December 7, 2012, - 4:06 pm

Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Gay Marriage Legality; Village People, Ghost of Arafat Celebrate

By Debbie Schlussel

It’s official: gay marriage will probably soon be the law of the land. Is marriage between 3 people or between a person and another being next? The U.S. Supreme Court decided today to hear two cases on gay marriage and decide the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Prop 8, which says marriage is only between one male and one female (as it should be). I predict–with the way things are going–that the Court will overturn the decision of California’s voters and legalize gay marriage (or as gays have cleverly branded it, “marriage equality”). Don’t count out Justice John Roberts, who had no prob backing ObamaCare. I wouldn’t be shocked if he does the same baloney with these cases.

gaymarriagehomersimpsonfruitypebbles.jpg

villagepeoplesmaller.jpg

What do you think? Will the Supremes make gay marriage the law of the land? We’re becoming Europe even faster than you or I had earlier diagnosed.

One of the cases, from California, could establish or reject a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Another case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions. . . .


The new California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009. . . . The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages. . . .

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

The second case the court agreed to hear, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, challenges a part of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Section 3 of the law defines marriage as between only a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs. (Another part of the law, not before the court, says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.)

The case concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who were married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of some $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay.

Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the federal appeals court in New York struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one in May from a court in Boston. The New York decision was the first from a federal appeals court to say that laws treating same-sex couples differently must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny.

Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself because she previously worked on gay marriage cases. But she won’t.

And I predict that gay marriage will, sadly, be the law of the land when this is all over. Your predictions? Why or why not?

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

58 Responses

Debbie, Thanks for bringing this subject to the forefront. Not only will it become “LEGAL” it will become a “civil right”. Churches and Synagogues will be forced to perform same sex marriage or else the clergy will be taken off to jail for violating the lovers’ “civil rights”. Gay rights will become another stick with which the Washington Politicians can whip those commoners into line.

tim on December 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    Much as I oppose legalizing the status of gay marriage, you’re imagining a wildly improbable outcome. As private organizations, churches and synagogues can marry — or decline to marry — any couple they wish. The case at hand doesn’t affect this basic assumption in the least.

    What a ruling would say, if it goes the wrong way, is that a state must recognize gay marriages as having the same legal standing as man-woman marriages. That means that all the rights and responsibilities that inhere in a heterosexual unions — childrearing, property inheritances, etc. — must be extended to homosexual marriages. It also means that a state can’t deny gays the right to marry if they choose a civil ceremony.

    But clergymen being carted off to prison? I don’t think so.

    Seek on December 7, 2012 at 6:53 pm

Governments were not always involved in the marriage process. They should have stuck to creating laws forbidding sex between a man (or woman) and they’re vulnerable pets and livestock. Marriage should be a vow taken before your G-d, according to His rules….not some governments rules. I’ll trust your expertise on the law and the eventual acceptance of gay marriage as the law of the land. Think of how many other laws this affects that has marriage in their language….and never was intended to be anything but a union between a man and woman. Yikes!!!

Visteo on December 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm

By some mechanism, Obama clearly has the Supreme Court in his pocket. Of course gay marriage will become law.

DS_ROCKS! on December 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Of course, John Roberts will be voting for homosexual marriages. Although Roberts has been married to a woman, there have been rumors that he is actually a homosexual for years. Check out this link, for example:
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/more_grist_for_.html
Now, even though this write-up tries to suggest that Roberts might not be a homosexual, the picture of him with his buddies further down on the webpage tells the real story. And no, one does not need “Gaydar” to sense that Roberts reeks of an “alternative life style” from the photo. But for now, this will remain a closely guarded “secret.” Certainly the media won’t be telling you anything about it, even if they were handed direct evidence.

Ralph Adamo on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm

Why are we never mentioning the the 1965 Moynihan Report? We are institutionalizing and reinforcing fatherless children by endorsing Gay Marriage. It might be interesting to find some statistics on how many men are actually marrying each other in New York as compared to how many women are. I’m willing to bet this will be the kind of data that you will not be able to find easily. So far the line has been believed that gay marriage doesn’t hurt any one. The public might change their tune if we stop defining this as a religious issue and start articulating this as a cultural catastrophe.

Noah David Simon on December 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Thank you for the interesting post NDS! And Little Al (as always) your follow up was a great bookend!

    Skunky on December 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm

I, too, think you’re right. The more conscious leftists are happy about this because it weakens the family, as I said before. The family functions as a viable economy unit, everything else being equal, with a father, mother, and kids. When the family structure is weakened, Government steps in and fulfills economic functions previously done by the family. Hillary Clinton was certainly aware of this when she wrote “It Takes a Village.” This is not by any means solely a social issue, important though that is.

Little Al on December 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm

For the record folks, a good majority of LGBT folks don’t want to get married, but rahter live a heathen lifestyle (there plenty of heterosexual folks who are heathens and live heathen lives as well) and be left alone, the only ones who are pushing this are radical LGBT groups. And if same-sex marriage becomes legal and within US laws, I just hope when I get married that it won’t affect me and my girlfriend/fiance!

And also, it shouldn’t be up to the federal government to define marriage, it should be up to local states whether or not there local state notices gay-marriage or not by putting a legislative ballot so the people can vote on it. Plus a few states in this country have “civil-unions”.

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on December 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Are you serious? You obviously don’t know any gay people. Considering the rate of children born out-of-wedlock in this country, it seems that there are way more hetero heathens than homo ones. You are talking out of your ass. You have no data to back up your statement. You know what effect legalizing same-sex marriage will have on you, as a hetero? Zero.

    What effect did the legalization of interracial marriage have on you?

    Nothing but drivel, bigotry, and vitriol coming from the small minds of the commenters on this blog.

    amdugg on December 7, 2012 at 7:20 pm

      “Amdugg” uses the sad, boring refrain of the dopes who support “gay marriage” (and I do NOT!)…

      “…what effect legalizing same-sex marriage will have on you, as a hetero?”

      These selfish idiots always ask this question. Who cares? I have a problem with people who can’t break that dumb argument back in their face. So here it is…

      1) There is no such thing as gay “marriage”. Gays are free to marry an opposite sex partner if they wish. (I, however do not recommend this AT ALL).

      2) It effects society because it is NOT “normal” and should not be labeled as such. It’s VERY different. I have no problem with gay civil unions. EVER. If children are involved it’s best to have a married male and female couple as the parents. A balance of male and female is needed in good measure to have a healthy, well-balanced child. Sorry, it’s just the way it works. I didn’t make the rules but know when they work quite rightly. (*And stop using the dumb crappy hetero couples as an example. We heartily agree and cannot control if they bring innocent children into the world. Grow up and realize that even scummy heterosexuals have what it takes procreate naturally. Not every hetero is a good person but is given the atavistic advantage. Complain to God.*)

      3) Comparing gay couples to interracial marriage is quite an outrage. Liberals show their true racist colours when they say such rubbish. This argument is for bottom of the barrel low information myna birds. Think about what you say before you vomit it back up!

      4) And gay “marriage” will hurt society gravely because it will open doors for other such pervert, weirdo couplings and beyond to be legitimized. It is not “normal” and should not be labeled as such. I like gays and want them to have healthy relationships but don’t say their relationships are the same as heterosexuals. And Sean R. has it right…very few want to marry. It’s a political ploy to degenerate society. That’s all.

      I agree with DS. It will be allowed. This country is deep in the sh** and only doing deeper so bring on all the subversive crap on because it’s all being heaped on anyway.

      Skunky on December 7, 2012 at 8:02 pm

        You encountered the canned outrage and talking points of advocacy. Also, conflating race with sexual activity is bizarre outside of the realm of advocacy. Finally, you get the belligerent intimidation, which has become the stock and trade of the left, whether on same sex marriage or free contraception. It is the Sandra Fluke Syndrome.

        Worry01 on December 8, 2012 at 9:22 am

      Hey pal, I know what I’m talking about, you all of a sudden did the typical radical-left wing manuever by attacking me for I don’t know what? You also claim that I don’t know any people who are of LGBT, lookit, I happen to have a few friends who are LGBT, so I’m nowhere near being a “homophobe”!

      As Skunky said to you last night, same-sex marriage is pretty oxymoronic, to me, it’s mock-marriage, and as Skunky said in her comment to you, LGBT individuals can marry anyone from the opposite gender if they feel like, plus in my view, gay couples can recieve benefits.

      And I have no clue WTF you compared same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, bro, I happen to be a black person and that statement you said is kinda offensive to me a man of color. In this country way back when (over 50 years ago) black people fought and stood for civil rights (there where alot of whites and jews as well who bidded for civil rights by pressuring the house in 1964 to pass the “Civil-Rights” bill, and it was mainley the GOP who favored the 1964 civil rights bill, while MANY Democrats where anti-civil rights) to be treated fairly and equally, etc. Whereas today, LGBT people have ALOT of rights in this country, there not being persecuted, or hunged to death, etc. Apparently you confused us with the 7th century creationists throwback islamists in all muslim-dominate countries in the middle east and southeast asia. Oh and BTW, if you think Debbie Schlussel hates LGBT people, one of her relatives is a gay man and she loves and respect him alot, despite his sexual-orientation. And DS has written ALOT of stories on this blog of her’s where she’s come to the defense of LGBT being killed, persecuted, imprisoned in all muslim nations by, guess who? “Muslims”! So don’t you dare try to slander her or any of us here saying that “yadda yadda you guys hate gay people yadda yadda”!

      “A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

      Sean R. on December 8, 2012 at 2:16 pm

      Amdugg, would you bugger off? Just because people disagree with you, it doesn’t follow that they deserve the usual litany of leftwing insults.

      Anyway, where were YOU when hundreds of Poles attacked this site? What have YOU regarding the Muz?

      skzion on December 9, 2012 at 10:29 pm

Well there is substance and there is form, then there is a legal expression of that form. Whatever happens to the latter doesn’t change the substance, i.e. that there is no marriage between yin anyin or between yang and yang but only between yin and yang. However when a foundational form starts being used to refer to an entirely different substance from the foundational substance it sprang from then other false forms can be accepted, such as how islam is the same as any other religion so is not to be examined any differently. These are such times and same gender marriage will become a legal form.

Bronson on December 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm

I heard today that the Syrians are loading Sarin into their warheads and bombs. I am thinking that in a few weeks or months, our government will have other things on it’s mind than what the homos want. I was amazed watching CNN news today, which I normally don’t do, to see the stories go from Sarin gas, to faggot marriage, to bold faced lies about “unemployment dropping”.

RT on December 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    RT, while I believe that Syria is NOT above using chemical weapons on their people I am a tic loathe to believe this scenario to be true. I am kinda believing this is a canny ruse to get USA involved in that nasty mess. I do not think we should get involved AT ALL.

    So to those who know more than me on this topic, do you think the chemical weapons is credible? Some say this whole mess in Syria is a proxy war opportunity for the USA to cover for Saudi Arabia against Iran (whose proxies are Russia and China).

    It’s getting close to the time where people are gonna be involved in that mess when they really ought to stay out of it. It’s scary to me.

    Skunky on December 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm

      Skunky remember that little 8 year war between Iran and Iraq? (too bad it did not last 20 years). Iraq was using chemical warfare both against Iran and against Iraqi shiites.

      Bush finally takes out Saddam after months of warnings about wmd. That gave Saddam all kinds of time to make bush look stupid. He gutted passenger jets of their seats and used them to transport his entire arsenal as well as lab equipment and production facilities to Syria under the cover of “humanitarian aid”. 56 flights it took to move it all.

      The left flamed Bush when nothing was found, look who looks stupid now.
      The whole democrat’s “bush did it we just inherited his mess”is going to be wearing veryyy hollow in the next few years.

      Canadian Steve on December 10, 2012 at 3:17 am

Debbie,

I agree – the demographics and the culture have changed. The Left in the end will be victorious because progress never stops!

Moral values can’t be legislated in the law, it can only be followed in the human heart. Conservatives of all people should know this better than any one else.

The moment people cease to believe in right and wrong is the moment our Western civilization dies. Its already happened and the US Supreme Court isn’t going to buck fashionable elite opinion on marriage and the family.

NormanF on December 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm

California is well on the road towards polygamy; they recently said that multiple people can be listed as “parents”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-bN6sdi-0s

bbbbbbb on December 7, 2012 at 9:08 pm

They’ll rule in favor of gay “marriage”. Roberts just can’t let down his fellow gays on the court, and fellow gay Obama. So what if the court rules for gay marriage? Roberts has already destroyed the country with his Obamacare ruling.

CornCoLeo on December 7, 2012 at 11:57 pm

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Remember that little document?

Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 4:13 am

    Like most people of limited intelligence, Canadian Steve makes an indirect, rather than a direct argument.

    But, trying to remember what I was taught in my history class, I don’t seem to remember that King George III committed the abuse of restricting Gay Marriage.

    The problem is, that ‘rights’ have become more and more expansive in scope, while ‘responsibilities’, with one exception have become more limited. (Of course the exception is the ‘responsibility’ of 53 percent of the taxpayers to finance the wasteful, slothful ways of the other 47 percent.)
    And of course, the 47% has a ‘right’ to its subsidies. The Communists and Socialists expanded that definition of ‘rights’.

    And I suppose the unemployed have a ‘right’ to be considered first for any job. It won’t end until the society collapses, and, unfortunately, we are well on our way. Institutionalized and legalized Gay Marriage will just be one more step.

    Little Al on December 8, 2012 at 7:29 am

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

You have the right to be protected from the initiation of force.
You have the right to be protected from fraud.
You have the right to be protected from coercion.
You have the right to be protected from theft.

That is all.
In other words you have the right to SEEK employment, you do not have the right to have someone supply you with a job.
You have the right to benefit from the fruits of your labors, and as such you have the ability to buy a house. You do not have the right to demand that “someone” supply you with one.

Freedom starts with the right to be left alone. As long as an individual does not infringe upon the unalienable rights of another individual to pursue their own unalienable rights this is what made America the greatest nation on earth. The only nation not created on conquest but on a philosophical ideal.

Whether you agree with the morality of gay unions (and really who cares if they call it marriage or simply call it a civil union is not the real issue). This is an individual rights issue. If the two parties are of age and sound mind and the union is entered without fraud,coercion,force(like we see with child brides from islamic countries) then that contract should be valid and the two benefit from the same privelidges of a traditionally married couples.

Gay rights, black rights,womens rights, all these different rights groups, all lobbying government to further their own interests at the expense of anothers.
The most abused and the only RELEVANT minority that actually needs protection is that of the individual. All other rights groups would be rendered irrelevant if the individuals rights were held sacrosanct under the rule of law.

Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 8:27 am

    I have no idea what a right is now Steve. Is there a right to employment? Do I have a right to a free post-secondary education? Might I not ask for income equality based upon sexual orientation or comparable worth? These are rights waiting in the wings Steve. It is very hard to close the spigot once you open it.

    Worry01 on December 8, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Well, CS, when you went to school, I guess you learned all about rights. Too bad you didn’t learn how to spell, or anything about punctuation, not to mention syntax.

    And the problems of this country are not mutually exclusive. The push towards gay marriage is a big, big, problem, driving us more and more towards feminizing and emasculating us. This is impacting us internationally.

    Tax liabilities? Now we come to the crux. Gays need to be included in the 47% of moochers. Let those of us who pay taxes finance this lifestyle and redefinition of marriage. After all, if rights can be redefined, if education and discrimination can be redefined, why not marriage.

    And the BS about individual rights? An empty concept, with the PCers, now masquerading as libertarians, filling it any way they want.

    And no one really cares whether you are gay or not — just a little more self-absorption on your part.

    Little Al on December 8, 2012 at 11:56 am

      Little Al you pull a 16 hour shift and see how well you type on an i-Phone.
      Gays now according to your logic are moochers? Gays need special treatment? Gays are internationally responsible for your small penis syndrome? A little hint on who is responsible for the emasculation of American men.
      Leftist post modernist airhead women.
      Pay attention Little Al, What I am trying to say is gays are not the problem.
      The problem is America has lost sight of what makes America!
      By the way, Canada had legalized gay marriage years ago. Guess what happened? Absolutely sweet f$&k all. No one up here cares if the neighbors are fudgepackers mmmkaaaayyyyyy???

      Ps:Obama is going to screw the country far more than any gay marriage Issue.

      Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      Little Al just so you know it is not correct to start a sentence with and or but.

      Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        CS, you are babbling in incoherence now.

        You are reduced to ad hominem attacks, which, incidentally reflect the fixation on sexual matters at the expense of everything else that characterizes the narcissism of gays, and many straights, in today’s decrepit environment.

        And interestingly enough, your sexual reference reflects not only personal insecurity, but an intolerance that ill befits a movement that claims to be tolerant towards all. Except for those with allegedly small penises? The racism, sexism and intolerance of the gay activists is never far below the surface.

        And starting sentences with conjunctions is an acceptable rhetorical device contrary to what you may be regurgitating from some third-rate web site.

        And yes, absolutely, gays who latch on to marriage to get the benefits you mention, are, indeed moochers. Someone has to pay for these benefits.

        And Canada has been haven for social misfits going back to the Vietnam War draft dodgers who migrated there in the mid and late 60s. Just one more example now.

        Little Al on December 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm

          I am NOT a gay activist. I was simply playing devil’s advocate.
          I apologize for the insult to your manhood.
          LOL for the Adam and steve comment hahaha(that was funny).
          I am an advocate for individual rights. Voltaire once said ” I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
          I do agree that America has become a cesspool.
          What ever happened to the pioneer spirit of self reliance?
          How did America become so welfare state socialist?
          Obamacare?
          Benghazi? Why were they left to die? Obamamullah should be impeached for that!
          How the hell did a marxist become president? And get re-elected! (there I used and )
          QE3 QE4? Did not anyone learn from the mistakes of the Weimar Republic?
          America is headed towards a dictatorship by the most UnAmerican President in the history of the world. Gays are the least of your worries.

          Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 2:42 pm

I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will either pave the way for it, or allow it outright in its anticipated decision. Of course, other things will flow from that as well, which are rarely mentioned by advocates. Many pedophilia statutes will come under scrutiny, especially if the sentencing mandated is deemed to be disparate when compared to comparable offenses.

Worry01 on December 8, 2012 at 9:28 am

Some women and men have married then got divorced and later wanted to get married with the same sex. Were their civil denied when they married when they were “straight”? The point is everyone has the right to have their marriage recognized as long it is to the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a woman and will be recognized and a straight man can marry a man and it wont be recognized. These are actions by people. Not innate within your DNA. Skin color is innate within your DNA, gender is innate with your DNA. We all have the right to access a public restroom for which the gender you are. If a male wants to access a female restroom when a male restroom is available is he being denied a restroom? Case closed. Marriage is an action and actions can be defined.

Non PC on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 am

Marriage is a contract. As such before two people enter into a contract they should define the responsiblities and liabilities before entering it. (think pre nupt). If it is not then in the advent of a breakdown of that contract the courts roll is set at the default position as to the dividing of assets and custody of dependents etc.
Married couples have certain advantages as far as tax liabilities as well as what happens estate wise when a spouse dies that two people(gays or otherwise) that just live together do not have.
That is what they want, to be treated equally under the rule of law. By not allowing this their individual rights to pursue the right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being violated. This is a constitutional violation. You do not have to like or condone or agree with their way of life, and you do not have to invite them over for dinner!
On the other side of the same coin priests,rabbi’s or any other cleric should not be FORCED to marry them, that is THEIR right, freedom from coercion and freedom of association. As far as the bathroom comment? Men go to the men’s room ladies to the ladies room regardless of orientation. No brainwr there.

Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 10:31 am

    It’s obvious CS that you’re coming from a Libertarian point of view. Marriage (until recently, in the advent of progressive, Statist Liberal deconstructionists) has ALWAYS been viewed as a man a women. That’s it. Non PC (and I briefly before) have already broke your argument about gay men and women being FREE to marry non gay men and or women of the opposite sex.

    Skunky on December 8, 2012 at 10:52 am

Libertarian? Close but no not I. Skunky I read your statement and agree with parts of it. Check your premises though you are coloring your argument subjectively.
Before we go further just to let you know I ammm hetero and I am married so I am not “selfishly arguing” from the “who cares” standpoint. I very much care because I love your country and hate seeing it decend into the present shithole it is becoming. You have much bigggerrr problems than whether two gays can or cannot be accorded the same rights as “married” people, the fact that you or anyone has a problem with this and cannot grasp or will not does not bode well at all.
Libertarians are on the right track on many things however most are anarcho capitalist idiots that do not understand the proper role of government.

Canadian Steve on December 8, 2012 at 11:25 am

    And remember, God made marriage for Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve.

    Little Al on December 8, 2012 at 2:04 pm

oops, meant to say Adam and Eve

Little Al on December 8, 2012 at 2:05 pm

Tyler Perry will also be rejoicing. The politicians and the courts have all let us down. I can envision a future America where the worship of God will be punished by the state and both gender re-assignment and re-education will be FORCED upon believers.

Marc on December 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm

This topic is sure bring out intellectual sloppiness from those with way-high IQs. For example, from Little Al:

“Tax liabilities? Now we come to the
crux. Gays need to be included in the
47% of moochers. Let those of us who
pay taxes finance this lifestyle and
redefinition of marriage.”

So, I am supposed to finance mixed-sex (I’m not trying to be cute, but precise) marriage, and am thus being forced to pay for someone ELSE’S inclusive fitness (please, people, master this key sociobiological concept). However, when it comes time to have the option of the same contract, I become a moocher.

And this is supposed be intellectually coherent?

“And remember, God made marriage for Adam and [Eve] not Adam and Steve.”

Gulp! If so, this slogan suggests why churches and synagogues might not want to marry same-sex couples. This has nothing to do with what our goverments (state and federal) do. Governmental force may not be used to promote church doctrine. Insofar as the US governments puts legal muscle behind marriage, marriage can no longer be defined only by religious institutions.

More generally, I would be pleased if states continued to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage [SSM]. DOMA was always an overreach by the Feds. Almost everything the SCOTUS does nowadays is also an overreach. So, I can’t quite be happy about what’s likely to come from it this time.

Even more generally, I do not see how any of the social or political maladies that we agree exist could be relevant to SSM, as ALL of them developed prior to the possibility of SSM. How exactly is a high and growing rate of bastardy, for example, to be addressed by a prohibition on SSM? Are people here hypothesizing some indirect causal pathway? Or is this complaining just a convenient way to let off steam?

Frankly, it is not my fault that so many hetero women are sluts, or that hetero men are no longer forced to marry the sluts they knock up.

A “small government” should NOT be legislating morality, OR subsidizing it. That includes subsidizing bastards and illegals.

skzion on December 8, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    I first heard that slogan from Jerry Falwell in the 80s. The only reason I mentioned it was because of Canadian Steve’s first name.

    Re moochers, of course the great majority of moochers are not gay. And certainly many, many heterosexual couples, their children, and single individuals are moochers. And in percentage terms, the overwhelming majority of Government welfare and medical payments are made to heterosexuals.

    But I am suggesting that to the extent gay marriage becomes more widespread and legal, gay individuals will join this population in increasing numbers and proportions.

    Little Al on December 8, 2012 at 7:22 pm

      Little Al, sorry for missing the allusion to Canadian Steve. Good one.

      I guess I do not agree that rights should be infringed on the premise that they might be abused. Anyway, the mooch most relevant here is NOT marrying and NOT supporting one’s children.

      skzion on December 9, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    Skzion, I totally agree with you about the high rate of unfit hetero sluts and the incompetent and un-manly men “baby daddy” rate. It’s an outrage and that indeed is destroying the American culture greatly, not to mention the KIDS involved in such destructive nonsense. Unfortunately, the biological fact remains when a man and a women (even unfit bogans) get together and do the deed a child can result from that. It’s nature at it’s most survival of the fittest form (and in 2012 the fallout is not positive). The Gubmint could put a huge kibosh on it IF the took away any social aid for such nonsense but of course in the advent of Obama-Putin that is just a pipe dream. Ain’t gonna happen.

    CS also mentioned that perhaps this may not be our biggest problem in 2012 and he is right on that BUT only because the sudden onslaught of the Commie destabilizing is in full throes now BUT this issue has been ever so slowly chipping away at the stone and now it’s getting to the point (at the worst time possible) where the stone is going to fall to a billion pieces.

    And I want to give kudos to Sean R. I liked what he had to say on thise thread.

    I also think you made a valid point about gays most likely NOT being part of the 47%. In fact, I think most gays make more $$ than the average American bear. I believe that 100%.

    But as I always said (& Sean R pointed out initially) that most gays are NOT worried about getting “married”. In fact they have come a long way and can live together quite nicely with most people not caring (and I am not talking about the holy rollers who talk about not liking it openly…I happen to think that is ok but I quess if I were to take umbrage with them it would be IF they actively tried to hurt gay couples or treat them as lesser than in actions…but that doesn’t happen much in 2012) about their private co-habitation and relationship. I think what most people don’t like is the co-opting of the “marriage” label and trying to equate it as EQUAL to a hetero marriage. It isn’t and it’s annoying when people do that. And those are usually Leftists who want to tear the whole thing down anyway…and that is also offensive.

    I have always had an affinity for gay men (I wish I can say that about lesbians but it’s not true. They are very different and the political ones are more annoying than anything I have seen in my life) but when I see in print someone calling their significant other their “husband” or “wife” it really seems ridiculous to me. It’s like calling a hamburger a hotdog. It’s fun at first but the total reality of it eventually seems silly and pointless…and eventually offensive.

    I don’t like peeps being mean to gays and treating them unkindly (especially when the men are fun and unique…and I am excluding that disgusting mutant Barney’s Frank from that group!) but I also don’t like the political ones trying to gain ground in a duplicitous manner that wants to make society worse off than it already is by introducing a gateway that will let in all the freaks of the world and further destroying an institution that was once stabilizing and is now a putrid, mixed up stew.

    And while Homosexuals can’t have kids together they are either adopting them or being inseminated with them to birth them these days. When the family breaks up it’s just as unhealthy as the hetero family’s breakup. The kids are left incomplete and lacking a cohesive unit. This is not helping but adding to the amount of broken families that do not help society be the best it could be.

    Skunky on December 8, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      Skunky I agree with SO much of what you are saying in this post. The mentality of the welfare state especially. People need to be responsible for their actions. If a well off couple decide to have 6 children because they want to do so that is great! They pay for everything out of the money THEY earned. If a middle income couple decide to have offspring they usually look at their situation and say to themselves “ok we make X amount we can only afford 1 child(possibly 2)” and they budget accordingly. A welfare mother says “if I have 5 kids from 5 fathers I can probably collect some child support and the government will pay me for everything else so I do not need to be responsible.”
      An election these days is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods. The biggest “winners” temporarily are the moochers supporting the government that steals the most and redistributes it to those who “need” it. To hell with those greedy money grubbers that actually earned it!

      The only way out of this fiscal cliff is to grow the economy. Obama is a marxist, Romney blew it when he said “Obama is a nice guy”. He did not stare the devil in the face and call evil what it is. Milksop Mitt SHOULD have called Obama to task over Benghazi. Why did he lie to the American people and say it was a spontaneous uprising due to the anti-islamic movie when he knew it was a coordinated terrorist attack celebrating 911. Why was the order made to stand down? 7 hours of live feed of the event when jets could have been there within an hour! With this alone Romney could have crushed Obama! Obama did not extend the same courtesy.
      Obama was horrible in his first 4 years. He abused executive order powers more than ANY president in peacetime or war.
      Obamacare who is going to pay for it? Hell with that HOW is a bigger question.
      Free contraception for sluts and whores? Keep your damn legs closed if you cannot afford it you can’t afford to breed either!
      You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Reality has a way of rearing it’s ugly head at the most inconvenient times!

      Canadian Steve on December 9, 2012 at 5:32 am

        CS, I thought Mitt Zombie would *only* win because the country would want to stop that lying, Marxist, Commie narcissist in office from any more damage. That is the only thing that shocked me about the loss. Mitt Zombie and his staff were of the same wimpy, Liberal ilk that made John McShame lose. When he didn’t kick back against Benghazi when he had Obama-Putin by the short & curlies I knew if that were a regular election he would go down in flames because the castrato GOP has been successfully neutered by the Donks but the Donks portray the denture-less GOP as sociopaths. I hate the Donks but if I didn’t I’d give them huge credit for such a canny plan. Romney went down anyway.

        Romney ONLY had my vote. That was IT. I didn’t act (like on the Twitters) like he’d was a great Prince and with his election all things would be fixed (in fact I posted numerous times if he did win we would have no time for rest because he would rule as a Leftist). But now the idiots here voted for that evil bastard to have another 4 years. Here comes the pain!

        It hasn’t even started. But it will. Worry provides us with wonderfully morbid soundtracks because that is gonna be the feel from now on. It’s a sad future to behold. Never thought we’d be as pathetic as the Russians!

        Skunky on December 9, 2012 at 11:21 am

      Hey Skunky, I think I’ll need a keyboard to reply to you. I’m tapping away on an old BlackBerry, and it’s a real pain.

      skzion on December 9, 2012 at 10:49 pm

The hypocrisy of this act is a joke. It has nothing to do with conventional marriage. It’s all about monetary values not accessible outside legal marriage such as SS benefits, pension fund benefits, etc. It certainly does not relate to the tradition of monogamy as a “life style”.

Rochelle on December 8, 2012 at 5:58 pm

This is the biggest waste of time issue I have ever seen in my life. Why are we even discussing it?

Marriage is between one man and one woman. PERIOD. There is nothing any court, legislature or anyone else can do to change that. Now matter how the court rules, two women or two men are not and never will be married. PERIOD.

Can we please get back to discussing issues that matter?

I_AM_ME on December 8, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    I AM ME: a tautology is not an insight.

    skzion on December 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm

Another example of STAGE 1 THINKING!

StinkyBird on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc

Here we have an interesting debate between Glen Beck and an atheist Penn Jillette. 2 individuals on completely opposite sides of the spectrum actually having some rational discussions on matters relevant to this thread.

Canadian Steve on December 9, 2012 at 4:01 am

    CS, perhaps you would get a nicer response if you weren’t a newbie whose first posts were about gay rights, and if you would have toned down your language.

    skzion on December 9, 2012 at 10:35 pm

      Indeed skzion!
      Irony is I have been reading older posts on different threads and have come to the conclusion that I REALLY like Little al. He has some absolutely brilliant commentary and I find a lot of common ground with him as well as pretty much every one here.(especially the threat islam is to western civilization which is what first brought me here).
      I find DS to be a very courageous lady who does not pull punches. If she were ever to run for office I would vote for her! She has earned my admiration. So even though I took a beating on this thread it is understandable. It is a hot topic.

      Canadian Steve on December 10, 2012 at 1:30 am

I thought i learned in my biology class feces causes Hepatitis. That is why you wash hands after taking a shit. So we dont spread diseases. Why is anyone putting a penis in an anus to get smeared with feces? Logic says you will get hepatitis. Can someone explain to me why I am wrong? And this supposed to be logical behavior and we are supposed to acknowledge it with marriage?

Non PC on December 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Non PC, maybe you should just wash your dick next time.

    skzion on December 9, 2012 at 10:23 pm

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=7674988

Canadian Steve on December 10, 2012 at 10:24 am

Gay marriage plans offer ‘quadruple lock’ for opposed religious groups
Culture secretary reveals legal protections for religious groups that may not want to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies.
“The culture secretary, Maria Miller, has prepared herself for a year-long battle to introduce same-sex marriage, with the first ceremonies due to take place in 2014.
On Tuesday she sought to reassure Tory MPs that religious groups would not be obliged to conduct the ceremonies, vowing a triple legal guarantee that the European court would not be allowed to interfere, and in the case of the Church of England, a quadruple guarantee or lock…
This lock will:
• Ensure the legislation states that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.
• Provide an opt-in system for religious organisation who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples.
• Amend the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for that purpose.
• Ensure that legislation will not affect the canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales.”
My friend Marcus posted this on a different site.

I would hope that the US courts would at bare minimum insure something like this is in place as well?

Canadian Steve on December 11, 2012 at 9:22 am

In your faces haters! : p

Lee on June 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field