Same Sex Marriage is NOW THE LAW of THE LAND

[Cigar]

What Week for CHANGE and The Obama Legacy

:grin: How many more Ass-Kicking can The GOP Take in One Week?

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/jd150625.gif

[Green Arrow]

Yay, it's over!




...except I know better.

[PolWatch]

I wish this would mean its over and decided but I don't. I have received 2 calls from friends already celebrating the decision but I suspect the celebration may be too soon.

Whatever, congrads to those who have waited & hoped for this decision. I wish y'all a future of happiness & love.

[Ravens Fan]

I think it gets real ugly from here. I hope I am wrong.

[Chris]

What Week for CHANGE and The Obama Legacy

:grin: How many more Ass-Kicking can The GOP Take in One Week?

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/jd150625.gif



You're not at all concerned about gays and marriage, are you? Just flamebait.

[Safety]

You're not at all concerned about gays and marriage, are you? Just flamebait.

LoL, it's a political forum, Cigar is one of the partisans who participate.

[Ransom]

I wish this would mean its over and decided but I don't. I have received 2 calls from friends already celebrating the decision but I suspect the celebration may be too soon.

Whatever, congrads to those who have waited & hoped for this decision. I wish y'all a future of happiness & love.

What decision? Aren't we still waiting?

Might you at least wait until the gun sounds to lockstep, marching along without music looks silly. Imo.

[Cigar]

You're not at all concerned about gays and marriage, are you? Just flamebait.

You RIGHT ... Gays getting married have ZERO impact on my Day-2-Day life.

I'm MORE Concerned with EQUAL RIGHT for EVERYONE

... and if that bothers you ... GREAT :grin: it should bother you that you think it's Flamebait

[PattyHill]

This is fracking amazing!!! What a great day! Whoo oooo!!!

I've been wanting this since I first became aware in the mid-80s of the problems of not having it. I am so psyched that we have it everywhere now! Celebrate!!

[Hal Jordan]

What decision? Aren't we still waiting?

Might you at least wait until the gun sounds to lockstep, marching along without music looks silly. Imo.

No, it's in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

[Cigar]

Racism and Racist take a Huge Blow :wink:

[Ransom]

What a great day.

[TrueBlue]

I think it gets real ugly from here. I hope I am wrong.
It can only get ugly when ugliness from Conservatives raises its ugly head. Otherwise, no.

[Ravens Fan]

It can only get ugly when ugliness from Conservatives raises its ugly head. Otherwise, no.

Hate is bipartisan...

[PolWatch]

It can only get ugly when ugliness from Conservatives raises its ugly head. Otherwise, no.

True, you are kidding yourself if you think that those who oppose this will quietly go away. I have witnessed the same sort of situation where it took years of fighting, riots & National Guard troops to enforce the newly recognized rights acknowledged in the CRA. This will eventually be accepted and 50 years from now people will look back and wonder why it happened....but between now & then ain't gonna be pretty.

If anyone thinks this is the last line 'and they lived happily ever after' ...they are going to be sadly surprised.

[maineman]

What decision? Aren't we still waiting?

Might you at least wait until the gun sounds to lockstep, marching along without music looks silly. Imo.

what exactly are we still waiting for?

[Chris]

LoL, it's a political forum, Cigar is one of the partisans who participate.

Right, but I was pointing out his concern is to merely mock opposing partisans, no concern whatsoever with gays and marriage. Go back to OP.

(Not everyone here is a partisan.)

[Tahuyaman]

What Week for CHANGE and The Obama Legacy

:grin: How many more Ass-Kicking can The GOP Take in One Week?

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/jd150625.gif

This has nothing to do with the GOP. I know plenty of Democrats who oppose gay marriage. But most of them aren't crazy fringe leftists types.

I'm just curious, what other perversion do you want to normalize next? How far must standards decline before you say "enough"?

[magicmike]

Yay, it's over!




...except I know better.

Without even reading the comments on this thread, I can assure you the fights not over. It won't be until ignorance, hate and homophobia are replaced by knowledge, love, and courage.

[maineman]

just imagine back in the day when we decided that black folks weren't property anymore. How perverted! What a degradation of our standards! Or when we let those silly little creatures without penises actually VOTE, for crissakes! How did we EVER recover!!!!!

[magicmike]

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.".

Justice Anthony Kennedy

[magicmike]

I think it gets real ugly from here. I hope I am wrong.

I suspect that's what you want.

[PattyHill]

True, you are kidding yourself if you think that those who oppose this will quietly go away. I have witnessed the same sort of situation where it took years of fighting, riots & National Guard troops to enforce the newly recognized rights acknowledged in the CRA. This will eventually be accepted and 50 years from now people will look back and wonder why it happened....but between now & then ain't gonna be pretty.

If anyone thinks this is the last line 'and they lived happily ever after' ...they are going to be sadly surprised.


I don't know. This may be different because it was already supported by so many.

Friends in Texas are getting married Monday; several counties plan to start marrying that day, having a judge available to waive the 72 hour waiting period, and will be open later.

That's in Texas.

I don't know that the opponents are going to do much at all. Guess we'll see.

[magicmike]

You RIGHT ... Gays getting married have ZERO impact on my Day-2-Day life.

I'm MORE Concerned with EQUAL RIGHT for EVERYONE

... and if that bothers you ... GREAT :grin: it should bother you that you think it's Flamebait

That's what it's always been about. Equality.

[domer76]

This has nothing to do with the GOP. I know plenty of Democrats who oppose gay marriage. But most of them aren't crazy fringe leftists types.

I'm just curious, what other perversion do you want to normalize next? How far must standards decline before you say "enough"?

I think allowing sex with a Boston Cream Pie is probably next

[magicmike]

It can only get ugly when ugliness from Conservatives raises its ugly head. Otherwise, no.

I was driving when I got a call from my stepmother. I turned on Glenn Beck on my car radio. The effin tears were flowing out of my speakers. Thank god Boehner wasn't his guest, my car would be floating down the road.

[Chris]

Racism and Racist take a Huge Blow :wink:



Wrong topic.

[magicmike]

Hate is bipartisan...

Even gays can hate, right?

[Ravens Fan]

I suspect that's what you want.

This from the same genius who was sure that green arrow and I were not really gay? Same guy who accuses me of stalking and attacking him?

LMAO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris]

It can only get ugly when ugliness from Conservatives raises its ugly head. Otherwise, no.

^^That's the ugliness right there, the partisan blaming and mockery of opposing partisans.

(Also, the US has no Conservative Party.)

[Mister D]

This from the same genius who was sure that green arrow and I were not really gay? Same guy who accuses me of stalking and attacking him?

LMAO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Howey seems to have gotten crazier in his absence. It must have been all the time he spent alone on his new forum.

[Chris]

Without even reading the comments on this thread, I can assure you the fights not over. It won't be until ignorance, hate and homophobia are replaced by knowledge, love, and courage.



Do you think that can be accomplished by the government?

[domer76]

^^That's the ugliness right there, the partisan blaming and mockery of opposing partisans.

(Also, the US has no Conservative Party.)

BTW, the US also has no Democrat Party, but that doesn't stop the ignorant from misusing that term, too

[magicmike]

This has nothing to do with the GOP. I know plenty of Democrats who oppose gay marriage. But most of them aren't crazy fringe leftists types.

I'm just curious, what other perversion do you want to normalize next? How far must standards decline before you say "enough"?

76% of our country are " crazy leftist types"?

[Chris]

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.".

Justice Anthony Kennedy



So he's saying the court decision only effects, only regulates government.

[magicmike]

This from the same genius who was sure that green arrow and I were not really gay? Same guy who accuses me of stalking and attacking him?

LMAO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There you have it. Hatred from a gay. I don't think I ever doubted your sexuality, just your acceptance of being who you are. And when did I accuse you of stalking me? Are you ms. D's sock?

Finally, you're attacking me now.

Troll.

[Mister D]

Howey, in all seriousness, you should take a break from political forums.

[magicmike]

Do you think that can be accomplished by the government?

Did I say that? Hate, bigotry and homophobia are born from ignorance and lack of knowledge. That's why they're most prevalent among the conservative right, particularly teatarians.


So he's saying the court decision only effects, only regulates government.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're mumbling. Get back to me when you regain your composure.

[Ravens Fan]

There you have it. Hatred from a gay. I don't think I ever doubted your sexuality, just your acceptance of being who you are. And when did I accuse you of stalking me? Are you ms. D's sock?

Finally, you're attacking me now.

Troll.

Lol

I am on my phone and cannot look up where you and Patty talked about us and you stated that GA and myself probably weren't really gay... Because we disagreed with you. To be fair, you have also talked about our supposed inability to accept who we are. Again, because we disagreed with you.

You accused me of stalking you on the forum and attacking you. Which I never did.

There was no hatred in my last post. No attack. I was explaining how much credibility you have.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mister D]

Lol

I am on my phone and cannot look up where you and Patty talked about us and you stated that GA and myself probably weren't really gay... Because we disagreed with you. To be fair, you have also talked about our supposed inability to accept who we are. Again, because we disagreed with you.

You accused me of stalking you on the forum and attacking you. Which I never did.

There was no hatred in my last post. No attack. I was explaining how much credibility you have.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember it well, actually.

[Chloe]

This is great news in my opinion. This is a victory for gay couples everywhere and their supporters, but I don't think that president Obama or any particular party should take credit for the ruling.

[The Xl]

So long as the government asserted that they had a place in the marriage business, this was inevitable and the right decision. Now, I don't think they have any business in the marriage business, but that's a different discussion altogether

[magicmike]

This is great news in my opinion. This is a victory for gay couples everywhere and their supporters, but I don't think that president Obama or any particular party should take credit for the ruling.

I agree. Credit should go to the gay and non-gay heroes who fought so hard for equality over the decades.

[Chris]

Did I say that? Hate, bigotry and homophobia are born from ignorance and lack of knowledge. That's why they're most prevalent among the conservative right, particularly teatarians.



I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're mumbling. Get back to me when you regain your composure.



OK, so, if using the government to accomplish it won't work, how will "bigotry and homophobia are born from ignorance and lack of knowledge" be changed? In liberals and conservatives, in everyone. How?


You ad hom is ignored.

[maineman]

I am not convinced that gays really gave a flying fuck that some people didn't approve of them or their lifestyle and sexuality. They just wanted equal rights and now they've got it. Freeing the slaves did not make all the white people instantaneously like black people.... but it DID make them no longer the property of other people.

[Ethereal]

Libertarians were decades ahead of the Democrat party on gay rights (http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/slate-wonders-why-libertarian-party-insi), but will Democrats give them any credit? Of course not. They will just take all the credit for themselves and continue lumping libertarians in with hardcore rightwing conservatives.

[Cigar]

WTF :huh:

[exotix]

Libertarians were decades ahead of the Democrat party on gay rights (http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/slate-wonders-why-libertarian-party-insi), but will Democrats give them any credit? Of course not. They will just take all the credit for themselves and continue lumping libertarians in with hardcore rightwing conservatives.
Notice the root word of Libertarian.

[Chris]

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.".

Justice Anthony Kennedy


This is great news in my opinion. This is a victory for gay couples everywhere and their supporters, but I don't think that president Obama or any particular party should take credit for the ruling.


Agree, anything that regulates government toward rule of law is great.

All too often government instead of regulating itself tries to regulate society. Glad this doesn't do that.

[TrueBlue]

A HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL GAY AND LESBIAN CITIZENS ACROSS AMERICA!!! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/appl.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/yahoo.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/drinks.gif


Today marks a monumental achievement in the Gay rights and marriage fight-movement! No more will Gays and Lesbians have to be relegated to back-seat status. No more will they have to spend an inordinate amount of money fighting for their legal right to marry. No more will they have to have a hand with a finger shaking and pointing at them all the time saying "Only WE have the right to marry."

Today, June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court has found that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause indeed extends also to LGBT citizens in this country which is right and just and the correct decision.

I call upon all Straight/Heterosexuals to come to terms with this important ruling and celebrate alongside their Gay and Lesbian family members, parents, relatives, friends, and many others who are jubilant with the SCOTUS ruling. I ask you to put prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, and the air of superiority aside and embrace the fact that our Gay brothers and Lesbian sisters may finally be able to marry legally in every state of these United States and dispel your fear that it will somehow interfere with your own marriage. It hasn't and it won't. It will only allow LOVE to prevail and the bond of loving relationships to prosper and blossom legally into that special cornerstone that so many are so deserving of.

So, let us come together now with this decision from the Conservative Supreme Court and simply get on with our lives in the spirit of fairness, love, and allowance for the right of equality that was so critically due for millenniums in this country. Thank you Justice Anthony Kennedy!

May God bless each and every one of you, may God bless the LGBT community who worked so very hard for this decision to become a reality, and may God bless America!


Congratulations Again To All Newlywed LGBT Couples!! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/mini/heart_mini.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/mini/rose_mini.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/mini/rose_mini.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/mini/rose_mini.gif

[magicmike]

Lol. Will Matt Drudge finally marry his bf?

http://i.imgur.com/JvApKVe.jpg

[Chris]

Notice the root word of Libertarian.


Liberty.

From dictionary.com


Word Origin
C18: from liberty
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source
Word Origin and History for libertarian Expand
n.
1789, "one who holds the doctrine of free will" (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty (q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. Political sense of "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct" is from 1878. As an adjective by 1882. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971.

[TrueBlue]

Hate is bipartisan...
Yet a whole lot partisan where Conservatives are concerned!

[Ethereal]

Notice the root word of Libertarian.

Libertarians are the only real liberals left. Democrats are aggressively anti-liberal.

[Susan B. Anthony]

We've never had a gay married couple in the Whit House.

[exotix]

Liberty.

From dictionary.com
Libertarians are the only real liberals left. Democrats are aggressively anti-liberal.Well what's the root word of Liberal ?

http://s8.tinypic.com/r73hux_th.jpg

[magicmike]

Libertarians are the only real liberals left. Democrats are aggressively anti-liberal.

Libertarians can't take credit for anything. Delegate it to the states. Lol.

Plus no one admits to being one on here, especially Chris.

[Ethereal]

Well what's the root word of Liberal ?

http://s8.tinypic.com/r73hux_th.jpg

Except you're not a liberal. 99% of Democrats are not liberals. They are aggressive statists who attack the principles of liberalism virtually every chance they get.

[magicmike]

Attack of the code words!

[exotix]

Except you're not a liberal. 99% of Democrats are not liberals. They are aggressive statists who attack the principles of liberalism virtually every chance they get.
I'm from California ... I think I know what Liberal is ... believe me, Paulies like you are not Libertarians ... otherwise you'd have a (D) before it.

[Ethereal]

Libertarians can't take credit for anything. Delegate it to the states. Lol.

Plus no one admits to being one on here, especially Chris.

They can take credit for supporting gay rights long before the Democrat party ever did, and they can take credit for leading the charge on civil rights today with their opposition to racist drug laws which Democrats like Obama and Clinton still support.

Democrats are probably the biggest phonies in the entire country. They resist change until it's politically convenient for them to do so, like Obama did with his flip-flop on gay marriage. I cannot think of a more cowardly, opportunistic group of people.

[Ethereal]

I'm from California ... I think I know what Liberal is ... believe me, Paulies like you are not Libertarians ... otherwise you'd have a (D) before it.

You have no idea what a liberal is. Locke, Paine, and Jefferson were liberals, whereas you are an aggressive statist who supports the expansion of centralized government in virtually every aspect of human existence.

[exotix]

You have no idea what a liberal is. Locke, Paine, and Jefferson were liberals, whereas you are an aggressive statist who supports the expansion of centralized government in virtually every aspect of human existence.
Pure delusion ... you have never lived in statism nor will you ever.

[TrueBlue]

Howey, I hope you are reading this in your day of celebration. Today, you and millions of others across America reached the cornerstone of Gay equality! KUDOS to those of you who worked so hard against prejudice and inequality and who finally succeeded in the fight that had to be fought for equal rights in this country! We have not forgotten you, Howey. You have a very special place in many a heart here and I want for you to know that! Blessings and sunny days ahead to you and yours! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/vishenka/d_sunny.gif:)

[Chris]

Well what's the root word of Liberal ?

http://s8.tinypic.com/r73hux_th.jpg

You seem not to know as you keep asking.

[Ethereal]

Well what's the root word of Liberal ?

http://s8.tinypic.com/r73hux_th.jpg

Liber, meaning free.

But Democrats usually hate freedom unless it involves abortion or gay sex, so they are not true liberals.

[Ethereal]

Pure delusion ... you have never lived in statism nor will you ever.

Tell that to the millions of non-violent drug offenders rotting away in prison, or the millions of Americans who are being spied on by the NSA, or the millions of people who have died because of the US government's wars of aggression.

Yea, someone is delusional, and it's you.

[Chris]

Libertarians can't take credit for anything. Delegate it to the states. Lol.

Plus no one admits to being one on here, especially Chris.


Everyone here knows I'm libertarian--libertarian free-market anarchist.

Everyone here also knows I have always supported gays and marriage for gays.

Everyone, except you. Hmmm.

[Chris]

Attack of the code words!

What does that even mean other than you're too flabbergasted to respond meaningfully.

[Ethereal]

Everyone here knows I'm libertarian--libertarian free-market anarchist.

Everyone here also knows I have always supported gays and marriage for gays.

Everyone, except you. Hmmm.

There are some Democrats who are pathologically incapable of acknowledging the indispensable contributions of libertarians to socially liberal causes like gay equality and more recently drug legalization. They don't want to be upstaged or to share credit, so they just keep acting like libertarians are just closet conservatives who don't really believe in social liberalism, despite the fact that we're ten times more vocal and aggressive in our pursuit of socially liberal outcomes.

[Chris]

Liber, meaning free.

But Democrats usually hate freedom unless it involves abortion or gay sex, so they are not true liberals.

Democrats support social democracy, they seek social justice through government dictates, freedom to them is like that to a teenager demanding to be free to do whatever he wants. No, they are not liberals in any true sense of the word.

[exotix]

Tell that to the millions of non-violent drug offenders rotting away in prison, or the millions of Americans who are being spied on by the NSA, or the millions of people who have died because of the US government's wars of aggression.

Yea, someone is delusional, and it's you.You have a point ... because you see, you voted for Bush, who allowed terrorists to attack us murdering 3,000 Americans.

This was either to destroy the state or enable statism (this is assuming statism as a despotic regime)

But, probably you mean statism because you enabled Bush to trick you into giving up your rights to wage war ... this is is the *state* of the GOP to this day.

If you don't give up your rights they will destroy them ... todays' gay-ruling is against you.

[domer76]

Liber, meaning free.

But Democrats usually hate freedom unless it involves abortion or gay sex, so they are not true liberals.

Yeah, they 'hate' it.

Hatist!

[Chris]

There are some Democrats who are pathologically incapable of acknowledging the indispensable contributions of libertarians to socially liberal causes like gay equality and more recently drug legalization. They don't want to be upstaged or to share credit, so they just keep acting like libertarians are just closet conservatives who don't really believe in social liberalism, despite the fact that we're ten times more vocal and aggressive in our pursuit of socially liberal outcomes.


It detracts from their feeling good about feel good government dictates and from mocking the other side when we are not on the other side.

[Chris]

Yeah, they 'hate' it.

Hatist!


That was hateful. You're a Democrat, aren't you.

[Ethereal]

You have a point ... because you see, you voted for Bush...

I never voted in my entire life, and Bush belongs in prison for war crimes, right next to Obama.

But like a typical dishonest phony, you have fabricate things in order to maintain the delusion that you're a liberal and I'm not.


...who allowed terrorists to attack us murdering 3,000 Americans.

This was either to destroy the state or enable statism (this is assuming statism as a despotic regime)

But, probably you mean statism because you enabled Bush to trick you into giving up your rights to wage war ... this is is the *state* of the GOP to this day.

If you don't give up your rights they will destroy them ... todays' gay-ruling is against you.

This is probably the most pathetic nonsense I've ever read on a forum.

[TrueBlue]

True, you are kidding yourself if you think that those who oppose this will quietly go away. I have witnessed the same sort of situation where it took years of fighting, riots & National Guard troops to enforce the newly recognized rights acknowledged in the CRA. This will eventually be accepted and 50 years from now people will look back and wonder why it happened....but between now & then ain't gonna be pretty.

If anyone thinks this is the last line 'and they lived happily ever after' ...they are going to be sadly surprised.
I understand only too well that there always has to be a sour grape in each basket. And yes, unfortunately some people will continue to be stupid, prejudiced, discriminatory, unfair and intolerant, and rear their ugly heads whenever they have been defeated. We can only hope for the spirit of acceptance for that which was inevitable and that unruly hearts and minds will begin to quiet and allow for the happiness of so many others of whom will not affect their own marriages or relationships one iota. To continue in the spirit of discordance and non-acceptance is to harm a great institution that is now in place, with the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, and only those with a black heart can feel any satisfaction from doing that.

[Ethereal]

Yeah, they 'hate' it.

Hatist!

I can't think of any position besides gay sex and abortion where Democrats genuinely support more freedom.

And when they come around to supporting more freedom on issues unrelated to gay sex and abortion, it's only after they find it politically advantageous for them to do so.

[exotix]

I never voted in my entire life, and Bush belongs in prison for war crimes, right next to Obama.

But like a typical dishonest phony, you have fabricate things in order to maintain the delusion that you're a liberal and I'm not.



This is probably the most pathetic nonsense I've ever read on a forum.
BS ... simply for the fact the only time you had this so-called voice of *Libertarianism* was when Bush and the neocons destroyed conservatism ... allowing a political vacuum of any charlatan to call themselves conservatives ...

Hence the Paulies ... who have an (R) before it .. along with everything GOP that goes with it.

[Chris]

BS ... simply for the fact the only time you had this so-called voice of *Libertarianism* was when Bush and the neocons destroyed conservatism ... allowing a political vacuum of any charlatan to call themselves conservatives ...

Hence the Paulies ... who has an (R) before .. along with everything GOP that goes with it.

Rand is not libertarian. Geez!

[Ethereal]

BS ... simply for the fact the only time you had this so-called voice of *Libertarianism* was when Bush and the neocons destroyed conservatism ... allowing a political vacuum of any charlatan to call themselves conservatives ...

Hence the Paulies ... who have an (R) before it .. along with everything GOP that goes with it.

If I voted for Bush, then that must mean you're a closet Stalinist who wants to "reeducate" or murder half the country.

[Chris]

I can't think of any position besides gay sex and abortion where Democrats genuinely support more freedom.

And when they come around to supporting more freedom on issues unrelated to gay sex and abortion, it's only after they find it politically advantageous for them to do so.

And even with gays and abortion is freedom for some couple with freedom from others. Gays should be free to marry and force others and their businesses to help celebrate it. Women should be free to abort but damn the rights of the unborn.

[Ethereal]

How long ago was it that Obama and his party were against gay marriage? Not that long.

Yet they are trying to take credit for something that libertarians have been harping on for decades.

Typical.

[exotix]

If I voted for Bush, then that must mean you're a closet Stalinist who wants to "reeducate" or murder half the country.
Only right-wing nutcases talk this ... I have no idea what the Dragonborn see's in you ... LOL

[Private Pickle]

I think it gets real ugly from here. I hope I am wrong.

I really don't think so. The issue will come in, and in some instances already have, when they start to force the private sector to acknowledge homosexual marriage within their respective organizations.

[TrueBlue]

I don't know. This may be different because it was already supported by so many.

Friends in Texas are getting married Monday; several counties plan to start marrying that day, having a judge available to waive the 72 hour waiting period, and will be open later.

That's in Texas.

I don't know that the opponents are going to do much at all. Guess we'll see.
Actually, I was listening on the Internet and heard that the County Clerk, Dana DeBeauvoir, in Austin, Texas, has already started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since 10:30 AM today and her office will be open until about 6:30 PM! Thanks Dana!! :)

TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES FOR SAME GENDER COUPLES

http://traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/Content.do?code=news.MarriageEquality

“Because of the ruling, the Travis County Clerk’s office will begin to issue marriage licenses to same gender couples at 10:30 AM on June 26,” said DeBeauvoir. “This is a joyous day, I am delighted for all couples who wish to be legally married in Texas.”

[Ethereal]

Only right-wing nutcases talk this ... I have no idea what the Dragonborn see's in you ... LOL

Dragonborn was a liar and a phony, just like you.

[exotix]

Dragonborn was a liar and a phony, just like you.Explain please.

[Ethereal]

Explain please.

No explanation is required. You already know everything about me, including who I voted for in 2000 and 2004.

[PolWatch]

http://imgick.al.com/home/bama-media/width620/img/opinion/photo/18200798-mmmain.jpg

[TrueBlue]

^^That's the ugliness right there, the partisan blaming and mockery of opposing partisans.

(Also, the US has no Conservative Party.)
I'm speaking about Liberals vs. Conservatives. But very well, if there is no party of Conservatives in this country, therefore, no conservatives, then let's just call a spade a spade -- let's change it to *The REPUBLICANS*.

[domer76]

That was hateful. You're a Democrat, aren't you.

A hatist, apparently

[domer76]

This is probably the most pathetic nonsense I've ever read on a forum.

You don't read your own stuff, do you?

[domer76]

I can't think of any position besides gay sex and abortion where Democrats genuinely support more freedom.

And when they come around to supporting more freedom on issues unrelated to gay sex and abortion, it's only after they find it politically advantageous for them to do so.

Sure, if you say so it must be true

[Chris]

A hatist, apparently

Even you say so.

[Chris]

I'm speaking about Liberals vs. Conservatives. But very well, if there is no party of Conservatives in this country, therefore, no conservatives, then let's just call a spade a spade -- let's change it to *The REPUBLICANS*.

We also don't have a Liberal Party.

We have liberals and conservatives and libertarians and etc none of which align with partisan parties.

Yes, there's a Republican Party, social democrats just like Democrats.

[exotix]

We also don't have a Liberal Party.

We have liberals and conservatives and libertarians and etc none of which align with partisan parties.

Yes, there's a Republican Party, social democrats just like Democrats.
Well Libtard seems to be a party ... how did you come up with that one ... were you born a hatist ?

http://s8.tinypic.com/r73hux_th.jpg

[TrueBlue]

Except you're not a liberal. 99% of Democrats are not liberals. They are aggressive statists who attack the principles of liberalism virtually every chance they get.
You speak of Gays and Lesbians redefining marriage. Yet what are you doing if not trying to redefine Liberals and Liberalism with your non-sense. :)

[TrueBlue]

BTW, the US also has no Democrat Party, but that doesn't stop the ignorant from misusing that term, too
That's right. It has a Democratic Party!

[exotix]

You speak of Gays and Lesbians redefining marriage. Yet what are you doing if not trying to redefine Liberals and Liberalism with your non-sense. :)
You're talking to a dude who actually picks and chooses which founding fathers who seemingly were not statists ... that's a good one.

[Ethereal]

Sure, if you say so it must be true

Jared Polis has always been consistent in his legalization position; Ron Wyden has been a champion on the mass surveillance issue; Cory Booker has been very good on social justice issues; and Bernie Sanders is very well-liked within the antiwar crowd, which is nearly bereft of Democrats at this point; but Sanders is not technically a Democrat, so I'm not sure if his achievements should be lumped in with Democrats.

Anyway, it's not that some Democrats don't support freedom consistently on some issues now and then, it's that their party as a whole generally favors increasing the size and the power of the central government, which necessarily reduces the freedom of the American people.

When the party as a whole does eventually come around to Polis' and Bookers' views on legalization and criminal justice reform, Wyden's stance on mass surveillance, or Sanders' views on war, it will be because they perceived continued resistance as no longer political viable, not because their party is genuinely interested in freedom or democracy. That's why Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage, and why he flip-flopped on mass surveillance, because he lacks any discernible principles or courage of his convictions.

So libertarians have every right to be annoyed by the obnoxious phonies who piggyback their movements and accuse libertarians of being closet rightwing Republicans who harbor racist or sexist viewpoints.

[Ethereal]

You speak of Gays and Lesbians redefining marriage.

Where did I speak of that? Please produce the quote.


Yet what are you doing if not trying to redefine Liberals and Liberalism with your non-sense. :)

Liberalism was defined hundreds of years ago. Statists in America only co-opted the term in the 20th century.

Adam Smith was a liberal. Chuck Schumer is some kind of neo-Marxist who thinks the market needs to planned out by people like him.

[zelmo1234]

Pure delusion ... you have never lived in statism nor will you ever.

This ruling has everything to do with Statism? It would actually be a great definition for the term

[Chris]

Well Libtard seems to be a party ... how did you come up with that one ... were you born a hatist ?

http://s8.tinypic.com/r73hux_th.jpg



I'm not a Libertarian.

And you're not particularly funny.

[exotix]

I'm not a Libertarian.

And you're not particularly funny.
This ruling has everything to do with Statism? It would actually be a great definition for the termAren't you the ones who actually believes the Confederate Flag has a rightful place next too if not replace the American Flag ?

[Ethereal]

You're talking to a dude who actually picks and chooses which founding fathers who seemingly were not statists ... that's a good one.

Technically, they were all statists - although one could argue that Jefferson was philosophically an anarchist - but they were liberal statists, which is to say they saw the state as a necessary evil and not some kind of benevolent force for good.

So, figures like Hamilton, while certainly relatively more aggressive in their statist leanings than Jefferson, were still liberals in the true sense of the word because they still retained some sense of the necessity of free markets and rugged individualism. Hamilton may have been in favor of nationalized banking, but he was still a rugged bad-ass who would have viewed the modern welfare state with confusion and probably disgust. This is a man who was orphaned when he was fourteen and proceeded to walk down to the nearest port and get a job. Somehow I doubt he would have had much sympathy for healthy adults who demand unemployment benefits for over 90 weeks.

[TrueBlue]

They can take credit for supporting gay rights long before the Democrat party ever did, and they can take credit for leading the charge on civil rights today with their opposition to racist drug laws which Democrats like Obama and Clinton still support.

Democrats are probably the biggest phonies in the entire country. They resist change until it's politically convenient for them to do so, like Obama did with his flip-flop on gay marriage. I cannot think of a more cowardly, opportunistic group of people.
Oh so now the argument has turned into attacking Democrats, I see. In light of today's monumental Supreme Court ruling giving Gays and Lesbians their rightfully deserved civil rights, you and your ilk are so incensed over that that it's now the Democrats that you wish to target. That is all only too clear to see and is the product of sore losing from your side.

[PolWatch]

Jared Polis has always been consistent in his legalization position; Ron Wyden has been a champion on the mass surveillance issue; Cory Booker has been very good on social justice issues; and Bernie Sanders is very well-liked within the antiwar crowd, which is nearly bereft of Democrats at this point; but Sanders is not technically a Democrat, so I'm not sure if his achievements should be lumped in with Democrats.

Anyway, it's not that some Democrats don't support freedom consistently on some issues now and then, it's that their party as a whole generally favors increasing the size and the power of the central government, which necessarily reduces the freedom of the American people.

When the party as a whole does eventually come around to Polis' and Bookers' views on legalization and criminal justice reform, Wyden's stance on mass surveillance, or Sanders' views on war, it will be because they perceived continued resistance as no longer political viable, not because their party is genuinely interested in freedom or democracy. That's why Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage, and why he flip-flopped on mass surveillance, because he lacks any discernible principles or courage of his convictions.

So libertarians have every right to be annoyed by the obnoxious phonies who piggyback their movements and accuse libertarians of being closet rightwing Republicans who harbor racist or sexist viewpoints.

I think the attitude toward the Koch bros. is an indication that people may not really understand who is an advocate for what. Their support of gay rights is always ignored by partisans of both parties. The same selective blindness applies to their contributions to the ACLU to fight the Patriotic Act. Its interesting that partisans of both flavors would rather ignore the issues where the Koch bros. don't walk a repub or dem party line. Its easier to decide based on R or D rather than find out where individuals stand on the various issues.

[Ethereal]

Oh so now the argument has turned into attacking Democrats, I see.

For trying to steal credit for a political movement that libertarians started? You bet!


In light of today's monumental Supreme Court ruling giving Gays and Lesbians their rightfully deserved civil rights, you and your ilk are so incensed over that that it's now the Democrats that you wish to target. That is all only too clear to see and is the product of sore losing from your side.

I'm not incensed over the decision. I think it's long overdue. Legal equality for gay relationships would have come about a lot sooner if so many Democrats, including Obama, were not standing in the way over the years. Next time, try listening to libertarians a little sooner, and you won't have to wait so long for your civil rights.

[exotix]

Technically, they were all statists - although one could argue that Jefferson was philosophically an anarchist - but they were liberal statists, which is to say they saw the state as a necessary evil and not some kind of benevolent force for good.

So, figures like Hamilton, while certainly relatively more aggressive in their statist leanings than Jefferson, were still liberals in the true sense of the word because they still retained some sense of the necessity of free markets

.. and rugged individualism.

Hamilton may have been in favor of nationalized banking, but he was still a rugged bad-ass who would have viewed the modern welfare state with confusion and probably disgust. This is a man who was orphaned when he was fourteen and proceeded to walk down to the nearest port and get a job. Somehow I doubt he would have had much sympathy for healthy adults who demand unemployment benefits for over 90 weeks.That's odd ... *rugged individulaism* is the term Hoover conservatives told Americans what they were and what to be when they collapsed America into a great depression ... that it was their *patriotic duty* to not rely on govt. in any way to save themselves.

[Ethereal]

I think the attitude toward the Koch bros. is an indication that people may not really understand who is an advocate for what. Their support of gay rights is always ignored by partisans of both parties. The same selective blindness applies to their contributions to the ACLU to fight the Patriotic Act. Its interesting that partisans of both flavors would rather ignore the issues where the Koch bros. don't walk a repub or dem party line. Its easier to decide based on R or D rather than find out where individuals stand on the various issues.

Among younger people and independents, there seems to be a nascent coalition of libertarians and progressives who are finding common ground on issues related to legal equality for gays, legalization of non-violent offenses, and antiwar sentiment. Unfortunately, there are still many progressive Democrats who don't want to get on board because they see libertarians as some kind of freakshow that is not actually in favor of the things they say they've been in favor for decades.

[Ethereal]

That's odd ... *rugged individulaism* is the term Hoover conservatives told Americans what they were and what to be when they collapsed America into a great depression ... that it was their *patriotic duty* to not rely on govt. in any way to save themselves.

How many times did George Washington or John Adams try to pass a nationwide welfare program? I'm guessing it was zero.

[TrueBlue]

For trying to steal credit for a political movement that libertarians started? You bet!



I'm not incensed over the decision. I think it's long overdue. Legal equality for gay relationships would have come about a lot sooner if so many Democrats, including Obama, were not standing in the way over the years. Next time, try listening to libertarians a little sooner, and you won't have to wait so long for your civil rights.
Yet your Libertarians will have to wait a long time to gain more seats in Washington and never the White House. No brag. Just FACT.

[PattyHill]

Lol

I am on my phone and cannot look up where you and Patty talked about us and you stated that GA and myself probably weren't really gay... Because we disagreed with you. To be fair, you have also talked about our supposed inability to accept who we are. Again, because we disagreed with you.

You accused me of stalking you on the forum and attacking you. Which I never did.

There was no hatred in my last post. No attack. I was explaining how much credibility you have.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Green Arrow is bi, actually.

[PolWatch]

Yet your Libertarians will have to wait a long time to gain more seats in Washington and never the White House. No brag. Just FACT.

I would not be so fast to say never. There are many independents that are tired of voting for best of 2 bad choices. Both major parties have sold out to the highest bidders. If anyone can combine the fiscal conservative side of the repubs and the socially moderate side of the dems, I think they would have a real chance.

[Ethereal]

Yet your Libertarians will have to wait a long time to gain more seats in Washington and never the White House. No brag. Just FACT.

If more libertarians had seats in Washington, then gay rights would have recognized decades ago.

[PattyHill]

They can take credit for supporting gay rights long before the Democrat party ever did, and they can take credit for leading the charge on civil rights today with their opposition to racist drug laws which Democrats like Obama and Clinton still support.

Democrats are probably the biggest phonies in the entire country. They resist change until it's politically convenient for them to do so, like Obama did with his flip-flop on gay marriage. I cannot think of a more cowardly, opportunistic group of people.


Great. Glad libertarians support gay rights. What does that have to do with the case today? Was it brought by Libertarians? Have they been out advocating for same sex marriages? did they write a friend of the court brief? Or did they just want to leave it to the states which would leave my friends, who are going to get married on Monday, out of it? Meaning they have less rights than same sex couples in, say, California? That kind of support isn't too useful.

Can't we just celebrate today's decision and not argue about what a libertarian is and supports?

[PattyHill]

What does that even mean other than you're too flabbergasted to respond meaningfully.


a funny reference to "attack of the clone wars"

[PattyHill]

Actually, I was listening on the Internet and heard that the County Clerk, Dana DeBeauvoir, in Austin, Texas, has already started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since 10:30 AM today and her office will be open until about 6:30 PM! Thanks Dana!! :)

TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES FOR SAME GENDER COUPLES

http://traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/Content.do?code=news.MarriageEquality


OH that is awesome!!!

I guess some counties are still sitting on their hands waiting for legal input. How much more official can you get than a SCOTUS decision?

[PattyHill]

How many times did George Washington or John Adams try to pass a nationwide welfare program? I'm guessing it was zero.


Might check out health care for merchant seamen....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

[PolWatch]

The governor even made a statement that the state of Alabama would obey the federal ruling.

10:17 a.m. Jefferson County probate office now issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
10:30 a.m. Pike County Judge Wes Allen says he is getting out of the marriage business (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html#incart_story_pa ckage):
10:39 a.m. Jefferson County's probate judge is ready to issue same-sex marriage licenses (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/06/jefferson_county_ready_to_issu.html).
11:32 a.m. Marriage windows at the Mobile Probate Office opened at 11 a.m Friday. For months, the windows were closed pending the Supreme Court decision. Julie Fey, 52, and Dottie Pippin, 60, were married at 11 a.m. at the Mobile Probate Office.
al.com

[Susan B. Anthony]

This will improve the lives of gay people like joining the work force improved the lives of women.

[Common Sense]

It's Ok...a bunch of people freaked out after the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights act.

There will always be those people stuck on the wrong side of history.

Later we can just point and laugh.

[TrueBlue]

The governor even made a statement that the state of Alabama would obey the federal ruling.

10:17 a.m. Jefferson County probate office now issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
10:30 a.m. Pike County Judge Wes Allen says he is getting out of the marriage business (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html#incart_story_pa ckage):
10:39 a.m. Jefferson County's probate judge is ready to issue same-sex marriage licenses (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/06/jefferson_county_ready_to_issu.html).
11:32 a.m. Marriage windows at the Mobile Probate Office opened at 11 a.m Friday. For months, the windows were closed pending the Supreme Court decision. Julie Fey, 52, and Dottie Pippin, 60, were married at 11 a.m. at the Mobile Probate Office.
al.com
The governor of Alabama has very good sense in this regard. He is obviously on the right side of history.

[PattyHill]

The governor even made a statement that the state of Alabama would obey the federal ruling.

10:17 a.m. Jefferson County probate office now issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
10:30 a.m. Pike County Judge Wes Allen says he is getting out of the marriage business (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html#incart_story_pa ckage):
10:39 a.m. Jefferson County's probate judge is ready to issue same-sex marriage licenses (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/06/jefferson_county_ready_to_issu.html).
11:32 a.m. Marriage windows at the Mobile Probate Office opened at 11 a.m Friday. For months, the windows were closed pending the Supreme Court decision. Julie Fey, 52, and Dottie Pippin, 60, were married at 11 a.m. at the Mobile Probate Office.
al.com


Georgia is marrying people too -



Attorney General Samuel Olens of Georgia quickly sent a three-paragraph memo to all state agencies explaining that the court’s “mandate requires Georgia to recognize same-sex marriage in the same way it recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.”


http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-rulings/no-consensus-from-attorneys-general-on-how-to-proceed/

[Ethereal]

Great. Glad libertarians support gay rights. What does that have to do with the case today? Was it brought by Libertarians? Have they been out advocating for same sex marriages? did they write a friend of the court brief? Or did they just want to leave it to the states which would leave my friends, who are going to get married on Monday, out of it? Meaning they have less rights than same sex couples in, say, California? That kind of support isn't too useful.

Can't we just celebrate today's decision and not argue about what a libertarian is and supports?

Yes, they've been advocating for same-sex marriage and adoptions for over thirty years. Read the article I posted (http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/slate-wonders-why-libertarian-party-insi).

[zelmo1234]

If more libertarians had seats in Washington, then gay rights would have recognized decades ago.

Actually I don't think so. They would have been able to marry years ago. but I think that the libertarians would question why government needed to be involved in marriage to begin with

[exotix]

How many times did George Washington or John Adams try to pass a nationwide welfare program? I'm guessing it was zero.
I'm merely saying that conservatives ... especially *Liberty & Freedom* Paulies are a sick joke ... trying to pass off (founding father) patriotism as a noble virtue everytime they destroy America.

How do you think the Third Reich was invented.

Sad.

[Ethereal]

Actually I don't think so. They would have been able to marry years ago. but I think that the libertarians would question why government needed to be involved in marriage to begin with

Libertarians want the government out of marriage, but if the government is going to be involved in marriage, then it should treat consenting relationships equally under the law.

[Ethereal]

I'm merely saying that conservatives ... especially *Liberty & Freedom* Paulies are a sick joke ... trying to pass off (founding father) patriotism as a noble virtue everytime they destroy America.

How do you think the Third Reich was invented.

Sad.

The Third Reich was invented National Socialists who had a great deal in common with the early 20th century "progressives" in America. You have much more in common with Hitler than Ron Paul does.

[PattyHill]

Yes, they've been advocating for same-sex marriage and adoptions for over thirty years. Read the article I posted (http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/slate-wonders-why-libertarian-party-insi).


That's great. I'm just sorry to see this thread devolve into a discussion of libertarians instead of the awesome decision from SCOTUS today.

[PolWatch]

It's Ok...a bunch of people freaked out after the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights act.

There will always be those people stuck on the wrong side of history.

Later we can just point and laugh.

Anyone who believes this will change the way people think are being hopelessly optimistic. The SCOTUS ruling is not going to change people. Unfortunately, this will probably take as long as acceptance of the CRA did. There are still people who don't accept it. 50 years from now, some people will still be objecting to this ruling. human nature....

[Ethereal]

Hitler was a statist and a collectivist who loved big government, just like Exotix... :icon_thumright:

[Ethereal]

That's great. I'm just sorry to see this thread devolve into a discussion of libertarians instead of the awesome decision from SCOTUS today.

All I'm saying is don't forget who was out in front politically on this issue, and who stood in the way for decades.

[Common Sense]

Hitler was a statist and a collectivist who loved big government, just like Exotix... :icon_thumright:

Yeah, they're practically the same. I think Exotix is about to invade Poland.

Derp...

[exotix]

The Third Reich was invented National Socialists who had a great deal in common with the early 20th century "progressives" in America. You have much more in common with Hitler than Ron Paul does.
Hitler was a statist and a collectivist who loved big government, just like Exotix... :icon_thumright:
Who do you think created Hitler ... that's right, (1929) Wall Street ... you simply can't be this ignorant ... unless the truth of it is, you jus'nutha wayward nutcase running amok on the forum ... LOL

[zelmo1234]

I'm merely saying that conservatives ... especially *Liberty & Freedom* Paulies are a sick joke ... trying to pass off (founding father) patriotism as a noble virtue everytime they destroy America.

How do you think the Third Reich was invented.

Sad.

By socialist that wanted to control other peoples lives. Nothing libertarian about that

[Chris]

That's great. I'm just sorry to see this thread devolve into a discussion of libertarians instead of the awesome decision from SCOTUS today.

Some liberals simply hate libertarians.

It's OK, some conservatives do as well.

[Chris]

Yeah, they're practically the same. I think Exotix is about to invade Poland.

Derp...

Keep up, that was yesterday and why he didn't post yesterday, too busy.

[TrueBlue]

I would not be so fast to say never. There are many independents that are tired of voting for best of 2 bad choices. Both major parties have sold out to the highest bidders. If anyone can combine the fiscal conservative side of the repubs and the socially moderate side of the dems, I think they would have a real chance.
Um, wishful thinking, Pol. But in reality, won't happen.

[Ethereal]

Who do you think created Hitler ... that's right, (1929) Wall Street ... you simply can't be this ignorant ... unless the truth of it is, you jus'nutha wayward nutcase running amok on the forum ... LOL

Wall Street has been allied with the "progressives" since the very beginning. Blue-bloods like the Roosevelt family were old money Wall Street whores.

[exotix]

Wall Street has been allied with the "progressives" since the very beginning. Blue-bloods like the Roosevelt family were old money Wall Street $#@!s.
You forget Hitler resurrected Germany to an economic powerhouse before waging wars of extermination ... Bush did it in reverse.

[zelmo1234]

You forget Hitler resurrected Germany to an economic powerhouse before waging wars of extermination ... Bush did it in reverse.

What???? Remember we are mere earthlings

[Ransom]

what exactly are we still waiting for?

I got busted not paying attention. Not sitting and waiting on this bunch of judicial overreach, I wasn't aware anything or anyone had made a decision. Now that 5 lawyers have decided for ewe all, you can cheer and carry on. I'll apologize to PolWatch if need be, I don't anyone to feel victimized. Would that make you happy, Lancet?

[Ransom]

Yeah, they're practically the same. I think Exotix is about to invade Poland.

Derp...

Leave Debt Clock alone.

[PolWatch]

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.B9fNQMOoDdDDS2eiuVkTAw&pid=15.1&P=0

[maineman]

I got busted not paying attention. Not sitting and waiting on this bunch of judicial overreach, I wasn't aware anything or anyone had made a decision. Now that 5 lawyers have decided for ewe all, you can cheer and carry on. I'll apologize to PolWatch if need be, I don't anyone to feel victimized. Would that make you happy?

I really don't need anything from you to make me happy. I am just about as happy as any man has a right to be.

[PattyHill]

All I'm saying is don't forget who was out in front politically on this issue, and who stood in the way for decades.


Noted. now -


Let's Celebrate, Celebrate, Dance to the music!!!


whoooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

[Ransom]

I really don't need anything from you to make me happy. I am just about as happy as any man has a right to be.

But you do need to get schooled when you fck up, Maine, and I'll be there when you do.

Until then, you continue to be happy all you want, you are our :pw:

Ransom has been banned from this thread. Please do not respond to his posts

[Ransom]

:3some:

[magicmike]

Do you think that can be accomplished by the government?

May I direct you to my very first post in this thread? Please. Pay. Attention.

Without even reading the comments on this thread, I can assure you the fights not over. It won't be until ignorance, hate and homophobia are replaced by knowledge, love, and courage.

[Ravens Fan]

Green Arrow is bi, actually.

Are you responding to my comment? Or just telling me things I already know?

[PattyHill]

Are you responding to my comment? Or just telling me things I already know?

Clarifying your comment. I never know who knows what.

[Chris]

Without even reading the comments on this thread, I can assure you the fights not over. It won't be until ignorance, hate and homophobia are replaced by knowledge, love, and courage.


May I direct you to my very first post in this thread? Please. Pay. Attention.



Right and I've been asking you how you think you can accomplish that. By government? By persuading society? How? Simple question, really.

[Ravens Fan]

Clarifying your comment. I never know who knows what.

You didn't clarify anything. Do you have anything to add to my comment of importance?

[Chris]

Noted. now -


Let's Celebrate, Celebrate, Dance to the music!!!


whoooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!




I don't want to check each and every post in this thread but I think that's the first post celebrating it without mocking some other group.

Thank you.

[PattyHill]

Right and I've been asking you how you think you can accomplish that. By government? By persuading society? How? Simple question, really.


By persuading society - people, living together in loving relationships - which happen to be same sex couples - and armageddon NOT happening.

It will become normal. The more people see it, the less they will fear and hate it.

There will always be some who will never accept it. But most of society will.

Govt. helps by legalizing SSM so that couples can marry and acceptance can happen.

[PattyHill]

I don't want to check each and every post in this thread but I think that's the first post celebrating it without mocking some other group.

Thank you.

This is a day to celebrate; here was my first post -
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/46578-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-NOW-THE-LAW-of-THE-LAND?p=1151776&viewfull=1#post1151776

I am all for celebrating! and not debating libertarians, democrats, hitler and whatever else came up in this thread.

I have friends in Texas who are marrying on Monday! yea for them!

[magicmike]

Without even reading the comments on this thread, I can assure you the fights not over. It won't be until ignorance, hate and homophobia are replaced by knowledge, love, and courage.


Right and I've been asking you how you think you can accomplish that. By government? By persuading society? How? Simple question, really.

Education. Not the pseudo-intellectual Libertarian type.

[magicmike]

I don't want to check each and every post in this thread but I think that's the first post celebrating it without mocking some other group.

Thank you.

Like your posts?

[magicmike]

Or other posters?

[zelmo1234]

By persuading society - people, living together in loving relationships - which happen to be same sex couples - and armageddon NOT happening.

It will become normal. The more people see it, the less they will fear and hate it.

There will always be some who will never accept it. But most of society will.

Govt. helps by legalizing SSM so that couples can marry and acceptance can happen.

To me that is not what this was about. This was about changing the definition of marriage which for centuries was between and man and a women. So that is gone.

but it is still sin. Noting changed in that department.

[PattyHill]

To me that is not what this was about. This was about changing the definition of marriage which for centuries was between and man and a women. So that is gone.

but it is still sin. Noting changed in that department.

But since our society is not based on any particular religion, that fact that you feel it is a sin should not impact our laws. And it didn't in this case.

Definition of marriage has changed many times. I rejoice that we expanded it to include same sex couples.

[Common Sense]

To me that is not what this was about. This was about changing the definition of marriage which for centuries was between and man and a women. So that is gone.

but it is still sin. Noting changed in that department.

Marriage has changed throughout history. Marriage was at one time simply a contract and a way to tie families together. Romantic marriage, engagement rings and modern weddings are a fairly new phenomenon.

If indeed it is a sin, isn't that between them and god?

All I know is that other people getting married does not affect my marriage in any way. If anything affects the sanctity of marriage, it's divorce. I don't see anyone complaining about divorce.

[zelmo1234]

But since our society is not based on any particular religion, that fact that you feel it is a sin should not impact our laws. And it didn't in this case.

Definition of marriage has changed many times. I rejoice that we expanded it to include same sex couples.

I think all of the major religions are quite clear and marriage really is a religious ceremony not a state ceremony.

But I am glad that you are happy. I will just choose not to participate is what the state has defined.

[zelmo1234]

Marriage has changed throughout history. Marriage was at one time simply a contract and a way to tie families together. Romantic marriage, engagement rings and modern weddings are a fairly new phenomenon.

If indeed it is a sin, isn't that between them and god?

All I know is that other people getting married does not affect my marriage in any way. If anything affects the sanctity of marriage, it's divorce. I don't see anyone complaining about divorce.

I really don't think that anyone that believes that the state is in charge of marriage should have any disagreement with the ruling. for the Red Head and I it never was about the state, but two souls becoming one in the eyes of God.

For us to remain part of the current definition seems weird to us. One of our friends just sent us a text and they are feeling the same way.

I am sure that this will be a small portion. In MI the movement to get the state our of marriage completely is all over the news today and has a lot of support now. So by the time this we are able to make this final it may be a mute point

But to pay thousands of dollars to belong to a club we no longer believe in seems silly to us.

hopefully the idea will catch on with churches and we can just by pass the state altogether in the future.

[PolWatch]

This ruling will not change my life at all. I was married yesterday and will be married tomorrow. The only change is that everyone can marry just the same as I did. The sanctity of marriage is what the couple involved makes of it....not someone else's image of what it should be.

People who objected to interracial marriage learned to survive the change and those who object to SSM will also survive....unless they get so crazy their blood pressure kills them. Its their choice.

[Safety]

I think all of the major religions are quite clear and marriage really is a religious ceremony not a state ceremony.

But I am glad that you are happy. I will just choose not to participate is what the state has defined.

LoL, you know, that sounds so similar to what people were saying when they finally got rid of the ban on interracial marriage, who'd thunk that in 2015 the same shit would be said from the people who share the same ideology.... :rollseyes:

I'd bet money that you're also in the camp that swears the confederate flag is about heritage, eh?

[Common Sense]

LoL, you know, that sounds so similar to what people were saying when they finally got rid of the ban on interracial marriage, who'd thunk that in 2015 the same shit would be said from the people who share the same ideology.... :rollseyes:

I'd bet money that you're also in the camp that the confederate flag is about heritage, eh?

Come on man...take it easy on them. Conservatives have had a rough week.

;)

[Safety]

Come on man...take it easy on them. Conservatives have had a rough week.

;)

Yea, I've noticed a bunch of them are not as active here anymore. Was this supposed to be an echo-chamber?

[Chris]

By persuading society - people, living together in loving relationships - which happen to be same sex couples - and armageddon NOT happening.

It will become normal. The more people see it, the less they will fear and hate it.

There will always be some who will never accept it. But most of society will.

Govt. helps by legalizing SSM so that couples can marry and acceptance can happen.


I'm with you on that. And this court case that has decided government must treat all the same, rule of law, is fine. Only thing I would object to is using the government to force people to change.

[Common Sense]

I'm with you on that. And this court case that has decided government must treat all the same, rule of law, is fine. Only thing I would object to is using the government to force people to change.

The invisible hand was busy playing with his invisible self. ;)

[Chris]

This is a day to celebrate; here was my first post -
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/46578-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-NOW-THE-LAW-of-THE-LAND?p=1151776&viewfull=1#post1151776

I am all for celebrating! and not debating libertarians, democrats, hitler and whatever else came up in this thread.

I have friends in Texas who are marrying on Monday! yea for them!



It must have been all that bright color blinded me! :D

I'm much more used to nonsense like the OP, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/46578-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-NOW-THE-LAW-of-THE-LAND?p=1151749&viewfull=1#post1151749, or nonsense about "Conservatives [sic]", http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/46578-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-NOW-THE-LAW-of-THE-LAND?p=1151807&viewfull=1#post1151807.

[Chris]

The invisible hand was busy playing with his invisible self. ;)

The Court? Nah, that's the visible hand. And as long as it plays with itself, the government, good.

[Safety]

I'm with you on that. And this court case that has decided government must treat all the same, rule of law, is fine. Only thing I would object to is using the government to force people to change.

Well, as long as you're a white, male, christian, straight, conservative, I can probably see how all this current mumbo-jumbo seems unnecessary.

But if you are someone who isn't all five of those categories, then it's pretty obvious why the government is needed. I supported that argument yesterday with the links from back in 1861.

[PolWatch]

I have never seen a lot of difference in what happened to this nation in the 60's over racial civil rights and today's sexual civil rights. Many of the same arguments are used today as were used then....same hate & fear, different target. No law can stop people from hate but the law should not encourage it.

[zelmo1234]

LoL, you know, that sounds so similar to what people were saying when they finally got rid of the ban on interracial marriage, who'd thunk that in 2015 the same $#@! would be said from the people who share the same ideology.... :rollseyes:

I'd bet money that you're also in the camp that swears the confederate flag is about heritage, eh?

I can't find a place in any of the religious books that says if you do not marry your own races it is a sin

but I can find a place where it calls homosexuality a sin. NO better or worse than any other sin but still a sin

Sorry all of the rulings by the courts of the world will not change that

[Common Sense]

I have never seen a lot of difference in what happened to this nation in the 60's over racial civil rights and today's sexual civil rights. Many of the same arguments are used today as were used then....same hate & fear, different target. No law can stop people from hate but the law should not encourage it.

Same sort of people on the wrong side of history.

They just can't see it...

[Common Sense]

I can't find a place in any of the religious books that says if you do not marry your own races it is a sin

but I can find a place where it calls homosexuality a sin. NO better or worse than any other sin but still a sin

Sorry all of the rulings by the courts of the world will not change that

Yeah, I can find a place that says eating lobster is a sin. I can also find a place that says we should stone disobedient children.

[Chris]

Well, as long as you're a white, male, christian, straight, conservative, I can probably see how all this current mumbo-jumbo seems unnecessary.

But if you are someone who isn't all five of those categories, then it's pretty obvious why the government is needed. I supported that argument yesterday with the links from back in 1861.

One, I said I am with it, I accept gays and marriage for gays. I am for changing society, if one can, by persuasion. I am for changing government to regulate itself toward rule of law, i.e., treating all equally before the law. I am against using government to force society t change on any social issue such as this.

Two, I'm an atheist and anarchist so I don't fit your lumping.


So why is government needed? Why do you think government can force society to change? Assume that all the positions you advocate are moral positions and assume the goal is a more moral society. How will government forcing moral choice on society accomplish a more moral society? Won't it in fact, by taking moral choice away from society, make society less moral?

[Safety]

I can't find a place in any of the religious books that says if you do not marry your own races it is a sin

but I can find a place where it calls homosexuality a sin. NO better or worse than any other sin but still a sin

Sorry all of the rulings by the courts of the world will not change that

Sorry Zel, but you are really striking out today. There were numerous on top of numerous bible quotes used to justify banning interracial marriage. Just like there were numerous on top of numerous bible quotes used to prevent SSM. In fact, there were plenty of people here who were upset if you compared SSM to the civil rights struggle during the 50's and 60's, but one can only see the similarities coming from the same group.

Welcome to 2015, let me know when you decide to join the rest of society.

[PolWatch]

Look up the Curse of Ham. That was the justification for slavery and Jim Crowe in the 60's. You will notice that Biblical scholars now say it was not correct. Translations, interpretations, understanding changes with study. Never say never....sometimes comes back to bite ya in the rear....

Marriage by adulterers, murderers and rapists didn't cause any problems....but SSM makes you decide to not participate?

[PattyHill]

I think all of the major religions are quite clear and marriage really is a religious ceremony not a state ceremony.

But I am glad that you are happy. I will just choose not to participate is what the state has defined.


I promise no one will force you to marry someone of the same gender.

If having others marry makes you doubt your own marriage - well, that says something about you

[zelmo1234]

Yeah, I can find a place that says eating lobster is a sin. I can also find a place that says we should stone disobedient children.

I can't find the latter but Yes the former is part of the bible. No better or worse than any other sin.

[PattyHill]

It must have been all that bright color blinded me! :D

I'm much more used to nonsense like the OP, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/46578-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-NOW-THE-LAW-of-THE-LAND?p=1151749&viewfull=1#post1151749, or nonsense about "Conservatives [sic]", http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/46578-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-NOW-THE-LAW-of-THE-LAND?p=1151807&viewfull=1#post1151807.


I don't often use colors. Seemed worth it today!

[Safety]

One, I said I am with it, I accept gays and marriage for gays. I am for changing society, if one can, by persuasion. I am for changing government to regulate itself toward rule of law, i.e., treating all equally before the law. I am against using government to force society t change on any social issue such as this.

Two, I'm an atheist and anarchist so I don't fit your lumping.


So why is government needed? Why do you think government can force society to change? Assume that all the positions you advocate are moral positions and assume the goal is a more moral society. How will government forcing moral choice on society accomplish a more moral society? Won't it in fact, by taking moral choice away from society, make society less moral?

One. America consists of more than one group of people.
Two. This argument has been going on since before slavery.

Basically, nobody has more time to wait, other than those who have nothing to wait for.
- Safety

[Safety]

Look up the Curse of Ham. That was the justification for slavery and Jim Crowe in the 60's. You will notice that Biblical scholars now say it was not correct. Translations, interpretations, understanding changes with study. Never say never....sometimes comes back to bite ya in the rear....

Marriage by adulterers, murderers and rapists didn't cause any problems....but SSM makes you decide to not participate?

/thread, nothing more to see here.

[zelmo1234]

I promise no one will force you to marry someone of the same gender.

If having others marry makes you doubt your own marriage - well, that says something about you

It does not make me doubt my marriage in the least. What it did make us decide is to not participate in the State Approved Marriage program that cost us a lot of money!

We are no longer willing to pay the price of admission into that club. But if you are and that is your thing, I am happy for you.

We think there are better ways to spend that money.

[PattyHill]

I really don't think that anyone that believes that the state is in charge of marriage should have any disagreement with the ruling. for the Red Head and I it never was about the state, but two souls becoming one in the eyes of God.

For us to remain part of the current definition seems weird to us. One of our friends just sent us a text and they are feeling the same way.

I am sure that this will be a small portion. In MI the movement to get the state our of marriage completely is all over the news today and has a lot of support now. So by the time this we are able to make this final it may be a mute point

But to pay thousands of dollars to belong to a club we no longer believe in seems silly to us.

hopefully the idea will catch on with churches and we can just by pass the state altogether in the future.


So what, you're going to get divorced because others can now marry? well, go for it. You'll be giving up a lot of protections and rights and benefits, but hey - go for it.

I personally think that it is stupid to walk away from marriage just because others can now do it - it would have been like refusing to vote back in the 1920s because women could vote - but go for it. Lawyers need money too.

[PattyHill]

It does not make me doubt my marriage in the least. What it did make us decide is to not participate in the State Approved Marriage program that cost us a lot of money!

We are no longer willing to pay the price of admission into that club. But if you are and that is your thing, I am happy for you.

We think there are better ways to spend that money.


tax breaks - for being married for having kids; discounts on insurance; you don't have to write up contracts to be able to be the health care advocate for your wife or children; soc security survivor benefits. No, marriage doesn't cost you money. Marriage licenses are cheap. If you blew thousands of dollars on a wedding, that had nothing to do with the state license.

[Safety]

It does not make me doubt my marriage in the least. What it did make us decide is to not participate in the State Approved Marriage program that cost us a lot of money!

We are no longer willing to pay the price of admission into that club. But if you are and that is your thing, I am happy for you.

We think there are better ways to spend that money.

Seriously, my wife gets upset if I leave the toilet seat up at night, but if I were to tell her that I didn't want to be married because gays could get married, the first question from her would be, "who is the new woman" and "why can't you be a man and tell me the real reason".

You have to be doing some serious trolling here, brah.

[Chris]

/thread, nothing more to see here.

See ya. :P

[Green Arrow]

I was going to post my thoughts in this thread, but having read it, I think I'll post my thoughts in my own separate thread.

Stay tuned.

[Chris]

One, I said I am with it, I accept gays and marriage for gays. I am for changing society, if one can, by persuasion. I am for changing government to regulate itself toward rule of law, i.e., treating all equally before the law. I am against using government to force society t change on any social issue such as this.

Two, I'm an atheist and anarchist so I don't fit your lumping.


So why is government needed? Why do you think government can force society to change? Assume that all the positions you advocate are moral positions and assume the goal is a more moral society. How will government forcing moral choice on society accomplish a more moral society? Won't it in fact, by taking moral choice away from society, make society less moral?


One. America consists of more than one group of people.
Two. This argument has been going on since before slavery.

Basically, nobody has more time to wait, other than those who have nothing to wait for.
- Safety


Non sequiturs.

[Cigar]

Maybe next week will be better for the Haters :laugh:

[Safety]

Non sequiturs.

Only to the majority.

Put on your minority shoes and walk around some.

[Cigar]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/CroweJ/2015/CroweJ20150626A_low.jpg

[PattyHill]

Maybe next week will be better for the Haters :laugh:


I'm worried about the use of civilian commissions for redistricting - it's been good for California, I hope they are maintained. But... the argument against it is tough.

but in the meantime -

​YEA for TODAY!

[zelmo1234]

So what, you're going to get divorced because others can now marry? well, go for it. You'll be giving up a lot of protections and rights and benefits, but hey - go for it.

I personally think that it is stupid to walk away from marriage just because others can now do it - it would have been like refusing to vote back in the 1920s because women could vote - but go for it. Lawyers need money too.

Now here is something that has been a myth for a long time. There is no rights that you give up if you are not married that can't be renewed with contracts and power of attorney.

Yes we will have some legal fee's and that is why I told people that they need to find out just ho big their marriage penalty is. Our is really larger so the pay off is about 3 months.

And NO the fact that gay people can marry and have all of those rights is just great. If they think so and they are willing to pay the extra taxes I say GREAT and I am happy for them.

However that being said, I do not have to agree with what the state now defines as marriage. Which we do not. We still believe that God said it is between one man and one women. Because of this, we thing that over 250K a year is a lot to be part of a club that we do no longer agree with the mission statement. So we are ending our membership in that club.

It is really nothing more than that. If that bothers you..... Please stay a member of that club and be happy. We have chosen not too, but that is our decision for what we feel is right.

[Chris]

Only to the majority.

Put on your minority shoes and walk around some.

How exactly does that answer these questions: "So why is government needed? Why do you think government can force society to change? Assume that all the positions you advocate are moral positions and assume the goal is a more moral society. How will government forcing moral choice on society accomplish a more moral society? Won't it in fact, by taking moral choice away from society, make society less moral?"

[Chris]

Maybe next week will be better for the Haters :laugh:

This^^, PattyHill, is what I'm used to. No celebration of the Court decision, just mockery of others. How persuasive is that?

[Safety]

How exactly does that answer these questions: "So why is government needed? Why do you think government can force society to change? Assume that all the positions you advocate are moral positions and assume the goal is a more moral society. How will government forcing moral choice on society accomplish a more moral society? Won't it in fact, by taking moral choice away from society, make society less moral?"

Because without government you will have a "mob rules" society. Those in the mob obviously have no problem with that.

[zelmo1234]

Seriously, my wife gets upset if I leave the toilet seat up at night, but if I were to tell her that I didn't want to be married because gays could get married, the first question from her would be, "who is the new woman" and "why can't you be a man and tell me the real reason".

Tell you want you go to her tonight and tell her that you can save over 250K per year if you set up a contract of marriage and end your state marriage license and see what she say.

We will still be married, just not in the eyes of the state. If you need that approval, then that is exactly what you should do!

You have to be doing some serious trolling here, brah.

[PattyHill]

Now here is something that has been a myth for a long time. There is no rights that you give up if you are not married that can't be renewed with contracts and power of attorney.

Yes we will have some legal fee's and that is why I told people that they need to find out just ho big their marriage penalty is. Our is really larger so the pay off is about 3 months.

And NO the fact that gay people can marry and have all of those rights is just great. If they think so and they are willing to pay the extra taxes I say GREAT and I am happy for them.

However that being said, I do not have to agree with what the state now defines as marriage. Which we do not. We still believe that God said it is between one man and one women. Because of this, we thing that over 250K a year is a lot to be part of a club that we do no longer agree with the mission statement. So we are ending our membership in that club.

It is really nothing more than that. If that bothers you..... Please stay a member of that club and be happy. We have chosen not too, but that is our decision for what we feel is right.


Does it bother me? no.

I just think you're being stupid. But this is America, you are welcome to be stupid

[Chris]

Because without government you will have a "mob rules" society. Those in the mob obviously have no problem with that.

Your assumption of chaos without the state doesn't answer question.

[Safety]

...

Yea, I'm speechless also.

[zelmo1234]

Because without government you will have a "mob rules" society. Those in the mob obviously have no problem with that.

Let me get this straight ? From the beginning of time until today it was mob rule because Gays cold not get married?

And you said I was stupid?

[Safety]

Your assumption of chaos without the state doesn't answer question.

Actually it does, I just don't think you want to acknowledge it. You're a pretty smart guy, Chris.

[PattyHill]

This^^, @PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335), is what I'm used to. No celebration of the Court decision, just mockery of others. How persuasive is that?


Pretty standard for a board discussion. But luckily, you have me on this board!!

Celebrate, Celebrate!

No one is getting me down today.....

[magicmike]

Marriage has changed throughout history. Marriage was at one time simply a contract and a way to tie families together. Romantic marriage, engagement rings and modern weddings are a fairly new phenomenon.

If indeed it is a sin, isn't that between them and god?

All I know is that other people getting married does not affect my marriage in any way. If anything affects the sanctity of marriage, it's divorce. I don't see anyone complaining about divorce.

I've said all that before but its hard to pull someone's head out of the sand when its already stuffed up their ass.

[PattyHill]

I've said all that before but its hard to pull someone's head out of the sand when its already stuffed up their ass.

Maybe Zelmo is just looking for an excuse to divorce his wife. He'll hoard his cash far from her. Maybe pick up a younger model. Who knows?

[zelmo1234]

Does it bother me? no.

I just think you're being stupid. But this is America, you are welcome to be stupid

And I am totally OK with that. Like I said this seems good for us and a few others that we know. But it is not that we ever wanted The LGBT community to be discriminated against. I would have been out there protesting for civil unions! I never thought that they should not have all of the same rights.

As a matter of fact if you look back in older threads I suggested that all Government unions be called civil unions. and leave marriage to the church. Some would chose to marry Gays and some would not. and all state unions would be civil unions. That to me was the Best. Everything fair.

But now to us, and I totally see the side of others. What the state calls marriage does not meet our definition of what we feel marriage is? So we are opting out!

I should have just left it at that. But the truth is, if it was not for the penalty we would likely just leave it alone. But when the Government says, NO your definition of marriage is wrong this is what you will think now, and place deposit your check here, We had do say no.

[zelmo1234]

Maybe Zelmo is just looking for an excuse to divorce his wife. He'll hoard his cash far from her. Maybe pick up a younger model. Who knows?

She is already 10 years my younger and the most beautiful person in the mind and body that I have ever met in my life. We are soul mates, there are times that she will snuggle up to me, even while I am typing here and just watch, when I ask if she would want to join she just laughs and says she does not have the temperament to suffer fools. (must be the red hair thing) I love just being around her.

So no I have no intention of finding a younger model, I can't keep up with this one.

We have made a decision that seems to be right for us. We unlike the left do not feel the need to force our decisions on others. But the price of admission into what the state calls marriage became to high for us today.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Maybe Zelmo is just looking for an excuse to divorce his wife. He'll hoard his cash far from her. Maybe pick up a younger model. Who knows?

Dropping off the older sows and picking up some young chickens is all the rage right now.

[Chris]

I've said all that before but its hard to pull someone's head out of the sand when its already stuffed up their ass.

Yeah, that's persuasive!

[Chris]

Actually it does, I just don't think you want to acknowledge it. You're a pretty smart guy, Chris.

Oh? Then explain how the state was created if without it all is chaos.

[zelmo1234]

Dropping off the older sows and picking up some young chickens is all the rage right now.

Well that is because they don't have my RED HEAD to come home too.

[zelmo1234]

Oh? Then explain how the state was created if without it all is chaos.

She is not concerned with the state creating order, he wants them to force you to believe the way that he does. That is what they love the state for.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Well that is because they don't have my RED HEAD to come home too.

I see you already have a young chicken. The better to cook for you, my friend.

[del]

It does not make me doubt my marriage in the least. What it did make us decide is to not participate in the State Approved Marriage program that cost us a lot of money!

We are no longer willing to pay the price of admission into that club. But if you are and that is your thing, I am happy for you.

We think there are better ways to spend that money.

you never had a marriage worthy of the name if this is all it takes to get you to throw it away.

[Chris]

She is not concerned with the state creating order, he wants them to force you to believe the way that he does. That is what they love the state for.

I think a lot of people just can't imagine the state being any other way. But up until recently the legislature and courts regulated the state, not society. Look at the Constitution, it regulate the state our federal government.

[magicmike]

I can't find a place in any of the religious books that says if you do not marry your own races it is a sin

but I can find a place where it calls homosexuality a sin. NO better or worse than any other sin but still a sin

Sorry all of the rulings by the courts of the world will not change that

Quit hiding behind your version of the Bible and your version of religion! Aside from the fact that no reference to homosexuality ever existed in the Bible until the socially prim Victorian Era, many versions of the Bible still don't contain that particular translation. And remember, the Bible is a millenniums old book used as a reference that's been changed and evolved over the centuries through translation to reflect current times.

[zelmo1234]

I see you already have a young chicken. The better to cook for you, my friend.

No we both love to cook, but here job is more stressful so I try and keep her well feed. she accuses me of liking fat chicks, and trying to turn her into one. :)

[PattyHill]

She is already 10 years my younger and the most beautiful person in the mind and body that I have ever met in my life. We are soul mates, there are times that she will snuggle up to me, even while I am typing here and just watch, when I ask if she would want to join she just laughs and says she does not have the temperament to suffer fools. (must be the red hair thing) I love just being around her.

So no I have no intention of finding a younger model, I can't keep up with this one.

We have made a decision that seems to be right for us. We unlike the left do not feel the need to force our decisions on others. But the price of admission into what the state calls marriage became to high for us today.


I have no idea what you mean by the "price of admission"

If you mean your taxes will be way lower if you aren't married, then you are divorcing for financial reasons not moral reasons. Not that that is wrong. But don't blame it on SSM.

I assume you all married in the church so that isn't the issue.

[domer76]

I can't find the latter but Yes the former is part of the bible. No better or worse than any other sin.

No, Z. You and others treat homosexuality as a special kind of sin, deserving of treatment reserved for mo other type of sinner. You'll bake cakes for liars and adulterers, bit not for gays. You'll stay married even though rapists and murderers are, too. But for gays, you'll refuse service and seek divorce.

Nope. Not all sins are created equal in your eyes. Nor are people.

[Susan B. Anthony]

No we both love to cook, but here job is more stressful so I try and keep her well feed. she accuses me of liking fat chicks, and trying to turn her into one. :)
Usually you have to regift them at that point.

[zelmo1234]

you never had a marriage worthy of the name if this is all it takes to get you to throw it away.

I agree, that is why we are not throwing it away, we are just not going to pay the state taxes to have there permission anymore. There definition and ours are no longer on the same page. So we are not going to participate with them. But I look on this a different way. How many of you get to marry the love our your life???? Twice!

[del]

Let me get this straight ? From the beginning of time until today it was mob rule because Gays cold not get married?

And you said I was stupid?

that's not what he said: yes, you are stupid.

[PattyHill]

No, Z. You and others treat homosexuality as a special kind of sin, deserving of treatment reserved for mo other type of sinner. You'll bake cakes for liars and adulterers, bit not for gays. You'll stay married even though rapists and murderers are, too. But for gays, you'll refuse service and seek divorce.

Nope. Not all sins are created equal in your eyes. Nor are people.

Zelmo just got zinged.

Domer is right. Zelmo didn't divorce as Britney Spears had a what - one day marriage? - in Vegas. He didn't blink as Charles Manson was going to get married. He doesn't care that Gingrich is a sequential adulter/marry-er.

But oooooo ..... let a gay or lesbian get married and -horrors! marriage isn't the same!

[del]

I agree, that is why we are not throwing it away, we are just not going to pay the state taxes to have there permission anymore. There definition and ours are no longer on the same page. So we are not going to participate with them. But I look on this a different way. How many of you get to marry the love our your life???? Twice!

:biglaugh:

your wife must be a complete airhead if she's buying this line of bullshit.

Please keep the discussion civil. No personal attacks...Family members are off-limits

[PattyHill]

:biglaugh:

your wife must be a complete airhead if she's buying this line of bullshit.


His wife better start reading up on palimony laws in their state...

[del]

His wife better start reading up on palimony laws in their state...

his braying about his success leads me to think he's probably judgement proof.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Many people get married with one eye out for divorce.

Others, not so much.

[zelmo1234]

No, Z. You and others treat homosexuality as a special kind of sin, deserving of treatment reserved for mo other type of sinner. You'll bake cakes for liars and adulterers, bit not for gays. You'll stay married even though rapists and murderers are, too. But for gays, you'll refuse service and seek divorce.

Now Who said I would do all that stuff for others. You see you would force the definition of religion on others to meet your own rules. That is not who I am. I have my beliefs and of course that is what is acceptable for me, it need not be for you!

For me and my wife it does not seem like a good investment to pay that state a very high tax to be called married by their current definition of marriage. That is what this is about, nothing more. there is no hate. I unlike many on the left can be happy for the people that are going to get what they hoped and dreamed of, and still chose not to participate.

That is by definition tolerance. If you need the state to protect your marriage rights and you agree with the new definition of marriage. I think that is exactly what you should do. I believe that marriage is a religious term and reserved for the union of one man and one women, because of that the price of admission into the state marriage club has become too high for us. If it is in your budget and makes you happy, I think that is great!

Nope. Not all sins are created equal in your eyes. Nor are people.

[PattyHill]

his braying about his success leads me to think he's probably judgement proof.

Maybe. But I hope she gets a huge settlement in the divorce.

[zelmo1234]

:biglaugh:

your wife must be a complete airhead if she's buying this line of bull$#@!.

Yes most Doctors are known for being airheads. Come clean what really bothers you about this?

[zelmo1234]

Maybe. But I hope she gets a huge settlement in the divorce.

She can have whatever she wants. She already told me that for the few days we are single, I have to take her out on a date every night. I am thinking of renting a private just for the week and going anywhere she wants to go

We are actually going to have a lot of fun with this. and to use it is the right thing to do!

[PattyHill]

Yes most Doctors are known for being airheads. Come clean what really bothers you about this?


That you are using SSM as an excuse to do what you want to do - pay fewer taxes.

You could have divorced months ago and gotten the cost savings. Should have been honest about it.

It's not SSM that's causing you to do this. It's financial.

[del]

Yes most Doctors are known for being airheads. Come clean what really bothers you about this?

yeah, she's a doctor and you're really bill gates.

[magicmike]

This^^, @PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335), is what I'm used to. No celebration of the Court decision, just mockery of others. How persuasive is that?

Get back to us after you chastise the Snark Brothers who love to mock others.

[zelmo1234]

I have no idea what you mean by the "price of admission"

If you mean your taxes will be way lower if you aren't married, then you are divorcing for financial reasons not moral reasons. Not that that is wrong. But don't blame it on SSM.

I assume you all married in the church so that isn't the issue.

Yes the taxes being much lower are a benefit. And the reason for this action. Our Definition of marriage is no longer that same as the states definition of marriage. Because of this we don't want to be part of their definition. So we are opting our of there system. Because we both have been blessed with wonderful careers, there is a very large financial benefit to this. So we don't see why we should be forced to pay a large fee to belong to something that we no longer believe is correct.

IF that makes you upset it was not intended too! it was just what is right for us.. I thought people would laugh and some married people would voice there opinion of the stupid marriage penalty tax

[zelmo1234]

yeah, she's a doctor and you're really bill gates.

No he makes more money in 5 mins than I will make my entire life. and my wife is better looking

But I think everyone knows what she does of a living so continue on!

[PattyHill]

Yes the taxes being much lower are a benefit. And the reason for this action. Our Definition of marriage is no longer that same as the states definition of marriage. Because of this we don't want to be part of their definition. So we are opting our of there system. Because we both have been blessed with wonderful careers, there is a very large financial benefit to this. So we don't see why we should be forced to pay a large fee to belong to something that we no longer believe is correct.

IF that makes you upset it was not intended too! it was just what is right for us.. I thought people would laugh and some married people would voice there opinion of the stupid marriage penalty tax


I'm not upset at all. I married for financial reasons. You're divorcing for financial reasons. Just don't blame it on SSM.

[zelmo1234]

That you are using SSM as an excuse to do what you want to do - pay fewer taxes.

You could have divorced months ago and gotten the cost savings. Should have been honest about it.

It's not SSM that's causing you to do this. It's financial.

You are assuming something that is not true.

Until today in MI Marriage was between one man and one women. That we agreed with.

We paid our 12 dollars got our checkups and signed on the dotted line. State approved marriage.

Shuffled off to a church and in front of a minister and our friends and family made our vows to each other and to God. And What once was two God made into one! O happy day.

Tax bill comes and it sucks that if for sure but we are blessed and we bitch for a while and get on with life.

Today, the definition of the State approved Marriage changed to something that neither one of us believe to be true. So we would like to leave that club and let those that don't feel the way that we do enjoy it! We believe that the government that chose to change this definition was wrong so we would like to keep more of our resources and let them have a little less.

The good news is, we have a right to do that, and opt out of the State defined marriage. And the for use the benefit is a really nice payday that we now can choose who to bless with it!

Then just to make sure that God and our friends know that we still consider ourselves to be one flesh and joined in the eyes of God we will again recite our vows, but will not sign on the dotted line. And Bonus I get to see her in that wedding dress again.

How is that wrong in your opinion.

[PattyHill]

You are assuming something that is not true.

Until today in MI Marriage was between one man and one women. That we agreed with.

We paid our 12 dollars got our checkups and signed on the dotted line. State approved marriage.

Shuffled off to a church and in front of a minister and our friends and family made our vows to each other and to God. And What once was two God made into one! O happy day.

Tax bill comes and it sucks that if for sure but we are blessed and we bitch for a while and get on with life.

Today, the definition of the State approved Marriage changed to something that neither one of us believe to be true. So we would like to leave that club and let those that don't feel the way that we do enjoy it! We believe that the government that chose to change this definition was wrong so we would like to keep more of our resources and let them have a little less.

The good news is, we have a right to do that, and opt out of the State defined marriage. And the for use the benefit is a really nice payday that we now can choose who to bless with it!

Then just to make sure that God and our friends know that we still consider ourselves to be one flesh and joined in the eyes of God we will again recite our vows, but will not sign on the dotted line. And Bonus I get to see her in that wedding dress again.

How is that wrong in your opinion.

I believe I have said multiple times that what you are doing isn't wrong. It finanically makes sense for you.

I think using SSM as the excuse is a lie in the face of your lord, but that's cool. Justify it however you want to.

[zelmo1234]

I'm not upset at all. I married for financial reasons. You're divorcing for financial reasons. Just don't blame it on SSM.

That would make more sense, I married for unconditional love! And I am divorcing because the States definition of marriage and mine or I should say ours are no longer the same.

So say that your love green beans and you have green beans every night for dinner. you pay 5 buck a week for your green beans. but now the green beans are turned into Brussel sprouts and you do not like brussel sprouts. Are you going to keep paying 5 buck to eat Brussel sprouts?

I think not. It is really no different that that

[Dr. Who]

She can have whatever she wants. She already told me that for the few days we are single, I have to take her out on a date every night. I am thinking of renting a private just for the week and going anywhere she wants to go

We are actually going to have a lot of fun with this. and to use it is the right thing to do!
Just curious Zel, but how is being married more expensive in your State?

[zelmo1234]

I believe I have said multiple times that what you are doing isn't wrong. It finanically makes sense for you.

I think using SSM as the excuse is a lie in the face of your lord, but that's cool. Justify it however you want to.

If that was the case why did I choose to pay the tax for 12 years? That would seem kind of silly.

So my lord says to give unto Caesar What is Caesar's (State definition of marriage between two people) and unto the Lord what is the Lord's (definition of marriage between one man and one women) That is the choice that we made. The money was a benefit and will be put to use helping others.

[zelmo1234]

Just curious Zel, but how is being married more expensive in your State?

It is more expensive in all states. There is a penalty or higher tax for being married, especially if you are both high income earners. with us it is a very large amount.

[PattyHill]

That would make more sense, I married for unconditional love! And I am divorcing because the States definition of marriage and mine or I should say ours are no longer the same.

So say that your love green beans and you have green beans every night for dinner. you pay 5 buck a week for your green beans. but now the green beans are turned into Brussel sprouts and you do not like brussel sprouts. Are you going to keep paying 5 buck to eat Brussel sprouts?

I think not. It is really no different that that


Let's spell this out:

You are ok with the state allowing people who have been divorced multiple times to marry. Allowing murderers to marry. Allowing child molesters to marry. Allowing first cousins to marry. Allowing people who screwed over people in the financial crisis to marry. Allowing thieves to marry. Allowing torturers to marry.

But now that couples of the same gender are being allowed to marry, suddenly you are all offended? Bullshit. I call bullshit on you. You want to divorce for financial reasons and SSM gives you an "out".

If you cared about the state's definition of marriage vs. yours, you would never have married in the first place.