Watch out Clint. Anne Coulter is going to call you a "pussy" now for failing to stand up to the liberals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/ann-coulter-booed-students-john-stossel-libertarians-gay-marriage_n_2741535.html

She just can't understand anybody who isn't a nanny statist.

I think it is unfair to categorize Clint like this. He has accomplished alot and is an extremely talented individual. Its easy to put down someone via a comment on some news site. I bet you would like very much to get the chance to meet him.

I should clarify that I agree with Clint. No put down was intended.

A good man always knows his limitations.

Only the far right was ever really agaisnt it 100% in the first place. Many on the right are either OK with it or on the fence so it's not (or it shouldn't be) ground breaking new that many Republicans are OK with it. If you stopped reading NBC exclusively and opened your eyes you might have already known that.

Good for Clint...he got this one right.

The chair thing.... well, an empty chair represents DEITY in many religious sects. Then again, maybe Clint knew that.

.

.

.

The Hetoimasia, Etimasia prepared throne, Preparation of the Throne, ready throne orThrone of the Second Coming is the Christian version of the symbolic subject of the empty throne found in the art of the ancient world.

In Ancient Greece it represented Zeus, chief of the gods, and in earlyBuddhist art it represented the Buddha. In Early Christian art and Early Medieval art it is found in both the East and Western churches, and represents either Christ, or sometimes God the Father as part of the Trinity. In the Middle Byzantine period, from about 1000, it came to represent more specifically the throne prepared for the Second Coming of Christ, a meaning it has retained in Eastern Orthodox art to the present.The motif consists of an empty throne and various other symbolic objects, in later depictions surrounded when space allows by angels paying homage. It is usually placed centrally in schemes of composition, very often in a roundel, but typically is not the largest element in a scheme of decoration.

Makessense,

Well, except that the Republic platform is very clear on the Republican standpoint on this, and that platform says NO WAY.

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

"Go ahead, Punk, Do you feel lucky?"

Yes Sarah, there are Republicans that do not agree with 100% of the platform. Is there anything you do not disagree with on the Democratic platform? If there isn't then I would suggest blind following.

My biggest issue with Prop. 8 is not the Republican politicians, it's with the private proponents of Prop. 8 who were not held to any kind of fact checking. They actually put out ads in California stating that if Prop 8 did NOT pass, we (public school educators) would be teaching Kindergarteners about man-on-man sex. This was a bold faced lie, but unfortunately many sheep believed that it was true. It was one of the killers of opposition to the proposition.

I think Eastwood just took a seat in the empty chair routine.

I am completely opposed to gay marriage - as a holy union. The Bible is very clear on this. But as a civil union - go for it....this way Gays and Lesbians can all find out about divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, division of propery and assets.....all the really fun stuff. And trust me - many of those relationships will end in divorce - after all they are no different than the rest of us - right?

Makessense,

Sure there are things I don't agree with on the platform. But that doesn't take away the fact that it's STILL the party's position. I don't like the current labor union situation. So do many Dems, however, I wouldn't run around saying that people need to "look more closely" at Dems, before demonizing us for supporting unions. That's disengenuous. Being a Dem I have to own the @!$%#ty part of my party too and work to change it. Not try to convince people that the platform doesn't dictate the position of the party. It does.

If you want to make claims that "many Republicans are okay with it", than I suggest you start calling out the multitudes of GOP leaders who adamantly stand against it. Starting with Boehner, who's spent numerous tax dollars fighting Obama's decree to no longer uphold DOMA.

makessense-7131188 - Only the far right was ever really agaisnt it 100% in the first place.

Only the far right? ROFLMAO. But you won't find any group that's 100% opposed anyway.

Polls show that only 24% of Republicans support marriage equality, in contrast to at least 65% of Democrats.

But you're correct that the far right is adamantly opposed, given that 94% of teabaggers oppose marriage equality, far more than any other political demographic.

clint, you must fall in 100% with the stereotypes of the liberal media about the right! if not, you confuse people like sarah, who has been told that if you're republican then you must be an extremist who has no soul!

it truly amazes me that even when a conservative says something that liberals try desperately to lay claim to, they try desperately to still bring them down.

Congratulations Clint Eastwood! Good to know that it is a political spectrum instead of a scale.

like sarah, who has been told that if you're republican then you are an extremist!

Than why did you invite an extremist to be one of the highlighted speakers at your convention?

Both parties have extremists. Hence the (worst of) the tea party and the (worst of) the occupy movements.

I don't have a problem either way. I have friends who are gay and they don't push their fellings on me and I don't push mine on them. I will say that, in the grand scheme of things, this was really a non-issue for me in the last election. If the economy doesn't improve, it won't matter who is married to whom.

like sarah, who has been told that if you're republican then you are an extremist!

Than why did you invite an extremist to be one of the highlighted speakers at your convention?

Ha good one Sarah :)

Move over Chuck Hagel and duck while you're at it!

Because it's now Clint Eastwood's turn to get thrown under the republican bus and coming with him. The chair.

Dirty Harry 40 years later: "Go ahead, make my gay"

makessense-7131188

The funniest thing of all, is the republican party leadership knows that marriage equality is coming. However, instead of going against their obtuse party platform of ensuring all Americans have equal right and 'endangering' their supporters, they are going to continue to maintain "We the people" unless you are gay stance. They also are going to continue to 'spend' more money on fighting it and going against the "smaller' government mantra.

Once SCOTUS rules on this, even the staunchest teabaggers (who are play the party line before doing what's right for the country) will come out and say "they always supported equal marriage rights"

As for Clint.. Thanks for the support. However, as President Obama already said "This seats taken"

Pandas,

And here's the difference between logical and illogical arguments. As much as I disagree with Boehner and McConnell, they aren't extremists. I do not think that word means what you think it means. It means one thing when it supports your position, and then you change the threshold for it when you need to make a different point.

Logic, failure.

It will be a "stereotype" when you get it out of your platform and your leaders accept that DOMA is unconstitutional. Until then, it's the TRUTH. Just like it's the truth that Dems are too involved with labor unions, and labor unions have become forces of negativity in some ways.

Will the real Clint please stand up.

Conservative heads are popping. This social issue is lost.

My question is how is Clint an extremist if he is for gay marriage?

My question is how is Clint an extremist if he is for gay marriage?

Good point. Panda, would you care to answer that, since you're the one that made that claim...

Sarah- and I am quoting from you here "Than why did you invite an extremist to be one of the highlighted speakers at your convention?"

makessense-7131188

Ask Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, McConnell. They are they are the 'face' of the republican party, and all have come out against gay marriage rights.

According to the right, if you don't support our platform, then you are a liberal extremist. So since "Clint" broke ranks......

Don't think the "fairies" are going to really fall for this ruse. Rep's HATE them and will never support their "causes", just want their votes.

Makessense,

Read Panda's post above that. If you can't grasp what I was getting at, I can't help you.

Well Clint -- you may have been their hero last summer but Rush the junkie, little boy Sean Hannity and the rest of right wing noise machine now counts you as the enemy.

Makessense,

Quoted me out of context, but potato, patata. And this corner's working well for me thank you.

There is kind of a silly argument going on here about whether Clint Eastwood is an "extremist." Just to be clear, an "extremist" is not necessarily extreme on every issue, and I don't even know that Eastwood is extreme on any issue; his performance at the 2012 Republican convention was just extremely silly. He did a poor job of both acting and directing on that occasion.

This will be an interesting court proceeding. Since the Constitution is a document that limits the power of government to those powers granted in the constitution, and since there is no power granted in the constitution that allows the federal government to ban or sanction same sex marriage, (or to legalize abortion for that matter) the deciding part of the Constitution has to be in the 10th Amendment which states those powers not given to the federal government rest with the states.

So then the question becomes, does a state have the power, under the 10th Amendment and within its boundaries, to allow the people to ban same sex marriage? If so, why? If not, why?

The other issue to be dealt with is this. Does the supreme court have the power to create law by either allowing or banning same sex marriage when that power does not exist in the constitution and therefore rests with the states. How can the federal government rule on a state matter on which the federal government is powerless?

So what we are going to see is a court proceeding where the supreme court justices are going to rule on whether or not the state has the power to ban same sex marriage, even though the federal government (the judicial branch in this case) does not have the power to rule on the issue.

As a side note, the abortion issue, specifically Roe v. Wade, was the same sort of bad law wherein the judicial branch granted to the federal government powers (to legalize abortion) that the constitution did not grant to the federal government. If that case were to be brought up today, I don't see how the justices would have standing to even hear the case since the constitution does not grant to any part of the federal government the power to ban or legalize abortion, meaning it is a states rights matter.

Like I said, this could get interesting.

The two main religions represented in congress are baptist and catholic. True followers of Christ have always seen these two churches as apostate, one can compare their doctrines to the teachings of Christ and find little in common, Jesus is a word they use to claim authority, but the truth is Jesus does not know them.

The anti-christ will be an American president, calling himself a religious conservative, backed by an apostate church.

"are you done yet?"

Please actually say something. I'm also having a Rodney King moment. Can't we all just get along? Ah, I guess the most we can do to each other is come up with one-line (not so veiled) declarations of hostility.

. He did a poor job of both acting and directing on that occasion.

True Don. While I didn't support Romney, had Eastwood done a better job with that, it would have been hilarious! It was a great opportunity. However, it just turned silly and, IMHO, somewhat sad too.

This will be an interesting court proceeding. Since the Constitution is a document that limits the power of government to those powers granted in the constitution, and since there is no power granted in the constitution that allows the federal government to ban or sanction same sex marriage, (or to legalize abortion for that matter) the deciding part of the Constitution has to be in Article 10. Article 10 states those powers not given to the federal government rest with the states.

First...

Of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.

Second...

The 10th Amendment is basically moot. In fact, a 10th Amendment issue has come before SCOTUS since the '60's. It's rendered moot by incorporation through the 14th Amendment. This case is going to come down two three things, gender discrimination, the 14th Amendment, and the implied right to privacy through the 4th and 9th Amendments. The privacy amendments are also what allows for abortion.

http://www.endroe.org/roeanalysis.aspx

Panda,

Again, I'm not going to rewrite my post to better explain it for those whose heads it went over. Either you get it or you don't.

And really, is there such thing as a "low horse". Horses by their very nature and physicality are high, so isn't it redundant to say, "Get off your high horse"???

Now, THAT is off topic.

Glenn -- enjoyed your post. I agree this will be an interesting issue. I look forward to following it.

Here's my take. From the get-go, DOMA was actually unconstitutional. It was put into place to circumvent "Full Faith & Credit". Because marriage is, at the bottom line, a contract, once it became legal in one state, other states would have to recognize it. This was a huge fear, and thus DOMA.

There are many issues you could apply "Article 10" to, ranging from marijuana to health insurance to, as you noted, abortion. There have been successful cirumventions before, many using the Commerce Act or, like the drinking age, the purse strings.

We'll have to see how this one plays out.

makessense

Many on the right are either OK with it or on the fence so it's not (or it shouldn't be) ground breaking new that many Republicans are OK with it.

You must have missed the Republican primaries. Let me bring you up to speed...

A soldier, putting his life on the line for all of us, comes on TV and admits he is gay. The ENTIRE Republican primary audience erupts in mocking "boo's". An entire floor, FULL of republicans, "boo" a soldier on live television. Every single god damn republican in that place showed blatant disrespect for a soldier... EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Now you are telling me that out of all of the "many on the right" who are "ok" with it... not a single one attended the primary?

Beth

As usual, you have posted very wise and thoughtful comments on the marriage equality issue. I think that if the "entrenched" opposition would take time to consider your words they would likely become less entrenched.

Thanks Don ...

I am completely opposed to gay marriage - as a holy union.

No one is suggesting that gay marriage should be a "holy union." That's a matter for each religion. What at stake is secular marriage, which is regulated by the state.

For everyone making this a Democrat vs. Republican thing- Clint Eastwood identifies himself as a Libertarian as direct quotes over the years have demonstrated.

"I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone."

"And I became more of a libertarian – let’s leave everybody alone, quit screwing with everybody and don’t over-regulate. It’s about giving people a chance to live by their own decisions. And today the liberals aren’t really liberal at all because they won’t leave people alone, and a lot of the conservatives have lost their way fiscally. That’s why the UK, America, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain are all in a mess right now."

"The first time I voted I was in the army. It was during the Korean War and I voted Republican because it was Eisenhower and he was somewhat heroic to all of us from World War II. So I became a Republican, but I’ve supported Democrats at times, and I don’t necessarily adhere to one line. Sometimes parties make mistakes – they both have. And our parties are in terrible shape – these days we don’t know where the hell they are."

Hmm... Maybe there are some people out there who don't fit neatly into a political dogma...

@Barry...So what just does the LGBT community want to call it?...Because it is not a true marriage in any way, sense, shape or form...

Good For You Clint,

I think we will be seeing more and more Republicans breaking out of the lock-step unity that served them so well during the Gingrich and Bush years.

Clearly in this last election, economic conservatism was defeated largely in part due to its association with pro-life, anti-gay, religious zealots that think climate change is a hoax.

Let the uneducated reactionary Tea-Party morons go their own way and lets get a pro-business economically conservative Republican Party back to what it was in Lincoln's day.

I would vote for that.

ArmedWombat

Baptist is not a religion, but a denomination within Christianity. There are several different Baptist denominations among Christianity along with many other denominations. The reason for the different denominations or groups within Christianity is because Christians (I refer myself as a follower of Christ; I'm not sinless, but I'm trusting in the One who is) don't always agree on God's word.

Not all Baptists are followers of Jesus Christ just as because someone says they're a "Christian" doesn't mean they're a follower of Jesus Christ; someone who has repented of their sin by confessing Him as Savior and Lord of their life. Simply put, a follower of Jesus Christ is someone who acknowledges they are a sinner and separated from a loving, Holy, Righteous, and Just God. They are people who are placing their entire faith (belief and trust) in the sacrificial atonement made by God Himself, Jesus Christ.

A follower of Christ then makes a choice to live for Christ rather than self. We still live in this sinful body and we struggle against the desires of this flesh. We are made righteous before God because of Jesus and not anything we have done or can possibly do ourselves. We can't take credit for being right with a Holy and sinless God.

But that hasn't stopped man from trying to take credit for being right with God and that is why we have many religions. Being a follower of Christ Jesus isn't a religion, but a personal intimate relationship with the living God, who created all things for His pleasure. That includes all people. His desire is that all people come to repentance and trust in Jesus for their salvation rather than some man-made religion.

Well, this made my day.

As a Democrat I know that it has also made the day of my Republican friends who are not stuffed shirts, with whom I have common ground on issues such as welfare, eminent domain, and education, who are sophisticated and educated people and cool to hang out with, and who are sick, sick, sick of it!

A relevant Republican Party will help us clean out some of the deadwood in the Democratic Party. I would also like to see a third party. It seems to me that the original Tea Party had some intelligent things to say on economic issues before it got taken over by the predictable and tiresome social nannyism.

Tinbashr

Because it is not a true marriage in any way, sense, shape or form...

How exactly is the contract, which you call "marriage", that homosexuals seek different from the contract that heterosexuals currently have? Which terms of the contract change?

The gender of the parties signing this contract may vary, but the terms of the contract itself remain the same. Thus it is a "true (contract) marriage", as the contract itself does not change.

Tinbashr - I think you are confusing matrimony, a holy state of union, with marriage, a civil contract between 2 consenting adults.

now be realistic MIKE-228 how can you call 80% of the baptists in this country CHRISTIANS there is more hate, bigotry, racism, and hypocrisy spewing from most of the Baptist churches.. just listen to the televised church services on sunday, listen to the radio every day to just a few of the evangelists.. and you will HEAR HATE at it's finest.. let's take the second bush election.. evengelicals, baptists, and more came out to vote, some for the first time in their lives, because BUSH43 ran on BAN GAY MARRIAGE .. tell me would you call that hate.. even Sen Graham (R) SC is speaking out against it.. when it is suspected that he is closeted

It's amusing to watch the ass kissing the Republicans are willing to do in order to keep their seats in the House next year. They've made 180 degree turns on immigration, and now gay marriage. I wouldn't be surprised to hear them say soon that they are pro-abortion.

Someday this whole marriage equality "issue" will seem as absurd as the prior illegality of interracial marriage does today.

Sarah, Panda said people like you take him to be an extremist. You were the one to first use it in the way you are being accused of doing. Sorry, I think you are wrong too. If everyone is confused by how you think Panda was the one to call him an extremist, its probably because you do not understand Panda's point at all. Instead of telling everyone else to look at his post, I suggest you do.

Clint Eastwood has always been for gay rights. He also has always considered himself a libertarian. Notice how he said stuff republicans are against. This isnt news. He has stood up for gay rights many times before. Clint is freaking awesome.

Mr. Burns,

I suggest you google, irreverence, and/or sarcasm.

You gotta love Clint, and the empty chair gag he pulled on the GOP.

@mguy...Sorry to say, but is a TRUE "Marriage Contract ", not supposed to be between a Man and a Woman?. I have no problem at all with a Man/Man or Woman/Woman getting together. If they want to make it legal, fine, do so, just call it a UNION..

@Fooz...Sorry to say, but is a Holy State of Union, not a marriage between a Man and a Woman?..I am not looking for a pissing match, just trying to understand what the Hell is going on with society today...Thanks for your comments..

The problem with the whole issue is that we aren't allowed to discuss the real repercussions of gay marriage without being labeled bigots and religious zealots.

By sanctioning gay marriage, are we as a society deeming certain sexual acts to be socially acceptable? Because gayness has infiltrated everything, do we have to be concerned with the political correctness of telling our non-gay sons that it's not alright to have anal sex because it's dangerous and (sorry but) disgusting? Furthermore, do we expect that our daughters will believe that this behavior is acceptable with them as well? There are real consequences, social consequences that have nothing at all to do with who you love or whether or not you get death benefits or family insurance.

Certainly, what a person does in his or her bedroom is his or her own business, and eventually our children all become adults and get to make their own decisions on what they will or won't do with their bodies, but society is bordering on dangerous ground here, in my opinion. If anal sex becomes a social norm (meaning our children will be apt to try it at least once and even to do it on a regular basis for all sorts of different reasons ranging from "it's fun and feels good" to "I want him to love me"--and perhaps it already happens with most people, I'm just too naive to realize it), then the problems of anal sex, specifically, will spread to the heterosexual community at large. And they are serious problems directly related to anal sex that have consequences not just for the individuals involved, but to everyone.

I understand the libertarian idea of allowing people to live and the liberal idea of granting people equal protection and the conservative ideas of being unable to support gay marriage for fear of offending god. Personally, where this topic is concerned, I don't fit into any of those categories because I could argue against each point as easily as I could agree with it. What about what we are showing our children? If we go this route, granting these rights (as we've granted access to our homes through the media in order for homosexuals to gain support), how do we seriously sit our kids down and have the conversations about the fundamental wrongness and dangers of anal sex without being labeled bigots? Literally, I have nothing against gay people and believe the vast majority of them have no choice in who they are sexually attracted to (though I firmly believe they have a choice in whether or not they act on those attractions and know for a fact that they are capable of loving people of the opposite sex and even having sexual relationships with them, but that's beside the point). The thing is, you will never convince me that anal sex is healthy or safe. If you want what you do in your bedrooms to remain your business, you have to stop trying to get me to say it's alright, because in my view, it can't be.

Maybe that makes me a bad person.

What if instead of sanctioning gay marriage, we just sanction that two people, whether or not they have a sexual relationship, may enter into contract with one another for these certain rights, because obviously there is a benefit to having two people responsible for a home and when people live together, whether they are lovers friends or roommates, there is a certain amount of cohabitation rights that should exist, which has nothing to do with bedrooms at all. Can we perhaps try and approach it from that angle? That way gayness has nothing at all to do with it.

Beth-440386 - Here's my take. From the get-go, DOMA was actually unconstitutional. It was put into place to circumvent "Full Faith & Credit". Because marriage is, at the bottom line, a contract, once it became legal in one state, other states would have to recognize it. This was a huge fear, and thus DOMA.

That was the misguided claim, anyway. The reality is that DOMA was completely unnecessary for the purpose stated in section 2, since no state has ever been required to recognize any out of state marriage which violated its own marriage statute. There's a longstanding "public policy exception" to Full Faith & Credit which dates to a SCOTUS ruling in 1939.

Moreover, the judge who examined the legislative record in one of the first DOMA cases found that it was all about bible-thumping and anti-gay bigotry. There was no rational purpose to DOMA to be found.

RTypo,

The two are not even remotely related.

Our oversimplification or "Dumbing down" of America shows no sign of slowing down. Interracial Marriage was/should have been as much of an offense to the church as requiring them to recognize Same Sex Marriage is.

Interracial is still the Marrige of a Man and a Woman.

We keep pressing two separate issues together and wonder why we are having such difficulty with this issue.

This is the ultimate Church vs State issue to come forward.

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church

Civil Union is a functional way for the State to identify and grant its legal protections to that union.

Forcing Same Sex couples into or granting them the ability legally to call themselves "Married" is an attempt to give away a "Term" that was never theirs to give and blurs the line between Church and State. I agree that Same Sex couples should have had basic government legal protections years ago.

Even the Bible supports this view by stating leave unto Cesare that which is Cesare's.

This is NOT a rights issue it is a legal issue and is that not what the Gay couples have been fighting for all these years -or- did they want to force the Church to recognize their union even though it goes against the laws of the Church.

Clearly in this last election, economic conservatism was defeated largely in part due to its association with pro-life, anti-gay, religious zealots that think climate change is a hoax.

Let the uneducated reactionary Tea-Party morons go their own way and lets get a pro-business economically conservative Republican Party back to what it was in Lincoln's day.

I would vote for that.

Me too, but I'd rather see a third party come along, somewhere between the two extremes the GOP & Dems are evolving into. Obama has signed yet another executive order, this time on Cybersecurity (which I support) because Congress can't get it's collective act together.

However, as far as whether you're "Pro-gay marriage" or "anti-gay marriage," I think it's irrelevant. The writing's on the wall, gay marriage bans will be declared unconstitutional and overturned. I don't think Clint's a sell-out, I think he just smells the coffee, that's all. And yes, I'm a religious conservative and currently registered GOP. There have ALWAYS been gay Republicans, the party needs to quit spitting on them with this non-issue.

lu-1328381-6558772 - By sanctioning gay marriage, are we as a society deeming certain sexual acts to be socially acceptable?

Sounds like you've confused a legal contract with sex, and are unaware of Lawrence v Texas.

No wonder you bigots have lost every single ruling on DOMA and Prop h8......you don't even understand the basic issues, much less the constitution or the legal precedents.

And they are serious problems directly related to anal sex that have consequences not just for the individuals involved, but to everyone.

Tell that to the many heterosexuals who engage in anal sex, and the many homosexuals who don't. Both straights and gays engage in pretty much the same behavior, and what they do or don't do is none of your business.

Depending on your party affiliation the real question is who cares what Clint Eastwood says?

By the way since when has more law provided more freedom? When you must make law that gives special treatment to a small minority will it effectively blunt the treatment of the majority? History seems to support the loss of freedom for the majority. Since when is being of one sexual persuasion or the other a test of citizenship? Are not all citizens granted the rights under the Constitution? But now not only are "special" classes recognized and classified but of course penalties will follow to enforce the protection of a "special" class. Seems more like the legislators who have made all citizens responsible for all laws...except they exempt themselves. What is up with that?

By the way marriage was always a religious institution until the government was asked to take over the registration of married individuals by the churches. Before then you would have to go to a church to find out who was married and when. If you have done any research in to your genealogy you will find this to be true in the early years of America and Europe.

Fredr40r - Marriage is a sacrament of the Church

Civil Union is a functional way for the State to identify and grant its legal protections to that union.

Forcing Same Sex couples into or granting them the ability legally to call themselves "Married" is an attempt to give away a "Term" that was never theirs to give and blurs the line between Church and State. I agree that Same Sex couples should have had basic government legal protections years ago.

Even the Bible supports this view by stating leave unto Cesare that which is Cesare's.

Flat wrong on all points.

You've confused "marriage" with "holy matrimony". The former is a state-regulated legal contract, the latter is a completely irrelevant religious rite.

Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic (or a married atheist) to explain the difference to you.

Republican Platforms hardly speak for the opinions of every Republican in the country.

Box anyone?

Shrekk, you kinda made my point for me. If it has nothing to do with the sex, then why does the term "gay" have to be attached. By attaching "gay" to it, you make it about the sexual relationship. Why shouldn't a grandmother and aunt cohabitating with the orphaned children of their dead relative have the same rights to protection being requested by gays? By making it about gay rights, we make it about sex. And yeah, I have the same icky feelings toward heterosexuals who have anal sex, so I'm not really a bigot, just a prude. =P A prude who believes that the message we send to future generations needs to be carefully considered.

RTypo,

The two are not even remotely related.

Hogwash. They are both based upon physical differences.

Interracial - color of skin, ethnicity.

Same Sex - sex organs.

So they are indeed related and, in fact, simply rallied against due to other people's distaste rather than any rational underpinnings.

If anal sex becomes a social norm (meaning our children will be apt to try it at least once and even to do it on a regular basis for all sorts of different reasons ranging from "it's fun and feels good" to "I want him to love me"--and perhaps it already happens with most people, I'm just too naive to realize it), then the problems of anal sex, specifically, will spread to the heterosexual community at large.

lu-1328381-6558772, hate to break this to you, but anal and oral sex have been staples of the heterosexual communbity for thousands of years. Is it your position that it should banned for everyone, or just homosexuals? Please clarify.

Eastwood is Gay? I knew it!!! He's as bad as John Wayne was, staying in the closet all that time!!

lu-1328381-6558772 - By making it about gay rights, we make it about sex.

You're the only one who brought up sex. The rest of us were talking about a legal contract which is irrationally denied to some Americans.

Or are you claiming that your "one man, one woman marriage" is all about sex rather than property and kinship rights? I realize that us straight folks hump like bunnies, but we do that even if we're not married.

Sarah,

Its a shame you cant accept the fact that you are wrong on this. He said liberals believe that if you are a republican, you must be an extremist. Then you asked him, why they invited an extremist to talk at their convention. You completely misunderstood everything he said. Are you really this proud that you cant accept that you completely missed the point?

I think of an extremist as someone who won't change their mind on an issue in the face of any evidence that has been presented to challenge their rigid view.

Perhaps Clint evaluated the situation and applied some heretofore unused logic. It doesn't necessarily mean he has suddenly come to agree with the practice (which is neither his cup of tea nor his place to agree or disagree) but simply that he has reached the conclusion that the time has come to accord the same rights to a group of people that have been denied them for no good reason other than prejudice.

Good grief, there's no reason to over think this. It's not as if he's running for office and needs to white wash his record. And it certainly isn't going to hurt his career at this point.

Most people in the arts, and even in the film biz, have met lots of gays and are aware that they are not Satan's spawn, that, in fact, they are pretty much like straights but for the gender preferences. So if the person thinks at all, it tends to follow that gays should governed by the same laws, i.e., have the same constitutional protections.

That said, this time out Clint - a true hollywood hero for trying stuff when he could have simply cruised, but a moron in politics - will be talking to five empty chairs.

At last, Clint and Ernest Borgnine can enter into the connubial bliss that they have yearned for!

Clint always looked quer to me.Walked like he had something stuck up his butt.

yeah yeah yeah, you realized you can no loger win elections being racist and homophobic.. yawn.

loser.

Do we really care what Clint Eastwood thinks? I mean really, the guy talks to empty chairs.

I like to think of the Republican party as two distinct sects.

One that likes the part of the social contract that says we need basic things in a civilized society like roads, electricity, and public safety, so they can safely produce and ship their goods, but aren't all that crazy about the part that says we have a responsibility to care for the less fortunate.

And the other half, the social conservatives, who like rights for themselves, but not for others.

Reagan forged a pact between the former and the latter, without which, the party was doomed for irrelevance. But after decades of being duped into voting for rich folks who really are not all that interested morality, or whether or not one can have a gay marriage, or if JC is super awesome, the crazies are taking over the nut house. The social conservatives are coming for their due.

And Mr. Eastwood is just one of the many Republicans who are beginning to throw the social conservatives overboard because they know the whole ship is about to be scuttled.

Of course, without half the crew, the ship is going nowhere. The moral majority is becoming the permanent majority. Thanks heavens.

It’s refreshing to see liberal and moderate Republicans finally speaking out against religious bigotry. All American citizens should and must enjoy equal freedoms.

This country needs to put an end to ALL this senseless right wing discrimination and move on to issues that are really important....... LIKE THE ECONOMY AND AN NATIONAL EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

Sarah - (BIG SIGH) - Do you think we will ever get past this as a divisive issue?

The Obama administration threatens to destroy a beloved liberal journalist for exposing their mismanagement and you "progressives" can only find fault in an actor that supports a liberal same sex cause. What a bigoted group of "progressives you are.

Republicans aren't gay, they just have a wide stance.

Kinda neat that the Gayest crowd around are the starch-collared Midwestern Republicans.

Perfectly understandable that the GOP is both hypocritical and self-loathing.

Did I miss the part of the article that said that Clint was against gay marriage and has suddenly become pro-gay marriage? Or did everyone just assume that. He's a moderate Republican -- there are a lot of us. I'm pro gay marriage, pro choice, and believe we absolutely need to fix the immigration problem before it bankrupts us. However, fiscally I'm more conservative.

The point is, there are no absolutes here. We decide on the issues ourselves, then choose the candidate that best represents that. Doesn't matter here, though. ALL Republicans are defined here as racist, right-wing tea baggers who don't give a damn about anyone else. And you dare to refer to "right wing discrimination" and bigotry? Look in the mirror.

Kim,

Absolutely. My guess is, by the time I have grand kids the concept of DOMA will be just as baffling as the concept of miscegenation laws.

John Adams said the Constitution is for a moral and upright people.

Is sodomy moral?

OMG....If Clint Eastwood endorses it, it's got to be the right thing for ALL Americans to consider.

BTW, who IS Clint Eastwood?

The fact that we call it "Gay marriage" makes it about sex, and that is the wrong message to send. It shouldn't be about that, so leave gay out of it. People, no matter who they are, should be allowed to enter into beneficially mutual contracts that provide equal protection from the states, one of those contracts is a marriage between a husband and wife. There are plenty of cases where relationships should inherently provide familial protection under the law. Men and women in lots of states have rights to common law marriage protections because they live with each other for a certain amount of time. I say that protection should apply to everyone living together for that amount of time. Shrek, you want me to be for the gay part. I'm saying remove the gay part, and it will become more acceptable because then the bedroom stays out of it altogether because it's not the bedroom that matters, it's the partnership and the agreement between two people to be contractually bound and responsible for each other.

Koobee,

Why don't you ask the MULTITUDES of straight people who engage in it?

Always knew Clint was more Libertarian than Republican.

Yes of course, sexual identity is most certainly connected to political affiliation /sarc... Goodness, you are a moron... And before you ask? I am a male, married to a beautiful woman... So save it...

mimi @ 1.79

Eastwood did not change his view. He has always been for freedom of choice. Not very rigid, eh?

The only thing I really want to know is,

did the chair talk back?

Sarah., # 1.95,

Law school application interviews have nothing to do with this discussion. :-(

Sadly, the WEAKEST document we have in the US, is the Bill of Rights. It states that ALL people born or naturalized in the United States have the SAME rights to equality. Our government DOES NOT ENFORCE IT! There's your problem. The first time a black person was refused ANYTHING because he was black, the GOVERNMENT should have been right there, enforcing the Bill of Rights. We wouldn't be having all the problems we have now, and lawyers wouldn't be getting so rich. Instead, our government just kept on writing new laws (after all, they have to do SOMETHING to show they're worth all the money we pay them), but never enforcing them either. Gays have a right to join in a civil union, that's their right. From that civil union, they should have all the rights given to heterosexual couples. To marry in a church, under God, is NOT a right. It forces religions to change their beliefs to satisfy the homosexuals. It should be left to the particular church to decide if they want to sanctify the marriage. The big deal is BOTH should have the same benefits, under the Bill of Rights. Period.

The really tragic part of this article, is our government is WASTING their - and our time, on this, when the entire United States is going in the garbage can, financially. Why do we forget all the people out of work, out of their homes - do you REALLY think they give a DAMN about whether homosexuals get married? We should have priorities, and it's pretty sad if this is a priority.

Heads up there 'Bill' you do realize that the Judiciary side of things has nothing to do with employment, right? Please tell me why the courts can't work on civil rights issues while the government does it's job. And you know, there have always been unemployed people in the US while things were being decided by the courts. I'm sure unemployed blacks were not telling people not to worry about desegregation until they had a job, or women passing up the whole suffrage issue until they got a job. So yeah, I'm pretty confident that unemployed gays would love having both issues worked on as well. Not to mention plenty of companies offer employment and job hunting assistance to the spouses of employees. I know the military does as well.

So no Bill, what's sad is the fact you consider equal rights not a priority.

Bill-328037 - Gays have a right to join in a civil union, that's their right. From that civil union, they should have all the rights given to heterosexual couples. To marry in a church, under God, is NOT a right.

You've confused marriage with holy matrimony. Marriage is a legal contract, holy matrimony is a legally irrelevant religious rite. Gays absolutely should have the same exact rights as straights to marry, but if your bigoted church doesn't want to perform a religious wedding for them no one will give a crap.

It forces religions to change their beliefs to satisfy the homosexuals.

Utter nonsense. Has the Catholic church been forced to change its beliefs because divorced people can remarry? Were the Southern Baptist and Mormon churches forced to change their profoundly racist beliefs because mixed-race couples could marry?

How are you any better than the people who would have kept equal rights from African Americans during the civil rights era? You are intellectually and morally wrong on this one, Andrew. History will judge your kind as backwards hateful bigots, and history will be correct in doing so.

Andrew,

It's so ironic that you would use that argument and say at the same time that this isn't a civil rights issue. That argument was the logic that FAILED to uphold the ban on interracial marriage. Virginia said that ban was okay because everyone was free to marry someone of the same race, and SCOTUS said, BULL @!$%#.

You obviously don't know much about either civil rights or our Constitution. Here, let me educate you...

Of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

There's also a little something called The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, which states that each state has to recognize and respect the legal matters of every other state. Therefore, leaving this up to the states DOESN'T work, because if you get married in CA, the Constitution states that NC, who has a state amendment AGAINST gay marriage, has to recognize the marriage contract from CA. Now, how do you suggest THAT works? Also, NO we don't leave civil rights up to a majority vote. We're a Republic, meaning the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the majority. See above for ALL the NUMEROUS reasons this IS a civil rights issue.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, consider this...

We live in a free society, which means your "slippery slope" is only applicable when you want to expand government power, NOT when you're expanding rights. Ergo, the slippery slope actually works AGAINST the anti-equality argument. It's more logical and legally correct to say that banning marriage based on gender, could lead the government to presume they have the power to ban marriage based on other protected classes, i.e. race or religion.

And then ask yourselves this...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that? And the answer is ALSO the answer as to why gay marriage won't lead to those things.

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

joe- I am no better than anyone. I am a very humble person has an opinion that differs from yours. Nothing more...nothing less. I think it unfair to label "my kind" as "backwards hateful bigots". I would never pretend to know who you are. I would appreciate the same level of respect.

And believe me....I am the one who stands up for the minority or the unpopular opinion/people. I've been advocating for equal rights since I was old enough to talk. This is simply based on my different opinion only.

No you haven't been advocating for equal rights. You just advocated against them. And no, you don't necessarily deserve anyone's respect. Persecution of a minority is not, nor ever will be something I respect. So unless you can make a valid legal argument to support your position, Joe hit the nail right on the head.

Sarah- I appreciate your response and I enjoy discussing issues with educated people. Your response is a bit long, though.

Your comment would be accurate if race and orientation are the same thing. So your point is basically illrevelant (period!). But they arent and I completely understand the perspective of the homosexuals wanting to marry whomever they love. If someone were to tell me that I couldnt, I would be furious. But just because the people telling me I couldnt marry whomever I love, gives me NO reason to make personal attacks against them. They would have there logical/spiritual reasons for their opinion.

Your comment would be accurate if race and orientation are the same thing.

Can you quote where I based my case on orientation? Or did I base it on GENDER, which by the way I even put in bold face for you, so you really should've been able to pick up on that. DOMA technically has nothing to do with "orientation", hence a gay man and gay woman could get married, and two straight men couldn't. It's about GENDER.

They would have there logical/spiritual reasons for their opinion.

This isn't about your opinion. I couldn't care less what your opinion is. This is about your advocacy of unequal protection and discrimination, without being able to present even the weakest of legal justifications for it.

You should really read my whole post, before you embarrass yourself any further.

Sarah- You mention for me to make a valid legal argument. Thats simple and has no need for explanation...DOMA.

My opinion goes beyond that though. But again this is my opinion and I love that you have a different one. That shows me that we can COEXIST with differing points of views. I love all people. My mission in life is to love as many people as possible and show that love through actions. If I had the wonderful opportunity to meet you I'm sure we would respect each other out love.

But the fact of the matter is, human beings have differing opinions(even on sensitive issues like this) and both groups can still love eachother.

Your comment would be accurate if race and orientation are the same thing.

Orientation is not a choice. I do not choose to be attracted to women, I do not choose what features attract me. They just do. So it is very similar to race in this respect, because it is not something people can help. And some folks are able to hide their race, if they choose to, just as some folks are able to hide their sexual orientation.

And it is an issue of civil rights, because certain rights as they pertain to the law are granted to opposite sex couples. Whether it is filing taxes jointly, spouse death benefits under social security, inheritance laws, etc. The problem is not that people love people of the same sex and are entitled to the same rights as anybody else (they are). The problem is that the state got involved in a religious ceremony with long traditions and what defines marriage. This is yet another example of why the separation of church and state is very important.

Sarah- Your comments are filled with angry responses. I apologize if I've incited this. If you dont value peoples differing opinions...why even post on newsvine? I'm a little confused. And by the way...GENDER defines a born sex of someone. Oreintation defines a relationship. Marriage is a relationship so ORIENTATION is the key word here.

Thats simple and has no need for explanation...DOMA.

See, we also have a little something called JUDICIAL SCRUTINY, which means that all of our laws, from municipal ordinances, to federal laws like DOMA, have to be found to be within the bounds of the Constitution. Your arugment that DOMA is what makes DOMA Constitutional, is tautological. In order for DOMA to stand, you have to make your case for how it's Constitutional, don't worry, I'll wait for you to do that.

My mission in life is to love as many people as possible and show that love through actions.

So, allowing for gender discrimination is your way of showing love? No thanks.

If I had the wonderful opportunity to meet you I'm sure we would respect each other out love.

No, I wouldn't respect you. I'd tolerate you. I wouldn't be mean to you, but I sure as hell wouldn't respect you. I already told you this, those who advocate for discrimination do not, nor will ever have my respect. What I respect, is when someone understands the difference between their opinion, and a rational basis for legal discrimination. You've quite clearly shown that you lack that understanding.

Like I said before, your opinion isn't what's receiving my disrespect. It's your actions. You can have an opinion on gay marriage, without advocating for actively legislating or supporting legislation, based on that opinion. THAT isn't just an "opinion". THAT is persecution.

Andrew:

My opinion goes beyond that though. But again this is my opinion and I love that you have a different one. That shows me that we can COEXIST with differing points of views

I just want to clairfy one thing - you believe and advocate for the restriction of same sex couples to get married, denying them equal rights. And you believe this is "coexisting"? How about we all get equal rights and then we can coexist in a way that is fair to both sides? You do not have to marry another man and a gay person should not have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Under DOMA two straight men or two straight women could marry. Just like a gay man can marry a straight woman for the "benefits" you so state. Nothing in the law would prohibit these unions and most of all would most likely be found unconstitutional to prosecute.

The law would allow that such unions be recognized and that states and private companies recognize such unions and the benefits of such.

Another point that is false. If a couple marry in one state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to another state does not constitute a crime. The benefits of such are still upheld and cannot be denied by the state. Check your law on this. Even insurance companies cannot deny coverage because a person has moved nor can the IRS, social security, HHS etc. On those points your argument is weak and flawed and you are just trying to make a compelling argument that is not totally fact based.

Personally for me I do not care who people marry or decide to cohabitate with. It is a personal decision and the more we allow government to control our lives through mundane legislation the more freedoms we lose as a citizenry.

Sarah- Have I been rude to you in anyway? You need to remember, your point of view on this issue is your opinion and not a legal precedent. So by your own words, you've proven my point.

"You can have an opinion on gay marriage, without advocating for actively legislating or supporting legislation, based on that opinion. THAT isn't just an "opinion". THAT is persecution."

Bubba,

You make no sense.

Under DOMA two straight men or two straight women could marry.

Completely wrong. DOMA states that marriage be limited to one man and one woman. Read the law...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:

. If a couple marry in one state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to another state does not constitute a crime.

The Full Faith and Credit clause has NOTHING to do with crime, here. It has to do with recognizing the contracts and legal matters of other states. That means that gay marriages formed in CA must be recognized in NC, which they currently AREN'T...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31994.pdf

The benefits of such are still upheld and cannot be denied by the state. Check your law on this. Even insurance companies cannot deny coverage because a person has moved nor can the IRS, social security, HHS etc

No they aren't, hence the unconstitutinality of DOMA. Again...

http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/emr21.pdf

Andrew,

Sarah- Have I been rude to you in anyway? You need to remember, your point of view on this issue is your opinion and not a legal precedent. So by your own words, you've proven my point.

You're right. That's why I provided my legal precedents in my first post. And yes, you have been disrespectful. To me, to the gay people in my life that I care about, and to my fellow citizens.

It doesn't matter if you "politely" ask someone to move to the back of the bus, it's still a @!$%#ty thing to do.

andrew-690892 - Just before anyone gets the inkling to suggest that the gay marriage issue is the same as the civil rights struggles, let me remind you that they are not the same. MLKJ is turning in his grave over this issue because African Americans had/have real struggles.

Looks like the NAACP and the vast majority of black civil rights leaders disagree with you since they say that "Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time."

You also might want to learn a little more about MLK since he chose a gay rights activist to run his national civil rights campaign.

And you might want to learn about the black woman who got the bans on mixed-race marriage overturned.......she supported gay marriage too and said it was the exact same civil rights issue.

Andrew, based on your comments up thread you sound like a greedy bigot who thinks he deserves special rights and privileges which you want denied to the people you want treated as 2nd-class citizens. FYI, you're on the losing side of history. You might want to prepare yourself for the court ruling in June.

Sarah- Just because YOU'VE provided YOUR legal precedents does not mean everyone has to agree with it. ITS STILL YOUR OPINION.

However you seem to be well versed in this area. So I would recommend running for some sort of office. If you feel so strongly about this issue then do something about it. Commenting on newsvine is no better than talking around a campfire. And maybe youve rallied people together to sign petitions and the sort, but actually going through all the proper schooling and paying your dues to soceity are what help get people to be decision makers. But its hard work. Are you willing to go that far or are you happy with winning over the masses via newsvine?

andrew-690892

You don't have to agree with Sarah's opinion on anything. She is making a legal statement on why gays/lesbians deserve equal marriage and human rights. The masses are already on her side and on the right side of history here.

andrew-690892 - Just because YOU'VE provided YOUR legal precedents does not mean everyone has to agree with it. ITS STILL YOUR OPINION.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you bigots have lost every single DOMA and Prop h8 case to date?

Sounds like either your legal skills are a bit rusty or you don't understand the issue of equal protection.

Sarah- Just because YOU'VE provided YOUR legal precedents does not mean everyone has to agree with it. ITS STILL YOUR OPINION.

Well me and the courts. You don't have to invent the numerical value of one, to know that one plus one equals two. It's simple really. Look at what's already been ruled by the court and then add it together.

However you seem to be well versed in this area. So I would recommend running for some sort of office. If you feel so strongly about this issue then do something about it. Commenting on newsvine is no better than talking around a campfire. And maybe youve rallied people together to sign petitions and the sort, but actually going through all the proper schooling and paying your dues to soceity are what help get people to be decision makers. But its hard work. Are you willing to go that far or are you happy with winning over the masses via newsvine?

What a patronizing way of changing the topic, that's based completely on an assumption, since you have no idea what I've done, am doing, or will do.

ItsAboutTime-Last time I checked the masses voted for prop8. Remember, we're talking about California here.

skrekk- Remember the over-whelmingly majority of African Americans voted FOR prop8 in California. If youre trying to label me as a racist bigot...its not working. I am a white person whom is married to an african american. Again...I have been advocating for ACTUAL civil rights since i've been able to speak. So which side of history am I on? Where do I stand as it relates to the civil rights issue of mixed-race marriage? Man...people really do pretend to know the people they're discussing things with here...geesh!

My scorecard reads:

Sarah 15

Andrew 0

Dude, give it a rest. Now you are getting testy because the nice lady is taking you to bitch school?

Last time I checked the masses voted for prop8.

The last time I checked we're a Republic and don't vote on civil rights. The last time I checked, we've also already addressed that point.

Steamie,

I'm laughing so hard right now. I hope you don't mind if I use the term "Bitch School" in my personal life. Hilarious!

"Bitch School" I don't think is copyrighted? So go for it!

Sarah, I just love the way you blow the shallow - narrow minded ones out of the water.

Sarah-3043284

As usual, outstanding comments. Applause my friend from Dallas Texas.

We should hold it to a public vote. i'd love to see the true outcome instead of baloney polls.

andrew-690892 & ohwell-1824629

We do NOT vote on civil rights in the United States do we? If so, when do I get to vote if you can marry the person you love. In case you missed it, prop8 was already declared unconstitutional and the US Supreme Court will uphold that ruling.

Steamie- I like that "Bitch School" term too. You seem like a well balanced, un-biased person.

You should run for a local office where people with differing opinions reside. You'd do great! Im sure the votes would read....

Steamie - 500,000

Other Canidate - 0

Youre such a jokster!

"We do NOT vote on civil rights in the United States do we". I know, it's a shame we couldn't in this instance.

ohwell-1824629

No, its a very good thing. If we voted on civil rights, african americans may still be slaves, women may have not gotten the right to vote, african americans may not be able to marry white americans, and so on.

The day we vote on civil rights, is the day the words "We the People" are gone, and we are a dictatorship.

Wow Andrew, I can't believe your African American wife would advocate for the discrimination of a protected class, as she is a protected class herself. When you say "actual civil rights" in conjunction with the statement about your wife, you seem to imply that a person's race is the only factor when determining whether a person's rights are violated. So does that mean gender discrimination is OK with you as long as the person being discriminated against is white? Or discrimination against a disabled person? Your argument that gay rights does not equate civil rights is laughable.

Sarah, I've read many of your posts on this subject and they are always thoughtful, intelligent and straight forward. It always amazes me when someone can actually read your posts and try to argue against your excellent points. Just shows that some people will fight for their own ignorance no matter how often they are proved wrong.

"No, its a very good thing. If we voted on civil rights, african americans may still be slaves, women may have not gotten the right to vote, african americans may not be able to marry white americans, and so on"

I don't believe the above examples would hold true. The current majority would agree with most of the previous civil rights that have been given. The gay marriage issue however, I don't think would pass at this point in time.

Glenn,

You know that how? How was the thought of procreation placed in such an important part of the decision, when the question of procreation was in no way applicable to the case at hand?

Your logic would seem to go to marriage between same sex is fundamental to our survival. Why? On what basis do you make this statement?

I don't have to make a case on why same sex marriage is fundamental to our survival. We live in a free society where we don't have to prove a reason for expanding rights. The government has to show what their interest is in BANNING same sex marriage.

Not to mention that Loving is as much on point for the argument that FAILED, as it is for its declaration of marriage as a right. The court has ruled 13 OTHER times that marriage is a right. In fact, you can take marriage completely out of the equation and just use the word CONTRACT, and go purely on the 14th Amendment.

Finally, in Turner v Safley the court ruled that marriage is in NO way based on procreation. Hence infertile people get married ALL the time, nor is procreation outside of marriage banned. The procreation argument only holds water if procreation is completely and totally dependent on marriage, and marriage is limited to only those who procreate.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html

Sally- You mention how Sarah is proving people wrong and yet she admitted to only giving her opinion.

I have a feeling your opinion matches her opinion, therefore tailors your comments on the vine. Again newsvine is an opinon based repository...unless there are in fact SCOTUS posting current laws here.

geesh!!!

Sally- You mention how Sarah is proving people wrong and yet she admitted to only giving her opinion.

Really, where did I admit that? The only thing I gave my opinion on was YOU personally. Please show me where I used my opinion to make my case about gay marriage?

Geesh!

ohwell-1824629

Umm no... each time one of those issues was brought it up, the same excuses were mentioned. Please tell me, how does gay marriage impact you? How does two consenting adults of the same sex spending their lives together impact you?

ohwell @ 3.25: It was put to a vote in a California and voters said no, but that won't stop them. It's before SCOTUS right now and will surely be overturned, as will DOMA. They keep coming back and trying at a new level. I remember in 2009 when voters said no in Maine, they turned to a massive telephone campaign and changed the wording on the ballot and got it passed in Nov 2012. Look for Obama to try something similar with the Constitution before his term is up in order to remain in power. They just keep coming.

Here you go...I hope this helps clarify my comment...

Sarah- Have I been rude to you in anyway? You need to remember, your point of view on this issue is your opinion and not a legal precedent. So by your own words, you've proven my point.

You're right. That's why I provided my legal precedents in my first post. And yes, you have been disrespectful. To me, to the gay people in my life that I care about, and to my fellow citizens.

andrew-690892 - I am a white person whom is married to an african american.

Strange, one would think that you'd understand the civil rights issue better than you do.

Or maybe you're just a greedy bigot and as long as you have your rights you don't care if other people are denied theirs?

Andrew,

Try rereading that. Keep at it, you'll get it eventually. I'll even give you a hint. Look at the sentence right after I wrote, "You're right".

Andrew - My opinion is that ALL people should have equal rights and I choose to not discriminate against anyone. I like Sarah's posts not only because I agree with her opinion but also because she points out the constituional and legal reasons why same sex marriage should be legal and the reasons we can not and should never be able to vote away a person's rights. It's sort of getting old that you keep skimming over those legal and constituional arguments and going back to "my opinion vs your opinion".

States Rights are first.. The people of California have voted this down for a ton of years.. Since when do the peoples voices mean nothing? Once again the Court will decide.. We are not following the Constitution. Some of you will one day wish you had followed the Constitution.. You will regret giving into the Government when you have NO FREEDOMS....

Itsabouttime- while i understand the logic from the gay community, i'm just flat out against gay marriage. I'm not religious so it's not b/c i feel it offends any particular religion, it's just my opinion. From the get go, states should have differentiated civil unions from marriages. Civil unions should be performed by state entities and be available to any type of couple who wants to participate. Marriage should be performed in a church and kept as a separate entity from civil unions and only available to heterosexuals. To me, homosexuals participating in 'marriage' is just a dent to the morale thread of society.

Sarah @3.2

One more point to the flaw in your logic. Same sex marriage for the most part has not been legal, yet society has in fact survived. How can you state that same sex marriage is then somehow fundamental to our survival.

To me, it remains a states rights issue, but like Beth said above, it will probably fall to marriage as a legal contract, and therefore you cannot prevent someone from entering into a legal contract on the basis of race, age, sex, or religion, or national origin among other reasons.

The downside here is if marriage is relegated to the standing of simply a legal contract and nothing more, we all lose. Marriage should be a very special form of contract. It is the single biggest decision a person will ever make in life and should not be entered into casually. When it becomes the standard that marriage is just like buying a car and signing a note, or buying a house (was saw how well that worked), then society at large is the loser because at that point there is no sanctity of marriage, only a legal agreement that is not worth near as much as before.

Like i said, this case is not a slam dunk on either side as there are a lot of issues to be considered. It will be interesting.

Sarah- Please stay on point here. You are not the SCOTUS member and anything you state is your opinion.

Using simple comprehension skills...your opinion on this COMMENTING portal is nothing short of words on a opinion repository. I bet youre probably a big hit on FaceBook too. Silly Girl!

States Rights are first..

States Rights are NOT first. Civil rights are first. This was decided through incorporation of the 14th Amendment. See also, the Supremacy Clause.

States Rights are first.. The people of California have voted this down for a ton of years.. Since when do the peoples voices mean nothing?

In regards to civil rights? Never.

We are not following the Constitution. Some of you will one day wish you had followed the Constitution

Except for the part about Judicial Oversight, scrutiny and checks and balances. And the part about about the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the whole 14th Amendment.

You will regret giving into the Government when you have NO FREEDOMS....

How exactly is NOT allowing the government to dictate who we can contract with based on gender, allowing them more power?

Andrew,

Sarah- Please stay on point here. You are not the SCOTUS member and anything you state is your opinion.

You can't really be THIS obtuse? Again, that's why I posted PRECEDENTS FROM SCOTUS.

Glenn,

One more point to the flaw in your logic. Same sex marriage for the most part has not been legal, yet society has in fact survived. How can you state that same sex marriage is then somehow fundamental to our survival.

AGAIN...

I don't have to make a case on why same sex marriage is fundamental to our survival. We live in a free society where we don't have to prove a reason for expanding rights. The government has to show what their interest is in BANNING same sex marriage.

That's a really simple concept, that you should be able to grasp.

The downside here is if marriage is relegated to the standing of simply a legal contract and nothing more, we all lose.

That's all it's ever been. Hence the high divorce rate. And this is about as "slam dunky" as it gets. Your opinion that marriage shouldn't be entered into lightly, while rational, is not a legal authority.

Another point that is false. If a couple marry in one state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to another state does not constitute a crime. The benefits of such are still upheld and cannot be denied by the state.

That statement is false. Using DOMA as cover, states are free to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another state. I admit, however, to be baffled to your reference to a "crime"?

Sarah @3.33

"I don't have to make a case on why same sex marriage is fundamental to our survival.

I agree, you do not have to, but you did at 3.2 above. My question is how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Glenn

One more point to the flaw in your logic. Same sex marriage for the most part has not been legal, yet society has in fact survived. How can you state that same sex marriage is then somehow fundamental to our survival.

I read this first line only and had to interject. Interracial marriage was only legalized in the US in 1967. Society existed and thrived long before that, and yet the Supreme Court did in fact legalize interracial marriage. Nor did they include a clause stating that married couples must procreate.

It can not be a state issue, because the states are constitionally restricted from limiting or restricting the civil rights of the people.

Glenn,

No I didn't. I made a case that BANNING same sex marriage isn't Constitutional. What you're suggesting is I make the opposite case, that same sex marriage is Constitutional. That's impossible, as the Constitution doesn't govern citizen's behavior, it limits the government's. A citizen's actions can't be Constitutional or not, only the government's. The government's action is the banning, ergo you make the Constitutional case against the ban. The citizen's action is the marriage, ergo you can't make a Constitutional case in favor of it.

ohwell-1824629

First, I appreciate your honesty and integrity with the comment. Its actually refreshing to see it on the newsvine. While I respect your opinion, I simply cannot agree with it. I think its immoral to deny people the same equal rights. In the eyes of the law, "we are all equal"..

I understand where you are coming from with civil unions and religious organizations having the rights to marriage. However, unless the government recognized all marriages as civil unions, then it would still creates a separate but equal clause. This was already struck down in a similar cases with the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

To me, marriage is between two consenting adults of the same or opposite sex. Love is love.

Thank you for your honesty again and comment.

Well Sarah. The only thing that I have a problem with is the fact that when our forefathers said that marriage was "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" they were speaking about the natural construct between men and women that has been institutionalized and necessary laws enacted to support this all important union.

When you start talking about equality, Gay marriage does not come close to being equal with the natural institution that opposite sex marriage is. Equally speaking any long term cohabitation should be recognized by the state regardless of sexual activity. That means that two strait people who cohabit-ate on a long term basis should receive the same rights as their gay counterparts. Also, the same arguments that gays use to argue gay marriage, polygamists would be right to employ to legalize polygamy. Marrying pets as long as the pet shows willingness to mate could be argued using the very same principals as well. I have had pets that really wanted to hump my leg and would have welcomed any sexual advances by me if I so desired to further my involvement with them.

Sarah-3043284---So after reading all of you clear correspondence I conclude you do not have a clue, first Presidential decree, is Obama the lord and king of us, is the house not being respondent to the king something that bothers you? second Andrew quoted you and you responded with some mucky mucky and did not answer the question. Your response in typical liberal fashion related to some kind of pipe dream and when questioned again went to the liberal response, if you do not understand then I am smarter than you. How very droll. Third you refer to the limitations of the government but want the government to rule in your favor on items you think are important, you quote how certain amendments are applicable but deny others the very same rights and even dispute their legality in other posts. In all of this Prop 8 was passed by the majority of the voters in California, by liberal points of view relating to the Obama administration that would mean it was the will of the people and therefore a mandate to the state the wishes of Californians. With that in mind some Judge has thrown out the mandate of the people in favor of the the government which you say does not have the right to make those decisions. It all comes down to whether Sarah and her liberal friends agree or not and excludes everyone who disagrees, and you call yourself a liberal, I think a better word is bully.

Well Sarah. The only thing that I have a problem with is the fact that when our forefathers said that marriage was "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" they were speaking about the natural construct between men and women that has been institutionalized and necessary laws enacted to support this all important union.

Well there's your problem, our forefathers didn't say it. SCOTUS did.

Equally speaking any long term cohabitation should be recognized by the state regardless of sexual activity.

Yeah, one of my best friends is a dude. I could marry him tomorrow and we'd never have an sexual activity either.

Also, the same arguments that gays use to argue gay marriage, polygamists would be right to employ to legalize polygamy

Strawman. First, polygamy has more in common with straight marriage, as it's traditionally and overwhelmingly entered into in a heterosexual manner, one man with numerous women. Second, this is off point as Polygamy deals with the number of people in a contract, not their gender. Anti-Polygamy laws are in no way tied to or dependent upon marriage law, they're against the law for other reasons.

Finally, why doesn't straight marriage lead to that? There's your answer.

Marrying pets as long as the pet shows willingness to mate could be argued using the very same principals as well. I have had pets that really wanted to hump my leg and would have welcomed any sexual advances by me if I so desired to further my involvement with them.

While I'm sure that attention was flattering to you, the very reason that your dog felt the need to hump your leg instead of another dog is EXACTLY why they don't have legal capacity for informed consent.

When you're dog goes out his doggie door, trots down the street to your local bank, and comes back with a mortgage you'll have a point.

Irv,

Sarah-3043284---So after reading all of you clear correspondence I conclude you do not have a clue, first Presidential decree, is Obama the lord and king of us, is the house not being respondent to the king something that bothers you?

Until you can show me that DOMA is Constitutional, then YES, Obama is doing exactly what he's supposed to. Upholding the Constitution.

if you do not understand then I am smarter than you. How very droll true.

There, I fixed it for you.

The rest of your tripe has already been discussed in the other posts. Simply reposting a position that's already been shown to be false doesn't make it true.

sarah 3.50

I do not understand the nuance here.

At 3.50 you stated

No I didn't. I made a case that BANNING same sex marriage isn't Constitutional. What you're suggesting is I make the opposite case, that same sex marriage is Constitutional.

Sarah - I never made that assertion.

At 3,2, you stated

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER,

You were the one that cited Loving v Virginia. So by reference, you were clearly stating that the SCOTUS could be interpreted as making banning same sex marriage unconstitutional on the grounds that same sex marriage is somehow fundamental to our very existence and survival.....

I never stated that you were making the argument that same sex marriage is constitutional. I simply and politely asked the question as to how your reference was pertinent? I don't think it is. I think your reference is flawed. I do not think you can extend the " fundamental to our very existence and survival..." wording to same sex marriage as SCOTUS remarked about marriage between opposite sexes (of different Race) as being fundamental to our very existence and survival...... You seem to think you can logically make this assertion.

I asked how did you arrive at that conclusion? I am still asking ? Were you mistaken? If not, please tell me how you arrived at that conclusion. I would really like to hear your answer. For one thing, your posts are more cerebral than most and that is refreshing. For another, I do not think we are on opposite sides of this issue.

I just think your reference was ill considered.

I'd be cool doing a popular vote on gay marriage again in California. It would win this time.

Andrew,

What happened to loving and respecting me? That's only dependent on my being dumber than you? I mean, @!$%#, at least I don't call you names.

I will give you credit though, you hit the nail on the head as most of my numerous ex-boyfriends would agree with you. Maybe because I'm vile, but I think it has more to do with my propensity for throwing things at them when I'm angry.

Glenn,

Post 3.48...

ME: "I don't have to make a case on why same sex marriage is fundamental to our survival.

YOU: I agree, you do not have to, but you did at 3.2 above. My question is how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Go reread, I'm not going to continue to post the same thing over and over again. If you don't get it, I'm sorry???

NO,

marriage between a man and a woman are necessary for society as a whole, otherwise it crumbles.

That's an opinion. You can make the claim that man/woman marriage is essential when you can successfully argue the procreation argument.

Before you try, read the vine above, it's already been addressed.

Marriage is about responsibility and commitment, it has nothing to do with love.

First, quote where Is said anything about love. Second, do you know what the current divorce rate is? Straight people are failing miserably at this, you know.

It opens the door to polygamy, of which gays are for some reason strongly opposed.

Already addressed. Go read the vine.

A little hostile don't you think?

Dear Andrew,

Please be only slightly offended.

Here's my question: Are you ignorant or stupid?

See, there is a difference. Ignorant is to mean you don't know any better. Stupid is to know better but to do it again, anyway. Sort of like when a 3 year old sticks a metal hanger in a wall socket. At 3 a child doesn't know it could die. That's Ignorant ... but then if the kid survives and then as a 10 year old, tries to stick a metal hanger in a wall socket again. That's outright Stupid!

At this point of the game. By virtue of:

You keep debating with worthless rants. The verdict is Stupid.

To me, there are two distinct issues at play.

Should same sex unions be legal, and if so, should such unions have the same "rights" as those of a traditionally married couple? This is the first issue.

The second issue is should same sex unions be referred to as "marriage", or should some other term be applied?

I think same sex uniions should be legal as it is a form of a contract between adults and in a Republic, the law has to be followed or there is no law. If you keep adults from entering into a contract on the basis of gender (or RAce or anything else) that is not in keeping with our rights as citizens.

Secondly, I do not think the term marriage should apply. Marriage should reamain a term that refers to a union between a man and a woman. The term marriage as far as I can tell through my research, is first referred to in the Bible as a joining between a man and a woman, and the usage in the Bible references very early history of our species. Therefore, marriage, to me, is not the correct word for joining a man and a man, nor is it correct for joining a woman and a woman. That is not the historical and traditional meaning of the word.

I would leave it up to higher powers to come up with the correct word to use to describe the legal union between same sex individuals, but marriage should not be that word.

So while I do think same sex couples should be allowed to legally join and have the same rights as a traditionally married couple, I also think traditionally married couples deserve to have the term that refers to their union called "marriage" protected as a term referring to a man and a woman.

Hopefully, the Supreme court will be wise enough to separate the two issues I outlined above as there are two distinct issues at play and they need to be handled as two distinct issues. Once the first issue is settled, then I think the second issue has a stronger legal standing as it does not violate the 14th Amendment nor any other law as far as I can tell.

DOMA erred in that it tired to restrict the union itself. I say, allow the union but protect the term "marriage" as between a man and a woman, and if that does not satisfy the same sex couples, then bring back the term Fag and Queer to refer to them. I can see where they would be insulted by the use of those terms, and I agree they are offensive. But it is also offensive to me to refer to "marriage" as being between anything other than a man and a woman. I find that equally insulting. Sauce for the Goose.

I know, my post will be collapsed by the lib crowd that will be shocked to see the words Fag and Queer. But they are just words. I needed to use those words to explain my point of view.

At one time blacks and whites couldnt marry each other. Stopping homosexuals from marriage is the same thing. Many black men did not want women to gain rights. Many women are racist against black men. Just because you fought for social rights, does not mean you are any less bigoted towards a different group. It actually makes you a hypocrite as well.

Sarah @3.60

Ok. Don't answer the question. If you can't admit when you are wrong, then I am not going to play with you anymore.

Per Sarah - Pizza and ice cream are now fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Glenn, you sort of sound like Andrew. hmmm? Wont shut up. Always needing to get the last word...hmmm? Just maybe you two are the same dweeb guy?

Glenn,

I don't have the capability of breaking it down any simpler for you. Sorry.

You were the one that cited Loving v Virginia. So by reference, you were clearly stating that the SCOTUS could be interpreted as making banning same sex marriage unconstitutional on the grounds that same sex marriage is somehow fundamental to our very existence and survival.....

If you were capable of reading and understanding the ENTIRE post and the law, you would understand that A; That quote is picked for the part that, by the way, I BOLDED for you, where it states marriage is a civil right. Second, I've already explained why procreation doesn't work as an argument. Go reread, again. And third, I already explained how I don't have to show that same sex marriage is fundamental to anything. I also, already explained that regardless of what else is said in that quote the court has called marriage a civil right 13 other times, and Loving is as much on point for its argument that failed.

I've answered your questions in the simplest way I can. If you still aren't picking up on it, I can't help you.

I think same sex uniions should be legal as it is a form of a contract between adults and in a Republic, the law has to be followed or there is no law.

....

Secondly, I do not think the term marriage should apply. Marriage should reamain a term that refers to a union between a man and a woman.

So you are advocating separate but equal? Wasn't that the underlying "principle" behind Jim Crow? Either we are all drinking out of the same water fountain or we are not.

Sarah- One thing I can say for sure about you is... whether we're talking about gay or straight marriage, you will never be married... nobody in their right mind would EVER marry you, gay or straight.

You're too vile!

WOW! There we have it in a nutshell, folks - straight from Almighty Andrew, minder of other people's cooters. Not only does he know that gay marriage is "wrong," he also has the final say as to which [presumed] heterosexuals will get married.

If this is not a classic example of projection, I don't know what is.

Are we creating a hierarchy of oppression?

If we are, 20th century European Jews have the #1 spot. 19th century Native Americans rank ahead of 20th century blacks and they're in a dead-heat with pre-Civil War African slaves.

Were black Americans less deserving of their civil rights because segregation was not as bad as the Holocaust? Sure, tens of thousands of blacks may have been lynched throughout the 20 century, but that pales in comparison to the murder of 6 million Jews. Can you really compare not being able to have a seat on a public bus to being starved in a concentration camp? Can you compare not being able to vote in elections to being stripped naked and gassed to death in fake showers?

See how this works?

It's offensive to create a hierarchy of oppression. Anyone who was murdered for their race, religion or sexual orientation suffered more than anyone alive today. Anyone who was murdered suffered more than someone who was allowed to die of natural causes.

We should NOT be ranking the collective suffering of individual groups. Violence is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Everyone deserves equal rights.

...nobody in their right mind would EVER marry you, gay or straight.

You're too vile!

When it turns personal like that, it's pretty easy to see who lost the debate.

What really kills me is people like Glenn who try to make rational arguments, then include Biblical arguments. The Biblical definition of marriage has no bearing here at all. If the government used the Biblical definition, that would be unconstitutional, as it would defer to one religion over all others. Contrary to popular conservative belief, WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION.

I see Sarah bringing a lot of good argument in favor of gay marriage, and I see Glenn and Andrews trying very hard to get Sarah into a corner and finding any kind of tiny fault with her argument.

But what Glenn and Andrew fail to do is bring any valid (that hasn't been refuted a thousand time before) argument against gay marriage.

The "heww it's disgusting" factor and the religious factor don't mean squat in a legal argument by the way.

Justine @3.72

You missed the point entirely. No surprise here.

I referenced the Bible not as a religious book, and not just for the definition, but for the origin of the word. You do understand that the definition and the origin are two different things? Yes?

I thought giving a reference for the source of a word was still allowed in liberaldom, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for not knowing the rules of liberaldom. You folks need to publish these rules so we underlings will not offend you so much.

The point I made was the oldest use of the word I could find came from that reference, and in that reference, it had a certain meaning and has had that meaning for a very long time. If that offends you, then you need help son.

I could have gone to Webster's and quoted:

Marriage -
a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

Notice even Websters considers gay marriage to be similar.

Note to Justine: Similar means not the same.

Even so, Webster's only gives the current meaning of the word, not the word's origin. If you can find a different origin that predates the reference I gave, then please Justine, be so kind as to share it. I would like to see it.

What really kills me is people like Justin that are so poisoned with hate, they lack the ability to have a civle discussion. I pity them. I really do.

Sarah., # 3.22,

You've been in your 'bitch school' too long.

They vote on civil rights all the time, 5-4, 6-3 even a very few 9-0.

Too much box-wine ?

Sarah, why aren't you in hiding with the rest of your nasty forked tongued crowd today? Your President's administration just took two steps backward on the integrity chart. Or, aren't you current on today's news?

Myown,

That isn't voting, that's the court's ruling. The "people" have nothing to do with it.

After reading through this, and chortling as I do, certain things become crystal clear: Sarah paid attention in her Con Law classes and andrew and his minions did not even bother to attend Con Law classes.

Sarah.,(aka GAG) # 3.77,

You might feel better calling it a 'court ruling', but the Justices will arrive at that 'court ruling' by voting up or down on the issue. Just as the electorate does at the polling booth. Its all just opinion and agenda, otherwise, why are the 'rulings' not unanimous all the time. Or why do they 'find' things not written down in the document, or worse feel the need to usurp Article one and ignore Article five. They ARE voting on everything.

Myown,

You're being willfully obtuse and we both know it. The SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the popular vote. The posters above we claiming we should leave it up to the popular vote, and you know the differences here.

Come on, don't be a dope. :)

Myown,

You're being willfully obtuse and we both know it. The SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the popular vote. The posters above we claiming we should leave it up to the popular vote, and you know the differences here.

Come on, don't be a dope. :)

Sarah.,

If I can't drive you to drink, eww, your box-wine. How will I compete with that blazing fast IP. lol

But seriously, SCOTUS is too political to be considered to be only issuing 'rulings' anymore.

Ah, double post,
I did drive you to drink ;-)

I did drive you to drink ;-)

Always, Myown, always. It's one of your God given talents.

Sarah.,

No no no, that's from being a guy, but I did get you to believe in ... God. :)

It's one of your God given talents.

Glenn

Funny that you claim I am incapable of having a "civle" discussion. My post was not derogatory, nor did I resort to name-calling, however you did both in your response to me. As for the suggestion that there is no older reference to marriage than the Bible, I can think of many historical figures that were married. Are you seriously suggesting that before the Bible was written, marriage did not exist?

From Wiki:

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife." The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.

There you go, Glenn. And free of the hate I am so obviously filled with.

tyler,

impressive, that only took 23 & 1/2 HOURS.

bwaaaaahahaha...that's hilarious

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

That about sums up the garbage you continuously post on here.

My 8 year old nephew has more intellect and maturity in his left ass cheek than you have in your entire family.

Now go stink up the FUAX News for Dumb Fux blogs with your half-witted sh*t and let the big people talk.

Brilliant display of leftist dribble connolu. So, your family is evolving, walking upright?

Seems like you are allergic to simple logic, macaroni.

When you say "Obama", you mean "Eastwood", right?

And when you say "Socialist", you mean "Republican", right?

Honestly, I have to admit that I'm feeling a little guilty about this vague sense of schadenfreude I'm feeling as I observe these meltdowns.

It's really very bittersweet, because there's this realization that this long struggle was just a waste of time and resources - that the anti-gay rights plank was an electoral strategy designed to appeal the the ignorance, prejudices, and superstitions of a certain part of the electorate. The reasonable and correct legal, moral, and social position on this issue and others is so painfully simple and obvious for most, but we had to go through all this bullsh1t because of a small group of the electorate that sits to the left of some curves.

But this is the case across the board for all of these issues. We desperately need political and electoral reform in order to properly function as a democracy. I think that this will happen eventually, and so why not just do it now instead of struggling through the pointless, wasteful distraction of this endless cycle of bullsh1t.