Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Wat the Tyler]

Will Obama bring up the gay marriage Supreme Court case at his State of the union speech?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
My mistake. Make that sixty-six. I forgot about your dad.

Maybe let your straight man JizmBird58 be the comedian of your team for a while. He's funnier when he gets mad.

[Perp Walk]

GOP trash in congress forment disharmony, they all should be taken out in handcuffs and made to do the perp walk in front of tghe camera's.

A Republican congressman says he's invited rocker Ted Nugent, who has referred to President Barack Obama's administration as "evil, America-hating," to the State of the Union address.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas said Monday on his website that Nugent will be his guest for the president's speech Tuesday night. Stockman has talked of impeaching Obama over his gun-control proposals.

In a speech to the National Rifle Association during the 2012 campaign, Nugent said that if Obama were re-elected, the longtime gun-control opponent would either be "dead or in jail."

Nugent's remarks led to meetings with representatives of the Secret Service.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez said another guest would be Gabino Sanchez of South Carolina. Gutierrez described Sanchez as a husband, father and an illegal immigrant fighting deportation.

[Happy Anniversary 1913]

Liberalism itself has been ruining this nation inside and out since the hippy movement. What it is that has been lacking over time and playing itself out here in America for many many years and that is there are literally ZERO people within our governing process that adheres to or promotes the principles of morality and common sense anymore.
It is astonishing of how lacking of such virtues can bring a county, a state, and a nation to the day of reckoning. Now that liberals have another four years and absolutely NOTHING planned to benefit ALL citizens will we see a serious downturn here and abroad and all you will hear and see is fingerpointing from a man that never held a job in the private sector. This President has no plan.

Goodbye Rome

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe let your straight man JizmBird58 be the comedian of your team for a while. He's funnier when he gets mad.

Really why you mad, If you want to be a Coc*k hound go for it.

[Pietro Armando]

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthought...

A Question for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:11 AM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz

There’s a delicious ending to Matt Franck’s piece at Public Discourse today. An advocate of same-sex marriage ridicules appeals to the definition of marriage and to tradition by same-sex marriage skeptics, only to make the same appeals when faced with the question of polygamy:

[Lambda Legal attorney Hayley Gorenberg] had begun, in her prepared remarks, by calling on a standard of “rights” that cannot be defeated by appeals to “tradition.” And she had mocked judges who, in the early decisions on the case for same-sex marriage, had simply turned to a dictionary definition of marriage.

Yet, in her response to my point about plural marriages, Gorenberg herself turned immediately to tradition and to received definitions. Marriage just is a “binary institution,” she asserted, and changing that fact would entail all sorts of inconveniences.(The historic existence of polygamy in many places is proof that these inconveniences are not insurmountable, but this did not slow her down.)

Why mere tradition was now owed such automatic allegiance, she did not pause to explain. Now the prospect of altering a “whole raft of laws” associated with marriage filled her with horror and incredulity. She seemed quite oblivious of the fact that she was making my argument for me. Where was her concern about changing all the details and complexities of a forest of family law planted thick with assumptions about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, always of opposite sexes?

Same-sex marriage advocates like Gorenberg are guilty of precisely the sin they accuse SSM skeptics of—arbitrary, non-principled exclusion of certain persons from marriage.(Agree or disagree with their principles, the skeptics have offered principled reasons for limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex.)

The question I have for SSM advocates is this: Do you support polygamy (and just don’t want the public to know) or do you deny that there’s any irony in your incomplete marriage revisionism?

[GOP trashers]

GOP trash in congress forment disharmony, they all should be taken out in handcuffs and made to do the perp walk in front of tghe camera's.

A Republican congressman says he's invited rocker Ted Nugent, who has referred to President Barack Obama's administration as "evil, America-hating," to the State of the Union address.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas said Monday on his website that Nugent will be his guest for the president's speech Tuesday night.

Stockman has talked of impeaching Obama over his gun-control proposals.

Like most if not all Texans - they are stupid and dumb as rocks. Remember these pieces of trash from Texas decalred WAR on the United States of America and killed American citizens and solders.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe let your straight man JizmBird58 be the comedian of your team for a while. He's funnier when he gets mad.

I thnk I am gonna have a kegger, Don't mind the extra traffic in yer head.

[Rose_NoHo]

Happy Anniversary 1913 wrote:

Liberalism itself has been ruining this nation inside and out since the hippy movement. What it is that has been lacking over time and playing itself out here in America for many many years and that is there are literally ZERO people within our governing process that adheres to or promotes the principles of morality and common sense anymore.
It is astonishing of how lacking of such virtues can bring a county, a state, and a nation to the day of reckoning. Now that liberals have another four years and absolutely NOTHING planned to benefit ALL citizens will we see a serious downturn here and abroad and all you will hear and see is fingerpointing from a man that never held a job in the private sector. This President has no plan.
Goodbye Rome

You are a typical con dumb, so you won't haven an answer. You just parrot the right wing lines.
But here we go:
When were our morals better, and what made them better?

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

http://www.firstthings.com/blo gs/firstthoughts/2011/12/15/a- question-for-same-sex-marriage -advocates/
A Question for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:11 AM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz
There’s a delicious ending to Matt Franck’s piece at Public Discourse today. An advocate of same-sex marriage ridicules appeals to the definition of marriage and to tradition by same-sex marriage skeptics, only to make the same appeals when faced with the question of polygamy:
...

Start a forum about polygamy.

[Kim Moreno Parishioner]

AMEN

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a typical con dumb, so you won't haven an answer. You just parrot the right wing lines.
But here we go:
When were our morals better, and what made them better?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Start a forum about polygamy.

No. This is a perfectly good thread marriage equality thread.

[Dusty Mangina]

Pietro Armando wrote:

http://www.firstthings.com/blo gs/firstthoughts/2011/12/15/a- question-for-same-sex-marriage -advocates/
A Question for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:11 AM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz
There’s a delicious ending to Matt Franck’s piece at Public Discourse today. An advocate of same-sex marriage ridicules appeals to the definition of marriage and to tradition by same-sex marriage skeptics, only to make the same appeals when faced with the question of polygamy:
[Lambda Legal attorney Hayley Gorenberg] had begun, in her prepared remarks, by calling on a standard of “rights” that cannot be defeated by appeals to “tradition.” And she had mocked judges who, in the early decisions on the case for same-sex marriage, had simply turned to a dictionary definition of marriage.
Yet, in her response to my point about plural marriages, Gorenberg herself turned immediately to tradition and to received definitions. Marriage just is a “binary institution,” she asserted, and changing that fact would entail all sorts of inconveniences.(The historic existence of polygamy in many places is proof that these inconveniences are not insurmountable, but this did not slow her down.)
Why mere tradition was now owed such automatic allegiance, she did not pause to explain. Now the prospect of altering a “whole raft of laws” associated with marriage filled her with horror and incredulity. She seemed quite oblivious of the fact that she was making my argument for me. Where was her concern about changing all the details and complexities of a forest of family law planted thick with assumptions about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, always of opposite sexes?
Same-sex marriage advocates like Gorenberg are guilty of precisely the sin they accuse SSM skeptics of—arbitrary, non-principled exclusion of certain persons from marriage.(Agree or disagree with their principles, the skeptics have offered principled reasons for limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex.)
The question I have for SSM advocates is this: Do you support polygamy (and just don’t want the public to know) or do you deny that there’s any irony in your incomplete marriage revisionism?

Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.

Marry 15 women for all I care.

In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.

[Hot gassers]

Blow it out your catalitic converter.

[Pietro Armando]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry 15 women for all I care.
In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.

Wowwwwwwww......my my...oh the hyprocracy! Oh I get it, marriage equality only goes as far as the rainbow clubhouse door. Do ya hear that? It sounds like someone knocking.....let's go see who it is.....why it's the Brown family. Well come on in...there's plenty of room in the marriage equality movement.

See.....that didn't hurt a bit.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry 15 women for all I care.
In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.

Seriously, who gives a mangina about same sex marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry a man for all I care.
In the meantime, Polygamy has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the individuals involved.

[Frankie RIzzo]

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Wowwwwwwww......my my...oh the hyprocracy! Oh I get it, marriage equality only goes as far as the rainbow clubhouse door. Do ya hear that? It sounds like someone knocking.....let's go see who it is.....why it's the Brown family. Well come on in...there's plenty of room in the marriage equality movement.
See.....that didn't hurt a bit.

It seems same sex marriage advocates think there is only so much marriage equality to go around. And they want all of it! Which of course is not equality at all.

[Raggers]

Non will be needed from now on, the record is just fine as is.