FLYeisty.....GET A GRIP !

Nothing more than Mr. "Drama" Obama campaigning.

For someone who is against the Constitution, he is now for it.

Wait a minute.....

For someone who was for sequester, he is now against it.

Wow, talk about an Organizer-in-Chief's priorities.

Wait another minute....

Pelosi: "We don't have a spending problem, we have a priority problem."

or

Biden: "Buy a double barrelled shotgun and fire it from your fornt porch, that will scare off the intruders."

For once SCOTUS, please, just for once slap this little man across the mouth come June and show him he can't always get his way.

TeaPeople are very interested in the relationship of two consenting adults.

Why is that?

And just think, a Democratic Progressive Senator from California (Lee) is going to introduce legislation for expanding the government:

• Department of PEACE-BUILDING

Wow, and there is nothing more important to do in D.C., like:

1. Continuing Resolution to keep the government running since there has been NO NATIONAL BUDGET FOR FOUR YEARS
2. National Debt Ceiling Limit

Hopeful

For all those in favor of marriage between gays, then you have to allow men and women to marry as many people as they want and other sick and deviant behavior!

Please qualify this statement. Be concise and logical. Bonus points for pointing out historical precedent in support of the slippery slope theory.

Signed,

Inquisitive happy heathen

Hiya, Forrest!

Feisty, NDDR, Riverboy, and Mark ....

EXCELLENT POSTS!

Al,

Ah hah, my fellow Californian. The reverse slippery slope theory. If marriage between cousins is allowed, what's next? Gay marriage?

Wait....

I don't need to accept their lifestyles, but do feel that they should have the rights that any other legally joined couple has. I do not think that the argument should be over the definition or use of a word, but rather in the "actions", of the how they are to be treated by law. After all, they are woman and woman,and man and man, so by definition and our use of the english language, they are either wife and wife or husband and husband. We should not have to alter the way we speak to accept their lifestyles. They can decide and make up a word to describe themselves and what name to call their partners, so all can evolve with them and have a better understanding of their choices. Merriam Webster definitions: "Definition of HUSBAND 1: a male partner in a marriage" " Definition of WIFE ": a female partner in a marriage" It is just a word and if you are in love with another, why do you need to use that word to describe your love/union. There are many heterosexuals that are in relationships with people they love without the need to say they are married, and they do not have the legal rights you have under a civil union as their union is not legally recognized!

Thanks, Layton!

Good one Mark In SoCal!

@ Mark in SoCal:

Please qualify this statement. Be concise and logical. Bonus points for pointing out historical precedent in support of the slippery slope theory.

I don't have to qualify this statement. The action does that on it's own. To a lot of people, gays marrying is deviant behavior. If you are willing to sanctify deviant behavior, where to you draw the line of acceptable deviant behavior?

Notice this definition starts with the word "irrational"

ho·mo·pho·bi·a [ hmə fṓbee ə ]

1.irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture.

Crazies are irrational on so many levels! They gotta hate, hate, and hate!

Ah Mark, hillarious post.

And be careful Al, republicans might come after you for sharing their secrets on keeping states red! (The previous statement was all in good fun and not to be taken seriously, I have nothing against republicans just the politicians. You've gotta be able to laugh at yourself, I am also in California and on my way to go hug a redwood for a few hours)

I guess you could reverse it and say that there are probably alot of gay people who think heterosexual relationships are deviant behavior. The US Constitution is not based on the opinions of people like you. The US Constitution affords every single US citizen all the same rights and to deny one class of US citizens all the rights of others is Unconstitutional. You, Hopeful American, do not have to like or agree to the LGBT lifestyle, but you certainly have to respect the US Constitution........All of it. You don't get to parse it out to fit your ideology. We are all created equal, and we all deserve the same equal treatment.

Thank you, Sincerely yours,

Another Happy Heathen!

feisty red....I'm still waiting for one of the gay bashing homophobes to tell me how "gay" marriage affects the way you live YOUR life?

you don't have to ram your morality through our throats and force us to celebrate with you.

If the administration's legal theory were ultimately accepted, no state could, under constitutional guarantees against discrimination, deny same sex couples the right to marry.

...looks like a collision course with religious liberty, now the gays are using the discrimination clause, what would prevent them gays from same-sexing the children? This is so unsupportable.

@ Al in Visala CA:

Some southern states allow cousins to marry. Maybe the next step these inbred rednecks are waiting for is making brother-sister or father-daughter marriage legal.

You might want to check the facts:

Cousin marriage legal states:

Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Virgina

Cousin marriage allowed under certain circumstances:

Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin

So it appears that just six what you would call "redneck states" allows any form of marriage by cousin while 20 of your non "redneck states" allows it! It appears a lot of inbreeding is going on in those states too.

First Cousin marriage prohibited:

Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

And your born gay u just turn gay because of some cold or cookie so I feel if they want to tie the knot so be it.

And if we have to suffer so do they lolol because it's work.

Hopeful,

I don't have to qualify this statement.

Of course you don't. You didn't have to respond to me either. But the term "deviant" is very subjective and seems to me if you are going to throw it around it might be a good thing to be able to define your reason for labeling something as deviant.

If you are willing to sanctify deviant behavior, where to you draw the line of acceptable deviant behavior?

Being absolutely devoid of religious conviction of any type I am hardly qualified to sanctify anything. Acceptable deviant behavior? How can something be acceptable and deviant? There is no line.

Worthless word games, perhaps, but this is a discussion board after all.

@ newdayDAWING:

am more offended by bigots. That is REAL deviant behavior leading to real problems.

Typical - someone is a bigot or racist or whatever when they don't agree with the progressive left. I'm as offended by two guys getting it on as you are by bigots. It's just individual perception.

chilled you talk about people having to hate(phobias and blind hatred)...have you sat down with Feisty yet and had the talk too?

didnt think so...

But what if all the frightened little church-mice stampede at once? Would it even make a sound?

There are two ways to worry about other people... The human way and the republican way.

The human way is in accordance with the golden rule. Simple and easy to understand. As a matter of fact, approved by their God too.

The republican way "Do unto others before they find a way to get YOUR fair share". Still incredibly simple of course, and they'll even claim their gawd is still in cahoots with them... but hard for actual thinking Americans to understand... We just need to make sure that the insanity plea doesn't work for them and the jury of their betters gives them the death penalty at the 2014 sentencing date.

Caesar, FDR married his FIFTH cousin. That's not a close relation. I don't even know who my fifth cousins are, and I bet you don't know yours either, so you and I may be "guilty" of the same thing. I do know a few of my second cousins. Hey, it's a dangerous world out there.

Mark in So Cal:

How can something be acceptable and deviant? There is no line.

Which is why gays marrying is not acceptable to a lot of people. They see it as deviant behavior - and deviant behavior isn't acceptable.

riverboy21,

Enjoy your tree hug. Is this a Coastal Redwood or a Sierra Sequoia upon which you intend to show your affection?

I think Al already knows I am a (gasp) Republican. Not to worry, in my book the hierarchy of regard goes, from the top, Californian, American, political party affiliation.

Caesar, FDR married his FIFTH cousin

no kidding but good ol Al in Visalia said cousins in the south and wasnt specific...get off my leg.

There are two ways to worry about other people... The human way and the republican way.

sure Ruken, because all those scary republicans are going to come to your door, make you believe in god and carry a gun.

I guess it could be better. I could go shlt on peoples lawns, live in a park, flip over cars and steal tv's.. Like a good liberal..or should i say ahead.

And again, Hopeful, what you and your hate filled buddies believe is deviant has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court will be deciding. It is not relevant.

You can be offended all you want to. But you cannot legislate against a minority based on your limited perceptions.

And if I were gay, and someone like you told me I was deviant, have to tell you I would see that as pretty bigoted.

Feisty ! have ya ever heard of a OUIJA BOARD . and don't hate , don't hate

newday, you are a bigot...and because you think your invested in FR and your libtard buddies stroke your ego, it doesnt change the fact you have some pretty bigotted views against conservatives and christians for that matter..

My bigotry is better than yours LOL

Hopeful,

If you are willing to sanctify deviant behavior, where to you draw the line of acceptable deviant behavior?

And then........

They see it as deviant behavior - and deviant behavior isn't acceptable.

Doesn't connect.

OK, enough of this. I will leave you with this thought - do you actually know any gay people? If so, could you look them in the eye and tell them their desire to be married is deviant behavior? If not, maybe you should get out and introduce yourself. Gay people are everywhere and guess what - they are not a whole not different from us straighties. You might find they are actually (wait for it....) human.

Marriage is a CONTRACT governed by the state and CONTRACT LAW. When my husband and I got married in a civil ceremony, we did not get a "civil union license" it was a "MARRIAGE license". So, since the term in the CIVIL sense is MARRIAGE, then G/L MARRIAGES should be called as such and they should be entitled to ALL of the same benefits that hetero marriages enjoy. Marriage is NOT the term for what happens in church - it is a HOLY VOW, a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT etc. Marriages existed for LONG before the church got involved. It exists within the COMMON LAW that the settlers brought over from England. It is OUTSIDE of church theology and church control. Your church is entitled to deny the SACRAMENT or HOLY VOW or HOLY MATRIMONY to whomever they choose to deny it to. Our government which is a SECULAR one can not under our Constitution. ALL of the anti-gay marriage laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is even Supreme Court decision precedent behind that theory - Loving Vs. Virginia where the opinion of the majority is that Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT and that states can not deny a CIVIL RIGHT to citizens.

Oh, and in case any nutcases out there are unaware of it ... I carried a child in my VERY female body who is now 6 years old, so I am simply a citizen who is all for EVERYBODY having civil rights. I don't actually have a "dog" in the fight.

If God hates gay people then why did he make so many of them?

Sorry Feisty, but the Soviet Union is gone and as much as you'd like it to be the US is not yet the USSR.

So what's next?

Allowing marriages between "two consenting adults" who happen to be parent-child? Or blood siblings?

I mean after all, it's all about equal rights...nevermind it's incestual and also considered amoral for centuries...but if the gay-lesbian agenda must have sanctioned marriage (as compared to simply trying to champion equal rights for non-married singles vs. married heterosexuals)...

Bullsh!t.

Hey evangelicals, here it comes. Gay marriage in all 50 courtesy of the Supreme Court. Bet it takes less than a year and then you know what? We're going to be running our announcements in the newspapers, booking receptions in halls in your area, putting pictures of our spouses on our desks at work, adopting kids, and kissing and holding hands out in public. We're going to have everything you have and you have no way of putting a stop to it. Grind your teeth on that and STFU.

sure Ruken,

That's funny.

She must have figured out a way to re-reg without leaving a trail.

Good for her

It is really very simple. When gay/lesbian relationships are biologically able to perpetuate the human race then and only then will they be entitled to equality with hetrosexual relationships. Until then keep your perverted shat packing behavior to yourselves. I don't care if you want to engage in same gender sex, none of my buisness but don't demand that your perverion be treated equally under the law as the natural order of specis propigation relationships. So go fuk yourself....heh nevermind i you fuk yourself you'll demand that the USSC recognize self marriage.

This amazes me... Iowa does not use "husband and wife" on our marriage licenses... it states "spouse one" and "spouse two"... Varmun Vs. State of Iowa took care of that... It is time for the rest of the country to get on board with the fact that we are not truly free, until we all are free. And by the way.... I an NOT LGBT, just a simple little widow that thinks we all should be treated as my husband fought for.... free... not free if we agree with "his church" or "her church"... just simply free...

"...redefining marriage to make a minority happy is pretty ridiculous to begin with. They already have civil unions."

"Redefining marriage"??? Would that be your definition, or the definition of the two people being married?

How did you become involved in defining their marriage?

Would I be correct in guessing that they did not invite you to interfere in their marriage by defining it?

You should look after your own marriage (and your own business).

And if definitions are your hangup, you might try redefining your own character. The current definition of that, ...is not flattering.

PS. Ask your spouse if he/she would be okay with redefining your marriage as just a "civil union."

HiYa New Day!

rainman, are you an excellent driver?

only on Sunday

I don't know the legalities involved but I have no problem with gay marriage.

"to a lot of people, gays marrying is deviant behavior."

To a lot of people the current state of republican politics is deviant behavior.

I personally have no issues with gay civil unions, but, I really think that the gay marriage push is being done to rub evangelicals noses into the dirt! The real issue I see with gay marriage is the slippery slope that will ensnare many other issues. One, if marriage in the same sex is legal then how can the state ban polygamy? Second, if the definition is now so much different than before what is to prevent marriage between people and animals? I know this sounds "wacked out", but, if you change the meaning of marriage for one set of individuals who can stop a "new change" for others! Just remember, words do mean something!

"To a lot of people the current state of republican politics is deviant behavior."

Well stated, Forrest

God made all Mankind Equal Except the Tea Jellybean Movement !!!

Caesar, I did some more research and FDR and Eleanor were 5th cousins once-removed, meaning in this case, that Eleanor's father was FDR's 5th cousin, so that's like a 5th and a half cousin. They were just barely related.

Since you mentioned FDR and Eleanor, Franklin Roosevelt died of cardiac arrest while dallying with his mistress. So let's hear more about how the gender of the parties in a marriage defines its Sanctity?

No, Dan. It is a civil rights issue and also a LEGAL rights issue. A marriage is defined by the state as between TWO legally consenting adults. This blows apart both of your slippery slope arguments. You can not legally marry more than one person at a time - straight or gay. Animals lack the necessary mens rea to enter into a contract - they are UNABLE to give CONSENT. And before you go onto marriage between an adult and a child, a child also can not give consent under the law - contracts (which is what a marriage is) entered into by a minor are either void or voidable under the law. This means that they are void on their face or the child can turn around and void the contract at any time - even after they turn 18. Now, marriage contract law in different states allow minors to marry at will after a certain age or before that age with parental consent or judicial direction. But with parental consent, an ADULT allows the marriage to go forward (the parent giving consent) and thus avoids the void/voidable issue within contract law regarding minors.

Yes, I minored in business/contract law.

Fisty, yes fisty, I will never understand why I am to accept one man putting his penis in another mans butt or mouth as normal behavior. Or give them the title of married couple. As for homophoia its is unreasonable fear of gays, Its not unreasonable to fear the change of accepting this behavior, as it will change our society. But you can speak all the BS you like, Like Rome, Greece we too shall fall to people like you who lack a moral compass. So Call me all the bad things you like you make yourself look more and more foolish.

If you have been married twice and still have the same in-laws you may be from a conservative red state.

Which is why gays marrying is not acceptable to a lot of people. They see it as deviant behavior - and deviant behavior isn't acceptable.

I find watching Monster Truck Racing to be deviant behavior. Should we outlaw that, too?

The law previously stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, ONLY! This destroys your concept that because some states change their laws that ALL states must! Laws on marriage have always been dictated in the individual states and by Obama stepping into the fray he is violating the state rights of the states who will not bend to his liberal marriage agenda. This violates the long-standing ability of states to manage their own marriage laws. I know you will say that this is about violating the rights of gay citizens, but, we cannot always do everything we wish. If the gay agenda wants to push into all states they must do it state by state and not expect a violation of the Constitution to get their wish!

RedDevPS

Nothing more than Mr. "Drama" Obama campaigning.

Never ceases to amaze me how many right-wing posters and politicians fail to realize the election was last November, Obama won, and the campaign is over.

then you best tell Obama and MSN they are constantly speaking of his campaigning trips

I have a suggestion which I think will solve the problem.

Marriage = man and woman

Union = man with man and woman with woman

That way no confusion but same benefits

Mark in SoCal:

OK, enough of this. I will leave you with this thought - do you actually know any gay people? If so, could you look them in the eye and tell them their desire to be married is deviant behavior? If not, maybe you should get out and introduce yourself. Gay people are everywhere and guess what - they are not a whole not different from us straighties. You might find they are actually (wait for it....) human.

I never said they were not human. But all sorts of humans do things that all sorts of other humans neither agree with or support. Yes, I have known gay people. And yes, if I was asked for my opionion regarding their sexuality and desire to marry, I could look them in the eye and tell them that as I feel their sexual actions are deviant in behavior, I could not and do not support gays being "married".

And no, gay people are not everywhere. They make up approximately 1.5 to 5 percent of the US population based on various census and study information.

Oh now this *&^%$# cares about the Constitution. Yeah, suuurrreee he does.

Rainman I think you got something. I love myself so much I wanna marry me. I don't have to worry about bs anymore. damn Bring on that self marriage thing. wow that would solve everything. I love it.

Laws on marriage have always been dictated in the individual states and by Obama stepping into the fray he is violating the state rights of the states who will not bend to his liberal marriage agenda. This violates the long-standing ability of states to manage their own marriage laws.

From the 14th Amendment...

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

It's the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. "States' Rights" does not mean that the state is free to pass laws that do not treat people as equals.

does that mean i can count myself twice on taxes. wooo hooo. self marriage i love it.

"... Like Rome, Greece we too shall fall to people like you who lack a moral compass.

Hmm, that's interesting. MY moral compass tells me to honor and respect others, and treat them with compassion and equality.

My moral compass DOES NOT tell me to judge, condemn and deny others that which I expect for myself.

You might want to have that compass of yours checked; it appears it may not be working!

Sorry Dan: The laws governing marriage are old, and have evolved with time. It was not that long ago that a women's property became her husbands when she married.

And, I realize that a lot of you missed this, but the Civil War settled FOREVER the issue of state's rights. If the Supreme Court decides (as they must) that the Equal Protection Law governs this issue, the states are not going to have a thing to say about it.

As to violating the rights of gay citizens...you are quite right. You most certainly cannot do as you wish and refuse to allow a right given one class of citizens and forbid it to another based on fear and ignorance.

This is coming. There will be gay marriage in all 50 states and it is just a matter of time.'

Perhaps you ought to catch up with the current century.

"Franklin Roosevelt died of cardiac arrest while dallying with his mistress."

Lots of men have a heart attack during sex with a new partner or mistress, the excitement is just too much for them and they run the risk of coming and going at the same time. I guess it is not too bad a way to go, but it does cause the undertaker extra work to get the silly look off their face. However if I had my choice of my manner of death I would prefer to die nice and peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle Fred, not like those poor bastards on his bus!

A lot of breaks given to married couples are oriented around the assumption that they're more likely to buy a house and raise kids etc.

While a knee jerk response would be that gay couples would not contribute in this manner and shouldn't recieve said benefits, many gay couples do in fact end up taking care of children via adoption or other means. While the ratios may not be equivalent this is not something that occurs on such a scale that anyone should worry in the first place.

Genetically, being gay will always be a minority, so getting worked up about barring them from things such as marriage is pretty ridiculous fear mongering.

While I think arguments over the definition of a word are sad in both directions: if you're gay and can get a recognized union with all the same benefits of marriage...and you have a church that sanctions it... does it really matter what it is called?

On the flip side, what should a hetero couple care if the term marriage is expanded?

Bull headed thinking on both sides imo. /shrug

I support the right for gay people to experience hell as well... but Obama needs to figure out if hes for the Constitution or not, bashing it one moment then using it to support his choices when its convienent. Sounds like.... every other Democrat and Republican...

Loving your posts Mark, we need more republicans and democrats like you around here! Discussion and argument instead of rhetoric, and you're pretty funny too.

If I were to be hugging redwoods they are smack dab in the middle of your two guesses, Nor Cal Redwoods. Hugged a dead one in the middle of a lake last weekend while tying the boat up to it :)

.

A marriage is the uniting of a man and a woman in marriage, not two men or two women.

What a world it would have been if God had intended this which is contrary to the laws or course of nature.

Hopeful . . .

I'm as offended by two guys getting it on as you are by bigots. It's just individual perception.

But I'm sure you're entranced by two ladies having sex. This ISN'T about SEX people! It is about people commiting their lives to each other, stating that they will be there for each other and want to form a bond. Just like straight couples do. Good hell! I don't want to know what straight couples do in their bedrooms and from all of the porn sites "dedicated" to them, they are a helluva lot more sick and scary then two caring gay people in love. When did this become about what goes on behind closed doors? Why isn't it about commitment and love? I'm pretty clear on the fact that when I was married my Pastor did NOT ask about our sex life. Once again, the GOP and it's followers, can't seem to get their minds out of the bedroom.

Gay sex has been around since Biblical times ... look at Lot shoving his daughters out to be with whomever wanted to have them. I can and will go on and on with references there. The man/woman thing and cleaving unto each other, sure that was what it started with but what happened after. Abraham and Sarah? Ring a bell? Screw my handmaiden so you can have a son?

You all can't pick a verse .... you need to read the whole BOOK!

With all that's going on in America, it's sure nice to see Obama has his and our priorities in line. Gay marriages? Who cares? What about the budget....cutting spending.....lowering the deficit....editing Obamacare....jobs....the never ending recession?? Come on Obama...get your **** together like you promised!

A marriage is the uniting of a man and a woman in marriage, not two men or two women.

We are not arguing the biblical definition of marriage. We are seeking to define the law's definition of marriage. They need not be one in the same.

What a world it would have been if God had intended this which is contrary to the laws or course of nature.

Shall we get you the list of species of animals that have been observed to engage in homosexual behavior and then ask you to determine if it is "natural" or not?

But I'm sure you're entranced by two ladies having sex.

I'm not entranced nor complaining. I just want to be part of it.

I must have told you this a MILLION times already... jeesh!!

Open the re-fried beans and take the lid all the way off..
Put the can upside down on a plate or cutting board..
Take a knife with a point and puncture a couple of holes in bottom of the can..
Hold the can tight and lift about 4 or 5 inches then act like you are going to slam the can down but stop about half an inch above your surface..
The beans should slide out after a couple of these jerky motions in the shape of the can..

Call me when the chickens are all greased up!

Actually, the thinking of the US Justice Dept. here is quite astute, and Constitutionally sound. When states grant any, the right of "Civil Union" then, they cannot deny the personal rights of Marriage. Has nothing to do with a redefinition of marriage. "Brer Rabbit" at work again.

Your verse for the day little GOP'rs ...

Matthew 7:1-2

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Bascially, what Christ is saying is Karma is a BITCH! Be wary of where you tred.

I know that it is easy for liberals to change laws with a signature! If you do not like something, just have some judge dictate from the bench and then change marriage laws. I personally have no problem with civil unions between gays, but, I also respect the sincerely held religious beliefs of many in this country who object to gay marriage. The fact is that in this country not everyone can marry. A father cannot marry his daughter, a mother her son. This is accepted by virtually everyone, but, when someone gets married it is, once again, not a guaranteed RIGHT! There have been limitations set on the PRIVELEDGE of marriage much like there are limits on who has the PRIVELEDGE of getting a driver's license! If you are blind, you cannot get a driver's license. If you are the same sex some states will not honor your wishes!

And it is also a fact that when the Constitution is a barrier to liberal ideals the same individuals who crow that not allowing "same sex marriage" is unconstitutional try their best to take away the individual right in this country to bear arms! And at least they want to severely limit this right!

...but once again, Dan, we are not talking about the definition of marriage as traditionally held in the Bible. We are talking about the definition of marriage in the eyes of the laws of this nation...and, no, by the nature of Prop 8 and DOMA, a union between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple is not treated the same way.

Please read the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment and tell me if a ban on same-sex marriage or allowing civil unions between same-sex couples that are not treated equally to traditional marriage should be allowed based on the 14th Amendment.

If states rights supersede most federal laws, then county laws should supersede most state laws, city laws should supersede most county laws and township laws should supersede most city laws. We could reduce this to the smallest rural one stop-light town whose laws would supersede all but a handful of federal, state, and county laws. Is this the United States of America that many of you propose? Let's try this on for size.

You accidently hit an escaped cow with your car while traveling through tiny Myakka City, Fl. where cattle are highly valued. Your penalty will be paying the owner for every calf that cow may have birthed, every gallon of milk the cow(and her calves) may have produced in their lifetimes and the market value of the beef when that cow(and her calves) can no longer give birth or milk. You could be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars plus the value of your now totaled Lexus.

Now, we'll put you just a mile out of Myakka city on a Manatee County road. County law says you should be observant and not hit any stray cows. Your penalty will be paying for a replacement cow. That's it. 2 grand or less(plus the value of your Corvette) and you walk away.

But wait, you were I/2 a mile from that county road. You were on a state road when you hit that run-away-cow. The state holds the farmer to part of the responsibility. You pay him nothing. You get the road kill for damages to your F150.

Damn it man, you were on interstate highway 75 just 5 minutes earlier. If that stupid run-away cow had only run across your path then, federal law would have held the farmer completely liable. He would have paid for a brand new Escalade, your whiplash, the old lady's back surgery and a healthy cash settlement. Screw the cow. She was screwed the minute she crossed your path. You came out like a fat rat! The farmer literally lost the farm. Ain't America great?

Maybe we ought to rethink this states rights thing and push for continuity in all laws of the land. The Constitution never foresaw a nation of 300 million with such mobility. That is why it is fluid with amendments to keep it fluid. It gives much more than it takes.

And it is also a fact that when the Constitution is a barrier to liberal ideals the same individuals who crow that not allowing "same sex marriage" is unconstitutional try their best to take away the individual right in this country to bear arms! And at least they want to severely limit this right!

1. Straw Man

2. Justice Scalia in DC v Heller says that the Second Amendment is not absolute.

Next!

Holy bat @!$%#, I don't know if I've got anything left in me...

Dan,

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. That's why my Godless, pagan, baby punching self could get married tomorrow without stepping foot in a church. You're confusing it with Holy Matrimony.

Of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

There's also a little something called The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, which states that each state has to recognize and respect the legal matters of every other state. Therefore, leaving this up to the states DOESN'T work, because if you get married in CA, the Constitution states that NC, who has a state amendment AGAINST gay marriage, has to recognize the marriage contract from CA. Now, how do you suggest THAT works? Also, NO we don't leave civil rights up to a majority vote. We're a Republic, meaning the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the majority. See above for ALL the NUMEROUS reasons this IS a civil rights issue.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, consider this...

We live in a free society, which means your "slippery slope" is only applicable when you want to expand government power, NOT when you're expanding rights. Ergo, the slippery slope actually works AGAINST the anti-equality argument. It's more logical and legally correct to say that banning marriage based on gender, could lead the government to presume they have the power to ban marriage based on other protected classes, i.e. race or religion.

And then ask yourselves this...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that? And the answer is ALSO the answer as to why gay marriage won't lead to those things.

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

History records FDR died from a brain hemorrhage. Course the cause matters none now. Don't believe He felt much like dallying with His mistress at the time either. He was a Great Man. I'd like to think he did feel like it, but, likely, no.

It's almost as if feisty gives a rat's ass about the issue and is not just a douchebag propaganda spammer. LOL, nah, that was a joke, we all know these extremists do not care at all about the issues, but are just a bunch of Goebbels wannabes.

I hope you guys feel good about yourselves knowing that Hitler would be proud of you.

Hopeful American,

I never said they were not human.

No, you did not. So here's the twist. How can you deny a human their humanity - and marriage is a very basic, and good human experience - based soley upon your yet-to-be defined standards of what is deviant behavior?

I'm gay, but you'd have to be a real moron not to see the timing on this one. Obama and the WH come through when? Right after the GOP is gaining support within their ranks for gay marriage. Glad to see the WH support, or any support for that matter, but I hate to be used as a political pawn.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. It doesn't really affect me at all.

But I can't help but feel a little disgusted that yet another politician takes one position before an election and another afterwards and is then applauded for being "brave".

No, that is actually the opposite of being brave. It's being a coward and a sneak. He should have simply come right out and said that he intended for the Federal Government to get involved in the debate and make gay marriage the law of the land. That would have been brave. And surprising. And honest.

Then again, why would I expect a politician to care about anything other than his own skin during an election year.

honestdebate...

You are obsessed with Feisty, that means she owns you. If you were not obsessed with her you would not comment on her all the time but instead debate.

Definition of OBSESSION (Websters)

1
: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation <an obsession with profits>

2
: something that causes an obsession
— ob·ses·sion·al adjective
— ob·ses·sion·al·ly adverb

See obsession defined for English-language learners »

See obsession defined for kids »

Examples of OBSESSION

1. He was fascinated by the actress and tracking her every move had become an obsession.
2. She has an obsession about cleanliness.
3. Her concern about cleanliness approaches the level ofobsession.
4. Money has become an obsession for him.

Donna, Democrats consider everyone to be a political pawn. You have to learn to accept that, sorry but it's true.

You are obsessed with Feisty, that means she owns you. If you were not obsessed with her you would not comment on her all the time but instead debate.

Frankly, I assume you are feisty with a different account, otherwise you would not have picked up on the one time I ever pointed out what a hack Feisty is. Good try, but you are pathetic.

It seems to me that a simple Federal law that says that those in 'Civil Unions' shall have the same rights and duties as 'married' couples would accomplish the same purpose without all of the haggling over the term 'Marriage'.

I have no problems with gay marriage, however, marriage is not defined in the Constitution, nor is it within the federal authority. That means it is a 10th Amendment issue. That means it goes to the states and if marriage is not in their Constitution it goes to the people for a vote. In California the people voted and said no. That should have been the end of it, but the courts got involved and overturned the will of the people.

If people in the LGBT community want to get married and their state says no, then move to a state that will accept them with open arms. If you like high taxes and the liberal lifestyle then move to California and not Texas. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, move to Washington, Maryland or New York.

I took off today from work and had seen 2 different articles posted on MSN regarding gay marriage. The first one, all the votes up were for people who defended gay marriage. However, this article, the thumbs up above are in opposition of gay marriage. I'm guessing it's people who have no job and love big gov't for the earlier pro-gay marriage voters. The opposition to gay marriage voters are just getting home from work now and are voting.

Roy Wilson,

The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to make such a law.

Jegossett,

Please read the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. If the law does not treat all individuals equally under the law then the will of the people does not matter.

The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to make such a law.

...but the Supreme Court has the ability to say that a state law banning same-sex marriage violates the Constitution.

Homosexuals are decadent and immoral and have NO rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It would be the same if there were people who wanted to marry their pets, none of it is condoned by GOD.

Layton, tsk, tsk, it looks like you're judging, boy...

When did Odoodle Butt start worrying about the constitution? Guess when it fits his agenda.

Fiesty, You asked,"How does same sex marriage effect you"? Well Barack Obama is a vote pandering whore,Chicago Daley Machine style. What does anything Barack Obama do that doesn't effect us?Take immigration, the Dream Act, allowing 11 mil illegal's basically immediate citizenship. Like a dumba$$ he hasn't sealed the border so that'll mean 25 mi will be here streaming in with their hand out. And all the while thousands of Union and non-Union workers alike have been out of work for years. And I'll guarantee you the"dreamers" will be exempt from having to buy their own health insurance under Obamacare,yet be "citizen" enough to VOTE DEMOCRAT. If you are down with what Barack Obama is doing than you were down when Ronald Reagan did it! Only Reagan declared it was the biggest mistake of his 8 yr Presidency. How doesn't Same Sex Marriage effect you,Fiesty? You going to explain to your kids or grandkids that the Same Sex Marriage law,that you supported is"normal"? The only good that could become of that is you're ilk would die off sooner than us Republicans!

Layton, your post has the most intelligent tolerance and understanding. There is a lot of hate in others. A union does not have to involve what some call "deviant behavior." Two old friends who have no other caring family anywhere, who have been dedicated to each other for years, have no recourse under the law. In illness or emergency, one of them cannot make decisions for the other because they are not married or related. They may not even visit intensive care because they are not family. They cannot inherit each other's property without a Will, because they are neither family, nor married. They cannot file joint tax returns to save money because they are not married. In most instances, one cannot take the other as an exemption either, because they are not listed as an acceptable relationship under Federal guidelines. Marriage, even in their twilight years, may be the only way they can protect and provide for each other. Protection under the law is not available to such people. If the marriage act can finally serve such a merciful purpose, what the hell is so wrong with that?? They do not have to be gay.

Well Feisty, how does someone carrying guns affect you? how does someone marrying a child affect you? how does someone marrying 10 people affect you? How does someone murdering someone you don't know affect you? I can ask that question all day long.

Well this here bigot and proud of it thank you very much does not want to witness you crawling all over each other (it appears that homosexuals have a hard time with keeping it behind closed doors), and if my memory serves me correctly was the leading group in the spread of AIDS in the early 80s and is still the highest risk group today.

Why - because with immoral behavior comes a lack of consideration for others (protection) and the ability to "control" themselves. It becomes all about sex, sex, sex and damn to everyone else.

Now I'm no prude and enjoy sex as much as the next guy/gal - but I don't flaunt it in public, I don't visit "bathhouses" and have indiscriminate sexual contact through a hole in the door, wall, stall--whatever. I don't introduce myself and say hi, I'm ____— and I'm heterosexual. I like my sex straight.

In other words I do not define myself by who I screw...homosexuals seem incapable of doing it any other way (and yes I'm grouping a LOT of you together, simply based on how you behave in public, what you talk about in interviews and the number of posts on here that back up my words).

Keep your sex life to yourself and private, like it should be. Quit "hooking" up with every Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, or Jane. Use some protection for yourself and the others you are subjecting yourself too. Quite defining yourself just as a homosexual - how about as a PERSON? Quit prowling reststops. If you're a man and want to dress like a woman, then be a woman--you can't have it both ways. If you're a woman and want to be a man, have the surgery, become a man.

I get so sick and tired of hearing you whine about this and whine about that...grow the hell up, get over yourself, the world does not revolve around you and quit shoving your crap in my face.

You do that, then I don't care what you do, you will be judged for your behavior by someone other than me.

LOOK ALL THIS IS PUBLICITY IS JUST TO TAKE PRESSURE OFF THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE SEQUESTER. EVER HEAR THE PHRASE, BAIT AND SWITCH?

Yeah, just so the people at MSNBC knows we are not fooled.

Obama can campaign as much as he likes. But no one is fooled anymore by him and his "social" flip flopping.

As a libertarian, I'm all for gay people having the same rights as everyone else...

...but it cracks me up they call this unconstitutional (which it is), while they simultaneously wage a Drug War, outlaw online gambling and poker, the President signs off enthusiastically on the NDAA and the re-up of the USA PATRIOT Act, etc...

...none of which is in the 20 enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution or in the Amendments (which means they are unconstitutional, whether the lapdog courts agree or not - please recall the courts upheld slavery over and over again).

These hypocrites are throwing the public a bone...they hand one right to a small group while trampling multiple rights under their boots for most of us. One step forward, five steps back...not a promising trend.

A lot of things that we take for granted are not in the Constitution. That's why the framers put constitutional amendments in place and a Supreme Court to judge those amendments to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court itself is fluid by political appointments. They are mere mortal men afflicted with differing ideologies just like the rest of us. The founding fathers put a system in place to deal with changing times. We must live with those changes, both in good times and bad.

Holding every new law hostage to the fact that it was never mentioned in the Constitution is a fools game. I believe the framers of the Constitution held us to much higher standards. I believe they would be sorely disappointed in many of us.

If there is a God then God made them that way.............

And the Devil he sent us President Obama..................

I think the President is out of his mind to comment on a thing like this. Gay rights? hahahah..... Like I said before, even common law marriages aren't recognized in all 50 states, so if he was planning to force the issues on marriages, he should start with that first.

But again, you won't hear about that from the President. Afterall, it's not like he has a brain that could think that far ahead.

Because inherent and obvious biological impediments are obviously present between two homosexuals who desire to consummate a procreative contract (marriage contract), the legal system is not capable of magically transforming the biological requirement of heterosexual contact to produce human life into the politically demanded right to procreate within a homosexual union. Science has not yet provided the abililty of a man to impregnate another man nor that of a woman to impregnate another woman. Once science catches up with the desire of the homosexual community to procreate in the same manner as heterosexuals, then the homosexual will be entitled to contract between other homosexuals for procreative purposes (marriage)

Seeing as the idea of solidarity of marriage started as a census statement in early roman history I say who gives a rat's arse. Abolish the term marriage altogether, make all unions viable under civil binding contracts with agreeable terms set beforehand to reduce the amount of time money and drama incurred by divorce. yet, we can't do that becuase hte hundreds of yehaws posting above me wouldn't have something to gripe about to feel informative, which, seriously they are not anyway.

I think once you people and all people realize marriage benifits are bogus and that it is just a means of tracking you people and your activities you will also see the validity of abolishing the archaic slave master keeping tabs on the slave class system.

Jegossett "Roy Wilson, The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to make such a law."

Nonsense. If they can pass a DOM law, they can pass a law giving civil unions standing.

rgsdca1965

Did you ever think that just maybe it was the Devil that sent you? I've never heard the president speak such evil words about you. Damn, maybe he sent me. Scary as Hell, ain't it? The king of lies and deceit may have us both by the throats.

Interesting write up Sarah. Enjoyed reading it. But how do you reconcile all the other bans against the gay marriage ban? Why should gay marriage be legal while it is illegal for first cousins to marry in 25 states, and incest is illegal basically everywhere, especially, as you pointed out, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction? Why can't one man marry two consenting women? My question is, once you start making exceptions, where do you stop? How do you stop? How do you state that it is discriminatory to not allow these two adults to marry but that it is not discriminatory to not allow THOSE two adults to marry? Right now, marriage laws are pretty simple; basically man-woman, legal age, mentally capable, distant enough in heritage to not endanger their offspring. Everyone can participate in it. Yes, gays can't marry each other, men can't marry their love childs, first cousins can't marry in 25 states, but marriage is not denied any individual of appropriate age and sanity. Therefore, gays are NOT discriminated against ANY MORE than other non-desirable relationships are.

And, of course, there are the simple questions, such as why marriage created in the first place? Why does government provide tax deductions, etc. It certainly wasn't for two men to get together and poke male reproductive organs up each other's sewage pipe. It was to provide security for a woman, to provide incentives for men and women to get together, to create and raise kids in a stable family atmosphere, to provide the next generation. As you yourself quoted,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

A gay union is not essential to the survival of the human race, hetero unions are. The above quote equates marriage with the survival of humanity, and therefore essentially describes hetero marriage, not the union of two dud studs. The state certainly should not prevent two men from sharing a home, or from doing perverted sex acts together in the privacy of said home, and the state can grant the privilege of marriage to gays if it so desires, but a sanctioned union between two men, with all the tax breaks granted by such an arrangement, should not be considered a fundamental right, because it is not essential to survival. Society doesn't need it, it isn't essential, and therefore isn't a right.

Gay marriage is just wrong!!!

Question what ever happened to the will of the people?

I have to tell you that was the most thought-out, intelligent response of anyone on this subject, including myself.

Bravo to you.

Joey Bo, I gotta leave with your last comment. Where did you get the idea that anyone is essential to human survival? Would mankind have never survived without you or any other person in history? Let's give you the benefit of doubt.

A truly great man would save the world. That man's mother was drug addict. She left his newborn self in a dumpster. A passerby took notice and rescued the child. The only people willing to adopt such a precarious child was the gay couple outside of town.

They showered that child with love and an excellent education. He grew up to be leader of the free world during our most perilous era. He saved the world. Does that make his gay parents non-essential to survival?

If states rights supersede most federal laws, then county laws should supersede most state laws, city laws should supersede most county laws and township laws should supersede most city laws. We could reduce this to the smallest rural one stop-light town whose laws would supersede all but a handful of federal, state, and county laws. Is this the United States of America that many of you propose? Let's try this on for size.

Actually that would sound great to me, if you went one unit smaller yet...the individual supercedes the entire collective on any level. I own myself, I am not a slave to the state. That very concept is what jury nullification (one of your rights) is based on. That very concept is what is mean by "unalienable individual rights" - which are "rights not able to be legislated away, and are not determined by citizenship or lack of citizenship; rights you get by being an individual person and that cannot be transferred to another; borderless and unrestrained universal rights". The only way rights are contained are by the unalienable individual rights of others...in other words, you have to pose a serious direct credible harm to others. You may not harm or defraud others...that's supposed to be the standard of law in the USA (the standard of jurisprudence is called "natural law").

Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to G. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that "each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply."^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.^[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is classically contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to criticize said positive law.^[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),^[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.^[1]

Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Even a slave owns himself, because no law can make him agree with his enslavement. He has power of free thought and will, and can run away in disobedience of the law...an impossibility if you are property truly of another. To argue against self-ownership is impossible, because you commit a preformative contradiction...you demonstrate you own your mind and the movement of your mouth (or fingers to type) in order to formulate the opposing argument (see argumentation ethics below).

Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. Thus, by choosing to resolve a conflict by argumentation the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. Non-violence is thus an underlying norm (grundnorm) of argumentation, that is accepted by both parties.

Because during argumentation both parties propound propositions, and because argumentation presupposes certain norms (such as non-violence), the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed propositions of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

Without self ownership there would be no Gandhi or Martin Luther King Junior, or Rosa Parks. Individual nullification of tyrannical laws is called "civil disobedience". When a State does this individual act on a collective level, provided it expresses the will of the majority in the State, it is called nullification (like when Northern States refused to return runaway slaves to the South, and indeed helped smuggle them out the Canada in the Underground Railroad). When an entire country secedes from another it is again justified nullification provided the majority of the country agrees (like when the USA seceded from England, for example).

The only unit of government that can be moral is the individual, unless that individual harms or defrauds (or poses an eminent, measurable, and direct threat). Logically, all other compulsory government is tyranny.

"If you (as an adult) have the (mental and physical) ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself, and if in that self governance no other unwilling persons, their possessions, or their properties are harmed, (logically) all external (compulsory)government is tyranny." - Benjamin Tucker and I

Your ideas that supremacy of the collective larger unit should hold sway over the individual, county, or State presumes that law is just. But more often than not the laws that trample individual self ownership are not just. At all times the non-harmful, adult, sane individual must have the final say over the family, the family over the neighborhood, the neighborhood over the town, the town over the county, the county over the State, the State over the federal government, and the federal government over the world's international community. Anything else leads to the predictable outcome of totalitarianism eventually, because history has shown that small centralization of involuntary power are unstable; they always grow larger and more centralized with less and less accountability until they collapse into normlessness and lawlessness (anomie).

Your disdain for the individual and smaller units of bottom-up, more voluntary authority has the logical end of chaos. The opposite has the logical end it did 8,000 years before states (compulsory centralized governments) came into existence; spontaneous voluntary order and civilization.

honestdebate

Donna, Democrats consider everyone to be a political pawn. You have to learn to accept that, sorry but it's true.

You are obsessed with Feisty, that means she owns you. If you were not obsessed with her you would not comment on her all the time but instead debate.

Frankly, I assume you are feisty with a different account, otherwise you would not have picked up on the one time I ever pointed out what a hack Feisty is. Good try, but you are pathetic.

TUNNEL VISION HAS SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED YOU, HONESTDEBATE. I post under my name, I don't vote Democrat (I left the left), Feisty is whomever they are, and thanks for adhering to your assumptions regarding party loyalty. You're an ass.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Enjoy the show!

Good point Al!

Care for some Feisty's special blend of "salty" *popcorn? ;o)

They sure can howl to the high heavens, but can't answer a simple question... lol

Some people call them low information voters, I prefer to call them STUCK on STUPID!

shut it dirty democrap feisty . ya hack . get a job ya slob !

I present to you, Exhibit "A"! lmao

These people have a right to their own happiness in a free country.

No kidding ExitO!

These bigots need to stay the f*ck out of other peoples lives, on things that don't affect them!

Stay out of other peoples lives ? The gay agenda surely isnt staying out of other peoples lives ... You now have books in middle and elementary schools teaching about gay lifestyle. There is no reason, what so ever to be exposing any kid to that kind of sexuality or any kind for that matter , especially in elementary.

Lets toss on the Boy Scouts also, a private organization that had continual pressure from the gay community to change their views. BSA already had the Supreme Court Standing behind them, and yet the BSA still may cave into the pressures. So instead of the LGBT community making their own organization, like Gay scouts of America where Gays can all join and be happy, they feel they need to bully themselves onto the lives of the BSA. You may not agree with the BSA choices, and you can boycott them or what ever, you have that right, but there is no excuse what so ever to be bullied by other people who can not tolerate your beliefs and values. Tolerance Goes BOTH ways. Its not one sided. Also why would any body want to be with people who dont want them around. IM a white guy, and say if i stroll down the streets of Harlem, and try to hang out with Blacks, and say I get shunned and not wanted around because I am white, do you honestly think I will go get some more white people and come back and start badgering the private lives of these black people to accept me in their social group ? Heck no. I will stay around people who want me to be around. WHy would I want to be in a place where I am not wanted.

So dont say stay out of peoples lives that dont affect them.

I can ramble on more about Gay week at Disney World, a week that is not publicly talked about or supported officially. I read an article from a GAY MAN, who talked about how sickening it was to see the extreme public displays of affection that go on during that week and that families come there unknowingly and have their little kids see such things going on. Yes that does affect others lives. Or trying to show that the family model norm that works Best is one man, one woman. SO why would I advocate for anything else, when the best thing for a child to group up in , is indeed one man, one woman homes.

So yes it does affect everyones lives.

Hummmmmmmmmmm The government now argues "because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest."

What "substantial government interest" is furthered by discriminating against 55,000,000 American peaceful Marijuana Smokers for their choice of what they consume ?

Who 25 years ago would have believed that "Gay Marriage" would be legal before Marijuana?

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA NOW ... STOP DISCRIMINATING Against 55,000,000 peaceful Americans for exercising responsible free choice ... of what they consume!

Commonsense101

maybe he did wahahahah booooooooooooooooooooooooooo of you go.

Al in Visalia CA, #1.22- Qualifying the statement while being concise and logical is arrived at by the self-establishing and central and "only" definative base factor being "aberant sexual orientation", whereby opening the door of "under equal protection of the law" to have to also be inclusive of all other "aberant" sexual orientations". And, rather than non-existent "historical" precedent, there is only purported "legitimate basis" that wants to be precedent-setting; and, again, the only duly constituted legitimate basis that can be construed to be established and precendent-setting is "aberant sexual orientation". Now 3 Men can all marry 6 Women, 4 Men and the Family Dog and Cat and pet Salamander because that's their "aberant" sexual orientation. The Kids couldn't be involved in their "Family" sexual escapades, but it would be perfectly fine to have them as part of their "sexual orientation" Family. Keep it going...the possibilities are almost endless. Open the floodgates....just like Citizens United to wrongly decided BAD PRECEDENT.

The only thing UNconstitutional, it seems, is that Civil Unions, aberant of Marriage, don't exist in every State (I didn't know that!) and that Federal Benefits of Marriage aren't reflected in them.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me why same sex marriage should be illegal without using "because my religion says so."

Other than than hiding behind religion, nobody genuinely has a good argument for denying same sex marriage.

Jo,

Loving is as much on point for the argument that FAILED, as it is for its declaration of marriage as a right. The court has ruled 13 OTHER times that marriage is a right. In fact, you can take marriage completely out of the equation and just use the word CONTRACT, and go purely on the 14th Amendment.

Finally, in Turner v Safley the court ruled that marriage is in NO way based on procreation. Hence infertile people get married ALL the time, nor is procreation outside of marriage banned. The procreation argument only holds water if procreation is completely and totally dependent on marriage, and marriage is limited to only those who procreate.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html

You're focusing on on the part of the quote that's irrelevant and missing the part I bolded about marriage being a civil right.

As far as incest and polygamy??? Well why doesn't straight marriage lead to that? The answer to THAT is ALSO the answer to why gay marriage doesn't.

Donna ...

Really?

I'm gay, but you'd have to be a real moron not to see the timing on this one

So why don't you tell us what the timing should be on "this one." the year 2050? the year 3000? Sorry sweetheart, but having numerous gay friends and relatives, your BS statement is just that .. .BULL@!$%#. If you want to have a political agenda for the GOP that includes GLBT's please let us ALL know who your candidate will be . . .

In the meantime, YOUR President is standing up for gay marriage.

And you are ..... what ... standing down?

Make a choice and get out of your f'ing closet.

Cat (1.73) - It's funny that you say that a minor (under 18) is unable to marry without an "adult's" permission, presumably because at that age they lack the mental capacity to fully understand the ramifications of "adult" decisions. Yet, I recently saw a report about a school district that allows these same kids to decide they want to be a girl (when actually a boy) or vice versa, at school - without informing the parents of the decision. In these cases, boys are allowed to use the girl's bathroom, and vice versa following "gender reassignment." Funny how liberals pick and choose when a child is actually a child...and when they are okay with them making "adult" decisions.

As far as gay marriage, I don't have a problem with gay partners having the same benefits as hetero partners....but why does it have to be called marriage?

My objection to the term marriage lies in a few things:

1) There is no proof that being gay is genetic. There's just as much research that says it's not. The "burden of proof" still lies with the gay community to prove this without a doubt. Therefore, it is a CHOICE. Being a choice, the individual has CHOSEN a lifestyle that does not qualify for "marriage." In other words, they have the choice to marry a member of the opposite sex, but they chose a same-sex partner instead. Nobody is keeping a gay individual from marrying a member of the opposite sex.

2) As much as atheists hate it, marriage is a biblical construct. It's based on creating a monogamous relationship between 2 people for the purpose of a family unit and procreation. Considering it is physically and biologically impossible for 2 men or 2 women to procreate, they do not fit the original purpose of marriage. Oops...did I just drop some real, honest, scientific proof right there??

3) Throwing 1 and 2, above, out the door, and saying that there is definitive proof of a "gay gene" and that procreation is not central to the married unit, making gay marriage legal, then tell me why polygamy is illegal? There is just as much research saying that genetics cause men and women to be attracted to multiple partners, as there is research finding a genetic link to homosexuality. So, if that's the case, then are you not discriminating against polygamists who are unable to marry their multiple partners? That could be 1 guy and 3 women, 2 guys and 2 women, 3 guys and 1 woman, you could even throw in a bi-sexual with a straight partner and a gay partner.

A lot of things that we take for granted are not in the Constitution. That's why the framers put constitutional amendments in place and a Supreme Court to judge those amendments to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court itself is fluid by political appointments. They are mere mortal men afflicted with differing ideologies just like the rest of us. The founding fathers put a system in place to deal with changing times. We must live with those changes, both in good times and bad.

Holding every new law hostage to the fact that it was never mentioned in the Constitution is a fools game. I believe the framers of the Constitution held us to much higher standards. I believe they would be sorely disappointed in many of us.

Your own statement is self contradictory. If you want to change the Constitution you have to Amend it...that's the only way. Read the Federalist Papers and the Founders some time.

“Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Hugo Black

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

Article V of the Constitution prescribes the only method by which it can be changed:

" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"

Michael4yah . . .

Homosexuals are decadent and immoral and have NO rights guaranteed by our Constitution

That is the most disgusting post I have seen. Please do NOT stand up and say you are a Christian. I am a Christian. I love Christ and I know that He loves me. He does not love labelers and haters. Where on EARTH do you come up with Constitutional rights and morality?

Tess42 ....

Thank you for your kind remarks. Having family that are married and "gay" ... all I can say, is Thanksgiving is a joy as I am so blessed to be loved with so many friends and family that take love and commitment first. Gay marriage, straight marriage, transexual marriage, it's all about love and family.

If you're afraid of love and marriage, I'm sure there is a therapist that could assist.

<3

Hey Roy,

This will be one of the few times we disagree. It is because conservatives compromised and agreed to civil unions a couple of decades ago that we now have no solid legal ground to refuse homosexual marriage today. A distinction without a difference, which is what all the rights and priviledges of marriage without the title would be, is capricious. And the constitution doesn't allow capricious laws. Our mistake was in ever going down this path. Existing (at the time) contract law was sufficient.

And now that we are here there is no way to stop homosexual marriage from occurring, whether through judicial fiat or legislative action. In Cali, my state, voters until just now have routinely opposed homosexual marriage. But traditional marriage advocates are worn down by the constant legal battles in which the judges say we are wrong in the craziest opinions imaginable. And why not? We came up with the concept of trying to give marriage benefits and priveledges without calling it marriage, twisting ourselves into a logical knot as well.

This is all a very bad way to make law. This change is taking place because people either want to devalue traditional marriage or they make the claim you should be able to marry any adult you love. Either way, or both, leads to polygamy and/or incest. Play it out...how can either be stopped given we have no desire to place any real restriction on who one can marry other than who they love. It will take future, hopefully wiser, generations to correct our failing.

Come on Barak, aren't there more important things to focus on right now?? I personally don't care one way or another about gay marriage but save this until you get the Real problems under control...Jez.

We should keep in mind something very profound...

We have a president who leads a party that, until just recently, opposed homosexual marriage. Now this same president, who his supporters claim is a constitutional scholar, supports homosexual marriage and says anyone who doesn't violates the constitution. And this all happened for a constitutional reason this president is unable to identify.

Regardless of where you come down on homosexual marriage, or whether it can be ruled illegal by the various states, this president is, if we are to believe what we've been told, either a constitutional moron or he's despotic. In either case we are in a very bad way as a nation. Thanks liberals.

In the meantime, YOUR President is standing up for gay marriage.

And you are ..... what ... standing down?

Make a choice and get out of your f'ing closet.

Layton: I'm a Libertarian who's been out of the closet for 30 years. Thanks for the anger, but you missed my point. The Republicans sign a brief on gay marriage three days ago, and NOW Obama is charging ahead with the constitutionality of gays getting married. The timing is interesting; that was my point. If the administration is so pro-gay marriage, they could have and should have acted on it instead of reacting to something the GOP did. Politicians use gays as political pawns; we're supposed cast our Pavlovian votes as soon as some suit rings the bell. It would be nice if there was sincere versus reactive support for equality in marriage. Do you now understand that I am not "standing down" for gay marriage?

" ... where to you draw the line of acceptable deviant behavior? ... "

At my front door. When those damn "deviant" Christians come to it trying to sell their Jesus/God.

Any other questions?

Maybe those who stand for traditional marriage are tired of having slanderous hate comments thrown at them.

Gay activist cry bloody murder when they hear the word "gay" thrown out inappropriately. But they are the first to abuse and over use the word "homophobe". Its simply Hypocrisy. It concerns me when we base our decisions on hypocrisy instead of sound judgments.

Just in case this President doesn't understand how thing work ( it appears he doesn't get it yet ) The Supreme court decides what is constitutional and what is not.

I also think that the people of California voted and the majority voted to ban same sex marriage. It seems to me that the people have spoken in the most liberal of all states they dont' agree that two men or two woman should marry. Are the people fighting this brain dead as well as moraly dead ?

What is wrong with homosexuality?

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/pdf/hiv_factsheet_ymsm.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/HIVAmongYouth/

The 2 previous links are form a U.S. Government website.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/gaylesbianbisexualandtransgenderhealth.html

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/

I have been exposed to many homosexuals in my life, every last one of them more sickening and disgusting than the previous. When a hetero couple is showing displays of affection a child sees this as normal. When I have to explain to my kids about your lifestyle then you ARE affecting someone's life.

If being sexually promiscuous or homosexual is so RIGHT then why are there diseases that occur from such activities? Because nature is a bitch and puts a fail safe in place so the deviant animals die off and the species can continue.

If homosexuality is SO natural, then reproduce without the intervention of modern science.

Donna: posts like yours offend me to my very soul. The paranoia contained therein is suspect, and causes me to believe that you just aren't playing with a full deck.

So I shall violate my self imposed rule, and speak bluntly:

The timing of this amicus brief has nothing to do with some Republicans signing a supportive document about gay marriage.

IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SUPREME COURT CALENDAR, AND THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE UP IN FRONT OF JUSTICES, YOU COMPLETE MORON!

I realize that for someone like you, facts are pesky things. But get a clue, and when you do, get another clue, because you just aren't terribly bright, and cannot realize that sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Dave,

Their eggs and sperm still work, you know. Gay doesn't mean infertile.

Setting aside the fact that there are 7 Billion people on the planet, let's say we find the human species endangered. In such a case, I'm sure your fellow gay citizens will take one for the team in order to ensure the existence of our species. After all, it wouldn't be the first time two people who weren't attracted to each other slept together.

Let people marry who they want. Better yet, as long as someone isn't hurting themselves or others, make that legal too. I should be able to smoke a little grass if I want and I should be able to buy whatever rifle I want.

What I don't want is for the White House to get involved in state politics. If you can get something passed at a federal level-- fine. If not, this is a state issue and agree or not, the majority of California voters decided they didn't want homosexuals to have legally recognized marriages. I don't agree with it, but hey. The will of the people. Of course, POTUS is swooping in to try to overrule the popular vote.

Obama: work on a passable budget (or any budget for that manner) and quit meddling in state-level affairs. It's bad enough you've got Biden begging for anti-gun votes in Colorado.

Equality IS a Federal interest. What is it you don't get about that?

So I'm guessing he would think it is unconstitutional to ban guns too! Yeah!!!!!

Your President is not trying to ban guns. Are you really that ignorant?

Hi newday,

So your president just several months ago opposed homosexual marriage, and even more recently said it was a state issue, not a federal issue. And now he says it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the ability to marry someone of the same sex. Can you tell me what constitutional evolution has occurred between then and now to help reshape your president's views? If there is none then would it be fair to say he either had no idea what the constitution meant just a few months ago, or he has no idea what it means today? And is this okay with you, regardless of what you think about homosexual marriage itself?

And, if it's not fair to say what I am saying, then can you please explain why? One day it is perfectly constitutional, the next it is perfectly not constitutional, and nothing occurred between A and B to justify the constitutional change in meaning? The president, btw, could himself change his mind. People change their minds all the time for reasons that are their own. But the constitution is mine just as much as yours, or his, and so when he changes his mind in this degree he affects me as well.

Frankly, I think your president is a liar, but is a conniving liar willing to say whatever he must to distract and deflect from whatever real things are happening. And so far, in more than 5 years, I see nothing to make me change my view of him.

Rich:

Thank you for your respectful response to my posts. I am quite unaccustomed to disagreements on FR being couched in respectful language, so you have my admiration.

As early as Aug. 2010, President Obama has said specifically that while he does not believe in gay marriage, the California ban on it was unconstitutional. He has consistently maintained that since Prop 8 was adopted. I can't answer your specific question on why the President has evolved on gay marriage, though it certainly would not have been to increase his popularity, the whole thing being as polarized as it is.

If I had to guess...and my guess is worth exactly what you are paying to hear it, I suspect that the religion tradition that the President grew up in inculcated him with the belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. Like so many of us, he has grown away from that belief, mainly due to the practicalities that gay families face daily.

I don't believe the President is lying. I do believe he has grown to a different understanding. Look, I am a 60 year old stay at home mom. I raised my children and would certainly be considered a traditionalist. I changed my beliefs when I got to know my children's friends, some of whom are gay. It was in discussions with these thoughtful young people that I evolved. One young man in particular is like my 5th child, and I hope to go to his wedding one day.

Could the President have had a similar experience? I like to think so.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED:
Your President is not trying to ban guns. Are you really that ignorant?

You're one of the most moronic individuals I seen comment...EVER. If you're willing to buy into the BS, that's your choice. Between trying to strip away our 2nd Amendment rights, to telling women to deter a would-be rapist by pissing themselves or pointing to their crotch and saying, "Sorry, but Aunt Flo's in town," you're proof that the left can still persuade mindless people to push their causes. YOU ARE TRULY and UTTERLY STUPID.

What in the name of the wee man are you talking about Donna?

But, sorry dear; truly and utterly stupid...that would be you.

You have posted nothing worthwhile, only your bitterness and anger about whatever it is that goes on in your life that you can't control. You are a very sad person, I would hate to go through life the way you are, with hatred toward anyone that thinks differently then you do (which most must, given your limited intellectual graces.)

I suspect that you have very little in your life but hate. Perhaps you ought to broaden your horizons.

And while it is hard to get caught out like you were in my post above, you might learn from your betters instead of attempting to denigrate those who know more than you do. After all, if you shut your big mouth and listen and read, you might let light into that very dark area between your ears.

Slainte! You have lost the point. Live with it.

newday: You wrote, "whatever it is that goes on in your life that you can't control," etc. Can you elaborate, or was this written just to incite? Based on my comments and not conjecture, can you explain what you're talking about here? And, what do you know "more" of than I, considering you know very little about me?

Donna:

I would be happy to elaborate. You have been on the attack since your first post on this thread. No one attacked you, you instantly assumed that anyone who thought differently then you was, let's see, how did you phrase it.".moronic and truly and utterly stupid." If you read back to previous posts of yours, that is how you present yourself, angry, bitter, and lashing out at people you do not know. You have said that you don't like being used as a "political pawn" when there is no evidence that you are being used, and plenty of evidence to suggest that you are not being used at all.

When people suggest they are a pawn, they imply lack of control in their own life. Given the level of your anger lack of control becomes a given.

Now. Just for the sake of clarity, read Rich's post at 1.167. He does not agree with me. We are polar opposites on the issue, but he certainly presents his argument in a more cogent, effective and respectful way then either you or I did.

If I were to proffer advice to you...study Rich's post, and try to write like he did. I know I am going to.

And, what do you know "more" of than I, considering you know very little about me?

To Donna the Dingbat -- my advice to you would be to quit while you were ahead...

Sadly for you poor thing, you were NEVER in that position!

Two things in life I cannot tolerate are liars and phonies, unfortunately for you, you fit both categories rather snugly!

Anyone with an ounce of common sense. knows better then to challenge NDDR EVUH into a bitching fit on American history!

Proceed at your own peril... dumbfux!

Why thank you Feisty.

newdawn: Here's my first post: I'm gay, but you'd have to be a real moron not to see the timing on this one. Obama and the WH come through when? Right after the GOP is gaining support within their ranks for gay marriage. Glad to see the WH support, or any support for that matter, but I hate to be used as a political pawn.

Did I specifically call somebody a "moron," or did I say it would be moronic to not see how gay marriage is being used politically? Then, honestdebate confused me with Feisty; Layton responded to something he's not fully read thus didn't understand, and, now you. I wish people would take the time to read before responding.

And, since I'm so angry and lack control (your words, not mine), I would be remiss not to mention that it's "differently than," not "differently then" (again, your words, not mine). It's interesting that you can call me rude and angry when you write, "Are you really that ignorant?" Hypocrisy knows no bounds. Have a good day/night.

Feisty: When did I lie, and how am I phony? Seriously.

Ah yes, Donna: the last refuge of mendacious. Go to grammar.

You asked me a question, I answered it. I can't help it that you don't like the answer. Truth is often that way, it is bothersome.

But we are to the point that you are boring the snot out of me. You can't learn, nor can you be honest. As to your question to Feisty, why would she waste her time?

Hi newday,

You are welcome. I don't understand why both sides, or all sides, can't be more respectful even when we disagree. I don't think I explained myself well since I wasn't asking why the president might personally evolve his views on homosexual marriage. I think you paint as charitable a case for him as possible, but to me his personal views are irrelevant to the constitutionality of the claims the president makes.

It is those constitutional evolutions I am trying to figure out. The president today, for instance, claimed that our constitution had always meant what he now says is true. But if the president is the kind of constitutional scholar he and his supporters have claimed, and he previously believed that the prohibition on homosexual marriage was constitutional, then either he was lying, or there is some change which has occurred to justify the altered constitutional understanding.

My point, simply put, is that you can't say that the constitution previously permitted banning homosexual marriage, but no longer does, unless your reading of it before was wrong, or your reading of it today is wrong, without some amendment process intervening along the way. In my case I know plenty of homosexual people. Some are very fine people, some not, just like all people. But this doesn't mean that I think it is unconstitutional to ban homosexual marriage. One has nothing to do with the other. If I supported homosexual marriage then I would support changing the constitution to permit it, or to prohibit the banning of it. How else can I get, constitutionally speaking, from there to here?

And so my conclusion about the president is that he is not a constitutional scholar at all, and really pays no heed to our Supreme Law at all, unless it might favor him. Sadly this makes him despotic. I think changing our laws in this way is extremely dangerous, and it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage at all. It instead has everything to do with most Americans today (seemingly anyhow) eschewing entirely our laws in favor for their own feelings. In no case in human history has this proved successful for long, and in every case this has proved violently dangerous.

I would have no fear of granting marriage rights to homosexuals, but the claim made by supporters at this point revolves around people doing what they want. The president said exactly this again today. Marriage isn't about this, and was never about this. It was a contract designed to provide stability for society and to help bring forward the future generations in that framework. So it's fine to change it, but we should look for reasons other than love. Maybe starting with the simple idea...How does allowing homosexuals marry improve society any more than not allowing them to marry? I think, frankly, that too few people (but this includes all liberals I know and hear about) care to think things out. If they did perhaps they would notice that changing the law in this way opens the door for incestual marriage as well as polyamory marriage. If you think I'm wrong, well fine, but on what legitimate basis would you deprive those people who love one another of this right?

newdayDAWNING..RETURNED, Are you sure you are not Sailcat reincarnated? Your slip was showing the minute you ran to the defense of Fiesty. YOU would know what a waste of time Donna's response would be to "Flagelant Road2hell"? As much as you discount Donna's opinion she has admitted that she is Gay. Donna is walking the talk,newday. She, is a victim of Obama's vote pandering and can smell bull$hit and rightly so. If your articulate mind comes to the conclusion that anyone that disagrees with Fiesty Red Head From Roselle,Il is a liar, you are a fool!

newday: You can't learn, nor can you be honest. As to your question to Feisty, why would she waste her time?

I've been very honest, so how you define the word? You say, "You can't learn." To the contrary, I've learned a lot (not from you), such as knowing that when people can't answer a straight question it's because they don't know how and thus change the subject. I think Feisty can answer for herself, but apparently you think not. The more honest I become, the more you lash out. Sorry you have a problem with the truth. I was honest about my views on what Obama is doing regarding gay marriage, and you don't like the answer. Keep it straight, so to speak.

Thank you, fenderbluesjr, for understanding what newday and Feisty are unable to comprehend.

Poor POOR Donna: you do have a limited perspicacity do you not? How do we reduce this down to its smallest parts so you have a CHANCE of getting it. Let's break it down: Here is what you do not understand:

The amicus brief is a tool used by various groups to get their views in front of the Supreme Court. Read that first, Donna, and sit and take it in. Ready: here is part 2:

THAT IS WHY YOU ARE NOT A PAWN, YOU COMPLETE IDIOT. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU IT IS ABOUT TIMING.

Got that part? Pretty simple and written in language you use, so I am thinking it should enter your frontal lobe.

Now. You do not speak for all gay people. I am sure that within the class, just like any other, there are a variety of opinion on the issue at hand, and I am equally certain that most are more discerning than yours.

As to Feisty? Did I say that she can't answer for herself, or did I say that she wouldn't bother with the likes of you? She and I have been friends for over 5 years. Trust me, I know when she is done with the likes of you, simply because there is no point. You can't learn.

fendersbluesjr: How very charming, and how like a right winger. You are critical of me for "running to Feisty's defense" which I didn't do, and you come running to the defense of the feckless Donna, who really does need all the help she can get!

And I simply do not know when I have been more complimented. To be confused with my friend Sailcat? Why my head will double in size with pride!

How brilliant of you to be so discerning!

Hi, Rich: and a happy Saturday to you. I am starting to wish more and more that I can refuse to be goaded and write more like you do. It is a failing of mine, hope you understand, and let's move on to your post.

I tried to do some more reading on what the President has said in the past about the Constitutionality of Prop. 8. That's why it has taken me so long to respond to you. What I have read seems to support that the President has believed that Prop 8 is not Constitutional.

Here is what the amicus brief is asking the court to do. To examine the issue of gays as a class, and see if there is a compelling reason for the marriage ban to exist, or if it is onerous. The point being made is that CA allows all the benefits to the class without allowing the marriage. The best comparison would be the old days of Separate but Equal. If Justices can find a compelling reason the ban will exist. If not, the ban would be, well banned.

As to the slippery slope, and if it would devolve into incestuous marriage or polygamy, those same questions would have to be answered. With incest, you would have the danger of impaired children being born, is that enough of a compelling interest to stop it? With polygamy, you have the danger of many children within one family, and the state could wind up supporting all of them. What is the government's interest in protecting taxpayer funds?

If the only compelling interest in stopping gay marriage is what might happen...will Justices see that as enough of a danger to society to stop it?

I don't know. I don't think so, but I just don't know the answer.

I agree with you that marriage is the framework to provide stability for future generations. There are gay families with children...do we deny them that framework out of fear? I hope not.

When people form family groups the society benefits. They take care of each other, they buy homes together, they support one another in illness. I believe the benefits outweigh any what ifs.

Those are my beliefs about these issues, and I hope I have addressed what you want me to address.

I am also going to agree with you on it being a "feeling". But most laws begin that way, someone has a feeling that something is wrong and wants to address it. In my case, there is a bit of selfishness involved and I'll admit to it. My "fifth kid" (he really isn't mine, but I love him to death) is gay. When he comes to our family events, particularly the weddings and works his heart out to help me put on a nice affair, all I can think is "I want to help you with YOUR wedding." I really hope I can someday, and I will be there with great pride and love. Will be checking back to see if you respond.

I can't tell you how I have enjoyed this Rich. Thank you for taking the time to chat.

Hi newday,

It's interesting to me how we can be on opposite sides of an issue but without really disagreeing about too much. If you don't mind, unlike your post to me, I'd prefer to explore a few of the disagreements because it is there that I find our national future in so much doubt. But I will also say first that it's this kind of civil debate where both sides are really searching to discover how to solve an issue which is lacking in far too many cases. Liberals blames conservatives, conservatives blame liberals, but does it matter who came to the plate first? The wisdom of my mother is in my ear..."If everyone else jumped off a cliff would you, too?"

Anyhow, back to the fight...I think the point isn't whether any family unit can help provide for stable society, but rather which family unit is best. It was for this reason that civil marriage was first constructed. Probably religious marriage as well, but as I am not a believer and what any religious group wants to do has no effect on me (but really would have an effect on our views of civil marriage) I'd rather stick to what the government does. Marriage, from all I can understand about it, was devised to create a way to bring future generations forward within the most stable structure possible. Whether I like it or not there are no marriages between men, or between women, which can bring future generations forward WITHIN that union.

I don't think that is the reason to oppose homosexual marriage though. There are plenty of people who use sperm donors, or egg donors, or surrogates, to help make their family what they want it to be. But I do think that the biological reality that men and women are inherently different does matter. I've coached hundreds of kids, some of which were the sons or daughters of homosexual couples. My anecdotal stories are no evidence for what we should do, but I think that with one exception all of those kids seemed very well raised. And so even the inherent differences between men and women might not be the reason to prohibit homosexual marriage (there are other reasons it wouldn't apply anyhow).

My opposition continues to rest on the simple argument that, while feelings might initiate a desire for a law (I'm hard-pressed to see any of this in the Constitution or in common law though), a case has not been made that homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage in terms of improving society, and that homosexual relationships out-of-wedlock are claimed by the proponents of homosexual marriage to be helpful and useful already. So if there is no added benefit, then why the necessity for homosexual marriage based upon the concept--as I have heard not one other justification other than your correct argument about capriciousness--that one should be allowed to marry whomever they love?

It's that justification which makes me see the future where both incestual and polyamory marriage must be allowed too. And maybe those, too, will be good things, but how can this be when the people today who favor homosexual marriage on the same grounds as those who favor incestual and polyamory marriages claim that those marriages won't be good things. You mention child defects for the one, government support for the other. The science is pretty clear on this...It would take at least three or four generations of incest to begin running a serious risk for fetal defect. As a sheep rancher in a previous part of my life I can attest to the genetic BENEFITS of mother/son and father/daughter (don't know about sister/brother) breeding programs. Of course we aren't, really, sheep. Despite working hard to look like them. So it may be, and I think clearly would be, that proponents of incestual marriage will make this scientific claim too. In which case, again, our culture will be radically modified by our feelings.

As far as polyamory being a governmental burden...I don't think that if marriage to whoever you want is a constitutional right, as Mr. Obama and supporters of homosexual marriage claim it is, that the choice by the government to financially support children would be a valid constitutional reason to prohibit polygamy. We can't, after decades of experience with welfare and single-parenthood, constitutionally impose upon those "parents" that they not have multiple sex partners producing multiple children already. There is no reason to think anything would change with polygamy. Such an idea would be as capricious as you rightly noted about the treating of homosexual couples differently in name only.

I have for over two decades now argued that my side, the conservative side, has insured that homosexual marriage would become a reality. That there was no way to stop it regardless of any claims we might make. And for one reason alone. It was conservatives who adopted the idea of "civil unions" to replace mariage in an effort to placate liberals and homosexual activists. All the rights and priviledges, my side said, would accrue to those people, but that they just couldn't have the title of being married. This was always wrong. I campaigned against civil unions for this reason. It IS this reason that judges, at one point or another, will force upon the entire nation the legality of homosexual marriage.

This doesn't of course make the alteration of the law based upon the concept of "love" any more palatable. I read in its entirety Judge Vaugh Walker's opinion here in California. I'm not a lawyer, but I love reason and logic applied to facts. To be kind, I am glad Judge Walker has retired. His writing on this issue was pathetic. I do still think there are some reasons, each one being slight but when added together still provide a coherent defense of traditional marriage. A couple I wrote above. But I realize we live in a time of feeling and emotion (maybe we always have and it's just the balance that has gotten out of hand) and that I have lost this argument. It's just a matter of time before it is made final. I hope that more people will think beyond today though and see that what I am describing for the future has no way to be avoided because of what we do today.

Have a pleasant day.

Hi newday,

I wrote far too much already, but I forgot to respond to your point about President Obama refuting my claims about him. This is where the conversation began, and I let it slip away. Mr. Obama capaigned as a believer in traditional marriage and then personally evolved during his first term If it is true that Mr. Obama seriously thought traditional marriage was proper then what could be his constitutional concern with a state constitutional amendment which merely protected the status quo? No, I think Mr. Obama instead was playing a crass and cynical political game, not wanting to offend too many moderates knowing instead that the best way to cook this frog was slowly.

But if he does have a constitutional reason to oppose our amendment, then wouldn't it be incumbent upon him to explain that reason rather than instead ban the DOJ from enforcing pro-traditional marriage laws while simultaneously attacking those who do in court? Jude Walker, author of the pathetic opinion on our amendment in 2010, argued that the California Constitution, because it specifically did not proscribe homosexual marriage, was meant by its authors to approve of it. I'm serious. Can you imagine that in the mid-1850s the framers of our constitution meant to say that homosexual MUST be allowed marriage rights?

Take it another step then. Imagine that in our constitution it clearly said no homosexual marriage rights existed. Then, using Judge Walker's inventive logic, it would STILL be unconstitutional since it would fly in the face of the 14th Amendment's EPC. And to make it ever worse...Using the good judge's jurisprudential logic, which you claim this president supports (he must as he has ordered the AG to send support to the USSC FOR the Walker opinion), anything which is not specifically proscribed in any constitution in the USA must be allowed unless opponents to the activity can prove to a court that it should not be allowed.

We have transformed the USA into a more-or-less judicial oligopoly if Judge Walker is to be supported. And Mr. Obama supports Judge Walker. So how could I ever possibly support Mr. Obama when what I care about is fidelity to the law and individual liberty? So I can't agree that Mr. Obama has any constitutional reason to oppose the vote of the people (twice) in California. But I do agree in part with one of your earlier claims, that Mr. Obama didn't do all of this for electoral support. I think the reason is far more conniving.

Wow, Rich, you gave me much to think about, can't tell you how much I appreciate that. Always fun to have to think.

You did hit upon our basic disagreements in your posts. You have said that it isn't a question of forming a family unit, but which family unit is best. By that I assume you mean which family unit insures the best outcome for children. The scientific literature suggests that gay couples raise children as well as anyone else. The outcomes are good for those families, children do well. Since that is the case, I am not sure we can say that a family headed by the traditional parents are better then those headed by gay parents. The long term data just doesn't support the contention.

Our other disagreement would be in the reading of the Constitution. I would hold, though I am not an attorney or judge either, that the Fourteenth Amendment, Article One supports the equal treatment of gay families with regard to the status of marriage. The benefit to the families of that class would be, right to inherit, right to parent as co partners, right to make decisions for themselves and their children in case of emergency and the right to visit in the hospital, just to name a few.

We also disagree on the "slippery slope", you see gay marriage as the harbinger to other classes coming forward to demand equal status, but I see it differently. In my view, it is marriage itself, as defined by this country that does that. If you have one group of taxpaying citizens eligible for certain benefits, how do you exclude gay families from that? In the case of an polygamist group, I am certain that they get those benefits from the first marriage in the group already. In the case of an incestuous couple, if there are a lot of those, would the government really know? I suppose it would be an easy thing to lie about anyway.

So is the answer to all this to ban gay marriage or redefine what the benefits of marriage are? My husband and I have been married 32 years, and we are pretty used to that status. But I suppose we could give it up to the larger good.

If it is a "feeling" that this must change, is that really so bad? If an emotion or feeling can be substantiated by fact, I don't think it is. The question is, can fact be found? I guess we wait and see.

I don't know what is in President Obama's heart, though I take him at his word. I can easily see a situation, where as President and Constitutional scholar, he can say that the ban in CA with Prop 8 is wrong. I can also see him as traditional Christian struggling with that a bit, and having to come to terms with his church upbringing. I think people are pretty complex, and while he may KNOW in his heart that these things are wrong, he may also KNOW in his heart that his church taught him differently. I would hope that his training would cause him to accept the Separation from the Establishment Clause, and do exactly as he has done.

I understand how it can be to really dislike a President and think he should not be in office and he doesn't have the nation's best interest at heart. Believe me, I felt that way during the Bush administration, and remember clearly how that felt. But I can honestly say to you that I don't think this President is as manipulative as you believe him to be, even remembering how manipulative I thought Bush was!

But, Rich, this discussion has been interesting, and you are a gem! I shall look for you on FR.

Hi newday,

I think I seriously failed to explain how I don't think homosexual marriage would lead to other bad things, let alone any bad things, relative anyhow to the question of whether to allow homosexual marriage. Whether homosexuals are allowed to marry or not to me isn't even the relevant question. I would be a fool to reject homosexual marriage, for instance, if it would improve society. Why would I want to harm society by rejecting that which would improve it? No, my point was that it is how we go about doing this that will lead to the bad things I only began to list.

I can, and would, argue each of your other points, but we have taken this pretty far anyhow. I would only say one more thing, this about the scientific evidence claim. Judge Walker, one presumes, heard in his court the best scientific evidence that exists to support homosexual marriage. Yet in his findings he argued/found two points, each would cancel the other out (which is one of the reasons I think Walker wrote a pathetic opinion). But within his findings was nothing about how homosexuals are better than heterosexual married couples. Instead he found that children within homosexual-couple households are not harmed by the experience. He then, inexplicably, found that great harm was coming to those very same children by being in those very same households, but that the only remedy for BOTH findings was to rule that prohibiting homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

So it's the logic, or lack of same, in the context of the law when altering it which is why I think much damage has and will continue to come our way.

Regards.

My best to you as well, Rich. You are a very thoughtful person, and I can see that you have given this much thought. While we can't agree, we can part as friends.

Thank you for your time.

I'm still waiting for people to give me a good reason as to why gays can't marry without using religion.

They can marry in certain states. But gays are the first people to bring religion into something when they DON'T get their way. ( ex. chic - fil -a, boy scouts of america)

And these things are in line with the Constitution and the organization's Freedom of speech.

Take Layton for instance, he actually quoted a bible verse at the same time he's claiming his a christian. Everyone on this site knows he's gay and NOT a christian.

In the meantime, YOUR President is standing up for gay marriage.

And you are ..... what ... standing down?

Make a choice and get out of your f'ing closet.

No christian would ever say that!

newday: You wrote, "IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU IT IS ABOUT TIMING."

You're unbelievable! My very first comment had to do with "timing." Remember? Stop and think about this instead of just banging out another random comment on your keyboard. Before contributing your rude, inane, one-sided blather that does little more than make a self-serving, inflated point (sort of), perhaps you would more thoroughly read comments before jumping in with your left-leaning crap. Thanks for making my point, though I'm sure you'd argue that as well. I'm bored, good night.

But gays are the first people to bring religion into something when they DON'T get their way. ( ex. chic - fil -a, boy scouts of america)

Usually because it's religion that's being the source of discrimination to begin with.

Rich-281385 - I can, and would, argue each of your other points, but we have taken this pretty far anyhow. I would only say one more thing, this about the scientific evidence claim. Judge Walker, one presumes, heard in his court the best scientific evidence that exists to support homosexual marriage.

Ummmmmm.......no. You got that completely backwards. There isn't a need to justify same-sex marriage per se other than to show that the lack of equal treatment causes harm. The obligation was on the defendants to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, and they entirely failed to provide any reason which would comprise a rational basis.

That's why your side has lost every single court case to date.

...because all those scary republicans are going to come to your door, make you believe in god and carry a gun.

Dang CA, How did you know half of my family are registered Republicans? And some of them are pretty scary...

Jpoochoo, it is a pity that the dumbass vote isn't in play. People like you vote solid Republican.

He is making his Hollywood supporters happy is all he is doing. Gotta keep Hollywood buddies happy so he and Ugly Betty ( Michelle) can have a reality show after he is out of office. I heard it was in the works something about a remake of Dumb and Dumber or another 3 stooges with Eric Holder being involved with that one.

Hey, Al in Visalia CA,

Typical of some CA liberal-loser's opinion.

Check out my edited message. I'm sure you'll hate it even more!

Hey, check out my edited message. I'm sure you'll hate it even more!

My response still stands, dumbass!

Yep, that's what I figured. Hah.

kimh so are you a disgrace, al in ca. i dont agree with thier life style and would not let them any where near my kids ever

"i don't agree with thier (sic) life style and would not let them any where near my kids."

Sad. Maybe your kids would learn to spell and think critically. You sure can't do either.

@ soildier (what's a soildier)

i dont agree with thier life style and would not let them any where near my kids ever

But trust a priest, a scout leader, athletic coaches near your kids!....

Carry On...........

chilled: What's a soildier? He missed spelled his post name when sighing on. Will have to come back as someone else.

I do not think he will be the first or last to do so. ☺

jpoocho, man you are some retard. where do you come up with your crap? do you use the "n" word too? i can tell your education and intellect is that of something just beyond that of a fifth grade child, but seriously, what rock do you live under? and to all of the other whack jobs posting "i wouldn't want my kids near them" well statistically 96% of all child molestations are at the hands of heterosexual sexual deviants. ever heard the name Jerry Sandusky? you are all dismissed and will be laughed at because equal protection and rights under the constitution belong to everyone regardless of who they choose to love. friggin idiots!

How do you know for certain, soldier, that the teachers educating your children are not gay? How do you know for certain that the coaches teaching your children soccer, baseball, volleyball are not gay? How do you know for certain? The answer is you don't. Have you noticed if your children are behaving in a deviant way? Are any of the boys sneaking into mommie's closet to try on her dresses? Have you noticed if your daughter is eyeballing another girl's ass as she walks by? How do you know for certain?

Get a grip.

Will have to come back as someone else.

Oh Oh, BOLO Alert!....thanks Exito. lol

@AlaskaGirl......Soildier went all crazy in that post about keeping his kids away from....well, I guess away from everyone!

Please take note of the voices of the "tea" party.

Um, if you think that there aren't gays or lesbians near your kids NOW, you've got another think coming.

Thinking, of all the people I know... if I had to choose a person to leave my child with for a day... a gay or lesbian would be top on my list... every one of my friends that have chosen the lifestyle are the most caring and genuine people on the planet... I would for certain feel safer than leaving them with a Priest or a Scout leader...

Kat, the problem is that we are all forced to leave our kids with the adults who have a higher level of child abuse than any group of priests...... public school teachers! I cannot go a week in my area without hearing about some 37 year old teacher nailing a 16 year old. I guess since they are big libs and assets for Obama and his agenda they are just FINE!

Dan... every time I hear a story of a teacher "nailing" a student.... it is always male/female... with the exception of that sports dude... I can never remember his name... how many stories do you hear of an adult female teacher attacking and molesting a 16 year old female?

it makes me want to puke seeing how screwed up this country is. thanks to the tree huggin prius driving with the gay rainbow on the back libtards

I would for certain feel safer than leaving them with a Priest or a Scout leader...

...or "dan" or "jpoochoo" or "slufoot" or the creepiest of them all, "i agree with soildier"....

I guess your definition of "illegals" are the legal Hispanics who enter this country legally and vote legally because I have yet to see anything that indicated illegal immigrants were voting. Sure there is a minority of people who use welfare the wrong way, but to suggest everyone on it is freeloading makes you look very selfish and ignorant to the many hardworking Americans who use it today and have used it in the past during hard times. Also, having gay and lesbian friends is not a bad thing, I believe you think it is insulting somehow to say Obama has "fag and lesbo buddies" but in reality it makes the majority of the 21st century USA pass you over as just another homophobic guy who is living in the past. While I am sure you will stand by your (I assume) religiously induced dislike of a group of human beings, I suggest you grow up or shut up because most people could care less of an opinion as inane as the one you posted jpoo.

Are you guys so blind that you can't see that Obama is destroying the country from the inside out...his intention all along.

We ARE NOT better off since he took office, in fact all the facts show we are worse. He's been in office 4 years, can't blame the other guy anymore. He is slowly tearing apart the fabric this country was built on and destroying its moral compass.

And you idiots voted for him (I didn't) and are just too blind by hero worship to see what's right in front of you.

While he and the GOP have a stare-down contest in Washington, about 750,000 of you will be without a job come April if the sequester goes through.

All the rats following the Pied Piper...he's got your number.

" ... I'm sure you'll hate it even more! ... "

Hate? No. No Hate.

Mildly amused? Yes.

Amazed? Yes. Ignorance always amazes me.

But hate? No. That's one of those Republican/Conservative FAMILY values.

"i don't agree with thier (sic) life style and would not let them any where near my kids"

Yeah, I'd much rather my kids be around the married, straight couple, the Comers from Dallas, GA.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/28/17136859-parents-of-horribly-abused-georgia-teen-sentenced-to-15-years?lite

Wow, lots of liberal-hate responses today. And I thought all those tree-huggers were all about "peace & love"! Oh well, guess not.

First of all I have to say I am not a fan of Obama and did not vote for him........Now I will say that I am tired of hearing that he is illegal and was born in Kenya!! Also where are you going with him being homosexual?? Have you not seen that he is married and that he has 2 children.......where the he!! do you people dig this crap up??? There is so much that is wrong with his administration, why do you post crap like this??? Just post facts..........that is enough!

@Nancy,

Who said he's gay? Not me. Never said or thought that. He just thinks that he should try to influence the Supreme Court's decision regarding them so as to garner more of their support.

Of course, gays CAN be married to the opposite sex and have kids and everything - and it's totally legal in every bible-thumpin', self-righteous state in the US!. That doesn't mean anything.

He IS clearly a Muslim sympathizer and supports their beliefs, though, regardless of where he was born. I don't see how anybody could deny that.

Troll much?

"In God We Trust" was mandated to appear on all US coins in 1908 ... during the Teddy Roosevelt administration.

jpoochoo - You are correct on one thing in your description of me. I would guess that except for the "C" word, you pretty well described yourself. Am I right?

Not at all Kim. Sorry to disappoint you.