^^lol@"speaking in tongues"

also...

Quote :

""

bilerico is the greatest site on the internets

8/4/2010 11:21:35 PM

^We may get to see such signs and hear them speaking in tongues when the National Organization for Marriage buses into Raleigh next week.



For page 2:

On the 2 MA cases:

Quote :

"Two huge victories for marriage equality In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

On the CA case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling

Quote :

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Wikipedia on DOMA:

Quote :

"Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds: * DOMA exceeds congressional authority in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. * Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. * The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. * The law violates the fundamental right to marriage under the due process clause."

8/4/2010 11:50:16 PM

For your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWUkBQXrjpM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_72nVAlm58&feature=channel

8/5/2010 3:35:10 AM

^A wider view shot of that rally:



She tries to make it sound like they were there just to stare her down, when in reality they just stood around their edges with their backs turned to the 9 or so people at the rally.

One theory is that they are intentionally having small protests so as to make the counter-rallies look intimidating. NOM in the past has tried to use ballot initiatives to repeal civil unions, and to qualify for the ballot imitative you need a certain number of voters to sign a public petition. In Washington I believe it was they dumped a lot of cash into paying signature collectors, and then tried to fight public disclosure of who signed the petition in the courts on the theory that gay people would injure anyone who was found to be a signer. They tied it up in the courts so long that the ballot initiative happened without the names getting disclosed in advance and having to face public scrutiny and transparency. Eventually the courts ruled for that state if you sign a public petition, your name will be public, but not until it was too late to stop the ballot initiative. And a number of names were found to be disqualified.

The initiative failed, but the state ended up spending a lot of money on a pretty pointless ballot initiative. So the theory is they are building evidence to prove gays are out to attack NOM supporters, and thus they shouldn't be required to submit public petition names to public scrutiny in the future the way any other group would have to do if they wanted a ballot initiative.

Luckily their bus tour has basically failed. You can't bus into another state, hold up signs advocating death to gay people, and then claim you're the one being oppressed. You'll also notice a large age difference in the rallies and counter rallies. And all the polling agrees that once the current set of geriatrics (65+) pass away then this whole argument will be over.

[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2010 3:23:18 PM

Its amazing an issue I actually agree with Supplanter on.

Government should not be able to tell people who can and can't get married. If the Church doesn't want to let somebody get married than that is up to them. The Government shouldn't care.

8/5/2010 3:33:37 PM

^You might be interested in the issue agreement/common ground thread

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=598602

8/5/2010 3:50:39 PM

There should be no legal incentive to get married. People should loathe having to inform the government of their relationship status. There should be no tax breaks for getting married. People with kids should be taxed MORE.

8/5/2010 4:15:07 PM

so, a gay judge ruled on this? really? conflict of interest, much?

8/6/2010 8:27:09 AM

Yeah, I mean we shouldn't have black judges either.

8/6/2010 8:55:47 AM

^^ How so? How wouldn't a straight, married judge have a conflict of interest as well? I'd love to hear your rationale behind this. Really.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 9:58:44 AM

To SMC's point, I think there are plenty of people who have the civil marriages for none, contracts for all, idea in mind. And that is certainly one path to equality even if it is a rather unrealistic one to expect to happen within our lifetimes (whereas DOMA could be struck down by SCOTUS in 3 years). But until something like contracts for all ever happens I would hope people would be open to the idea to marriage for all couples b/c it has so many legal & quasi-legal ramifications (pulling up an old post rather than typing it out again).

As for the judge, Wired calls him a "The libertarian-leaning, Republican-appointed" judge. First nominated by Reagan, then by Bush Sr. Even Pelosi opposed him. Darn his GOP bias!

Quote :

"Fine by me, but until they do, gay couples can still die apart b/c some hospitals still base visitation rights on marriage (even though there have been recent moves to fix that), gay couples have to get married then write up & pay for tons of legal contracts to reflect the understood legal connections of marriage (in many cases if you want approximate marriage you need separate legal documents for any state you might vacation in or drive through, & even sometimes that doesn’t work like with that lesbian couple that went on a family cruise & a mom died slowly in the hospital w/o being allowed to say goodbye to her kids), I had a friend who went to college in Canada, met her husband there, and he was able to immigrate to the US but it couldn’t have happened if it had been a gay couple, because marriage is the standard used everywhere for so many legal concerns, marriage is the standard for certain pricing on car insurance, and so many other quasi-legal situations."

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 1:25:34 PM

It's perfectly consistent to be a libertarian Republican and be for gay marriage. It's supposed to be about personal responsibility, individualism, living your life without the government tell you how to, etc. What you're seeing is the socially authoritarian wing of the GOP coming out to oppose this...and there are quite a few of them. They're driven by some combination of religious delusion and deeply entrenched bigotry.

The "semantics" argument is pure bullshit. There's no reason to be making a stand like this because you think a word should be defined in a certain way. It's just a cop out for people that are generally anti-gay.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 1:53:49 PM

I am still waiting for burro to enlighten us as to how this is a conflict of interests.

8/6/2010 4:27:03 PM

Quote :

"How so? How wouldn't a straight, married judge have a conflict of interest as well?"

not as much as a gay judge would. After all, the gay judge is the one who can't get the normal benefits that married couples get... take the partisan blinders off and admit that there was a huge conflict of interest and that the judge should have recused himself.

8/6/2010 6:22:58 PM

There are no "partisan blinders" when it comes to questioning the sanity of your statement. Should a woman judge (heaven forbid she be pregnant) recuse herself on a case pertaining to womens' reproductive rights? Or a non-white, non-male judge recuse themselves on a case about civil liberties? Is there legal precedent for a gay judge stepping aside on marriage equality cases?

8/6/2010 8:17:16 PM

so, a gay judge has no conflict of interest in a case about gay rights? really?

8/6/2010 9:21:36 PM

one side could make a claim that a straight judge would have a conflict of interest with regards to this issue just as easily as the other side could claim a gay judge does. if you make the case that sexual orientation is a bias there are no judges without a conflict of interest.

8/6/2010 10:19:45 PM

^^^Dude, christian is the neutral religion to judge cases with religion involved, male is the neutral sex, white is the neutral race, straight is the neutral orientation, and old is the neutral age. Duh.

8/6/2010 10:27:10 PM

damn queers in this country. Where in the constitution does it give any right to faggots?

8/6/2010 10:33:59 PM

how, exactly, would a straight judge have the same conflict of interest? Would he have reason to think his rights were currently being denied?

8/6/2010 10:34:10 PM

Quote :

"Where in the constitution does it give any right to faggots"

it appears your response is filled with idiocracy...

8/6/2010 10:37:53 PM

You have yet to prove that this judge is unprofessional enough to allow this to be a conflict of interests. You made an outrageous accusation that you probably picked up from the right wing punditry and have yet to give any evidence that this is the case what-so-ever.

8/6/2010 10:39:07 PM

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/15738/

Quote :

"Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8: “Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision. “For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity. “Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”"

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/06/2942696/let-gays-begin-marrying-schwarzenegger.html

Quote :

"Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California after a federal ruling that the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. The Republican governor filed his brief with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker before a Friday deadline to submit arguments on whether to continue a stay of Walker's decision against Proposition 8. "The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect.""

I'm a bit surprised that Schwarzenegger has been so pro-marriage equality of late given that he vetoed marriage equality more than once after it was passed by the state legislature. I guess this explains it though:

Quote :

"Schwarzenegger has vetoed state bills that passed the Legislature legalizing same-sex marriage - reasoning at that time that courts should decide the matter"

8/6/2010 10:41:25 PM

Again...where in the constitution does it give faggots the right to marry...

The interest of the judge has nothing to do with it. He's a poor liberal fucktard who does not understand the fundamentals of the country.

8/6/2010 10:41:28 PM

Schwarzenegger is a queer himself...

it's actually said...all them manly movies got to him...

8/6/2010 10:42:18 PM

his professionalism or lack thereof is irrelevant. Supreme Court justices routinely recuse themselves from cases, yet we should assume that they are of the highest professional standards.

8/6/2010 10:42:27 PM

Quote :

"yet we should assume that they are of the highest professional standards"

This judge's liberal bias blinded him of the truth of the constitution. You and I both know that if someone were openly queer in 1776, they would have been killed. There is no way one can believe that marriage in the Constitution included queers.

8/6/2010 10:44:06 PM

I hate to break it to you, but nowhere in the Constitution does it make any mention of marriage, "faggots" or otherwise.

8/6/2010 10:45:08 PM

do you really think the constitution, in its original context, would include queers.

If you answer yes to that, you are a moron...

8/6/2010 10:46:57 PM

do you really think the Constitution specifically talks about marriage?

8/6/2010 10:49:02 PM

Quote :

"Where in the constitution does it give any right to faggots""

only straight people are citizens now?

now looking at your photo gallery, ansonian, its pretty clear that you are a vulcan. can you show me where vulcans have any rights?

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 10:50:07 PM

^you're shitting me right? calling me a vulcan??? nice man...that's original



you're the one who looks like the fucking queer here...

8/6/2010 10:55:59 PM

I think Ansonian is trolling…

But when the the original constitution was written, the gov. of the day was pretty down on blacks, women, and men who didn’t own land. Invoking what people would do at the time the constitution was written is a pretty dumb thing to try and do.

8/6/2010 10:56:14 PM

Quote :

"This judge's liberal bias blinded him of the truth of the constitution."

you mean the conservative reagan appointee?

8/6/2010 10:57:37 PM

Quote :

"But when the the original constitution was written, the gov. of the day was pretty down on blacks, women, and men who didn’t own land. Invoking what people would do at the time the constitution was written is a pretty dumb thing to try and do."

8/6/2010 11:06:41 PM

Quote :

"Supreme Court justices routinely recuse themselves from cases"

Sure, if they had prior involvement in a case that is now before them. You didn't answer if pregnant judges should recuse themselves from a reproductive rights cases or if non-white males are allowed to preside over civil rights cases. You also have yet to show how there is even a conflict of interests. In his ruling did he at all mention his own personal orientation?

8/7/2010 3:14:07 AM

I for one feel like only a bisexual could impartially handle such a case.

8/7/2010 3:17:55 AM

If something affects you personally, you can't reason about it.

If something doesn't affect you personally, you can't reason about it.



Really wish burro would make up his fucking "mind" already.

8/7/2010 10:58:05 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/06/california.same.sex.ruling.stay/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote :

"Governor and attorney general say enforcement of Proposition 8 is not in the public interest "

Glad to see the attorney general on aboard with the governor on letting the marriages start asap. The judge issued a stay of the ruling while certain papers were filed (that I think had to be filed by yesterday), and then he decides where or not to extend the stay early next week (I've heard Tuesday as the likely decision day). With the governor (who was the defendant in the case) and attorney general urging no more stays, it looks like wedding bells may start ringing sometime next week.

8/7/2010 12:55:02 PM

Quote :

"Sure, if they had prior involvement in a case that is now before them."

and in other cases, too. might want to do a little research, buddy...

Quote :

"You didn't answer if pregnant judges should recuse themselves from a reproductive rights cases or if non-white males are allowed to preside over civil rights cases."

it depends. is the case one that would give the judge new rights? That's the whole fucking point, dumbass.

Quote :

"You also have yet to show how there is even a conflict of interests."

bull-fucking shit. Again, a gay judge, ruling on a case that would give him rights. FUCKING OBVIOUS. Take the blinders off.

8/7/2010 4:14:59 PM

Alright, well you keep howling to the moon about your perceived conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to focus on things that matter like advancing civilized society through equality.

8/7/2010 4:30:29 PM

hahaha. so you admit that there is a conflict of interest and that the rule of law means nothing to you. But, I'm glad that you admit that you are pushing your social agenda on others through the gov't. I'm sure we can expect no longer to hear you bitching about people "legislating morality."

by the way, there is still equality. Gays are free to marry. No one is stopping them from professing their love for each other. And, if they want the gov't benefits, they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

you are free, at any time, to explain how a gay judge ruling on a case that would potentially give him rights is not a conflict of interest. Simply saying that it is not one doesn't make it so.

8/7/2010 4:45:45 PM

I don't recall admitting anything of the sort. I never made the outlandish claim that such a conflict exists therefore the burden of proof falls to you, not me. And when it comes to regressive social policy you're damn right I am going stand against it. Legally prove to me that there is a conflict of interests here, until then shut the fuck up about the meaning of "Rule of Law".

8/7/2010 5:09:31 PM

^^That again? I'll save everyone the time and hit replay from last time.

aaronburro:

Quote :

"I wasn't aware they didn't have the right to free speech. or the right to a fair trial. Or the right to marry"

sarijoul:

Quote :

"i know you say that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. but that is stupid bullshit. just like black used to have the right to marry someone of their same race, right?"

aaronburro:

Quote :

"two men can get married all they want. They just won't have gov't acknowledgment of it. Again, something there is no actual right to. Blacks could marry whites back in the day, too. Except in states where it was deemed illegal, which was summarily overturned, as it should have been."

EuroTitToss:

Quote :

"You're wasting your time. aaronburro gets the issue, he understands why it's so offensive, he understands that gays are being denied the same right, but he's going to play dumb all the same. I can imagine him championing segregation in the 60s. Separate, but equal!!"

sarijoul:

Quote :

"and you're harping on the whole "well there are laws about it now, so it's different" line again? what is your end-state again? what do you want to happen with marriage? is the current state acceptable to you?"

HockeyRoman:

Quote :

"He'll probably sidestep that question by saying something useless like "Well, the current law is the law so it doesn't matter what I think about it." . . . "

nutsmackr:

Quote :

"and blacks had the right to marry too, as long as the other person was black."

nutsmackr:

Quote :

"aaronburro is the master of distinctions without merit."

8/7/2010 5:25:55 PM

TRANSCRIPT: Jake Tapper Interviews Barack Obama
June 16, 2008

Quote :

"[Jake] TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California. [Barack] OBAMA: Right. TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage. OBAMA: Yes."

Quote :

"You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples."

Quote :

"TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California's doing [concerning Prop 8]? OBAMA: No."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=5178123&page=4

Yet, where has the gay community and other liberals focused their outrage? On a beauty pageant contestant, among other unlikely places.

[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 7:03 PM. Reason : It's battered constituent syndrome. ]

8/7/2010 6:57:44 PM

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

8/7/2010 7:16:40 PM

Quote :

"Legally prove to me that there is a conflict of interests here"

I've already fucking done it! He stands to gain something substantial from ruling one way in the fucking case. It's fucking obvious. Show me how he doesn't stand to gain something from ruling one way on gay rights when he is gay. You have YET to address that

what was your point again, supplanter? you have yet to prove that they are being denied anything. I'm simply showing that the right exists even for gays to get married, unless you change the fundamental definition of the word "marriage," which you are attempting to do.

8/7/2010 9:01:36 PM

Quote :

"I've already fucking done it!"

Lost in your inane babbling was there a legal precedent or a law indicating that it was against the rules for a gay judge to make a ruling in a marriage equality case? Nope, didn't think so.

8/7/2010 9:06:32 PM

One step closer to being able to tie the know with my hot cousin. Seriously guys. She's at least a 9.

8/8/2010 4:59:17 AM

You can already marry her in North Carolina unless she's your first cousin on both sides. Go ahead and churn them guts, son.

8/8/2010 7:51:55 AM