Life  goes on.

At least for a little while.

but my cousin  is HOT!

I look forward to the left expressing concerns about the court's legitimacy with this 5-4 decion.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 10:09 AM (/PCJa)

Does it benefit some progressive cause?

Because that's the measuring stick these days.

As predicted  by Dr. Peter Venkman.

"dogs and cats living together"

Posted by: Jay in PA at June 26, 2013 10:10 AM (7GjdC)

Should be repeated repeatedly

So plural marriage must now be allowed. The mail-order Thai-tranny business is gonna be boomin!

Posted by: tcn at June 26, 2013 10:11 AM (VLG62)

Freedom of religion man...can't discriminate...WWJD?

"Laws" aside, a man can no more marry another man than a man can be called a fish.

Yay, Ace of Spades HQ will be All Gay, All the Time today, with endless battles over Butt-Fuckery, Felching, and Cock-Gobbling, and of course, my personal favorite, Fat Ugly Mutual Carpet Munching.

Can't we have a favorite movie thread for those of us not obsessed with jamming our cocks in other men's assholes despite the fact that they rarely fit?

(Good rule of thumb:  "Just because you can cram it in there with a shoe horn and some Vaseline doesn't mean you should, or that it goes there.")

62Now my horse and I can finally come out of the closet. He's such a stallion.

If only this ruling came out earlier...

Posted by: Tami at June 26, 2013 10:15 AM (X6akg)

-

So, they look the other way at a trial judge who illegally interfered with a trial.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 26, 2013 10:13 AM (1YJrc)

Hmmm...

I'm torn.

If that does happen, everything I've been saying to the Catholic Health Association the last 3 years about the state turning on us scorpion style becomes instantly vindicated.

On the flip side, I might actually have to come off the bench to help them out of the mess they've created and frankly I'd rather just watch the slow burn.

"singles out aclass of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognitionand protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper"

The funny thing is although Kennedy was talking about the DOMA, you could put in the words "affirmative action" and it still works. See also violence against women act and hate crimes laws.

Posted by: spypeach at June 26, 2013 10:14 AM (0n1+D)

Countdown to the 'Rons disappearing into their bunks in 5... 4.. 3...

Gabe always took issue with the secular argument against gay marriage  of  adding a significant amount  of  expense  to  government.   His evidence always was  ' because I know it won't' .

Well ,  unless these benefits are picked off a wild grown benefit tree,   this is just one of the increased costs to government  of  many that will result from gay marriage.   

Posted by: Local gay shitstirrer at June 26, 2013 10:14 AM (FIDMq)

He would make a whip of cords and chase your bony ass out of the temple. As I recall.

DOMA singles out aclass of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognitionand protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity

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

Let's see if he's  the staunch States' Rights defender in the Prop 8 decision. 

". . . I expect there will be a trend of gays going back to having anonymous sex with thousands of men."

Pikers!

More married gays means fewer promiscuous gays means less aids (which actually matters).

Oh look, its Incredibly Stupid.  Tell me, what is so special about government sanctioned marriage that your love is not real unless you have it, and getting it will immediately make them stop heading to the "Pickle Parks?"

So isn't the flaming skull reserved for "end of civilization" type stuff.

Seems a bit odd for Gabe to use that here from his perspective.

In any case, I said I'd have to see how the Roberts court rules.  This court's deference to congress appears to end at the progressive line.

Just as I feared.

"More married gays means fewer promiscuous gays means less aids (which actually matters)."

Bullshit. Gays can choose monogamy without a State 'marriage'

Gabe, this is a shout out for you having the guts to be yourself among this horde. 

I see this issue as one of the reasons (certainly not the only one) that the libertarian/social con coalition can not hold.  I don't understand why people get worked up about the sex that other people are having.  I certainly don't see why the government should care.  (And yes, I'd end preferential tax treatment for marriage, children, home ownership etc.).

The most fundamental right is the right to be left alone.

Posted by: JD at June 26, 2013 10:19 AM (Mjk/Y)

Come back and ask this question after the Prop 8 decision.  

Profile of the most dangerous man on the planet:

He lives in a southern state and has that "icky" accent

Goes to church, Fundamentalist or Southern Baptist

Hunts

Has a wife he loves and kids he teaches life lessons to

White

Drives a pick up.

Probably has uttered the "N" word at one time in his life

I am sure I am missing a lot.  Feel free to add to the most dangerous man list.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2013 10:20 AM (kdS6q)

Of course they won't be critical if here in the next few minutes the SCOTUS rules in a way that oversteps the rule of the Fed Gov't if they make gay marriage a civil right and invalidate all bans on it.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at June 26, 2013 10:17 AM (vZ9o3)

Do you have a daughter?  Why can we legislate age of consent to be 17 and not 14,  which not long ago was not an uncommon age to get married?   I bet you don't have a problem with legislating that morality do you?

Why do you think its okay to change  long standing definitions and tradition to appease at the most 2% of  the population  with abnormal sexual desires?  What makes their sexual  proclivity better than other sexual abnormal desires?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at June 26, 2013 10:24 AM (4df7R)

-

Already done.  The court allowed a    state    judge to illegally tamper with a case.

Posted by: tsrblke at June 26, 2013 10:22 AM (GaqMa)

I was thinking the flaming cornhole would be more appropriate.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 26, 2013 10:25 AM (AVaK2)

How about keeping it in your pants? That's 100% effective, at all times, in all cases.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2013 10:26 AM (QLNHI)

It has been done before. We will go underground before we will bow to this abomination.

Posted by: polynikes at June 26, 2013 10:18 AM (m2CN7)

-----------------\

He also  insists that adding 11 million Hispanic voters who will break 80/20  for the Democrats will somehow add up to a GOP electoral majority.

I want  you to consider, just for a moment,  that Gabe  may not be as smart as he thinks he is.  Or honest.  Take your pick.

Posted by: Nate in New Orleans at June 26, 2013 10:24 AM (lhX9P)

----

We're already dead. 

We're the Undead Unpeople of Jesusland.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2013 10:25 AM (ItDg4)

FFS.

FML.

Can I    call in sick to work the rest of today?   Because I'm sick to death of this fucking bullshit.

Can't wait for all the criticisms of an activist court from the same liberals who were complaining about the VRA decision yesterday.

Seriously...is this any way to run a free country?  Sheesh.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at June 26, 2013 10:23 AM (A0sHn)

Yes it is.  Too bad they don't want to do that.  It is no longer a case of "get the government out of my bedroom."  It is a case of "I demand that the government be in my bedroom forcing everyone else in there and holding a gun to their head until they start applauding what's going on."

Posted by: joncelli at June 26, 2013 10:30 AM (RD7QR)

Why vote any more? Just let lefties make all the decisions for us

183On the plus side--and it is *huge*: this ruling does mean that states, when acting in their proper sphere, can bind the Federal government.

------

As long as that action meets a liberal-approved social goal.

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 26, 2013 10:28 AM (VjL9S)

The guy at Hillbuzz started answering his readers questions about gay people and it seems to have turned into a seminar.  It's a good read.  You learn a lot.  The questions from the readers were excellent and the communication between the guy and his readers was/is very honest.  http://hillbuzz.org/

Posted by: steevy at June 26, 2013 10:28 AM (9XBK2)

The Church has survived worse. Take a look at China. Or times when the Pope had to go into exile. Still, She survives. There will be no capitulation on this account.

Interesting wording in the DOMA decision - This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

Meaning, the State still  gets to declare  what is considered "lawful", no?

Posted by: joncelli at June 26, 2013 10:33 AM (RD7QR)

-

I won't count my chickens until I see Boehner's zipper still in the closed position.

Posted by: deadman at June 26, 2013 10:09 AM (bNnI1)

Bingo. 

Posted by: Infidel at June 26, 2013 10:36 AM (O/fK

Suits against major churches to mandate gay marriages within the faith. That was the agenda all along.

They were not allowed to marry the person of their choice. 

---------

So I guess that means that now I can sue to marry Kate Upton, which is swell because that means she'll *have* to take my phone calls now.

Guess that means the restraining order is now null and void too.

Goodbye 1st amendment.  No honest Christian will ever operate any business that has anything to do with weddings again.  No more Christian-owned flower shops, photography studios, hotels, reception halls etc...  The lawyers and the gay activists will make sure of that. 

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 26, 2013 10:39 AM (HJcb1)

And that's it in a nutshell. 

Thread winner

Posted by: The Political Hat at June 26, 2013 10:33 AM (Vk2pI)

King Barry: Well it is outdated and written by a bunch of crackas any way

We are all sinners. But may the Lord not let us be hypocrites. Hypocrites donÂ’t know the meaning of forgiveness, joy and the love of God."

This is a guy gearing up to fight for his Church and he's figuring out who he can count on to stand with him.

Posted by: The Political Hat at June 26, 2013 10:41 AM (Vk2pI)

-

Also, it is ok for a state judge to illegally interfere with a trial, and actively work with the plaintiffs, as long as the judge is a homosexual.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2013 10:41 AM (kdS6q)

Megaton and daddy are neck and neck in the stupidity race

Posted by: buzzion at June 26, 2013 10:30 AM (LI48c)

This.

I've had this argument with ace before.   I really don't care what homosexuals do with each other.  I don't give a good g-ddamn about it.   But I don't feel any need to lionize their behavior as something BRAVE or PURE or NOBLE.    Once upon a time gays didn't want that lionization from me either.   But now?   Today?  In this day and age?   By God, if you aren't standing there cheering them on as they cavort down Folsom Street in their leather harnesses and ball gags, then you are a homophobic asshole who should be SHOT for your bigotry.

It's not longer about mere acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.   They demand our active -- not even passive, but ACTIVE -- endorsement.  I'm not asking them to endorse MY choice of sexual orientation, so just why the fuck should I have to endorse them?

DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! America, fuck , fucked, yeah, baby!!!!

85Next to go are incest exceptions. The only compelling state interest is the genetic health of the offspring. This not being the case if two homosexual brothers wish to marry.

---

But marriage and incest are different beasts. I can get it on with my sister whether or not i marry her. And with birth control/Abortion there never need be any banjo-ing offspring.

In my experience, sex and marriage are negatively correlated.

stupid pixy did not  allow my  cross out.

The Supreme Court should make a ruling that  Pixy is unconstitutional and eliminate him. 

"More married gays means fewer promiscuous gays means less aids (which actually matters)."

===========

That is an utterly preposterous assertion.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at June 26, 2013 10:46 AM

Well ace has lately been on his "That which is not forbidden is compulsory" kick lately and how its wrong.  Maybe eventually he'll realize that it applies to gay marriage as well.  He's not as emotionally invested to sacrifice his supposed political beliefs as the one who wrote this blog post is.

Posted by: @JohnTant at June 26, 2013 10:48 AM (PFy0L)

-

The democrat party, I assume

Windsor is the DOMA case, and the opinion was written by Kennedy.

Perry is the Prop 8 case and the opinion was written by Roberts.

86maybe two more wives, one that likes to clean, and one that will do all the dirty things my husband likes.. all the possibilities...
Posted by: spypeach at June 26, 2013 10:14 AM (0n1+D)

---

trust me, y'all only need to marry um to get them to do option 'A' above. For 'B' just find yourself a fatty.

The GLBT "community" makes me sick, but not because of what they do with (or call) their genitalia

------

What they do with their genitalia makes me sick. And them, too. can you say "impacted shit in your cock"?

Whenever I argue with libtards about gay "rights", I always tell them my revulsion is not religious, it's scientific.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2013 10:47 AM (kdS6q)

I guess their unborn child won't be a bastard for much longer. She is weapons grade stupid

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 26, 2013 10:40 AM (VjL9S)

Exactly.  I remember in the 80s when the homo activists wanted no fucking part of the "breeder's" institution of marriage; considering themselves above all that.  I said "Fine, go fuck yourselves into oblivion; JUST LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE".  But they weren't happy with being ignored so they came back to do just the opposite.  Fuck that shit.  They are insane liars who are too fucking stupid to even know what they want.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2013 10:47 AM (kdS6q)

Since she has already had his kid,  definitely working her ways backwards. 

Get ready for polygamy. 

And the subsequent slavery of girls and women.

Look at how wonderfully free girls and women are in muslim societies.  Free to be property that is.

That castro guy in Cleveland was just a little ahead of his time.

Tyranny by the few against the majority.  A socialist paradise.

The only upside that I can see in this is "Gay Divorce Court" on TV.  Watching two angry queens fighting over the china and who gets to keep the kitty ought to be somewhat entertaining.  You know it's coming.

Judith:  [on Stan's desire to be a mother] Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at June 26, 2013 10:17 AM (vZ9o3)

You can't seriously be this naive.  For one this isn't about them having the ability to marry as much as it is about tearing down religious institutions - the ghey movement has acknowledged as much.  Gheys marrying isn't going to stop spread of AIDS, as they will continue to be promiscuous - what is keeping them from being promiscuous, family obligations?  Also there is no gay gene - it is not a genetic defect, it is a choice the same as being attracted to children, animals, feet, underwear, torture, submission, pain, etc - no matter what the ghey lobby tries to convince you of otherwise. 

Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 10:52 AM (El+h4)

NAMBLA: Get in line bitch!

The homosexual community has made it clear from day one that this is not about their rights, but about the long term strategy of making organized religion illegal in this country.

Congratulations, homosexuals.  You are bringing the fire down upon    your   own heads.

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 26, 2013 10:52 AM (VjL9S)

The other night on the blaze's real news SE Cupp brought up the position boehner is in regarding his legacy.  It's an interesting discussion.  Boehner was summoned to the WH so I'm expecting a vote on this in the 11th hour when no one's paying attention just like obamacare.

I suggest you congratulate Gabe and be done with it.

Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 10:52 AM (LRFds)

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

Fuck that.  If  I get banned for criticizing the things that Gabe says, so be it, but  I seriously doubt  that will happen.

Posted by: Burn the Witch

Not just the Catholic Church but other denominations as well.  I believe that there are quite a few black churches that aren't exactly on board with gay marriage ceremonies.

Posted by: spypeach at June 26, 2013 10:53 AM (0n1+D)

"Uh... um... there's only room for    two   spouses    names   on a tax form?"

-Fucking idiots trying to ignore the slippery slope

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 26, 2013 10:09 AM (9Bj8R)

*********

It's all about the country.

Have your little victory lap, Malor.  Just beacuse you have won the veneer of legality, doesn't mean you are "normal".

The Supreme Court cannot force people to accept your disgusting lifestyle and let's face it....its really acceptance that you want.

Good luck with that. 

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 26, 2013 10:23 AM (ZPrif)

---

I favor 10

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2013 10:41 AM (kdS6q)

***

Man,  I wish I would have never read that.

So stupid, it hurts.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 26, 2013 10:58 AM (J7sV0)

Don't forget us.

Also, Malor, you're just trying to anger folks now, aren't ya?

Kinley Ardal at June 26, 2013 10:59 AM (fIUCx)

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

Part of his schtick, and why I stopped automatically assigning good faith to his "arguments" a long time ago.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (XIxXP)

Will we?    How long till that's just another kind of hate speech?

Whenever I argue with libtards about gay "rights", I always tell them my revulsion is not religious, it's scientific.

And my objection is from an engineering   standpoint.

There is such a thing as the concept of "mating parts" ie,  two   parts that were designed to go together. You either respect the design   intent or you don't. If  you don't,   it will fail.

Every time.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 10:57 AM (f9c2L)

another gay  marriage supporter who can't be intellecually honest.   This is not about Federalism.   DOMA is  not about what States are allowed to do but what limits are placed on the Federal government.   This is supported by the very fact that States are allowed to recognize gay marriage.  Good for them.  The DOMA protects States Rights for those states that don't want to recognize gay marriage.   It protect  States Rights. 

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 26, 2013 11:02 AM (J7sV0)

I don't know about that. She looks like she's more into cupcakes, twinkies, donuts, cakes, pies etc

Posted by: DocJ at June 26, 2013 11:02 AM (zrsn3)

It's not.   Which is why I    gave up calling them "progressives" ages ago and have referred to them as "regressives" ever since.   They WILL NOT BE HAPPY until everyone (except themselves, of course) is living in a hole in the ground    like a fucking    animal.

Also, I hate to say I told you so, but sometimes in this life we have to do things we hate, don't we.

You got the result you wanted, Gabe.  That's fine.  However - if this decision leads, as many of us fear it will, to Catholic churches being threatened  by the State  with revocation of tax-exempt status or with lawsuits if they will not marry same-sex couples. . .

- if this decision leads to private businesses being sued out of existence because they do not wish to cater to gay couples. . .

- if this decision leads, as it may very well, to a push to legalize polygamy or  consensual adult incest. . .

Will you man up and admit that you were wrong?  Or will you throw up your hands and lament "who could have known this would happen?"  Laws have unintended consequences.  If none of what I've outlined above happens, I will admit my fears were unfounded. 

Will you do the same?

I guess this supports the idea I'm a liberal troll, but I just don't give a shit about gay marriage.

Laws have unintended consequences.

--------

MPPPP, the thing is, what you fear is *not* an unintended consequence.  That's what's infuriating and that what Malor (intentionally, IMO) skips over in his advocacy and snark.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (XIxXP)

Likewise, sir.  Similar writings here, except that I, being a gamer geek, have to throw in a scifi setting along with my Christian ramblings. 

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at June 26, 2013 11:05 AM (zF6Iw)

-

Why, that was the entire goal of the homosexual community all along.

Ma Bell @ 329 - You and I have a very similar story.  My husband's eldest son by his first marriage is gay and jnow 42.

He and I no longer communicate as his whole life revolves around his "gayness".  We had one final blow out whereby I told him that I could give a rat's behind what he does behind closed doors but stop throwing it in my face.  He constantly railed against this "homophobic society" keeping him down.

The only thing keeping him down was his own self-absorbed shitty attitude.

Posted by: dananjcon at June 26, 2013 11:00 AM (jvd3N)

I'm glad I read it because it confirms what an embarrassingly uncouth slut she is and what a miserable failure McRINO is as a parent.

Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:05 AM (RZwdH)

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

Meghan  McCain IS...

T  O  O

F  A  T

T  O

S  C  I  S  S  O  R

This has never been about doing anything. This is about a purported constitutional right to change a definition of a word. That it has now been accomplished re: "marriage," means that society is required to countenance it and approve of it. If you think that suits agains churches and businesses will not be forthcoming under some sort of "public accomodation" theory, think again. You will laud whatever sexual relationship someone decides to persue or you will be punished.

- if this decision leads to private businesses being sued out of existence because they do not wish to cater to gay couples.

I believe the stories that this is already happening to private businesses have been linked several times here.

Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at June 26, 2013 11:07 AM (Sptt

-

Yes, Holder has been working on this for a couple of years.

"Also, I hate to say I told you so, but sometimes in this life we have to do things we hate, don't we."

But why should our own government force us to  do the   things   we  hate?

Where's  my freedom?

Posted by: jwest at June 26, 2013 11:05 AM (u2a4R)

Do you care that it will increase the liabilities of Social Security, Federal Insurance liabilities,  Family court  costs,  Federal subsidies in addition to the probable lawsuits arising out of refusal of others to recognize that status?   All things that you will have to pay for? 

Shit like this is why the Blogger In Chief has to forcefully restrain commenters from personal attacks against the cobs.

Yep.  Seems rather "catty" don't you think?  Intentionally baiting people?

Then wonder why people have problems with queers.  Some stereotypes are just too dead-on.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:08 AM (XIxXP)

They're assholes and fuckheads no matter what else happens.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:08 AM (XIxXP)

Pardon my french, but: HELL NO! I may not like what happened today or I may love what happened, but the Westboro idiots will burn in a hell of their own making from the shit they say and do. Imma stop now my eye is twitching

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:08 AM (XIxXP)

Naw, not even a first look.  We are individuals of principle, they are not. 

We object, but live as Christ instructed.  We are not like them, and never shall be. 

I find it almost impossible to square the Court's decision in Perry with a constitutional republic.  The general rule idea behind the inability of private parties to represent the government is that the proper remedy is political.  If the state fails to take up an issue judicially that the citizenry finds compelling, the proper remedy is to vote the responsible parties out.

Where the issue is whether a law is constitutional, a finding that it is unconstitutional takes it out of the realm of the political.  Therefore, there is no remedy.  The people are entirely at the mercy of the state. 

Bad precedent.

So when's the Anus Shower?

What makes it even more confusing is that if the proponents of Prop 8 had no standing to defend the law on appeal, why would they have standing even in the District Court. If not standing, then there was not an actual case and controversy, and Judge Walker had no authority to rule. HereÂ’s ScotusBlogÂ’s explanation:

Didn't the state actually defend the law up until this point?  I thought it was after the overturning of Prop8 that they decided they would no longer defend the law so the proponents took it up.  And that's why everything is nullified back to the overturning of Prop 8.

We'll see how generous Gabe is feeling when the harassment lawsuits of religious institutions begin in earnest.


Posted by: Gaff at June 26, 2013 11:07 AM (jPS2y)

-

Are you kidding?  He'll be ecstatic.

And my objection is from an engineering standpoint.

There is such a thing as the concept of "mating parts" ie, two parts that were designed to go together. You either respect the design intent or you don't. If you don't, it will fail.

Every time.

-----

Absolutely. I also make it a point to go into graphic detail about what happens when those parts fail. People don't like to be told about the aforementioned crap-in-the-urethra problem, or the middle-aged guys that have to wear Depends because their sphincters are so stretched out. Among the other hygenic problems associated with going in through the out door.

I don't care who it offends.Facts are facts.

Posted by: SpongeBob ReaverSaget at June 26, 2013 11:10 AM (epxV4)

If   the full faith and credit clause does not include the 2nd amendment  why  would you be worried about whether  it would  recognize  a   non amendment right of gay marriage?

Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at June 26, 2013 10:09 AM (w45V0)

The snakes have already cornholed us....fucking fucks.

I do have a silver lining for you, people:

All Supreme Court decisions will be nullified  in The Burning Times.

Posted by: Jeepers at June 26, 2013 11:18 AM (XDRsa)

-

Don't give them any ideas.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl

Hang around a while......you can't miss the twenty pound sledge of "breeder hate" that comes from that guy on a near daily basis.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:16 AM (/PCJa)

I suspect however, that this is just the beginning.

Soon someone will get married in MA, move to MO (which has a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage) and the fights will begin anew when MO doesn't recognize the marriage.

Camel, Tent, nose.  Some assembly required.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:03 AM (XIxXP)

And like    as  not get      harsher prison sentences.

Posted by: Jen at June 26, 2013 11:15 AM (OQ01T)

Hi, how you doing?

Mrs. Guido says "it's curtains for this country. But they will be fabulous!!"

*elbows in palms up*

As commented above, the lawlessness continues.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  It applies to all of the court's (judicial branch's) legislating and capricious arbitrary spurious gymnastics, on any issue.

The very framework and currency of the ruling is ludicrous.  "Classes" of citizens?  No such thing exists (aside from self-actuated voluntary temporary classes grouped together for efficiency in civil actions - "class actions") under any serious constitutional order.  Uh - that's sort of the entire basis of our entire system, including the SCOTUS. 

But the vapid legal circles simply love to snark that "oh, when you like a decision you think it's brilliant, you only say these nasty things when you don't like the outcome".  Utter nonsense, of course.  It's ALL about process, and law (which prominently includes components of the guvamint staying in their lanes).  Most of what SCOTUS does is nonsensical and illegitimate, as the very framework and terms of reference they use are illegitimate (and how hilarious is it to see the pathetic effort to build an obscurantist wall of confusion and pretend there is great intellect at work by use of terms of the trade and inside-baseball tactical "expertise").

Remember, the genius of the constitution and our system are their simplicity.  All the "complexity" and faux ponderous gravity of the legal questions are artifacts of a mediocre legal class (this includes the academics) who have empowered themselves while a busy and generally productive society is too busy to follow what's going on.

And as I've said for years, if you think this Kenney drivel is ridiculous, he'll never outdo the 1 + 1 = 7.4 of the Hamdan decision, which not only was ludicrous even within its own silly framework, but nicely usurped the treaty power as well.

I will say though that the idea of Churches being made to marry gay people is absurd.
----

It's not THAT absurd, eh. It's happening here.

They didn't even want to represent it at the court level.

Brown et all said "Fuck this shit, we're not defending it" and it fell upon the people who pushed for the amendment to defend it because the state refused to do so.


IIRC, the ability of the amendment's proponent to represent it in court came about thanks to Moonbeam intentionally tanking California's defense of Prop 187 because he and the states' Dims wanted to kill it

Except didn't the challenges to Prop 8 come about while the Governator was still there?  Its been so long I can't remember when it was passed and all this bullshit of deciding the people can't decide anything for themselves began.

I'm not trolling any of you, I just don't understand why some of you think he's being a poor sport. Just sayin'.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at June 26, 2013 11:16 AM (tWmgi)

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

He's been doing this for years, TOO. 

When it was revealed that Judge Vaughan Walker, who was the district court judge that struck down Prop 8 was a closeted homosexual who had been shacking up with a doctor  whom he wanted to marry?

No problem with that at all.

Now  he's tapdancing on  the death of the Will of the People in amending their own fucking constitution.  Passing control of the country to 5 of our robed masters is  just peachy with him, as long as he gets to play house.

Of course,  he and his gay friends will  find that it didn't bring  them the happiness they thought it would.  So it will be on to  the next attack - forcing churches  to marry them.  Forcing Catholic Charities out of the adoption business.

What he doesn't understand is that he still won't  be happy, even when he's succeeded in making   the rest of you miserable.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 26, 2013 11:23 AM (AmWlQ)

-

There are only two possible explanations.  One, their idiotic Keynesian model collapses, and there are food riots, or two, the productive members of society decide to stop subsidizing the takers.

On the upside.....think how great "Gay Divorce Court" will be on TV!  On a side note I'm off to check to see if my homeowners policy covers "Hell, Fire and Brimstone"

Posted by: FITP at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (yRroL)

Oh fuck off.  He doesn't have breeder hate.  He's a dishonest ass of a blogger, but you're just being a dipshit.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 26, 2013 10:07 AM (QzsP4)

In Europe, pastors go to jail for preaching against homosexuality since speaking against gay practices publicly falls under the EU's hate speech statutes. But, you say, that can't happen here because, you know, 1st Amendment. If anyone's been paying attention, the American Left loves them some hate speech legislation and--witness the fate of the maker of the famous YouTube video--believes the 1st Amendment should be narrowly defined to the point of inconsequential irrelevance.

But hey, look: I personally don't care what consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their homes. I really don't. I don't even get too worked up over gay marriage. Maybe it's a good thing for secular society to try to inculturate a notoriously promiscuous subculture into a monogamous tradition. Further, in an avowedly secular society, commited gay couples should be able to exercise certain legal rights common to traditional heterosexual marriages. That said, no Christian denomination should be coerced into recognizing gay marriages as any anything but counter to the teachings of the Church, whether Catholic or Protestant. (I exclude the Episcopalians from the category of 'Christian denomination' since, in my view, they stopped being Christians years ago.)

Bottom line: we live in a fallen world. The Devil runs this place. Only very rarely for the last 2000 years have the laws of earthly governments and the tenets of the Christian faith been in alignment. The natural state of affairs is one of antagonism and persecution. The whole idea of Christ on the Cross is anathema to everything worldly governments stand for and seek to achieve--which is, of course, the power of life and death over other men.

The Kingdom of God is within you. Seek it, but don't expect to vote it into temporal power on this earth. Stand up and speak out for what you believe and expect, in these times, to be martyred for it one way or the other. Pray.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (CJjw5)

This is the cold truth of the matter, this right here.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (f9c2L)

So you agree that this ruling has an adverse effect on State Rights?

Oh fuck off. He doesn't have breeder hate. He's a dishonest ass ofa blogger, but you're just being a dipshit. Posted by: buzzion

That is your opinion....which has just as much merit as the will of the people seems to have.

Posted by: troyriser at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (vtiE6)

o.O 

Sir, if ever I am in your home city, I will buy you and your entire family a steak dinner at the finest establishment in the town.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 26, 2013 11:25 AM (ZPrif)

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A and I encourage others not to eat at Chick-fil-A.* What I don't do is deny Chick-fil-A's right to do business with other folks. If these mayors had their way, they'd go so far as to deny Chick-fil-A's right to exist. That's oppression. That's wrong, and we should say so.

*I didn't have to think about it when I lived in L.A. because there was no Chick-fil-A nearby. I was aware of the company's charitable giving to activist groups opposed to gay marriage. So when I moved to D.C. near a Chick-fil-A, I decided not to eat there since I don't want to help fund such groups.

http://minx.cc/?post=331312

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (f9c2L)

He's talking about California. 

Posted by: chango butt at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (qQk+U)

Chicago this weekend and last weekend was "Pride FistingFest.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (f9c2L)

I think this is the extent of the ruling as it sits now.  No order needed.

What's going to get interesting is something like Medicaid, which is funded in part by the feds, but administered by the state.

Behold, the next frontier of battle.

Didn't that lying sphincter wait until the eleventh hour before announcing the state wouldn't defend it so those who acted in place of it had to scramble around with no time to cobble their arguments together?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (/PCJa)

-

Don't forget to throw in the abomination     references.

All this shit started in Massachsetts in 2003 in Goodrich v. Dept of Public Health,  where the Mass SC ruled 4-3  that they could not deny same-sex couples marriage licenses and gave the legislature 180 days to change the law.

That's where I would have made my stand.

FUCK YOU.  MAKE ME, you pieces of shit. 

Of course, we're talking  Massachusetts, so they bowed down like the bitches they are.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (f9c2L)

You're still missing the whole point of the court overturning the will of the people aren't you.

I  thought the hate for Gabe mostly arose of of his opinion of  Maritime  Law.  

(for newcomers  that was  his first foray into controversy at AOSHQ)

Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:29 AM (LRFds)

You need a better pastor.

My wife was an unbaptized agnostic.

Few pieces of paperwork and *presto* Catholic Marriage approved.

Maybe Bannion could explain what I signed my name to.

Soo... the Supremes will bow to the will of the States, on DOMA, but not the will of the PEOPLE on Prop 8..

how... nuanced...

The Right to Petition for Redress... is now gone...

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (XIxXP)

Actually...no.

And the church we got married in (mine) is in a fairly well off suburb, so it was actually cheaper to rent the church for the ceremony than anywhere else I could have done it. (It was like $150 or $125 or something.)

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (f9c2L)

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

1).  Suck a cock.

2).  I'm talking about Prop 8, jerkoff.  Did more  people  in California support gay marriage or oppose it when  they amended their constitution?

3).  See:  1).

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (f9c2L)

Then what do you think is going to get ugly?  Keep digging. 

Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (ZWvOb)

-

ISWYDT

Posted by: tsrblke at June 26, 2013 11:35 AM (GaqMa)

Both of my sister's were married in our Catholic Church.  Both to non-Catholics.  They didn't make it a full mass to make it less awkward for the grooms' sides but sitting around waiting as everyone on the other side went up for communion.

Posted by: Mr.KnowItAll at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (uJK1E)

Hey, you were off by less than 4%... If you are shooting for first, and don't get it, you'll be off by more than 100%

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 26, 2013 11:34 AM (f9c2L)

Is that your final answer? 

#541 For non-Cathlics, you may not understand the danger this poses to the Catholic Church.

Catholics cannot be considered married unless they are married in a Catholic ceremony by a priest in a Catholic Church.

So what do you think two gay Catholics will do, especially when urged by the activists in their movement?

Not technically true.

I got an annulment through the Catholic Church well over 20 years ago, when it still meant something.  My church lawyer told me the Church does not and cannot state that a marriage does not exist in the legal sense, which is why I had to get a civil divorce before they would touch my case.  Their concern was whether or not my marriage was sacramental in the eyes of the Church. 

It took over a year, including an appeal against the diocesan tribunal's decision by the Defender of the Bond of Marriage, but I got my annulment.

Posted by: Laquisha Largess at June 26, 2013 11:42 AM (R8X+X)

Watch out... Dem's likely to nominate a gay-lesbian female woman mother in 2016

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (6T8Ay)

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

Chi Town Jerry  slices like a fucking throw  pillow.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (fIUCx)

You're on. I live in Franklin, a very small Indiana town where the finest establishment is probably 'El Pueblo', this awesome little Mexican joint that has the best burritos ever made by man. There's also the Chinese Buffet off Hwy 31. Great sushi.

We're all very multicultural here: Mexicans, Chinese, rednecks...

It was a  gay and stormy  thread...

Posted by: The Chicken at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (Pr6hk)---------------

Don't forget Hispanic or, well....racist. that 'black' thing is so passé' ...next.

Da Bamstuh phoned from Air Force One--enroute to Africa, and blowing $100 million in taxpayer money out the jet exhausts, to congratulate those guys in California on the result.  He complimented them on their "leadership".

Well one thing that those guys know how to do is "lead from behind".

My son's first chaplain was Muslim (seriously). Would he be forced to perform gay marriages?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:46 AM (lVPtV)

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

Interesting.  Does he also conduct Christian services?

Posted by: Johnson Fapper at June 26, 2013 11:48 AM (lJDzu) -------------

Done. next.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (6T8Ay)

Maybe I need to dust off my  'Logical Fallacies For Sale'  sock.

It's been too long.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 26, 2013 11:46 AM (ZPrif)

Keeps gaining momentum and then WHAM!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 26, 2013 11:49 AM (CJjw5)

Yeah.  I found it weird, but son liked the guy.  He retired shortly after our kid arrived.  His current chaplain is Presbyterian.

Posted by: MoeRon at June 26, 2013 11:49 AM (yNBMs)

Hillary will be out by next year and then she really will be inevitable.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 26, 2013 11:51 AM (aDwsi)

But then you have to deal with the constant riots perpetrated by "Asian youths."

Posted by: RWC at June 26, 2013 11:48 AM (fWAjv

Shockingly I expect all gays in the military that want to get married will miraculously wait to come to that decision until after their Chaplain is not muslim.

My hit song "Like My Dog": folksy tune or ahead-of-the-curve progressive anthem?

I'm thinking more of the song "I'm   My Own Grampa."

Which, in light of this decision,  gives me an idea...

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:50 AM (wR+pz)

I'm sorry to hear that.
Also I find it odd she tired to have the marriage annulled anyway...

#650 I do not know what you are talking about.  Neither this ruling nor the original Prop 8 ruling in California touch the traditional marriage laws enacted lawfully in 31 other states, nor do they change a thing in states that have done nothing on this, such as Pennsylvania.  A challenge will be necessary in one of those states to get what the gay lobby wanted in the Prop 8 case, which is a Supreme Court ruling that all traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional.  Or, as I think may happen, California may now reverse itself and appeal the District Court ruling just so it can get the ruling it wants from the Ninth Cuircuit and get it back to SCOTUS next year.  Kamala Harris is ambitious enough that she might do it. 

Or, it's possible the gay lobby may quit while it's ahead here and stop litigating this.  There aren't any other "blue" states that have passed traditional marriage laws.  The states that have will surely defend them to the hilt in court, and there isn't a Circuit Court nearly asd liberal as the Ninth to get this to the SCOTUS.   California was their best shot. 

PA doesn't even have a civil union law, by the way.  And won't anytime soon. 

The first female homosexual manatee President? A triple threat of historicalicityness.

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

It's gettin' hot in herrrrrrrre.

Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:51 AM (LRFds)

Didn't know you were local, Esteban. And yes, a meetup is in order. We need to make it happen.

I didn't mention Montana Mike's because it's in Edinburgh, not Franklin, and the criterion was 'finest establishment in town'. Montana Mike's has awesome prime rib.

The silver lining albeit a small consolation. Now maybe they will SHUT THE FUCK UP! I never cared if you're ghey. I still think it's wrong period and no amount of legislation will change that, but if some dudes hairy ass does it for you, go for it. Now kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP and quit pretending you were akin to holocaust victims. Your victimhood status is hereby revoked.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 26, 2013 11:55 AM (6T8Ay)

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

Had to put my annulment on hold when I moved up here.  Would not have been fair  to ask my procurator to keep advocating for me from 1,300 miles away.

It's like I don't even know you! ::: sob :::

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

Gay.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 26, 2013 11:55 AM (6T8Ay)

My ex-husband was so angry.  He called the members of the tribunal, the defender of the bond, my lawyer/advocate trying to stop it, even though he was sent a letter saying there was nothing he could do. 

The wife-beating alcoholic jackass was powerless. 

And that made the annulment even sweeter.

The silver lining albeit a small consolation. Now maybe they will SHUT THE FUCK UP!

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

The chances of that are on a par with surviving a trip in a paper mache submarine.

Emboldened people don't stop.  They'll find a new cause du jour and keep on trucking.

Posted by: @JohnTant at June 26, 2013 11:06 AM (PFy0L)

Oh, I know.  Just as I know that everything I've posited has or will very soon happened.  I just want Gabe to either be intellectually honest and say, "yeah, if things  go cockeyed, I'll be on your side fighting," or  be  disingenous and whine that he never, ever expected or wanted this to happen!

Posted by: EC at June 26, 2013 11:58 AM (GQ8sn)

This.  Although I finally got the "FLAMING" skull joke, if you get my meaning.

The courts have been nullifying the California peoples attempts to save themselves for over twenty years. It is why I left.

The fix was in because the dictators in black robes might as well be gay mullahs. Lib fatwas are the rule.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 26, 2013 11:58 AM (CJjw5)

If my wife ever bolts on me, I'm hosed on this front. I actually have a few friends with connections on our tribunal, and I suspect they'd actually tank me out of some misguided sense of "caring." .

Teh ghey love the attention. They don't want tolerance they want acceptance, actually they want to be cheered on.

I don't give a shit one way or the other, go be ghey, I don't care. I am really tired of hearing about it.

STFU if you would like to be treated like everyone else. If your biggest issue in life is being gay that's your problem, not mine.

The more you push it in peoples faces the more pushback you will get.

Watching the action from in front of the Supreme Court...

No one is naked with peacock feathers sticking out of their ass, so at least the news is being handled with dignity.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 26, 2013 11:55 AM (6T8Ay)

You guys need to offer consulting to Jumbo Shrimp.  She's got a situation where I have suggested she needs to watch The Whole Nine Yards for a solution.  Which she still has not done.

750 Now maybe they will SHUT THE FUCK UP!

There a still new frontiers to be discovered and many species that have not been boned by a human. // Gay Capt' Kirk

Posted by: Ian S. at June 26, 2013 11:59 AM (B/VB5)

There was a court case going through California to cover a prisoner's "lopitoffamy" (to steal from EoJ term.)

That's bigger than it looks. Since prisoners have constitutionally protected health care, a lot of these fights start there.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:59 AM (lVPtV)

Ditto.   Today has been a complete shithole.

@750 Speaking of Nutroots Nation, EoJ if you're still here, the Horde will take up a collection to send you, Ace, and Iowahawk to next year's event. We'd kill for a nightly Bourboncast by you.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (lVPtV)

I am so down with this.

Posted by: Marcus at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (GGCsk)

This is, and always has been, my main objection to this equal protection farce.  Simply by defining almost any choice of behaviors that is not legal, you can make these same arguments. It is a bad legal path to follow.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2013 11:58 AM (wsGWu)

Done. And thanks for the number

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (lVPtV)

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

Technically, it would have to be a ZimaCast.  Or PabstBlueRibbonCast, or whatever it is that collection of  douchebags drink "ironically."

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 26, 2013 12:05 PM (6T8Ay)

Just like Georgetown, and a whole bunch of other places!

787 We need a thread with puppies and kitties. I'm in a shitty mood about everything.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:59 AM (lVPtV) ------------------

Can't we be legally married to them now? aaaaaawwwww......

Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 11:57 AM (PihNI)

Never. Like all of the victim groups they will always be oppressed by invisible forces. It will never end

Manslaughter wasn't enough to derail his political career, but it was big news. Also, he was never arrested (let alone tried or convicted), so the Blue Catholics were able to continue deluding themselves that "he didn't do it."

Not just that he didn't do it.  His Catholic faith allowed them to believe that he had    a way to      cleanse his sould of        his sins   through Confession and         penance.    Was it true?       Didn't matter.  All his supporters needed was that fig leaf of     piety to allow them to overlook his crimes,   not just at Chappaquiddick, but for his entire fucking career.

The more you push it in peoples faces the more pushback you will get. Posted by: The Jackhole at June 26, 2013 12:02 PM (nTgAI)

Faces?   well I guess that works... seriously though, they create their own bigotry. Then they say "see, bigots."

So, the Supremes just killed the Initiative process in California.

It was put in place to force Politicians to do the will of the people... but now if the Politicians don't defend it.... no one can.

We the people, have not Right of Redress according to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 12:10 PM (wR+pz)

Oh hells no.

 We never should have entrusted the issue of gay marriage to a bunch of guys who wear dresses.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 26, 2013 12:09 PM (XUKZU)

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

Oh, man.  It was right there in front of us the whole time, staring us in the face!

How  did we not pick up on that?

Posted by: teej at June 26, 2013 12:05 PM (M7Cfv)

Are you seriously advocating an AoS blog boycott? Why go to all the fuss and bother? If you don't like it here, why don't you start up one of your own?  People start blogs all the time. I understand even AllenG has one.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2013 12:10 PM ...............Yep. Why anyone uses evil google inc. is beyond me.

787 We need a thread with puppies and kitties. I'm in a shitty mood about everything. Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:59 AM (lVPtV) ------------------

I hear you, Jane.  Knowing this would be a bad day with the SCOTUS, I hugged and kissed my 2 Yorkie puppahs extra-special this morning before leaving. 

Is it pretty well the consensus of the Horde that the Federal Government is too far gone? That even if we could take back the Senate and the White House, too much damage has been done and SCOTUS wields too much power for anything meaningful to be saved?

Logic would dictate that anything the government has done, the government can undo. That'd be the peaceful   way to do it.

But, these days when logic  seems to have fled, I'm not  encouraged by that anymore. There are way too many brainwashed people for that to happen.

CDR Ripley was right.

Isn't it time for another immigration thread?

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 12:10 PM (wR+pz)