United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Now that Butt pirates can get married, Its Time to Legalize Polygamy
Source:
Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st ... ygamy-119469.html#.VY6ebEb3-hY
Published: Jun 27, 2015
Author: FREDRIK DEBOER
Post Date: 2015-06-27 09:06:04 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 7312
Comments: 64
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.” The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it. This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago. Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently. That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage. In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords? Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right. Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change. The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so. READ MORE On The Bench Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe By BARNEY FRANK Primary Source It Is Accomplished By ANDREW SULLIVAN The Big Idea Gay Marriages Are Better Than Straight Ones By EMILY ESFAHANI SMITH But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying. To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does. While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy. *** Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
just to correct the discussion - because the govt grants tax benefits to married hetero couples via marriage which do not extend to gay pairings this allowed for a charge of unequal treatment under the law. That is the basis of the whole argument. If you are trying to use polygamy to ban gay marriage then the argument fails because polygamy is still banned.
Homosexuality is not the only sexual perversion. If marriage is going to be defined by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment -- sexual preferences aside -- then that opens up a Pandora's Box of demands for marriage equality. Incest, for one. Another is child brides (for Muslims). Immigrants will insist on marriages defined by their country of origin.
I think civil unions largely gave them the same benefits, but I can't say I believe in that either. Why are we legitimizing gross perversions? The slippery slope has begun. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
At one time, states required citizens to be 21 to vote. Some states didn't allow women to vote. Certainly that's unequal treatment. Those inequalities, however, were rectified by constitutional amendments, not 5 justices -- despite the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which was in effect at the time. But that was an era where we abided by the rule of law, not the rule of man.
Why are we legitimizing gross perversions? The slippery slope has begun. Civil Unions would have been the way to go but the social conservative wing of the GOP wanted to make sure that no granting of any rights to gay couples was the norm and those absolutist idiots cost the GOP and the nation greatly now - including that stupid nonsense of changing the constitution to ban gay marriage which I think had the opposite effect of turning people against the GOP. Also, the civil unions the GOP talked about were not granted the same rights as a married couple when it came to many benefits like Social Security, etc. If Civil Unions were supported early on in the Clinton admin then this would not be an issue any longer. After that my legal knowledge gets fuzzy. This gay marriage is an affront to dignity but it's too late and we lost.
Those inequalities, however, were rectified by constitutional amendments, not 5 justices -- despite the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which was in effect at the time. But that was an era where we abided by the rule of law, not the rule of man. I am just stating what the rationale was for granting marriage rights to gays. I don't know if that was the basis for the SC decision but it was the basis for lower court decisions. Someone who knows the law better can speak on it.
Kinda makes you wonder how the Muzzys are gonna react to this since they can't stand homos? “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Who gives a shit if Mjuslims kill faggots. The problem is when Muslims kill normal people.
So now married heterosexuals get tax breaks and married homosexuals get tax breaks. Does that mean the equal protection clause is satisfied? If a brother and sister are living together, why don't they get a tax break? Are you saying they have to be married to get that? But that's not allowed. Wait! The Equal Protection Clause demands that we allow incestual marriages in order for this brother and sister to get a tax break. Right?
Well, it isn't going to make them like us more. Great Satan, and all. Certainly living up (down) to that standard. BUT, when we tell them the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment allows them to take child brides, they may soften their stance.
Tax breaks for heterosexual married couples were granted because our society wanted to encourage heterosexual marriages -- for obvious reasons. Our society is not interested in encouraging any other type of marriage. We've had centuries to do so, but chose not to. Now the court has forced us to do so. Nationwide. How well is that going to work? I'm guessing it will go as smoothly as abortion. Or affirmative action. Or Title IX.
My guess is they already do that and a reason you see "family honor" killings when the girl gets old enough to rat him out. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Actually both belong in the same loony bin together. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
My guess is they already do that and a reason you see "family honor" killings when the girl gets old enough to rat him out. Yup. But there's already that reality existing in the New Brave World of this Sharia-friendly pseudo-Republic. Imagine the extent within 10-20 years?? How close are we to the year 7510?? (Btw, the 3rd frame is a Muzzie "chastening" his chattel....er...I mean woman.)
If it wasn't for Sharia law they would just be another dying off minority in the world. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Oops...
I meant here in Amerika Hondo I already knew how they treat them in the ME, remember I used to remind homo san of that...
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building But you can still get ISIS flags on Amazon and ebay....hmmmm. If ISIS had tossed 9 off instead of just 4, then would Amazon and ebay decide to ban the ISIS flag....maybe?
Aaah, yes...but satan needs his Army, (or one of them anyway), doesn't he? This bane of humanity was beaten and isolated in the sands of the Middle East...a benign retrograde force since the Ottoman Empire was at last destroyed...until the God-less elites and bankers of the West from WWI on decided to bankroll the Muzzie oil fields and enrich them with wealth and power for the last hundred years. And here we are in the 21st century, within the last 25 years feeding the brutal Muzzie/Sharia monster HERE in the USA, while persecuting Christians. The elites and bankers knew well that these satanic seeds that would eventually sprout, come to fruition, displace the Protestant ethic, and aid their New World Order/One World Government.
I can't believe it! After this, ALL Yahoo/Gay-hoo News outlets, HuffPo, LBGT Twits, Twitter, Instagram, the MSM, and the 0blabla Admin are in a frenzy of outrage, aghast at this news! ALL Muslims are being called "bigots," "murderers," and "intolerant!" ALL Crescent and Moon flags and symbols are being recalled by Amazon and Walmart! (*oh, wait. NOT true. Never mind*)
On WHAT planet have you been living? Have you access to a history book NOT published within the last 5 years or so? Lol -- are you being a cartoon character for affect, or have you your doctorate from Loony Toons U.? THE definition of "marriage" and "norm" IS and has been between a MAN and WOMEN...forever. The trouble with you and your fellow moral relativists is that in your perverse minds, ONLY gray exists. Absolute "Right" and Wrong" don't. Apparently you've bought into the "NO ABSOLUTES EXIST" lie, straight from Satan himself. That should worry you a lot more than being a foot soldier in this pro-sodomy crusade. When you approach The Almighty's bench, you can tell Him what an "absolutist idiot" He is. I'm sure that convo will go well. ...Stupid nonsense of changing the constitution to ban gay marriage which I think had the opposite effect of turning people against the GOP. Just because you've heard the term "gay marriage" repeated 24/7 ad nauseum for the past couple of years, does NOT mean such a "right" or thing exists. Historically, constitutional or otherwise. It's NEVER existed within ANY society. EVER. You are undoubtedly one of the most pliable, easily influenced pods at this forum. Accepted by many typical brainwashed teens and college-ages pods, YOU have NO excuse as a man who should have grown in wisdom. You've bought into EVERY fake meme trotted out by Yahoo News, HuffPo, MSNBC, Jon Stewart and Salon. It's pathetic. If Civil Unions were supported early on in the Clinton admin then this would not be an issue any longer. After that my legal knowledge gets fuzzy. LOL...Chyeah, right. As though the Homo-Express would have stop RIGHT THERE. You're mind is "fuzzy" alright -- from 20 years of propaganda. Your kind of naivete and historical revisionism is so....precious. This gay marriage is an affront to dignity but it's too late and we lost. Who is this "we," Kemosabe?? Your worldview -- and teaching children that sodomy = love = "dignified" is an affront to all that is sane, decent, natural, and dignified. God is NOT amused (for what that's worth to you.)
They have. There is no stopping anything from marrying something. As Justice Scalia said once the door is open there is no stopping it! America has become the joke of the world under Obama! Yes its been a long time coming.
Ireland beat Obama to the punch. Obama is a manifestation, if not a product, of the symptoms, he is not the problem per se. Nor are gays for that matter. Are the existence of gays to be denied? Ignored? Are the the scourge of the Earth? Are they to be denied rights that are afforded to straights solely because of sexual orientation? Of course not. In this case the problem is not gays but how the public institutions choose to deal with the issue. All state sanctioned and recognized "mariages" are first and foremost civil unions. It is only religious institutions that afix special spiritual meaning and signficance to marriage. Basically the State (including the Fed) should permit and recognize a civil union to all that wish to enter into one and leave the term marriage to those that confer more than a secular meaning to that word. Alternatively, if we cannot reserve the M word solely for ceremonies performed by religious institutions within the context of the respective religion, the religious institutions should abandon the word marriage for its ceremony and call it something else, such as Holy Union. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
For his outspokenness on both the SC's gay marriage joke and 0blablaCare debacle, Scalia is being skewered 24/7 by Leftist propaganda outlets Yahoo News, HuffPo, Salon, and the usual Queer Nation suspects. Scalia loves it and won't ever back down. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito can't stop the ship from sinking alone. Dubya's appointment of the sodomite Roberts screwed us, while Reagan's appointment of Kennedy (highly recommended by his staff of reptilian socialist/globalists) was ringer from Day One.
Good thing you're not my doctor: "Liberator, your cancer is not the problem; it's that fatty burger and fries you ate back in 1981. Oh...and sitting in the sun on the beach all day back in '74." 0blabla may not be THE problem, but he IS a huge problem. He's despised America *before* he was elected Puppet-in-Chief. This was THE perfect cancer to implant within the body of our government, our nation. Has he had a lot of help? You bet. One man can not destroy this nation alone. Riding shotgun with him were BOTH Bushes and the Klintoons. Amongst thousand of others. Nor are gays for that matter [a problem.] In as much as they are passive OR militant? You can't have it both ways. Next you'll be telling us Muslims "aren't the problem"; "Criminals aren't the problem." Then just WTH *is* the problem, Yoda?? Let me tell you: The cowardly inability or reticence in calling evil "EVIL." If I give you the benefit of doubt, call it "Brainwashing." Are the existence of gays to be denied? Ignored? Are the the scourge of the Earth? Are they to be denied rights that are afforded to straights solely because of sexual orientation? Of course not. In this case the problem is not gays but how the public institutions choose to deal with the issue. How can gays existence be ignored when my Yahoo News page indicates on a daily basis that at least HALF the nation are sodomites (the other half white "racists and homophobes"?) When gays infringe upon MY constitutional rights and demand special rights, they ARE a problem, Magoo. When THEY start assaulting my rights to earn a living, frivolously sue me, teach sodomy to children, teach our children about "gay marriage," (NOT EVER A "Right"), corrupt pop culture with homo-suggestive trash, target conservative Christians for abuse, harassment, and slander...YES, they ARE a scourge, you blithering, clueless, bent-over ignoramus. It is only religious institutions that afix special spiritual meaning and signficance to marriage. Not altogether true, Stooge. But then again, you've just inadvertently proven why Christianity is the de facto sworn enemy of the Left, homos, and subversives. Pick a side. There IS no compromise (oh wait -- you have already, haven't you?) Basically the State (including the Fed) should permit and recognize a civil union to all that wish to enter into one and leave the term marriage to those that confer more than a secular meaning to that word. WHY must the definitions of marriage, its tradition and heritage of America AND civilization with respect to marriage be compromised?? To appease the rebellious and appeased, Sir Neville? Why is THIS issue a constitutional "right"?? This flies in the face of the Founders intent -- and don't try and tell me the Founders endorsed or would have sanctioned homosexuality's legitimacy. It remains a mental illness and perversion -- even if you deny swallowing the Koolade by the pink keg. Alternatively, if we cannot reserve the M word solely for ceremonies performed by religious institutions within the context of the respective religion, the religious institutions should abandon the word marriage for its ceremony and call it something else, such as Holy Union. To you and your "enlightened" social surrender-monkeys: GET BENT and establish your own country and warped moral relativist society and eff IT up.
To each their own. Do as you will in your privacy but in public you must conduct yourself in some respect. Sexual perversion is and has always been a mental disease. To make it anything more than a mental disease is wrong and destructive to society. Marriage was made to be between one man and one women for the betterment of society as a whole. Now its just a dirty perverse joke! Progressives have done what no other country could ever do! Destroy America from within!
Gay marriage has been legal since 2004. In those 11 years, only 2% of gays applied for a license. How many are still married is unknown. I'd guess half. So, we have turned the institution of marriage on it's head for 1% of 2% of the adult population.
Thats progressives for you. You would think half the nation were homosexuals! Progressives are the most dangerous people in the world. They don't need to cut your head off they just enact laws and have you put in jail for life while your kids are raised to believe 2 daddies and man child love is good! How did we ever get to the point where I despise my own country so much!!!!! Can we kick Obama out and get Putin in instead?
;)
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
By BARNEY FRANK Barney Frank is a cum guzzling anal monkey... who's gayer than AIDS. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Aaah, yes...but satan needs his Army, (or one of them anyway), doesn't he? His most destructive army seems to be in the positions of power in countries around the globe. I don't think most people realize if there were 50,000 fewer people in this world it would be a much better place. They are giving up because they think the problem extends into the millions and they can't be removed. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Uranus. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
To him morals are optional.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
With each passing day, I come to see why the Muslims hate us. "They don't need to cut your head off they just enact laws" The courts are doing the heavy lifting for the homosexuals. They talk about 36 states already legalizing same-sex marriage, making it seem like nationwide same-sex marriage is a fait accompli. What they leave out is that half those states were forced by the district courts to legalize it. In reality, voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. They were overruled. Like abortion - also forced on us by the court -- gay marriage will continue to be a contentious and dividing issue for a long time.
Had the decision been made by the people, maybe. But, like abortion, the decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court and forced upon all 50 states. It's been 42 years. Is the abortion issue settled? No longer debated?
Because the Transhumanist L.I.F.E.R. progressive elites know there aren't enough resources to turn everybody into an Ubermensch. www.google.com/search?q=Transhumanist Legitimizing perversion is part of the methodology that prevents competition for resources from arising within the proles in the lower echelons of the caste system. The same reason "everybody gets a ribbon" now at track and field day... and all children learn to (are taught to) FAIL. This is what happens when a bunch of drunken pussies WHO CAN'T DO FARM WORK take over the farm house.
Your right it is a divisive point the progressives use to get people to act. If you on the Godly side you are a traitor and if you are on their side you are a martyr for the cause of perversion of nature. I think the political right likes this because it gives then more power because you are force to vote for them or you get more people like Obama in division. The only people to suffer are good people.
... they didn't have to risk their political careers by voting on a contentious issue. They can say, "Hey. The court took it out of our hands."
They also like it because they give the excuse of we need more help so you have to reelect me and get more moderate pubs to help me because we don't want any radical right guys. They just mockup the issues!
Reagan legalized abortion as gov of California before Roe V Wade. The solution is to minimize the need for an abortion rather than an outright banning which is impossible.
Comments (42 - 64) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#3. To: Pericles (#1)
just to correct the discussion - because the govt grants tax benefits to married hetero couples via marriage which do not extend to gay pairings this allowed for a charge of unequal treatment under the law.
#4. To: Pericles (#1)
"because the govt grants tax benefits to married hetero couples via marriage which do not extend to gay pairings this allowed for a charge of unequal treatment under the law."
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
(Edited)
I think civil unions largely gave them the same benefits, but I can't say I believe in that either.
#6. To: misterwhite (#4)
At one time, states required citizens to be 21 to vote. Some states didn't allow women to vote. Certainly that's unequal treatment.
#7. To: misterwhite, redleghunter, Liberator (#2)
(for Muslims).
#8. To: CZ82 (#7)
Kinda makes you wonder how the Muzzys are gonna react to this since they can't stand homos?
#9. To: Pericles (#6)
"I am just stating what the rationale was for granting marriage rights to gays."
#10. To: CZ82 (#7)
"Kinda makes you wonder how the Muzzys are gonna react to this since they can't stand homos?"
#11. To: Pericles (#5)
#12. To: misterwhite, redleghunter, Liberator (#10)
allows them to take child brides
#13. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Muslims kill faggots.
#14. To: CZ82, misterwhite, redleghunter (#12)
(allows them to take child brides)
#15. To: Liberator (#14)
(Btw, the 3rd frame is a Muzzie "chastening" his chattel....er...I mean woman.)
#16. To: CZ82, A K A Stone, misterwhite, redleghunter, Liberator (#7)
wonder how the Muzzys are gonna react to this since they can't stand homos?
ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building
#17. To: hondo68 (#16)
(Edited)
#18. To: hondo68 (#16)
#19. To: hondo68 (#16)
#20. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#15)
If it wasn't for Sharia law they would just be another dying off minority in the world.
#21. To: hondo68, CZ82, A K A Stone, misterwhite, redleghunter (#16)
ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building
#22. To: Pericles (#5)
Civil Unions would have been the way to go but the social conservative wing of the GOP wanted to make sure that no granting of any rights to gay couples was the norm and those absolutist idiots cost the GOP and the nation greatly now...
#23. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Now that Butt pirates can get married, It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
#24. To: Justified, All (#23)
America has become the joke of the world under Obama! Yes its been a long time coming.
#25. To: Justified (#23)
As Justice Scalia said once the door is open there is no stopping it!
#26. To: SOSO (#24)
0buma is a manifestation, if not a product, of the symptoms, he is not the problem per se.
#27. To: SOSO (#24)
#28. To: Justified (#27)
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
So, we have turned the institution of marriage on it's head for 1% of 2% of the adult population.
#30. To: Liberator (#21)
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
On The Bench Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe
#32. To: Liberator (#20)
If it wasn't for Sharia law they would just be another dying off minority in the world.
#33. To: Liberator (#22)
On WHAT planet have you been living?
#34. To: Liberator (#26)
#35. To: Justified (#29)
(Edited)
"How did we ever get to the point where I despise my own country so much!!!!!"
#36. To: Pericles (#5)
"This gay marriage is an affront to dignity but it's too late and we lost."
#37. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
(Edited)
Why are we legitimizing gross perversions?
#38. To: misterwhite (#35)
Like abortion - also forced on us by the court -- gay marriage will continue to be a contentious and dividing issue for a long time.
#39. To: Justified (#38)
"I think the political right likes this because ..."
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
.. they didn't have to risk their political careers by voting on a contentious issue. They can say, "Hey. The court took it out of our hands."
#41. To: misterwhite (#36)
It's been 42 years. Is the abortion issue settled? No longer debated?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]