Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (10 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (10 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

Sure. Open bar though, right?

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 January 2015 04:33 (2 months ago) Permalink

No lie: Last week I dreamed that Alfred was engaged my sister but decided to marry me at the last minute instead! Dunno why he wanted to - I was too intimidated to talk movies with him so we just made small talk instead.

― Sir Lord Baltimora (Myonga Vön Bontee)

Mixology came up too, I trust.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 January 2015 13:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

https://twitter.com/CharlieCrist/status/552459044875931648

Eric H., Tuesday, 6 January 2015 13:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

but not his Facebook status

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 13:42 (1 month ago) Permalink

btw guy I'm free after 3 p.m. I'm going to a reception for two close women friends who tie the knot in Broward this morning. Anyone wanna make it a double header?

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 13:42 (1 month ago) Permalink

send plane ticket & prenup

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 14:00 (1 month ago) Permalink

"Burn every copy of It's a Wonderful Life."

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 14:02 (1 month ago) Permalink

Some snowy night in front of the fire.

Eric H., Tuesday, 6 January 2015 14:07 (1 month ago) Permalink

Eric, you're a Debbie Gibson girl.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 14:10 (1 month ago) Permalink

Killer to killer.

Eric H., Tuesday, 6 January 2015 14:25 (1 month ago) Permalink

Will watch sitcom about Alfred, Eric, Morbius as retirees living in Havana

The Understated Twee Hotel On A Mountain (silby), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 17:34 (1 month ago) Permalink

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 18:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

Morbius reading Humanizing the Vacuum newsletter in large print.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 18:27 (1 month ago) Permalink

my two friends made front page NYT stand alone today.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

sounds kinda mean

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00 (1 month ago) Permalink

Until it happens, I need to hire someone to sift through marriage proposals. Reward: marriage.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 16 January 2015 20:41 (1 month ago) Permalink

I could see this going 6-3 rather than 5-4 just b/c of Roberts wanting to deprive Kennedy the privilege of writing the controlling opinion.

The Understated Twee Hotel On A Mountain (silby), Friday, 16 January 2015 20:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

though I guess Kennedy joining some sort of tortured "leave it up to the states"/stare decisis punt is roughly as likely

The Understated Twee Hotel On A Mountain (silby), Friday, 16 January 2015 20:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

Did you know Ed Droste from Grizzly Bear is gay-divorced already?

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 17 January 2015 03:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

i feel like alabama is the jenga piece that makes the whole fucker go over; like how can you argue alabama is ready for this but the rest of the country is too conservative minded to handle the transition

Sounds like a forks display name (forksclovetofu), Saturday, 24 January 2015 02:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got down to the nitty-gritty in the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, asking Eric Holder’s potential replacement to explicate the constitutional difference between gay marriage and polygamy. “What’s the legal difference between a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the constitution and the other not?” “Well, senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court,” Lynch replied. “And I’m not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point in time, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.”

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 22:20 (1 month ago) Permalink

my short answer (not a legal scholar: disclaimer) has always been that polygamy requires a legal framework that does not exist in regards to spousal rights, inheritance, etc. And then I figure there would be a historical argument to be made that polygamous marriages have been to enforce unbalanced power relationships between but I dunno that seems shakier.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 22:24 (1 month ago) Permalink

My answer is "any group of consenting adults should be able to do with each other what they will"; I couldn't possibly care less if polygamy was legalized.

I absolutely care from the standpoint of coercive relationships involving adults and minors but if a bunch of 30-year-olds want to start a group-spouse commune, why should I care?

"Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 22:59 (1 month ago) Permalink

DJP otm

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:02 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah that's p much how I feel too

but from a legal standpoint it seems like polygamy requires a bunch of laws/regulations that two-person marriage does not. Changing who the two people are in a two-person marriage doesn't really impact the definition of what marriage is from a legal standpoint. But having three people in a marriage ... well who has what rights in the case of a divorce, for example? I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, just that the law doesn't currently deal with the question.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

DJP, I need an answer soon.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

Agree that polygamous unions would require a bunch of new legal framework, but it's just a matter of time. (In my own lifetime? Maybe. Maybe not.)

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:04 (1 month ago) Permalink

A sound legal framework that protects the interests of all the individuals involved (including offspring) is urgent & key for any form of marriage.

Aimless, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

I kinda think it'll be a more uphill battle given that challenge tbh

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:31 (1 month ago) Permalink

also not a battle I particularly give a shit about

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:32 (1 month ago) Permalink

but they're an aggrieved, besieged minority

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:36 (1 month ago) Permalink

are they?

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:38 (1 month ago) Permalink

are we talking about mormons here

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

a subset of Mormons, plus a smattering of bigamists

Aimless, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:41 (1 month ago) Permalink

I think mainstream Mormons are pretty much past this part of their history. Most polygamous relationships now are the sorts of people who think Twilight is less brilliant literature and more a life direction.

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:41 (1 month ago) Permalink

see I don't think that particular subset of Mormons and bigamists would be into the legal framework that would likely develop - ie, no child marriages, rights for divorcees, etc.

xp

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:43 (1 month ago) Permalink

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:43 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well that was a lot of last minute weirdness but anyway, Alabama!

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/look_couples_line_up_to_marry_in_alabama

Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 February 2015 15:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

sup

https://twitter.com/bwdaly/status/564824998331027456

goole, Monday, 9 February 2015 16:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Gay Divorce from Alfred: Your Thoughts

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 February 2015 16:53 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Easier said than done.

Eric H., Monday, 9 February 2015 17:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

those guys are still mad racist tho right

goole, Monday, 9 February 2015 17:26 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

The Court today denied Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The state had asked the Court to delay the implementation of that ruling until after the Court rules on the pending challenges to similar bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan. Because the Alabama ruling is scheduled to go into effect today, the Court’s order effectively cleared the way for same-sex marriages to go forward in Alabama.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of the stay, in a three-page opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas argued that, “[w]hen courts declare state laws unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing them,” the Court’s “ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review.” Noting that the Court had “granted a stay in similar circumstances a little over a year ago,” Thomas suggested that Alabama’s request “should have been treated no differently.” Moreover, Thomas observed, the Court’s failure to grant a stay “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the same-sex marriage question. “This,” he complained, “is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.”

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 February 2015 17:30 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Huckabee, the once allegedly 'reasonable' evangelical dipshit

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-lies-reminiscent-nazi-germany

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 February 2015 23:07 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Over the weekend, Mike Huckabee hosted an event in Little Rock called “America from Ordinary to Extraordinary”

o shit is huck denying american exceptionalism

mookieproof, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 00:28 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Barack Obama was "bullshitting" his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new book authored by former senior White House adviser David Axelrod.

Time magazine reported Tuesday that the longtime Obama confidant said in his new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics," that he counseled then-senator Obama to soften his position on gay marriage for political reasons.

"Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote, as quoted by Time.

Obama had stated his support for legalizing gay marriage on a 1996 questionnaire while running for the Illinois state Senate. But he said repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Publicly stating opposition to gay marriage took its toll on Obama, who Axelrod wrote "routinely stumbled over the question when it came up in debates or interviews."

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod after one of those events, as quoted by Time.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 February 2015 14:16 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Bullshit.

Eric H., Tuesday, 10 February 2015 14:37 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod

I am fairly certain that when Obama said that he truly believed it. This highlights the most U&K skill of the really good bullshitter.

Aimless, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 18:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.