U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

[Chung Tran]

it would benefit us to realize that GLBT's and Confederate flags are not the enemy..

http://time.com/3937860/gary-hart-america-corruption/

those are issues to distract us from the bigger problem.. the loss of Democracy.

wonder why there are 14 announced Republican Presidential candidates already? all of them have major financial backers pushing agendas..

I'd like to see Gary Hart run and defeat all of them.. won't happen because he got a little pussy in 1987..

[Fawlty]

Excellent post NTX Reggie. A 65 year old co-worker confided in me with tears the struggle he had since early childhood trying to be "normal" when his body/mind was telling him differently.

A devout man who operated a Christian bookstore, he tried everything from hormone therapy and counseling to divine healing and exorcism. Taking a beating from some God fearing rednecks and his subsequent failed suicide attempt didn't deliver him either.

He finally came to the conclusion that a God worthy of worship wouldn't roast him over a fiery eternal pit when he created him that way in the first place.

The irony is that even though he and his partner may be able to legally marry in a "welcoming" church, he runs the risk of being sent to an early grave by the next crusading gunman trying to keep the "queers" from taking over the country.

[NTXReggie]

It amazes me when the simplest form of reasoning is overlooked in the name of bigotry and hatred.

Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay? In school, being gay or even appearing to be gay was a nightmare. Especially if you were a male. Locker room beatings. Merciless teasing. Even a seemingly loving family might turn on their own offspring for being gay. Why would you put yourself through that if it wasn't how you were? I cannot imagine ANYONE choosing to be gay and knowingly enduring what doing so would bring about.

In absence of absolute proof that homosexuality is part of one's genes, although there are clear markers that make this more than a theory, doesn't it make sense to look at this on the basest level? And that would be, if gay were a choice and not a condition of the DNA lottery, why would someone make that choice knowing that they would be ostracized, tormented, and even killed for that choice? Because they wanted to suck a dick? Hardly.

A good comparison that I make and actually has made some of my most conservative friends go hmmm: the whole Obama was not born in this country thing. Yes he was, the absolute proof has been provided. But until it was OR say it wasn't, do the Republicans really believe they would have even had a chance to use the "not born in America" card against him in the general election? Remember, his battle to the general election was far more contentious and a far tighter race against Hillary Clinton. Like her or hate her, and it is usually one or the other, you have to admit that she is a smart cookie. She wanted the presidency badly--like nothing else she probably ever wanted. She and Bill are politically minded, conniving, ruthless when need be, and are experienced enough in the ways of the political system that NOTHING would have slipped past them. If there was anything that would have turned the 2008 primary in her favor, it would have been fair game. Had Obama not been born in the US, the Clintons would have lept on that advantage like stink on shit, long before the Republicans ever had a chance to make such a claim.

Again, I use those examples to suggest logic and reasoning usually far exceeds the need for absolute proof on something. So I plead to everyone to keep such things in mind, especially in light of this ruling for "the gays." This is not a nefarious plot, the end of the world, a threat to your marriage, a slippery slope to forced gayness for all--it is just the way things are. Some girls like girls. Some boys like boys. Some like both. I happen to like the ones with holes and not poles. Life is too short to be hating or excluding anyone because they happen to be different in this way. Don't we have bigger issues to address than worrying that gay people are getting a chance to be just as unhappily married as the straight people!!! LOL

[Guest092216]

Originally Posted by mediavolume

What if....... the govt didnt give special treatment to married people. Or require proof for insurance etc. Then gay people wouldnt be seeking marriage.
i am neither a gay or a religious person but i can see who is causing the problem and its neither of those two groups. Its the govt. Same with women suffrage and black rights.

Same will be true for escorts, drugs, and more.

Its the government's duty to protect the rights of the people and they did. Church and state were still seperate the last time I checked. I understand the religious side of the argument, but I think the religious side misunderstands the government's role here. Unless we want to rewrite every legal document to include a euphemism for same sex unions then "marriage" it is.

Incidentally, the bible also says very explicitly "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil". Well, I don't see anyone in the US shying away from making as much money as they can.

Gay marriage is just another one of these hot button, wag the dog "issues" that keep the sheep distracted so the puppeteers can work in peace.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by doug_dfw

Yep destroying is your mantra. No balls to create wealth for others and self. Just take from others for self. Protect the guilty- stomp on victims. Spit on the trodden. Yep a good week for a Democrat.

Really? Tim Cook is the leader of the most valuable company in the world, is gay, is a Democrat, and the company he heads has created more wealth than any other company in America. I could go on, but you either get that your point was stupid, or you never will.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by mediavolume

THN... what it does do is create the never ending subsequent legal actions to follow. Polygamy is probably next, then some sort of animal marriage.

Also, lawsuits against churches not wanting to reside over these marriages.

If the govt would leave us alone this shit wouldnt happen.

That is why no one is really for marriage equality, just their own limited version of it.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Really? Tim Cook is the leader of the most valuable company in the world, is gay, is a Democrat, and the company he heads has created more wealth than any other company in America. I could go on, but you either get that your point was stupid, or you never will.

These nit wit RWNJ have no idea. They think that the only people who run businesses are Republicans. They think that the only people who vote for Democrats are welfare recipients. Of course, they don't know people who run and found businesses. They don't meet corporate leaders and know that their political views run the gamut. They apparently never stop to think where the 100's of millions of dollars in political contributions to Democratic candidates come from. (Just imagine the number of welfare recipients who contribute the statutory max of $ $33,400 to the DSCC and the DCCC. Standing around the pool at the Four Seasons. Noshing on stuffed mushroom and drinking champagne, talking about the best way to extend their food stamp money.)

[mediavolume]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

These nit wit RWNJ have no idea. They think that the only people who run businesses are Republicans. They think that the only people who vote for Democrats are welfare recipients. Of course, they don't know people who run and found businesses. They don't meet corporate leaders and know that their political views run the gamut. They apparently never stop to think where the 100's of millions of dollars in political contributions to Democratic candidates come from. (Just imagine the number of welfare recipients who contribute the statutory max of $ $33,400 to the DSCC and the DCCC. Standing around the pool at the Four Seasons. Noshing on stuffed mushroom and drinking champagne, talking about the best way to extend their food stamp money.)

Lol i have met plenty... most are too scared of audits to say they are republican because the Democrats use the as a weapon.
but i do agree that a lot of republicans think they are the only job creating class. Just like the democrats that think they are the only ones for the little guy.

Truth is we are all segmented because of shitty laws purposefully segmenting us.

[Prolongus]

Looks like some county clerks in Texas are going to refuse marriage applications from gays on "religious grounds". Did I get this news correctly and if so, when in the flying fuck did religious beliefs supersede upholding the law? Or has separation of church and state vanished?

[Fawlty]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Looks like some county clerks in Texas are going to refuse marriage applications from gays on "religious grounds". Did I get this news correctly and if so, when in the flying fuck did religious beliefs supersede upholding the law? Or has separation of church and state vanished?

On "religious grounds" I'm going to demand that those clerks be sent to the unemployment lines and to their churches for financial assistance.

[bojulay]

Secularism is a religion, properly understood.

It is the perfect marriage between church and state,
because few realize that fact. Totalitarian in spirit
as well.

[Guest092216]

So have the Catholic county clerks denied giving marriage licenses to divorcees or is this religious opposition thing just to same sex marriages?

[jdkees]

Originally Posted by doug_dfw

Still don't understand fucking your gender. Ugh. Partnering with on top of that- whaaaaaaat? Rome went this way. Oh tell me, where is Rome today? Ohhh yes no one reads history today. The Liberals rewrite it. It's now the new USA.

Holy shit this has got to be one of the most supremely ridiculous and magnificently ignorant comments that I've had the pleasure to read on this topic so far.

Here's a history lesson, folks: The Roman Empire lasted for almost 1500 years in total, though it did vary in size and borders shifted plenty. But the point is that people who talk about the "fall" of the Roman Empire sound completely clueless to those of us who have actually studied the history beyond the misleading stuff you get in grade school. All you're doing when you talk about the "fall" of Rome like this is let anyone who has studied the subject know that you have a 6th grade level understanding of history.

Originally Posted by mediavolume

THN... what it does do is create the never ending subsequent legal actions to follow. Polygamy is probably next, then some sort of animal marriage.

Also, lawsuits against churches not wanting to reside over these marriages.

If the govt would leave us alone this shit wouldnt happen.

Funny, that's what they said when my aunt and uncle got married (interracial couple). Strange how in the 45 years since the country hasn't resorted to people marrying animals.

But please, keep playing the martyr using the same arguments old racists made when I was a kid. It's fascinating to see how we as a culture recycle such hate.

Here's another history lesson, though: Marriage has always been a legal issue. It used to be a legal issue of ownership (land, dowry, wife-people), and then it became a legal issue of inheritance and contract (arranged marriages, tracts of land, etc.). This always involved a governing body (meaning government). Yes, there was a time between 1200 and 1600 years ago when the "governing body" was primarily made of of a mix between the very rich landed folk (lords) and the Catholic Church, but let's keep in mind that even back then folks ranging from Constantine to Charlemagne to even (much) later Napoleon all overrode the RCC when they felt like it (or had the Pope bend the rules in their favor). The point is that marriage has never, ever been the domain of any religion without the legal sanction of the government. Whining about it is just pining for a time that never existed.

But please, folks, don't let facts get in the way. I have yet to see facts play much of a role in this whole debate so far and doubt that's going to change much in the near future. It's just funny watching you all pretend that this argument is about anything other that "that's wrong because they should live by MY religious beliefs" in the first place. That would be like arguing that I shouldn't eat pork or shellfish because there are Jewish and Muslim people who live in the same country... oh wait, they're the "wrong" religion so it's okay to ignore their beliefs, right? And we don't have to maintain a near vegetarian diet even though there are Sikhs who live in the US, because they're just around to be mistaken for Muslims, amirite?

Yeah, guys, sell me on the religious freedom argument when you begin giving anyone but Christians the position of supremacy to tell everyone else what is or isn't allowed. Until then I see very little difference between your religious supremacy arguments and the stances from countries like Saudi Arabia on the subject. It's not about liberal or conservative BS to me, though I find that fake dividing line funny as well (even have a history lesson on that, but I digressed enough). It's about the fact that there's so much hypocrisy in the moral arguments on topics like this that it makes the entire country look like a bunch of idiot bullies who use things like faith as a bludgeon instead of as a social glue.

[bojulay]

Nice history lesson.

Now please explain to us why an un-elected, politically appointed
group of judiciary officials, politically appointed for life, have been
given the right to make laws based on a belief in an "evolving constitution"

That would be an interpretation of the constitution that is subject to the
whims of modern social and political thought and movements, and not
based on the ideas or intent of the original founders of the constitution.

And then call that constitutional.

That is actually a trick question.
You can't, because it's not.

A republic is governed by the law (the constitution) and it has been
given over to a group of politically motivated, unaccountable, politically
appointed officials. To have their own agenda biased interpretations established
as law.

Basically the same thing as a theocracy, and totalitarian at it's heart.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by bojulay

an un-elected, politically appointed
group of judiciary officials, politically appointed for life, have been
given the right to make laws

not only that, but they are all old and hate sex.. any kind of sex.. and none of them get any pussy (or dick, regarding Sotomayor and Ginsburg)..

you no playeth the game, you no maketh the rules..