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

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably didn't see those cites in your moonbat rss feed.

[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 uncons utional (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 cons utionality on them. Deciding if it's cons utional or not and not trying to fix a law, or be more fair. 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 jeebo 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 sexuals and sexual groups try to deflect that. They only give a about themselves. They couldn't give a flying 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 happened?""

What is it with Jeebo s and wanting to their pets? Creepy as , 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 sexuals and sexual groups try to deflect that. They only give a about themselves. They couldn't give a flying 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 en lements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home are now benefits that the gay community thinks they are en led 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 en lements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home are now benefits that the gay community thinks they are en led to. It's a misapplication of those benefits. However, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Congrats to the gay community.

"en lements 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 ing simpleton.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patri...natevote.shtml


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...lls_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,

[TeyshaBlue]

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

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 ing coward.

[TeyshaBlue]

, meet slap. Again.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My only problem ever with the entire gay marriage debate is that en lements that were created to benefit mothers who did not work outside of the home are now benefits that the gay community thinks they are en led 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?

selective outrage over marriage benefits
jeebo s 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 ing 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]

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

[boutons_deux]

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

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