Cue cries of “activist judge” in 5…4…3…2…1…

If anyone needs me, I’ll be checking out the comments over at FoxNation.com! Should be some comic gold in there – I mean, MORE than usual.

great! now the girls will have to be allowed to join the boy scouts…

It was always going to the US Supreme Court anyway.

Why was a gay Judge hearing this case?

Unisex showers in the Military is next.

Oh no the apocalypse is coming. Next people will be able to marry their cats and dogs, and then America will really be over. Yes please read my sarcasm. Please.

In essence, two people want to announce to the world that their together. And we’re spending time on this????? About consenting adults wanting to share benefits???? And we care?

You know, it could be part of the Liberal Secret Agenda to increase the tax base.

Woohoo!

The supreme court will uphold the decison 5-4 and gay marriage will be legal.

Count on it.

This is why we need the Tea Party ; libertarians are going to force social conservatives to come to table or be left out in the cold.

GO TEA PARTY!

I have no problem with it. The government shouldn’t be telling individuals what they can/can’t do. I also hope that you liberals will have no problem supporting polygamy. If the definition of marriage can be changed, it should be able change for all people, not just one segment of society. Additionally, there is more historic precedence for polygamy.

Cries of “ACTIVIST JUDGE!” is always a load of crap.
If a judge decided that gays should be rounded up, thrown in jail and subjected to state-sanctioned “sexual re-education”, watch how many Conservatives (especially Christian Conservatives) would hail that judge a hero.

Cubby said:
If anyone needs me, I’ll be checking out the comments over at FoxNation.com! Should be some comic gold in there – I mean, MORE than usual.

Free Republic will be better. More pure homophobic hate over there…..

More Liberty said:
I have no problem with it. The government shouldn’t be telling individuals what they can/can’t do. I also hope that you liberals will have no problem supporting polygamy. If the definition of marriage can be changed, it should be able change for all people, not just one segment of society. Additionally, there is more historic precedence for polygamy.

As long as it’s consenting adults we don’t care….

OK did we need to explain again the 3 branches of government,checks and balances and the process that happens when laws get challenged and sometimes they are overruled and sometimes not.And for all you Supreme Court watchers Anthony Kennedy the swing vote has already ruled against the ban on same sex marriage.So all you gay Mediaite readers get ready to go to lots of weddings.

As a libertarian, this is at least one area I agree with liberals on. Now, this is going to be tough, but which one of yo liberals are going to support allowing polygamy marriage, as long as all involved are adults.

The answer to the question: Why shouldn’t gay marriage be permitted under our system of laws has never been adequately answered by opponents. And the list of societal benefits associated with marriage–to say nothing of civil rights–is long. Conservatives should support gay marriage.

Jackie_Treehorn said:
As long as it’s consenting adults we don’t care….

Glad to hear it Treehorn. You’d be surprised at how many liberals I get into arguments with over this.

A PRINCIPLE of the Freedom-Hating Left is to destroy the traditional family.

You see, the traditional family provides a valuable support structure to each ensuing generation, and the Progressive Lefties want everyone DEPENDENT on the Government (THEM!)!

This is why Obama Lies about wanting small business to succeed; he doesn’t!

These Marxist parasites on humanity want everyone subjugated to their dysfunctional megalomania!!!

I’m only sorry this decision didn’t occur closer to the election, but it’ll be a Sea-Change election anyway!!!
————————————–

So a gay, black-robed ideologue judge overturns the will of 7 million people, and you Lefties think that will stifle Freedom in the course of evolution…IT WON’T!

Remember, a Vote for ANY Democrat is a Vote for the Tyrant Obama!

The left will force its agenda through the courts even after it constantly loses when this issue is put up for voters to decide. How many times have the voters rejected gay marriage? Thirty times? Forty times. I lost count long ago. But this doesn’t give the Democrats even the slightest hesitation in foisting it on the public via accommodating judges.

No one does brute force power politics as well as the Democrats. The Republicans are at a disadvantage because they have respect for voters and the Constitution. But the Left has always felt that results were more important than respecting the democratic process — hence this kind of charade in which a judge legislates from the bench based on personal opinion.

As long as we appoint judges that will not follow the law we are headed toward rebellion. The law was passed by the people and it is not unconstitutional. You don’t get to overturn laws just because you don’t like them. The judge is a nut. Bootlikker, it will 5 to 4 upholding the law at the Supreme Court. It should be a 9 to 0 decision.

gordonbloyershow said:
As long as we appoint judges that will not follow the law we are headed toward rebellion. The law was passed by the people and it is not unconstitutional. You don’t get to overturn laws just because you don’t like them. The judge is a nut. Bootlikker, it will 5 to 4 upholding the law at the Supreme Court. It should be a 9 to 0 decision.

Waa Waa Waa Blower. The evil gays are coming for your children now bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

HaHaHaHaHa

Go eat a massive Mexican shit Taco Teabaggers and wash it down with some piss.

These are the judges America gets when America votes for a Democrat!

A Vote for ANY Democrat is a Vote for the dictator Obama! – and, of course, HIS media, NBC, CBS, ABC, AP, Times, Post…you know the usual suspects!!!

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
HaHaHaHaHa

Go eat a massive Mexican shit Taco Teabaggers and wash it down with some piss.

Are you serious? Can you ever partake in a meaningful discussion?

No. I have given on that. But I do enjoy taunting you all with political victories.

felixw said:
The left will force its agenda through the courts even after it constantly loses when this issue is put up for voters to decide. How many times have the voters rejected gay marriage? Thirty times? Forty times. I lost count long ago. But this doesn’t give the Democrats even the slightest hesitation in foisting it on the public via accommodating judges.

Yes, that’s true, and also the vote to end slavery took another 80 years or so after it was first defeated in the 1780s. Count on the conservatives to oppose anything that does not fully support the status quo, no matter how flawed that status quo is.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Go eat a massive Mexican shit Taco Teabaggers and wash it down with some piss.

Finally , a liberal gentleman with some class .

“The judge is a nut.”

you have no proof and are just talking out your ass because this guy was orgunally nominated to the court by RONALDUL MAGNUS REAGAN-YOU HEARD OF HIM? IS HE A NUT TOO?

BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA

But hey you sure have your activist judge talking points down-kinds sucks when they don’t fit your narrow minded template.

” Bootlikker, it will 5 to 4 upholding the law at the Supreme Court.”

Nope.

“It should be a 9 to 0 decision.”

Gaseous drivel.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
No. I have given on that. But I do enjoy taunting you all with political victories.

I agree with the decision. You’re not taunting me. I just think you are fairly childish. No one listens or reads your post, at least not seriously, when you write like this.

Some wiki factoids

“After serving as a law clerk for United States District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher from 1971 to 1972, he practiced in San Francisco at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro from 1972 until his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to the federal district court. Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989. Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay.[1]

Walker’s original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title “Gay Olympics”

So originally nominated by Ronnie Raygun? And then nominated again by Bush 42?

The next person who even thinks of crying about activist judges or liberals being behind this need to just shut the fuck up.

This guy is a self proclaimed libertarian.

Deal with your own house and stop making excuses.

Or the Tea Party will MAKE YOU CONSERVATIVES REALLY SUFFER!!!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

That is all.

“Apostrophe jones says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm Apostrophe jones(Quote)
0 1
Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Go eat a massive Mexican shit Taco Teabaggers and wash it down with some piss.

Finally , a liberal gentleman with some class .”

Apostrophe jones=another lying ass hypocrite who should go fuck himself.

“I just think you are fairly childish”

I can’t argue with you on that.

Bootleghaircut said:
“Apostrophe jones says:August 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm Apostrophe jones(Quote)0 1Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:Go eat a massive Mexican shit Taco Teabaggers and wash it down with some piss. Finally , a liberal gentleman with some class .” Apostrophe jones=another lying ass hypocrite who should go fuck himself.

That’s two !

‘That’s two !”

Move me up to “3″ asshole.

Enjoy your evening

Enjoy your 40 .

Hey, now gays can now be as miserable as the rest of us.

“Enjoy your 40.”

Yawn….you’re still here?

Apostrophe jones said:
Enjoy your 40 .

I’ll be 4 hypocrite boy….

“Hey, now gays can now be as miserable as the rest of us.”

LOL

“Jackie_Treehorn says:
August 4, 2010 at 6:07 pm Jackie_Treehorn(Quote)
1 0
Apostrophe jones said:
Enjoy your 40 .

I’ll be 4 hypocrite boy….”

We don’t want to confuse the dear lad with too much multitasking.

But then again since his insipid posts are never more than dozen snarky words he might be able to take on the world!!! I mean who could stand such a barrage???

We all know that sacasm is the last refuge of sentive people, right?

Jackie_Treehorn said:
I’ll be 4 hypocrite boy….

You are # 3 . And get The Dude a beverage , Treehorn .

Bootleghaircut said:
We all know that sacasm is the last refuge of sentive people, right?

Can anyone translate this ? I don’t speak Crip .

Mussolini used people in Black Shirts to enforce his Tyranny; Obama uses people in BLACK ROBES!

Hey California – Is this Black-Robed Thug’s Vote more important than 7 MILLION of YOUR VOTES??

Are you going to let these political appointees TYRANNIZE the rest of you?
————————————————————–

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, CALIFORNIA?

Remember, a Vote for ANY Democrat is a Vote for Obama & the Oppressive Left!!!

I can understand different views on taxes, abortion, role of government in our lives, etc., but if you can’t see in your heart that discrimination against a certain group of people is morally wrong, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

I would hope that the Tea Party lends their support to gay marriage groups, because it’s consistent with their belief in liberty, limited government, and states’ rights.

NORBIT said:
These are the judges America gets when America votes for a Democrat!

A Vote for ANY Democrat is a Vote for the dictator Obama! – and, of course, HIS media, NBC, CBS, ABC, AP, Times, Post…you know the usual suspects!!!
…

Mussolini used people in Black Shirts to enforce his Tyranny; Obama uses people in BLACK ROBES!

So who nominated this judge again? Oh… right.

Troll.

“Can anyone translate this ? I don’t speak Crip .”

But he is fluent in “moron”

Don’t bother translating it for him-it would go over the point on the top of his head.

Everything the Right is saying about gay marriage…just substitute the word slavery.
Damn activist judges. Ruling that blacks can attend the same schools as whites.
Ridiculous.

Lurker said:
Why was a gay Judge hearing this case?

A straight judge would have just as much personally invested. Any judge with a sexual orientation could have their objectivity questioned on this matter.

Bad week for the tea tards.

Good week for freedom loving Americans.

i wonder why all those fags running ancient rome and greece didnt invent gay marriage back in the day

“i wonder why all those fags”

Excuse me. The proper term is “queer”.

felixw said:
How many times have the voters rejected gay marriage?

NORBIT said:
So a gay, black-robed ideologue judge overturns the will of 7 million people, and you Lefties think that will stifle Freedom in the course of evolution…IT WON’T!

gordonbloyershow said:
The law was passed by the people and it is not unconstitutional. You don’t get to overturn laws just because you don’t like them. The judge is a nut.

Seriously guys! When will people open up their history books and realize that if overwhelming public opinion is against you then you get nothing!

Just like when we voted to free the slaves, when we voted to give women the right to vote, and most recently, when we voted for the civil rights act. Clearly, if the people are against it, it ain’t right. We all know that.

Bootleghaircut said:
“Can anyone translate this ? I don’t speak Crip .” But he is fluent in “moron” Don’t bother translating it for him-it would go over the point on the top of his head.</blo Cutting edge retort . Just like a professional ….Are you famous ? Are you Joy Behar ?

I ‘ve got it . Bootle is clearly a pro . .. Rosie O’Donnell .

Bootleghaircut said:
“Can anyone translate this ? I don’t speak Crip .” But he is fluent in “moron” Don’t bother translating it for him-it would go over the point on the top of his head.

“Just like when we voted to free the slaves” “just substitute the word slavery”

Please stop equating lack of access to marriage for gays as slavery. It is an insult both to our ancestors who were slaves and an insult to the many people around the world who are either literally slaves or live in a form of bondage. Plus it is just plain stupid.

Josh Feldman said:
e that the Tea Party lends their support to gay marriage groups, because it’s consistent with their belief in liberty, limited government, and states’ rights.

True. Most, if not at all, Tea Party movements don’t even address social issues. They focus on fiscal responsibity.

Josh Feldman says:

I would hope that the Tea Party lends their support to gay marriage groups, because it’s consistent with their belief in liberty, limited government, and states’ rights.

You libs do realize that a large portion of the African American community AND PRES OBAMA

“I would hope that the Tea Party lends their support to gay marriage groups, because it’s consistent with their belief in liberty, limited government, and states’ rights.” Josh Feldman

Some of the tea partys may support gay marriage. Most will probably remain neutral. For the most part, the majority have tried to avoid social issues and remain focused on “belief in liberty, limited government, and states’ rights.”

Sorry cut myself off:

Josh Feldman says:

I would hope that the Tea Party lends their support to gay marriage groups, because it’s consistent with their belief in liberty, limited government, and states’ rights.

You libs do realize that a large portion of the African American community AND PRES OBAMA oppose gay marriage, right? Why are you making it seem like it’s just the tea-partiers?

Slavery was a popular, if not sacred, institution in great swaths of America. Millions went to war to protect it.
Does that make Lincoln an activist president for wanting it abolished?

Resistance to gay marriage is a very popular opinion in great swaths of America. Millions went to the ballot box to protect it.
Does that make Judge Walker an activist for wanting to stop it?

Damn gays. We must protect the sanctity of the male/female bond. Now excuse me while I stray outside the bounds of my childless marriage by texting my mistress.

Tea Parties don’t address social issues because if they did, they’d provide too much ammunition for the other side. It’s fairly easy to label a Tea Partier intolerant. And fun, too. And accurate. And fun…

“Now excuse me while I stray outside the bounds of my childless marriage by texting my mistress.” redleaf

Better yet, why don’t you just go fuck her?

“they’d provide too much ammunition for the other side” redleaf

If the other side includes idiots like you, I don’t think they have much to worry about.

More Liberty said:
I have no problem with it. The government shouldn’t be telling individuals what they can/can’t do. I also hope that you liberals will have no problem supporting polygamy. If the definition of marriage can be changed, it should be able change for all people, not just one segment of society. Additionally, there is more historic precedence for polygamy.

More Liberty, I agree. I don’t have a problem with polygamy. To borrow from notsofast (!!!), hey, if someone wants to be three times as miserable, go for it, haha.

This is great news, not for liberals, but for all Americans. Yes, this will be appealed, and will go to the Supreme Court. We’ll see what happens.

Gordon Bloyer, and Norbit are showing how close to the edge of the fringe they are. Man your tinfoil hats!

MichelleF- I recognize that a portion of the tea party supports gay marriage. Not to mention Cheney is in favor of it too. Meanwhile, I also know that one of the reasons Prop 8 passed is because of the large black turnout in CA in the 2008 election. I know an elderly black woman who voted for Obama but is vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Not to mention that gay marriage is perhaps one of the biggest political flip-flops of Obama’s career.

Don’t worry, I agree with you completely.

“You libs do realize that a large portion of the African American community AND PRES OBAMA oppose gay marriage, right? ”

funny how “they” manage to oppose it wthout being “assholes.”

I seem to recall MANY MANY MANY SOCIAL CONS who used to kvetch about This BS ALL DAY LONG

The Tea Party as a group and as a caucus do not oppose gay marriage-aren’t you so glad the Tea Party gets to tell you what to do?

I sure am.

OBEY THE MAN IN THE TRICORNER HAT!

BWHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

If a conservative saw a gay, Black, Mexican walking down the street, would the conservative’s head explode with hatred and rage?
I mean, if such a trifecta of subhumans actually were to exist in one, crack smoking, America-hating, marriage destroying person…

Carlos and Carmen Vidal just had a child
A lovely girl with a crooked smile
Now they gotta split ’cause the Bronx ain’t fit
For a kid to grow up in
Let’s find a place they say, somewhere far away
With no blacks, no Jews and no gays

Chorus:
There but for the grace of God go I

Machine

I’m a teabagger and I don’t have a problem with it. I think the lefties are the one with a problem and they are the ones who is always throwing out racist (which is growing old) ( It’s Bushes fault ) another one that is growing old! and acting like the bullies on MSNBC.You always know a liberal by the language they use. Fox News Rocks!!!

Bootleghaircut said:
“You libs do realize that a large portion of the African American community AND PRES OBAMA oppose gay marriage, right? ” funny how “they” manage to oppose it wthout being “assholes.” I seem to recall MANY MANY MANY SOCIAL CONS who used to kvetch about This BS ALL DAY LONG The Tea Party as a group and as a caucus do not oppose gay marriage-aren’t you so glad the Tea Party gets to tell you what to do? I sure am. OBEY THE MAN IN THE TRICORNER HAT! BWHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

As you can see , Bootle/Rosie is still delerious today . His dog chewed off his infected toe .

‘I’m a teabagger and I don’t have a problem with it”

NUFF SAID!

Josh Feldman says:

Don’t worry, I agree with you completely.

Sorry josh! I stand corrected.

MichelleF said:
It was always going to the US Supreme Court anyway.

That may be a bit simplistic. Remember, the evidence is set. Neither the intermediate Court nor the Supremes can hear or admit evidence. Your soulmtes did a terrible, terrible job presenting the evidence. Planed witnesses never showed up or were not called while ohers were not credible. I think there is some chance that the Supremes might not want to take a case with such a poor evidentiary record. This would not be the best case for the radical right activists, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, to proceed on. With some of the questions about Roberts’ bckground, he could be a bit reluctant as well. It’s far from certain that this case is going to be the landmark to punish people for their gender identification and sexual orientation.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

gordonbloyershow said:
As long as we appoint judges that will not follow the law we are headed toward rebellion. The law was passed by the people and it is not unconstitutional. You don’t get to overturn laws just because you don’t like them. The judge is a nut. Bootlikker, it will 5 to 4 upholding the law at the Supreme Court. It should be a 9 to 0 decision.

You haven’t read the opinion have you Marceaux, I mean Blower? The reasoning is sound and solid. I think you and your homophobe friends blew this one a couple of dozen ways.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

Score one for freedom!

The Left-Wing Propaganda Machine (nbc, cbs, abc, AP, NY Times, etc) will be going full-force promoting the ASSUMPTION that Homosexuality IS AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT!

IT IS NOT!

It’s a CONDITIONED ORIENTATION! – acquired through interaction with one’s environment, and the subsequent conceptual formulations – both conscious(cognitive) and sub-conscious(emotional) – derived thereof.

If there’s going to be a government edict to recognize such “orientation” as marriage, then every union and “orientation” must be recognized, effectively rendering the institution of “marriage” meaningless – which is precisely what the Radical Left seeks, a dissolution of the family unit!

Some_Dude said:
Score one for freedom!

Freedom does tend to prevail, doesn’t it, despite the best effors of the xenophobes, racisits, homophobes, Tea Partiers and other haters?

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE PERFECTION!!!!!!!!

NORBIT said:
The Left-Wing Propaganda Machine (nbc, cbs, abc, AP, NY Times, etc) will be going full-force promoting the ASSUMPTION that Homosexuality IS AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT! IT IS NOT! It’s a CONDITIONED ORIENTATION! – acquired through interaction with one’s environment, and the subsequent conceptual formulations – both conscious(cognitive) and sub-conscious(emotional) – derived thereof. If there’s going to be a government edict to recognize such “orientation” as marriage, then every union and “orientation” must be recognized, effectively rendering the institution of “marriage” meaningless – which is precisely what the Radical Left seeks, a dissolution of the family unit!

That’s a big load of crap. I can assure you that my very traditional marriage is not in the less threatened by the unions of anone else. No strong marriage is. You obviously have a very low regard for marriage and the family.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

Laws are not made to make people FEEL good. It has nothing to do with equal rights. The liars on the left always use strawment to change the discourse.
It starts with calling people homophobic if they don’t agree with the homosexual agenda.
Then they tell people they are not allowed to define marriage. The people have that right no matter what an unelected judge says.
If the people VOTE to accept gay marriage I would have no problem with that. As I have posted here before I was married by a judge in what I would call a civil union. I don’t care if they call it a marriage or NOT. The judge is a jerk if he thinks civil unions don’t give the same rights as something CALLED marriage. Many men and women get married by a judge because they don’t belong to any church.
The PEOPLE have the right to define marriage if they want to.

gordonbloyershow said:
Laws are not made to make people FEEL good. It has nothing to do with equal rights. The liars on the left always use strawment to change the discourse.It starts with calling people homophobic if they don’t agree with the homosexual agenda.Then they tell people they are not allowed to define marriage. The people have that right no matter what an unelected judge says.If the people VOTE to accept gay marriage I would have no problem with that. As I have posted here before I was married by a judge in what I would call a civil union. I don’t care if they call it a marriage or NOT. The judge is a jerk if he thinks civil unions don’t give the same rights as something CALLED marriage. Many men and women get married by a judge because they don’t belong to any church.The PEOPLE have the right to define marriage if they want to.

Marceaux, I mean Blower, why are you so threatened by homosexuals? I would love you no more nor no less if you are gay.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

uuuuh I feel ill….i just gave old gordo a check up.

All liberal bashing aside He actually wrote something that made sense and that I agree with.

“If the people VOTE to accept gay marriage I would have no problem with that. As I have posted here before I was married by a judge in what I would call a civil union. I don’t care if they call it a marriage or NOT. The judge is a jerk if he thinks civil unions don’t give the same rights as something CALLED marriage. Many men and women get married by a judge because they don’t belong to any church.
The PEOPLE have the right to define marriage if they want to.”

I’m glad I saw this because maybe behind all the bluff and bluster he might be human after all.

But don’t quote me on that.

“I would love you no more nor no less if you are gay.”

Ahhhhhhhhh, that’s so sweet!

Blower, you are a ringer for Marceaux.

The Real Royal King said:
That’s a big load of crap. I can assure you that my very traditional marriage is not in the less threatened by the unions of anone else. No strong marriage is. You obviously have a very low regard for marriage and the family. FROM ITS CONCEPTION,THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

——————————————–
This is purely anthropological, The Real Royal King (Is this really Barry, because he thinks he’s King also!).

Marriage provides a natural support structure for procreation, and perpetuation of the species.

By definition, same-sex unions are pre-empted from natural procreation; hence, marriage should be defined as being between a male and female.

Keep it simple people; you can put the word “ORIENTATION” after any emotional affinity, but it should not be used to pervert the natural procreation ideal of marriage.

Make no mistake. The right wing in this country has been thoroughly rebuked (or should I say “refudiated”) in the past week. Your exclusionary, racist, homophobic views on society in America have been rejected as unconstitutional in this country. Major portions of SB 1070 ruled unconstitutional. Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional.

As society in this world and this country move forward, YOU and your archaic and inhumane views are being left behind. You should all move to Texas and promote their threat to secede from the union. You could all fit in the state of Texas and live by your own white, straight laws. I’d happily drive or fly around your new nation to get to the other great states of the United States of America from my location on the west coast.

You have been summarily dismissed. Equality for all.

As David Boises (sic?) said, it is a civil rights and a human rights issue. Period.

“As society in this world and this country move forward, , YOU and your archaic and inhumane views are being left behind.” Newsjunky

You might want to hustle over to the Islamic countries, Russia, Africa, and China and spread the good news.

Azarkhan said:
“Just like when we voted to free the slaves” “just substitute the word slavery”

Please stop equating lack of access to marriage for gays as slavery. It is an insult both to our ancestors who were slaves and an insult to the many people around the world who are either literally slaves or live in a form of bondage. Plus it is just plain stupid.

You are correct. Slavery does not equal discrimination (in terms of weight of criminality). But both regard the granting of rights to the minority despite popular public sentiment, which is how rights in this country are won.

I feel it is an insult to both our ancestors who were slaves and an insult to the many people around the world in bondage to ignore the constitutional rights of citizens in the a country I was brought up to believe in as a standard bearer for liberty throughout the ages and the world.

But I won’t call you stupid for disagreeing with me. ; )

Shocking, another libbie judge in CA shoots it down.

TeaBagALibby said:
Shocking, another libbie judge in CA shoots it down.

Awesome isn’t it.

I don’t know what makes me happier….equal rights for homosexuals, or millions of fundie heads exploding in unison.

TeaBagALibby said:
Shocking, another libbie judge in CA shoots it down.

That’s right. You lose AGAIN. Second time in a week. Must be painful for you.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
HaHaHaHaHa

Go eat a massive Mexican shit Taco Teabaggers and wash it down with some piss.

Your eloquence is impressive!

Bootleghaircut said:
Apostrophe jones=another lying ass hypocrite who should go fuck himself.

Boot, come on, you are better than that!

sure is a lot of hatred in these comments

“Boot, come on, you are better than that!”

My apologies Patrick as I know you to be a sincere honorable guy. I have a problem with impulse control and picking fights with low information posters.

Royal Race-Baiter says:

Freedom does tend to prevail, doesn’t it, despite the best effors of the xenophobes, racisits, homophobes, Tea Partiers and other haters?

Again I say, you are including Obama in that group. He is against gay marriage also. Stop making it sound like it’s just tea-partiers, you ignorant dimwit.

Another example of a person in power ignoring the will of the people. So everyone that voted against Prop 8 are homophobic and anti-constitutionlists?? We don’t necessarily disagree with 2 women or 2 men loving each other and sharing lives and receiving benefits. We have grown weary of people demanding things and screaming racism and bigotry at every turn.
November 2 can’t come soon enough for me. Let’s restore America, not transform it.
B4 you libs attack- I am an independent thinker not bound by party or news network. For ex., I am a gun carrying Pro-Choicer flipping between MSLSD and FakeNews. Neither main party will accept me. Fine by me, I don’t accept them either.

Anderson was all over this one tonight, but he barely mentioned the Connecticut shooter. Any guesses why?

MichelleF said:
Royal Race-Baiter says:

Freedom does tend to prevail, doesn’t it, despite the best effors of the xenophobes, racisits, homophobes, Tea Partiers and other haters?

Again I say, you are including Obama in that group. He is against gay marriage also. Stop making it sound like it’s just tea-partiers, you ignorant dimwit.

President Obama is wrong on gay marriage.

Stephen Hogan-

Having an opinion that differs from yours does not make the other person “wrong”.
Opinions can’t be wrong because thay are just that – opinions.
IMO, your statement is close-minded, polarizing, and bigoted. Hmm, that sounds familiar, like something a gay person would say to a heterosexual. Now there’s a fact for you.

If someone stated that the world is flat – that would be wrong. Hope you see the difference.

Can’t we all just get a bong? Ooops, I mean along.

StandUp said:
Opinions can’t be wrong because thay are just that – opinions.

It used to be a lot of people’s opinion in this country that people of different races should not be allowed to marry one another. That was just their opinion, but they were wrong.

When people say “Obama is wrong on gay marriage” I think it is meant in that way. I believe someday the majority of people will look back on similar “opinions” like “only straight people can marry one another” and see them much in the same way.

StandUp said:
Can’t we all just get a bong?

Absolutely.

Just a matter of time! Watch! Some left wing nut bag “progressive” will decide
he or she should be allowed to marry a beloved German Shepherd or a sibling!!
Take it to court! Eventually get a favorable ruling from some Liberal Activist Judge!
And away we go! Pathetic to say the least!! The crap never ends…

JimBob said:
Just a matter of time! Watch! Some left wing nut bag “progressive” will decidehe or she should be allowed to marry a beloved German Shepherd or a sibling!!Take it to court! Eventually get a favorable ruling from some Liberal Activist Judge!And away we go! Pathetic to say the least!! The crap never ends…

Actually, I think Marceaux, I mean Blower, has a Pomeranian. And, his sister is already married to his brother. Your analogy needs work.

THOREAU: “RATHER … THAN MONEY, THAN FAME, GIVE ME TRUTH.”
FOX NEWS: BUY GOLD. USE GOLD TO BUY WHATEVER TRUTH YOU WANT. AND, SEEDS.

@JimBob

a) if you can’t tell the difference between a consenting adult and a German Shephard then you’ve got more serious issues to attend to

b) If you are equating a homosexual person to a dog, then you are indeed showing the lack of rational thought on the side of those who oppose allowing consenting adults to marry.

GLBT’s are humans, you are NOT SUPERIOR to them just because you identify as straight. That’s exactly why there are already laws on the books to protect their rights. Twelve states, over one hundred local governments, and the District of Columbia have passed statutes that forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is why, in the end, marriage will allow for equality regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, color, national origin or sexual orientation.

The courts only have one issue before them now and that is whether or not homosexuality is a “status” or a “choice”. As noted above, many courts have already made the determination that it is a “status”, which is why they are allowed equal opportunities.

This is America damn it, stop acting like we’re some middle-eastern theocracy. Our laws ARE NOT based on religion (the rule of god) but on the rule of law.

…and if you’re only legal arguement (remember religious ones don’t count) is that marriage is only used for pro-creation. Then dissolve all marriages that cannot pro-create, including ones that must use science to conceive.

That would eliminate the perceived descrimination your side is pushing.

LOL, do you lib nuts know this doesn’t establish gay marriage. It is going to the Supreme Court. You won’t be celebrating then.
Everytime this is on the ballot the people OPPOSE gay marriage. If the judges do not accept the will of the people there WILL be a Constitutional amendment. The PEOPLE will win.
Stop the phony arguement about equal rights and save the fake outrage.

RRK aren’t you having your birthday party at Fire Island?

Or species, SpineCrusher, or Species!!!!

Vaughn Walker’s decision is contrary to the laws of nature.

The problem I have with Gay Marriage is that society has the right to nurture the growth and development of future citizens. It can do so by writing laws tailored to benefit and enhance this development. The basic sub structure of society is the family unit: Mother (female), Father (male), and the children. The formality of the unit, recognized by society, is by marriage.

Gay “Marriage” by this definition cannot support the procreation of future citizens and therefore must fall in a different category and under a different name—Civil Union would be such a name.

Since legally, and ultimately, there must be separate identities to these two groups, marriage should remain between a man and a woman, as recognized throughout history, and the other category may go by whatever other name desired.

Individual states may develop their laws they wish, addressing what benefits the groups should share or be entitled to, but they will always be separate groups.