Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous A Fine One At That | Graham Cracker Offensive Next »
Today Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire signed a bill legalizing gay marriage and making Washington the seventh state (eighth counting the District of Columbia) to legalize gay marriage. Oh yeah and Rick Santorum was visiting at the same time. Awkward…
Submitted by: Unknown
Via: Reuters
 | Deelz on Crowd Pleaser |
 | Andrew Long on Vandals Cashing In |
 | Daniel Bell on Vandals Cashing In |
 | noname on I’m So Live |
 | imnotreallyhere on Time Travel Protester |
| imnotreallyhere on GREECE |
| imnotreallyhere on GREECE |
 | eddi on Does to Jets What it Does to… |
 | Lyerra on Haven’t They Heard of Ce… |
 | Clueless the amazing… on My Bad |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
I do approve of gay marriage as a resident of WA state but I am quite sure there will be enough signatures collected to challenge the law change and it will be on our November ballot for citizen voting.
It could be 50/50 for it repealing when that happens. If it’s repealed, we tried, and we’ll have to try again in the future.
Though I am a straight female, I tend to get peeved at people who keep bringing up “God says it’s an abomination to do gay stuff.” That’s nice, but, I don’t believe in the bible, so..why would I care? I care about my gay friends more.
Just to make the point the people that are against gay marriage and aren’t crazy stick to the argument that marriage is by all means a religious instatution, so it shouldn’t be controled by the state to begin with.
Along with that the fact the governer signed the bill shows how bad representation in washington is for the eastern part of the state, as well as the unincorparated parts of western washington. This is also why it was a suprise that the bill managed to pass through the state senate.
Sorry Dude, but if marriage is only a religious institution then it would not determine who gets covered under insurance, who gets to make decisions for an individual who is critically ill, or who gets to inherit from someone when they die. Just to name a few of the benefits of marriage.
You have your almighty government to thank for that. Think about reforming redundant, ridiculous laws instead of creating yet another area of government to reach in and dictate your life. The government shouldn’t be sanctioning relationships of any kind with tax benefits, insurance benefits, or any other goodies. If anybody actually gave a sh*t about equality they’d be lobbying for that – not for extending an absurd legal institution just barely beyond the current limited group to which its benefits are extended.
They’re not ‘extending’ an absurd legal institution, they’re removing some of the absurdity from an existing institution.
Considering how beneficial the marriage system is to people living in or near poverty, and how those reduced insurance costs keep people afloat, I’d argue against that.
Can’t find anyone to marry you eh?
Sorry it had to be said, but really the institution isn’t screwed up it’s the Conservative government that’s screwing it up and every self sanctimonious nut job.
Newt Gingrich screwed it up royally.
personally, i’ve always been for not violating the “sanctity of marriage.” i just don’t think that gay marriage violates its sanctity. if marriage is only a religious institution, and it violates the teachings of that religion, then it would be a problem for that religion to deal with… but the idea of marriage is bigger than that, and different as you look at different cultures and traditions. in many cultures, a man can have many wives (and in a few rare ones, like in the seminomadic herdsmen of the tibetan steppes, a woman can have many husbands). so it’s not like the definition belongs only to christian nations or within one church.
if it is a social construct and not a religious one, then “sanctity” is less important. plus, anything that violated the equivalent of sanctity would merely be things that interrupted having a proper, functioning marriage. therefore, i think that frivolous, hasty marriages and the resulting divorces are much more of a problem.
if we want to ban gay marriage, we first need to establish that it is something significant and serious, which our elected officials and our social icons have very much undermined. katy perry and russel brand, and kim kardashian and her men (and newt gingrich and his three wives) are more offensive to me than george takei and brad altman, or neil patrick harris and david burtka.
yes, because “your government” is alone in this interpretation, and in addituion to serving no real function, it routinely just likes to make trouble for people.
as for “yet another area of government to reach in and dictate your life…” that’s why i *don’t* want any laws dictating that certain groups can get married and certain cannot based on a certain definition, that why i *don’t* want all this extra language about how certain money can be used and for what purposes when it comes to abortion.
i want to live my life not worrying about the government dictating to me what is right and wrong — especially when implicitly making me follow the strictures of your religion by legislating a definition of marriage or abortion ban is effectively a violation of my first amendment rights.
A constitutional ban on same sex marriages or how money is spent on health care is essentially unconstitutional. It’s a violation of the separation between Church and state and a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy. What’s funny is it’s usually the ones yelling the most about upholding the constitution who want to place these bans.
It’s also the ones who yell the most about same sex marriages ruining the sanctity of marriage who have done quite nicely ruining it themselves. Really, how bad off is your marriage that allowing same sex couples to marry would harm it?
Hum, a constitutional ban in unconstitutional?
Me no understand
Basically, a constitutional amendment must not contradict any other amendment, unless its purpose is to overhaul a previous amendment. (For example, 18 and 21.)
therefore, to create a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, or to write laws that dictate exactly what money can be used to pay for abortion because some people are morally and religiously against the practice, is to allow religious beliefs to create legislation, which actually defies the first amendment.
i do not want to practice conservative christianity. i should not legally be forced to follow the strictures of said religion by having my rights to do otherwise taken away. to take away my right to have an abortion because religious people are offended at the practice — unless there is some scientific, rational reason that coincides with current legal practice.
some people, for instance, say that “abortion is murder.” but some others say that “meat is murder.” the first is as viable claim as the other, so if we make abortion illegal, then enforced vegetarianism is a next step (and not even on a slipperly slope, but on a logical similar line of rational points). were we able to prove, for instance, exactly when a soul entered a fetus (contingent on proving the existence of a soul), that a fetus was fully human (contingent on definition of “human”), or that a fetus was able, early on, to sustain its life independently on its own and therefore deserves the same treatment as an individual organism (difficult given how much is needed to keep a premie alive, even only a couple months early), then the abortion issue would be easier to make sense of based on scientific, rational principles. but as long as those principles are beliefs and dogma, and not proveable fact, then it dwells in the realm of personal opinion and not that of the kind of fact you need to base a law on.
tl;dr: if i don’t share your religious beliefs, then you shouldn’t be able to make a law based only on thsoe beliefs that interferes with my life. so the gop should shut up about constitutional gay marriage bans and revoking roe v wade.
I don’t think we have enough Duct tape in the US to make them all shut up.
I dispute your claim that abortion is the same as killing and butchering an animal for food. Animals are property, fetuses are not (because they are potential people). That is a crucial difference unless you want to emancipate all animals and give them the right to vote, bear arms, own property, etc. all of which are patently ridiculous.
There are, believe it or not, people who oppose abortion based on their personal moral code and not because any religion dictates that they must. Often people join a religion based on how well it matches their moral code, rather than change their code to match a religion. Therefore, yeah, the gov’t should be able to make laws designed to make abortion less easy (not impossible!) to obtain. Getting an abortion based solely on the convenience of the mother is wrong.
@Therefore, yeah, the gov’t should be able to make laws designed to make abortion less easy (not impossible!) to obtain.
If they can inspect the packed lunch of a kindergarten student to make sure it complies with what government decides is healthy then yeah, why not?
Can they really do that? I know they can regulate what the school can feed the students, but I did not know they could do the same with the parents without some kind of valid DCFS complaint.
@imnotreallyhere, I remember hearing about some specific schools choosing to ban junk food and sodas including those brought in student lunches from home. I’m not sure what happened with those schools, but it was not a Federal or State mandate.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html
Thanks itsy! Looks like at least one state has a mandate to supplement lunches in order to meet the nutritional guidelines for Pre-K. Seems someone was misinformed and overzealous in this case.
Some people prefer their lunches to include wiener.
what i find funny is that the only evidence i can find that this even happened is that the carolian journal reportedon it. every other source i can find quotes the carolina journal, a decidedly right-wing source with some pretty obvious bias. i can’t find anyone covering this story that doesn’t get their info from the carolina journal, but plenty of people who are adding commentary and rage to this case.
i’d like to see a nonbiased source covering it, or at minimum conservative coverage that has looked into this issue independently.
i also find it funny that it is happening (if it is actually happening as represented by this one biased and dubious source) in north carolina, a notably conservative state, instead of in any of a number of liberal havens in the north. if people in nc are going to these extreme lengths when it is in no way part of a national mandate to do so (the national regulations only have to do with what is served, not what is brought), then is it a good example of rampant federalist nannystatehood, or is it an example of one idiot misinterpreting their job and acting out of ignorance?
@i’d like to see a nonbiased source covering it
You mean like mediamatters or huffpo, right?
Seeing as I’ve heard nothing of that here in North Carolina, I’m going to assume the law was passed in South Carolina, which is where all rejected legislation goes to live.
i said nonbiased.
you have to admit, the fact that a far-right news source is the only one that seems to know anything about this, including local papers in teh area of the town, could be one of two things:
either it’s made up, or so grossly exaggerated as to be not true in its current form
or
there is a vast leftwing conspiracy to destroy any non-agenda news, and the men in black and the helicopters have cordoned off this place so as not to make the evil leftists look bad.
occam’s razor cuts the second one to ribbons.
i guess this means that the challenge goes out: i want to see a newspaper or web site covering this story that isn’t taking its information from the “original source” linked here.
if none is provided, we as a community can agree that this never happened and is a publicity stunt by the right and its pundits (limbaugh devoted some solid time to this unverifiable story recently, which is unsurprising). if we can find a source that is unbiased and still tells a similar story, we can agree that the “liberal media” is dodging a story that should be told.
I couldn’t agree less. An embryo does not have a formed brain yet. An embryo has no synaps, and therefore no meaningful brain activity before week 9, and probably no beginning of consciousness well beyond that.
An animal, on the other hand does. It can feel, suffer, fear.
Your logic, “animals are property” is exactly the same as that of any slaveowner. A law that is immoral cannot justify anything.
Finaly, you can emancipate animals without giving them the right to vote (like foreigners), or bear arms (like citizens of civilized countries) A specific status could very well exist (it does in Switzerland for some animals)
I do think meat is murder. But early abortion is not. Morals based outside of religions are to be based on facts. When biologists tell me an embryo is not sentient yet, I believe it.
I respectfully disagree with your abortion point. Based on my faith, I believe that the embryo has a spirit. Although it is weeks away from sentience it is still a living being. I believe that before an abortion is performed at any stage that this should be observed.
I know very well that biologists and science does not claim to identify evidence of a spirit in humans. This does not alter my faith.
However, would a spirit be damaged from an abortion? If I recall, original sin occurs upon birth, not upon conception, and I don’t know of any other faiths that claim man is inherently evil unless stated otherwise.
The original sin is unrelated in my faith. The original sin only relates to how we now live in a fallen world. None of us are accountable for that sin. None of us need to repent due to that sin. No, in the case I’m making it’s simply that if the embryo has a spirit then to abort it is as equally weighty as a late term abortion, or as weighty as terminating the life of someone who has been born.
My contention then is that your ending a life, regardless of the stage of development. To end a life you need a very good reason. We try to have a valid reason before ending someones life, else we call it murder.
My point here isn’t to discuss what the motive so though, but rather I’d like to establish my point that an embryo, upon conception is a living being.
My point isn’t some compelling argument, so much as something I believe to be inherently true, and yet I respect that others aren’t of my faith and therefore aren’t bound to honor it.
So you’re pro-choice, but would never get involved in an abortion yourself. Do I get it right?
personally, i think neither is murder, since murder is not simply “killing” but instead implies both premeditation and motive. and i believe that abortion and slaughter have their purposes beyond simple selfishness or rage, that are reason over motive.
i like hamburgers, but i also understand that since it was once a living thing, that it deserves my respect — i try to never waste meat, out of respect for the animal it came from. while i could buy supplements and plan out a diet that would partialyl provide for the protein intake my body is designed to get from meat, i choose to get said protein the old fashioned way. i also understand that, while i personally do not approve of abortion as contraception (which is less common a sentiment than people realize), i could be placed into certain situations where an abortion for my friend or partner would be the best course of action (rape victim, economic meltdown, health issues, serious risks, etc), and i am willing to protect that right to choice all the more when the gop spokespeople swear that even in these cases it should never be legal.
as for “Based on my faith, I believe that the embryo has a spirit” — this is a valid point, but it is also a highly subjective point, involving the unproveable and personal judgment based upon arbitrary impressions rather than scientific or logical facts. i’m glad that you seem to see and recognize this in how you state things otherwise. i understand and respect personal beliefs on the issue — but if they are personal, and not proveable in any range beyond dogma, then they are not solid enough to force others to fall in line.
in other words, it is possible to be pro-choice legally but pro-life personally: to support that other people have the right to different reasons or different opinions on the issue, and also to want less government involvement in dictating what can and cannot be done, but also that you have the personal right to not engage in a behavior you believe is personally wrong.
Abortion requires premeditation and motive. Also, in most states murder doesn’t require premeditation for the lower degrees of murder.
Also, murder is strictly the illegal act of killing (with motive and premeditation).
Such relationship between law and marriage isn’t a new thing constructed by some evil breach of power in the US government. It’s been going on since law was first codified in 1772 BC. It was designed not only to prevent adultery (which you can thank your stars is no longer included in the law), but to protect the woman from false accusation, rape, and divorce. Sure, by our standards the protections are sort of crappy, but back then it was a pretty good deal.
So yes, you can have a problem with it. It’s your right. But don’t just pick on current government- it’s a trend going back to the very beginning of recorded civilization.
Back in New York it was legalized after I moved and although the oppossed tried to make a big to do about it. I haven’t heard if it’s going on the ballots in November, but I doubt it would.
I’m too tired to add more, having hetero unsafe sex does more to keep me up at night than worrying about everyone else’s sex life. I think all the anti same sex marriage people need babies. Then they won’t be as energetic.
Not on the ballot, still legal. Haven’t really even heard all that much of a to-do about it.
Then again, I live in the City.
I’m from Western NY and I live in BC so I haven’t heard anything about it either. I have a friend who works at the State Senate and she hasn’t said anything to me about it either.
9th circuit decision would directly apply, since it would be the same “take the right of the minority away” situation. No reason to even run a ballot (outside of bringing conservatives to the polls, oh wait, that is the only reason anyway)
And since New York isn’t really much of a Conservative state (at least not where I’m from) it won’t fly.
This was priceless. The timing was meant for a lol.
The ultimate political trolling at its best
I bet Santorum was absolutely frothing at the…
i bet he didn’t care. he went straight to bellevue, accepted a bunch of checks, ate a nice meal, and left a state he has no chance of winning on election day.
this measure is a done deal – especially if it goes to ballot. great time to be a divorce lawyer.
I think you mean, “Great time to run a gay-friendly wedding organization service.”
Marriage has been used over the centuries to secure property, borders, power, and peace. It was the short way to combining assets, ending feuds, and redistributing wealth to stabilize the community. A rich guy marries a poor woman not just because she’s pretty but because it removes a big source of poverty and potential crime from the community.
Marriage did not begin as a religious institution it began as a legal institution to secure the rights of both parties to commonly held property and their children to their rightful inheritance.
Well, it began back with religion and politics were pretty much intertwined. A lot of the old political leaders were also the leaders of the church. So it was both, because they were one and the same. Separation of Church and State is actually a pretty new idea.
god I love the 10th amendment.
god i love when people who don’t know the full meanings of our legal system make veiled references to ideas that are beyond them.
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941):
“The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers…..”
the civil war established that the federal government was more of a force to be reckoned with than the south had originally wanted it to be — the federalist sentiments had effectively chosen the winning side. to institute a national ban on gay marriage, adding it to the constitution as an amendment, isn’t exactly listen within the enumerated powers, is it? moreover, it’s also legislating the specific views of a religious body, forcing others to comply with tenets of a religion they do not necessarily practice… so why are there so many gop blowhards who turn around and spout nonsense about the violations of the constitution one minute, then support federal gay marriage bans the next?
Meh.
Liberal leftist politicians are nothing if not hateful. If they know they’re going to lose, they’ll go down fighting. Their policies are destructive to society and they will not care what affect those have and act surprised when the consequences occur.
They create problems and demand that we surrender more liberty to them so they can “fix” it.
Best place for a liberal leftist politician the furthest place from political office.
That’s true! Gay marriage is destructive to society, and will have horrendous consequences (like two men who have had a loving stable relationship for 15 years getting married). Not to mention that saying the government can’t regulate who you marry is robbing us of even more freedom!
Oh, wait…
You mean like the poster boys for the California law who got divorced a few months after the bill was signed?
Hey, at least they only got divorced once, look who you’re considering as a nominee. ;3
Who still better than the current occupant of the whitehouse or any of his political minions.
Riiiiight, because ethics only matter when your opponents are doing something you regard as unethical, right? Doesn’t matter if your candidate eats babies on a daily basis, as long as he’s not a Democrat…
I think David Vitter would be the perfect VP pick for Newt. Two like minds…and libidos.
Ron Paul and Ru Paul.
They’re nothing alike, but the posters would be awesome.
… besides, you know Ron Paul must want Big Gov out of Marriage Laws. Right?
oops… that was supposed to be a response to Nailin. My bad.
*hangs head in comment thread shame*
CRAP! Nothing’s stacking!
Okay… who borked the WordPress Censor-Bot-Machine???
The Canadians of course. We’re always waiting to invade the US and force our Socialized medicine on you
I’d vote for them simply because America would then be interesting again.
@Riiiiight, because ethics only matter when your opponents are doing something you regard as unethical, right?
So your assertion that flagrant violations of the Constitution and, thusly, violating his oath of office too. Or you maintain that “protect and defend the constitution” means ignoring it when it suits him?
@Doesn’t matter if your candidate eats babies on a daily basis, as long as he’s not a Democrat…
Citation needed.
We can easily prove, however, that Obama supports murdering babies that survive a botched abortion.
Yeah, let’s all elect the guy who believes that multiple divorces and extramarital affairs don’t destroy the sanctity of marriage, but a same sex marriage will. No that’s not hypocritical in the slightest.
Or re-elect the guy who thinks that the government should be the sole arbitor of life an social standards. That anyone who wants to keep the right to defend themselves with fire arms and thus is a “bitter clinger”.
Someone who thinks that the way to get rid of debt is to spend more, a lot more. Who tells the rich to “pay their fair share” while telling his buddies at G.E., Google and others that it’s ok if they pay NO taxes.
Yes, indeed a narcissistic liar and marxist is better than someone with multiple marriages. (said in very sarcastic tone).
Dude you want Harper (you know who Harper is right?) instead of Obama? Sweet! Because Harper is boarderline Nixon which would be like your Newt Gingrich.
It’s downright hilarious that there are people like you who still buy into all that crap about Obama taking away 2nd Amendment rights and is a Marxist/socialist ect ect. Guess what, Canada had a socialist Prime Minister (you know what a prime minister is, he or she is the equivelant of the president) during the 1960′s and that’s why Canadians have UHC and other government run programs paid for by taxes. And their government didn’t collapse infact their standard of living is BETTER than that in the US and because unlike in the US Canada didn’t have some craptastic No child left behind mandate Canadian schools are ranked 3rd in the world after Japan and China.
And you don’t want the rich to pay what they should? Ok fine, have fun retiring at 80.
But yes it’s such a shame to have a president who actually believes that all citizens deserve to be treated equally under the laws of the country they live in. Tsk.
By contradiction, of course, of heterosexual divorcees, who would never dare defend heterosexual mariage, seeing their lack of respect thereof.
Heterosexuals are not seeking to re-define a historic institution for a political minority. Democrats are.
Correction, Conservatives are, since they passed laws stating that marriage was only valid between a man and a woman.
I’ll accept that correction.
Conservatives are not seeking to change what has worked for 1000s of years for the sake of securing the votes of a political minority Democrats are.
Civil marriage is an artificial legal construction developed by government because the institution of religious marriage was so poorly managed and flawed that abuse was rife. The government took it over because Jesus couldn’t get it right. Changing the definition of civil marriage is no threat to anything but the bigotry of conservatives.
Democrats aren’t trying to dictate people’s lives based on religious views in a country where one of our major rights is freedom of religion. and for 1000s of years slavery worked, should we keep that going too? Also, republicans tend to be so against it to play towards their highly religious constituency. Stop trying to make one side sound more evil than the other, it just makes you look ill informed
@Democrats aren’t trying to dictate people’s lives based on religious views..
Nice strawman. Never claimed they were.
Democrats ARE seeking to redefine a marriage from it’s tradition definition to gain the votes of a political minority. I wonder when the majority of gays will wake up and realize they are being used as tools for the left.
Just like Cindy Sheehan. A grieving mother in pain over the loss of her son. She was used by the left and tossed aside when they were done. Same with Occupy. Liberal democrats just use people and have no regard for them beyond their own political gain.
still looking ill-informed… also, i wasn’t implying you said that, i was countering your “republicans aren’t trying to redefine…” also, tools? no we just care about how others feel, and people’s rights, not treating them like second class citizens because they are different from us, and Cindy Sheehan? out dated much? How about the republican’s claim to be “tough on crime” while the first time crime has actually decreased in the last eight years started with Obama getting into office. but if it’s not going to help you win an election, then I guess it doesn’t matter? Also none of this changes the fact that this is country based on religious freedom, by pushing your religious views, that gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married, you are in fact going against one of the major rights of this country…
@still looking ill-informed…
Given your apparent support for a fantasitical utopian society where the government is the arbitor of all things, you assertion is ignored.
@also, tools?
Yes, tools. Your political class use and toss aside people at their whim.
@and Cindy Sheehan? out dated much?
Way to contradict yourself. Nice job.
@How about the republican’s claim to be “tough on crime” while the first time crime has actually decreased in the last eight years started with Obama getting into office.
Citation needed but then it’s easy to claim when they aren’t looking for the crimes. Don’t look and it won’t be seen. Nice Strawman.
@Also none of this changes the fact that this is country based on religious freedom,
The first right thing you posted. To bad it’s followed up by an utterly false sentiment.
@by pushing your religious views, that gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married,
Ignoring the lie here, for the moment.
So you’re justified in pushing YOUR views on the majority. Hypocritical much?
You just proved my initial point Liberal leftist politicians seek to force the change of the definition of marriage onto the majority for the votes of a political minority.
But I am not against civil unions.
“Citation needed but then it’s easy to claim when they aren’t looking for the crimes. Don’t look and it won’t be seen. Nice Strawman.”
Citation Needed on the implication that the Obama Administration isn’t ‘looking for crime.’
“So you’re justified in pushing YOUR views on the majority.”
Actually, yes. This is a country founded on minority rights, hence why we don’t have majority rule. If 50.1% of the country said that Archer should be burned at the stake, then that wouldn’t make it okay to burn Archer at the stake. Also, based on polls of late, the majority of America SUPPORTS gay marriage, and there are plenty more people who simply have no qualms with it.
“…Liberal leftist politicians seek to force the change of the definition of marriage onto the majority for the votes of a political minority.”
Actually, that would be the Conservatives when they introduced DoMA, which redefined the federal classification of marriage from two consenting adults to a man and a woman, which I could say was done for the purpose of securing the votes of the MINORITY that is religious fanatics. However, religion isn’t born with you, but homosexuality is.
@Citation Needed on the implication that the Obama Administration isn’t ‘looking for crime.’
Easy. Lookup the voter intimidation lawsuit from ’08 that the Obama justice department refused to investigate even with video evidence readily available.
@Actually, yes. This is a country founded on minority rights, hence why we don’t have majority rule.
Actually no. You’re lack of knowledge of US History rivals your lack of knowledge of economics.(A major you claim to be taking.)
Right that’s why whomever poltician in local and state and most federal elections with the least votes win, right? What country do you live in?
@Actually, that would be the Conservatives when they introduced DoMA, which redefined the federal classification of marriage from two consenting adults to a man and a woman
DOMA, ah yes. Our misguided politicians who take on a liberal darling boy agenda item in the inane delusion of being accepted by the media and the democrats you use as an item against them.
All these types of policy changes are ALL democrat motivated and carried. It’s sponsored and driven by Hollywood which is ALL liberal with a handful of exceptions.
You really should stop arguing these subjects, they are clearly not your strong suit.
Speak for your own conservatives. Here in Canada our Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat parties could give a rat’s ass what you do behind closed doors as long as it doesn’t harm government spending.
Canadian Conservatives don’t care who’s getting married.
Moral of this post: Be more like Canada and no one gets discriminated
@Speak for your own conservatives.
Never claimed to be talking about Canadian conservatives. Why do you even care?
Yes, Canadian conservatives are slightly less insane and corrupt than their American counterparts.
With the exception of Harper of course.
Because I’m a US citizen and formerly from NY. The Largest state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Besides you used the term conservatives (which is a political party in Canada) so it gave me a reason. Of course given your lack of political understanding and the fact that you’re a right wing American I’m willing to guess you know jack about politics outside of the US and this is why you’ve decided to ask ‘why I care’ about American politics.
Oh and I have a few gay family members back in NY who are now able to get married thanks to fixing a clearly prejudiced law. Hell, back in the 1960′s it was illegal for interacial couples to marry. Would you also suggest that Democrats and other poloticians not reverse those laws because it’s messing with a system that has worked (ie: caused married women to lose their rights and property) for thousands of years?
Besides I really hate when my country has to look like a dumping ground for back assward individuals like yourself and the majority of congress.
@Hell, back in the 1960′s it was illegal for interacial couples to marry.
That was a bad law and I agree with it’s revocation.
@Besides I really hate when my country has to look like a dumping ground for back assward individuals like yourself and the majority of congress.
Then since your a whining liberal swine, I am glad you are not here to continue mucking up the country. Love it as it was founded or leave it. See ya.
Archer, it was founded with many BAD things, so saying, “Love it as it was founded or leave it…” implies that you support slavery, the Articles of Confederation, zero women’s rights, and no schools.
So, suddenly I should think you’re a good person because you don’t support segregation even though you support banning other people from marriage. Yeah… you get about 3pts from that statement. But you lose 50pts from the last one.
No wonder other countries would rather not assciate with Americans in general and only do so because it gets them money with people such as yourself in MY country. Seriously what kind of ass hat tells a citizen of their country not to go back to their country simply because they don’t appreciate the political and religious rhetoric of a certain group. Do you believe you OWN the country of my birth simply because I moved? Dear God. I MOVED to Canada I didn’t defect I’m allowed to go back whenever I wish.
As for the statement ‘the way we founded it’ So we should go back to ideological rhetoric, women should not have any rights when they are married (or before that), slavery, questionable politics (wait we still have that) no public schooling (so if you aren’t wealthy you can’t have an education) random militias and slaughtering the first nation tribes simply because they didn’t want to asimilate to the ‘American way of life’. I’m sorry but as idealic as that setting is, I don’t believe the majority of American citizens
What many people (including yourself) fail to realize is that many politicians only talk about certain idealeogy to get the general public (that would be you dear) inflamed and agitated. They pander to one cause or another just to get a vote not because they really believe in what they say. Then they take away things like your child’s higher education and expect you to stand in line and not complain because you voted for it.
Finally, I’m not a liberal (In reguards to the Canadian Liberal party or your eloquent discription) I’m a moderate, what we call in Canada a Democrat as in the NDP- New Democrat party. And I wouldn’t waste my mail in ballot on someone with as deplorable morals as Newt Gingrich.
History, such a fine excuse. Never mind the 9th amendment (“people have rights we haven’t thought of yet”), never mind marriage having been redefined times and over (like, say, divorce, or women being equal partners, or interracial unions), never mind the US being based on the redefinition of the most historic of all institutions (government).
They’re a minority, we get to oppress them. Any justification will do, rather than the truth : “I don’t like their lifestyle for personnal reasons, and I like to meddle in what’s none of my damn business”
@History, such a fine excuse.
Yeah, what did 1000s of generations of people know about love, survival and procreation.
@Never mind the 9th amendment (“people have rights we haven’t thought of yet”),
Not sure how you get that from this:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
@(like, say, divorce, or women being equal partners, or interracial unions)
Which does not redefine a marriage only the roles within it. I never claimed anything about this. typical strawman.
@never mind the US being based on the redefinition of the most historic of all institutions (government).
Nope, it doesn’t. It does define who is actually the government and who is not and the limits on the latter. Obama calls these “negative rights” by the way.
@They’re a minority, we get to oppress them.
Indeed we do. an apt description of all the intrusions by the EPA and TSA into our lives. Too bad you won’t see it.
@Any justification will do, rather than the truth
Exactly. How many terrorist have been stopped by the TSA since Obama’s henchmen took over? 0
And it’s such a tragedy that there have been so many terrorist attacks on airplanes since President Obama took office–hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. Planes are exploding and falling from the skies everyday. Oh, when will we be able to elect Mitt Romney as president so that the conservatives can fulfill the White Horse Prophecy and keep out skies free of the Islamic terrorists who hate us for our freedoms!
“Yeah, what did 1000s of generations of people know about love, survival and procreation.”
Racism, Sexism, and no positive look upon anybody who wasn’t a property-owning white male.
“Indeed we do. an apt description of all the intrusions by the EPA and TSA into our lives. Too bad you won’t see it.”
Red Herring much? Are you claiming the ‘minority’ group that is super-wealthy business owners are being oppressed by asking them not to destroy the country?
“Exactly. How many terrorist have been stopped by the TSA since Obama’s henchmen took over? 0″
Citation Needed.
@Racism, Sexism, and no positive look upon anybody who wasn’t a property-owning white male.
Ah so you maintain that gays and lesbians cannot be racist, sexist or have a bad outlook on life.
It’s also your assertion that owning land is a detriment too.
@Red Herring much?
Capability to follow a line of thought: FAIL
@Citation Needed.
Cite their victories. I mean besides the 30,000 “defective” hair dryers.
Not awkward, awesome. In your face, bigot!
Is there a reason why gay marriage isn’t being called Civil Unions? Pretending the nation was 50/50 of conservatives vs liberals, I see half of the conservatives saying, “Preserve the sanctity of marriage” and the other half saying no gay marriage. To me the compromise is allowing gay couples to be civily unionized. You write the same law and just call it by a different name. Half of the conservatives can sit back and say, “Ok, marriage has been protected.”
Based on my completely made up math, now you’ve got 75% behind the movement.
So, what am I missing?
(FYI, I’m a conservative who would like to protect the sanctity of marriage for religious reasons)
“Separate but equal” has been found time and time again not to be equal. If it’s going to be the same thing, why not just have it be marriage instead of calling it something else?
My parents have been married for over 50 years. Neither they nor I can see how allowing loving, same sex couples to have the same opportunity to make a life long commitment to each other in any way diminishes what my parents have. No one is advocating that churches must perform marriage ceremonies, only that the government recognize these unions with all of the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples have been provided.
i think i’ve said this before — if the problem is in the words, then change the way the words are defined.
i propose…
marriage = a religious concept that creates a religious bond between two people, that must be performed as part of a church or other religious group service. it grants no privileges or social complications. is subject exclusively to the governing body sanctioning that ceremony, and has no legal rights inherently attached or state/federal paperwork included.
civil union = the legal paperwork any couple needs to fill out to be considered “married” by the state. it is performed by an official (JP, captain, head of church) with certain training signing a valid license with witnesses.
legal restrictions regarding sexuality belong on neither — the former because the church makes that distinction and has the right to do so according to its tenets, the latter because to do so is to offer unfair advantage to one population.
As far as I know, Bjorn, your definition of religious marriage is already true. A ceremony can be done by any designated and recognized official, but if the paperwork and fee to register the marriage license is not completed it is not considered a valid, legally binding marriage. I know someone who exploited that fact to mollify his long term girlfriend.
She was down with a non-binding binding arrangement? Or is that a binding non-binding?
On the flip side of that, I know a couple who never bothered to get married but started filing their taxes together. They weren’t allowed to file separately after they split up until they went through a divorce.
That can happen in states that recognize Common Law Marriages. Since California is a Community Property State, we don’t have Common Law Marriage.
Because the United States have been willed as a republic, not a democracy in the greek sense of the term, majority rule may not apply to individual rights. 75% of americans could vote to take back citizenship from christians, it still would not happen. Because fundamental rights are not subjected to majority rules.
Why do you get to have a say in my marriage? I don’t have a say in yours.
Us gays, if we had the right to ban you from marriage, would not do it, because your marriage is none of our business. Be polite enough to return the favor.
you are missing the fact the “civil union” does not have the same benefits of marriage. and just out of curiosity, how is the “sanctity of marriage” in jeopardy? nothing is making it less sacred by gays being allowed to marry, in fact heterosexuals are making it less sacred by getting numerous divorces. what you refer to as sanctity is really just your opinion of who should be allowed to get married. Don’t like gay marriage? than don’t marry someone of your sex, but who are you to tell people what is acceptable?
“pretending the nation was 50/50 of conservatives vs liberals”
You’re right, its not 50/50. Over 50% of people in the US think gays should be allowed to be married.
“You write the same law and just call it by a different name”
Sense, this makes none.
“for religious reasons”
1. As long as marriage comes with legal rights, it’s NOT just a religious institution.
2. Laws should not be based on anyone’s religion.
Mitt Romney and Bachman/Palin would make a pretty great ticket.
…besides, it’ll help him get the Fundamentalist (mormon) Vote.
lol, I’m burning from that jutting flame.
Please… oh please do… Oh great Missplaced NewYorker Canadian, you can socialize my medicine ANY TIME.
LOL gladly. Just brace yourself because we had a Socialist PM when that happened over 50 years ago.
whoever made this needs to be put to sleep.