Enter the Thunder DOMA: One Law Enters, No Law Leaves

[scott]

DOMA ruled unconstitutional, 5-4 with Kennedy the swing vote.

In dicessent, Scalia ironically writes that Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to overrule DOMA (but they can overrule 98-0 vote of VRA)

[boutons_deux]

So the authoritarian moralists, Repugs, "Christian" supremacists, and Mormon cultists (who financed the CA campaign) get fucked over. Praise the Lord! :lol

[scott]

If we ban gay marriage, only criminals will gay marry.

[scott]

Shorter SCOTUS & TX Lege of last 48 hours: it's okay to be a woman or be gay, but not to be a minority.

[boutons_deux]

According to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, “[t]he federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

[scott]

SCOTUS dismisses Prop 8 on standing. Gay Marriage now legal in CA.

[scott]

How much more closest gay sex must far right wing leaders engage in to prove how dangerous it is to society?!?!?!?!?!

[boutons_deux]

According to Repugs, polygamy, bestiality, and destruction of all diff-sex marriages will follow, just like hyper-inflation followed the stimulus and QE, tax cuts create jobs and pay for themselves, etc, etc. :lol

Do the Repugs, conservatives EVER get anything right? :lol

[scott]

My marriage is feeling oddly unaffected right now. Weird.

[TeyshaBlue]

I wanna marry coyotes_geek now.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If we ban gay marriage, only criminals will gay marry.

:lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My marriage is feeling oddly unaffected right now. Weird.

Give it time. With this ruling SCOTUS has invited Satan to come and destroy your marriage.

[TeyshaBlue]

Give it time. With this ruling SCOTUS has invited Satan to come and destroy your marriage.

That's my ex your talking about.:flipoff







:p:

[boutons_deux]

gonna be some serious carpet munching tonight!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

If my time on Spurstalk has taught me anything it's that scoring wins games, defense wins titles. The SSOL SCOTUS era has begun.

[The Reckoning]

interesting dialogue going on in the nation right now. there are alot of folks saying marriage is an outdated institution but will turn around and celebrate LGBT marriage.

[coyotes_geek]

I wanna marry coyotes_geek now.

You have to do the laundry and I definitely get the TV remote control. Non-negotiable.

[coyotes_geek]

BTW, on a weather related note, I'd like to go ahead and dedicate this year's hurricane season to God's vengance against the Supreme Court.

[MannyIsGod]

Scalia is full of gems. One day after voting to overturn the VRA, he says he can't overturn VRA. Someone should ask him why he made the decision he did on the day before. Ridiculous.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol Scalia
lol Alito
lol dego wop Catholic pieces of shit

[boutons_deux]

interesting dialogue going on in the nation right now. there are alot of folks saying marriage is an outdated institution but will turn around and celebrate LGBT marriage.

celebrate Freedom! from government interfering/forbidding in harmless relations between consenting adults. Same for prostitution, should be legal.

[TeyshaBlue]

You have to do the laundry and I definitely get the TV remote control. Non-negotiable.

I figured you would be high maintenance.

[Clipper Nation]

Good riddance to an embarrassing law, tbh....

[Clipper Nation]

So the authoritarian moralists, Repugs, "Christian" supremacists, and Mormon cultists (who financed the CA campaign) get fucked over. Praise the Lord! :lol
But I thought this SCOTUS was JINO and VRWC? :lol

[Fabbs]

But I thought this SCOTUS was JINO and VRWC? :lol
How was this vote along 'Pug and 'Demon lines?

One (or more) of the 'Pug justices must have came over to the flamers rights side, right?

[boutons_deux]

these votes don't hurt corporate profits, nor cost Repugs votes.

The VRA Sec 4 vote was the key that augmented, enabled the all-important Repug voter suppression and election chances.

To y'all's shit straight on the Big Picture, it's ALWAYS about 1% vs 99%.

[boutons_deux]

SCALIA ARRESTED TRYING TO BURN DOWN SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/))—In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.

Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.

After police nabbed Justice Scalia and placed him in handcuffs, the Juror appeared “at peace and resigned to his fate,” a police spokesman said.

“He went quietly,” the spokesman said. “He just muttered something like, ‘I don’t want to live in a world like this.’ ”

Back at the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia’s colleagues said they hoped he would get the help he needed, except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/06/scalia-arrested-trying-to-burn-down-supreme-court.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(146)

[Fabbs]

these votes don't hurt corporate profits, nor cost Repugs votes.
This is just the beginning of an all out 'Pug suck up to get the gay vote in 2016, right?
It's gonna get real entertaining. :lol

Personally i think not only flamers under the same roof but those who live together for practical or other good reasons should be allowed to allocate their federal benies out.
One should not have to munch same-carpet or pack to get federal benies.

[boutons_deux]

This is just the beginning of an all out 'Pug suck up to get the gay vote in 2016, right?
It's gonna get real entertaining. :lol

Personally i think not only flamers under the same roof but those who live together for practical or other good reasons should be allowed to allocate their federal benies out.
One should not have to munch same-carpet or pack to get federal benies.

the SCOTUS doesn't run for office, so voters can't vote against SCOTUS political hacks.

Repugs in a couple states have already said they will ignore, violate the law they don't agree with, always pandering to the "Christian" authoritarian bubbas.

[CuckingFunt]

interesting dialogue going on in the nation right now. there are alot of folks saying marriage is an outdated institution but will turn around and celebrate LGBT marriage.

I'm celebrating LGBT equality. The marriage part is purely incidental.

[boobie4three]

It's only a matter of time before a person can have more than one spouse or even marry their pet, and you libs will be asking yourselves: "What the fuck happened?""

[SnakeBoy]

How much more closest gay sex much far right wing leaders engage in to prove how dangerous it is to society?!?!?!?!?!

Are you drunk?

[Th'Pusher]

In two days, SCOTUS should have effectively fired up the right and the left bases for the mid terms.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's only a matter of time before a person can have more than one spouse or even marry their pet, and you libs will be asking yourselves: "What the fuck happened?""
Hey TeyshaBlue, here's another Republican who can't get the thought of bestiality off his mind :lmao

[coyotes_geek]

It's only a matter of time before a person can have more than one spouse or even marry their pet, and you libs will be asking yourselves: "What the fuck happened?""

I'm setting the over/under on how long it takes before you can marry your pet at next Thursday.

[scott]

Are you drunk?

How much gay sex are you going to have to protect marriage?

[leemajors]

How much gay sex are you going to have to protect marriage?

"I'm a patriot!"

[TeyshaBlue]

Hey TeyshaBlue, here's another Republican who can't get the thought of bestiality off his mind :lmao

I see what you did there.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/xegxN_zpsbad1ee68.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/xegxN_zpsbad1ee68.gif.html)

[boutons_deux]

37 states still forbid same-sex marriages. guess which color?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/400px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state)

[SnakeBoy]

How much gay sex are you going to have to protect marriage?

Looks like you sobered up.

[TeyshaBlue]

btw...one of the best thread titles to date.:lol

[boutons_deux]

5 Craziest Reactions to Today's Marriage Equality Rulings


1. Rand Paul and Glenn Beck worry about Muslims and animals: In a video captured by Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, the purportedly libertarian Senator and popular talk show host worry about a host of bizarre “logical” consequences (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/glenn-beck-worries-about-devout-muslims-who-come-over-here-a) of the moves toward marriage equality, with Beck asking “who are you to say that, if I’m a devout Muslim, I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I’m an American citizen that I can’t have multiple wives?” Paul nodded, saying “people take it to one extension further — does it have to be humans?…I’m kinda with you…we should not just say ‘oh, we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.”

2. Mike Huckabee channels Jesus’ tearducts: On Twitter, the former Governor and leading GOP Presidential candidate had two words: “ Jesus wept (https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/349911972378181632).” He later elaborated, saying that the Supreme Court declared itself “ bigger than God (https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/349912016305139713).”

3. Congressmen declare the apocalypse is imminent: At a press conference ThinkProgress watched after the ruling, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) declared that “society itself is at risk and cannot continue.” At the same presser, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that same-sex marriage was “usually tried at the end of a great civilization.” Walberg and Gohmert’s comments echoed House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who had said earlier that (https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/349917096467120128) “preserving the institution of traditional marriage is crucial to the stability of our society.”

4. Ralph Reed sees “Orwellian” threat to federalism, rule of law, and Western civilization: In a press release emailed to ThinkProgress, the influential evangelical activist falsely claimed that there “has never been any attempt by either party to repeal or modify” DOMA, and that the overturning the act was “an Orwellian act of judicial fiat.” He added that the Prop 8 ruling “endangers federalism as well as the most time-honored tradition in the history of Western civilization,” and that “these twin decisions will undermine the already low respect for the federal courts and the rule of law.

5. The National Organization for Marriage suggests the Supreme Court is corrupt and smells bad: The leading anti-marriage equality organization’s press release blamed (http://www.nomblog.com/35831?utm_content=sf14350127&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=NOM+Corporate&utm_medium=opussocialcrm&sf14350127=1) a conspiracy of “homosexual” and “liberal” lower circuit judges for the Court’s rulings. “There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court,” said Brian Brown, the organization’s President, in a confusingly mixed metaphor. “They’ve allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal.” The organization vowed to challenge any efforts by marriage advocates to overturn bans in the states, and looks to have an ally in Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who announced (https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/349920655300505602) he would introduce a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in response to the court rulings.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-craziest-reactions-high-courts-marriage-equality-rulings

holy fuck, you right wingers got some great players on your side. :lol

yeah, yeah, they're just bad apples, isolated cases! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Family Group Head In Deep Denial Over DOMA Decision (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/26/2221681/family-group-head-consoles-himself-over-doma-decision-this-is-far-from-settled/)

Tony Perkins, President of the anti-marriage equality group Family Research Council, appeared during a Fox News appearance today to be in full denial of the Supreme Court’s broad ruling (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/26/2218321/doma-is-unconstitutional/) on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Perkins repeatedly insisted that the debate over marriage equality “is far from settled.”

In fact, Perkins went so far as to suggest that, “there’s still room in this opinion for the federal government — as we’re looking through this for federal purposes only as it pertains to immigration or maybe in the military — to define marriage as between a man and woman.”

He’s wrong on both counts. Just minutes before he went on Fox, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel released a statement specifying (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120364) that “the Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses — regardless of sexual orientation — as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do.” That includes insurance and the ability to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

etc

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/26/2221681/family-group-head-consoles-himself-over-doma-decision-this-is-far-from-settled/

[angrydude]

According to Repugs, polygamy, bestiality, and destruction of all diff-sex marriages will follow, just like hyper-inflation followed the stimulus and QE, tax cuts create jobs and pay for themselves, etc, etc. :lol

Do the Repugs, conservatives EVER get anything right? :lol


Just like passing the patriot act was going to eviscerate the 4th amendment and we all know that didn't....oh wait.

[boutons_deux]

Just like passing the patriot act was going to eviscerate the 4th amendment

Repug created, OWN the Patriot Act and when did they say that it was going to eviscerate the 4th amendment.

[TeyshaBlue]

Repug created, OWN the Patriot Act and when did they say that it was going to eviscerate the 4th amendment.

Yeah...Obama is just leasing the rights to it. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[angrydude]

TBH beastiality is way down the list of priorities right now.

Up next on the gay agenda

ending male/female bathrooms.
http://bimagazine.org/index.php/news/issues-facing-bisexual-and-transgender-varient-people-arizonas-bathroom-bill/

Stopping biphobia (apparently there are a lot of gays who hate bis, go figure)
http://www.bisexualindex.org.uk/index.php/Biphobia

http://www.midwestbiactivist.org/2/post/2013/06/bisexuals-face-unique-challenges-in-being-accepted-as-members-of-the-lgbt-community-report-finds.html

Intersex Rights
http://www.intersexinitiative.org/law/nondiscrimination.html

And of course fighting the hegemonic power structure that enables it all.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah...Obama is just leasing the rights to it. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

TB :lol

the Repugs created, sold, passed the Patriot Act.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol

the Repugs created, sold, passed the Patriot Act.

and the big concern was about library records :lol


http://truth-out.org/news/item/17099-remember-when-the-patriot-act-debate-was-all-about-library-records

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol

the Repugs created, sold, passed the Patriot Act.

lol fucking simpleton.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#First_bills_introduced

The first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on October 2, 2001 as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[17] This was based on the afore-mentioned Anti-Terrorism Act, but had been changed after negotiations and work between Attorney General Ashcroft, Senators Leahy, Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Bob Graham, Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch. It was introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) by Tom Daschle (D-SD)[18] where Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) proposed a number of amendments, none of which were passed. Feingold amended the provision relating to interception of computer trespasser communications,[19] limited the roving wiretap authority under FISA[20] and modified the provisions relating to access to business records under FISA.[21] The USA Act was later vitiated and indefinitely postponed, because the Senate and House bills could not be reconciled in time.[22]


http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)
Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably didn't see those cites in your moonbat rss feed. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[sjacquemotte]

SCOTUS dismisses Prop 8 on standing. Gay Marriage now legal in CA.
I thought it read that it got kicked back because CA didn't have an attorney to fight for Prop 8. Therefore Prop 8 goes back into effect. That Gov Brown is essentially breaking the law by saying they will allow gay marriage cert's.? Is this wrong?

[ElNono]

I thought it read that it got kicked back because CA didn't have an attorney to fight for Prop 8. Therefore Prop 8 goes back into effect. That Gov Brown is essentially breaking the law by saying they will allow gay marriage cert's.? Is this wrong?

I think what happened is that a lower court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional (CA suprmere court? it returned the status quo to pre-Prop 8), but the state didn't want to appeal that decision. So groups that supported the proposition appealed instead, and the SCOTUS basically said such groups have no standing to appeal. It has to be the state.

[sjacquemotte]

I like how the SCOTUS is operating lately. Except for Roberts cowering with ACA, they are taking some tough cases, and implying strict constitutionality on them. Deciding if it's constitutional or not and not trying to fix a law, or be more fair. :lol all the people they've pissed off

[RandomGuy]

the SCOTUS doesn't run for office, so voters can't vote against SCOTUS political hacks.

Repugs in a couple states have already said they will ignore, violate the law they don't agree with, always pandering to the "Christian" authoritarian bubbas.

Thankfully, I think we may very well have seen the last Republican president in our lifetime. No more radical conservative activist judges to SCOTUS.

[RandomGuy]

Are you drunk?

Methinks. It's hilarious.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:yawn

[baseline bum]

Thankfully, I think we may very well have seen the last Republican president in our lifetime. No more radical conservative activist judges to SCOTUS.

Are you serious? The Republicans will eventually start embracing the Catholic Latino vote and we'll still be stuck with a jeebotard government.

[Jacob1983]

What's wrong with wanting Big Love? If you are supportive of gay marriage and equality, then you would have to support polygamy and bigamy as well. If you didn't support a person's choice to have multiple spouses, then you would be a bigot. I love it when homosexuals and homosexual groups try to deflect that. They only give a shit about themselves. They couldn't give a flying fuck about other groups. And this whole debate isn't about equality. It's about a group of people that are pissed off that they aren't getting their piece of the pie. They want their benefits just like straight married couples get. That's all it is. I just wish people would step up and admit that.

[Rogue]

the natural property of marriage has been overwhelmed by its social property and it's been working this way for years. Marriage is just a business, or a financial agreement that enables each side to pay less tax. If it is a business, as it truly is, then there's no reason to prohibit it between two people of the same sex, or more than two people regardless of gender.

a polyandry will be the eventual solution to all marriage/family issues. Kids will be raised by the society and they won't even know who their moms or dads are, so there won't be no nepotism or similar things that have been hampering the advancement of our society

[Clipper Nation]

It's only a matter of time before a person can have more than one spouse or even marry their pet, and you libs will be asking yourselves: "What the fuck happened?""
What is it with Jeebotards and wanting to fuck their pets? Creepy as hell, tbh...

[exstatic]

What's wrong with wanting Big Love? If you are supportive of gay marriage and equality, then you would have to support polygamy and bigamy as well. If you didn't support a person's choice to have multiple spouses, then you would be a bigot. I love it when homosexuals and homosexual groups try to deflect that. They only give a shit about themselves. They couldn't give a flying fuck about other groups. And this whole debate isn't about equality. It's about a group of people that are pissed off that they aren't getting their piece of the pie. They want their benefits just like straight married couples get. That's all it is. I just wish people would step up and admit that.
Look VERY closely at the two sentences in red, and notice the disconnect.

[George Gervin's Afro]

gay marriage.......................................... .................................................. ...marrying pets and end tables....

[2centsworth]

My only problem ever with the entire gay marriage debate is that entitlements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home are now benefits that the gay community thinks they are entitled to. It's a misapplication of those benefits. However, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Congrats to the gay community.

[boutons_deux]

My only problem ever with the entire gay marriage debate is that entitlements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home are now benefits that the gay community thinks they are entitled to. It's a misapplication of those benefits. However, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Congrats to the gay community.

"entitlements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home"

that still applies to the survivor of hetero couple, so same-sex survivor gets the same treatment.

[boutons_deux]

lol fucking simpleton.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#First_bills_introduced

The first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on October 2, 2001 as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[17] This was based on the afore-mentioned Anti-Terrorism Act, but had been changed after negotiations and work between Attorney General Ashcroft, Senators Leahy, Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Bob Graham, Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch. It was introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) by Tom Daschle (D-SD)[18] where Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) proposed a number of amendments, none of which were passed. Feingold amended the provision relating to interception of computer trespasser communications,[19] limited the roving wiretap authority under FISA[20] and modified the provisions relating to access to business records under FISA.[21] The USA Act was later vitiated and indefinitely postponed, because the Senate and House bills could not be reconciled in time.[22]


http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)
Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.

so, you demonstrate my point: Patriot Act was 100% a Repug creation to fight the unedning Global War on Terror. Thanks, bitch

[TeyshaBlue]

so, you demonstrate my point: Patriot Act was 100% a Repug creation to fight the unedning Global War on Terror. Thanks, bitch

I know you cant read unless it's on thinkprogress.borg. Did you miss the part where the D's had a piece of this? Did you miss the part about ovewhelming bipartisan margins?

Of course you did, you fucking coward.

[TeyshaBlue]

Bitch, meet slap. Again.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My only problem ever with the entire gay marriage debate is that entitlements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home are now benefits that the gay community thinks they are entitled to. It's a misapplication of those benefits. However, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Congrats to the gay community.

Why do you not take issue with straight couples that don't have a stay-at-home mother yet get benefits you claim were created for stay at home mothers?

:lol selective outrage over marriage benefits
:lol jeebotards trying to split hairs over why gays don't deserve benefits

[boutons_deux]

I know you cant read unless it's on thinkprogress.borg. Did you miss the part where the D's had a piece of this? Did you miss the part about ovewhelming bipartisan margins?

Of course you did, you fucking coward.

the Patriot Act was a Repug creation signed by a Repug President. That Dems voted for it doesn't say they created it. They were stampeded into the war on terror like most of America, and of course, what the Patriot Act really meant (library uses?), and how it has been (ab)used was totally unclear, hidden at the vote. Crawl into a corner and GFY.

[coyotes_geek]

Both parties voted for it, both parties continue to reaffirm their commitment to it.

democrats = republicans = love the patriot act

[Drachen]

Does anyone think that in b_d's house a light begins flashing red, he turns his chair toward a different computer then starts paying as we? Like he alternates based on the randomly timed flashing of red and blue lights.

[TeyshaBlue]

the Patriot Act was a Repug creation signed by a Repug President. That Dems voted for it doesn't say they created it. They were stampeded into the war on terror like most of America, and of course, what the Patriot Act really meant (library uses?), and how it has been (ab)used was totally unclear, hidden at the vote. Crawl into a corner and GFY.

lol delusional bot.

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry those mean old republicans used the jedi mind trick on the hapless dems forcing them to vote for it. :cry

[boutons_deux]

:cry those mean old republicans used the jedi mind trick on the hapless dems forcing them to vote for it. :cry

no, the Dems are as dickless, spineless as any gun fellator

[2centsworth]

The benefits were created to support stay at home mothers. Is saying I'm not losing sleep over it equal outrage?

[TeyshaBlue]

no, the Dems are as dickless, spineless as any gun fellator

or RSS fellator.

[TeyshaBlue]

Does anyone think that in b_d's house a light begins flashing red, he turns his chair toward a different computer then starts paying as we? Like he alternates based on the randomly timed flashing of red and blue lights.
:lol

[Jacob1983]

What percentage of gay Americans would be fully okay with gay marriage being legal nationwide on the exception that polygamy and bigamy are legal as well? I thought gays and lesbians were supposed to be bright shining examples of being warriors of equality and tolerance. I don't care if two dudes want to have a wedding and call their union a marriage. I just think gay people are huge hypocrites if they want to be allowed to get married but oppose polygamy or bigamy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What percentage of gay Americans would be fully okay with gay marriage being legal nationwide on the exception that polygamy and bigamy are legal as well?
I don't think gay Americans are as obsessed with polygamy and bigamy as you are.

What has the gay community ever said to give you the impression they oppose polygamy and bigamy?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The benefits were created to support stay at home mothers. Is saying I'm not losing sleep over it equal outrage?

You said you had a problem with it which is outrage to a certain extent. Why do you not have the same "problem" with women in straight marriages who work outside the house but get the benefits stay at home moms were supposed to get?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

the Patriot Act was a Repug creation signed by a Repug President. That Dems voted for it doesn't say they created it.

It says they supported it.

Obama's bipartisan agreement with Bush about the Patriot Act is something only a knuckle dragging retard would try to justify.

[ChumpDumper]

What's wrong with wanting Big Love? If you are supportive of gay marriage and equality, then you would have to support polygamy and bigamy as well. If you didn't support a person's choice to have multiple spouses, then you would be a bigot. I love it when homosexuals and homosexual groups try to deflect that. They only give a shit about themselves. They couldn't give a flying fuck about other groups. And this whole debate isn't about equality. It's about a group of people that are pissed off that they aren't getting their piece of the pie. They want their benefits just like straight married couples get. That's all it is. I just wish people would step up and admit that.Why should they give a shit about other groups?

[TeyshaBlue]

It says they supported it.

Obama's bipartisan agreement with Bush about the Patriot Act is something only a knuckle dragging retard would try to justify.

*cue RSS/Meme storm*

[TeyshaBlue]

What percentage of gay Americans would be fully okay with gay marriage being legal nationwide on the exception that polygamy and bigamy are legal as well? I thought gays and lesbians were supposed to be bright shining examples of being warriors of equality and tolerance. I don't care if two dudes want to have a wedding and call their union a marriage. I just think gay people are huge hypocrites if they want to be allowed to get married but oppose polygamy or bigamy.
This makes about zero sense. I mean, you're really going to conflate a mutually exclusive relationship with polygamy?

[DisAsTerBot]

when has the gay community ever spoken out against polygamy???


lol jacobidontcareaboutthegheys

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

*cue RSS/Meme storm*

gfy koch gun brother fellator

[TeyshaBlue]

gfy koch gun brother fellator

beastiality...don't leave that out, fucker!:p:

[RandomGuy]

What's wrong with wanting Big Love? If you are supportive of gay marriage and equality, then you would have to support polygamy and bigamy as well. If you didn't support a person's choice to have multiple spouses, then you would be a bigot. I love it when homosexuals and homosexual groups try to deflect that. They only give a shit about themselves. They couldn't give a flying fuck about other groups. And this whole debate isn't about equality. It's about a group of people that are pissed off that they aren't getting their piece of the pie. They want their benefits just like straight married couples get. That's all it is. I just wish people would step up and admit that.

"If you are supportive of gay marriage and equality, then you would have to support polygamy and bigamy as well."

Slippery slope logical fallacy. One does not necessarily mean the other, it is an artificial construct that only exists in your mind. The reason they deflect that is that it simply isn't their issue. It isn't some personal flaw or dishonesty on their part.

Yes, it is partially about benefits, legal and financial. It is also about having a say in medical matters like any other spouse. If you live with and love somebody for decades, and then in your declining years, the single person who knows and cares about you the most in the world would not have a say in your care.

To think it is *just* about financial matters is overly cynical and overly simplistic.

Neither is a useful basis for thinking about real human beings.

Do you really think simplifying the issue to one set of motivations is accurate?

[scott]

I was going to conflate same-sex marriage with polygamy and bigamy, but then I remembered I'm not an idiot and can tell the difference between the number 1 and all other numbers.

[Jacob1983]

I am just saying that a gay person is a bigot and hypocrite if they demand that they are able to marry their partner in love but strongly oppose a man/woman wanting to marry 2 or more women or men. You are a huge hypocrite if you cry and moan about gay marriage having to be legalized yet strongly opposing polygamy and bigamy. Where is the compassion and tolerance?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I realize they are separate issues but what should e the underlying issue us that the man-woman monogamy thing is a religious institution and needs to be excluded from consideration in law. Given that, the GOP fucktards are right. Bigomists should get the same protection. Dogs, furniture et al are stupid because they are not eligible to be citizens because they aren't human.

That being said, husband #2 shouldn't be fucked out of marriage protections etc anymore that Susan and Wanda.

[Jacob1983]

Anyone can be a bigot.

[ChumpDumper]

I am just saying that a gay person is a bigot and hypocrite if they demand that they are able to marry their partner in love but strongly oppose a man/woman wanting to marry 2 or more women or men. You are a huge hypocrite if you cry and moan about gay marriage having to be legalized yet strongly opposing polygamy and bigamy.Not necessarily. If all you are doing is working in your own self-interest, you won't care about anything else.

[Jacob1983]

Isn't that what gay people are doing here? They are only pissed because they aren't getting their way. They don't give a shit about polygamy and bigamy supporters that's why they oppose them. They want their way but don't give a shit about anyone else. Again, where is the compassion and tolerance?

[ChumpDumper]

Isn't that what gay people are doing here? They are only pissed because they aren't getting their way. They don't give a shit about polygamy and bigamy supporters that's why they oppose them.How do you know they all oppose them?

What does your boyfriend say?

[Jacob1983]

Chumpdumper, you know that I am invincible to insults on here right? I have been called all sorts of names and insults. Do your worst.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm still waiting to be shown all these people who oppose polygamy and bigamy.

[RandomGuy]

I am just saying that a gay person is a bigot and hypocrite if they demand that they are able to marry their partner in love but strongly oppose a man/woman wanting to marry 2 or more women or men. You are a huge hypocrite if you cry and moan about gay marriage having to be legalized yet strongly opposing polygamy and bigamy. Where is the compassion and tolerance?

Let's treat your trolling seriously for just a second.

I don't see anybody here "strongly opposing" anything. That is something you are making up in your mind.

Since no one has expressed that strong opposition, that is a strawman logical fallacy.


Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Random Guy (Person A) has a position that gay people should be allowed to legally marry.(Position X)
Jacob1983 (Person B) says that RandomGuy "strongly opposes polygamy and bigamy"(Position Y, which is a distortion.. well actually completely made up, a lie, in essence)
Jacob1983 (person B)then says Randomguy is a hypocrite (attacks) for strongly opposing polygamy and bigamy (position Y).
Therefore the position that gays should be allowed to legally marry is flawed, i.e. hypocritical.

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

Now the intellectul side of me doesn't really oppose such per se. If three people, all consenting adults, really really really want to get triple married, I don't see that as any of my damn business either, other than the fact that such arrangments would be ripe for abuse. Not quite strong opposition.

That is, however, as has been pointed out to your dumb ass, an entirely seperate issue.

I assume you can, as scott can, tell the difference between one, and other numbers that are not one, yes?

[RandomGuy]

Isn't that what gay people are doing here? They are only pissed because they aren't getting their way. They don't give a shit about polygamy and bigamy supporters that's why they oppose them. They want their way but don't give a shit about anyone else. Again, where is the compassion and tolerance?

In your mind, I suppose. Do you always lie about what other people believe, or just this one time?

I'm confused.

[2centsworth]

You said you had a problem with it which is outrage to a certain extent. Why do you not have the same "problem" with women in straight marriages who work outside the house but get the benefits stay at home moms were supposed to get?

having a problem and outrage are nowhere close the same thing. the benefit I'm referring to is a stay at home mom's ability to earn 50% of her spouses SS benefit at retirement. The reason behind that benefit is because many mothers stayed at home to raise children, so the thinking was to not penalize them for having kids. A mother who works outside the home would more than likely earn more than 50% of her spouses SS based on her own record, so the 50% benefit wouldn't apply. In the case of homosexual marriage, it's way too convenient for two friends to get married and manipulate the system.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

having a problem and outrage are nowhere close the same thing. the benefit I'm referring to is a stay at home mom's ability to earn 50% of her spouses SS benefit at retirement. The reason behind that benefit is because many mothers stayed at home to raise children, so the thinking was to not penalize them for having kids. A mother who works outside the home would more than likely earn more than 50% of her spouses SS based on her own record, so the 50% benefit wouldn't apply.
So shouldn't a stay at home spouse with adopted kids be able to get that same benefit? That would be the compassionate, Christian thing to do.


In the case of homosexual marriage, it's way too convenient for two friends to get married and manipulate the system.
A guy and a girl who are friends could just as easily do the same thing. Why has it never concerned you up until now?

:lol the sudden and random concern for marriage fraud

[Jacob1983]

Bigger question: why should two people get more benefits and tax breaks than one person in America? Explain that to me. What makes the union of two Americans more important and valuable than the life of a lonely single American?

[Drachen]

Bigger question: why should two people get more benefits and tax breaks than one person in America? Explain that to me. What makes the union of two Americans more important and valuable than the life of a lonely single American?

2>1?

[Jacob1983]

Bigotry is what it is.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Bigger question: why should two people get more benefits and tax breaks than one person in America? Explain that to me. What makes the union of two Americans more important and valuable than the life of a lonely single American?
That's a different issue than gay marriage I don't necessarily disagree with.

[Rogue]

Bigger question: why should two people get more benefits and tax breaks than one person in America? Explain that to me. What makes the union of two Americans more important and valuable than the life of a lonely single American?
the government just needs to offer some incentives in order to encourage more people to get married. marriage is biased especially in the 21st century where most new wives were born in the 80s and raised in an feminist atmosphere, and financial benefits might possibly be the only reason for a smart guy to ever consider getting married at present day imho.

similarly, some employers would like to hire married men rather than singles or celibates you know why? because married men are generally considered to be more "stable", they don't change jobs for fun because they need to bring home stable incomes every month to support their households, which means they're easier to be enslaved and less likely to complain or rebel. The government wants everyone to get married, and bonded to a "traditional" family with multiple kids, so you have to obey and tolerate whatever the employer and the government impose on you. They don't support gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't have such effect. To them gays, getting divorced is just as easy as getting married.

Some employers only promote employees who're "married", and that's one of the reasons (if not all reasons) why you haven't been promoted yet despite your smartness and hardwork.

You don't need to live that way though, my dear bro. You're still single and you have no plan of getting married anytime soon, so what's the point in conforming to a boring lifestyle that you don't like at all? Just quit that shit and start seeking the life that you really like, and be a badass that you should be.

It's time for us to get united and elect a real representative of all us youngsters, a representative that really comes from us, that is always with us through thick and thin, not someone who supports Obama and earns 7 figures a year by acting like a whore in front of cameras.

[Winehole23]

Texas AG Ken Paxton sues to deny gays spousal benefits, because federalism:


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging the Obama administration on a new rule that would allow married same-sex couples to be eligible for the Family & Medical Leave Act, even in states that don’t recognize their unions.
In a statement on Wednesday, Paxton said the lawsuit is “about defending the sovereignty of our state,” which has a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“The newly revised definition of ‘spouse’ under the FMLA is in direct violation of state and federal laws and the U.S. Constitution,” Paxton said. “Texans have clearly defined the institution of marriage in our state, and attempts by the Obama Administration to disregard the will of our citizens through the use of new federal rules is unconstitutional and an affront to the foundations of federalism.”

According to the news statement, Paxton is also advising Texas employers to defy the Obama administration and follow state law, not the federal rule, as it pertains to FMLA.

After the Supreme Court ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, the Obama administration sought to extend the federal benefits of marriage to the furthest extent possible under the law.

But FMLA by regulation looked to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, to determine whether a couple is married, so for a time married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states were ineligible for benefits under that law, which enables an individual to take time off from work to care for a spouse.

The new rule, made final (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/23/final-rule-grant-sex-couples-access-fmla/) by the Labor Department last month and set to take effect March 27, changes the regulatory framework to ensure these benefits are available to married same-sex couples regardless of their state of residence.
- See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/03/18/texas-ag-files-lawsuit-against-fmla-rule-for-same-sex-couples/#sthash.rHyKlmhQ.dpuf

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm so glad that our State resources are being committed to this sort of important litigation.

[Winehole23]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4994