If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Those gay marriage people are going to be really upset when they run out of states   (wnd.com) divider line 112
    More: Unlikely, same-sex marriages, Indiana General Assembly, Mary Cheney, Margaret Hoover, Freedom to Marry, joint resolutions, steering committees, Brian Bosma  
•       •       •

3457 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Dec 2013 at 1:50 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-22 01:22:14 PM
I know that gheys and lezbeeans in Massachusetts are just broken up over the normalcy of their lives now. Buying a house, getting dogs and cats, joining the PTA, signing HOAs, and staying with the churches that they got hitched in. Because, as we ALL know, gheys and lezbeeans are just sickos who long for attention, even if that attention is being beaten with softball bats and fired from their jobs for The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Every day in Northampton, you can see vast crowds of lesbians crying themselves silly with shopping therapy as their only outlet for the bone crushing defeat of having NOTHING to complain about save their own personal dramas that often star co-workers and neighbors being incredibly b*tchy and petty. With all their crusades now won, they are hollow Warrior Goddesses, seeking in vain for some battle to fight, and only finding a really good sale on quinoa. Because, for the ghey folks, it was ALL about the battle, and not the love of their partners. I mean, who ever heard of "love" in a homosexual relationship? That's like trying to teach a dog to play chess, isn't it? No, our Dear Author is right, it's just a desperate cry for attention, and all this fluff about "love" and "equality" that's just to cover up the burning need for gheys and lezbeeans to destroy all that is good and just in this country, and stab out Baby Jesus' eyeballs with a shrimp fork. Double pinky swearies.
 
2013-12-22 01:40:56 PM
Oh yeah, we'll be totes furious when people campaigning for gays and lesbians to have basic human rights guaranteed to them under the constitution no longer have to fight for them tooth and nail against predominantly white, predominantly lower class people (whipped into a furor by predominantly upper class old men and religious pharisees) who are, OSTENSIBLY, heterosexual.

I mean, Christ. That's their whole existence. The unthinkable, unimaginable horror that someone might be able to visit their partner in the hospital. Or - GOD FORBID - make child care decisions or be able to take care of their partner's child should the unthinkable happen to their loved one.
 
2013-12-22 01:55:54 PM
Those gun nut people are going to be really upset when everybody has guns!!!11!
 
2013-12-22 01:57:54 PM
The anti-gay marriage nuts just lost Utah, home of the LDS Church.  What side of history do they really think they are on?
 
2013-12-22 01:58:41 PM
FTFA: homosexual advocates may have exhausted their supply of pro-"gay-marriage" states

Well, it wasn't all that long ago the number of 'pro gay-marriage states' was zero so I like their chances.
 
2013-12-22 02:00:06 PM
I know, right?  It's like, I used to have this drunken nasty b*tch that lived upstairs from me.  Every goddamn night it was either a party with idiots stomping around with loud music, or drunken drama with her boyfriend of the week, or sobbing loudly into her phone about how she doesn't understand why guys treat her so poorly.  Goddamn I wanted that b*tch gone so badly that I kept complaining to the landlord and calling the cops.  Then one day she moved out, and now I have reasonable people upstairs.  Now I'm just sooooo pissed that I don't have that biatch to be pissed about anymore.  I just don't know what to do with myself.
 
2013-12-22 02:00:07 PM
We've almost compleatly lost. Once we lose the battle will be over.
 
2013-12-22 02:00:39 PM
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-22 02:01:07 PM
fta The statement closed with a plea for the people of Indiana to respect and defend "the truth about marriage."

The truth is that ghey secs is a choice which is ultimately harmful
 
2013-12-22 02:02:11 PM
For those who want to drink up the delicious butthurt, but not give WND clicks, here you go. But I'm warning you, it's a lot of whining, pearl clutching, and slippery slopes.

Despite recent victories in Illinois and Hawaii, homosexual advocates may have exhausted their supply of pro-"gay-marriage" states, as Indiana is set to support traditional marriage in January.
When the Indiana General Assembly convenes Jan. 6, state lawmakers will begin debate on whether to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the November 2014 election.
As noted on the Indiana General Assembly website, House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR-6) proposes the following change to the state constitution: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
Although same-sex marriage currently is prohibited by Indiana statute, marriage advocates seek to strengthen the statute by passing a constitutional amendment that can't be overturned by state courts.
According to a recent poll by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research, HJR-6, if placed on the November ballot, would pass with ease. The firm's poll of likely voters found that 62 percent of Hoosiers would vote in favor of a traditional marriage amendment. Just 33 percent would oppose it.
Such numbers mirror actual results in other states. In 2012, voters in North Carolina approved Amendment 1 by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent, despite LGBT-backed polls that predicted victory for "gay" advocates. In left-leaning California, citizens passed Proposition 8 by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin.
Given the sizable GOP majorities in the Indiana legislature, HJR-6 seems destined to appear on the November ballot. In 2011, the House pre-approved HJR-6 by a 70-26 vote; the Senate concurred by a vote of 40-10.
Despite the likelihood of passage, HJR-6 has opponents. LGBT forces led by Mary Cheney and Freedom Indiana have mounted a vigorous campaign against it. The campaign has garnered support from a dozen mayors, a few corporations and some university presidents.
Most support for Freedom Indiana, however, comes from outside the state. According to Freedom Indiana's website, the campaign's steering committee includes a who's who of national "gay" rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, Margaret Hoover's American Unity Fund, the ACLU and Freedom to Marry.
As expected, Indiana's family associations and Catholic dioceses are lining up in favor of HJR-6. Led by Archbishop Joseph W. Tobin of Indianapolis, Catholic bishops across the state released a Dec. 4 pastoral statement saying that marriage is "a permanent partnership between one man and one woman ordered to the good of the couple and the procreation and education of children."
The statement closed with a plea for the people of Indiana to respect and defend "the truth about marriage."
For their part, GOP leaders appear content to let the people decide. In public statements, Gov. Mike Pence, House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President David Long have said that special interests should not decide marriage for the state.
In a Nov. 19 address to the House of Representatives, Speaker Bosma blasted the notion that interest groups, or even state judges, should decide an issue as important as marriage.
"That decision shouldn't be made in a corporate boardroom, it shouldn't be made in a judicial chamber, it shouldn't be made in a university president's office - and quite frankly, it shouldn't be made in a single legislative leader's office," Bosma said.
Pence, in comments addressed to business stakeholders, dismissed the claim that a traditional marriage amendment would have a negative impact on business.
"Some of the fastest growing state economies in America have a traditional definition of marriage in their state constitution. I do not believe that this would be a barrier to job creation or growth," Pence said in an interview with Channel 8 in Indianapolis. "We should just let Hoosiers decide."
For certain, if the Wilson Perkins Allen poll is accurate, no amount of banging of pots and pans by special interests will change Hoosiers' minds.
Since 1996, when President Clinton signed legislation affirming that marriage is a male-female enterprise, 34 states have passed laws defending the historical definition. A little more than a dozen have been willing to redefine marriage, and a number of those have come through judicial or executive fiat.
But the issue does not stop at same-sex marriage.
During the California Prop 8 fight, in which his fellow justices created same-sex marriage, California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter focused on the other ramifications that should be considered.
He wrote: "The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. ... Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
"Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law."
His warning?
"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey predicted the same thing.
The London Daily Mail reported Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an "equal marriage" proposal would have further consequences.
Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.
"Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man, one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, then why stop there?" he said. "If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man."
Brazil, which started out by expanding marriage to same-sex duos nearly a decade ago, now has allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.
And in the United States only days ago, a federal judge found part of Utah's ban on polygamy was in violation of the First Amendment.
In 2012, WND reported that Muslim men in America are marrying multiple wives. A Baltimore imam even declared, "We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."
A controversial BBC radio investigation even concluded monogamy is out of date and "multiple partners" is the coming norm.
And after Canada redefined marriage to include same-sex duos in 2005, it saw a major legal case involving polygamy in 2011 brought by the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association.
In May, polyamorous supporters in New Zealand called for legal recognition just weeks after same-sex marriage was legalized in the country.
In the Netherlands, the politician who brought same-sex marriage to the country said in March that "group marriage" was being discussed.
 
2013-12-22 02:03:11 PM
Sorta like how the blacks were way happier under Jim Crow, and no one sang the blues.
 
2013-12-22 02:04:30 PM
I forget, which commandment forbids homosexualit?
 
2013-12-22 02:04:35 PM
A giant slippery slope argument blaming gay marriage for later fights on polygamy. Always this bullshiat argument.

Gay marriage involves very little adjustments to the current contract that is marriage. Same rules of inheritance, power of attorney, custody, etc. apply. No need to create a new contract, just change the references from "man and woman" to "persons".

Polygamy involves incredibly large adjustments to the marriage contract. Things that would need to be debated as to how inheritance flows, how power of attorney flows, how custody would flow, etc. It would be a humongous undertaking, one that would require a lot of thought and legal ramifications. To compare it to something as simple as a 2-person marriage contract is ludicrous and meant to steer the conversation into arguments of taboo in order to poison the argument with morality plays that offend more than homosexuality.
 
2013-12-22 02:04:45 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: homosexual advocates may have exhausted their supply of pro-"gay-marriage" states

Well, it wasn't all that long ago the number of 'pro gay-marriage states' was zero so I like their chances.


In other news, Utah is pro-gay-marriage.
 
2013-12-22 02:06:12 PM

vygramul: Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: homosexual advocates may have exhausted their supply of pro-"gay-marriage" states

Well, it wasn't all that long ago the number of 'pro gay-marriage states' was zero so I like their chances.

In other news, Utah is pro-gay-marriage.


I giggled a little when TFA left that out.
 
2013-12-22 02:06:26 PM

hubiestubert: I know that gheys and lezbeeans in Massachusetts are just broken up over the normalcy of their lives now. Buying a house, getting dogs and cats, joining the PTA, signing HOAs, and staying with the churches that they got hitched in. Because, as we ALL know, gheys and lezbeeans are just sickos who long for attention, even if that attention is being beaten with softball bats and fired from their jobs for The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Every day in Northampton, you can see vast crowds of lesbians crying themselves silly with shopping therapy as their only outlet for the bone crushing defeat of having NOTHING to complain about save their own personal dramas that often star co-workers and neighbors being incredibly b*tchy and petty. With all their crusades now won, they are hollow Warrior Goddesses, seeking in vain for some battle to fight, and only finding a really good sale on quinoa. Because, for the ghey folks, it was ALL about the battle, and not the love of their partners. I mean, who ever heard of "love" in a homosexual relationship? That's like trying to teach a dog to play chess, isn't it? No, our Dear Author is right, it's just a desperate cry for attention, and all this fluff about "love" and "equality" that's just to cover up the burning need for gheys and lezbeeans to destroy all that is good and just in this country, and stab out Baby Jesus' eyeballs with a shrimp fork. Double pinky swearies.


The gist of the article doesn't seem to be that the gay marriage fight is all about AWing (though that does seem to be a popular conservative position) but rather, that we're nearing the point where all of the states that will consider gay marriage have considered it, and that it won't spread any further - that the states that are enacting constitutional amendments that explicitly state marriage is between a man and a woman will somehow stem the tide.

The article does bring up an interesting point though, and it's that this shouldn't be a state-by-state fight.  This should be a campaign on the national stage.  What we need is a Supreme Court ruling that explicitly states that individual states do not have the right to restrict marriage rights based on the sex of those being married.
 
2013-12-22 02:07:07 PM

MSFT: I forget, which commandment forbids homosexualit?


Paul angrily ranting about sexual inequity. Or, if you ignore the blood atonement of Christ on the Cross, selective quoting of Leviticus law, and a poor understanding of what went down in Gomorrah and Sodom.
 
2013-12-22 02:08:23 PM

fuhfuhfuh: A giant slippery slope argument blaming gay marriage for later fights on polygamy. Always this bullshiat argument.

Gay marriage involves very little adjustments to the current contract that is marriage. Same rules of inheritance, power of attorney, custody, etc. apply. No need to create a new contract, just change the references from "man and woman" to "persons".

Polygamy involves incredibly large adjustments to the marriage contract. Things that would need to be debated as to how inheritance flows, how power of attorney flows, how custody would flow, etc. It would be a humongous undertaking, one that would require a lot of thought and legal ramifications. To compare it to something as simple as a 2-person marriage contract is ludicrous and meant to steer the conversation into arguments of taboo in order to poison the argument with morality plays that offend more than homosexuality.


Well said.  Though, to be fair, I don't really have any problem with the idea of group marriages, but as you point out, boy would it open up a hornet's nest in terms of dealing with the logistics and our current system of family law.

Then again, there are a bunch of out of work lawyers right now, that could be good to get them working again I suppose.
 
2013-12-22 02:14:50 PM
Yeah, I mean, when gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states, what are those ghey enablers gonna do?

They're just going to have more time to go antiquing, is what I'm thinking. idk.


/seriously, knuckle-draggers. join the 21st century already.
 
2013-12-22 02:16:14 PM

hardinparamedic: MSFT: I forget, which commandment forbids homosexualit?

Paul angrily ranting about sexual inequity. Or, if you ignore the blood atonement of Christ on the Cross, selective quoting of Leviticus law, and a poor understanding of what went down in Gomorrah and Sodom.


Well in that case the conservatives will probably take things like adultery, false witness, and coveting very seriously.

I feel pretty bad for the next guy who gets caught doing any of those things.
 
2013-12-22 02:17:30 PM

Notabunny: fta The statement closed with a plea for the people of Indiana to respect and defend "the truth about marriage."

The truth is that ghey secs is a choice which is ultimately harmful


Whenever my work as a grad student makes me feel stupid, I read articles in Conservapedia to remind myself that I'm not actually stupid.

That only happens if I don't hit the critical exposure limit, which is about 5 articles. Once you read 5, your IQ drops a couple of points semi-permanently.
 
2013-12-22 02:17:42 PM

SN1987a goes boom: The anti-gay marriage nuts just lost Utah, home of the LDS Church.  What side of history do they really think they are on?


Congrats for the people of Utah, but I won't say that marriage equality has "won" there yet, just that has struck a significant blow.
 
2013-12-22 02:20:54 PM
What is outrageous is that all these 'states rights' conservatives, the kind who want California banned from refusing to import food not produced to their standards (an actual legitimate use of state rules), yet claim the extremely more imposing right to not recognise marriages performed and registered legally in another state.

The correct solution is of course a national ruling on this from your SCOTUS. One day.
 
2013-12-22 02:22:57 PM

Notabunny: fta The statement closed with a plea for the people of Indiana to respect and defend "the truth about marriage."

The truth is that ghey secs is a choice which is ultimately harmful


And while clearly they've done a lot of research already, it seems like they're always looking to increase their sample size.
 
2013-12-22 02:23:46 PM
The red states are going to be upset once they find out exactly what percentage of their populations were gay as they all up and move to more gay-friendly surroundings.
 
2013-12-22 02:24:27 PM
What losing looks like.
 
2013-12-22 02:27:52 PM
Yeah, I'm going to be REAL disappointed when every state will legally recognize relationships of same-sex couples. I will have nothing left to do in life. Maybe I will have more time to eat sandwiches finally...
 
2013-12-22 02:31:15 PM

grumpfuff: For those who want to drink up the delicious butthurt, but not give WND clicks, here you go. But I'm warning you, it's a lot of whining, pearl clutching, and slippery slopes.

Despite recent victories in Illinois and Hawaii, homosexual advocates may have exhausted their supply of pro-"gay-marriage" states, as Indiana is set to support traditional marriage in January.
When the Indiana General Assembly convenes Jan. 6, state lawmakers will begin debate on whether to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the November 2014 election.
As noted on the Indiana General Assembly website, House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR-6) proposes the following change to the state constitution: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
Although same-sex marriage currently is prohibited by Indiana statute, marriage advocates seek to strengthen the statute by passing a constitutional amendment that can't be overturned by state courts.
According to a recent poll by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research, HJR-6, if placed on the November ballot, would pass with ease. The firm's poll of likely voters found that 62 percent of Hoosiers would vote in favor of a traditional marriage amendment. Just 33 percent would oppose it.
Such numbers mirror actual results in other states. In 2012, voters in North Carolina approved Amendment 1 by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent, despite LGBT-backed polls that predicted victory for "gay" advocates. In left-leaning California, citizens passed Proposition 8 by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin.
Given the sizable GOP majorities in the Indiana legislature, HJR-6 seems destined to appear on the November ballot. In 2011, the House pre-approved HJR-6 by a 70-26 vote; the Senate concurred by a vote of 40-10.
Despite the likelihood of passage, HJR-6 has opponents. LGBT forces led by Mary Cheney and Freedom Indiana have mounted a vigorous campaign against it. The campaign has garnered support from a dozen mayors, a few corporations and some university presidents.
Most support for Freedom Indiana, however, comes from outside the state. According to Freedom Indiana's website, the campaign's steering committee includes a who's who of national "gay" rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, Margaret Hoover's American Unity Fund, the ACLU and Freedom to Marry.
As expected, Indiana's family associations and Catholic dioceses are lining up in favor of HJR-6. Led by Archbishop Joseph W. Tobin of Indianapolis, Catholic bishops across the state released a Dec. 4 pastoral statement saying that marriage is "a permanent partnership between one man and one woman ordered to the good of the couple and the procreation and education of children."
The statement closed with a plea for the people of Indiana to respect and defend "the truth about marriage."
For their part, GOP leaders appear content to let the people decide. In public statements, Gov. Mike Pence, House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President David Long have said that special interests should not decide marriage for the state.
In a Nov. 19 address to the House of Representatives, Speaker Bosma blasted the notion that interest groups, or even state judges, should decide an issue as important as marriage.
"That decision shouldn't be made in a corporate boardroom, it shouldn't be made in a judicial chamber, it shouldn't be made in a university president's office - and quite frankly, it shouldn't be made in a single legislative leader's office," Bosma said.
Pence, in comments addressed to business stakeholders, dismissed the claim that a traditional marriage amendment would have a negative impact on business.
"Some of the fastest growing state economies in America have a traditional definition of marriage in their state constitution. I do not believe that this would be a barrier to job creation or growth," Pence said in an interview with Channel 8 in Indianapolis. "We should just let Hoosiers decide."
For certain, if the Wilson Perkins Allen poll is accurate, no amount of banging of pots and pans by special interests will change Hoosiers' minds.
Since 1996, when President Clinton signed legislation affirming that marriage is a male-female enterprise, 34 states have passed laws defending the historical definition. A little more than a dozen have been willing to redefine marriage, and a number of those have come through judicial or executive fiat.
But the issue does not stop at same-sex marriage.
During the California Prop 8 fight, in which his fellow justices created same-sex marriage, California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter focused on the other ramifications that should be considered.
He wrote: "The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. ... Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
"Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law."
His warning?
"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey predicted the same thing.
The London Daily Mail reported Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an "equal marriage" proposal would have further consequences.
Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.
"Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man, one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, then why stop there?" he said. "If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man."
Brazil, which started out by expanding marriage to same-sex duos nearly a decade ago, now has allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.
And in the United States only days ago, a federal judge found part of Utah's ban on polygamy was in violation of the First Amendment.
In 2012, WND reported that Muslim men in America are marrying multiple wives. A Baltimore imam even declared, "We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."
A controversial BBC radio investigation even concluded monogamy is out of date and "multiple partners" is the coming norm.
And after Canada redefined marriage to include same-sex duos in 2005, it saw a major legal case involving polygamy in 2011 brought by the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association.
In May, polyamorous supporters in New Zealand called for legal recognition just weeks after same-sex marriage was legalized in the country.
In the Netherlands, the politician who brought same-sex marriage to the country said in March that "group marriage" was being discussed.


Indiana's amendment will be challenged for violating the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constition. If your driver's license from another state is valid, so should your marriage license.
 
2013-12-22 02:33:08 PM
I'm pretty sure we'd need to have another March the Sea before Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia pass gay marriage.
 
2013-12-22 02:34:23 PM

WTF Indeed: I'm pretty sure we'd need to have another March the Sea before Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia pass gay marriage.


Which is why it needs to be taken out of their hands and handled at the federal level.
 
2013-12-22 02:36:07 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The gist of the article doesn't seem to be that the gay marriage fight is all about AWing (though that does seem to be a popular conservative position) but rather, that we're nearing the point where all of the states that will consider gay marriage have considered it, and that it won't spread any further - that the states that are enacting constitutional amendments that explicitly state marriage is between a man and a woman will somehow stem the tide.


Except it won't.  The fight will move to Federal court, where precedence from other court battles and a lack of actual legal arguments ("our interpretation of our religion says that the gheys are icky and gross" and "who will have babies if the gheys can marry" aren't actual legal arguments) will have the state amendments thrown out on grounds of conflicting with the 14th Amendment.

I doubt that the Supreme Court will touch this issue further.
 
2013-12-22 02:47:27 PM
And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. (Mark 14:51-52)
 
2013-12-22 02:49:01 PM
Holy Sheep shiat, Batman. The comments are absolutely astounding. I clicked on another link about Fox Sports firing Craig James and according to some of the mental defectives, Fox is now liberal since Obama infiltrated the way they "used" to be. I'm hoping the black plague makes a comeback.
 
2013-12-22 02:49:53 PM
DRTFA but was happy to see that because WND uses Disqus they really can't choose all the ads. I got an ad for Kinky Boots on WND!!! Ha ha
 
2013-12-22 02:51:12 PM

masdog: TuteTibiImperes: The gist of the article doesn't seem to be that the gay marriage fight is all about AWing (though that does seem to be a popular conservative position) but rather, that we're nearing the point where all of the states that will consider gay marriage have considered it, and that it won't spread any further - that the states that are enacting constitutional amendments that explicitly state marriage is between a man and a woman will somehow stem the tide.

Except it won't.  The fight will move to Federal court, where precedence from other court battles and a lack of actual legal arguments ("our interpretation of our religion says that the gheys are icky and gross" and "who will have babies if the gheys can marry" aren't actual legal arguments) will have the state amendments thrown out on grounds of conflicting with the 14th Amendment.

I doubt that the Supreme Court will touch this issue further.


ohh the Supreme Court will touch it alright.  Touch it as in when the lower courts all say that the states amendments are not ok and ever state has to let gay/lesbians marry and it get to the SC and they say they are not going do a thing to change it.
 
2013-12-22 02:52:56 PM
While this specifically is stupid, the more general issue is something I've always been kind of interested in- which is that people/groups who make a living out of combating a problem also have a reason to not really want that problem to actually be solved (especially the huge corporation-style charities).
 
2013-12-22 02:56:25 PM
It's almost as if marriage was a sociocultural construct and nothing more.
 
2013-12-22 02:56:58 PM

Quaker: While this specifically is stupid, the more general issue is something I've always been kind of interested in- which is that people/groups who make a living out of combating a problem also have a reason to not really want that problem to actually be solved (especially the huge corporation-style charities).


Which is why you have groups like MADD turning into prohibition organizations.
 
2013-12-22 02:57:35 PM

jumac: ohh the Supreme Court will touch it alright.  Touch it as in when the lower courts all say that the states amendments are not ok and ever state has to let gay/lesbians marry and it get to the SC and they say they are not going do a thing to change it.


Which can easily be accomplished by refusing to grant cert to the cases.  I think they've seen what Roe v. Wade has done, and I see looking for ways to either avoid ruling on it or not taking up the case.
 
2013-12-22 03:00:31 PM
Nope. We'll just move on to pushing for equal rights in other countries. America's Christian fundies are already in Africa making sure being gay is punishable by death. We'll get to you monsters soon enough.
 
2013-12-22 03:10:29 PM
Keep struggling, conservatives.  It's hotter when you put up a fight.
 
2013-12-22 03:19:47 PM
I got to "gay" in quotes. Like it's just an allegation or something.

What did I miss after that? Anything less rational?
 
2013-12-22 03:25:01 PM
Those anti-gay marriage people are going to be really upset when they run out of crosses to burn.
 
2013-12-22 03:27:46 PM
Sigh. Remember to check out my derper script for Greasemonkey if you haven't yet:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-22 03:32:16 PM

MrEricSir: Sigh. Remember to check out my derper script for Greasemonkey if you haven't yet:

[i.imgur.com image 799x71]


Very cool.
 
2013-12-22 03:33:58 PM

MrEricSir: Sigh. Remember to check out my derper script for Greasemonkey if you haven't yet:

[i.imgur.com image 799x71]


You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Or a Farker and a programmer.
 
2013-12-22 03:45:56 PM

grumpfuff: For those who want to drink up the delicious butthurt, but not give WND clicks, here you go. But I'm warning you, it's a lot of whining, pearl clutching, and slippery slopes.
[content deleted for brevity]


God, these people need to learn how to format a farking paragraph.
 
2013-12-22 03:48:17 PM
Nah, then we'll work on getting ENDA passed, and rights for Trans people, and making gender reassignment surgery coverable by insurance.
 
2013-12-22 03:57:04 PM
Wow, Indiana. Just wow.
 
2013-12-22 03:58:42 PM
I need to fleece some more money out of the rubes here in Texas and I will be glad when I am done. I so want to move back to a civilized part of the country.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report