Video: Prop 8, the musical
posted at 12:50 pm on December 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Noteworthy mainly for the A-list (well, B- and C-list) cast. And the lack of any scenes involving blacklists or old ladies being bullied.
Believe it or not, this isn’t the first time Jack Black’s played Jesus.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Amen,
But the problem started when homosexuals managed to become a Protected Class. They are the only ones in the group included because of how they choose to have sex.
What’s next, a missionary style group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I voted against Prop 8. I think that the word “marriage” has two definitions, one religious and one secular. I believe that the legal definition of marriage should be expanded to include same-sex marriage, but that the rights of religious organizations have to be respected… that means (for example) a church (or other religious institution) can celebrate any marriage they choose, or decline to do so.
I must admit, though, that some of the reactions to Prop 8′s passing almost make me want to support it. Heck, reading some of Noneya’s comments in this thread are pushing me even closer to being pro-Prop 8. If someone that hateful and intolerant is against Prop 8, there must be something right with it.
malclave on December 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Actually this is the first ruling that enshrined marriage as a basic civil rights of man in the eyes of the law. The fact that people got married before that has no bearing on the legal precedent.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM
dpierson, I doubt anyone would now argue that interracial couples are a protected class because they are now protected from laws that ban them from legally marrying.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Submission is part of “The Road to Serfdom,” imho.
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
So when the CA Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8 I’m sure you won’t care about that, right?
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:51 PM
In Loving v Virginia (1967) the decision described marriage as “one of the basic civil rights of man” and asserted that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978) the court reaffirmed marriage as a “fundamental” right overturning a Wisconsin law that denied a marriage license when one spouse was behind on child support from a previous relationship. The Wisconsin law failed a “narrowly tailored” test.
In Turner v Safley (1987) the court again referred to marriage as a fundamental right when considering what restrictions were permissible for prison inmates who weren’t entitled to full liberty.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Which it did by establishing marriage as a right.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Hey, anything that takes away from Democracy! I mean who really wants that?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I have a hard enough time watching Jack Black without having to know his distorted sense of theology. Maybe he should try playing Mohammad since Islam executes Gays? I’m sure the Taliban would get a hoot over his shrimp cocktail joke. Of course, Jack hasn’t the guts to do anything that edgy. Pig pile on Christians…….he’s your porker.
Gays should stick to making everything into a musical and leave the violence against the elderly and Mormans to the groups they are paranoid about.
Turn, turn, kick, turn.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Why not come up with another word for men coupling with men, and women coupling with women?
How about Homogenized or Gaymathchimony?
afotia on December 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I know it’s a tired argument, but it is no less true for it. Gays CAN legally marry…someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
Every state that’s voted on it has stated clearly that marriage = M + F. It’s not telling anyone who they can and cannot love, or who they can and cannot have sex with. Only that marriage has a minimal baseline requirement of one of each sex.
Teach a cat to bark, it’s still a cat. Words have meaning.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM
How about the old standard? Sin.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I note that not only is Noneya too cowardly to protest in front of a Mosque, he’s too cowardly to answer questions directed at him in this thread anymore. Such as, Do you or do you not approve of militant, terroristic tactics to get your way? Such as invading churches and sending anthrax like letters to people who oppose your politics?
But you have answered, pretty much, with your silence and your comments earlier in this thread.
I again reiterate: the LDS and other churches oppose gay marriage in very large part to prevent people like Noneya gaining power, because Noneya would kowtow to Islamists and persecute Christians.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Jim Crow laws were democratic too, once.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I voted FOR Prop 8. The California voters approved Prop 11 in 2000, which stated that “marriage is a union between one man and one woman”. It was Gavin Newsom who pushed to court to declare Prop 11 “unconstitutional”. So, the voters have once again taken the leadership of our state out of the court’s hands by passing Prop 8.
This issue is more about “we the people” than it is about marriage. I’m proud to have voted YES.
savvydude on December 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM
sulla, that’s pretty much what the state of Virgina said about interracial marriage too, since blacks could marry blacks and whites marry whites. It didn’t and doesn’t wash with regard to gays either.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Yes you are right, once we get gay marriage we will let Islamists stone gays and adulterers in this country and ban Christians from marrying, that’s the next logical step….
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I’m in a quandry here truthfully. I truly believe that everyone should have equal treatment under the law… but I also believe that WE have to decide social norms… and what is good for society.
Should Gays be put at a disadvantage because they are in a commited relationship as compared to straights? Not IMO… they should have the ability to sign contracts with power of attorney… should be able to get insurance together… should pay the same tax rate (IMO there should be no Tax benefit or penalty for marriage… make the standard deduction just that, standard)…
Marriage however has a religious component, and churches should NOT be forced to acknowledge somthing they find against their teachings… which is what is going to happen if Gays get the RIGHT to Marry.
So, COMPROMISE! Get the word Marriage out of the Law, and make them all Civil Unions, or Partnerships… and make Marriage a Religious, not CIVIL, Ceremony.
Its actualy pretty funny… my Daughter, a LESBIAN, is sitting next to me as I write this… and says she agrees, and that people like Noneya are doing much more harm, than good… by ticking off people who may be persudaded, but will not be forced…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I am proud to have cancelled out your vote, and this time the margin was 4%, down from Prop. 22‘s 13%, and will be even smaller the next time.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:03 PM
There’s a fundamental difference between race and gender.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Yes, so that automatically means that democracy is dead and deserves to be trampled on. Brilliant debate (or lack thereof).
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Not if you believe that gays can only be gay.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I am not commenting on Prop 8 but on this argument.
At one time Homosexual sex WAS illegal in many states so the current legality of the others is not relevant.
Of the three items you mention:
Are you aware of any studies showing that incest between connecting adults is damaging? With modern genetic screening and legal abortion, why limit who is allowed to love one another?
Polygamy is having more than one spouse. I do not believe that having sex with more than one partner is currently considered damaging so why would we limit marriage to only couples?
Animal rights folks may argue that bestiality damages the animal, but it is unlikely that informed consent is available to allow them to marry anyway. But someone from PETA might disagree.
In several states, when the laws were enacted that codified gay rights they were put forward explicitly saying that they in no way authorized gay marriage. The courts seem to have taken a different view of the legislative history and found that they did. Hence the slippery slope worries.
OBQuiet on December 3, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I agree with your point. Let churches define marriage however they want (they already do) and have the state print the license the same way they do so many other permits, certificates and licenses.
If gay marriage were passed churches would still be protected by the “free exercise” right which courts have used to protect churches from lawmakers when the state interfered with the ability to worship.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 4:10 PM
That may be the ultimate solution. Leave the contractual side to the government, and leave “marriage” to churches.
Churches aren’t required by the government to recognize one anothers’ baptisms. Some churches already acknowledge distinctions between types of marriage (e.g. covenant vs. civil).
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Romeo13: Thanks for replying. As I understand it, the LDS church doesn’t oppose things like power of attorney, etc. Though I also don’t think you necessarily need state laws; I can get insurance and leave it to my mother for instance, or a trust, etc. that will have all the powers a civil union has. Still, I understand the argument.
Marriage is in the law primarily as a default: it’s shorthand for a bundle of choices that people usually make, without requiring them to fill out a bunch of papers, etc. It’s also there to promote healthy families.
Healthy families, with a mother and a father and the kids, are on the whole a vastly preferred state. Children usually turn out better, more well adjusted, less costly to raise to the state, etc. Of course, that’s only on a macro level, there are plenty of problems all over. It’s why two parent families are the best, and indeed single parenthood should be discouraged as best as possible as well.
Families and marriage used to mean a lot more–much more legal ties to each other. It’s been eroding increasingly fast. Things like gay “marriage” just cheapen the meaning of a marriage even faster. Marriage should, ideally, be a commitment to put someone else’s welfare whom you love above your own. Sociologically speaking, marriage is the ultimate civilizing versus caveman style there is. Marriage between equal partners, a man and a woman where both look out for the other and for the children, removes most of the “hormones” as a reason for existing.
By stripping the notion of a family out of the concept of marriage, I fear we are sliding back into the old “beast” style once more–where all that matters is who you can hit over the head and drag back to the cave.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I’d just like to interrupt for a moment to remind everyone that when someone says that homosexuality is a choice rather than inborn, that person sounds like a complete f*cking twit.
Carry on.
Enrique on December 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I won’t. I already voted with my feet and would never willingly go to California even to visit. The point you are missing however is that the next step after the CA Supreme court would be the US Supreme court. Until the issue is settled there the lower level decisions do not mean much.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I agree, but if that’s the case, how can a photographer be sued for not shooting a gay wedding? And how could suits against eHarmony be allowed?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM
From over at Ace’s
DaveC on December 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
What is good for society is that people with same sex attraction should decide if that’s the life style they want and then go about their business. Gays have been equal under the law, it’s the special status they want that people are sick of. By screaming their heads off, it will not change the biblical truth or change the definition of marriage. Gender confused people are not going to force the sun to orbit the earth or for gravity to reverse. This isn’t politics or religion, it’s science 101. If someone wishes to have sex with the same sex there are no black helicopters coming for them in the night. There is a large percentage of society that will never buy into it being normal, beautiful or worthy of redefining marriage over just to satisfy some very confused people.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
No, let me dumb it down for you, that means discrimination against blacks was once lawful, and just because a majority supported it that didn’t make it right.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
There’s a fundamental difference between race and gender.
True, but we don’t deny the right to vote to persons of a different race or sex. Why should we deny homosexual couple the choice to legally marry?
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is beside the point. The difference between a marriage of opposite sex participants and same-sex participants is not merely cosmetic, as it is with interracial marriages.
Kensington on December 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM
One day, when science conclusively demonstrates that being gay is a result of inherited dispositions at the genetic level, the homphobes and bigots won’t be able to hide behind the ‘choice’ argument; they’ll have to stand on the strength of their naked hatred alone. Of course, for the Biblically minded, science is a tool of the horned sodomites anyway….
Grow Fins on December 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Except that gays can marry in MA & CT.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Did I miss another conversation we had? I am not saying that. The point is that homosexuality being added to the Protected Classes list was the first step towards normalizing what a lot of people, including my, see to be abnormal behavior.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Again, let’s do away with democracy then!!! It obviously fails to protect minorities, as you’ve so brilliantly concluded both with Jim Crow laws and the gays in California.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Grow Fins: Then you’ll celebrate the coming push to abort every gay baby, right?
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM
I am growing tired now. Try to follow the bouncing ball. If the Supreme Court decides that it is legal to amend the constitution in California to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman then that overturns the lower court’s decision. So that status quo is not achieved until it is settled at that level – get it?
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
How about justice of the peace that have quit rather than being sued for going against their morals and being forced to marry them? Gays are very open about their sexual activities and want to force others to approve of what they are doing. The more they wave their rainbow flag, forbid words, hijack terms to cover their lifestyle and act out their distortion in public, the more people will vote against them. The minorities and Islamic pals these people align themselves with will throw them under the bus every time there is an election. Due to their distorted paradigms, they will never…ever get it.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Per your last comment…
Grow brains, Grow Fins. Some of our country’s greatest scientists and leaders in the Medical profession were and are Christians.
Being Gay does not equate to being Black. The Gay Marriage Issue does not equate to The Civil Rights Movement.
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
At least you don’t show any “naked hatred” towards Christians. *eyes roll*
Mallard T. Drake on December 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM
All Christians hate gays.
See how stupid it sounds?
Grow Fins on December 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I disagree. Skin color is a superficial difference. Gender goes all the way down to the DNA (XX and XY).
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM
That’s the same day that science will demonstrate that the dinosaurs built the Parthenon.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM
No, that’s certainly not true. If science proves people are born gay, then there’s no reason that people who believe it’s immoral can’t then claim it’s a defect. We did classify it as such at one point in time, so it wouldn’t be a far stretch.
Many would argue that it is. I mean the argument before was that blacks can marry other blacks, but if marriage is a right, then people should be given a choice to marry the person they want to marry.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Still sounds just as ridiculous.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Almost everyone on both sides of the abortion issue would be against state-mandated abortions. Will parents abort gay babies if a genetic marker is isolated? Some would others wouldn’t. What will happen when the genetic design can be engineered before conception? It could reduce or increase the number of gays.
If it is a combination of genes interacting with something environmental in the womb or in childhood then abortion won’t be an issue.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 4:24 PM
You’re confusing sex with gender.
Grow Fins on December 3, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Race is about more than skin color. Different races can have different diseases and DNA can be used to determine Race.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM
No need Esthier! That’s what the courts do for us, to throw out laws they deem unconstitutional and let the others stand.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Then why do you all keep trying to promote it?
Christians love the sinner and hate the sin. I’m sure that is way out of your ability to process. I love how gays immediately focus on Christ and the Bible. Did you know the demons were the first to point out that Jesus was the son of God? You might have something in common?
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM
One day, when same sex marriage activists give up their comforting fiction that everyone who wants to maintain marriage as an opposite sex institution is a hate-filled bigot, then they’ll have to stand on the strength of their arguments and persuasiveness to bring people around. Of course, that will require them to give up their martyrdom and self-righteousness, so I’m not sure how realistic that is.
Kensington on December 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM
A more accurate analogy would be that we have every right to deny the blind the choice to legally drive.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I’m sure one day it will, but in the meantime the states can marry gays legally if they so choose, and that is the staus quo in 2 states and in more to come.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Oooh, mean judiciary, ruling on the Constitution when we wish we could just vote our prejudices! Thank God the Constitution exists to protect us from your mob-rule inclinations.
Grow Fins on December 3, 2008 at 4:28 PM
So does race.
You’re really not one to talk.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:28 PM
HATER!!! (/sarc)
Yeah, I didn’t catch that until after I posted.
Gee…words have meaning. Who knew?
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Hardly. Race is genetic? Really? How so, o wise one?
Grow Fins on December 3, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Believe me, as a full time single parent, who raised his kids by himself since they were ONE, I agree…
Raising children with a Man/Woman partnership is the ideal situation.
Problem is that children are only one component of a marriage. You can be in a commited relationship without having kids involved… or, as I was for a bit over 10 years, be in a commited livein relationship WITHOUT getting married. Heck, she even had power of attorney for my kids for when I traveled….
We need to divorce (pun intended) the legal part of marriage, from the religious/social part… and make it easier for people to get in and out of Social Contracts so we CAN more easily take care of children…
Because the LEGAL part of this discussion is the only part the Courts, or Government, should be involved in…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 4:30 PM
That’s our benevolent leaders! They certainly know better how to run your life than you do.
Keeping in mind that these are the same people who consider the Constitution to be a living and breathing document, your statement about things being unconstitutional is superfluous.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Yeah. The judicial activism argument was, frankly, the only reason I really considered voting for Prop 8.
malclave on December 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
A more accurate analogy would be that we have every right to deny the blind the choice to legally drive.
Actually, same-sex couples can enter into and honor the terms of the civil marriage contract just as well as their heterosexual counterparts can.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Behavior is not inborn, but it is not a choice in many cases either. There is a science called psychology that deals with facts about that, but let’s not let facts muddy the reality of distorted sexual behavior.
Carry on.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Are you asking me how people inherit their race?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:33 PM
No.
Sodomites should NOT be allowed to adopt children.
They almost always sexually molest the children, and they ALWAYS permanently scar the children psychologically.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 4:33 PM
An XX of any race is more like an XX of any other race than of an XY of any race.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM
They are commercial businesses not churches. In the case of eHarmony there was no court involved.
You can run a church that teaches that gays are evil, women are wicked, carnivores are damned to hell and the elderly are cursed. You can have a fitness requirement that excluded the disabled if a core tenet of your church was physical strength. The courts would protect your right to assembly and religious exercise, but if you became an employer or rented out a space to the public then the state could subject you to anti-discrimination laws.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Great! And any gay man is free to marry any of the same women that I’m free to marry.
Kensington on December 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I don’t mean to pry, but if you were that close, why didn’t you just get married?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:35 PM
[citation needed]
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Gays need to change their name to Whiners
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 4:37 PM
again, i can’t dumb it down for you anymore than this: the courts, like the CA Supreme Court that threw out Prop. 22 and made gay marriage legal, will interpret the Constitution and throw out laws that violate it, like Prop. 22. but i suppose you think we should legislate by a far more modern document, the bible lol
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Social cons need to change their name to Bigots.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Anyone can ride the bus. But if you want a driver’s license, the state gets to make sure you meet the minimum requirements. And if they say you have to be able to see to get a license, you seeing-eye dog doesn’t count.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:38 PM
So, if you could just stamp out religion, then your lifestyle would be accepted and normal?
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM
And in 30 other states including California?
sugarandsass on December 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM
That may be true, but that doesn’t mean what I said was incorrect.
But what about laws that protect a person’s free exercise of religion?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Straight people have anal sex too, let’s take away their children.
bullshit. let’s see your stats.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:40 PM
This is why we don’t get anywhere with discussions like these: people think they’re able to psychically read other people’s minds. Pardon me for saying so, but you’re no Madam Cleo.
I am a born-again, saved-by-the-blood-of-Jesus Holy Bible believer — very definitely “Biblically minded”, to use your term. I think science is a valuable tool for many things. In addition to yielding extraordinary benefits in computing, medicine, transportation — virtually every aspect of modern life — it has taught me to be skeptical of things — including science itself. But make no mistake, I value science and its contributions immensely.
What it hasn’t done — indeed cannot do — is to teach me how to live — what is right, and what it wrong. I happen to believe the Bible is the best tool for that job; others disagree. It is true that for centuries the Bible was imposed as a formal restraint upon human behavior, but no more. You may sodomize freely. AND I AM FREE TO BELIEVE IT IS SIN, just as I believe it is sin when my OWN behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching. You don’t have to agree; but just as I must accept your freedom to act as you will, you must accept my freedom to believe as I will.
When we learn to respect one another’s freedom to choose (even when we believe the other guy is choosing badly), and give up on trying to force one another to agree, America will be a better place.
RegularJoe on December 3, 2008 at 4:40 PM
The bigot card is so 90s.
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 4:40 PM
there are 48 other states. and California did have it legal until it was stripped away, and we will keep fighting until we have that right back.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM
A triangle is more like a square than any kind of circle. That has as much to do with the race being genetic than your drivel.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Name calling always seems to make the point. For a sexual based group that bristles at certain words and has bullied the media to cut them out of movies, they can sure sling the hypocrisy.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Noneya, it’s not a right. Why are you delusional?
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Both of us had had disastrous marriages… with even worse divorces… the legal entaglements with both our X’s were economicaly and legaly messy… and had put the kids into the middle of a firefight.
Because neither one of us wanted more kids, there was no legal reason to get married… and as neither were devote, no religious reason either…
Turned out OK when we just drifted apart… and both wanted our Freedom… amicable split up… no legal entanglements…
And our kids still see each other and are friends…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
it already is, it’s just the last few religious bigots who don’t consider it so. luckily the millenials are far more secular and inclusive, and this bigotry is slowly fading away, but too slow for now…
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
And we will see you on the front lines.
nitzsche on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
You first.
Again, and maybe superfluous threw you off last time, I don’t, when a document can live and breathe, people don’t really need to listen to what it says. All they must do is change it.
And surely you’re far more intelligent than I am. At least that’s what you keep telling me, so I would love it if you could explain to me where I ever once suggested that the US should be a theocracy? Feel free to take your time. I know people with large brains like yours have many important things to do.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
You want proof?
Here is proof!
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/rosie-odonnell-daughter-photo.jpg
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
RegularJoe on December 3, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Well said, Brother.
Noneya, you can make your points to Esthier without being condescending. You have nothing to be condescending about.
Being rude and calling people (especially women) names does not advance your argument in any way.
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 4:45 PM
it is a privilege only for those who stick it in the holes you deem acceptable then? makes far more sense….
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM
As a rebuttal to my point, it was not correct.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Anyone can ride the bus. But if you want a driver’s license, the state gets to make sure you meet the minimum requirements. And if they say you have to be able to see to get a license, you seeing-eye dog doesn’t count.
What part of the civil marriage contract, aside from one being of the opposite sex in many states, can’t a same-sex couple comply with? I’d like to have something specific, rather than be tossed another frivolous analogy.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Just fighting fire with fire. And if you think women have it rough take a look at what names gays are being called in here, sheesh…
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 4:48 PM
I think I get it now: In your world everything is defined by sex, but marriage is about more than sex. Once you stop pushing your bedroom into my living room I’ll stop pushing back.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:48 PM
When a state can legislate a full functioning pecker kit on a lesbian, or a man to conceive and give birth….call me. Until then, let’s keep it real with marriage and the way God designed it to work.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »