1 The will of the people subverted by unelected people in black robes.

2 After the oral arguments will there be anal arguments?

3 I am so sick of gay marriage that my most fervent hope is that the courthouse is hit by a meteor.

That being said; TexBob has the only good point to be made.

4 that's so gay

5 This is where the voter gets to find out what it's like to be gay married.

6 Between appeals and re-appeals and un-appeals, I am confused.  What is the current status of Prop 8?

7 The presiding judges.

8 Yeah, but how long do they have scheduled for the gay orgy?

9 At 10am Pacific Time (1pm Eastern), a panel of the Ninth Circuit will hear argument in the federal Prop 8 case.

Why watch it? This is already a foregone conclusion.

10 Why waste blog space presenting actual arguments? Law doesn't matter here. It never does anymore on anything important. Modify Shakespeare: subtitute judges for lawyers.

11 Aack--substitute. Need coffee.

12 #9  Why watch it?

To elevate your blood pressure this morning.  But there are a slew other news items even from the past few days that will achieve the same effect, such as: Pressure mounts to boost eurozone rescue fund

/Important to us since we are going to bail out the Euro-gits yet again, although we ourselves are heading towards insolvency. 

13 Important to us since we are going to bail out the Euro-gits yet again, although we ourselves are heading towards insolvency. 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 06, 2010 08:37 AM (9hSKh)

Why not? We are bailing out every thing on the face of the earth already with money we don't have. For the life of me I do not understand what these GD idiots think they are doing.

14 The will of the people subverted by unelected people in black robes.
-- Posted by: TexBob
After the oral arguments will there be anal arguments?
-- Posted by: Andrew Glutes Sullivan 

The election results provided the oral arguments and won against perversion.

The unelected black robed self-appointed legislators' provision for today's arguments is anal.

15
I am so sick of gay marriage that my most fervent hope is that the courthouse is hit by a meteor. -- CharlieBrown

That would not only provide relief, but its own solution.

16 Why waste blog space presenting actual arguments? Law doesn't matter here. It never does anymore on anything important. Modify Shakespeare: subtitute judges for lawyers.

Revisionist Bingo!

17 I've spent as much time as I intend to spend on this sham.  We already know the government has no intention of putting forth a winning argument.  When they lose, which we know they will, it will prove nothing... except that the people of California are completely boned by their elected and appointed "betters" in government. 

Gay activists and the pols who pander to them converted this little black duck from someone who was laissez-faire on the issue of gay marriage into someone firmly against it.  And it only took two years.  Good job, guys! 

18 I suspect that there are two possible outcomes.  First, the court rejects the appellants grounds for standing, ending it right there.  Second, the court goes through with a show hearing and them hands down a decision that can only come from the Ninth:  homos win.

The appellants were doubly screwed from day one; first by the trial judge, then by the Ninth.

19 Enough already. Shut the fuck up. This is what happens when an entire generation of mothers don't teach their children not to whine. Oh, btw, you can't legislate "acceptance" esp when "marriage" does not equal marriage.

20 I could, and may very well have to live with gay marriage when it is voted on by legislators, or by referendum.  I'll still consider gay marriage a joke, but life will go on. 

But I just can't stand this judicial fiat bullshit.  CAN'T STAND IT.

21 20 I could, and may very well have to live with gay marriage when it is voted on by legislators, or by referendum.  I'll still consider gay marriage a joke, but life will go on. 

But I just can't stand this judicial fiat bullshit.  CAN'T STAND IT.

This, + infinity! 

22 This will all seem moot when civilization collapses and CA descends into the Thunderdome scenario.

23 (Incidentally, this is a rather appealing option for me because it would leave the ruling intact below but make no precedent law that would have to be followed in the rest of the Ninth Circuit on the gay marriage issue.) Are the judges likely to stop at standing? I have no frickin' idea.

This will happen for sure. I'm sure Reinhardt is just drooling at the chance to pull a Walker so he can go down in history too but he won't. He knows if he does it will piss off some  Supremes. Instead he will back off and let this go forward on standing alone hoping the chance for Kennedy to be the one to make history will be too much for him to resist.

24 This will all seem moot when civilization collapses and CA descends into the Thunderdome scenario.

Still, their judges will rule us from the lofty heights of Barter Town, the city that runs on pigshit.

Because the collapse of their own civilization will not negate their authority to rule us all as proles.

25

I just don't understand the discrimination issue.  Gay men have exactly the same right to marry as straight men.  They have the right to marry a woman.  Just because they don't WANT to doesn't negate their equal right.  If we give them the right to marry whomever they WANT, then why can't I (a straight man) be given the right to marry whomever I WANT? Will I be given the right to marry my daughter? Or, my sister? Or, my son? etc, etc, etc.

The same argument above carries for the lesbian side of the world.

26 OT:
Majority of Muslims want Islam in politics, poll says...
Proposed 1.4% pay raise for military draws fire...

Military servicemembers are fighting what would be their lowest pay raise in decades as the nation wages two wars, including a 10th year of combat in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration has proposed a 1.4% raise for the military in 2011, which would be the lowest since 1962, when no raise was given.

FUNNY THING: Obama was just bragging to our heroes in Afghan. that they are still getting a raise! Wow! An entire 1.4% for being willing to DIE for your Country!

27 25 I just don't understand the discrimination issue. 

You're too stupid to understand the nuance of our position. 

In other words: Shut up. 

28 OT - Oh, and btw.  2010 is the warmest year on record and part of an ever increasing planetary warming trend?  Not a chance!

/Still won't stop the Gorebal warming doom-mongers from opening their mouths as the Earth potentially goes into an Ice-Age.

29

Incidentally, this is a rather appealing option for me because it would leave the ruling intact below but make no precedent law that would have to be followed in the rest of the Ninth Circuit on the gay marriage issue.

It's "appealing" for you to have three unelected judges basically say "because I said so" to a group of people who a) won a popular election and b) followed the process prescribed by the governing documents to self-govern? 

Standing is one of the most abused ways judges impose their will upon the people.  I'm dismayed that you'd think it's "appealing."

30 The Obama administration has proposed a 1.4% raise for the military in 2011, which would be the lowest since 1962, when no raise was given.

That statement is not accurate.  Nixon did wage and price controls back in the 70s when I was in the navy. We had a pay freeze one year when I was an E-4 I think getting a net $120 a check (twice a month).

31 OT, but arsenic eating alien science is horseshit. http://tinyurl.com/39th6rg

32

"Should there be anyone who has cause why this couple should not be united in marriage, they must speak for 30 minutes to the Ninth Circuit Court or forever hold their peace."

33 And why are we going OT on this thread when the open thread for news is still active and less than 100 comments?

34 gay marriage - because its not really love and legitimate unless the government recognizes it.

35 I am unable to click through any of the links at work...can anyone tell me who is sitting on the panel? Is Jay Bybee? He is quite conservative, Mormon and would be completely unable to support gay marriage. Of course, he is only one...and is it three or six or just how many will be hearing it?

36 BTW, I find it interesting that the only judge whose academic background was specifically referenced was the fellow who attended BYU, aka The Mormon.

Just sayin'. 

37 All this "gay marriage" BS is a red herring. What they are really looking for is becoming another protected species so they can do pretty much anything they want and get rounds of free government cheese, get favors in hiring and promotion.

In short, they want to make the white straight Christine male be the last person on earth not protected.

38 @35
I think the three judges are Smith, Hawkins, and Reinhardt.  Smith attended BYU, ergo he's LDS.  The other two could have received their law degrees from cereal boxes for all I know because, you see, it's only germane to point out who the Evil Mormon is. 

Yeah, I'm pretty irritated that it's cool to point out someone's religion as a factor, but not to point out other protected class characteristics IYKWIMAITTYD. 

39

Standing is one of the most abused ways judges impose their will upon the people.  I'm dismayed that you'd think it's "appealing."

Posted by: JohnTant at December 06, 2010 09:24 AM (PFy0L)

Don't be. SCOTUS will reinstate standing and rule on the merits.The entire purpose of the case from the start has been to get it to Kennedy and not piss him off. This is the best way to do that. The law has nothing to do with this case. Legally it's a piece of garbage and should have been thrown out on day one. There is no federal issue here.

40 36 BTW, I find it interesting that the only judge whose academic background was specifically referenced was the fellow who attended BYU, aka The Mormon.

Just sayin'. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 06, 2010 09:29 AM (IDL9N)

I am sure the Bybee's vote will be attacked by the media as religiously motivated instead of, I don't know, based in the fundemental idea that marriage is defined as one man, one woman and has been for EVAH.

41 AH...so Bybee is not there and it is the OTHER Mormon sitting on this one.....

42 @40

This is all headed inexorably to labeling Roman Catholics (the real ones who follow Church teaching), Mormons, and any other religious group who dares to stand up against this foolishness as hate groups. 


Did I mention that a couple of years ago I wasn't worried about gay marriage? 

Seriously, good job there gay activists! 

43 38 @35
I think the three judges are Smith, Hawkins, and Reinhardt.  Smith attended BYU, ergo he's LDS.  The other two could have received their law degrees from cereal boxes for all I know because, you see, it's only germane to point out who the Evil Mormon is. 

Yeah, I'm pretty irritated that it's cool to point out someone's religion as a factor, but not to point out other protected class characteristics IYKWIMAITTYD. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 06, 2010 09:33 AM (IDL9N)

That's just gabe's m.o.   See like with DADT he's just being a reporter here and not really taking a biased view or offering commentary.  Of course he's only doing that because his view is nothing but liberal fantasy and can't justify it with conservative small government views 

44

SMITH, RANDY: BYU, BYU

SMITH, MILLAN (IN CASE IT IS NOT RANDY): BYU and U of CHICAGO

RHINEHART: YALE LAW, POMONA UNDERGRAD

 

There is now Hawkins listed....

45 In short, they want to make the white straight Christine male be the last person on earth not protected.

Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 09:31 AM (e4sSD)

 

Not only not protected, but declare open season on us.

46

Its 3. The next step after the 3 judge panel decides is either a hearing en banc, where the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case, or a request for certoriari, where, if granted, the Supreme Court would hear the case.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 06, 2010 09:36 AM (OWjjx)

Thanks. Mallamut. Looks like two of the three are MOOOOOORman, but the third name does not pop up on the bio list on the website.

47 46 In short, they want to make the white straight Christine male be the last person on earth not protected.

Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 09:31 AM (e4sSD)

So, they are transexxxxxuals too!

48 Vic, not OT http://tinyurl.com/347wora Cnn show ballsack on article

49 They've castrated the image, but the reg has the screen shot

50 The right of the people to rule themselves will not be upheld.

51 Gay activists and the pols who pander to them converted this little black duck from someone who was laissez-faire on the issue of gay marriage into someone firmly against it.

Ditto.

I really don't give a shit what you do until you start subverting rules and established process, and undermining my wish to shelter my kid and protect his innocence for as long as reasonably possible.

Coming this month to my church? The Gay Men's Chorus.

Seriously?

Look, I don't care about your gayness. Seriously. Don't. Fucking. Care.

But you keep making me care. So fuck off. I'll do everything I can to fuck you over in the political process.

I treat others how they treat me.

52 So the people in CA went to the trouble of amending their state constitution to keep local officials and judges from refusing to abide by the law.

If judges overturn this, what does it say for the notion of representative government in CA, or frankly America as a whole?

The left is playing with fire by the way it keeps subverting the will of the people to govern themselves.

53 Don't be. SCOTUS will reinstate standing and rule on the merits.The entire purpose of the case from the start has been to get it to Kennedy and not piss him off.

How low we've come that the whole notion of representative government comes down to whether one office holder feels like allowing it to proceed or not.

So much for checks and balances...

54 OT

The ad whores for the Scotsdale, AZ are pretty hot.  I like the one in the red bikini.

55

Not only not protected, but declare open season on us.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 06, 2010 09:40 AM

Hate to say this, but "gay marriage" does not "declare open season" on anyone.

So far as I've seen, no one is demanding that churches be forced to perform marriages for any two people whom they are opposed to marrying. The centerpiece of the issue is what the government does, and the government is too involved in our lives anyway.

Do you want to the government to issue car licenses for certain makes of cars only? Dog licenses for specific breeds? Register voters only from one party?

Before the usual responses flow, none of the gay people I know are interested in polygamy, marrying barnyard animals or children, etc. Those are fantasies dreamed up by people who can't bear the thought that anyone believes or lives in a manner they personally don't like.

Granted, restricting marriage to a male and a female doesn't affect me. That matches my personal preference. But my preference -- and yours -- is not the only one.

I am sick and tired of "Christians" whining about "attacks" on them because their own brand of religion doesn't (and isn't allowed to) dominate everything.

If you don't approve of gay marriage, fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex. But demanding others live the way you do is a slippery slope. At first, you just restrict daily behavior to fit a general moral code (which is necessary for a functioning society). Then you get specific about things that bother you and your priest. Where does it stop?

56 Awww, poor MrScribbler.  I've got news for you.  The gays have *exactly* the same rights as the straights do, currently.  You can get married to a member of the opposite sex, if you like.  If you don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex, the solution is simple, you don't get married.

Forcing people to care about the issue, or hear the whining about it constantly from certain quarters is doing NOTHING to helping the "cause".  What it *is* doing is firmly pissing off large numbers of people.

57 I treat others how they treat me.

Posted by: Warden at December 06, 2010 10:09 AM (V6HDd)

Actually, this is a pretty critical lesson for the right.

The left does not care about process, legality or fairness (in any real sense).

They want to win. And they recognize that judicially enforced gay marriage will give them another powerful weapon to attack bourgeoisie society.

So as conservatives we should oppose this on both process and substantive grounds, but we also need to start considering using the same weapons the left uses...

58 It's simple: what did the people vote for? Ok, now do the opposite.

59 I am sick and tired of "Christians" whining about "attacks" on them because their own brand of religion doesn't (and isn't allowed to) dominate everything.

Since we're airing grievances, I'm sick and tired of people blaming Christians for the results of self-government just because their desires keep getting out-voted. 

A religious based political position is not a second class opinion in our polity.

60 Do you want to the government to issue car licenses for certain makes of cars only? Dog licenses for specific breeds? Register voters only from one party?

What you or I want is irrelevant. It's what the people of CA want and they were clear on that. The question is  should a federal judge be telling them they can't and the clear answer is no. There is no federal issue in this case.

At first, you just restrict daily behavior to fit a general moral code (which is necessary for a functioning society).

No one is restricting a thing. A gay could "marry" whoever they want. The question is should the state, or federal government , be forced to recognize it simply because they choose to recognize others. Again the clear answer is no. If they have no legal requirement to recognize marriage to begin with then they are free to choose which they do recognize. This is the equivalent of saying that because the federal government gives subsidies for ethanol that the same subsidies are owed to all other farmers.

61 @57
We often agree on things, but I think you're being a little naive here. 

There's been a progression in the gay rights movement that, when coupled with the progressive nanny state agenda, seems inevitably headed toward defining any moral teaching by parents or churches against homosexuality or gay marriages as hate speech.  I believe that's why it's so important to the gay activists that homosexuality be recognized as an innate (genetically determined) trait, contrary to any biological evidence of which I'm aware (and my PhD is in developmental biology so I doubt I'd have missed these studies). 

If homosexuality is an inherent trait, then it, like gender, race, national origin, and physical handicap, is something that deserves special protection.  That leaves religious beliefs out in the cold in terms of protections (ignoring the Constitution, of course, which these folks seem very willing to do).  The Left has demonstrated a willingness to discriminate against people based on their political beliefs; why not religious beliefs, too?  After all, they're both voluntarily held characteristics, unlike the others (you can't help where you were born, but you can choose to belong to a church). 

62 Posted by: toby928™

Somehow it's become entrenched common knowledge that Religion, especially Christianity, is constrained by special limitations in the Constitution, not given special protections.

63 My alpha numeric thingy got changed?

64 So far as I've seen, no one is demanding that churches be forced to perform marriages for any two people whom they are opposed to marrying.

Well, of course not.  That would be premature.

65 gay marriage is not about "gay marriage" it is about radicals forcing religious organizations to recognize and sanction their unions......yes i know prop 8 doesn't state this anywhere they are now discriminating and are no longer tax exempt ....if the Arch Bishop says no, i will not officiate the wedding...well, he will be placed in jail for not recognizing the law of the land.... and if you don't think this will happen...well, i don't know what to tell you...getting married at city hall with out all the pomp and circumstance of a religious ceremony ain't gonna cut it for the gays.....

66 I am America's future.

67 If you don't approve of gay marriage, fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex. But demanding others live the way you do is a slippery slope. At first, you just restrict daily behavior to fit a general moral code (which is necessary for a functioning society). Then you get specific about things that bother you and your priest. Where does it stop?

Slippery slope Mr. Scribbler?  Was that a Freudian slip?

How's this for demanding others live the way you do?  It's crap like this being forced on children that's creating a backlash bigger than you can imagine.  People will not take this and we do not have to.  Your own agenda creates intolerance of your behavior.

If your child attends school in Vallejo, California, he will watch pro-gay propaganda videos whether you like it or not.

Forced by the ACLU to provide "mandatory diversity training" to students and faculty, the Vallejo Unified School District is now showing all students "anti-bullying" films produced by a homosexuality affirming San Francisco group called GroundSpark. Among other topics, the films discuss same-sex relationships.

KNTV reported that in May 2009 the ACLU sued the district on behalf of an "openly gay" student who claimed she was being harassed by "teachers and staff." According to KNTV, "The student won the suit, and now the district is required to hold mandatory training, which include these videos, and some parents don't like it."

68 Posted by: Y-not at December 06, 2010 10:39 AM

We're not that far apart on this. I agree with what you're saying, actually.

I am absolutely opposed to giving any group preferential status. I simply believe that any two people, who meet the standard for marriage in many/most states -- both adult (or with parental permission), mentally sound and healthy, unmarried -- have the right to go into a government office and get a marriage license.

At the same time, I'm perfectly fine with any church's decision not to perform a religious ceremony for those who don't adhere to its tenets.

The only prohibition should be, as in California, if a majority of voters in a given state vote to forbid a particular kind of marriage.

My religion tells me not to eat pork or shellfish. What I do about that is my own business. It is not the business of the state. Should I be offended if your religion is happy to have you munch away on ham sammiches and crab? I might be, but it is my duty as a citizen to respect your right to do so.

When I say that I personally believe same-sex couples have a right to marry, I am not advocating that as a means to expand special treatment for gays, or endorsing teaching "sensitivity" or instructing young people on the gay "lifestyle" in schools. As a matter of fact, I am offended by public displays of sexuality by anyone, gay or straight, and my own tolerance for "gay" behavior has strict limits.

I am speaking only of a single issue, and believe it would do all of us well to tone down the fretting about What It Might Lead To.

69

"But demanding others live the way you do is a slippery slope."

The whole progressive gay movement is a slippery slope.

I'll nominate #57 for Naive Comment of the Week™

70 What the hell is with the McCaskill ads touting the DREAM act in between the threads.  This broad (literally) is finished in MO.

71

mr. scribbler

 

 

.....well....it's the what it WILL lead to that is the problem...this is merely a step in their agenda

72 Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 06, 2010 10:57 AM (Ulu3i)

What you say is rational, but the dismissal of "what it might lead to" is extremely dangerous. It HAS led to many things, not the least of which is promotion of homosexual behavior! That is clearly unacceptable.

73

71 Maybe of the year.

74 I have a real gripe with the Rational Basis test for Constitutionality.  It's reductive, and of course conveniently so, in that it allows the judge to restrict rationality to his own standard.  The entire universe  of rational reasons are determined by what a liberal judge is willing to accept.

Moreover, it rewards the articulate at the expense of the in-articulate.  Man is a reasoning creature, not necessarily a reason-giving creature. 

A self-governing polity even has the right to make a mistake and pass bad laws, and correct them at its own pace when the electorate decides to.

In short, I support the Ick Factor as a rational basis for governance.

75 There's also no Evolving Standard of Decency, but that's a subject for another day.

76 I simply believe that any two people, who meet the standard for marriage in many/most states -- both adult (or with parental permission), mentally sound and healthy, unmarried -- have the right to go into a government office and get a marriage license.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 06, 2010 10:57 AM (Ulu3i)

I think you left out one standard -- that they be of opposite genders.  (Actually, you left out the whole "not being related too closely" thing as well, but we'll give that one a miss for the moment.)

Seriously, this is my big problem with the pro-gay marriage lobby.  You are asking for us to change a legal standard.  That's fine...you make your case, the other side will make theirs, we'll give it to the legislature or to the people.  You'll probably lose today, and win thirty years from now, and then we can all move on.  But don't pretend that you're adhering to "the standard."  THE STANDARD IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE.  At least have the common decency to acknowledge that.

77 #71 The whole progressive gay movement Liberalism is a slippery slope.

FIFY

78 I kinda like the idea of a zombie apocalypse.  Then everything boils down to simple daily survival.

79 But demanding others live the way you do is a slippery slope.

It's a slippery slope to the way humans have lived the past ten thousand some-odd years?  This makes no sense.

80

 I could, and may very well have to live with gay marriage when it is voted on by legislators, or by referendum.  I'll still consider gay marriage a joke, but life will go on. 

But I just can't stand this judicial fiat bullshit.  CAN'T STAND IT.

That's pretty much how I feel.

81 And also BTW, when did we decide that the burden of proof was on the traditionalist or on the status quo rather than the skeptic or "reformer" or innovation?

Did we have a vote on this?

82

Hate to say this, but "gay marriage" does not "declare open season" on anyone.

Wow, MrScribbler, this is retarded even for one of your posts.

So far as I've seen, no one is demanding that churches be forced to perform marriages for any two people whom they are opposed to marrying.

Bull.  It's stage 2.  Haven't you been paying attention to cultural Marxists?  In Canada, a lesbian couple sued to have access to a church's facilities for a reception.  Lots of activists have indicated that forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages is next on the table.  I don't think you've even looked into the issue to ensure that "so far as I've seen" means anything at all.

Before the usual responses flow, none of the gay people I know are interested in polygamy, marrying barnyard animals or children, etc.

I realize you are incredibly stupid, but let me try to explain it to you slowly and carefully so that you are able to understand: There are polygamists, bestiality enthusiasts and pedophiles who are drooling -- literally -- at the prospect of gay marriage being ruled to be a constitutional right.

Because it's about the precedent and they will use gays to achieve their own agenda.  There is no argument for same-sex marriage that cannot be made in favor of polygamy.  Two is just a number.

Granted, restricting marriage to a male and a female doesn't affect me.

Oh, well let's be glad that it doesn't touch MrScribbler's zone of personal influence.  Why, even the concept of judicial activism doesn't touch you either.  Glad to know you get internet access in that cabin in Montana.

I am sick and tired of "Christians" whining about "attacks" on them because their own brand of religion doesn't (and isn't allowed to) dominate everything.

And now we get to it.  Somebody has issues with religion.  Not the religion of polygamy and peace, no those hostile Christians who don't think issuing marriage licenses to any pair (why, pair, again?) of animate creatures is so great an idea.

That's what this is all about: licenses.  You can have a wedding if you wish.  You can wear a dress or a tux or a dress made of a tux.  You can have flowers and friends and catering.  If they're willing you can have a priest or a rabbi or an imam or somebody who is all three.  You can have a reception in which all of your friends get drunk and stupid.  All of these things are perfectly legal.

If you don't approve of gay marriage, fine.

Because Christians invented marriage, right?  And monogamy, right?

Uh, no, actually.  Tell me where in the Bible it describes a proper wedding ceremony.  Hint: It isn't there.  Most of our wedding "traditions" date to pre-Christian Rome.

Know the phrase "purer than Caesar's wife"?  Yeah.  Goes back to the days of Augustus.  Monogamy: invention of the orgy-loving Romans.

But demanding others live the way you do is a slippery slope.

Yeah, and legislating from the bench is not.

83 Regardless of Arnold's personal beliefs he and his AG should be required by law to defend and support the will of the people as shown by the outcome of the vote.  This is bullshit. 

84

THE STANDARD IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE.  At least have the common decency to acknowledge that.

The Standard is what keeps our human nature in check.   Without The Standard, there is anarchy and chaos.  The evil Bible is all about maintaining The Standard.  No wonder Liberals hate us.

85 It HAS led to many things, not the least of which is promotion of homosexual behavior! That is clearly unacceptable.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at December 06, 2010 11:04 AM

Once again, I agree.

To me, the purpose of law is to regulate human behavior when that behavior affects others. My view of gay marriage is that it does not meet that standard.

I think homosexual advocacy in schools does meet the standard. In the case of younger children, schools promoting any kind of sexuality is bad.

So I would join with you -- or anyone -- who wants to promote laws to protect children in that way, just as I would support local ordinances that prohibit couples -- of any gender combination -- playing grabass in public.

It all comes back to learning behavior at home. Parents are responsible for teaching their kids not to bully others, not to marry someone of the same sex, to live by the tenets of their religion.

86

"Parents are responsible for teaching their kids not to bully others, not to marry someone of the same sex, to live by the tenets of their religion."

Yeah, so why fuck 'em up and make it harder for parents to parent?

87 I am speaking only of a single issue, and believe it would do all of us well to tone down the fretting about What It Might Lead To.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 06, 2010 10:57 AM

For the record, I'm not worried about churches being forced to perform gay marriages.  I don't think that's a priority for them at this time.  I think churches that don't teach gay marriage (or homosexuality) are groovy will be painted as fringe hate groups in the schools, by the media, etc. 

(I also think it's a little inappropriate for you to have brought this up as a Christian thing (I think you're the first to introduce that idea on this thread) when Muslims - and I believe Orthodox Jews - also hold that homosexual acts (so I assume gay marriage as well) are a sin.)

In any event, you may be only speaking to a specific issue, but I think you need to recognize the movement in its entirety.  And while you may think that redefining marriage in this country is no biggie, I think there is no way in hell doing so won't lead to legalized polygamy.  Frankly, it should since polygamy is part of some religious traditions whereas homosexual marriage is not.  It doesn't matter if that's what the gay activists are trying for, it still is going to happen. 

But if you want to focus on what has already happened, then what it has already led to - in California - is adding a "right" to marriage to a group who never had it before, despite the fact that it (1) runs counter to the will of the people (as voted twice) and (2) is completely unnecessary in a state that has civil unions/domestic partnerships and plenty of lawyers to make contractual agreements between people.  What it has led to is state government (Jerry Brown, Ahnold) stating plainly that they have no intention of carrying out their responsibilities on behalf of the people. 

I spent a lot of time reading up on the rationale behind needing marriage rights conferred on gay couples in California.  I doubt new ones have been rolled out since I made up my mind.  None of the conservative gays made an argument that persuaded me that it was needed.  At the end of the day, their arguments came down to "fairness" and "equality."  Again, this is why I think they are arguing homosexuality is a genetically determined trait.  

I'm not a libertarian, so the whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" thing is not convincing for me.  (If we go that path, I'd like a refund for all the tax credits I did not receive because I don't have kids and for the marriage penalty I've paid these 26 years.)  Under the libertarian argument, siblings should be able to marry and every other damned thing. 

Anyway, after all the hate the No H8 activists spewed forth during election cycle, particularly against the Mormons, my willingness to give these folks the benefit of the doubt about what their agenda is has evaporated. 

88 #87  To me, the purpose of law is to regulate human behavior when that behavior affects others. My view of gay marriage is that it does not meet that standard.

*sighs*.  You are missing the point, as so eloquently explained in several previous comments.  There are 2 main problems with how gay marriage is being advanced today - 1) It requires judges to step out of bounds, with the case over Prop 8 being only the most recent example of such egregious judicial overreach and 2) Its various advocates are openly saying that "legalizing" gay marriage is just another step towards reaching their other myriad goals (advocating homosexuality in schools, legalizing polygamy, et cetera).

89 Fox News flash: RIP Don Meridith

90 "the dildos who say that even arguing against fag weddings is immoral and oppressive should be the first ones against the wall."
Posted by: The Dead Parrot Nota Bene at December 06, 2010 11:17 AM (wOtDN)

What the fuck does that mean? Are you suggesting that violence be perpetrated against people who support gay marriage?

91 OT - Perhaps some legal sanity is on the way?

Supreme Court considers throwing out massive lawsuit that claims Wal-Mart pays women less than men - SCOTUS blog http://bit.ly/ifWnk9

92 To me, the purpose of law is to regulate human behavior when that behavior affects others. My view of gay marriage is that it does not meet that standard.

The purpose of law is to regulate human behavior.  It's why so many states have seat belt laws. 

I would put forth that a community should have the right to insist upon a certain behavior for people to be members of that community.  This was part of the notion of federalism - let different states do things the way they want, with the Constitution defining the things we all do.  Don't like the way one state does it?  Go to another.  Have a real big problem with the way one state does things?  Change the Constitution.

93 #97  Have a real big problem with the way one state does things?  Change the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution?  That is...un-Constitutional. 

94 And final post for me on this subject: There is no "right" in the Constitution for men to marry men, or women to marry women,or even for men to marry women.

There is no "right" for marriage recognized by the State period. What that means as far as the Constitution goes is that ANY law legislated by the State is Constitutional.

The ONLY thing that the Constitution would be active on is for a State to pass a law forbidding marriage based on race or national origin. That would fall afield of the 14th amendment via the civil rights act. (and even there that is dubious but the courts would be sure to rule that way.)

95
You have to be a fucking idiot not to tie this in with the encroachment of both the Hate Crime laws and anti-bullying laws.

96 Changing the Constitution?  That is...un-Constitutional. 
Posted by: Cali Judges

Touche'.

97

And by all means, let's invite a social-progressive group pretending to be conservative to CPAC.

And if you don't like them being there...you're a bigot and a homohobe.

GOPPud and Log Cabin exists for one reason only: to advance a social progressive agenda.

98 #98:  Ah, the purest of win.

99 More OT, since I have nothing more to say on this particular subject at present - Moody's downgrades Hungary's foreign and local currency government bond ratings just above junk category http://on.wsj.com/hZ80fy

100 btw, Moody's is behind the curve so to speak on bond devaluation IIRC.

101

But demanding others live the way you do is a slippery slope. At first, you just restrict daily behavior to fit a general moral code (which is necessary for a functioning society). Then you get specific about things that bother you and your priest. Where does it stop?

Yes, God forbid we go down that slippery slope of one man/ one woman marriage. Where will it lead us?

102 So a gay couple goes to Father Vinnie and says, "Father, we want a Catholic wedding." Father Vinnie, says, "sorry, I can't do that because a gay marriage is not sacramental in accordance with the doctrine of the church." Gay couple sues, judges tell the church that it has to perform a marriage that it can't. Church refuses. Church loses it's tax exempt status, its land, it is taxed into non-existence. Church closes its doors. All the social work (education, homeless shelters, collections for the poor, charities, etc.) that the church does also has to end. The state, of course, has to take that over (they are happy too--we'll just raise taxes). Now, my children have no school to go to except the state school, I have no where to get married, to have a funeral, worship, to go for help. Why? Because the gay couple wanted to get married and couldn't in my church. That affects ME. Ooooooh, but that's fine because I'm an evil christian, right? So who's going after whom on the basis of their beliefs? I gurarentee you that testing the catholic church is one of the FIRST things that they will do.

103 Still on this? Ya do know the JETS are playing the PATs tonight?

104
What are you fiscal conservative/social libertarians going to say next year when the Homosexual Lobby demands that Trannies be allowed to serve in the military?

Buncha fucking dopes. Go start your own damn political party.

105
It's not just CPAC that's become a joke.

The Democrats are laughing at us. Al Qaeda is laughing at us.

We keep going along with the PC horseshit because we're stupid and we're pussies.

106

Soothsayer, I disagree with GOProud.  The Log Cabiners have, for a long time, been a nominally Republican group that exists for the sole purpose of being a dissenting voice inside the tent whenever the media needs one.

GOProud is at least honest about its goals and has been a decent team player.

107

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 06, 2010 10:26 AM (Ulu3i)

Except that there have already been cases, where people did NOT want to participate in a Gay wedding, yet were sued when they did not.

I remember one partricular instance of a Wedding Photographer, who had religious problems with Gay marriage, yet was SUED when she would not photograph a Gay wedding... as it was discriminatory.

Next will come a Justice of the Peace, or clerk, who does not wish to participate, and will be sued... then they will use THAT case to force Churches to Rent Space to them to marry...

One thing the Courts have lost site of.  A Right MUST encompass its antithesis... ie.. the Right to Speech MUST also include the Right to be silent...

And the Right of Free Association, MUST include the Right NOT to associate.

108

Then you get specific about things that bother you and your priest. Where does it stop?

When you can site an instance where I, or my priest interfered in gay sex, let me know. Is there a huge crop of  "no gay sex outside of a sacramental marriage" gay activists that no one knows about?

109
True or False? GOProud is a social-progressive group and is focused on identity-politics?

It's true. They have no business calling themselves conservative.

110 Buncha fucking dopes. Go start your own damn political party.

Posted by: Soothsayer, TIME's Man of the Year at December 06, 2010 11:52 AM (uFokq)

Uhhh... many of us wanted to... but you REPUBS talked us into supporting YOU again... because you would not win without us...

Funny, how now back in power.... the call is starting for us to leave...

111 I suspect that there are two possible outcomes.  First, the court rejects the appellants grounds for standing, ending it right there.  Second, the court goes through with a show hearing and them hands down a decision that can only come from the Ninth:  homos win.

It's the Dred Scott of Gayness. Justice Taney and the gang could have simply said there was no grounds for standing and ended it there, too, but their pro-slavery activism got the better of them.

112

 So a gay couple goes to Father Vinnie and says, "Father, we want a Catholic wedding." Father Vinnie, says, "sorry, I can't do that because a gay marriage is not sacramental in accordance with the doctrine of the church." Gay couple sues, judges tell the church that it has to perform a marriage that it can't. church settles rather than having to pay for lawyers to defend themselves.

FIFY.

Even if courts rule that churches can't be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies, the lawsuits will fly and thanks to our insane system, settling is better than having to defend them. 

As with all things, the original problem is at the feet of the corrupt legal profession.

113

Uhhh... many of us wanted to... but you REPUBS talked us into supporting YOU again... because you would not win without us...

Wow, the chutzpah here is amazing. If anyone deserves to make the above statement, it is the "theocons" or "social conservatives", call them what you will.

114 My residential neighborhood (my part of the road has about 20 houses on it) was just swamped with a flash mob of traffic. President Obama is doing an appearance about a mile away, and the very busy route through town that got blocked off for his motorcade sent thousands of cars into the long, bisected sort of cul-de-sac that is my neighborhood. Poor buggers.

115

One thing the Courts have lost site of.  A Right MUST encompass its antithesis... ie.. the Right to Speech MUST also include the Right to be silent...

And the Right of Free Association, MUST include the Right NOT to associate.

+100

116
We're only a couple of years away until the federal government uses the Civil Rights Act to force churches to make a decision: Either comply with all federal anti-discrimination protocols or lose your tax-exempt status.

Oh, and by the way, we will sue you, anyway.

117 If it were up to me, I'd just hang all the Judges and start over.  Sure, we'd lose a few good ones but eggs, omlettes, etc.

118
...but you REPUBS talked us into supporting YOU again... because you would not win without us...

Right. Here's my other leg for you to pull.

119

Amish dude - ditto.

Marriage is an institution that is based on distinct definition of meaning and intent.

Trying to modify the intent of the word marriage is at the heart and soul of the debate period.

The word "And" it has a certain meaning and is crucial within sentence structure. I suspect we could legally try to change it but that would make about as much sense as litigating the meaning of "marriage."

120

church settles rather than having to pay for lawyers to defend themselves.

But they can't settle over and over and over again which the gay activists will insist upon. Settling every day will have the same effect as paying lawyers and it won't put an end to the question. It will be every single church in every single diocese.

121

Funny, how now back in power.... the call is starting for us to leave...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 06, 2010 11:58 AM (AdK6a)

Here's the thing: Other than on the internet and Chris Christie, there are absolutely no fiscons that are not socons.

Every single "moderate" Republican in Congress is a free-spender.

I suppose we could include Paul pere and fils, but they are their own special category.

122 The word "And" it has a certain meaning and is crucial within sentence structure.

That depends on what your definition of "and" is, and what "is" is. 

123 Homosexuality is a birth defect, a disorder tied to a as-yet poorly understood malfunction within the Hippocampus. 

Why is this important?

Because it means that someday it might be fixable.  If so, it will rob the left of an identity group to exploit.

124

Trying to modify the intent of the word marriage is at the heart and soul of the debate period.

That gave the game away, actually.  California has a very liberal domestic partnership law.  Anyone who truly wanted the benefits of marriage could get them with a lot less trouble than a marriage -- even a justice o' the peace one.

125
the fi-cons/so-cons (i.e., stupid libertarians) are as loony and unrealistic as the. moonbats.

Both have a simplistic view of the world and of human nature. Both think they can create a utopia.

126 Our AG Moonbeam Brown and Gov. Arnie, please liberals love me, did not one thing to stand up for the people of CA. .  The people voted and they once again are ignored.

127 Only tangentially related but, I've been trying to figure out how polygamy is even provable in our modern courts.  I could have a dozen spirit wives with children like a ghetto playa' and that would be completely legal.

128 Or I could serially marry them and then divorce them.  I don't think there's a law against sleeping with your ex-wives.

129 We're only a couple of years away until the federal government uses the Civil Rights Act to force churches to make a decision: Either comply with all federal anti-discrimination protocols or lose your tax-exempt status.

Oh, and by the way, we will sue you, anyway.

Posted by: Soothsayer

 

And I'm sure that mosques will be included in the shake down, as well as Black Baptist churches, right? Because they mounted opposition far more unified than the EEEEEEEEEVVVVIIIILL Mormons and papists. Funny how they weren't demonized the same way.

130 Our AG Moonbeam Brown and Gov. Arnie, please liberals love me, did not one thing to stand up for the people of CA. .  The people voted and they once again are ignored.

And the voters rewarded Brown for his insolence by making him Governor.

Cali is schizophrenic as well as boned.

131 I don't think there's a law against sleeping with your ex-wives.

I thought you had to do that at least once to consummate the divorce. The ex told me so.

132

132 Homosexuality is a birth defect, a disorder tied to a as-yet poorly understood malfunction within the Hippocampus. 

Yeah, from the Cracker Jack School of Medicine.

Look, it's possible that homosexuality has a genetic predisposition or one that has to do with child-rearing or that there are as many reasons for being homosexual as there are for liking the color blue.  Treating it as a deficiency (which it is if you believe in evolution, but that's another question) is at best beside the point and at worst, undermining the point.

133
Funny how they weren't demonized the same way.

Funny you say that because it completely slipped my mind how the same people who treated the Mormons so badly last year were the same ones protesting outside Ground Zero for the Muslims with signs lecturing us about "Freedom of Religion" and calling us 'Islamophobes.'

134 Only tangentially related but, I've been trying to figure out how polygamy is even provable in our modern courts.  I could have a dozen spirit wives with children like a ghetto playa' and that would be completely legal.

Posted by: toby928

 

Glad you asked. The difference is whether the state recognizes that relationship. Remember that Canada was dealing with this stupidity before us. They have now had their first case where two lesbians and the male 'donor' wer suing for recognition.

 

But remember, when convenient, gay marriage advocates state that they only thing they wish to change is any two adults. Bullshit. We are now seeing a case where two is being challenged. What happens next? Based upon precedent when does adult go? Human?

Their campaign is based upon lies, selective vilification and the notion that such laws simply stop and have no other effects.

135 "...right before Man really heads into space for some truly amazing growth to be open to us.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at December 06, 2010 12:06 PM (G/MYk)"

Let's just send libs out there.  They're already convinced we've fucked up the planet, so it won't take much to get them offworld.  The only thing they'll take with them are hairy chicks and crappy food.  Let them legislate themselves into extinction in the outer rim territories. 

136

Funny you say that because it completely slipped my mind how the same people who treated the Mormons so badly last year were the same ones protesting outside Ground Zero for the Muslims with signs lecturing us about "Freedom of Religion" and calling us 'Islamophobes.'

This actually *does* make a certain dreadful sense.

It's part of "deconstructing" standards and meanings, distorting the reality of human nature and natural law, to the point where what is right and good is whatever *they*, the liberal Demunist Commiecrats, say it is, and what is wrong and bad is whatever we, the sane American patriots, think, do and say.

Every communist revolution has it's reign of terror to follow, where any potential opposition is cowed into walking on eggshells.

137 @137 Only tangentially related but, I've been trying to figure out how polygamy is even provable in our modern courts. 


I assume that it's just when people try to use legal avenues to assert their polygamous marriages that they're detected. Otherwise, consenting adults can be in all sorts of odd arrangements without the state becoming involved. 

The challenge in Britain, as I understand it, now that they've allowed polygamy is that there's a great deal of welfare fraud and a huge burden on taxpayers. 

But in gay marriages, there is no reason at all that siblings shouldn't be able to marry.  And, since we're all equal, then straight siblings should be allowed to marry, too, especially in the age of contraception and abortion on demand.  Right? 

I think that the homosexuals who just want to live their lives are being very poorly served by their activist brethren.  They're heating things up to such an extent that there will be a backlash.  Not good. 


As an aside, isn't it funny that Sister Wives is on right now?  Look at those funny (splinter group) "Mormons."  There are a zillion bizarre arrangements the "anything goes" people have, but the interesting freaky one is that one. 

See?  Mormons (even when they aren't really LDS members) are freakier than homosexuals.  Remember that! 

138 137 Only tangentially related but, I've been trying to figure out how polygamy is even provable in our modern courts.  I could have a dozen spirit wives with children like a ghetto playa' and that would be completely legal.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 06, 2010 12:10 PM (S5YRY)

I've always wondered that too.  They'd put some mountain "Mormon" in jail for what goes on in Greenwich Village every day.

But that's why marriage matters.  It's not about love or about social acceptance or other silly romantic notions, it's about inheritance and legitimacy.

139 The Judiciary has been involved in a naked power grab for over a century.  Our system used to keep that in check because the elected branches where also trying to seize power.  What has changed, IMO, is that when both the Judiciary, and the Elected branches are controlled by Proggs, the ends justify the means.  Even if the Elected branches have to roll over and lose their power to achieve it, the Great and Glorious Cultural Revolution and Victory of the Proletariat must be attained.

140 Funny how they weren't demonized the same way.

Funny you say that because it completely slipped my mind how the same people who treated the Mormons so badly last year were the same ones protesting outside Ground Zero for the Muslims with signs lecturing us about "Freedom of Religion" and calling us 'Islamophobes.'

Posted by: Soothsayer

 

it is written that the enemy of me is my friend? How screwed up is that??

141 Homosexuality is a birth defect, a disorder tied to a as-yet poorly understood malfunction within the Hippocampus. 

Yeah, from the Cracker Jack School of Medicine.

Look, it's possible that homosexuality has a genetic predisposition or one that has to do with child-rearing or that there are as many reasons for being homosexual as there are for liking the color blue.  Treating it as a deficiency (which it is if you believe in evolution, but that's another question) is at best beside the point and at worst, undermining the point.

Posted by: AmishDude

 

Supposedly pollution is causing homosexual behavior in birds. Not that there is anything wrong with that!!

So are we now supposed to promote pollution? Is the Sierra Club homophobic? I sure hope so.

142

For those of you who think this is a casual matter, that is exactly what the progressives would like you to think.  For this is a phased process and anyone who doesn't think they are going to go after the church with legal hammer and insisting civil law trump canon law under the fulcrum of tax exempt arguments, just isn't paying attention.

I'll let the naysayers in on a little secret, the progressives operate with impunity and their ultimate goal is to fuse state to private enterprise to induce change to their liking.

 

143 the fi-cons/so-cons (i.e., stupid libertarians) are as loony and unrealistic as the. moonbats.

Both have a simplistic view of the world and of human nature. Both think they can create a utopia.

Posted by: Soothsayer, TIME's Man of the Year at December 06, 2010 12:07 PM (uFokq)

fi-con / SO-CONs are Libertarians in your view???

Wow... just... wow...

144
Exactly, BH and Curmudgeon.

The Left's game is so simple: just do, say, and think exactly the opposite of what the American Right does, says, thinks.

No matter what it is. They'll even go as far as supporting Al Qaeda...

145
woops!

that was a mis-type

shoulda been, well, you know what I meant

146 The will of the people?  What's that?

[laugh track]

147 In furtherance of my earlier comment that the polity has a right to pass stupid laws, I think that Sunday Blue laws are a perfectly fine expression of a polities mores.  Even if the reason a majority of citizens want to close the liquor store on Sunday is purely religious, it's still a valid expression of community political purpose in advancing community mores. 

To assert that it has no rational basis for that, is to empower someone to make that determination. 

That way lies Mandarins.

148 Or, to assert that laws have to have a rational basis is to empower someone to make that determination.

149

It is like left-handedness, but without any similar advantageous or productive qualities (unless one adopts the view that each gay has a very finite evolutionary purpose, rendering him evolutionary fodder for his generation, as it were) and with many destructive ones.

 

If it makes anyone feel better, I have a higher chance statistically of being mangled as a result of an industrial accident.

 

Southpaws: we're not just sinister; we're dangerous (to ourselves)

150 Don't attack me here because my question is rhetorical. If it were evolutionary wouldn't that assume that it had been genetically adapted or chosen? If the gene is not reproduced how would it evolve?

151 If it were evolutionary wouldn't that assume that it had been genetically adapted or chosen? If the gene is not reproduced how would it evolve?

Or it could be a commonly recurring mutation.  A weak point in the gene, so to speak.  Susceptible to chemical or other effects.  Or it could be an affinity brought about by genetic expression based on other factors.

Not that I embrace the theory that biology is destiny.  Humans are not animals after all.  People are inclined to certain behaviors, not driven to them.

152 I believe that Satyriasis, or male hypersexuality, is still considered a mental illness, and yet it is widely believed to have a large genetic component.  Nymphomania, on the other hand, I believe is considered to be mostly environmentally driven for some reason.

In any case, society hasn't come under a lot of pressure to grant acceptance to either of those sexual behaviors.

153 Not to mention leather fetishes.

154 I sit corrected, if Wiki is correct.  Neither Satyriasis nor Furor Uterinus (great name btw) is still considered a mental illness in DSM.  Another victim of the Show-of-hands approach to psychology.

155 165 Nymphomania, on the other hand, I believe is considered to be mostly environmentally driven for some reason.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 06, 2010 01:12 PM (S5YRY)

Whatever it is, there's a shitload of it here.

156 Whatever it is, there's a shitload of it here.

I'm sticking with poor self image, and God love them for it.

157 I had a friend that married a strikingly beautiful nymphomaniac.  I didn't work out.  He couldn't keep her chained, as it were.

158

If it were evolutionary wouldn't that assume that it had been genetically adapted or chosen? If the gene is not reproduced how would it evolve?

Or it could be a commonly recurring mutation.  A weak point in the gene, so to speak.  Susceptible to chemical or other effects.  Or it could be an affinity brought about by genetic expression based on other factors

And some traits require the presence of similar genes on both sides, and for them to be 'active' if that is the correct term. Blue eyes or red hair for example, require a certain pre-disposition for them to manifest. Since (most) of us aren't using blue eyes or red hair as camoflauge or to atract a mate (though some may be).

 

But this all begs the question of why society, any society, should cease encouraging a definition of marriage that works (produces offspring) or as many have said, "get out of the marriage business altogether" to adopt this?

 

Another example migth be how we've managed to gut adoption laws.People used to be able to put children up for adoption, and it was actively encouraged. We were hit with a barrage of orphange horror stories and Lifetime movie tales of how evey adopted child either had unrequited feeling and/or needed genetic/organ/ blood/ marrow/ spleen which neccessitated hunting down the natural parent. Most states have meddled and made adoption into something where natural parents can be hunted down and adoptive parents can lose children because of natural parents regaining momentary lucidity. Add to that gay activists demanding that every adoption agency be forced to deal with them.

 

The result? More abortions, children flushed down toilets, orphanges closing, and adoptive parents adopting from foreign countries. We have outsourced adoption. We bitch when call centers are moved to India, but say nothing when the people who are willing and able to adopt move their efforts to Korea. And we have foster systems that are on average horrific. They are horrendous systems with turnover of talent, children are cases to be dispnsed with, and violence, abuse and corruption flourish. But we no longer have orphanages

 

Hurrah for us.

159 It didn't work out.

I blame my wireless keyboard for all these typos lately.  It seems to just miss letters at random and since I know what I meant to say, I don't see the error until after I post.

160 I had a friend that married a strikingly beautiful nymphomaniac.  I didn't work out.  He couldn't keep her chained, as it were.

Posted by: toby928

 

Usually feeding her wedding cake with her name on it cures that. Follow up treatments (deed, checking account) are sometimes equired.

161

Don't worry.  I'm sure the libs are working on tons of "equal protection" suits for left-handers.    It's all about 'fairness'.

I'm only partially joking, here.  I think the EU has already started on some left-handed 'fairness' edicts, IIRC.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®©

 

I love it. We must stand up for our lefts! or something like that.

162 dagny et al,

Don't confuse a mutation with an evolutionarily conserved trait.  Organisms tolerate mutations, particularly if they aren't lethal or provide some side-benefit (otherwise the individuals with them die before passing on their mutated genes), but they don't necessarily become part of the species' conserved genome. 

I remain unconvinced that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality.  I simply haven't seen evidence that that is the case. 

163

Southpaws: we're not just sinister; we're dangerous (to ourselves)

Posted by: Blue Hen is a left(hand)ist at December 06, 2010 12:45 PM (R2fpr)

When folks actualy fought hand to hand... being Left handed was an ADVANTAGE...

Ask any Fencer...

Of course, its even better being ambidextrous.... fighting equaly well with both hands is REALLY a lot of fun... especialy when fighting Florentine, or Case (two swords...)...

So in this case, as a Left Handed fighter sometimes had an easier time on the field of battle... it was evolutional...

Mu Haa haa...

164 Typically, the judges allot 30 minutes for oral argument in each case.

Uhhhhhuh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh.

Huh huh huh huh huh huh huhh huh huh.

He said, "Oral".... Huh huh huh huh huh..

165

Southpaws: we're not just sinister; we're dangerous (to ourselves)

Posted by: Blue Hen is a left(hand)ist at December 06, 2010 12:45 PM (R2fpr)

When folks actualy fought hand to hand... being Left handed was an ADVANTAGE...

Ask any Fencer...

Of course, its even better being ambidextrous.... fighting equaly well with both hands is REALLY a lot of fun... especialy when fighting Florentine, or Case (two swords...)...

So in this case, as a Left Handed fighter sometimes had an easier time on the field of battle... it was evolutional...

Mu Haa haa...

Posted by: Romeo13

 

Indeed. I have fenced, and did armored combat in the SCA. The greatest advantage is that we sinister types are used to a right handed world. Them? Not so much.

166

Next will come a Justice of the Peace, or clerk, who does not wish to participate, and will be sued... then they will use THAT case to force Churches to Rent Space to them to marry...

Already happened...from NPR:

A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

167

Only tangentially related but, I've been trying to figure out how polygamy is even provable in our modern courts.

Because the fundamental argument is that every one has the "right" to marry, and the state cannot make the decision of who gets a license. If that is the case then you cannot deny the right to polygamists.

 Homosexual marriage has no basis in English Common law or precedent(see Baker v. Nelson where the fundamental right of gay couples was already answered by SCOTUS ignored by Judge Walker).   It is a total invention of the state, and needs the state to coerce the concept whereas heterosexual pairings in society preclude marriage.   English Common law (which marriage laws were based on) took in to account that heterosexuals pair off without marriage and have children.  There were no privacy laws at the time, and yes there were childless couples and older couples, but they were an exception to the rule not worth the time changing the marriage laws for.  Homosexuals may pair off, but cannot have children independent of the state.    One of the pair must borrow DNA from a third party and requires the state become involved to sort out parental rights.  Homosexual marriage is the anti-thesis of small government, because it thrives on government.

168

Only tangentially related but, I've been trying to figure out how polygamy is even provable in our modern courts.

Because the fundamental argument is that every one has the "right" to marry, and the state cannot make the decision of who gets a license. If that is the case then you cannot deny the right to polygamists.

Btw, there is more of a historical precedent for polygamy than gay marriage.  I believe the show Sister Wives is a media campaign of normalizing polygamy just as suddenly in the 90's, there was a wave of gay characters on TV.  If you see something enough, you get desensitized to it.

169 "First, we kill all the gay homo agenda lawyers!"