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
td
December 8th, 2012
5:04 pm
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:56 pm
td
Why, you ole name dropper you! I bet we’ve met…
Maybe. Only name dropped to show the readers the BS some of the other posters are making when they know they do not even know a legislator much less have done the necessary hard work to be in a position to be able to influence them.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:06 pm
Look before I leap,
Tone is everything. And your tone just came off as hateful in the context in which you used it. If you didn’t mean it to be that way then no apology is necessary. If your tone was intended that way then I’m sure rednecks everywhere appreciate the sincere apology. And no. I’m not offended. I just ask people for consistency and one thing that I constantly see on here is people labeling conservatives as racist and bigoted and then turning around and calling them rednecks. Just seems kinda hypocritical is all. Nevertheless no apology to me is necessary but the gesture was appreciated nonetheless.
td
December 8th, 2012
5:07 pm
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
5:02 pm
Have never meet Rove or Morris.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:07 pm
“Adultery is a misdemeanor in GA”
and when was the last time you heard of someone being arrested for the misdemeanor? And where on the marriage license are you REQUIRED to agree to be faithful in order to GET married?
It might be on the books, but it’s still not a legal requirement to GET married
JamVet
December 8th, 2012
5:08 pm
both, to your point earlier,
td is very comfortable with the racists and the posts I listed above.
He proved it over there earlier today.
He represents the worst kind of religious nuts in this country – those that came from the Klan-based, southern white, protestant churches…
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
5:08 pm
td
is a mover and shaker now
faux lobbyist if you will
he is crafting legislation as we blog
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
5:08 pm
Marriage is being avoided by many because of legal
entanglements not specified in the contract and varying
laws that are different in states other than the marriage
state especially between childless couples.
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:08 pm
Having dinner with angry cons whining about losing twice is not my cup of tea.
I would toss a turd in their punch bowl, if you will.
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:09 pm
RF
Yep. And you’re right…that hair! Oy…but ain’t nothin quite like having kids of your own to bring you down a peg or two…and, then, ain’t nothin quite like having kids to teach you just what is of value in the great scheme of things and what is not…a humbling and uplifting experience at the same time…
As one of my tribes puts it, L’chaim!
LOOK
It’s all a matter of context…are you pleased when someone calls you a Redneck?
TD
And only the Republicans were invited? What about that big tent? Jokes aside, I’m not a Christian myself, but I have no problem whatsoever with calling it a Christmas party and I have no problem with going…and I don’t hold those who do in the highest regard…respect and tolerance is a two-way street.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:09 pm
“Well my Republican legislators, the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and Superintendent of Education thinks my Asian wife is one of the most conservative, kindness people in this state”
Whoooooosh! The sound of the point as it whizzes by
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:10 pm
“when they know they do not even know a legislator much less have done the necessary hard work to be in a position to be able to influence them.”
Oh I’ve met mine quite a few times, e-mail often, and I DO have an influence- it’s called a VOTE, and should be more important than schmoozing him at a cocktail party. Considering the predictions you guys had on the last election, I’d say the vote is working out to be a better deal for you buck by the way. Billions didn’t buy it, and there was a LOT of schmoozing going on along the way.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:10 pm
getalife
You’d never make it out of the dinner in one piece. The alert would go up faster than you could blink your eyes….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjn0Yw0mxuk
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:11 pm
td
“..much less have done the necessary hard work to be in a position to be able to influence them.”
Is DNA hard work?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:12 pm
“That’s true for the typical legislators. Georgia’s legislators have shown, over time, to have an affinity for the three free G’s… Girls, Golf, and Grub”
No kidding!
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
5:12 pm
td 5:04
Everything I have accomplished has been through politics. -Jimmy Hoffa(paraphrase)
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:13 pm
Bro,
I would stand up and say four more years!
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
5:15 pm
@Doggone
This is what you said:
“There’s no legal requirement that you be faithful to your spouse,…”
I simply said that GA has a statute on the books that refutes that comment.
I made no case for whether or not it is enforced or even if it should be.
td
December 8th, 2012
5:15 pm
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
5:08 pm
td
is a mover and shaker now
faux lobbyist if you will
he is crafting legislation as we blog
Do not have to do anything on this subject because the state of Georgia already has overwhelmingly voted and placed in our Constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:16 pm
getalife
THAT, I would expect from you. I would probably go myself just to videotape it.
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:17 pm
td,
The SC might rule that is unconstitutional.
Then you look like silly bigots.
Taylor R.
December 8th, 2012
5:17 pm
barking frog @ 4:55
You are absolutely correct about the tax code.
And with that, I am off to a holiday get-together.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:18 pm
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:59 pm
Look, let’s face facts here folks. The opponents are such because they’re either grossed out about the sexual relations for homosexual men, or don’t see how they could happen for lesbians
RF,
Um. Nope. That is not a “fact”. That is just your supposition and conjecture of what you believe to be a fact based upon your own prejudices and biases of what you think others believe and why they believe it.
Most anti-gay marriage opponents don’t sit there and have a discussion over the kinds of oogey, nasty sex that they imagine takes place in a gay couples bed. They probably donn’t care.
Their opposition if you care to actually explore it tends to stem from their belief that its an affront to God and that should we endorse the homosexual lifestyle including marriage that we risk losing God’s blessing. Now you can argue against why they believe that and whether or not its biblical all day long. But to pass off opposition to gay marriage as just some people who are all oogey about gay sex is a cheap and simpleton copout of what the real issue is.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
5:18 pm
get
SC doesn’t have to do anything in regards to the second part
already going strong in regards to this issue
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:19 pm
“I simply said that GA has a statute on the books that refutes that comment.
I made no case for whether or not it is enforced or even if it should be”
And you didn’t show where it was a requirement to GET married either.
td
December 8th, 2012
5:20 pm
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:09 pm
TD
And only the Republicans were invited? What about that big tent? Jokes aside, I’m not a Christian myself, but I have no problem whatsoever with calling it a Christmas party and I have no problem with going…and I don’t hold those who do in the highest regard…respect and tolerance is a two-way street.
It was a local Republican party event so I would expect that only local Republican party members were invited. Being a Republican I would not expect an invitation to a local Democratic party event.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
5:20 pm
@josef
I have many people in my family tree who self-refer as rednecks.
Even a few as hillbillies – and they are adamant there is a difference.
I don’t use the phrase as a term of denigration, but since tone is everything and it can easily be misconstrued, I’ll eschew the term going forward.
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:21 pm
td
When was that vote? How have attitudes changed since then? While I don’t think my view would “pass” today, I am certain it wouldn’t go down by the same margin. Why? Just listening to a lot of the same folks you run with talking. And no, they’re not just “saying that” because they know I’m gay. A lot of times they don’t know that. After all, our chit chat is most often about how proud we are of our kids, where we’re planning to go on vacation, and how the retirement plans are going.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:22 pm
“Do not have to do anything on this subject because the state of Georgia already has overwhelmingly voted and placed in our Constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman”
And that requirement can be nullified or changed
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
5:22 pm
“And you didn’t show where it was a requirement to GET married either.”
Doggone: You need to drop it son. It was never my argument that it was.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:24 pm
Most anti-gay marriage opponents don’t sit there and have a discussion over the kinds of oogey, nasty sex that they imagine takes place in a gay couples bed. They probably donn’t care.
Their opposition if you care to actually explore it tends to stem from their belief that its an affront to God and that should we endorse the homosexual lifestyle including marriage that we risk losing God’s blessing
How the heck would you know? Rather presumptive to think you know what “most people”, most opponents, etc. talk about unless you have some evidence other than just pulling it out of your arse.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:24 pm
Well since ya’ll are namedropping politicans I guess I’ll have to one up you all and show what a bigwig I am by mentioning my relationship with Alabama’s ex governor George Wallace. I had my picture taken with him. Along with the rest of my cub scout group. And we spent 2-3 minutes with his old ass which at the time seemed like a damn lifetime so I’m gonna claim that I knew him a lifetime since it seems that way when you’re 8. Can’t remember if we were cub scouts or weeblos though.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:25 pm
“Doggone: You need to drop it son. It was never my argument that it was”
No, it was mine. There is no legal requirement to be faithful in order to get married.
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:25 pm
TD
@ 5:20
You’ve got a point there!
LOOK
I’m not a Redneck, but I am half Hilbilly (and half Swamp Rat!). And yes, there is a big difference. But I’m kinda honored whenever somebody calls me a Redneck…I take it as a compliment that I ain’t got above my raisin..
td
December 8th, 2012
5:26 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:18 pm
You are so right. There really is nothing stopping two gay people right now into going to an attorneys office and entering into a legal contract to give them all the same legal rights as enjoyed right now between married straight couples in this state.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
5:29 pm
@Keep
“Rather presumptive to think you know what “most people”…”
Even more presumptive to believe that one knows what God thinks.
If God has such a special disdain for homosexuality, then why does it exist?
If it is a DNA thing, He certainly has the power to correct that.
If it is matter of choice, he has options there too.
Seen any burning bushes or people being transformed into salt lately?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:29 pm
“There really is nothing stopping two gay people right now into going to an attorneys office and entering into a legal contract to give them all the same legal rights as enjoyed right now between married straight couples in this state”
No, maybe not. But why should it be neccessary for them to go to that trouble and expense when there is a simple, easy way to get them already on the books? All they ask is to be treated equally UNDER that existing law.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:30 pm
There really is nothing stopping two gay people right now into going to an attorneys office and entering into a legal contract to give them all the same legal rights as enjoyed right now between married straight couples in this state.
td, I hope that was sarcasm because it is false.
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:30 pm
“But to pass off opposition to gay marriage as just some people who are all oogey about gay sex is a cheap and simpleton copout of what the real issue is.”
Just sharing an opinion, doomie, that I hear often when the PC conversation is done and people start opening up about what bothers them. I’ve heard it too often, from folks of many political affiliations, to ignore it as insignificant to the debate. Simpleton? I’ll wear that title in this case because I’ve noticed that most issues, after all the blather back and forth, come down to simple issues. And issues involving civil rights very often are based on just such simple views.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:31 pm
“How the heck would you know? Rather presumptive to think you know what “most people”, most opponents, etc. talk about unless you have some evidence other than just pulling it out of your arse.”
Pretty easy keep. Look at the debates we’ve had on here at various times about gay marriage. How often do we see cons wailing and wondering about what kind of sex those gays are having and is it deviant or not. I’ve never seen it. Usually we see cons outlining why they are opposed to it based on biblical grounds, or based on traditional societal grounds, or based on legal grounds. Perhaps its happened and I just haven’t seen it but I’ve never seen a con come on here and drone on about gay sex and why its nasty or immoral or whatever. Aint ever seen it.
And when we see debates on television do you see anti gay marriage advocates complaining about what kind of immoral or oogey sex the gays are having? Um. No. You don’t. Their usual argument is typically based on religious grounds or traditional marriage grounds- not on what kind of oogey sex those gay folks must be having behind closed doors.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:33 pm
But why should it be neccessary for them to go to that trouble and expense when there is a simple, easy way to get them already on the books?
Is that one of those “job plans”? Sounds like that creates jobs for lawyers, pen makers, paper makers, the power company, gas companies, tire companies, etc…
Doing it your way, Doggone, is a drag on the economy because it’s all done with the stroke of a pen without all the extra legwork and other mumbo jumbo.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:34 pm
Look before you leap, you are right.
So in other words, Doom is pulling it out of his arse based on his limited world view and trying to claim it is a fact.
td
December 8th, 2012
5:35 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:30 pm
And please tell me what is false about my statement? Can you legally give another person the right to inheritance in a contract? Visitation in a hospital?
What can two people not do in a contract that a marriage license gives them?
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:35 pm
Change is constant.
Adapt or die.
Stan
December 8th, 2012
5:35 pm
I love it how people can take such extreme sides…..and in 20 years people who were against gay marriage will look back and should be ashamed at how silly they look. All of these same arguments were used to argue why whites and blacks should not be allowed to get married……its in the bible…..it is not pure…..it is an abomination……and yes, many idiot states had politicians who presented and passed laws against it…….doesn’t mean they were idiots for their moronic views just because they had the votes to pass a law
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:36 pm
doomy,
Are you in the klan with George?
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:37 pm
“How often do we see cons wailing and wondering about what kind of sex those gays are having and is it deviant or not.”
As I said, those conversations happen out of the public arena, and I’d be really surprised if it did pop up here, but I’ve heard it all too often from folks. Those comments are reserved for the more private conversations. And you won’t hear it in debates or from teh pulpit, or at a campaign event. It’s not PC to discuss it in public, just like many who say they aren’t “racist” in public, but wouldn’t dare live next door to anyone of a different race or condone their children marrying into said race.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:37 pm
“Doing it your way, Doggone, is a drag on the economy because it’s all done with the stroke of a pen without all the extra legwork and other mumbo jumbo”
Well….just think! All those poor lawyers missing out on the work they could be doing for heterosexual partners! I *knew* there was a good reason to do away with marriage altogether!
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:37 pm
TD
“You are so right. There really is nothing stopping two gay people right now into going to an attorneys office and entering into a legal contract to give them all the same legal rights as enjoyed right now between married straight couples in this state”
Wrong. You have no earthly idea what the hurdles are there. And survivor’s benefits, Mec, survivior’s benefits…ay, there’s the rub!
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:39 pm
“Just sharing an opinion, doomie, that I hear often when the PC conversation is done and people start opening up about what bothers them. I’ve heard it too often, from folks of many political affiliations, to ignore it as insignificant to the debate”
I’m not sure what kind of circles you run it but in my entire life I can’t think of one con I’ve had a conversation with who is opposed to gay marriage because of the kind of sex they imagine that a gay couple is having. Aint ever seen it. I think you are grossly exxaggerating if you think that people opposed to gay marriage go into lengthy diatribes or discussions about what kind of oogey sex those gay people are having. Most people have better things to talk about then having discussions about what kind of sex gays are having. Most people just don’t give a shyte and if you’re saying that they do then your needle on the credibility scale is rapidly dropping towards that zero. That is sheer bullshyte and I think you know that.
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:39 pm
td: you can write a will and leave your estate to your dog, ala Leona Helmsley, if you wish. That estate then becomes subject to estate taxes. You also cannot leave survivor benefits from retirement pensions, Social Security, or insurance that allows such. That’s some of what a legal marriage contract allows.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:41 pm
“I’m not sure what kind of circles you run it but in my entire life I can’t think of one con I’ve had a conversation with who is opposed to gay marriage because of the kind of sex they imagine that a gay couple is having”
Well…*I* can. I live with her and she’s my sister
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:41 pm
Doggone
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:42 pm
“td: you can write a will and leave your estate to your dog, ala Leona Helmsley, if you wish. That estate then becomes subject to estate taxes”
It can also be subject to legal challenge from surviving relatives.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:43 pm
td,1st GA constitutionally forbids same sex marriage. There are many rights that are granted by marriage, e.g hospital visitation, rights of survivorship. Perhaps you need to do some research to educate yourself. You can start here: http://www.ksfamilylaw.com/FAQS/gay_marriage
td
December 8th, 2012
5:44 pm
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:29 pm
“There really is nothing stopping two gay people right now into going to an attorneys office and entering into a legal contract to give them all the same legal rights as enjoyed right now between married straight couples in this state”
No, maybe not. But why should it be neccessary for them to go to that trouble and expense when there is a simple, easy way to get them already on the books? All they ask is to be treated equally UNDER that existing law.
Why is it more expensive when the two of you could spend 10 minutes writing out the rights and then get it notarized. Probably less expensive then a marriage license.
“All they ask is to be treated equally UNDER that existing law.”
Bogus argument because all laws are not written to have all parties equal under its terms. For example: There are laws on the books that allow a woman to get an abortion by her own choice no matter if she is married or what. The father of that child has no say so if the life will be taken or not. Therefore, both parents that created the child are not treated equally under the law.
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:45 pm
“That is sheer bullshyte and I think you know that.”
As I’ve typed, I’ve heard it often enough, and not in public or large group conversations. But those opinions we hold most private also very directly influence how we vote and it’s often easy to find an acceptable “reason” to cover it. Just stating an opinion based on experience, no scientific data involved and none needed.
Perhaps your angst over me stating that is motivated by some view of it being “oogey” sex?
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:45 pm
“That is sheer bullshyte and I think you know that”
Now that is hilarious.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:47 pm
“Why is it more expensive when the two of you could spend 10 minutes writing out the rights and then get it notarized. Probably less expensive then a marriage license. ”
Well, I find myself agreeing. I think ALL marriages should be annulled, since it’s just so much easier for each and every couple to get their own contracts through a lawyer. Please don’t forget to come back here and let us know how easy it was for YOU and your spouse.
td
December 8th, 2012
5:47 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:43 pm
td,1st GA constitutionally forbids same sex marriage. There are many rights that are granted by marriage, e.g hospital visitation, rights of survivorship. Perhaps you need to do some research to educate yourself. You can start here: http://www.ksfamilylaw.com/FAQS/gay_marriage
You are missing the point. I did not say a word about Gay marriage. I said there is nothing stopping two people (Gay or straight) from going and entering into a legal contract to give one another the same rights and privileges as two married people. It just will not be called a marriage.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
5:49 pm
“…an attorneys office and entering into a legal contract to give them all the same legal rights as enjoyed right now between married straight couples in this state.”
Nice idea on paper. In actual execution, not so much.
My wife and I knew a gay couple here in Atlanta.
They had been together for 21 years. had all the paperwork, wills, trusts, POA. Joint bank accounts and co-owned a beautiful home in Duluth. A couple of dogs. Pretty much the whole white picket fence deal.
Steven had the better job and higher income and placed the down payment on the house, paid the majority of the mortgage. The problem was, Steven had not so good credit so the house was in Jerome’s name only in order to qualify for a better rate.
Jerome inherited quite a bit of money from a aunt which ticked off Jerome’s family to no end.
4 months later, Jerome died at age 41 from a cerebral hemorrhage. Steven was locked out of the house with the assistance of the county sheriff, his bank account was drained, the dogs went to the pound and he was not allowed to plan or attend his lover’s funeral.
The problem, the executor of the will had died 3 weeks prior to Jerome’s death.
It took Steven 16 months and $100K in lawyer’s fees to get his life back.
The point? None of that would have happened had the state recognized their relationship for what it was.
That is NOT equal protection under the law.
Your argument is akin to the separate but equal provisions of Jim Crow and has the same failing:
It is separate, but it is never equal.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:49 pm
“Even more presumptive to believe that one knows what God thinks.”
I don’t generally presume to know what God thinks although I will presume that he abhors evil, murder, etc. I just know what the bible says about homosexuality and in my opinion its pretty clear. And I do know what people who know a lot more about the bible then I do have said and where they have pointed out to me that I was wrong when I told them I had no problem with gay marriage.
If God has such a special disdain for homosexuality, then why does it exist?
That’s just silly. But let me answer a question with a question. If God has such a special disdain for evil, then why does it exist?
“Seen any burning bushes or people being transformed into salt lately?”
Hyperbole much?
indigo
December 8th, 2012
5:49 pm
A man and his nine year old lover want to be married.
All they ask is to be treated equally under the law.
Don’t laugh. If you think this can’t eventually happen in America, wake up.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
5:50 pm
td, again you are wrong. Again you should start by educating yourself. I have given you a starting point already
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:50 pm
“It just will not be called a marriage”
“Separate but equal” has already been tried and was a dismal failure.
josef
December 8th, 2012
5:50 pm
TD
“…entering into a legal contract to give one another the same rights and privileges as two married people.”
Have you informed the Social Security Administration of this?
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:51 pm
“there is nothing stopping two people (Gay or straight) from going and entering into a legal contract to give one another the same rights and privileges as two married people. It just will not be called a marriage.”
But they can’t get survivor’s benefits, or cover the other with health insurance throughout their lives, or in some hospitals visit when the rule is “family only.” That contract wouldn’t give you much more than a will would, and you know it.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:52 pm
“Don’t laugh. If you think this can’t eventually happen in America, wake up”
Children cannot enter into legal agreements. It will never happen
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:53 pm
A man and his nine year old lover want to be married.
All they ask is to be treated equally under the law.
Don’t laugh. If you think this can’t eventually happen in America, wake up.
And what idiot jackass legislators do you ever see passing laws that lowers the legal age of consent to nine years old in order for that to happen?
RF
December 8th, 2012
5:54 pm
‘A man and his nine year old lover want to be married”
Well, let’s see. There are, in fact, laws about age of consent and such that would prevent that. You can’t get married as a legal minor unless you’re pregnant, and not even that before 16.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:54 pm
“Separate but equal” has already been tried and was a dismal failure.
I think it failed to the point of getting the “Unconstitutional” stamp.
getalife
December 8th, 2012
5:58 pm
It’s a freedom issue.
Free them and the weed.
It is going to happen.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
6:01 pm
RF,
I’m sure there are people who think gay sex is oogey. What I am saying is that most people don’t really care what other people are doing behind closed doors and that is not the reason for their opposition to gay marriage. Most of them are opposed to gay marriage based on biblical beliefs- not on the sex that is going on. You made the assertion that most cons are opposed to gay marriage based on oogey sex. That is what you said sir. And judging by the myriad number of conversations and debates we’ve had on this blog alone regarding gay marriage I’ve yet to see your contention confirmed in even the slightest degreee.
Larry
December 8th, 2012
6:04 pm
Jay,
Again, why are you being deceptive with your readers. The photo you use is a good 15-20 years old. Well, at least you combed your hair in the photo above.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jay+Boman%2c+ajc&view=detail&mid=470E662F2D5B512F49F3470E662F2D5B512F49F3&first=0
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
6:05 pm
so now posts on this blog are the equivalent of a representative sampling of the population of the US? What a silly contention.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
6:05 pm
“And I do know what people who know a lot more about the bible then I do have said and where they have pointed out to me that I was wrong when I told them I had no problem with gay marriage. ”
Well I know quite a bit about The Bible – read it from cover to cover and back again, I have a minor in religious studies. Had to learn Greek and Latin just to see how much King James mucked the whole thing up. But since I now think The Bible is a mixture of fairy tale, morality play and just plain hokum, what is says or doesn’t say in any language is of little value to me.
“That’s just silly. But let me answer a question with a question. If God has such a special disdain for evil, then why does it exist?”
It is not silly. It is a perfectly valid question. I am a bit disappointed you would resort to deflection as a response.
“Hyperbole much?”
When I get tired of typing, yes. It is the snark in me, sue me.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
6:07 pm
“had all the paperwork, wills, trusts, POA. Joint bank accounts and co-owned a beautiful home in Duluth”
Look before you leap,
So the family drained a joint bank account? You sure about that? I’m not sure about the law on that but in my limited experience with joint titles and such it doesn’t seem like it would be that way. And if they had a will and the house and other items go to him in a will I don’t see how that can be overcome either. Not saying that you’re lying or exaggerating but something about that story doesn’t quite sound right. Hell it seems to me that regarding the dogs that Steven could have said the dogs were his alone and that would be the end of that. Makes me wonder if maybe he did not give you the full story.
RF
December 8th, 2012
6:09 pm
“That is what you said sir. And judging by the myriad number of conversations and debates we’ve had on this blog alone regarding gay marriage I’ve yet to see your contention confirmed in even the slightest degreee”
YEP, that’s what I said…sir. And you’re right, it isn’t stated here. As I ALSO said, and you seem to fail to read, that important influence on their opinion doesn’t come out publicly because it’s a bit too intimate for public discussion. I’ve point-blank asked my conservative friends, and when they get through with the Bible discussion, inevitably that very opinion comes up. It does influence their view, and I don’t need a blog to prove it. I’ve actually read quite a lot of comments on articles about it (yahoo especially) where posters have no shame about stating that very opinion. And in point of fact, it’s most often directed at homosexual men. Many straight males are somewhat interested in the notion of two hot women getting sexual.
At any rate, your diatribe and attempts to belittle won’t change what I’ve experienced, what I’ve heard, and what opinions I choose.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
6:10 pm
“What I am saying is that most people don’t really care what other people are doing behind closed doors and that is not the reason for their opposition to gay marriage”
I’d buy that argument but for the state and UMCJ statutes that outlaw(ed) sodomy.
It was never a crime to be homosexual in the country, just do the things that homosexuals do.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
6:11 pm
” It is the snark in me, sue me.”
Not likely. I appreciae snarkiness.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
6:12 pm
Hell it seems to me that regarding the dogs that Steven could have said the dogs were his alone and that would be the end of that.
What a presumptively simplistic unrealistic view without a shred of evidence.
Absolute bull cockey
josef
December 8th, 2012
6:14 pm
IMAM
Just in case you DO check in at some point…check out that one thrown into moderation @ 6:06!! This one truly deserves some investigation before the Moderator gets slapped with the charge of anti-Semitism!
td
December 8th, 2012
6:15 pm
RF
December 8th, 2012
6:09 pm
Gay man sex is nasty but so is fat people sex and most any sex where another man’s genitals are exposed to view. So does this mean no fat people should get married?
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
6:15 pm
RF,
Well we will have to just agree to disagree on why people legitimately oppose gay marriage. I’ll chalk it up to religious views and you will chalk it up to what you believe to be people’s emotions on oogey gay sex.
But we will find common ground on one thing.
“Many straight males are somewhat interested in the notion of two hot women getting sexual.”
Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
6:16 pm
Many benefits are spousal benefits. No spouse, no benefit.
SS death benefit is this way. 1st spouse dies, survivor gets 255.00
2nd dies no one gets anything unless remarried.
td
December 8th, 2012
6:17 pm
Look before I leap…
December 8th, 2012
6:10 pm
“What I am saying is that most people don’t really care what other people are doing behind closed doors and that is not the reason for their opposition to gay marriage”
I’d buy that argument but for the state and UMCJ statutes that outlaw(ed) sodomy.
Define sodomy and does it only pertain to partners of the same gender?
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
6:19 pm
RF,
td does does have point there about fat people sex. If we believed your point of view then we should be opposed to fat people sex because its all oogey and nasty. And what about ugly people??? I’m vehemently opposed to ugly people sex? And even worse what about fat and ugly people? Should we outlaw fat ugly people sex? I dunno bout you but I am fervently opposed to watching fat ugly people like Roseanne having sex. But does that mean I oppose Roseanne getting married?
josef
December 8th, 2012
6:19 pm
RF
And no small few straight women kinda like the thought of being with two hot men…the same straight man who’d be turned on by two women probably would, well…SAY no way Josefina, but, well…and that’s all I’ve got to say about that…
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
6:19 pm
“I think it failed to the point of getting the “Unconstitutional” stamp”
Yes, I think you’re right
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
6:21 pm
@Thulsa:
We knew them very well. And Steven laid up with us for several months while he tried to extricate himself from his nightmare.
There is not a whit of exaggeration in my story. Jerome’s family were a sty of vindictive just plain nasty people who booted Jerome from their lives because of his lifestyle “choice”. He sent care/gift packages and cash to his nephews and nieces who returned the favor by referring to him behind his back as Uncle F@ggot.
Steven recovered most of the money taken, at significant cost in terms of cash, time and emotional energy.
My wife and I had to testify to a judge about the nature of their relationship. It was a sickening process.
Mr_B
December 8th, 2012
6:23 pm
“there are other ways of petitioning legislators besides having dinner with them”
Usually, the perferred method is to buy dinner for them.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
6:24 pm
Well keep now is your chance to give us a legal dissertation on why possession isn’t 9/10ths of the law and why he couldn’t have at least got his dogs. Go ahead and regale us with your brilliant legal mind Perry Mason. And btw I said it “seems” to me that it should be that way. I didn’t say that I knew for sure which is why I stated that. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
6:25 pm
look before i leap
this occurrence is not uncommon and is not only homosexual
inheritance. consider the notorious case of anna nicole smith.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
6:25 pm
“Define sodomy and does it only pertain to partners of the same gender?”
@td
You of all people should avoid this particular thread.
When Obama came out for gay rights, you spent weeks screaming “sodomites”.
Piffle!
josef
December 8th, 2012
6:26 pm
All sex is nasty…if you’re doing it right!
“But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement…”
–William Butler Yeats, “Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 8th, 2012
6:26 pm
Doom, when you pull your head out of the same place you are pulling your posts from, come on back. Your posting idiotic garbage as usual child
Mr_B
December 8th, 2012
6:26 pm
Evenin’ josef and Doomy.
indigo
December 8th, 2012
6:26 pm
Doggone/GA, Brosephus
Those of us who are of the straight persuasion can legally get married.
Those of the gay persusasion are fighting as had as possible for the same right.
If you think those of other sexual persuasions aren’t watching this gay rights battle, think again.
And if you think, in their wisdom, lawmakers and courts would never allow man/boy and other preferences to become legal, just look at the clowns, most of them lawyers, in Washington.
You might consider studying American History in the 1930’s and look at all the things that were illegal then but legal now.
Also:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15818775.html
td
December 8th, 2012
6:28 pm
Look before I leap…
December 8th, 2012
6:25 pm
“Define sodomy and does it only pertain to partners of the same gender?”
@td
You of all people should avoid this particular thread.
When Obama came out for gay rights, you spent weeks screaming “sodomites”.
Piffle!
Now that is a bold face lie. I guess I busted your political point and you turned into a typical lib. I am very disappointed.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
6:28 pm
@barking frog
The difference is that ANS was legally entitled to marry that scuzball lawyer.
That she chose not to is what caused the problems.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
6:30 pm
“And if you think, in their wisdom, lawmakers and courts would never allow man/boy and other preferences to become legal, just look at the clowns, most of them lawyers, in Washington”
I don’t think it. I know it. Children cannot enter into legal contracts on their own. It will never happen.