland and no other group does…oh that is right special privaleges for a special group horse squeeze
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:26 pm
But Obama at least has gotten gas prices down for us
Finally a conservative gives Obama credit for something!
Saving that post to remind everyone on here to follow this example: give Obama credit where credit is due!!! (:lol:)
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
1:27 pm
Gwinnett Mom
May 31st, 2012
1:16 pm
Now I KNOW you’re really Bill Orvis White in drag!
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:27 pm
Peter
“Paul……. What about religions that don’t have a theology?
Please name a few you are speaking about.”
Don’t mean this to be insulting, but that response tell me you’re of the group that makes broad-brush, generalized sound-good comments without having a firm grounding in the terms or concepts being used.
Rather like people who say ‘homosexuality is against nature” who when told there are species that change gender in certain situations, say ‘oh yeah? Name some!”
when the real issue is the broad-brush generalization without fully understanding what is being said.
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
1:27 pm
get a life
no you are not that is jm.
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:27 pm
OKAY, TESTING MY CUT AND PASTE SKILLS…
Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?
October 2002
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:28 pm
Cosby — “Rights..what rights…Or is this another special interest group receiving special privalegs….”
I am against special rights for theists and I am pleased to see that you are also against special rights for them.
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:28 pm
Adam, do I need pliers to get the hook out of your mouth?
Mr_B
May 31st, 2012
1:28 pm
“IT WON’T SHOW UP ANYWHERE on the news that YOU watch or listen to…” yeah ’cause none of us ever read the NYT.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/axelrods-anti-romney-message-gets-drowned-out/
Damned librul press always buries all the stories….
Mr_B
May 31st, 2012
1:28 pm
“IT WON’T SHOW UP ANYWHERE on the news that YOU watch or listen to…” yeah ’cause none of us ever read the NYT.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/axelrods-anti-romney-message-gets-drowned-out/
Damned librul press always buries all the stories….
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
1:29 pm
“And where R some of my fellow christans to defend me?”
As I Christian I find your opinions and attitudes as expressed here to be indefensible.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:29 pm
“I no I wont see U in heaven.” HA HA HA….. We are all going to the same place Hitler, Dick Cheney, the next door neighbor, and priests are going…… heaven and hell are here on earth…..
Example ……Jail is Hell….the beach or mountains Heaven….. Being with your daughter, son, family…. Heaven.
Mr_B
May 31st, 2012
1:29 pm
Sorry about the double post
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:30 pm
Well I’ll be Mr B.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
1:30 pm
How does one scream “fowel, and what the hell is a “special group horse squeeze”?
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
1:31 pm
“There are more examples, which is why it wold be helpful to early on carve out how such a right does not take precedence over private religious practice”
Is placing children for adoption a religious function or a secular one? If secular, then churches who engage in adoption placement should be held to the same laws and regulations are are any other adoption agencies. If they don’t like it, they can get out of the adoption business.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:31 pm
Paul. You can’t insult me, I would have to be in my Ego for that to happen.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:31 pm
Peter 1:15
I was referring to your “YES to this…….. Bottom line There isn’t a thing about being Gay that is in any way, shape, or form, religions business.
But then why are the GOP folks making it their business ?”
In other words, it isn’t just the GOP who wants to make it their business.
iTiSi
May 31st, 2012
1:32 pm
Maybe, if elected, these judges will reach the same fate those did in Iowa. The people kicked them right off the bench. Anyway this will go to the US Supreme Court where it will lose 5-4. Use to think there was nothing lower than college professors(liberal bunch) but now think the liberal court judges may rank lower than a snakes’ bottom.
Aquagirl
May 31st, 2012
1:32 pm
I think you should have been more for STUDYING in school and less for praying in it.
If you can pray away the gay, you can pray away mangled English.
St Simons - an island of rainbows
May 31st, 2012
1:33 pm
14th Amendment – The End. sheesh, why are we still on this?
josef, if you don’t hire the village people to play your reception,
you don’t have a hair on your -ss
I commend the conservative regulars on this blog. As a rule, you seem
to be ahead of the curve on this one, or at least near the curve,
whatever.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:33 pm
This ruling is more interesting than my initial reaction reflected. Because there is a state law on the books contrary to the Federal law, the Federal law cannot stand. Interesting jurisprudence. Sounds like an embarrassment arising for the leftists, again.
godless heathen
May 31st, 2012
1:34 pm
Peter: WOW….. allot of judging going on here ! That is definitely NOT Christian now is it !
I’m not a Christian, but I’m not judging either. One can have as many piercing and tatoos as they like – as long as they stay the f*ck at home.
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
1:34 pm
“you can pray away mangled English.”
someone’s never watched the “Reverend” Al Sharpton’s show.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:34 pm
Yes to this…….. In other words, it isn’t just the GOP who wants to make it their business.
In your example….. we do find some of the most judgmental, and non tolerant folks who call them selves followers of “God” or Christians….. They are making a mockery of what they believe.but hey we all want to twist stuff to fit our agendas now don’t we ?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:34 pm
Gwinnett mom
“Dont put words in my mouth. I am against all things that God is against”
I don’t think anyone is trying to put words in your mouth. I think they are asking you how you can hold some Old Testament passages to be authoritative and binding yet ignore others that offend our sensibilities. Perhaps you can explain?
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:35 pm
Oh, good, Peter and Paul are at it. Where’s Cousin JC to moderate this?
And, no, y’all Gwynnette is NOT a Christian, she’s a member of the Haredi underground!
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:35 pm
Aquagirl — “If you can pray away the gay, you can pray away mangled English.”
Get thee BEHIND me, Dangling Participles!
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
1:36 pm
Good ruling, hope SCOTUS will see it the same way. Aquagirl – Hanging out in those men’s bathrooms at Hartsfield again? (else how would you know….)
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:36 pm
The way the Supreme Court will look at the ruling: as Federal law normally trumps state law, is there a way to uphold the Federal law by invalidating the state law? I think I see one such way.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:36 pm
Peter
“Personally I like Buddhism, and Eastern philosophy which states all living things are connected.”
Too bad Bosch isn’t still around. He’d have you joining some of us in a little bit of pagan dancing naked in the moonlight ceremonies -
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:36 pm
godless heathen ……. as long as they stay the f*ck at home.
Sounds like you have an issue, and perhaps should follow the advice you want to give others !
Personally I don’t care for tattoo’s never have…so I never got one and let it go.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
1:37 pm
Josef
Yes you can own a Canadian.
Just be aware that the beer is expensive and they want medical care for FREE
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:37 pm
If you libs will just hang on for say 25 years until everyone from say 55 to 75 today IS DEAD, you can pass all the new laws you want and have at it. The last group of voters with morals and patriotism who believe in all the things that made this country great, warts and all, will be gone. The ” MTV” party on crowd will vote for anything you want. just hang on.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
1:37 pm
getalife
May 31st, 2012
1:09 pm
Do you hear that?
That is the sound of our cons being marginalized as kooks
_______________________________________________________
Even the ones that AGREE with this ruling?
straitroad
May 31st, 2012
1:38 pm
That’s nonsense. The federal government currently has laws on the books that allow preferences based on race. It’s called affirmative action. Typical liberal hypocracy.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:38 pm
R. Danneskjold — “This ruling is more interesting than my initial reaction reflected. Because there is a state law on the books contrary to the Federal law, the Federal law cannot stand. Interesting jurisprudence. Sounds like an embarrassment arising for the leftists, again.”
When you actually take the time to read the decision, you should recognize just how wrong you are.
DOMA created a separate-but-equal status, which is expressly unconstitutional per prior SCOTUS decision.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
1:38 pm
“Dont put words in my mouth. I am against all things that God is against”
You know you have made your God in your image, when your God hates the same things you do. (unknown)
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:40 pm
Even the ones that AGREE with this ruling?
Depends, were they against it before they were for it?
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
1:40 pm
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:11 pm
Peter
“But then why are the GOP folks making it their business ?”
You may want to think about the party alignment of African Americans and check our their support or opposition to gay marriage, particularly thru their churches, before you go down that path.
________________________________________________________________________
But, Paul, that doesn’t fit Peter’s “either/or” mindset.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:40 pm
The federal government currently has laws on the books that allow preferences based on race. It’s called affirmative action
Someone doesn’t understand affirmative action.
weetamoe
May 31st, 2012
1:42 pm
Well since it took so long for the most brilliant coolest bravest intellectual to evolve, the rest of his constituents should not be hectored into hurrying that process. If they are too backward, their intrepid AG will once again remind them that that old separation of church and state thingy does not apply to Obama supporters. And even though quattro de mayo has passed, we should still be celebrating the fact that in another generation or two most people will look like Jorge Zimmerman. I, for one, welcome that.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:42 pm
Rags
Are you against gay marriage?
Figured with that “libertarian” Ayn Rand streak, it wouldn’t make a difference to you?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:44 pm
Gwinnett mom
“And where R some of my fellow christans to defend me? I no there R more like me I see them ever Sunday.”
josef
You get a gold star for ‘cut and paste’!
Doggone/GA
“s placing children for adoption a religious function or a secular one? If secular, then churches who engage in adoption placement should be held to the same laws and regulations are are any other adoption agencies. If they don’t like it, they can get out of the adoption business”
That’s really not the issue that would be before the court. The religion in question could have an adoption service for its members but still face legal challenge for denial of rights.
Maybe some of us just see God’s expressions a bit differently that you do -
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:44 pm
Adam, what’s not to understand…..And i’m all for not denying anyone anything because of a skin color. I am against 2 people of different colors say going after one job and it’s given to one based on color over say education, experience and qualifications etc.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
Rags
Sort of like Boortz when he drops the hammer on callers who call in with anti gay anything rants………..
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
Oops.
I need cut n past lessons from josef.
Gwinnett mom
“And where R some of my fellow christans to defend me? I no there R more like me I see them ever Sunday.”
Maybe some of us just see God’s expressions a bit differently that you do -
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
1:46 pm
The KJV Bible does not
address same sex marriage
as best I remember except
maybe between Jonathan
and David but since I don’t
care I’m not looking it up.
jm
May 31st, 2012
1:46 pm
Obama was a super duper pothead. Surprise. Explains a lot.
Maraniss works for the Post and his pot-smoking scoop, which included details of Obama’s college-era dope-smoking club and waste-no-weed rules for inhaling it, never made the front of his own paper.
The story landed on page A6, and Maraniss’s reporting included colorful details of Obama’s pot-smoking prowess: “As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends. The first was called ‘TA,’ short for ‘total absorption.’ To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” Maraniss writes in his book.
curious
May 31st, 2012
1:46 pm
People can say what they want, but Jay’s columns produce at least twice the comments that the rest of the columnists in the AJC.
Surprising how many people think so lowly of the AJC, yet are drawn to Jay’s writing like moths to a candle.
Jay, you should have a cookout so we could all meet each other. Make sure you have the police and paddy wagon(s) on hand.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:47 pm
Peter 1:31
Good to know. The written word of the blogosphere is not the best for accurate communication.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
1:47 pm
” The religion in question could have an adoption service for its members but still face legal challenge for denial of rights.”
That still doesn’t make adoption a RELIGIOUS function. And I don’t see how, if the religion is adopting children from parents OF their religion and TO parents of their religion, how there could ever be a denial of rights.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:48 pm
Dear Both @ various times, good afternoon, you are right, I have no dog in this fight. You correctly perceive that I think governments should not be in the business of regulating relationships between or among adults, that the only arguable government interest arises in the protection of the fruit of the marriage (no, that is not an anti-gay slur, I am talking about children.) Nevertheless, the ruling is pretty vacuous, in that it allows a state law to control the validity of a Federal law. Still think the Supreme Court is likely to call the Boston Court foolishly short-sighted.
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:49 pm
St Simon’s
Yeah, YMCA, Havah Nagilah and Come and Get Your Love medley, eh?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:50 pm
I am against 2 people of different colors say going after one job and it’s given to one based on color over say education, experience and qualifications etc.
And THAT is proof you don’t understand affirmative action.
ty webb
May 31st, 2012
1:51 pm
ATTENTION JAY BOOKMAN…ATTENTION JAY BOOKMAN.
well well, what do we have here?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/msnbc-produced-antimitt-romney-video-124924.html
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:52 pm
TBS — “Figured with that “libertarian” Ayn Rand streak, it wouldn’t make a difference to you?”
Rags outed himself as a circumstantial statist LONG before today.
In fact, he was totally down with Terri Schiavo’s parents and Congress in getting all up in her medical decisions — over the objections of Mr. Schiavo.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:53 pm
The Boston Court ruling would have a prayer in court – isn’t that a clever joke, given the Federal jurisprudence on prayer – if the Massachusetts law preceded DOMA. The Massachusetts law, enacted in light of the prior-existing DOMA, is a loser in such a fight.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:54 pm
Time to change the subject, as we are 6/7 pages in: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/paying-rent-on-minimum-wage/
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:54 pm
Peter 1:34
“we do find some of the most judgmental, and non tolerant folks who call them selves followers of “God” or Christians….. They are making a mockery of what they believe.but hey we all want to twist stuff to fit our agendas now don’t we ?”
Can I get a rousing “Amen!”?
josef
“Oh, good, Peter and Paul are at it. Where’s Cousin JC to moderate this?”
Hate to break it to you, but we don’t need JC, we’re waiting for Mary –
That Black Guy 1:40
I’d guess it’s more a case of something that just hadn’t occurred to him.
After all, isn’t that why we blog? To learn new things and challenge our assumptions?
(cue laughter in 3… 2…. 1….)
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:54 pm
Give us your version Adam. Read my moniker and you know we need help from the wise and gifted.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:55 pm
Dear Joe @ 1:52, good afternoon, you are correct that I think the leftist cult of death is poison for an enlightened society, indistinguishable from Nazi death camps in their willingness to destroy the weak for the convenience of the strong. Don’t know what that has to do with homosexual marriage, but you raised it.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:55 pm
curious @ 1:46
“Make sure you have the police and paddy wagon(s) on hand.”
Problem is that it will not just be left vs right……… You will see some right vs right and left vs left as well.
Once we got past politics, it would probably amaze all of us how the cliches would split up……… It surely wouldn’t all be about Obama and Romney
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:56 pm
R. Danneskjold — “You correctly perceive that I think governments should not be in the business of regulating relationships between or among adults”
You’re so incredibly full of crap, Rags. Didn’t you say that Congress was right in passing legislation to PREVENT Richard Schiavo from disconnecting his wife from life support?
I can’t think of a more extreme statist position than supporting legislation that only impacts the behavior of ONE American.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:57 pm
Paul……. Good to know. The written word of the blogosphere is not the best for accurate communication.
I am human so I have good days and bad, typically when my panties get in a wad is when my EGO is involved…… So I have to keep that in check always !
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:57 pm
Doggone/GA
Again, adoption isn’t the issue. It was the example to illustrate the possible implications for a religious institution when their religiously-derived practices appear to run counter to a state supreme-court definition of a ‘fundamental right.’
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:57 pm
Dear Joe @ 1:56, clearly you do not know the difference between “regulation” and “adjudication.” Learn it, live it.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
1:58 pm
Jay, if you want to cut and paste news articles from your own paper and call it an editorial piece, why not use the one about the illegal alien photographing his nude grandchildren?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:58 pm
Give us your version Adam
It’s not “my version,” it’s the law. Which is easily something you can find out more about without my help.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:59 pm
Well, actually, as a card-carrying member of the cult of death, I suppose “living it” is outside your capacity. Perhaps you could just try to understand the distinction.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:59 pm
curious May 31st, 2012 1:46 pm. great stuff.. I laughed out loud about the paddy wagon !
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
2:00 pm
I tend to agree that GM is a mystery meat.
And obviously, I am not saying that there are not plenty of irrational, intolerant, gay bashing bible thumpers that visit here and who use the same moniker for more than 15 minutes…
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:02 pm
Dear Joe @ various times, my argument is purely jurisprudential. I know that big word is beyond your comprehension, but there are broad rules courts follow in analyzing conflicts among laws. Federal generally trumps state, the specific trumps the general, the more recent trumps the older. Here the question never gets past the first level, as the Federal law cannot be generally invalidated by a state law.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:03 pm
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:15 pm
Skipper
@ 1:03
I never coveted my neighbor’s wife either…now his ass…?
___________________________________________________
ok josef, now tell me how to get chocolate milkshake out of my keyboard.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:04 pm
R. Danneskjold — “you are correct that I think the leftist cult of death is poison for an enlightened society, indistinguishable from Nazi death camps in their willingness to destroy the weak for the convenience of the strong. Don’t know what that has to do with homosexual marriage, but you raised it.”
It means that you’re a hypocrite and that you’re willing to use coercive state power to achieve your aims.
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:05 pm
I guess G-d must’ve called Gwynnette home…
PAUL
Waiting on Mary…good one! I just got it! I guess I was just having too much fun frolicking in the autumn mist of old age…
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:05 pm
“It was the example to illustrate the possible implications for a religious institution when their religiously-derived practices appear to run counter to a state supreme-court definition of a ‘fundamental right.’”
Except that adoption is not a fundamental right, so it’s a poor example. Marriage could be considered a fundamental right…but since it is ALSO a legal contract, then any church that perform LEGAL marriages should be subject to the laws and regulations pertaining to the legal relationship. If they don’t like that, they can get out of the marriage BUSINESS.
They could still perform institutional “marriages” but those would not be legal marriages until the couple appears before a presiding LEGAL functionary licensed to perfom those marriages.
So if a church chooses to discriminate in it’s parishioners and in the church “weddings” performed there, there is no legal recourse because they are not performing legal marriages.
See, to me it’s simple: marriage are a legal contract and always have been. They should be done by a legal functionary, not a religious one.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:05 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Dear Joe @ 1:56, clearly you do not know the difference between “regulation” and “adjudication.” Learn it, live it.”
Clearly YOU do not know the difference between “libertarian” and “statist.” (laughing, pointing)
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
Dear Joe @ various times, I think there is a reasonable argument that the Congress would have power to pass a DOMA only to the extent that DOMA controls the relationship between individuals and the Federal government. Don’t think Congress would have power to inflict a DOMA-perspective over the internal affairs of a state and its residents.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Well, actually, as a card-carrying member of the cult of death, I suppose “living it” is outside your capacity. Perhaps you could just try to understand the distinction.”
Neither one has any bearing on the matter. You clearly support using coercive state power to interfere in private medical decisions.
ZOMG SOSHULIZUM
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
Rags
Not that you have a dog in the fight, but should gays be allowed to marry in your opinion?
Not how it relates to state or Federal law, but your opinion.
No offense, but on one hand you say I have no dog in the fight and on the other you want to argue what law trumps the other and how the SC will probably rule.
Those two things are not necessarily one in the same.
You are a big boy, don’t hide behind the law and possible rulings. What is your opinion?
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:08 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:17 pm
ty: Are there more people who are NOT old white males than old white males who do not support this decision? Is there any group that has more a majority opposed, compared to old white males? Because if so, THAT is your argument against someone saying that when they die off the attitude in this country will change. Not “a couple of black people don’t agree TOO”
_______________________________________________________________________
Believe me, it’s not just “a couple” Black people. FWIW
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:08 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:04, you are correct to infer that I think it is an appropriate function for the government to protect the helpless from those who would kill them. Leftists disagree, of course, and that is why I call yours the “cult of death.”
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:09 pm
“A federal appeals court in Boston has ruled unanimously that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, in effect reaching the same conclusion as the Obama Justice Department.
The case is almost certainly destined to be decided by the Supreme Court …………
The ruling is certainly founded in logic and reason. The court ruled that the federal government cannot confer benefits on those who were married under Georgia law or Kansas law and then deny benefits to those married under Massachusetts law, which allows gay couples to marry.”
A couple (no pun intended) of points:
1) If this holds, there will be no way in the future to prohibit polygamy. Just a matter of time.
2) Although I am against it, if this holds then I agree it should apply to every state ………. as driver’s licenses do and as “firearms licenses” should !!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:09 pm
“I guess G-d must’ve called Gwynnette home”
I just hope here 1st question isn’t regarding about the a/c being off……………
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
“………her 1st……..”
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
Dear Both @ 2:07, fair question. I think all should use “domestic relations” agreements, and I regard marriage as a church rite, not as a government function. I think there should be no Federal or state preferences for “married” vs “unmarried.” Does that answer all?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
R. Danneskjold — “my argument is purely jurisprudential.”
Rejected. You supported Congress *passing legislation* to interfere with Mr. Schiavo. That is in no way jurisprudential.
“I know that big word is beyond your comprehension,”
Not at all. But clearly it’s beyond your own, since you seem to have jurisprudence mixed up with legislation, socialist.
“but there are broad rules courts follow in analyzing conflicts among laws.”
Irrelevant to the Schiavo matter.
“Federal generally trumps state, the specific trumps the general, the more recent trumps the older. Here the question never gets past the first level, as the Federal law cannot be generally invalidated by a state law.”
Clearly you have neither read the decision nor understand it. State law didn’t override Federal law. As I told you already, a prior SCOTUS precedent was applied to DOMA and DOMA was thereby found unconstitutional. Thus DOMA has been handed back to SCOTUS for consideration. If SCOTUS refuses to grant certiorari, then the lower court decision will stand and DOMA will be invalidated.
Do try harder to keep up, won’t you?
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:12 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:11, you have not attacked my jurisprudence competently. You only assassinate the character of those who correctly assess your willingness to see the weak die at the hands of the strong.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:12 pm
R. Danneskjold — “I think there is a reasonable argument that the Congress would have power to pass a DOMA only to the extent that DOMA controls the relationship between individuals and the Federal government.”
Except that DOMA expressly *permitted* the creation of a separate-but-equal legal status, which is unconstitutional.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:13 pm
Rags
Thanks for the reply and exchange
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:14 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:11, a prior SCOTUS precedent does not invalidate a law that reversed the court ruling. The Congress can pass a law that changes the way cases are adjudicated. You are still left with a change in Massachusetts state law as the sole basis for invalidating the Federal law. If a court can uphold the established Federal law by invalidating the new state law, it normally will do so.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:15 pm
Bumper Sticker
“Obama’s approval ratings are so low, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States”
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:15 pm
R. Danneskjold — “you are correct to infer that I think it is an appropriate function for the government to protect the helpless from those who would kill them.”
It’s not an appropriate function for government to become involved in private medical decisions. And *centuries* of common law and precedent establish that when a person cannot speak for themselves, a spouse may do so. You clearly support governmental interference in private medical decisions, and are therefore a statist. And a hypocrite.
“Leftists disagree, of course, and that is why I call yours the “cult of death.”
You can call me and mine whatever you like. I’ll call you a statist and a hypocrite, which has the virtue of being both true and accurate.
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:17 pm
FORMAL BLACK GUY
Don’t know about the chocolate shake…there’ve been so many good one liners here today, I’ve been threatening to go to iPad to protect the keyboard!
As to you and the Black church on this topic. That was one of the reasons I took Jay and the memo on the way I did with their claim that Obama’s statement was not “exactly a profile in courage.” It was. For him to stand up and challenge the Black church to make the same journey he had in look at it from a Christian perspective took cajones…he got a lot of Brownie points (I can say that, can’t I?
) for that in my book of actions and deeds…
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:18 pm
R. Danneskjold — “you have not attacked my jurisprudence competently.”
I most certainly have. You are clearly unable to distinguish jurisprudence and legislation.
“You only assassinate the character of those who correctly assess your willingness to see the weak die at the hands of the strong.”
Rejected. I highlight the hypocrisy of those — like yourself — who claim to be lovers of liberty but who would support and exert coercive state power in order to interfere with the private medical decisions of others. You are a reprehensible individual, Mr. Danneskjold.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:18 pm
” I regard marriage as a church rite, not as a government function. ”
Except that it isn’t. It’s a legal contract and always has been. The first known reference to marriage is in a listing of laws.
getalife
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
I could not stomach w.
House rejects bill outlawing abortion.
Desperate.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
Hummmmm ………………………….
“Reports have surfaced that President Barack Obama is very loyal to his barber. The President is a man of the common people, the report tells its listeners. He hangs out with regular folks, like his barber for example. The President has been using the same Chicago based barber, who goes by the name Zariff, for the past 17 years. According to German Public Radio, the President flies Zariff from Chicago to DC for a trim every two weeks. The president allegedly personally funds these trips.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/05/30/report-obama-flies-special-barber-wh-every-two-weeks#ixzz1wTMy5Zxi
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
Hummmmm ………………………….
“Reports have surfaced that President Barack Obama is very loyal to his barber. The President is a man of the common people, the report tells its listeners. He hangs out with regular folks, like his barber for example. The President has been using the same Chicago based barber, who goes by the name Zariff, for the past 17 years. According to German Public Radio, the President flies Zariff from Chicago to DC for a trim every two weeks. The president allegedly personally funds these trips.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/05/30/report-obama-flies-special-barber-wh-every-two-weeks#ixzz1wTMy5Zxi
curious
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
If a same sex couple is legally married in MA and they decide to divorce, they can save a lot of legal fees by moving to NC. Right?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:20 pm
Hic-cup !
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:21 pm
curious:
lol !
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:21 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:14, “It’s not an appropriate function for government to become involved in private medical decisions. ” Poppycock. My argument supports (1) protecting children from sex criminals and incest, (2) infants in the womb from arbitrary murder by abortionists, and (3) the helpless from starvation-murder by a faithless spouse. Don’t know why you think government has no purpose in protecting the helpless from the strong.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
1:30 pm
How does one scream “fowel,
___________________________________________
It’s what you scream when you are an umpire at a chickenhawk softball game.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
HEY quit picking on NC.
We have become the preferred layover for STUPID LAWS lately
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
“Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.”
Liar, liar you wampum is on fire !
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
SCOUT
“Obama’s approval ratings are so low, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States”
I don’t care who you are, thass funny.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
R. Danneskjold — “a prior SCOTUS precedent does not invalidate a law that reversed the court ruling.”
Wrong.
The unconstitutionality of Separate but Equal was established via SCOTUS decision.
The Federal appeals court found that DOMA expressly permitted the existence of separate but equal marriages. Therefore, the court found DOMA unconstitutional based on prior SCOTUS precedent. QED.
“The Congress can pass a law that changes the way cases are adjudicated.”
Rejected. Congress cannot pass a law that suddenly legalizes unconstitutional institutions. Well, Congress *can,* but the courts can strike such a law down. And that’s what happened here.
“You are still left with a change in Massachusetts state law as the sole basis for invalidating the Federal law.”
Rejected. SCOTUS already said *years ago* that Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. The MA state law is beside the point. Read the freakin’ decision, Rags.
“If a court can uphold the established Federal law by invalidating the new state law, it normally will do so.”
And here you explain the basis for your misunderstanding.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:23 pm
HEADLINE: “Sex-Selective Abortion Debate Erupts in House’
This will be interesting !
Bumper Sticker”
“EQUAL RIGHTS FOR UNBORN WOMEN”
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
Why is multiple spouses against the law ?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:25 pm
TBG: Believe me, it’s not just “a couple” Black people. FWIW
True, and my apologies for any offense. None was intended. I just don’t think that there’s enough of an anti-gay non-”old white male” conglomerate to affect public opinion as anti-gay majority if you remove all the old white dude from the equation. I could be wrong, but I have no way of actually knowing for sure because I don’t know where to find the statistics on that.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
Dear Doggone @ 2:18, you perplex: why would I care about the history of marriage? I regard it as a religious rite. I agree that “legal marriage” is a statutory contract whose terms are inflicted by the legislature. I cannot envision why the existence of a state law should be more important to one than the religious ceremony.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
Why is multiple spouses against the law
——————————————————————————–
Because below a certain IQ level you probably can’t get married
And that would be definite proof
stands for decibels
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
In fact, he was totally down with Terri Schiavo’s parents and Congress in getting all up in her medical decisions — over the objections of Mr. Schiavo.
Yeah, I’ve always found it curious, the overlap between those who whinge about marriage equality somehow diminishing the institution of marriage, and those who didn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about Terri Schaivo’s marriage commitment.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Poppycock. My argument supports (1) protecting children from sex criminals and incest, (2) infants in the womb from arbitrary murder by abortionists, and (3) the helpless from starvation-murder by a faithless spouse.”
Your position supports governmental interference in private medical decisions. Fortunately for those who love freedom, abortion is legal (despite your laughable ‘legal’ definition of it as “murder”) and your #3 is an emotional and hysterical misrepresentation of the facts of the Schiavo case. Nobody has objected to your #1, which I suspect you’ve included to give your argument a thin veneer of respectability and sanity.
“Don’t know why you think government has no purpose in protecting the helpless from the strong.”
I don’t know why you insist on misrepresenting my position and lying about your own.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:27 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:22, don’t suppose it crossed your mind that the invalidated “separate but equal” was a court doctrine, and not a statute?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:28 pm
R. Danneskjold — “don’t suppose it crossed your mind that the invalidated “separate but equal” was a court doctrine, and not a statute?”
First thing I thought of, Rags. But it’s irrelevant to the decision.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:26, the usual leftist trope is that one whose logic is stronger than his own is a “liar.”
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
SCOUT
Stop it with the Warren one, okay? You’ve already been called out on claiming the same blood quantum yourself for political commentary gain here bouts…you ain’t careful Unmentionable’s gonna chase you down and “scalp what little hair you got left on yore pointy l’il noggin” and then he says he’s gonna make you spend the night in the same bed with the Du-k-sha-nee…
Soothsayer
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
At last! The terrible truth can be told about homosexuals!
redneckbluedog
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
Refugee from the “Sahara of the Bozart” (Thank God and H.L. Mencken We Escaped)
May 31st, 2012
12:10 pm
This could be another War Between The States issue. Even the most progressive “Hate State” North Carolina just voted overwhelmingly “agin it” as Pastor Worley says as he calls for all “queers and homos” to be put inside a big fence so they can be kept from reproducing(?) and exterminated. Shorter University and 2 other TaliBaptist colleges in Jawja are decimating their faculties with their gay hate tactics. Don’t expect to see this reported in the AJC.
Same-sex marriage in the “Hate States”?
————————————————————
And yet they will vote for a polytheist in November……..
The Bible tells us that hypocrites are condemned to Hell as well….
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
“Why is multiple spouses against the law”
Cruel and unusual punishment?
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:28, we can agree that leftists do not distinguish the validity of court-made law vs. legislated statutes. Conservatives view the former as an invalid form of “activism,” and the latter as “Constitutional design.”
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
I fully understand the childish obsession with trying to denigrate Ms. Warren.
If I were a pathetically soft on crime neocon and I saw this woman who is MUCH smarter than the entire leadership of that dysfunctional organization, who does not suffer from the Dick Cheney ostrich syndrome and who has a spine to the point that she wants to hold FULLY accountable to the rule of law, the banksters and corporate titans of malfeasance and deadly dereliction, I too would be grabbing at every straw that I could…
That one woman is more of a force for good than the top fifty fake conservative Republican men in this country…
TGT
May 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
As a Christian conservative, I’m certainly glad to see that same-sex marriage is becoming even MORE of an election issue.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:40 pm
Even the ones that AGREE with this ruling?
Depends, were they against it before they were for it?
___________________________________________________________
Maybe they were like Obama and evolved. Although, in his case he devolved.
He was for it, then against it, then for it.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
2:32 pm
jonix, so the corporal’s childish obsession with Ms. Warren is also hypocritical?
Do tell…
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:33 pm
“I cannot envision why the existence of a state law should be more important to one than the religious ceremony.”
Because it is the legal contract that mandates the disposition of property, and the rights of any children of the marriage should either, or both, parents die. It is the religious wedding that has little to no real meaning as it has no legal standing.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
R. Danneskjold — “the usual leftist trope is that one whose logic is stronger than his own is a “liar.”
The usual conservative trope is that if the state disagrees with your personal medical decisions, then there’s Constitutional justification for government to get in the way of the people.
getalife
May 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
It failed scout.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
I make it Hussein 3 – Rags 0 going into the 4th round.
BTW, I make “violates the authority of states to regulate marriage” the real issue, the Feds have been attempting to usurp states rights since before the war for southern independence.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
Why is multiple spouses against the law ?
================================
The Morrill “Anti-Bigamy Act” was passed in 1862. Justin Morrill was a Republican, as was Abraham Lincoln, who signed the act. It targeted the Church of LDS……It was reinforced by the Edmunds Act in 1882 (another Republican) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887…a bipartisan effort……
To my knowledge, the legitimacy has yet to be challenged in court……Even when laws against interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)…the polygamy issue never came back up….
YET…!!!!!!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
“It is the religious wedding that has little to no real meaning as it has no legal standing.”
Well it does have significant meaning to the individuals getting married, as well as their families and friends.
With that said, you are correct about the legal part. That’s why people don’t get divorced at the church.
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
it’s gotta be tough to be a gay athiest right now
Boris Badnoff
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Oh goodie. Now I can marry my garden hose.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:36 pm
TGT
May 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
As a Christian conservative, I’m certainly glad to see that same-sex marriage is becoming even MORE of an election issue.
===================================
ME TOO…!!!! And polygamy and polytheism and cultism as well….!!!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:36 pm
R. Danneskjold — “we can agree that leftists do not distinguish the validity of court-made law vs. legislated statutes.”
No, we cannot so agree.
“Conservatives view the former as an invalid form of “activism,” and the latter as “Constitutional design.”
So you admit that Conservatives view *some* forms of state power as ‘valid’ activism then. Thank you for this admission. You have done an excellent job of discrediting yourself and your argument.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
jefferson:
Because the American people have said so and thus far the Supreme Court has agreed.
Next.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
it’s gotta be tough to be a gay athiest right now
====================================
A BLACK gay atheist…!!!!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
josef:
Chief Thunder Thud say no ………………
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
“Well it does have significant meaning to the individuals getting married, as well as their families and friends.”
Certainly it does…and I’ve always said: if they want a church wedding, go for it…but they aren’t legally married until they have a legal ceremony presided over by a LEGAL authority.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:38 pm
Boris Badnoff
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Oh goodie. Now I can marry my garden hose.
====================================
I’ve been wondering what it would be like to marry a dozen eggs….But my wife would be P.O.ed..!!!!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:38 pm
Rags
I must hand it to you…….. You are the CHAMPION of semantics…………
But do carry on and thanks again for the exchange earlier
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:39 pm
ZamVet
I guess if you’re not a “real” Jew, she’s not a “real” Indian, eh? Ole Scout would have been the Devil’s Advocate in the Nuremberg Laws.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:40 pm
How does equal protection under the law for all rights (gay, women, legal immigrant, etc.) affect anyone who disagrees here (gay marriage, DADT, etc.) on a daily basis?
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
2:41 pm
“A BLACK gay atheist…!!!!”
Maybe so pre 1964, but if we’re adding race into that algorithm then we should probably say HISPANIC gay atheist
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
2:42 pm
Common Sense isn’t very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:40 pm
It keeps the express lanes crowded?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
2:42 pm
Doggone/GA
“Except that adoption is not a fundamental right, so it’s a poor example. ”
The example relates to an institution discriminating against a couple who, according to the state, have the status of being in a relationship held as a right.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:42 pm
Normal
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:43 pm
Talking Head
How about a White & Hispanic, straight agnostic?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:44 pm
T. Head — “it’s gotta be tough to be a gay athiest right now”
Isn’t the term “gaytheist?”
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:44 pm
“The example relates to an institution discriminating against a couple who, according to the state, have the status of being in a relationship held as a right”
But that brings us back to the church. If the church does not allow gay couples to be members to begin with, then any adoption procedures would also have to be outside the church. If the church recognizes gay couples…then why WOULD they refuse to adopt to a gay couple?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:48 pm
Conservatives view the former as an invalid form of “activism,”
UNLESS that activism is something they agree with – see Obamacare and SCOTUS.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:49 pm
To my knowledge, the legitimacy has yet to be challenged in court……Even when laws against interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)…the polygamy issue never came back up….
YET…!!!!!!!
The Supreme Court DID actually rule on this kind of thing….
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:49 pm
BOTH
“How about a White & Hispanic, straight agnostic?”
Yo no sé, hombre?
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
2:50 pm
What is the logic ? Too much paperwork in divoice ? Is there logic or just one of those traditional items ?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
2:52 pm
Doggone/GA
“They could still perform institutional “marriages” but those would not be legal marriages until the couple appears before a presiding LEGAL functionary licensed to perfom those marriages.”
Now you have the state regulation religious practice, for in our system, legal marriage is granted to civil and religious authorities and is integral to many religious institutions’ belief systems.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
2:52 pm
Paul: So…. does anyone see any negative implications for religious institutions if gay marriage is held to be a right without regard for religious belief and practice?
It depends on what you consider negative. One implication would be that the “separation of church and state” could no longer be stated as being more of a one-way division as many claim it is now. If the ruling came as you stated, then that would mean that expressing religious rights would still be applicable, but expressing those religious rights could no longer be applied to others, by way of government enforcement, if the person does not share your religious beliefs.
That would mean, for example, a Christian could not use the Christian belief system to legislate based solely on their belief system to cover those who do not share those beliefs. As a bonus, that would also mean that the dreaded “Sharia creep” would be null and void as no laws could be created based solely on religious beliefs that interfered with the personal freedoms of those who don’t share the same belief system.
——————————
josef: I never coveted my neighbor’s wife either…now his ass…?
I don’t think I’ve laughed so hard at anything you’ve posted before in my life. That one’s got my stomach cramping from laughing.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:53 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:25 pm
TBG: Believe me, it’s not just “a couple” Black people. FWIW
True, and my apologies for any offense. None was intended. I just don’t think that there’s enough of an anti-gay non-”old white male” conglomerate to affect public opinion as anti-gay majority if you remove all the old white dude from the equation. I could be wrong, but I have no way of actually knowing for sure because I don’t know where to find the statistics on that.
_________________________________________________________________________
Adam, no offense taken, no apologies needed
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:53 pm
josef
I am out here in “purgatory”……….
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:54 pm
“Now you have the state regulation religious practice, for in our system, legal marriage is granted to civil and religious authorities and is integral to many religious institutions’ belief systems”
Legal marriages can only be done in churches if the presiding religious leader is LICENSED to perform them. That is what I object to. I do not think they should be so authorized. Let churches do religious marriages all they want. But legal marriages should be done by a LEGAL authority…not a religious one.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
2:58 pm
…indistinguishable from Nazi death camps…
Godwin’s Law, proven yet again.
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:58 pm
got an errand to run…back in a bit…keep the one liners coming, this has been fun…
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:00 pm
Doggone — “Legal marriages can only be done in churches if the presiding religious leader is LICENSED to perform them. That is what I object to. I do not think they should be so authorized. Let churches do religious marriages all they want. But legal marriages should be done by a LEGAL authority…not a religious one.”
Completely agree. Here’s my solution.
Everyone has to get a civil marriage. The cost is low, you stand before a judge for five minutes, say your I Dos and the clerk does some stamping and copying before handing you your documents.
Then those that want one can have a religious marriage in the religious edifice of their choice. No church would be forced to participate in any marriage it didn’t approve of, and the couple getting hitched have to do their own leg work in satisfying any requirements the church might have.
Everyone can get a civil marriage. Churches don’t get forced to do something they don’t want to do. Seems to me like everyone would win this way.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
3:01 pm
JHM
now you’re just being logical
Julia
May 31st, 2012
3:03 pm
And the wing nuts will go ballistic, screaming about the federal government intruding in our lives. unless of course it is for something like oh say, telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. then they’re screaming at the top of their lungs about the sanctity of life. Because someone has to go and fight their wars for them don’t you know, so they need for all of those fetuses to be carried to term.
what a bunch of douche bags the GOP are.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:03 pm
Doggone/GA
It gets back to a person asserting their civil rights are being violated. Membership in the organization is not the issue.
Brosephus
That’s a neat little construct you’ve created there.
There was a case in the 70s when under the Reagan Administration a certain government agency sought to mandate Brigham Young University, a private LDS university, could not prohibit unmarried men and women from sharing the same apartment, nor could they maintain separate housing for unmarried men and women. The federal connection? BYU students received the GI Bill, the GI Bill is federal, therefore BYU was receiving federal funds and had to comply.
The Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division was Rex E. Lee, who is LDS. Needless to say, the case was quickly settled.
Point of that is, whenever anyone says ‘oh, I wouldn’t worry, that would never happen” I tend to think “as long as people are involved, wanna bet?”
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
3:07 pm
LOL…. Barry still catching hell about the Polish death camp gaffe. The polish President has written a letter….and wasn’t happy with his ” correction”……Does he not know who Barry Is??? LOL….. And the guy is TOLD everything to say …that’s what’s scary.
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
3:08 pm
Maybe a new nick name. DAB………………..Dumb Ass Barry…..
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:08 pm
“Everyone can get a civil marriage. Churches don’t get forced to do something they don’t want to do. Seems to me like everyone would win this way”
And by keeping them legal mariages there would be no need to rewrite the many, many existing laws already on the books that manage that marriage contract.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:08 pm
Doggone/GA
I recognize that for you marriage is just a government contract and that’s it, but my reading is the recognition of religious practice, the religious teachings and the past practices renders that limited, particularly in regard to the current issue of gay marriage.
I also recognize nothing you have written has changed my mind and nothing I have written has changed yours, nor, based upon the various approaches that have been tried, is that likely to occur.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
3:09 pm
what a bunch of douche bags the GOP are.
The people you’re talking about are simply doing the same thing that you did right there. They are expressing their right to free speech. That you don’t agree with their message does not negate their right to do so. Calling them a name because you don’t agree with them really undermines your whole point.
—————————-
Paul
I’m sure you’ve heard that idea that the separation of church and state means that the government can’t get involved in religion but does not forbid religion from getting involved in government. From where I sit, the ruling, as you describe would shred that idea above and beyond what Freddy Krueger, Leatherface, and Jason could do if they all tag-teamed with their weapons of choice.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
3:09 pm
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
2:52 pm
I don’t think I’ve laughed so hard at anything you’ve posted before in my life. That one’s got my stomach cramping from laughing.
__________________________________________________________________________
he got me too Bro. I had a guy peek into my office wondering if I was ok.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
3:10 pm
TBG
I often wonder if my neighbors can hear me at times…
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
3:10 pm
They say pot will mess up your brain cells……..Right in front of our eyes.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:14 pm
Ima Librul — “LOL…. Barry still catching hell about the Polish death camp gaffe. The polish President has written a letter….and wasn’t happy with his ” correction”…”
Funny how the actual letter itself falls well short of ‘giving the President hell.’
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/polish-president-writes-obama-death-camp-gaffe/story?id=16462942
East Cobb RINO
May 31st, 2012
3:16 pm
Let the gays marry. They should be able to experience everything about being in love heteros do, Including gay marriage, gay extra-marital affairs with the pool boy, followed by gay divorce and gay alimony. Can you imagine the property settlement hearing?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:19 pm
Brosephus
Like I said, whenever people are involved….
And another ‘wanna bet?” .
Wanna bet the employee who initiated that bright challenge that was so obviously and quickly shot down received a firewalled ‘top performer’ evaluation and an end of year bonus?
ElephantWhip
May 31st, 2012
3:19 pm
Doggone JHM:
“Legal marriages can only be done in churches if the presiding religious leader is LICENSED to perform them. That is what I object to. I do not think they should be so authorized. Let churches do religious marriages all they want. But legal marriages should be done by a LEGAL authority…not a religious one.”
Don’t be hypocrites, now. You are impeding the right to contract with this line of argument. And that is the basis of YOUR argument.
Jack
May 31st, 2012
3:22 pm
Allowing same-sex marriage is not going to help the bridal dress business; at least I don’t think it will. And the marriage ceremony wording will have to be changed somewhat. I mean taking someone to be your lawfully wedded wife or husband won’t work anymore. Filing a MFJ return is not always advantageous and I’m not sure who the spouse will be on a tax return.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
3:22 pm
Paul
East Cobb RINO
May 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
Legal marriages can also be performed at the local courthouse by a justice of the peace.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
Jack
I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to work thru those seemingly insurmountable obstacles with no problem -
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:24 pm
“It gets back to a person asserting their civil rights are being violated. Membership in the organization is not the issue.”
Certainly memebership is the issue. I said it before: if the perceived violation is of a SECULAR nature, then the church should be subject to any laws and regulations pertaining to that function. If it is of a RELIGIOUS nature, then there cannot be a civil rights violation to begin with.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
Julia – Do you believe in the death penalty or assisted suicide? If you avoid the party lines and politics, ethics shold tell you either life is sacred or its not.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
“I recognize that for you marriage is just a government contract and that’s it,”
Except I never said that, nor do I believe it. I’ve said repeatedly: let churches perform as many church marriages as they want. No problem. They just shouldn’t ALSO be legal marriages.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
ElephantWhip — “Don’t be hypocrites, now.”
Who’s a hypocrite?
“You are impeding the right to contract with this line of argument. And that is the basis of YOUR argument.”
Rejected. The legal contract would be determined by the existence of the CIVIL marriage contract, not the religious one.
Paulo977
May 31st, 2012
3:28 pm
Adam
so, 2 people consists of 2 consenting adults. Toasters, dogs, and fruit salads cannot sign legal contracts as they have no legal standing as a consenting adult……..!!!!!!!!!!!
______________________________________________
Now that is funny!!!
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
3:30 pm
I won’t be against multiple spouses unless someone can give a good reason to. Never really thought much about it myself.
jconservative
May 31st, 2012
3:30 pm
For you 10th Amendment folks the Court seems to be saying that the definition of marriage is a state matter, not a federal matter.
Now that would bring into play Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:30 pm
“Don’t be hypocrites, now. You are impeding the right to contract with this line of argument. And that is the basis of YOUR argument”
How so? I do not think someone who is a relgiious authority should be licensed by the state to perform legal marriages. I can do with them being so authorized, as long as they ALSO cannot refuse to marry a couple who can LEGALLY GET married. If they aren’t will to do that, then they should not be authorized to preform ANY legal marriages.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:33 pm
Doggone/GA
“Certainly memebership is the issue. ”
Nope. See my 3:03 regarding gender discrimination and a perceived violation by a government agency.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:35 pm
Doggone/GA 3:26
Okay, let me rephrase with ‘to me, it appears you hold any marriage ceremonies that confer legal standing should be those performed solely by civil authorities.’
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
3:35 pm
Kam @2:58,
Being a drama queen is one thing.
But to compare a legal operation or procedure with arguably the most vicious murderers in the history of the world simply exposes the utter depravity and mental masturbation of that person and his position.
ld
May 31st, 2012
3:36 pm
No, SUCKS, I’m NOT okey with people “marrying” animals because animals have no ability to refuse or consent.
Given the farse of “marriage” (i.e. divorce rate), we, as a society, might be better of ending the institution as a civil ceremony and focusing on parental responsibility.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:37 pm
“Nope. See my 3:03 regarding gender discrimination and a perceived violation by a government agency.”
You only said the case was settled…you didn’t say how. I presume it was settled in BYU’s favor. It should not have been. If they don’t want to follow laws and regulations attendent on receiving Federal Funds then they should not accept those funds to begin with.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
3:37 pm
ethicssimplistic, absolutist logical fallacies shold (sic) tell you either life is sacred or its not.Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:38 pm
“Okay, let me rephrase with ‘to me, it appears you hold any marriage ceremonies that confer legal standing should be those performed solely by civil authorities.”
Now you’ve said it correctly.
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
3:38 pm
Id
with the use of dna you may
see that happen.
Atlas Shrugging
May 31st, 2012
3:41 pm
A federal court in Boston agreed with Obozo’s justice department, I am sooooo shocked.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:42 pm
“A federal court in Boston agreed with Obozo’s justice department, I am sooooo shocked”
Seems to me that it’s more a case of them both agreeing with the Constitution
Don't Tread
May 31st, 2012
3:44 pm
“as long as they ALSO cannot refuse to marry a couple who can LEGALLY GET married”
Forcing the clergy to perform marriages outside of their belief set sounds like the Catholic birth-control issue in a new wrapper. I suppose we should force businesses to serve people who don’t wear shirts and shoes.
If gays don’t like someone’s choice, there are plenty of other people willing to marry them.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
3:44 pm
Rhetorical question, why do you randians and Republcians hate our system of government so much?
You really are becoming the anti-American Party.
I think getalife had the perfect answer for you would be anarchists, secessionists, traitors, etc…
Self-deportation, like that self-before-country Facebook POS…
stands for decibels
May 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
No church would be forced to participate in any marriage it didn’t approve of, and the couple getting hitched have to do their own leg work in satisfying any requirements the church might have.
Everyone can get a civil marriage. Churches don’t get forced to do something they don’t want to do.
Is anyone out there seriously claiming that marriage equality would mean that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages?
I mean, I assumed it was a joke, but I’m just checking here.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
May 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
People should concern themselves with our gay citizens less and worry about themselves more.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
“Forcing the clergy to perform marriages outside of their belief set sounds like the Catholic birth-control issue in a new wrapper”
Nope. In my scenario they are legally licensed to perform MARRIAGES. As a legal authority they cannot then refuse to obey the LAWS pertaining to that legal function. If they cannot abide by those laws, they do not have to apply to become able to perform legal marriages. They can do “church” marriages all they want, and for whomever they want…but those marriages would not ALSO be legal marriages.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:47 pm
“Is anyone out there seriously claiming that marriage equality would mean that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages?”
Only those who think marriage are religious and not legal. Or, in other words, those who have it backwards.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
3:52 pm
The question of mutiple spouses seems to me to be a matter of personal opinion and preference only. Don’t see that there is any moral question involved as long as it is between consenting adults. Consenting adults should be able to enter into contract they chose, unless it is an illegal contract. And contract should be made illegal only if they are against public policy. What is the argument that multiple spouses should be against public policy. Only one I can think of is that if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, then result would be likely that many men would not be able to find available wives, leading to socail discord.
stands for decibels
May 31st, 2012
3:53 pm
Forcing the clergy to perform marriages outside of their belief set
heh.
Ok, “Don’t Tread,” do you really think anyone’s proposing to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages under threat of some legal prosecution?
Really? Got any cite for that whatsoever? even from some fringe lefty gay activist somewhere in Shytscreek, Flyoverlandia?
Son of the South
May 31st, 2012
3:53 pm
Hey Atlas:
“A federal court in Boston agreed with Obozo’s justice department, I am sooooo shocked.”
Two of the three judges were appointed by Republicans. Republicans who understand how the Constitution works, unlike Randians such as yourself.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
3:54 pm
Only those who think marriage are religious and not legal. Or, in other words, those who have it backwards.
_____
If you look at the history of marriage. It began as a religious matter. The state only became involved latter, after states and laws were invented. Marrage predates states and laws.
Mr.SouthMetoAtl
May 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
A stupid act from the get-go. Nothing sanctimonious about an institution that’s filled with adultery, domestic violence and divorce. Tax benefits must be the draw. lol
Good luck to peace and harmony amongst man and woman kind.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
SfD — “Is anyone out there seriously claiming that marriage equality would mean that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages? I mean, I assumed it was a joke, but I’m just checking here.”
Not that I’m aware of.
OBIWAN
May 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
Who cares?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
OT but checkit — Iron Man 3 photos, hot off the set.
http://collider.com/iron-man-3-ben-kingsley-mandarin/169986/
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
JamVet – Still haven’t found your way to the VA for those meds have you? Situational ethics are generally little more than rationalization of one’s own inappropriate behavior. Kind of like killing the abortion doctors because the unborn baby’s lives are sacred. What are the doctors, chopped liver?
So were you drafted or did you volunteer and who’d you kill in the war?
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
“What is the argument that multiple spouses should be against public policy. Only one I can think of is that if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, then result would be likely that many men would not be able to find available wives, leading to socail discord”
I, personally, have no objection fo plural marriages between consenting adults…but I think the problem is that most people think of them as you just did: one man with multiple wives. Any such relaxing of the bigamy laws would have to apply equally to both men and women.
I outlined a situation a few days ago that could, potentially, cause nightmarish legal complications. Just think of it: a man has 3 wives. Of those 3, one has 2 other husbands, two of which have multiple wives. The legal complications would multiply exponentially!
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:58 pm
Doggone/GA
It was settled when the government withdrew all action.
The rest of your response: that is exactly what causes concern in religious institutions. What you are saying, quite plainly, is that if a religious institutions receives ANY federal monies, even indirectly (veteran receives GI Bill, uses that to pay tuition or rent) then the institution receiving the payment from the vet is subject to all federal regulations.
This same pattern would also hold, by that reasoning: Catholic food bank becomes part of a program enabling food stamp recipients to purchase food at the food bank beyond the amount normally distributed. One of the needy is a Catholic woman, who then brings a case to the feds claiming discrimination because she can’t be ordained a priest and the feds pursue. Feds say their basis is because the Church receives federal funds.
Try not to get bogged down in the specifics. They are used to illustrate the main point.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:01 pm
“If you look at the history of marriage. It began as a religious matter.”
If YOU look into it, you will find that marriage has ALWAYS been a legal matter. The first known written reference to marriage is in a list of LAWS. A bit of Medieval history would educate you as well. Legal marriages became so UNcommon that when the Black Plague hit Europe church authorities were BEGGING people to get LEGALLY married to help resolve the issues of inheritance of the property of those who died.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:03 pm
Doggone/GA 3:38
That is why I’m leaning more towards the idea the government performs the civil ceremony for all, conferring legal rights, while the religious institution performs marriages for whomever it wants –
Still haven’t thought thru the implications, but it sounds reasonable.
But I will still predict that many gay marriage advocacy groups would still oppose because they will say they still do not have full marriage equality.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:05 pm
Paul — “But I will still predict that many gay marriage advocacy groups would still oppose because they will say they still do not have full marriage equality.”
Seems to me that that argument would be fought out in churches, not in government.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:06 pm
“Try not to get bogged down in the specifics. They are used to illustrate the main point.”
Well, you see…I believe STRONGLY in the separation of church and state…in BOTH directions. If churches want to be left alone to do things their own way, fine. Let them. But they should not then be able to receive monies that *I* contributed to and use them to discriminate against – possibly – ME, or someone like me. If they want to be free of controls, then they can fund their own charities and schools and refuse to take any money that is generated from the taxes of us ALL.
And if someone who is eligible for tax generated funds for schooling wants to use that money, then they can choose to go to a school that will comply with all the relevent laws and regulations around and about that money. If they want to go to a school that won’t, then they can pay for it out of their own pocket.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:09 pm
“That is why I’m leaning more towards the idea the government performs the civil ceremony for all, conferring legal rights, while the religious institution performs marriages for whomever it wants –”
It’s even easier than that. Civil authorities perform civil MARRIAGES, which are the legal, contractual marriage. Religious authorities can perform religious marriages, but those are not legal marriages.
And, BTW, I have no objection to getting married in a religious ceremony that includes a civil authority to make it legal. Or, as I said above, if the religious authority is able to obey ALL laws and regulations pertaining to legal marriage, then I have no problem with their being licensed to do so…but that would bind them to agreeing to marry any couple who can legally get married.
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:11 pm
Doggone/GA, thanks for jumping on the history of marriage misinformation. The religious right so often try to claim it as a religious invention.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:12 pm
Marriage, like murder laws and theft laws, are NOT religiously based, but tribal law based.
PLEASE understand this before spouting off about the history of something in relation to religion.
Don't Tread
May 31st, 2012
4:12 pm
“do you really think anyone’s proposing to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages under threat of some legal prosecution?
Really? Got any cite for that whatsoever?”
I was responding to Doggone’s opinion @ 3:30…read the post.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:13 pm
“Doggone/GA, thanks for jumping on the history of marriage misinformation. The religious right so often try to claim it as a religious invention”
You’re welcome…but that false idea is not limited to the right. It is pervasive and transcends political devisions.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:15 pm
Paul: I think the real issue here is that marriage is defined nowadays as two people who love each other, with legal implications tied to the word “marriage” in several codes of law throughout the states. If the federal government were to invalidate ALL marriages equally, and then take over the process of civil unions (or whatever term you want to use) leaving marriage to religious organizations and civil unions as the legal part, I would have to disagree with this method of strongarming the subject.
Mister
May 31st, 2012
4:15 pm
The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:16 pm
Mister: The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance , that’s how
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:17 pm
Mister — “The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?”
Why, your head asplodes, of course.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:18 pm
“I would have to disagree with this method of strongarming the subject.”
Especially as it’s totally unneccessary. The laws on the books refer to marriage. In order to institute Consitutional equality all that’s needed is to define marriage as being between two consenting adults. Then the laws already on the books will apply equally to all legal marriages.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:18 pm
afternoon, sfd 3:46
I believe what kicked this off was pointing out the California Supreme Court holding the state constitution states marriage is a fundamental right, in concert with a statutory protection of equality would lead to an outcome that is not at all guaranteed. That was one of the interesting points about California’s proposition 8 – the state already had in place a legal framework that put civil unions on par with traditional marriages.
We have plenty of rabbit holes to fall down in here -
East Cobb RINO
May 31st, 2012
4:19 pm
AMEN to that Doggone!
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:20 pm
I would be interested to know how many people get married in a religious ceremony without the official presiding giving them the legal document to sign signifying the civil contract. If anyone is “married” without that, the “marriage” is not legal.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:22 pm
sfd
Let me rephrase that – I believe the point I mentioned was in response the the notion that a gay marriage law would have no effect other than that gay couples could marry. I was just pointed out that in such matters of law, it’s often incorrect to assert there are no unintended consequences.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:22 pm
“equal protection under the law ”
This is another perverse liberal interpretation of our laws and constitution! This is why we cannot allow another four years of Obama and his far left appointees.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
4:23 pm
angryvet – It was nam wasn’t it? Let’s see proud of your honorable service invading a foreign soveriegn nation and killing people who never attacked us, then resolutely denouncing the Bush invasion of Iraq after 9/11. Yeah, you would believe in situational ethics wouldn’t you?
BTW – “Thou shalt not kill” is extremely simplistic, but it’s a fine moral tenet, as are most of the 10. The honorable thing would have been to refuse to serve in such an immoral war, perhaps you should have considered self-immolation in protest like the buddhist monks!
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:24 pm
Marriage, like murder laws and theft laws, are NOT religiously based, but tribal law based
__________
And all tribal customs were based on their religious beliefs. Marriages. as I said before, predate states and laws.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:25 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
Probably both.
As long as there’s still money and power at stake -
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:26 pm
“And all tribal customs were based on their religious beliefs”
You’d have a hard time proving that.
“Marriages. as I said before, predate states and laws.”
Just because you said it doesn’t mean it’s true. You’d have a hard time proving that too.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
“but those are not legal marriages”
Could you give a resource for comment? I remember courts accepting information written by hand in the Bible to include marriages. Have you liberals changed that–in NY, Ma, CT where?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
J. Birch @ 4:23
You’re a Richard, and I don’t mean Richard.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
Doggone/GA 4:06
So you’re controlling the behavior and freedom of a student to choose which educational institution they can attend just because they receive food stamps?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
Paul: Let me rephrase that – I believe the point I mentioned was in response the the notion that a gay marriage law would have no effect other than that gay couples could marry. I was just pointed out that in such matters of law, it’s often incorrect to assert there are no unintended consequences.
But that’s exactly it. There wouldn’t be “unintended consequences” of the law, if all you do is make it two consenting adults. No legal marriage affects any other legal marriage already. All rights afforded to married couples are afforded to ALL married couples. There is no “unintended consequence” in this case.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:29 pm
I have documentation for marriage and how far back it goes. Do you have any documentation or is this warm fuzzy feely thing you liberals have often.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:29 pm
Doggone/GA – 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
_______
Marraige predates recorded history. Since there are no records. written proof would be hard to find.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:30 pm
John Birch: Let’s see proud of your honorable service invading a foreign soveriegn nation and killing people who never attacked us, then resolutely denouncing the Bush invasion of Iraq after 9/11. Yeah, you would believe in situational ethics wouldn’t you?
Said like someone who really doesn’t get that military people can’t just “say no” when they are deployed. Good grief.
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
OMG, “written in the Bible by hand” in what year?
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
“So you’re controlling the behavior and freedom of a student to choose which educational institution they can attend just because they receive food stamps?”
If the school is not taking those food stamps, why should it affect where they go? If it IS taking those food stamps why should the school be exempt from any laws pertaining to those food stamps?
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
All this is simply another attempt to accept homosexuals as normal by redefining the term marriage.
Mister
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
“equal protection under the law ”
This is another perverse liberal interpretation of our laws and constitution!
Holy Cow! Dude, read what YOU quoted and read YOUR response.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
John Edwards found not guilty on 1 count and mistrial on others
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:32 pm
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
Does it matter?
bluecoat
May 31st, 2012
4:32 pm
2 republicn appointed judges,and one lonely democrat DOMA illegal.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:32 pm
If anyone is “married” without that, the “marriage” is not legal.
_______
Many states allow common law marriage such as you describe. Georgia did until a few years ago when they were deemed illegal, unless they were formed before the law was passed. Existing common law marriages were recognized and not deemed to be void.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:33 pm
“Holy Cow! Dude, read what YOU quoted and read YOUR response”
Holy cow dude! I dont understand what you are saying.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:33 pm
“Marraige predates recorded history. Since there are no records. written proof would be hard to find”
Yep, that’s why we can’t rely on YOUR MEMORY of which came first. Since you weren’t there.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
4:34 pm
Common Sense
I do not know all the facts and legalities in the John Edwards case to say that he is guilty or not.
What I will say is that he is 100% guilty of being a scum bag.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:34 pm
“All this is simply another attempt to accept homosexuals as normal by redefining the term marriage”
Nope. It is an attempt to accept them as EQUAL under the law.
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:35 pm
OMG, It matters if the cleric at the time was determined to be a civil servant and that was the method of recording in common practice.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:36 pm
“Holy cow dude! I dont understand what you are saying.”
Why am I not surprised?
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:37 pm
“It matters if the cleric at the time was determined to be a civil servant”
Thank you. Marriage is a CIVIL and LEGAL contract. Nice of you to confirm that for us.
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:37 pm
Oscar, your point about common law marriage is true. Interestingly enough, the states that have passed bans on same sex marriage have also frequently banned common law marriages.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:38 pm
Adam 4:15
This issue concerning ‘marriage’ has become so contentious I’m not sure there’s any way around it (federal intervention), particularly if it’s viewed as a ‘right.’
That’s one reason I wondered about Pres Obama’s approach (well, not really, given the political reality). I know Pres Obama didn’t use the word ‘right’ but he did say ‘treated equally.’ I can’t imagine him taking another ‘rights’ or ‘equality’ issue and saying “we’re just going to leave this to the states to decide.”
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
4:38 pm
The radical right wing anarchist has huge self control/self esteem problems, JHM.
He could have written his first diatribe and then let it go, which was fine by me.
But when he got no reaction from me, he devolved into his real self – enraged and irrational.
Embarrassing himself seems no big deal…
BTW, check out his very first post today, downstairs. And take a wild guess whose name with unprovoked personal insult is included?
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:42 pm
Yep, that’s why we can’t rely on YOUR MEMORY of which came first. Since you weren’t there.
————–
Have you ever heard of anthropology. They study things like this and there are a lot of books on early human behavior. Marrage and other human customs and how they arose.
Thulsa Doom
May 31st, 2012
4:42 pm
They do loves they Ayn Rand references they do.
Great to see for the 2nd day in a row one of the kooks going BOOM in deference and homage to Doomy. Doomy like it he do.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:43 pm
” I can’t imagine him taking another ‘rights’ or ‘equality’ issue and saying “we’re just going to leave this to the states to decide.””
And yet…there are many things that are in exactly that situation. Voting for instance. A state cannot take the vote away from it’s citizens, but each state has differing laws controlling how voting is handled. Marriage is already in that situation. States have differing laws regulating marriages.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:44 pm
Doom — “deference and homage to Doomy. Doomy like it he do.”
I’ve seen people do it to make fun of you, but never out of deference orf homage. I bet you don’t like that, you don’t.
Mister
May 31st, 2012
4:45 pm
“Holy cow dude! I dont understand what you are saying.”
You don’t see the irony in your post?
And I thought I was think as a brick.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:46 pm
“Have you ever heard of anthropology. They study things like this and there are a lot of books on early human behavior. Marrage and other human customs and how they arose”
Sure they do, but they weren’t there either…so they can sepculate how marriages were handled based on population memories, but they don’t KNOW – any more than you do – what the original motivation for marriage was. The speculation *I* have seen is that it originated in the desire of men to know that the offspring of their partner was truly their own. That is a CIVIL concern, not a religious concern.
josef
May 31st, 2012
4:47 pm
I’M LIBERAL, etc
@ 3:14
Wydaje się, że inny głupie kawałek gówna gówno powrócił … powiedział, że popełnił błąd, i przeprosił, okay?
bluecoat
May 31st, 2012
4:47 pm
Well lets look at it this way.First the marriage contract negotiated between the parents,before the kids were old enough to assume adult roles.Second step in marriage process took place when the kids reached maturity.The groom would then take the bride to a home he had prepared.The bride would present her dowry,and he would give her gifts.Finally the wedding feast.What puzzles me with this new marriage law is who gets the dowry?
Peter
May 31st, 2012
4:48 pm
As a Christian conservative, I’m certainly glad to see that same-sex marriage is becoming even MORE of an election issue.
Really why would anyone who wasn’t hypocritical say such a thing ?
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
4:49 pm
sheets
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:49 pm
Adam 4:28
You may want to back up and read some of the comments. If a Muslim church said they wouldn’t do it, then the possibility does exist the state could say ‘you are denying a fundamental right and therefore we will revoke your tax-exempt status.”
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
4:49 pm
blue coat
” who gets the dowry ”
…….
the reluctant one.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
4:52 pm
OK just say it this way…….
As a Christian conservative, who is JUDGMENTAL, and a Hypocrite, I’m certainly glad to see that same-sex marriage is becoming even MORE of an election issue.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
Mister
May 31st, 2012
4:15 pm
The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?
___________________________________________________________________
So, is it ok for a Jewish person to quote Ghandi?
How about an atheist quoting Dr. ML King?
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
That is a CIVIL concern, not a religious concern
__________
Early societies did not separate civil and religious. Separation of the two came much later. To them, all laws and customs were religious and to break the rules was taboo, a violation of religious laws.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
May 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
Just give the gays the same rights that hetero couples have. Then they will go do what they do in their private lives and the rest of us can enjoy some d@mn peace and quiet on the issue and move on to better things. And if there happens to be a God who supposedly inspired the bible to be written and the laws and recommendations are pertinent, well then they’re screwed by a celestial being. But who are we to judge? We’re all sinners according to the bible.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:56 pm
Oscar — “Early societies did not separate civil and religious. Separation of the two came much later. To them, all laws and customs were religious and to break the rules was taboo, a violation of religious laws.”
Well, that’d be their mistake then. Fortunately, we’ve progressed since then and are mentally and emotionally capable of separating the two. At least I hope we are.
Thulsa Doom
May 31st, 2012
4:57 pm
Gay marriage thoughts? Hmm. Good for you josef. And as the Godfather once said “I wish you luck- especially since your interests don’t conflict with mine.”
I was a little surprised over the lib gloating on what is usually a side issue for many others. Adam seems beside himself with joy. He’s not gay so I wondered why the sheer delight? Then it hit me. They got nothing else. They sure as hell can’t talk about the economy. Sheesh.
Consumer confidence is way down, the stock market just had its worse one month drop in 2 years, the libs are about to take an asskicking in Wisconsin despite their big talk months back about Wisconsin, O made yet another embarrassing gaffe, quarterly earnings coming out are the worst they’ve been in awhile, the jobs report isn’t looking too hot(150k jobs expected only), for the 7th time in 8 weeks jobless claims are up, David Axelrod got humiliated this morning, O’s landmark legislation is most likely going to get slapped down. Good grief. Is there any good news for the kooks?
Otay. Lemme throw Adam a bone- gas prices are down! Wooohooo! Since demand and economic expectations are rapidly plunging under the O man gas prices are dropping. Aint no doubt- give O full credit!
There ya go libs. Ya got 2 things to celebrate about. Not much else though….
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
4:57 pm
Fresh Prince
Wont just be gays getting “screwed”…………………. Many of those all up in arms about gays will be getting bent over much more than they will ever know
G Mare 71(PLEASE VOTE NO ON TSPLOST)
May 31st, 2012
4:59 pm
Just finished very good book by Zach Wahls called MY TWO MOMS. Zach is 20 years old and his many accomplishments include Eagle Scout. He tells about the love & support of his Lesbian mothers. It is a moving story.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
4:59 pm
TD
“Since demand and economic expectations are rapidly plunging under the O man gas prices are dropping.”
Whats up man? Not going to get into a drawn out gas price discussion because I think both side play it too much, however you have touted the prices going down under Bush. It was for the very same reasons
Thulsa Doom
May 31st, 2012
5:01 pm
Be honest Joe Mama. You were on your knees yesterday when you said BOOM. Its otay. The adulation has not gone unnoticed.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
5:01 pm
Doggone/GA
“So you’re controlling the behavior and freedom of a student to choose which educational institution they can attend just because they receive food stamps?”
If the school is not taking those food stamps, why should it affect where they go? If it IS taking those food stamps why should the school be exempt from any laws pertaining to those food stamps?”
The student receives food stamps. The student used the food stamps to buy food at the university store. Therefore, the university is receiving federal funds. Therefore, the only school the student could attend are those that do not accept food stamps in the cafeteria or on a quickstop located on the university or one of the university food vendors.
Now I’m wondering if there are any universities at all that meet those criteria.
So now, just to comply with that requirement, you’ve made universities not accept food stamps, so all student working their way thru school using food stamps will be forced to transfer to another school, But they can’t afford to move you’ve forced them to drop out of college.
You’re about to cause a bunch of little kids to wear dog collars.
Nice going, Doggone/GA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-zG5U0v3gU
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
5:03 pm
Both
He is a scumbag that is definite
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
5:08 pm
“So now, just to comply with that requirement, you’ve made universities not accept food stamps”
Or…they could choose to accept the foods stamps, and any laws and regulations pertaining to the taking of them and thus increase their potential student base.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
5:10 pm
Doom — “Be honest Joe Mama. You were on your knees yesterday when you said BOOM.”
Not in the least, Doom. I actually think you’re quite funny when you do that. But not funny as in ‘laugh with you.’ More like ‘laugh AT you’ funny.
“Its otay. The adulation has not gone unnoticed.”
Well, Doom, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. If you need some sort of validation from me to improve your self-esteem, I guess I can be charitable and help you out with that.
That said, I’m heading home to play with my wife. Have a good evening and drive safely.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
5:10 pm
Well all let’s just face it… ALL men are not Created Equal Period.
That is a lie handed down to us from the original signers.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
May 31st, 2012
5:28 pm
Intriguing, Jay, that you were not as interested in the four or five Federal rulings declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. How could that be?
Mama Says
May 31st, 2012
6:03 pm
Joe Mama @ 12:45 pm
The argument cannot be about government if the issue cannot be solved with civil unions, which provide equal rights.
The moderate conservatives who are ok with civil unions are told that equal rights mean ” marraige”. If the fight is over the act of ” marraige” then the truth is gays want their union recognized by a religious ceremony.
If gays demanded civil union laws then they would be arguing for equal protection under constitutional law. A ceremony overseen by a priest, pastor or another religious figure is a religious ceremony.
Truthfully as a conservative, I think the government should stay out of the entire matter, they have no right to decide who anyone gives thier benefits to or lives with. But to be gay and argue for “marraige” is the same thing as asking God to sanction your right to continue a sin he denounced.
Given the absolute fact that sin is sin against The Law of God you cannot ask Christians, Muslims or any other religious group to sanction ANY act which God condemns, regardless of what it is. In the eyes of religious people all sins are equal. Given the fact that nobody can say God did not condemn homosexual activity, it is a sin. Religiously speaking we all must recognize our sins, stop committing them, repent and ask for forgiveness. Man, via the government or church leaders, cannot forgive us of any sin. Nor can they declare them void.
Let man sleep with man and woman sleep with woman just stop trying to put it in the same realm as a ” Christian marriage”
I will bet anyone – call it a union and it will be the law of the land, insist on marraige and it never will be.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
6:10 pm
Mama Says . pretty big statement………now what about all the folks divorcing and getting remarried in the CHURCH……
That is NOT a SIN ? PLEASE
Peter
May 31st, 2012
6:23 pm
Let man sleep with man and woman sleep with woman just stop trying to put it in the same realm as a ” Christian marriage”
How are those Christian divorces going ?
Why after a divorce is a Christian able to yet again be married in a church ?
Guess what you, AND the whole of Christianity are judging, and are quite hypocritical..and your argument has zero merit.. and in general……Christianity is a joke for the reasons you mention.