Supremes’ ruling on gay marriage important, not critical
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it hear arguments in two important but very different cases involving gay marriage, raising the odds that it will soon establish the basic legal architecture for how that issue is handled in the future.
One case, out of New York, addresses how the federal government must handle gay marriages that are conducted in states where such marriages are legal. The second, out of California, raises the more fundamental question of whether gay marriage is a right protected under the Constitution’s promise of equal protection.
Given the range of legal questions at stake in those two cases, the court’s final ruling next June could take any number of turns. And you just know that Justice Antonin Scalia is itching to get his hands on this issue.
However, it is also important to point out that however the nine justices decide, all final decisions on the matter will be made by the American people. And they have already made it clear that we will not be going backward on this issue, and that whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling this year, in time the right to marry will be extended to all Americans, gay or straight.
Young people support that right overwhelming. Despite the stern opposition of their church, almost 60 percent of Catholics support it. According to a Pew poll in July, political independents support it by an 11-point margin. Black Americans, long dubious of the notion, also support it in increasing numbers.
As recently as 1996, 65 percent of Americans rejected the notion of gay marriage; only 27 percent supported it. Yet in the July Pew poll, 48 percent of Americans supported it and just 44 percent opposed it. That is an extraordinary shift in public opinion in just 16 years, on an issue that that you might think people might be stubborn about.
So do your worst, Justice Scalia. At worst, you and others can temporarily affect the pace of the change that is taking place across this country. But you cannot affect the final outcome.
– 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
1,132 comments Add your comment
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 8th, 2012
1:40 pm
Christian Conservative
Are you Catholic or Christian?
For many years the Catholic Church taught that the Christian churches were not HOLY enough.
That they didn’t believe in quite the same God.
Funny you fall back to sin, when according to the Catholic Church if you confess your sin to God all will be forgiven.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
1:41 pm
“I have a problem with the gubmint trying to force us to accept that it is somehow normal when its certainly not”
But “the government” is not doing that. There’s no legal requirement for YOU to recognize ANYthing as “normal”
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
1:43 pm
Doggone/GA
If Lincoln did not change the Constitution then the slaves were
freed illegally and would not have had freedom until the amendment
was ratified.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
1:43 pm
“All I can do is shake my head and say bless your heart if your to stupid to realize living a homosexual lifestyle is dangerous….”
I bet that a wife murdered by her husband, or a husband murdered by his wife…would thing that the heterosexual “lifestyle” is dangerouse too
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
1:45 pm
“If Lincoln did not change the Constitution then the slaves were freed illegally and would not have had freedom until the amendment was ratified”
Well, since they were only freed in the seceded states, which were in an illegal state under the Constitution already…those slaves were not freed “illegally”
Slave were not univerally freed you know, UNTIL the Constitutional amendment was passed.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
1:47 pm
All I can do is shake my head and say bless your heart if your to stupid to realize living a homosexual lifestyle is dangerous….
Actual facts that AIDS is an almost completely gay disease???
http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/
Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM):
By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.
•MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).
•CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.
•In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).
•Young, black MSM were the only risk group in the U.S. to experience statistically significant increases in new HIV infections from 2006–2009—from 4,400 new HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009.
Heterosexuals and Injection Drug Users:
Heterosexuals and injection drug users also continue to be affected by HIV.
•Individuals infected through heterosexual contact accounted for 27% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009 and 28% of people living with HIV in 2008.
•As a group, women accounted for 23% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009 and 25% of those living with HIV in 2008.
•Injection drug users represented 9% of annual new HIV infections in 2009 and 17% of those living with HIV in 2008.
AIDS is almost a completely gay disease just as you are almost completey smart. Get better with googling facts and stay away from the propaganda sites.
RF
December 8th, 2012
1:47 pm
“I have a problem with the gubmint trying to force us to accept that it is somehow normal when its certainly not.”
They’re not saying it’s “normal” or “moral” or anything other than LEGAL, and thus allowed the rights afforded to married couples. They’re not endorsing it, they’re just deciding whether it is allowed legal recognition under the Constitution…you know, that document many like you always throw up as THE most important document in the “gubmint”?
“Why would you bring Christ into the conversation?”
Well, you call yourself Christian, so I thought it reasonable to share my understanding of him based on my life and reading the Bible quite a bit.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
1:47 pm
(not) Christian Conservative wrote:
I’ve got one question for you homo marriage supporters. If your child came to you as a teen and expressed his or her desire to be homosexual would you be happy?
“Desire to be a homosexual?”
There’s so much stupid in that phrase, I’m not even sure where to go with it.
But suffice to say that as a parent, if my kid comes out as a same-sexer (extremely not likely, mind you, but you never know) at some point I’ll be totally supportive. As my kid already knows.
Anyway, you obviously need to get out more.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
1:49 pm
Hey, you know what? I “desire to be heterosexual!” you think maybe our “Christian Conservative” can tell me how?
heh heh heh.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
1:51 pm
Hey, Soothsayer (@10.58)–if you come back, I did weigh in on that tragic DJ pranking thing, here:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/12/07/take-five-mr-brubeck-youve-earned-it/?cp=all#comment-1169825
if’n you’re interested.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 8th, 2012
1:52 pm
Bro
I read a while back that a very fast growing segment of society to show up as HIV positive were retired men.
It seems that when they get their retirement checks they visit prostitutes.
I guess those prostitutes got HIV from ONLY gay men. Who woulda thunk that?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 8th, 2012
1:52 pm
Hey, you know what? I “desire to be heterosexual!” you think maybe our “Christian Conservative” can tell me how?
You can start here.
http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
1:52 pm
“Hey, you know what? I “desire to be heterosexual!” you think maybe our “Christian Conservative” can tell me how?”
I’m in an odd mood, and can’t even begin to know why this reminded me of this joke, but it did!
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Only 1…but the bulb has to really WANT to change
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
1:54 pm
stay away from the propaganda sites.
It’s been awhile since I’ve been to any of the really stupid homophobe sites–anyone got any especially larf-worthy links to share?
MiltonMan
December 8th, 2012
1:54 pm
Who give a crap what the child molesting Catholics think??? Hitler himself was a Catholic.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
1:55 pm
Kammy, I don’t want to “convert” from Teh Ghey, I just desire to be hetero. I don’t know how to go about it. Can someone help? I might be doing it wrong!
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
1:56 pm
Milton, I guess it’s five o’clock somewhere…
getalife
December 8th, 2012
1:58 pm
You want to play the moral card?
Fine, address income inequality and stop slobbering on the wealthy.
Greed is a sin.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
1:58 pm
There’s so much stupid in that phrase, I’m not even sure where to go with it.
http://www.bruguru.com/hopstoopid.jpg
Why not ferment it and sell the results for a profit?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 8th, 2012
1:59 pm
dB
I’m sure that if you wade through TGT’s website, all your wishes will be fulfilled.
St Simons - he-ne-ha
December 8th, 2012
1:59 pm
“How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Only 1…but the bulb has to really WANT to change”
heheh if mrsstsimons had a nickel for……….
i said earlier ‘the regular conservative bloggers here…’
the ‘Left Behind’ book club must’ve got a link to this article….
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
2:01 pm
Can we make “baiting the homophobe” an Olympic sport in time for the 2016 games?
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
2:01 pm
NoCom
I heard something similar to that. I couldn’t recall which group it was that put it out, but they referenced an increase in STDs with the increase in Viagra, Cialis, and other wood enabling drugs.
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:01 pm
Doggone/GA
The military was ordered to treat the slaves as freemen in the rebellious
states which was illegal under the Constitution and if the Constitution did
not apply to the CSA then Lincoln had no authority over the slaves in those
states so they were not free. Thus Lincoln had to change the Constitution
by Executive Order or none of the slaves would have been free until
amendment 13.
St Simons - he-ne-ha
December 8th, 2012
2:02 pm
good point, someone.
the cons who have worshipped mammon, greed and gluttony
for 30+ years wanna lecture me about sin.
It is to laugh.
They’re gonna get left behind, but not the way they think…
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
2:04 pm
Well, I have to run. Might be back later, udderwise–pleasant rest of the day, all. Except the homophobes, who can… well, I’m not allowed to say, and I don’t really *want* ‘em to die.
they’ll come around, most of ‘em, anyway.
getalife
December 8th, 2012
2:04 pm
I think we are in a psychiatrists bubble.
The world ends this month according to some people.
They call them preppers on cable.
DannyX
December 8th, 2012
2:05 pm
“It’s been awhile since I’ve been to any of the really stupid homophobe sites–anyone got any especially larf-worthy links to share?”
Its been years since I have been to one. After reading the Holy grail of homophobe sites, the rest would just not be any fun…
James Dobson, Focus on The Family, gay conversion therapy,
“Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a ‘pen is’, just like his, only bigger.”
Classic!
Bravissimo
December 8th, 2012
2:06 pm
My employer(a large US company) already offers the same benefit package to unmarried couples as a married couple.So whats the advantage of being married? (speaking beneficially)
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
2:07 pm
getalife
Maybe the AJC can get some of those on Bookman and Wingfield’s blogs who are having the hardest times with the election and do an ODS “preppers” epidose.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 8th, 2012
2:10 pm
. . .it’ll be interesting to see who claims to be the spouse. Or will the word spouse be considered sexist? Or racist?
Y’know, when they make us get Gay Married some of us will still have a normal wife. Will they charge us with bigamy? Will we have to file two income tax returns, one for the normal family and one for the Gay Married family? If my regular wife files to divorce can I make my Gay husband pay the alimony for me? It’s stuff like this we need to worry about.
Anyhow, I’m headed out to look for a comfy recliner. I want one just like Archie Bunker’s. That sucker looks like you could go to sleep the second you got in it. Maybe I’ll look for a double recliner so old Ace can get up in it with me. Have a good Saturday everybody.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
2:11 pm
WOW
Kam called out TGT and he tucked tail and ran for the hills
too funny
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
2:11 pm
So whats the advantage of being married? (speaking beneficially)
Estate benefits upon death of the surviving partner. Look into the New York case that’s going before the SCOTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_v._United_States
In 2007, Edith “Edie” Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership.[1] Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[2][3] After Spyer’s death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.[4][5] Besides Windsor other plaintiffs in the case are federal workers, who are not allowed to add their spouses to health care plans and other benefits.[6]
getalife
December 8th, 2012
2:12 pm
Both,
A new show called “seceders”,
Like Snoop said about Katt,
Get him some help man.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:12 pm
“Can we make “baiting the homophobe” an Olympic sport in time for the 2016 games”
Be fun, wouldn’t it…but I think it’s too one-sided to be a true sport
Tom Middleton
December 8th, 2012
2:14 pm
Well, if we’re going to be a “land of the free,” then we have to be about freedom first if that means all of us. And since “all of us” means us as individuals and together, then the right to fall in love and marry whom we will is basic to the cause.
When all is said and done and this issue fully resolved, it will be seen as a real yawner, unless, of course, Tony Perkins and Rick Santorum have yet to meet and fall in love themselves!
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:14 pm
“Thus Lincoln had to change the Constitution by Executive Order or none of the slaves would have been free until amendment 13.”
Nope, he didn’t change the Constitution. If you think he did…please quote the change in wording intiated by HIM. He freed the slaves under his powers as a President in time of war to weaken an enemy that had attacke the USA. The Consitition had nothing to do with it.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 8th, 2012
2:14 pm
Bravissimo
Many states don’t allow someone of the same sex who has been in a same sex releationship to have the same rights as a spouse in a marriage.
If a same sex partner has a medical condition (end of life, etc) that partner cannot make the decision as a spouse could.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 8th, 2012
2:15 pm
BOTH
A good thing too, ’cause according to the timetable he displayed next door at CT’s when she posted about this subject, his next diatribe would be multiple posts obsessing with anal sex.
Bravissimo
December 8th, 2012
2:19 pm
thanks for enlightening me.While I may not agree with same sex marraige in principle.I better understand the concerns of those involved.Seems the irs is always involved huh?
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:20 pm
Doggone/GA
Amendment 13 was the change in wording in the Constitution which
legalized the illegal Executive Order that he had used in fact to free
the slaves during the war.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:21 pm
“Seems the irs is always involved huh?”
And always has been. The first known reference to marriage is in a book of laws…not religion
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:22 pm
“Amendment 13 was the change in wording in the Constitution ”
but it was not written or passed by Lincoln. It was passed as required, by Congress and then ratification by the states.
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:28 pm
Doggone/GA
Exactly. Lincoln pushed for the amendment because without it
his wartime order to the Army would have had no effect and slavery
would still have existed.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:30 pm
“Exactly. Lincoln pushed for the amendment because without it his wartime order to the Army would have had no effect and slavery would still have existed”
Are you finally admitting that he did NOT “change the Constitution” as you claimed?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:33 pm
I’m beginning to think we wore Christian Conservative down.
TM
December 8th, 2012
2:34 pm
The majority finds that Gay rights are not in the Constitution and Douglas was wrong when he found “penumbra rights of privacy”. Guess what happens next.
Christian Conservative
December 8th, 2012
2:34 pm
Brosephus™:
I understand how completely ignorant supporters of homosexual marriage are to facts. If you support a cause you certainly want it to be worthy.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Scrivener
December 8th, 2012
2:34 pm
Cheryl Ann says: “To all the Bible thumpers, especially the one who said man can’t overrule God: Ah, actually, we’ve done it throughout history. And thank goodness we have, or, for example, we’d still have slavery.
Nice of you the call people Bible thumpers. Putting down an entire group of people is always a great way to get people to engage in a discussion with you, I’m sure. Anyway, you and many others fail to realize that slavery in the times the Bible was written was not what we think of as slavery today. To quote a Biblical scholar, Christopher Seitz: “…on the Old Testament and slavery, about which there is considerable modern confusion. Debt service in the Old Testament is not chattel slavery, which would entail a breaking of Israel’s laws against stealing people. The term “slavery” is on most peoples’ ears a term having to do with a post-biblical practice, widely condemned by Christians and abolished by them by appeal to scripture—not by simply rejecting all laws from the Old Testament, including those dealing with sexual conduct, but by showing the practice in its modern guise to be against Israel’s laws and the law of Christ both.”
Christian Conservative
December 8th, 2012
2:36 pm
Brosephus™:
What concerns me is that many times when homosexuals live the repulsive lifestyle they do and get and STD they ant the gubmint to pay their medical bills. Of course when they become unable to work they get on medicaid and are completely cared for. Its sad really that someone would want to live this kind of life….
Christian Conservative
December 8th, 2012
2:37 pm
But I still haven’t received an answer from you homosexual marriage proponents. If your child comes out of the closet will you be happy for them?
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:38 pm
Doggone/GA
No. Are you saying that Lincoln did not change the Constitution
because he did not annotate the official document in his own hand
in the oval office? He changed the Constitution by proclamation and
war to free the slaves in fact and it was later amended to substantiate
his change.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:38 pm
“I understand how completely ignorant supporters of homosexual marriage are to facts”
Back at ‘cha
Christian Conservative
December 8th, 2012
2:39 pm
Doggone/GA:
No not wore down. Just have better things to do than argue with a bunch of people lacking facts and intellect…. I would probably have a more robust debate with a stop sign….
josef
December 8th, 2012
2:39 pm
Christian Conservative
December 8th, 2012
1:20 pm
I’ve got one question for you homo marriage supporters. If your child came to you as a teen and expressed his or her desire to be homosexual would you be happy? If you say yes your either already in denial or delusional…
___________
Like RF, Unmentionable and I were blessed to find ourselves the primary care givers to three children who are now grown up, responsible and reproducing heterosexual adults. No straight couple anywhere in the world could be prouder of their heirs than we are.
Now as for your question. We were asked more than once what we would say if one of ours came with that announcement. You’d be surprised how many were horrified at my (not his) immediate response that I’d say, “oh, hell, no, you’re not!”
Why? First, the purely selfish reason. If s/he were, there it would come. “Unh-hunh, see. They raise queer kids.” The second was, why would I want (note the word WANT) my child to have to deal with all the cr*ap that goes with the territory of being gay?
You use the phrase, would I be “happy.” Was I happy when they started bringing home belles and beaux to meet the folks? Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes no. But we knew one thing, whatever we had to say wasn’t going to make a lot of difference. They would make their own decisions, and, hopefully, we had raised them right by our own example. In our minds at all times was that one put in us by our own elders. “Our children learn more by watching us than by listening to us.”
As for religion. Ours is a mixed religious marriage. There, too, we saw to it that they were exposed to the tenants of each of our faiths and those of others. They would, and did, take their own paths there.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:40 pm
“What concerns me is that many times when homosexuals live the repulsive lifestyle they do and get and STD they ant the gubmint to pay their medical bills.”
And are you equally concerned about heterosexuals that live repulsive lifestyles and expect the government to pay their medical bills?
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
2:41 pm
I understand how completely ignorant supporters of homosexual marriage are to facts. If you support a cause you certainly want it to be worthy.
Dude, you just can’t quit can you??? Where did I ever say I supported anything??? I simply stated that I support people being able to live their private lives without nosey assed people like you injecting themselves where they should not be.
If you were not so single tracked minded and ignorant, you would see that I posted those same statistics earlier. Contrary to what the voices in your head are telling you, 61% infection rate does not mean or prove your “almost completely” claim.
I have been married for more than 12 years, and I don’t plan on leaving my wife before one of us stops breathing. Two men or two women getting married have absolutely NO impact on my wife or my children. Why can’t you understand that I don’t support gay marriage nearly to the point that I support religious people getting the hell out of the lives of those they are not living?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:41 pm
“He changed the Constitution ”
I’m saying HE DID NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. If you like you can say he ignored it; he violated it; he misinterpreted the powers it gave him…or any number of other arguments. But he did NOT “change” it.
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:42 pm
christian conservative 2:37
Yes. How about you? want them to stay in the closet?
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
2:43 pm
If your child comes out of the closet will you be happy for them?
My child is my child and I’ll support them until I die. I don’t care if they turn out heterosexual or homosexual. My job, as a parent, is to try to protect the safety of my children as much as possible while teaching them everything I know in order for them to survive on their own. Anybody who would disown their child for any reason shouldn’t be a parent in the first place.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:43 pm
“Just have better things to do than argue with a bunch of people lacking facts and intellect”
We, on the other hand, get a lot of amusement out of pointing out the falacies of a bunch of people lacking facts and intellect.
weetamoe
December 8th, 2012
2:46 pm
As to Black support: what specifically are those increasing numbers of which you speak?
I do not pretend to know what Scalia’s opinion is or what his decision will be but I do know that he is much smarter and more principled than the angry person in the White House, and that all of your scorn and sneering will not do a thing to disturb his happiness or his place in the world.
It seems likely that the court will determine the matter to be one for the states to decide for the time being. Makes no difference to me.
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:46 pm
Doggone/GA
Then he did not free the slaves per your definition and history is wrong.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
2:46 pm
Conservative Christian
Why no mention of smoking and drinking related ailments that cost government and private insurance much more money each year than any stat you can bring up about gay this or gay that?
Good luck to you. May you get past the hate you have due to your closted feelings that do not mesh with your hate of essentially which is yourself.
take care
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
2:48 pm
Doggone
He claims people don’t have intellect and facts, yet he pulls out the same stats at 2:34 that I posted more than half an hour earlier to prove a point that I disproved when I posted those stats. First Mr. Conservative lost the election, and now he’s losing the debate. Gotta suck to be him today.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:49 pm
“Then he did not free the slaves per your definition and history is wrong”
He freed SOME of the slaves, and your knowledge of making changes to the Constitution is wrong
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 8th, 2012
2:50 pm
Josef/Bro
You guys responded to Christian Conservative in much kinder words than I was thinking.
I woulda gotten at least a temp. RED CARD
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:51 pm
“Gotta suck to be him today”
Yeah, no kidding! And wouldn’t it be a change if, just once, the homophobe crowd would come up with just ONE argument that was different? It’s getting boring refuting the same dumb arguments every time.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:54 pm
“You guys responded to Christian Conservative in much kinder words than I was thinking.”
I’m just waiting to see if he declares victory as he leaves damning us to hell for our “unchristian” attitudes
Cloudodust
December 8th, 2012
2:56 pm
Divorce lawyers will be the big winners here. Other than that, kids don’t belong in homosexual environment. I know love is grand and all that rot but kids need a Mom and a Dad, not a Mom and a Mom, etc…and too bad, I’m entitled to my opinion and calling me names or putting a label on my opinion doesn’t bother me.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
2:56 pm
Stopped in to see if there was anything new from the anti-gay crowd.
There wasn’t.
AIDS
Polygamy
Cats and dogs
No one overrules God’s law
*yawn*
Don Abernethy
December 8th, 2012
2:57 pm
Why 42% of Georgians want to separate themselves from liberals? Liberals want gay marriage,legalized pot, abortions, no fiscal responsibilities,big big government,more sex on tv, and more liberal writers like Jay. Unfortunately the 42% are stuck with a liberal President and a liberal majority in the country and all that can be done is to try to tolerate the ignorant.
josef
December 8th, 2012
2:57 pm
BOTH
I’m being nice (so far) today…but it was. imeoiauo, a legitimate question.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:58 pm
“Other than that, kids don’t belong in homosexual environment”
And you know that from experience, do you?
josef
December 8th, 2012
2:58 pm
Cloudodust…
I doubt that our three and RF’s two would agree with that…
DebbieDoRight -- Minister Of Propaganda
December 8th, 2012
2:58 pm
Donovan: I see natural things in this world as the way it should be. I don’t see dogs having sex with cats and cats having dog babies. I don’t see lions sleeping with baboons or great white sharks playing with seals.
I guess you don’t wanna be around when, according to the bible, this will happen:
Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
2:59 pm
“Liberals want gay marriage,legalized pot, abortions, no fiscal responsibilities,big big government,more sex on tv, and more liberal writers like Jay”
If you are not a liberal, you’re hardly an expert on what “they” want
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
2:59 pm
Doggone/GA
He freed SOME of the slaves
……………………………………………..
Since slavery was constitutional, exactly how did he do this?
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
3:00 pm
Some earlier posts were kind of interesting.
When SCOTUS was reviewing Obamacare, there was great hope by the cons that they would overturn it.
Now that SCOTUS is looking at perhaps overturning a law they like, they get their panties in a bunch and scream “judicial activism”
There is a word for that, but it escapes me at the moment.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 8th, 2012
3:01 pm
DDR
I missed you yesterday LOL
But I see you are back with your words (from the Lord) of wisdom
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:01 pm
CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE
You got your answer. Next question.
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
3:02 pm
DebbieDo
Donovan wants humans to marry humans and has some
biological science to support that.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:02 pm
“Since slavery was constitutional, exactly how did he do this?”
Well, now that you mention it…he didn’t really. He DECLARED them free…and they freed themselves by taking him at his word.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 8th, 2012
3:03 pm
LOOK
I think that word is lunacy
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:13 pm
CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE
Funny thing, got the following e-mail from one of ours last p.m.
“Guys,
Hopefully this will swing our way.”
and a link to an article on the cases before the SCOTUS.
Why funny, strange, not ha-ha? He’s by far and away the most conservative of the three, career military, married with two great kids, and a bit of, if you take the siblings’ word for it, a stick in the mud…
Yet, there he was, hoping for it to swing “our” way…
Wanna know why we’re such proud papas?
JamVet
December 8th, 2012
3:18 pm
Every modern man, in the back of his mind
Has a problem to face.
He wants security for the home in his head
All he needs is the seven rays.
And when you think about tomorrow
What goes through your mind?
Now don’t nobody get uptight
Do you think that we can put up
With this sh*t one more night
All you need is just six more rays
Take one beam of light
Prism acquire
Break the white light down
Seven rays appear
One – Red, the ruler seeking freedom
Two – Rose, the father seeking unity
Three – Orange, the thinker seeking understanding
Four – Yellow, the poet seeking harmony
Take the seven rays
Pure as fire
Focus anywhere
White light will appear
Five – Green, the scientist seeking truth
Six – Blue, the disciple seeking goodness
Seven – Indigo, the artist seeking beauty
This may sound like a bunch of trumped up words
But we keep no secrets today
The only hope for you is in your brothers, my friend
All you need is just six more rays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e19jYE1YlBg
David
December 8th, 2012
3:20 pm
I wonder if Jay Bookman prides himself in being the self appoint @$$ clown of the AJC? The only point he has correct is that likely in the future gay marriage will be part of American culture. Where he is wrong yet again is attacking the court, or specific members of the court. I could easily say that there are other court members just waiting to get in on the action, but I won’t. The facts (at least how I see them) are that the Constitution is silent on marriage or even gay marriage. The idea that it is protected under the Constitution is an insult as well as a dangerous idea that the Constitution protects whatever is the whimsy of the moment. However it also does not outlaw it either, which comes back to the notion that we are a Government of the people who can create it’s own laws and rules, including how governments view marriage. So that being said it would be completely reasonable and correct for the Supreme court to uphold the California Law, while also upholding the Defense of Marriage Act. That being said it is up to We the People to push for changes to the laws we agree or disagree with.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
3:21 pm
josef
CC is probably listening to REO Speedwagon “I can’t fight this feeling any longer” at this very moment
I could be wrong, but that hate seems entrenched…. Almost seems like an inner fight to squash his own “demons” so to speak
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:21 pm
DDR
Looks like Christian Conservative isn’t interested in carrying on a discussion with one of “them” who doesn’t fit his cherished stereotype…you can have the boa back now…
Taylor R.
December 8th, 2012
3:22 pm
Those who want homosexual relationships to be redefined as marriages say that many aspects of their relationships are like marriage—having sexual play, living together, loving one another, etc.—and therefore they should be allowed to call their relationships marriages and should be recognized in the law as marriage partners. But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable. Otherwise, the appeal amounts to nothing more than a request that homosexual partners be allowed to call themselves what they want to call themselves regardless of the differences that exist in reality. The answer they want is for law making and adjudicating authorities to change the law based on the principle that reality is defined by the will and declarations of individuals, all of whom should be treated without discrimination..
But here, you see, is the sleight of hand. The appeal now being made for homosexual marriage rights is not an appeal for judges and lawmakers to reconsider past empirical judgments about similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Rather, it is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:23 pm
“I wonder if Jay Bookman prides himself in being the self appoint @$$ clown of the AJC?”
Nah…he ceded that title to you
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:24 pm
BOTH
My take on it, too. The spelunker enclosed storage space must be a bit crowded…
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:24 pm
“But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable”
Sure it can. Because it’s the same thing that makes a heterosexual partnership and a marriage indistinguishable.
indigo
December 8th, 2012
3:25 pm
I’ve never heard of anyone saying “when I was 14 I sat on my bed and flipped a coin. If it came up heads I would be straight. If it came up tails, I would be gay”.
And yet, we still have people, some in high places, talking about gays “choosing the gay lifestyle”.
I wonder why that is?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:27 pm
“And yet, we still have people, some in high places, talking about gays “choosing the gay lifestyle”.”
And that can’t see that being gay is not the same thing as a “gay lifestyle” and on top of that they can’t even say WHICH “gay lifestyle” they don’t like
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:32 pm
Unmentionable and I were talking the other day about the whole matter of the prohibition of interracial marriage and how that relates here. He made an observation that may be of interest to the traditional conservatives. Under slavery, when the individual was not fully human by law, the state, of course, could not sanction marriages between chattel. Yet almost without fail, the religious institutions of the nation and the overwhelming majority of the owners permitted, sanctioned and encouraged these unions. Why? It made for a more stable society down in the quarters. It was in their own best interests. In that, it would seem, today’s so-called conservatives would be the first to support gay unions. Otherwise, the animals might revolt.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:34 pm
“In that, it would seem, today’s so-called conservatives would be the first to support gay unions. Otherwise, the animals might revolt”
There’s an analogy there, but there’s also a big difference. Owners of black slaves never had to worry that they would wake up one day and be black. Finding out they’re gay? That might happen.
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:38 pm
DOGGONE
Just being EOI here, but many was the slave owner who woke up one day to find out they were Black…and, do remember, the same percentage of legal free people of color as legal whites owned human chattel…
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:40 pm
“Just being EOI here, but many was the slave owner who woke up one day to find out they were Black…and, do remember, the same percentage of legal free people of color as legal whites owned human chattel”
I’m not talking about legalities. I’m talking about the color of their skin.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
3:42 pm
NoCom: You guys responded to Christian Conservative in much kinder words than I was thinking.
Just consider that the Christian in me responding to him.