Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Empower The Rich! | Main | Gay Marriage Brain Lock »

March 26, 2013

Comments

MarkO

I think we now know Bill's heart was defective.l

Dave (in MA)

Just remember: You're a bigot if you hold the same position on the issue that Obama held until May 9th, 2012.

Clarice

Exactly, Dave. Thanks for the reminder.

Barack Obama

"It could be Obama's story on gay marriage."

Let me be clear, my support for gay marriage is NOT personal. Why buy they cow when you can get the milk for free and all that, amirite?

Rob Crawford

Democrats have principles?

henry

Rob, only as union flunkies in our schools.

boris

Justice Vaughn Walker wrote "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays ..."

Aside from having this decided by a judge and the arbitrary "serves no purpose" claim, at least it fairly answers the question "how can the term on some official piece of paper affect your relationship with your partner?"

The answer is ... the words on the piece of paper convey status and human dignity to the bearer. Replacing the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" or "civil union" deprives same sex couples of some measure of status and human dignity.

Granting that ... is it difficult to accept that replacing the natural meaning of the word marriage with the definition for "domestic partnership" or "civil union" deprives traditionally married couples of some measure of status and human dignity?

Rob Crawford

Boris, boris, boris... straights aren't entitled to human dignity. That's only for the favored groups.

Threadkiller

Roberts will rule that butt-piracy is a "tax" on the bowel system and therefore legal.

Rick Ballard

Shouldn't we wait until Laurence Tribe tells us what Chief Justice Roberts will do before making any assumptions regarding the probable path of the Nine Ninnies? We could spend the waiting period reflecting upon the awe and majesty of the Justice System of the United States.

Or speculate concerning the composition of the Final Four.

Rob Crawford
Or speculate concerning the composition of the Final Four.

Mr. Fantastic, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm, and Ben Grimm.

MarkO

The Dred Pirate Roberts will once again display his incandescent brilliance with a theory heretofore unknown and wholly inconsistent with the case.

I can't begin to forgive him for holding our faces in Obamacare. A tax? No, a pox.

bgates

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays

Tina Fey's career serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of Sarah Palin; is it therefore unconstitutional?

Captain Hate

Proposition 8 The Folsom Street Fair serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays

Rick Ballard

MarkO,

Do you suppose the evidence concerning whatever drives the Chief Justice is mixed in with Lindsey Graham's lingerie and photo collection?

Danube of Thought on iPad

A visitor from Mars who memorized the constitution and all the cases ever decided on its meaning would have no idea what the Court will do.

cathyf

I dunno, MarkO -- as time goes on I think more and more that the Dread Pirate is exactly correct. Obamacare is a series of taxes on sick and disabled people in order to fund free lifestyle choices for healthy people.

There are a lot more healthy people than sick people, so they produce a lot more votes.

Clarice

The Washington Post pundits are certain that the fact that Roberts' gay cousin is in the audience will decide the matter. This is the level of thought of this august publication.

boris

"A visitor from Mars who memorized the constitution and all the cases ever decided on its meaning would have no idea what the Court will do."

Have you actually been to Mars? I think not. We shall delay consideration of such opinions until such criterion has been met.

Threadkiller

A visitor from Mars may be eligible for POTUS.

Captain Hate

The Washington Post pundits are certain that the fact that Roberts' gay cousin is in the audience will decide the matter. This is the level of thought of this august publication.

That's Sally Quinn level brainpower on display.

Janet

What's the new definition gonna be? Why is "2" special? What if 3 want to marry? If not, why not?
That'll just be MORE eyes that McCaskill won't be able to look into....so she'll have to cave.

"I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality."

Captain Hate

Why can't Claire look homos in the eye? She lies to everybody else.

Rick Ballard

CH,

She may have run into Butch Napolitano and decided abject groveling to be the better part of valor.

Captain Hate

Clinton's current story is that his heart was always in the right place but those rube voters and his pesky pollsters forced him to sign the bill

Grand Wizard Robert Byrd's heart was always in the right place but those rube voters and his pesky pollsters forced him to join the Klan and advance in its hierarchy to get elected. Isn't that pretty much a paraphrase of Slick's eulogy to the ol' self described white n*****?

cathyf

Given the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage, it's hard for me to see that a lot of what already passes for marriage ought to.

Suppose Susan and Mary use a turkey baster to impregnate Mary, and they live together and raise Heather as daughter to both of them. (Heather has two Mommies.) Then Mary decides that she was really het after all, so she dumps Susan and marries Joe. Joe sexually abuses Heather. Susan has no rights at all to see Heather.

It's certainly hard to see heterosexuality as being the key factor which makes marriage the best protection for children. I think that you need something a lot more restrictive if you are going to make the "it's for the children" argument -- marriage between the actual biological parents of the children. Something that a lot of heterosexuals can't seem to maintain.

If the reason that we limit the benefits of marriage to heterosexuals is for the benefit of children, why do we give childless couples the benefits of marriage?

(I would note as a Catholic that a whole lot of what is already a perfectly legal marriage in the eyes of the state is not a valid marriage for Catholics. Remarriage after divorce from a valid marriage for one. A marriage where both partners are adamantly opposed to having children for another. Why should those people get to file joint tax returns and get rights of survivorship for pensions anyway?)

Captain Hate

Sounds like a reasonable scenario, Rick.

Extraneus

I don't usually care much about the issue, but if this pic is a representation of what we're supposed to consider is the normal equivalent of a married couple, I'm opposed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have/

NK

Here's Glenn Reynolds ConLaw Prof take: "The audio and transcript are not yet available. I want to form my own opinion. I’m not surprised that Kennedy performs public agonizing over the judicial role and seems entirely different from the Ginsburg-Breyer-Sotomayor-Kagan set. That doesn’t mean he won’t join them in the end."
I hope the SCOTUS dismisses the whole thing on a procedural pretext and let the States deal with this one by one. That would have been the correct result in Roe.

Jack is Back!

According to SCOTUS blog Kennedy has once again decided to be the deal maker/breaker. According to this report he even wondered why the Court even accepted to hear the case.

IOW's they may rule for the plantiffs or they may rule against them:)

Chubby

they are as bendable in their principles as they believe the Constitution is elastic

boris

"why do we give childless couples the benefits of marriage?"

The rule used to be get married then have children. Sorta rules out excluding childless couples.

narciso

'back at the Ranch' Commandante Chavez's pal Maduro, is cozy with the top Hezbollah operative in Venezuela;

http://america.infobae.com/notas/68682-Agente-de-Hezbollah-usa-pasaporte-venezolano

Chubby

Cap, your 12:22, out the park

narciso

I pointed out in an earlier thread, that one of the leading forces for gay rights, also is responsible for keeping an associate of the 9/11 hijackers, Chehazeh, from being deported from this country.

Chubby

((A visitor from Mars who memorized the constitution and all the cases ever decided on its meaning would have no idea what the Court will do.))

perhaps a computer with a database full of all the data, and a decision algorithm keyed to the Constitution would do a better job and more just in the sense of the rulings being unbiased. OTOH, the judgments might resemble some of the wacky translations that come out of babelfish

narciso

'My Hovercraft is full of eels' in Classic Hungarian,

Rob Crawford
The rule used to be get married then have children. Sorta rules out excluding childless couples.

Also, there is a difference between "this particular combination of two individuals cannot have children" and "NO INSTANCE of this combination OF GENDERS can have children".

It's fascinating to see the people who "believe" in evolution so stridently deny it has any bearing on our behavior or needs.

Frau Heute Hoffnungslos

Folsom Street Twitters - a new dance group and craze.

The tyranny of the minority. I'm left with gallows humor.

Janet

Yeah Rob. It goes out the window with climate change hysteria too. Also the whole 'survival of the fittest' meme gets junked if the animal is a human.
'Tough shit little salamander, we're gonna farm here. Bu-bye.'

narciso

I know relying on Sheriff Joe, and his tutor, Galbraith fils, yields results.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343894/maliki-slapdown-victor-davis-hanson

Thomas Collins

Here are my views on the constitutional aspects of this issue:

-State or federal laws preventing homosexuals from marrying violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. As far as I know, either no such laws exist, or they are few and far between.

-State or federal laws preventing a church from recognizing a homosexual union under the laws of that church violate the Free Exercise Clause of the US Constitution. As far as I know, either no such laws exist, or they are few and far between.

-There is no basis in the US Constitution for overturning state laws that recognize only marriages between two individuals, one of one gender and the other of the other gender.

-Although state constitutions may result in different results for different states, overturning as a matter of state constitutional law state laws that recognize only marriages between two individuals, one of one gender and the other of the other gender, have generally been acts of judicial social policymaking (at least such was the case in Massachusetts).

-Federal laws preventing a state from recognizing a same gender marriage within that state violate the federal structure inherent in our system of government (or the Tenth Amendment, which recognizes that structure, if you prefer).

-I haven't studied the situation enough to be able to say whether DOMA must fall due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, although I note that those who in the ObamaCare case were insisting that SCOTUS defer to Congress don't appear to be pushing for deference in this case.

By the way, if all of Lawrence v. Texas is taken seriously, anything goes and any law that impedes anything going must fall, but I don't think the Justices in the majority in Lawrence will take Lawrence that far.

cathyf

Yeah, but in a world where the majority of children are born to women who are not married to the child's father, it's kind of hard to argue that hets have done particularly well at this.

The assertion that "no instance of this combination of genders can have step children" is false. When we are to the point where most children have step parents the argument is getting pretty strained.

narciso

That was the whole point of Lawrence, and Scalia made that clear in his dissent, the First Things symposium, addressed these sorts of issues,

Rob Crawford
Yeah, but in a world where the majority of children are born to women who are not married to the child's father, it's kind of hard to argue that hets have done particularly well at this.

It's a majority across the entire world?

peter

Why can't Claire look homos in the eye? She lies to everybody else.

Jane:  Mock the Media

If the reason that we limit the benefits of marriage to heterosexuals is for the benefit of children, why do we give childless couples the benefits of marriage?

And why do we reward single mothers? From what I can tell, single non-mothers should be rewarded - please send all rewards to my pay pal account.

Mark Folkestad

Since the last thread is dead, I'll add a couple of thoughts here. Matt, I was exposed to the oddity that goods can be far more expensive in the country of manufacture on my first trip to Europe in 1969. I bought a high-quality Swiss watch in Oslo for half its price in Switzerland, and the Norwegians had fairly high excise taxes built into their price.

All of a sudden I'm seeing Facebook friends changing their icons to a red field with a pink equal sign. Solidarity for gay marriage. One of the friends is a beautiful heterosexual third-year Lutheran seminary student who impresses me with her deep and genuine love for all, and with a complete absence of hatred for those who disagree. But a couple of the others are typical leftists who issue the most vile comments about anyone who don't join them. I defused the issue with one by saying that my old buddy from grade school would be welcome, along with his husband, in my new home. But I will never, ever support the degradation of marriage.

henry

WI SC election update- Roggensack has more money than the challenger. The election is next Tuesday.

Chubby

((It's certainly hard to see heterosexuality as being the key factor which makes marriage the best protection for children. ))

sorry, I can't take arguments out of the Alinsky playbook seriously.

Rules for Radicals


Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Barack Obama

NK:
Here's Glenn Reynolds ConLaw Prof take

That's Althouse. Glenn is on vacation.

narciso

This is like when I thought the Court would come up with the 'right to arm bears' in Heller, it's
likely to be as byzantine as the NFIB decission;


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/26/early-tea-leaves-from-supreme-court-arguments-on-gay-marriage-kennedy-hints-that-he-wants-prop-8-case-dismissed/

NK

BarackO-- thanks for the correction--

Chubby

The Alinsky arguments that not all heterosexual marriages do a good job of protecting children, and terrible things happen like divorce, incest and pedophilia, and some heterosexual matches cannot reproduce -- not one of those micro arguments can debase the macro fact that marriage protects and has protected human progeny better and more successfully than any other arrangment under the sun

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

peter

I posted by accident above. I was trying to say how funny the post that I clipped and pasted was. Claire McCaskill, who spits onto the earpiece and then gives it to her opponent to wear. Staying classy.

hit and run

Ooops. Sorry, NK. Sockpuppet off.

Captain Hate

Thanks peter; I was a bit confused but figured you copied and pasted for a reason.

matt

With a Yes vote on gay marriage, the ethical underpinnings which informed the Constitution will have truly been ripped to shreds.

The Judeo-Christian culture has for 4,000 years maintained a preferential option for the nuclear family. Why? Because this is the unit most naturally suited to the survival of the species, of course.

The nuclear family was the safety net for the young and the elderly, one forgets and extended well beyond today's tattered remnant. Life was short, dark, and brutish and the family is what helped its members withstand its trials.

That the nuclear family is imperfect is a given but there is no superior alternative of which I am aware. In our quest for self realization we are losing our souls. It is all about the id.

The effects of the disintegration of the nuclear family litter our jails and psychiatric wards and the lines at the pharmacy for psychoactive drugs and the liquor stores and the dope dealers. We are the most anesthetized society in history.

The quest for the real and the truth has been given up by large portions of society who simply want to be entertained.

As Pope Francis said the other day the enemy is relativism,which permeates our culture like pot smoke at a Grateful Dead concert.

The dishonesty of Judge Walker boggles the mind as does the failure to recuse herself by Justice Kagan if she is in fact gay. To have a specific interest in the outcome of a case is antithetical to the concept of justice.

Such decisions have a massive effect on society for generations to come. Even Obama's European friends have not gone this far for the most part.

boris

"Why? Because this is the unit most naturally suited to the survival of the species, of course."

I would state that a little differently.

Because societies that maintained a preferential option for the nuclear family have a survival advantage, those are the societies that continue to exist.

Threadkiller

"The outcome in the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act could have complicated tax consequences for same-sex couples, says Richard L. Kaplan, the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, an expert on taxation and retirement issues. ...

DOMA’s constitutionality is not solely an issue for the wealthy, Kaplan says. According to his article Rethinking Medicare's Payroll Tax After Health Care Reform, the Affordable Care Act imposes two new taxes on married couples with incomes greater than $250,000 and individuals with income greater than $200,000. “So, if two married people each earn $150,000, their combined income of $300,000 makes them liable for this extra tax,” he said. “But under current law, a same-sex couple would not owe anything, because unmarried filers have an individual threshold of $200,000 each.” The new Medicare tax on investment income works the same way, Kaplan says."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/03/tax-implications.html

Wait 'til Roberts hears this.

Chubby

((...which permeates our culture like pot smoke at a Grateful Dead concert.))

did Pope Francis use the Grateful Dead comparison?

Frau Heute Hoffnungslos

Fisters Follies of 2013-

It's getting to me and can only get worse. I issue a time out to myself.

lyle

How is it a self-identified group of humans, representing roughly 3-5% of the population have demanded that the well established mores/traditions--that have lasted millennia--of the remaining 95-98% need to be subjugated to their wishes?

Second question. When will this same 3-5% of the world's population demand that the largest religion of the world accomodate their wishes?

Thanks.

cathyf
The effects of the disintegration of the nuclear family litter our jails and psychiatric wards and the lines at the pharmacy for psychoactive drugs and the liquor stores and the dope dealers.
Absolutely agree -- and I look around and see that (despite the claims of the gay lobby) homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population, so that seems to be a fairly futile place to plant your flag.

This is a variation on the "fire and brimstone for those OTHER sinners" theology. The classic example is the preacher at the mega-church railing against Disney for providing health benefits for gay partners, while in the pews in front of the preacher are dozens of teenaged girls who are going to get knocked up in the near future, and dozens of teenaged boys who are going to knock them up -- and there is never a whisper of truth telling directed in their direction. It's much easier to limit your criticisms to those sinners not in the room, because they won't be getting mad and it won't affect the collection.

Porchlight

Yeah, but in a world where the majority of children are born to women who are not married to the child's father, it's kind of hard to argue that hets have done particularly well at this.

We have lots of plagiarism in schools, probably more so than in the past; I don't think that's an argument for abandoning all standards of academic honesty.

Put another way, was the rise of out-of-wedlock births a result of the loosening of traditional mores regarding marriage, or a strengthening/maintaining of them?

Understandable sympathy for the plight of bastard children and their mothers led to destigmatization of out-of-wedlock births which resulted, predictably, in MORE out-of-wedlock births. Destigmatize something and you get more of it. (Also see: abortion.)

Sticking to conventional, traditional views regarding marriage and childbirth did not get us where we are today. As a proponent of traditional views I don't have to carry water for the massively deleterious effects of the loosening of these standards. The people who wanted to display their undying compassion for wayward mothers and their children, without regard for the consequences, have the explaining to do.

James D.

Matt at 1:51 - exactly!

I'd only add to your litany of troubles occasioned by the breakdown of the nuclear family:

The effects of the disintegration of the nuclear family litter our jails and psychiatric wards and the lines at the pharmacy for psychoactive drugs and the liquor stores and the dope dealers. We are the most anesthetized society in history.

...a massive expansion of Leviathan government, as public services become necessary to replace the functions that intact families used to perform for their members.

But for our friends on the Left, that's a feature, not a bug.

Chubby

((Put another way, was the rise of out-of-wedlock births a result of the loosening of traditional mores regarding marriage, or a strengthening/maintaining of them?))

there it is in a nutshell Porchlight

Danube of Thought on iPad

"Have you actually been to Mars? "

Not personally, no. But I was referring to natural-born Martians who visit Earth.

Melinda Romanoff

lyle-

This is where Freedom of Religion will be subjugated the Right of The State. Nothing more.

narciso

Or as they called it, behind the Iron Curtain, freedom of worship;

No-fault divorce was introduced by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917.[citation needed] Before the Revolution, churches, mosques, and synagogues defined family life. It was the ecclesiastical law of the various denominations that controlled the family, marriage, and divorce. For example, the official registration of birth, death, marriage, and divorce was the responsibility of the church parish. Under these non-secular laws, divorce was highly restricted (though never completely unavailable, as no major religion in Russia completely disallowed divorce).

Gideon7

Marriage is fundamentally a religious act.
Government needs to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. The push for having the State recognize gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is a stalking horse to attack people with religious convictions.

If Alan wants to marry Bob, fine. Go to the Church of Freddie Mercury (or whatever) get married, then sign the civil papers and mail them in. Ditto for all marriages.

Once the full force of the State is behind gay marriage the next step will be to force it to be normative in all public discourse. For example, next the State will force wedding cake makers and photographers to work at gay weddings regardless of their religious convictions (this has already happened). Later, any church pastor who condemns gay marriage from the pulpit will be persecuted for hate crimes (already happening in Canada and Europe).

The whole thing is nothing more than an attack by the left on those with religious convictions in order to marginalize them in society.

hit and run

Porchlight:
Destigmatize something and you get more of it. (Also see: abortion.) ... The people who wanted to display their undying compassion for wayward mothers and their children, without regard for the consequences, have the explaining to do.

And don't discount the people who have no compassion for wayward mothers and their children, and who regard the consequences of destigmatization as an intended result that will help push a more powerful state and that in turn grants them more power.

Captain Hate

The JEF refers to himself 8 times in his Passover message, per Tammy Bruce.

Danube of Thought on iPad

Supremes honor dofs, up to a point:

"March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Drug-sniffing police dogs have their place, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. And it’s not on a suspect’s front porch.
The court today said officers typically need a warrant before taking an animal to the door of a house in the hope of detecting narcotics. The justices ruled on Feb. 19 that police officers can search someone’s car after a trained dog outside the vehicle alerts them to the presence of drugs.
Together, the decisions amount to a vote of respect for the abilities of police dogs -- and wariness about their potential misuse. While the court has previously said officers can walk onto a suspect’s property to knock on the door, the 5-4 majority today said the use of trained dogs is different."

GUS

Meanwhile back at the DEBT LIMIT DEADLINE, not a creature is stirring, not even a gay spouse.

Look over THERE!!! A SQUIRREL. Do not pay attention to the real concerns of our country.

And now back to your regularly scheduled DIVERSION.

Porchlight

Good point, hit. Display of compassion ≠ actual compassion.

narciso

Look who is one of the liberal's chief accusers against Bachmann, from a while ago;


http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/08/peter_waldron_michele_bachmann_evangelical_uganda.php

second look at Ed Rollins?

Threadkiller

"Together, the decisions amount to a vote of respect for the abilities of police dogs"

They should say "a vote respect for the usefulness of police dogs."

Aldo failed in his abilities but lucked out with the result, which was useful to the police department.

cathyf

While I would like to say that marriage should be a matter of religion, on the other hand, I think that regulating divorce is a vital public duty of the state -- precisely for the protection of children.

When you have children in households headed by same-sex couples, I would really like some state protection of the interests of the children when the couples break up. (And I would also like to see that in cases where unmarried opposite-sex couples break up.) Maybe we could have a concept like "common law civil unions" ?

Chubby

((Do not pay attention to the real concerns of our country.))

gay marriage is a real concern, imo, because misapprehending it as a right will erode other rights.

Appalled

I go to a thread discussing gay marriage, and there's Threadkiller and Danube arguing about respecting dogs...

Slippery slope. That's all I got to say, people. Slippery slope...

narciso

Yeah, Waldron sounds as credible as say Frank Bailey, or 'Dr. Evil', re Brett O'Donnell;

“He prohibited her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann, from sleeping in the same room with wife while on the campaign trail,” Waldron said in an email to BuzzFeed. “He prohibited legendary consultants Ed Rollins and Ed Goeas from attending debate prep sessions. He told her when she could get off the bus (Waterloo event with Gov. Perry), he wrote most of the words that came out of her mouth, he wrote all of her speeches.”

Threadkiller

We could be arguing about Martians, if you prefer.

Jack is Back!

Obama is to name first femal head of Secret Service, Julia Pierson.

hit and run

Appalled:
Slippery slope. That's all I got to say, people. Slippery slope...

And slobbery.

Jack is Back!

female, of course.

GUS

Marriage is a privilege granted by the State.
I don't see it as a right. It has a definition, just as Mom and Dad do.

hit and run

JiB:
Obama is to name first femal head of Secret Service, Julia Pierson.


Pictured: Julia

Threadkiller


Ms. Pierson
http://www.wifle.org/conference2009/speakers/bio-juliapierson.pdf

"Ms." ?

narciso

Lol, hit, also Marmaduke, was kind of slobbery.

Chubby

((Marriage is a privilege granted by the State.I don't see it as a right. It has a definition, just as Mom and Dad do.))

I agree and that's why I don't think gay marriage is a look squirrel issue. Some very important issues are at stake.

Dave (in MA)
We could be arguing about Martians, if you prefer.

Posted by: Threadkiller | March 26, 2013 at 02:58 PM

Obama is to name first femal head of Secret Service, Julia Pierson.

Posted by: Jack is Back | March 26, 2013 at 02:58 PM


What about the lizard guy?

Captain Hate

"Ms." ?

Question to the JOM wimmenz: What do you think of Ms.? I thought it was kind of stupid in a PC look-at-me-for-no-good-reason-just-because kind of way, but I'm not directly impacted by it. So have at it; I'll acquiesce to the majority. Maybe.

Jack is Back!

Payback for the testosterone-fueled agents in Columbia.

Jane:  Mock the Media

The dishonesty of Judge Walker boggles the mind as does the failure to recuse herself by Justice Kagan if she is in fact gay.

I don't think a gay person should have to recuse herself because she is gay. The resident lesbian would decide the case based on the law regardless of what she wants the outcome to be.

Of course the resident lesbian has integrity....

Captain Hate

And also it was a very 70s thing.::stickfingerdownthroat::

Porchlight

I agree, Chubby. It will become a very large hammer to wield against the free exercise of religion.

DrJ

CH, I use Ms. in business dealings when I don't know if the woman is married or not. Miss and Mrs. can get you into trouble if you guess wrongly, so I stick with Ms. So shoot me.

Captain Hate

Tammy Bruce is pro homo marriage and stated that states that have approved initiatives approving them have included language giving churches exemptions from being forced to perform them. Tammy doesn't lie, that I know of; and I guess my followup question would be if courts could ultimately mandate churches in the states to perform a marriage ceremony because that part of the law is unconstitutional.

narciso

Rocket surgery in action;

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/26/oops-many-outraged-by-fake-gay-marriage-tweets-from-fake-congressmans-account/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame