Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

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

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Update: Split decision on DOMA?

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Amusing. So distraction and denial are your game, eh? Google is your friend, give it a try. If you want to pretend that socons have not been saying these things about other Christians who don’t hold to their own beliefs, about Mormons or about the state of our culture in general, then it must be quite cozy in that fantasy world of yours.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Just what we knew. You don’t even know what you are babbling about.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

blink. Your “True Marriage Equality” shtick is tired. For one thing there shouldn’t be laws against incest marriage or bigamist/polygamous marriage. Consenting adults should be able to form whatever bond they would like to form. But capacity is an ironclad foundational principle within American jurisprudence. Therefore adult-child and adult-animal marriages would not be True Marriage Equality because those would involve parties who have no legal standing to enter into a contract.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Nice attempt at reflection, Skippy.

In other words. you’ve got nothing. You’re a lightweight Troll.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

And nice display of projection, bucko. You can deny the obvious all you like but I prefer not to play that game.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

blink. Your “True Marriage Equality” shtick is tired. For one thing there shouldn’t be laws against incest marriage or bigamist/polygamous marriage. Consenting adults should be able to form whatever bond they would like to form. But capacity is an ironclad foundational principle within American jurisprudence. Therefore adult-child and adult-animal marriages would not be True Marriage Equality because those would involve parties who have no legal standing to enter into a contract.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Coming from you, someone who advocates for sex between adults and children I am not surprised. You’re just downright gross.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

And nice display of projection, bucko. You can deny the obvious all you like but I prefer not to play that game.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

All I asked for are facts, supported by sources. Are you allergic to them?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

John….. do you not get all you have is fallacies. You just churn them out one after another. Really lame.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Do you know what the word substantive means?

I know you think you’re real smart…but you’re not.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Cute. Sticking with your “thousands and thousands of years” reasoning only when convenient, eh?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the USA.

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the USA.

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Honesty is always nice, even if the thought is flawed. At least it gives you a reasonable target for argument.

Instead we have to wade through all their strawmen and PC crap.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

In other words. you’ve got nothing. You’re a lightweight Troll.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Added.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Just what we knew. You don’t even know what you are babbling about.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Perhaps you’re right. There are no “cafeteria Catholics” or “pseudo-Christians” because same-sex marriage and contraception are both completely compatible with Christianity as socons have been telling us all for years. Oh, and Mormonism is of course authentically Christian, we don’t live in a “sinful”, “modernist” or “post-Christian” culture from what I hear socons saying.

How ever could I have been confused? My bad.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Cute. Sticking with your “thousands and thousands of years” reasoning only when convenient, eh?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

So in Europe and the US marriage was not defined as one man and one woman in general?

You offer one fallacious argument after another. That is all you have. Weak to the nth degree.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

How ever could I have been confused? My bad.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Please link to the sources for your argument. Thank you.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Perhaps you’re right. There are no “cafeteria Catholics” or “pseudo-Christians” because same-sex marriage and contraception are both completely compatible with Christianity as socons have been telling us all for years. Oh, and Mormonism is of course authentically Christian, we don’t live in a “sinful”, “modernist” or “post-Christian” culture from what I hear socons saying.

How ever could I have been confused? My bad.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Another post using a fallacious argument. I love trolls like you. You prove me right. You’re predictable.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM

All I asked for are facts, supported by sources. Are you allergic to them?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

No, I embrace my Christian brothers and sisters of Moroni as well as my same-sex marriage endorsing authentically Christian friends. Because you know why? They’re all keeping to the Gospel. Just like socons have always told me.

You are indeed amusing.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Another post using a fallacious argument. I love trolls like you. You prove me right. You’re predictable.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I aim to please, Mr. Pot.

Speaking of predictable…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

No, I embrace my Christian brothers and sisters of Moroni as well as my same-sex marriage endorsing authentically Christian friends. Because you know why? They’re all keeping to the Gospel. Just like socons have always told me. You are indeed amusing.
JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

And ANOTHER use of a fallacious argument. Heh. Much easier than being substantive. Not that you know what it means.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

No, I embrace my Christian brothers and sisters of Moroni as well as my same-sex marriage endorsing authentically Christian friends. Because you know why? They’re all keeping to the Gospel. Just like socons have always told me.

You are indeed amusing.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

And you are a snot-nosed, bitter individual, with all the intellectual heft and deep thought of Lindsey Lohan.

You are nothing but a lightweight Troll, with no actual facts to back up his fallacious arguments. I pity you.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:36 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

You have nothing.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:36 AM

mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the USA.

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The bible clearly states that re-marriage is adultery. Shouldn’t the state bar re-marriage?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You offer one fallacious argument after another. That is all you have. Weak to the nth degree.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Methinks that you have very little understanding of what a fallacious argument really is. Granted, one can easily spot it in your posts but the overall concept is something you’re having difficulty grasping. However, I like your line of reasoning because as erroneous as it may be it does open the door to so much fun. So please, do continue.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

No, the “atheists” would have been the Christians as far as the ancient Romans were concerned.

You’ve heard of the Christians, right? There part of that group which tossed away “thousands and thousands of years” of polytheism, along with centuries of ancient Roman imperial custom, for some new-fangled idea. What nerve!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Roman God’s were supposed to be living in our world and had supposed manifestations which can be shown to either exist or not.

Christianity threw away thousands of years of Roman religious beliefs through simple persuasion, and not the brow beating kind for which many of the progressives are accustomed to using.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You have nothing.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And yet you respond. So I guess I do have something: I have you.

Somehow I feel cheated…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Therefore adult-child and adult-animal marriages would not be True Marriage Equality because those would involve parties who have no legal standing to enter into a contract.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Father-Son marriages sound kinda creepy. Brother-Sister is nothing to look up to encourage either.
You have no problem with these types of arrangements?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

It’s funny to read Triple.

His logic is catered to emotional appeals, only.

And when that doesn’t work, he stops arguing the issue for SSM and just goes head-first into debating biblical passage.

The only pro-SSM argument not made in emo speak is when discussing equality of citizenship.

But that issue could have been address a dozen different ways.

Triple does provide one really good insight; how progs are trying to sever the word marriage from any sacramental concept. For someone claiming to be soooo steeped in Catholicism, he sure as hell didn’t learn a damn thing.

Marriage is, has, and always will be a sacrament from religious orgs. The Guvment got in on the action for power and authority. as a way to tax and register people. It was an idea that came out of Switzerland in the 1500′s.

Kagan has said marriage is not a constituional right. You have a right to pursue happiness. The state has an obligation to that pursuit. Nothing more.

So if the pursuit means you have to move to WA or join a different church, deal with it. All the state has to provide is equality in taxes and legal recognition.

But that’s not a sacrament. That’s a license.

Progs want church authority to become state power. They prove it in their actions, and inactions, when private businesses are sued for not catering to SSM couples, or when prog legislators go after religious orgs.

If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, I’ll bet that within a year, the major Christian denominations are sued for discrimination and hate speech by some anti-Chrisitian group using SSM as pretext. And the gay advocates won’t say a damn thing.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Christianity threw away thousands of years of Roman religious beliefs through simple persuasion, and not the brow beating kind for which many of the progressives are accustomed to using.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Well besides the former pagan temples seized by Christians and converted into churches which raise certain questions, I have no doubt that the Roman pagans under Theodosius would beg to differ.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You seem to be confused and not very educated. When you dance around subjects and divert from the subject at hand you are arguing in a fallacious manner. That is you in a nut shell. That is almost all you do. So play on.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM

And you are a snot-nosed, bitter individual, with all the intellectual heft and deep thought of Lindsey Lohan.

You are nothing but a lightweight Troll, with no actual facts to back up his fallacious arguments. I pity you.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Peace of Christ to you too.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Cute. Sticking with your “thousands and thousands of years” reasoning only when convenient, eh?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Its best to ignore CW. He has absolutely no ideas or analysis, he only comes here to hurl insults at others. One wonders what kind of life he has outside of the blog comment board. I suspect it must be profoundly miserable considering that amount of vitriol he has stored inside ready for ongoing release on this board.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the USA.

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The bible clearly states that re-marriage is adultery. Shouldn’t the state bar re-marriage?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Fallacious arguments sure seem popular with our present trolls. Sheesh.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You’ve heard of the Christians, right? There part of that group which tossed away “thousands and thousands of years” of polytheism, along with centuries of ancient Roman imperial custom, for some new-fangled idea. What nerve!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Yeah.

The Romans did that all the time.

It was a malleable religious society that adopted customs, practices and gods from every land they conquered until Constantine had a vision. But even then, some older religions still held on.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Poor libfree another puke who hates to be called out. Libfree advocates for sex between adults and minors . This is one sick puppy .

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Peace of Christ to you too.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

It is. If you would like it, too, may I suggest the Gospel of John?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Father-Son marriages sound kinda creepy. Brother-Sister is nothing to look up to encourage either.
You have no problem with these types of arrangements?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Know what else sounds creepy? 90 year old billionaire marries 18 year old girl. And yet it is entirely legal. A marriage’s particular “creep” factor is not an argument for its legality or illegality. Brother-Sister, Father-Son i know for sure I wouldn’t be doing it, that’s all I can say. I also don’t expect there will be a powerful movement in favor of it. In part the gauge of a social change is how much support it can accrue over time. Though we are not a pure democracy, our culture has a deeply democratic ethos. That ethos has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage. If incest marriage advocates want to start that project then more power to them. I suspect though that they will not get much traction.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

In other words again: You have nothing George.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Not always. There are plenty of heterosexuals that physiologically don’t have the opportunity to have children. What about older couples? What about a man or woman that has been fixed?

But at least your make-a-baby test would allow you to support consanguinious marriage, right?

blink on December 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

We live in a society where people have privacy. We do not make people take tests to determine their ability to have children. The one man and one woman marriage has been around far longer than our government. When government took the power to have control over marriage it took the entire custom. Heterosexuals never worked fervently to get government involved. Government simply saw the value that they offered society and chose to get involved thinking they could work to benefit society more (they actually have been destroying marriage).

In your case. What you want to do is skip the proving your value to society and get rewarded with benefits you never earned. Forcing your immoral activities onto others and making them celebrate your filth.

As for people from the same family having children, it has been shown to be detrimental to the health of the children. As such, why would I support it?

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

You seem to be confused and not very educated. When you dance around subjects and divert from the subject at hand you are arguing in a fallacious manner. That is you in a nut shell. That is almost all you do. So play on.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM

On the contrary, I’m taking up your “thousands and thousands of years” and “substantive” line of reasoning. You should be happy. Proud even. But alas, you dislike where such has led you too so resort to mockery.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

In other words again: You have nothing George.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

So you continue to respond. You flatter me, but knock it off Francis!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:48 AM

It is. If you would like it, too, may I suggest the Gospel of John?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Why not the Book of Mormon instead? Once you ignore all the “it came to passes”, it really gets interesting.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So, Marriage is not to protect the offspring of heterosexual?

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

s

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So, Marriage is not to protect the offspring of heterosexual?

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Religiously, yes.
Government, yes.
Progressives, it is there to bestow special benefits which could never be bestowed on something named something other.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

It was a malleable religious society that adopted customs, practices and gods from every land they conquered until Constantine had a vision. But even then, some older religions still held on.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Yep, till Theodosius weighed in with heavy Christian endorsement. So much for “thousands and thousand of years” of paradigm and centuries of custom. All for some new-fangled idea…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Are you satisfied, playing the role of a clown? You do other purveyors of your sexual orientation no favors.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

So, Marriage is not to protect the offspring of heterosexual?

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

What? That doesn’t even make any sense. Marriage is about protecing an entity that doesn’t exist yet? A hypothetical child?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Its best to ignore CW. He has absolutely no ideas or analysis, he only comes here to hurl insults at others. One wonders what kind of life he has outside of the blog comment board. I suspect it must be profoundly miserable considering that amount of vitriol he has stored inside ready for ongoing release on this board.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I know. I usually just read posts and comments here without saying much myself, but I have some free time at the moment and am bored this morning so why not parrot one of Hot Air’s bestest commenters evah?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM

What? That doesn’t even make any sense. Marriage is about protecing an entity that doesn’t exist yet? A hypothetical child?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Amazing, people can think more than ten seconds into the future and make plans ahead of time. Why would anyone build a machine to build a car that does not exist! The nerve of them!

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Are you satisfied, playing the role of a clown? You do other purveyors of your sexual orientation no favors.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Coming from a paragon of Christian virtue like yourself I take this as a compliment. I’d point out that you clownish posts here for quite awhile now do purveyors of your faith no favor, but what would be the fun in that?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Know what else sounds creepy? 90 year old billionaire marries 18 year old girl. And yet it is entirely legal. A marriage’s particular “creep” factor is not an argument for its legality or illegality.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Whats creepy about it? An old man marries a young woman. Where’s the problem? Fairy tale come true. Love is blind.

You avoided the question.

You support a Father-Son…Brother-Sister marriage?
If not, why not?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Know what else sounds creepy? 90 year old billionaire marries 18 year old girl. And yet it is entirely legal. A marriage’s particular “creep” factor is not an argument for its legality or illegality.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

96 year old man becomes father…
Problem?

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I know who we should be looking to for moral guidance, Catholics!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/12/04/why-i-wont-be-cheering-for-old-notre-dame/

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Uh huh. And that would be why the Senate Republicans, the House of Representatives, thehill.com, and others follow me on twitter, and why I have been quoted as one of the top 10 Conservatives to follow on Twitter, as well as my blogs appearing in opencongress.org, and numerous other sides.

You are a little, shallow individual, aren’t you?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

MAKE ALL THE LAWS YOU WANT, CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORD ALL YOU WANT. BUT YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE PEOPLE’S TRUE FEELINGS ABOUT GAYS. YOU WILL NEVER GET THEIR RESPECT. THE MAJORITY OF GAYS ARE MENTALLY ILL. NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DO, BUT BECAUSE YOU WILLINGLY CRAWL OF THE BACKSIDE OF AN ANIMAL WHO WANTS TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE AND HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED THE GROUND WORK OF THAT. AND YOU SUPPORT A “RELIGION” THAT WOULD KILL YOU IF IT GOT THE CHANCE. BUT YOU COULD CARE LESS, BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY MUSTBE RECOGNIZED AS LEGITIMATE. WHAT’S SO LEGITIMATE ABOUT HAVING OPEN RELATIONSHIPS????? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MOST GAYS PRACTICE. IT IS VERY RARE THAT MONOGAMY TAKES PLACE IN GAY CULTURE. THAT’S THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET. SO KEEP ON MOCKING JESUS AND CHRISTIANITY AND ANYONE WHO HAS FAITH AND MORALS GAYS AND ALL YOU GAY SUPPORTERS. YOUR FAITH RESIDES IN BARACK OBAMA’S ANAL CAVITY. THAT’S WHERE YOU WORSHIP, AND WHERE YOU TRULY DESIRE TO BE. AS A GAY MAN MYSELF, I CAN PROUDLY SAY THAT I AM THANKFUL THAT MY DECENT, CONSERVATIVE PARENTS GOT THEIR HANDS ON ME BEFORE THE GAY “PRIDE” COMMUNITY DID. OTHERWISE I’D BE JUST AS MIND F_CKED AS YOU ALL ARE NOW. HAPPY HOLIDAYS MERRY CHRISTMAS MORONS!!!!!

GhoulAid on December 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Jesus said marriage is between A man and A woman. Period. Same sex marriage is anti-Christian and rejects the Gospel. You cannot love Jesus and accept same sex marriage.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

GhoulAid on December 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Whoa. That was the most epic, self-hating implosion I’ve ever seen. Your parents go “their hands” on you? Something tells me you were raised in one of those houses where they thought they could beat the gay out of you. I am so sorry you suffered such violent physical and emotional abuse. May you find piece.

As evidence that GhoulAid is not the only example of what can happen in this world I give you all this gift: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Lug_IxFKo8

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:05 AM

What? That doesn’t even make any sense. Marriage is about protecing an entity that doesn’t exist yet? A hypothetical child?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Of course it doesn’t make sense. I would think you of all folks would know the history behind Marriage as an instrument for protection of offspring. I admire your deep thinking and logic.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Jesus said marriage is between A man and A woman. Period. Same sex marriage is anti-Christian and rejects the Gospel. You cannot love Jesus and accept same sex marriage.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Sounds great. The law, however, is not the province of the Gospel.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Sounds great. The law, however, is not the province of the Gospel.
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Says who? The law can be based on whatever foundation serves it best. Which a Christian foundation does.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Uh huh. And that would be why the Senate Republicans, the House of Representatives, thehill.com, and others follow me on twitter, and why I have been quoted as one of the top 10 Conservatives to follow on Twitter, as well as my blogs appearing in opencongress.org, and numerous other sides.

You are a little, shallow individual, aren’t you?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Humble, I see. Well I guess that this explains their “victory” last month…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

When using emotion for the construct of an argument to further a preconceived agenda. Historical president be damned. If all else fails bring religion and government into the equation.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

GhoulAid on December 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

And a Happy Saturnalia to you too, my Mormon brother!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

We weren’t talking about the election, tiny dancer. You were attacking me and my character. By the way, where are those links to back your self-serving b.s. up?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Says who? The law can be based on whatever foundation serves it best. Which a Christian foundation does.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

OK i mean…if that’s where you’re starting how can there even be a debate. You are completely disavowing the legal principles which undergird this nation…

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

What are you trying to say?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Jesus said marriage is between A man and A woman. Period. Same sex marriage is anti-Christian and rejects the Gospel. You cannot love Jesus and accept same sex marriage.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Don’t let kingsjester hear you say this, because true socons would never think of saying such things…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Astute observation, my friend.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

president=precedent, dang iPad thingy!

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

That many anti-gay marriage conservatives will be cheering on a football team with avowed rapists without a moment’s hesitation in the National championship game.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Don’t let kingsjester hear you say this, because true socons would never think of saying such things…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

He’s right. You’re wrong.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

You are completely disavowing the legal principles which undergird this nation…
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Not in the least. I am affirming them.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Says who? The law can be based on whatever foundation serves it best. Which a Christian foundation does.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Should second marriages be legal?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Not in the least. I am affirming them.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Which of the founders said “the law must pass the test of adherence to the Gospels”?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Should second marriages be legal?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

They are. They are a marriage. it’s between a man and a woman.

Next question?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Should second marriages be legal?
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Depends on the circumstances.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM

We weren’t talking about the election, tiny dancer.

Really, if must flirt with me at least be more clever about it.

You were attacking me and my character.

You’re right. How could I forget saying that you’re a “snot-nosed, bitter individual, with all the intellectual heft and deep thought of Lindsey Lohan. You are nothing but a lightweight Troll”?

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

By the way, where are those links to back your self-serving b.s. up?

Ask GhoulAid. I have no doubt that he’d be more than happy to provide you an ample supply.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

By the way…yes, God hates divorce. But, Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.

Now, try something else.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Should second marriages be legal?
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Would gay marriage allow a man to marry his brother?

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

They are. They are a marriage. it’s between a man and a woman.

Next question?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM

According to the gospels they are adultery.

Should second marriages be legal?
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Depends on the circumstances.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM

At least you are consistent, but you’ll never put that genie back in the bottle. But at least you are consistent in your desire for America to be a theocracy.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

He’s right. You’re wrong.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Contradictions are your specialty suit, ain’t they?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

That many anti-gay marriage conservatives will be cheering on a football team with avowed rapists without a moment’s hesitation in the National championship game.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

That still makes little sense beyond smearing the whole of something based on the actions of a few, even if the allegations are true.
By your reasoning, all of liberals can be judged by the rapists and murderers that were a part of the OWS movement.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Jesus said marriage is between A man and A woman. Period. Same sex marriage is anti-Christian and rejects the Gospel. You cannot love Jesus and accept same sex marriage.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Who cares? The United States is a product of the Constitution and not the New Testament.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM

But at least you are consistent in your desire for America to be a theocracy.
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

So any moral consideration is a “theocracy”? What nonsense. In that sense every government is a theocracy of one sort or another.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I have no idea how a split decision would work. “Federalism” doesn’t prevent the U.S. Government from defining who receives federal benefits. So DOMA should rise or fall depending on the reading the court gives of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which should also govern the Prop 8 decision. The proper result would uphold the right of each state to define marriage within its borders, uphold DOMA, and (while this probably isn’t before the court), uphold the right of states not to recognize under the full faith and credit clause marriages from other states that would not be legal in those states.

But I’m a lawyer. What do I know?

35tww on December 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Contradictions are your specialty suit, ain’t they?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Show me. Where are those links to back up all your b.s.?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Would gay marriage allow a man to marry his brother?

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

There would need to be a separate effort around making incest marriage legal. I, for one, am not invested in that cause so don’t ask me how those organizing efforts are going. If they are able to get it off the ground I’ll be surprised.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM

By the way…yes, God hates divorce. But, Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.

Now, try something else.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The folks at Gay Christian Network will be pleased to hear you say this.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Who cares? The United States is a product of the Constitution and not the New Testament.
urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You got to get your moral foundation for laws somewhere. Christianity has always worked better than unrestrained sexual license and a basis for social interaction.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Should second marriages be legal?
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

???
They are legal.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Show me. Where are those links to back up all your b.s.?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I would but I can’t spoil it for GhoulAid. Didn’t your Momma ever teach you any manners?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I hope so. You can be forgiven, also. Would you like to know how?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

???
They are legal.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

The bible says they are adultery.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

There would need to be a separate effort around making incest marriage legal. I, for one, am not invested in that cause so don’t ask me how those organizing efforts are going. If they are able to get it off the ground I’ll be surprised.
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Ah, so you are no more consistent in your humanism than those you chide. Your worldview is just as hyprocritical any anyone elses.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I would but I can’t spoil it for GhoulAid. Didn’t your Momma ever teach you any manners?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Translation: I still have no facts at all to back up my fallacious arguments.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:23 AM

The bible says they are adultery.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Would you like to know how to be forgiven, also?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I, for one, am not invested in that cause so don’t ask me how those organizing efforts are going. If they are able to get it off the ground I’ll be surprised.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM

…but you do support the right of those so inclined? If they had trouble “getting it off the ground”, they could count on your support in the fight for their equal rights?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Why give the homosexual mafia anything?

They support and vote for leftist extremists who are taking our country down the toilet. They are sacrificing our nation for the so-call marriage recognition.

There are much larger issues at hand and the homo’s worry about their special rights to marry to only recognized by the federal government.

It is UN-constituional to override state constitution on this matter because it violates the 10th amendment…and that means the 14th amendment cannot override the 10th for all you liberal intellectuals.

b1jetmech on December 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM

took awhile but they finally got around to confessing it is all about rebelling to God.

thanks hot air confession booth!

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8