Gay marriage foes have lost the argument
By: Cahir O'Doherty | Published Friday, August 6, 2010, 4:50 PM | Updated Friday, September 9, 2011, 9:46 PM

Sometimes the courts have to remind us that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are for every American, not just the one's who share our views.
This week, in a landmark ruling,
California U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the due process and equal protection clause of the 14 amendment of the constitution.
Walker's decision may be to your liking, or it may not, but there's no question the ruling is sound. Proposition 8 marked the first time in American history that citizens voted to remove rights, not protect them.
But rights are not enumerated by a 51% majority. We vote on a lot of things in America, but we should not vote on whether other Americans are equal under the law.
That's why it's galling that the same people who sat silent when the Roberts court ruled that corporations are people (and should be able to use their largess to secretly influence elections) are now shouting themselves hoarse about 'activist judges.'
If you can't be consistent, at least make a convincing stab at it, or you'll end up looking like a crank.
It's fair to say the Civil Rights Act of 1968 would not have been upheld had it been voted on - 72% of the public at the time opposed it; and it's fair to say that same sex marriage rights would not be upheld if put to a vote yet (all 31 states who voted on the issue voted against marriage equality).
Walker's ruling is being dismissed by some as biased. Being gay, they say, he can't have any objectivity on issues affecting gay life. Apart from being presumptuous (he has never actually announced he's gay) if this this claim was followed to it's conclusion then American jurisprudence would grind to a standstill.
Despite what his critics are saying Walker was nominated to the federal bench by
President Ronald Reagan, and renominated twice by
President George H.W. Bush. He's no far left demagogue, he's a fierce and independent conservative who was initially opposed on those grounds.
The fact is that Proposition 8's defenders did not even come close to presenting persuasive evidence in court supporting their claim that gay marriages harm society and individuals. Two of their expert witnesses actually ended up agreeing they could point to no proof at all.
This is a significant and far reaching failure because for decades conservative activists have been predicting doom if same-sex marriage became legal. But it has become legal and they've become Chicken Little's, shouting louder because they've lost their audience.
'The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal,' Walker wrote in his exacting, 136-page opinion.
Children born in 2010 will reach voting age and be appalled to remember that America once deprived gays and lesbians of the right to marry. Because by 2028 it will be a settled fact of life.
This game is over. A longstanding injustice is being redressed.
88 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.STEVENSTAR | Mar 12, 2013, 09:07 PM EDT
CANT BELIEVE AMERICANS ARE SO BEHIND US OVER HERE IN EUROPE WITH THE GAY MARRIAGE.. EVEN HERE IN IRELAND WHERE I LIVE WE HAVE 75% SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE IN A RECENT REFERENDUM..AND MOST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES LIKE SPAIN HAVE GAY MARRIAGE FOR YEARS.. CATCH UP AMERICA ...
Pittsburghkid | Dec 16, 2011, 12:17 AM EST
Have you noticed all the Republican State Governments? For some reason, States turn Republican, after gay marriage is adopted. During the 70's Night Clubs were popular, but not all were successful. First they'd start out as disco, if that failed then they turn Country Western, if that failed then they'd turn non drinking teenage, and finally they'd turn Gay before closing up for good. The Democrat Party has turned Gay, which is in its last phase.
hollabackgurl | Aug 27, 2010, 04:11 PM EDT
Gay people don't care what you call it, and how can you not know that, at this stage? They're not fighting for a word, they're fighting for their lives. They want their relationships to enjoy the same legal protections that other Americans do. No better, no worse. That's all.
patrick1945 | Aug 25, 2010, 01:55 PM EDT
You know as well as everyone this is not a battle over rights, it is a battle over the term "Marriage". The term "Gay Union" or Gay Matrimony would cause little opposition.
IrishAndProud | Aug 24, 2010, 05:05 AM EDT
Well, you know what they say about assuming, hollabackgurl...be careful of those first three letters. A sixy-year-old would be old enough to be my parent, though I don't know about yourself. And...it's not for no reason that it's said 'If you're conservative at twenty, you have no heart -- but if you're liberal at 40, you have no brain.' If they aren't already, people tend to grow more conservative as they get older -- hence the reason conservatives vastly outnumber liberals in the USA (that's 2-1 according to Gallup)...41 years and counting after Woodstock (btw those people are now BEYOND 60). Liberalism is dying. It is not inevitable. What is inevitable is that someday YOU will die, and conservatism will still be there. BTW you're anti-straight.
hollabackgurl | Aug 22, 2010, 10:26 PM EDT
I assume from your tone and tenor that you're over 60 IrishandProud. Young Americans, overwhelmingly, do not share your anti-gay views. A CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage. It is inevitable.
IrishAndProud | Aug 19, 2010, 08:55 PM EDT
No, they're not. Liberalism is not 'inevitable'; it's dying. Conservative victories -- now THAT's inevitable. That is the majority, and they cannot be ignored or stamped out forever. Ain't...gonna...happen.
olovely | Aug 18, 2010, 11:07 PM EDT
Same sex marriage rights are inevitable.
IrishAndProud | Aug 16, 2010, 10:15 PM EDT
So...now that this even HIGHER court has stayed the previous judge's ruling, do you accept THIS ruling as 'final', like you were oh-so-quick to do with the previous judge, hollabackgurl (or you too, for that matter, Cahir)? You see, when you jump too soon with your taunts and dismissiveness toward the majority on a matter such as this -- and simply because you thought you had the upper hand, at that point in time -- you reveal how snooty and short-sighted you were...and you end up with your foot in your mouth, again. You really aren't much for long-term vision and thinking. Each thing is just one battle, and there are many left to be fought, on this issue alone.
IrishAndProud | Aug 16, 2010, 10:08 PM EDT
Whoops...not so fast...an Appeals Court has just put an indefinite hold on same-sex 'marriages,' pending a review of this case. B-but...Cahir and hollabackgurl say the 'game' is over, and the other side's lost...hmmm...how can this be (unless maybe there was that appeals process I referred to but that Hollabackgurl preemtively assumed would only back HER side of it)...???
hollabackgurl | Aug 14, 2010, 11:08 AM EDT
You'll probably be surprised to hear this but nowadays there aren't many LGBT people who would actually want a Catholic marriage ceremony. In fact I've never even heard of anyone bothering. It's olden days stuff. Something your granny might have sought but hardly worth the effort. You're profoundly optimistic to think that anyone under 40 will be interested by 2028, never mind the gay community.
jacersisityourself | Aug 14, 2010, 08:43 AM EDT
I've just spotted that Irish Central has posted this article in its archives under the heading of Entertainment. Appropiate that, now that I think of it.
jacersisityourself | Aug 13, 2010, 09:20 PM EDT
I agree with IrishAndProud – hollabackgurl’s comments are becoming more and more incoherent rants. I’ve had my say already, earlier, but I have to come back to Cahir’s article above after reading Dublin’s Archbishop Martin’s letter to his diocesan priests about the Sacraments of Christ (yes - that letter which revealed that his Auxiliary Bishops would remain as such). In his letter, Dr. Martin says “... we should invite (people) to formally apply for all sacraments...” Well, well, well... so what do you think will happen in2028, or any year, if Gays and Lesbians formally apply to their local priest for the Sacrament of Marriage? Enough said... again I say that Cahir is disillusioning himself with his “Game over...” allegation. As I’ve consistently pointed out, Gays and Lesbians can never ever have what doesn’t exist for them – in Christian/Catholic sacrament or within other religions and no religions. Man & Woman only can execute fundamental marriage. Fundamental rights to marriage cannot apply to people who cannot execute fundamental marriage. Anything else is sham.
IrishAndProud | Aug 13, 2010, 08:22 PM EDT
And let's see what's been happening on the domestic front, whilst we're at it [BEGIN QUOTE]: "In every week of his presidency until now, Barack Obama has enjoyed a majority approval rating in the Gallup Poll from people earning less than $2,000 per month. But that changed in the Gallup survey conducted from Aug. 2-8, when only 49 percent of Americans in that income bracket said they approve of the job Obama is doing. This marks the first time since Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, when Americans in all four of the income brackets reported in Gallup’s weekly survey of presidential approval gave Obama less than 50 percent approval." [END QUOTE]
IrishAndProud | Aug 13, 2010, 08:13 PM EDT
I might add...the greatest favor that Barack Obama ever does is to consistently underestimate (not to mention besmirch, slander, attack and ignore) the American people, themselves. Obama has probably been the single greatest energizer and sweller of conservative ranks that has ever happened in my lifetime -- and perhaps ever, period.
IrishAndProud | Aug 13, 2010, 08:09 PM EDT
So now you're thanking the Founding Father's that a representative republic has been replaced by a judicial dictatorship, and you view the majority as tyrants (and by default admitting that you are in fact in the minority, on this issue). I think, quite simply, that you finally reached the breaking point, Hollabackgurl, and are now being as openly defiant and offensive as you possibly can -- to hell with the facade, anymore. But at least you are openly expressing what I and others have already been saying about you for some time: you support fascism, and you've just now fessed up and finally, FINALLY admitted it openly -- and proudly too, while you were at it, since you felt you had nothing to lose anymore, by this point. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled a single, solitary time on homosexual 'marriage,' (what are you talking about, anyway?)...and the High Court agrees or DISagrees with a lower court judge -- that's the order it goes in, and not the reverse. And you responded precisely as I predicted about the Telegraph post, too (as if it's relevant where it's from). Funny how if something comes out of Europe that you agree with, suddenly it's all indisputable -- but if not (rapid little snickering effects, here), then it's to be ignored or impugned. Is it TRUE or not, is the question...and I might add, it is YOU caught in the Tea Party echo chamber (more like vice grip)...because that describes the majority sentiment in the USA. Trying to minimize a domestic giant over a foreigner merely noticing it is a wee bit futile, wouldn't you say? Conservative means right as much as liberalism means wrong -- and passe.
hollabackgurl | Aug 13, 2010, 11:48 AM EDT
Thank Judge Walker and the Founding Father's for anticipating the tyranny of the majority and protecting against it. The Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. Judge Walker agrees.
DeaconJack | Aug 13, 2010, 10:32 AM EDT
Marriage is more a religious RIGHT than a CIVIL one,unless of course you camp with Barney Frank et als.
hollabackgurl | Aug 13, 2010, 08:43 AM EDT
The greatest favor the GOP ever do is to consistently underestimate Barack Obama. Quoting the Telegraph proves that you're lost in a Tea Party echo chamber. I thought conservative meant cautious?
IrishAndProud | Aug 12, 2010, 11:14 PM EDT
Incidentally, the GOP Senate candidate in California (Fiorina) is now ahead of Boxer in the polls, and conservatism is on such a national ascendancy in the USA that it's even being noted overseas. From today's Telegraph.co.uk, Nile Gardiner writes: "While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided." [END QUOTE] Barack Obama himself, btw, continues to oppose homosexual marriage.
IrishAndProud | Aug 12, 2010, 11:09 PM EDT
No, Hollabackgurl -- they were given A day in court, and that's what the appeals process is about, which in this case is already underway. Funny how when liberals lose a court case that they don't just quit and give up like you seem to think conservatives should do after a single court loss. There's the Circuit Court of Appeals and of course The Supreme Court, where the outcome is far less certain. And no, homosexuals are not being discriminated against because of whether they're a man or woman. They've been told by a majority of voters that marriage is between a man and a woman, like it's always been throughout human history. And what's with this 'tiny majority' stuff? Exactly how big is the majority supposed to be, before their word is legit? A majority is a majority, no matter by what margin. Is this a representative republic, or isn't it? And after decades of homosexual activism in California, they STILL don't have a majority on their side. Besides, seems to me libs don't really give a rat's fart how big the majority is anyway, regardless of the issue...if they don't like the outcome of a popular vote, then by god they'll just ram their agenda through anyway, via unelected courts -- which wraps right back to what I've been saying, below.
hollabackgurl | Aug 12, 2010, 10:12 PM EDT
Yes, gender means a person's sex. And gay men and women are being discriminated against based on their gender/sex. And that's just wrong. Proposition 8 discriminated against gay people based on their sex/gender. A tiny majority of Californian's voted to discriminate against gay people based on their gender sex. That was unconstitutional and it was struck down. Anti-gay proponents were given their day in court to demonstrate how they were harmed by same sex marriage. They failed to make their case.
IrishAndProud | Aug 12, 2010, 08:37 PM EDT
Plus, emcowtan...it's not for no reason that it's said: "If you're a conservative at 25, you have no heart...but if you're a liberal at 40, you have no brain." People who aren't already conservative when they're younger tend to grow more so as they get older. Plus, what's so 'new' and 'chic' about homosexuality? It's even older than the bible, because it had to pre-exist for the bible to even reference it, as it does. Ancient Greece had it, Rome had it...and centuries later came conservatism, as we know it, and which the American majority is, by 2-1 over liberalism...and it continues to GROW, not shrink. So to attempt portraying homosexuality as something 'new' is futile. It's not, like any number of other dysfunctional things.
IrishAndProud | Aug 12, 2010, 08:32 PM EDT
hollabackgurl, 'gender' means a person's sex -- not what lifestyle they lead. And...if the majority of Americans support homosexual 'marriage,' then how come they've rejected it in EVERY...SINGE...STATE where it's ever been up for direct, popular vote? And talking about heterosexual marriage (a redundancy) being rejected is merely an attempt on your part to make it sound interchangeable with homosexual 'marriage' (an oxymoron). The only time a real, legitimate (i.e., heterosexual) marriage would be 'ended' by a 'majority' of voters, is if human culture, as we've always known it, ceased -- and it's not going to.
emcowtan | Aug 12, 2010, 03:46 PM EDT
Judge Walker is not an admitted gay man. It is pure conjecture that he is gay. I don't think it is relevant to the arguement however. A CNN poll today shows 51% against, and 49% in favour of SSM, twenty years ago it was aver 70% against. If you look at voters under 50, 60% are in favour. This arguement is pointless, it is all over, or will be in just a few years. Just need a few more old homophobes to die off.
hollabackgurl | Aug 11, 2010, 09:59 PM EDT
I'm saying marriage is a legal contract. And I don't think legal contracts should be denied you based on your gender. You're supporting gender discrimination, which puts you at odds with the majority of Americans. If a majority of voters voted to end your marriage would you simply shrug and concur with their decision? I doubt it.
IrishAndProud | Aug 11, 2010, 08:51 PM EDT
hollabackgurl, the mormons didn't 'buy' the election (unless, again, you're calling blacks, hispanics and others STUPID for falling for it). Mormons and many others spent money conveying the message -- but even the mormons got the message right: marriage is between one man and one woman, and always has been -- and the majority of California voters agreed (and many of the black voters did so as they went to cast their vote for Barack Obama -- who also still opposes homosexual marriage).
IrishAndProud | Aug 11, 2010, 08:48 PM EDT
Hollabackgurl, you're talking about REASONS for marriage, which have always been many and varied. I also noticed how you worded your opening sentence: 'marriage has OFTEN been between...' and then you rattled off several examples of marriage between...a man and a woman (or women), the way it's always been, exactly as I and many others have said!
hollabackgurl | Aug 11, 2010, 10:43 AM EDT
Marriage has often been between one man and many women; or one man and one mistress and one concubine and one geisha. Marriage has been an economic arrangement, a political calculation, a regional peace offering, a royal ambition, a blatant power grab or whatever else the participants were in search of. It's a binding legal contract. It has been seen as such for thousands of years.
hollabackgurl | Aug 11, 2010, 10:37 AM EDT
Again you say it, without offering an explanation: why should we overlook the fact that the Mormon Church in UTAH spent over $70 million dollars buying an election in California? No other religion or ethnic community made such a disproportionate push to influence the vote. Why are you trying so hard to overlook this fact? Are you Mormon?
IrishAndProud | Aug 11, 2010, 02:07 AM EDT
I'm not putting words in your mouth, hollabackgurl: I'm merely relaying a FACT -- the majority of California voters supported Prop 8. Who funded it is immaterial. And you cannot 'deconstruct' yourself by saying that marriage is between one man and one woman, which it has always been. You can certainly however deconstruct yourself by equating an unnatural lifestyle with a person's race -- like being black, for instance. You can become ex-homosexual, but you cannot become ex-black. And again, I remind you: over 70% of black voters SUPPORTED Prop 8...and one would think that if they equated the homosexual lifestyle with their race as you have, that they would have OPPOSED Prop 8 by equally massive numbers (unless of course you think they're 'uneducated,' ignorant dupes, which I suspect is easier for you to say about whites than it is about blacks, when you're confronted on it so directly). If so, I would suggest you go around telling blacks how backwards and ignorant they are, and see how far you get.
Monsoonman | Aug 11, 2010, 01:18 AM EDT
Chrismick: Yer gonna do an about face retreat? Just curious, but you're not going to turn yer back on em.
CHRISMICK | Aug 10, 2010, 09:44 PM EDT
gay bull----.god will judge.there should be no same sex discussion......yes period.was thinking of moving to new england states.about face.retreat
hollabackgurl | Aug 10, 2010, 06:32 PM EDT
What is the root of anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay bills like Proposition 8 unless it is prejudice that they are lesser relationships unworthy of equal protection under the law? Your argument deconstructs itself. Of course it was a prejudiced vote just as it was in 1968 when the civil rights act was opposed by 72%. Nowadays voters can see it was bigotry, but back then they would have voted against civil rights. And don't put words in my mouth: it was the Mormon Church that bankrolled Prop 8 to the tune of 71 million. I blame them most of all for their deceitful political campaign.
IrishAndProud | Aug 10, 2010, 05:31 PM EDT
Yes, hollabackgurl -- the concept of Prop 8 was indeed unheard of, throughout American history...because it was unheard of that anyone would actually have to spell out MARRIAGE as being between one man and one woman. That's so no-duh and basic to human existence (and always has been, all throughout human history -- with the exception of polygamist cultures) that it never crossed anyone's mind that they'd actually have to defend it, as such. THAT is what's truly unthinkable. You are calling the majority of Califorinia voters (an overwheming number of black voters and a majority of hispanics) 'prejudiced,' hollabackgurl. What's your problem with blacks and hispanics, anyway? Why do you call them bigoted, for not sharing YOUR views? How is that attitude not bigotry, in and of itself? Why do you want to push their faces in, and tell them they have NO voice, because they don't agree with YOU, and this one single judge? You are openly siding with TYRANNY, and you're making a fool out of yourself.
hollabackgurl | Aug 10, 2010, 10:29 AM EDT
We have a responsibility to protect equal rights in America. The founding father's made that perfectly plain. How about that for a responsibility.
Monsoonman | Aug 10, 2010, 09:25 AM EDT
Everybody has "rights". How about your responsibilities for a change, wouldn't that be refreshing? Or is it that there is no more personal responsibility in this country anymore?
hollabackgurl | Aug 10, 2010, 08:19 AM EDT
Proposition 8 represents the removal of rights, not the expansion of them. It's unheard of in American history. The judge found no rational basis for that removal, other than prejudice, and he ruled against it.
2BorNot2B | Aug 10, 2010, 01:46 AM EDT
holl-onback - Take another shot at making sense while comparing the magnitude of a wrong decision made by a partisan judge to the adversarial opinion against your favorite cause by this Tony Perkins guy. What has more consequences and affects more people, the nullification of a twice debated and voted on proposition, or the simple advocacy against your cause by an individual?
2BorNot2B | Aug 10, 2010, 01:25 AM EDT
Gosh Horsey..your concern for me, for where you think I'm living (a world of bile? How bitter of you), and what the future bodes, is truly touching. I'd plant a smooch on your face if I were less suspicious of your intentions and of what I might catch.-- And let me assure you that you are free to call oVomit your leader (though, alas, not for much longer apparently), to believe the computer generated, photoshopped and put-on-the-internet by his puppeteers 'certificate'-though NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE REAL COPY- is 'genuine.' I'm sure you are also still putting your falling molars under the pillow and expect to hear the sound of coins in the morning.-- And yes, he won the election, with the help of ACORN, a lot of dead people, and many more who now would gladly take back the decision they made in a NY minute.-- As for black helicopters I trust you'll enlighten us on that experience you've had with them since I don't know what you're blathering about.-- My blood pressure is fine, and I thank you for giving me due credit for coining the GAYMAN word. I do like originality and the royalties that my creativity will generate.-- The rest of your post, I think various people have aptly commented on, while dutifully thumbing your nose.--Finally, whoever appointed this idiot judge is irrelevant. Wasn't it Reagan who appointed Kennedy and the pitiable Jello-spined pseudo-jurist can't make up his mind as to which way the wind blows yet?-- With any luck either Kagan or Sotomayor will at some point provide similar pay-back to OhBummer's handlers.
2BorNot2B | Aug 09, 2010, 11:23 PM EDT
Back at you HorsesInMudStream - Your opinion of who's spewing what and with what type of slant is quite selective, therefore inconsequential. Try being more objective and you'll perhaps raise your cred a mite.-- By my logic, if you really want to know, no one who is placed as 'judge' over others should be allowed to rule on a case which nullifies the will of the majority, and any decision he makes in that vein should itself be nullified de facto and de jure.-- American law is based on precedent and should follow Constitutional tenets rather than personal choice. The fact is that this so called 'judge' cannot escape the taint of his own chosen lifestyle, and the decision he handed down has more than a slight whiff of his bias, more so than logic or justice. There have been plenty of latino, african-American and Irish judges who have ruled rightly and justly in matters involving people with similar ancestry. Your attempted analogy is idiotic to say the least. Ancestry does not preclude integrity or right judgement in the way a decision handed down by a practicing gayman, in this age when opportunity for advancing the gayagenda is ripe.-- And you are perfectly right, I and the great majority of Americans, do not want anyone on the bench who rules on the basis of hormones, emotions and raw opportunism.-- Roberts and Alito were put through the grinder by the left, yet so far their decisions been just and have hurt no one; while Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer, and most surely Kagan have in the past, and will most surely in the future continue to undermine and even trample upon the Constitution and the will of the people through their toxic judicial activism.-- continues...
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 08:56 PM EDT
And, lest you again bring up Bush's nominating this judge, Roe vs. Wade was authored by Nixon nominee Harry A. Blackmun, and opposed by JFK nominee Byron R. White. Conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce is also proudly pro-choice and a lesbian, whilst New Deal Democrat Bob Casey was solidly pro-life (as are PLAGAL: the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians -- look them up). Conservatives nominate judges who turn out to be disappointments to them, and different people support different issues, across the aisle. It doesn't matter ultimately who nominated the judge; his ACTIONS matter.
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 08:49 PM EDT
Horse, I brought up the Second Amendment to provide an example of liberal inconsistency: they continuously 'read' things into the Constitution that are flatly NOT there ('freedom to abortion,' 'separation of church and state') whilst actively working to either overturn and/or flat-out breach or ignore rights that ARE clearly there, such as in the Second Amendment. This is what I was doing, and I don't think you actually need this explained, to you. And yes, the judicial system is set up, quite deliberately -- and not to be abused, as this lone judge has done in California (and as they've done quite frequently, elsewhere). Who nominated the judge is irrelevant; if they abuse their authority by overriding democracy, that is what matters. As for corporations, who are they but people, too...are you saying they have no rights, as such? And...Jackson, Sharpton, etc ARE trying to impose their beliefs on the nation, through the courts if democracy fails them. That's a step above and beyond the conservative majority, which plays by the rules and gets stepped all over by fascist, unelected courts.
HorsesInMdstrm | Aug 09, 2010, 06:54 PM EDT
Thank you for the kind words, Jacers. However, I'm not Ba'hai. We just used their wedding protocol to get our marriage license. No clergy - two witnesses. Wedding on December 25th. And thanks for not posting thousands.
jacersisityourself | Aug 09, 2010, 06:39 PM EDT
HorsesInMdstrm made some good points at 09.17am today - (pardon me if I use HIM for short for you? I use jacers as short for ‘jacersisityourself’) – and then proceeded to demolish those points in later posts. Although I am unashamedly a Catholic, I deliberately avoided referring to marriage within the context of the Christian Sacrament of Matrimony in my posts. I wrote, or tried to, in terms of marriage being intended and designed be naturally executable conjugally only between men and women, even if they choose not to do so, or are unable to. Even when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Marriage through His miracle work with water, the bride & groom, whose wedding celebrations He & His Mother Mary were attending back then, were already married in their man/woman custom way before He instituted His sacrament of Matrimony, so yr point of introducing Matrimony into this debate is a non-starter. My use of PhD holder Michael Youssef’s quote was merely a contribution to the debate under Cahir’s article (truly, I never heard of this Michael Youssef before – he’d be called Mickey Joe in Ireland - and I really found his quote while browsing the internet (the Holy Spirit of God directing my browsing, to be chosen for posting on ICentral?? What Power God has, some might say.) That he should have a Ph D degree is also irrelevant in this debate, his quote is his own but I couldn’t fault its truth). I could have picked any one, or thousands (aren’t you lucky I didn’t?) out of zillions more quotes in the same vein out there in the public domain. I am unapologetic in admitting that, having once dropped Catholicism, I returned to it, for its message and the practice of it is truly beautiful. I met and saw many Ba’hia and other religions’ believers in action on my travels; they too are beautiful people as are their actions but I sadly felt they were unfulfilled without Christ in their lives. HIM, may I say - May you find Him again.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 06:04 PM EDT
He said it best: "We vote on a lot of things in America, but we should not vote on whether other Americans are equal under the law." Especially if the Mormons are secretly trying to rig the outcome. They have some gall criticizing other people's marriage arrangements.
HorsesInMdstrm | Aug 09, 2010, 06:01 PM EDT
IrishAndProud - The Reverend Jesse Jackson (if you have evidence that he is not an ordained minister, please share it) and other clergy on the left side of the political spectrum are not trying to impose a theology on the country. I'd say they seek social justice while you might say they seek socialism. And where did the comment on the Second Amendment come from? Did any other post bring this up in this thread? What well-regulated militia do you belong to? I strongly agree with you that it is not a game. The constitution established the Supreme Court. Over the years the Congress has established federal judicial districts and lower courts. Judge Walker was appointed as a result of this process, being nominated by whom? Go back to the article for the answer. Were you ranting when corporations were awarded equal free speech rights to human beings except that most human beings do not have the money to compete with corporations?
AmAncINED | Aug 09, 2010, 05:54 PM EDT
In America and people have the right to believe that marriage is only between men and women based on religious and moral grounds. No court ruling legalizing gay marriage is ever going to change those religious and moral beliefs held by most priests and pastors and most/some members of their parishes and congregations. Gays will marry and those who disagree with the law will continue to object to it, but life will go on. To portray this issue with a "na,na,na, na - we won" attitude is childish and pathetic. Grow Up.
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 05:39 PM EDT
btw Hollabackgurl...you clearly have no problem with the 'Rev.' Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others being continuously politically active for decades on end, and raising funds, and mixing politics and religion (or of left-wing Democrats speaking in churches whilst campaigning, etc) but of course if CONSERVATIVE people get involved (who are only the majority, after all), then it's 'violating separation of church and state' (which again, doesn't even exist...although the Second Amendment, which CLEARLY states the right to bear arms, should be ignored and/or abolished, right?). And of course...if the people pass an amendment you support, well joy and rapture! Let there be dancing in the streets as we celebrate the people's voice! But if they pass something you DON'T like, well then screw 'em -- we'll just overrule them through unelected courts and win anyway, by god. In other words, democracy is only A means; it's only worth anything if it advances liberalism -- but if it doesn't (which is most of the time, nowadays), then f-ck it, and f-ck the people...we'll steamroll them through the courts and get it anyway. And then, like foreign-agitator Cahir, you chirp 'Ha-ha! Game over! We won! Pfththththt!' Well, it's not a game, and it's not over, Cahir (and Hollaback). One single unelected judge does not seal an entire issue, let alone mindset. It's never worked that way in human history, and it never will. This issue is only beginning. And the people are NOT on your side...and you cannot walk all over them forever.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 05:35 PM EDT
The Mormon Church's bankrolling of Prop 8 was religious tyranny by shadowy theocrats who never once dared to step out into the open and admit they were spending millions.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 05:32 PM EDT
Who bankrolled the Proposition is vitally important to its success. The Mormon Church spent more money on this Proposition than any other in American history. They pressured their own subscribers to donate as much as they could and they bought themselves some good old fashioned American democracy. You could be forgiven for thinking they are a political action fund that moonlights as a Church. They need to be taxed for the money they spent influencing another states politics and legal sphere.
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 05:17 PM EDT
hollabackgurl, who cares who FUNDED the message? The fact remains that a majority of California voters PASSED Prop 8...and that includes over 70% of BLACK voters, and a majority of Hispanics as well! Now, either you're assuming that they're Mormons, too (good luck, with that one), or perhaps you feel you should go trolling around to the various black and hispanic communities and inform them (silly uneducated dupes that they are, after all) that they were deceived by a bunch of homophobic, bigoted white Mormons (again, good luck). Or...you could just let it pass through the portals of your brain that maybe, just maybe, a majority of California voters -- white, black, hispanic and others -- consider marriage to be what it has always been throughout human history: between one man and one woman, and said so at the ballot box, in a completely legitimate and legal way -- and that a single, fascist, unelected judge has just overruled them (because he personally wanted it), and called them a bunch of bigots, in the process. That is not democracy. That is judicial tyranny. And...there IS no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, as that concept is preached today. That is a myth.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 04:49 PM EDT
By the way, the people didn't speak in California - the Mormons spoke. Mormons make up only 2-percent of California's population, yet Mormon members contributed as much as 71% of the money, 90% of the volunteers, and much of the behind-the-scenes organization and messaging. The Mormon church plainly and unabashedly leapfrogged the religion/state divide to spearhead a political campaign that essentially wrote its own religious views into the Constitution.
GuinnessGrrl | Aug 09, 2010, 04:20 PM EDT
Posted by Southernpride on Aug 06, 2010, 11:28 PM EDT In a few years they will be allowing people to marry their pets ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What a stupid comment! Let me see if I can explain things to you in small enough words for you to understand. People will never be able to marry their pets because animals cannot give consent. Just like you can't marry someone under the age of consent. Understand?
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 04:19 PM EDT
By these maroons logic, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council should recuse himself from addressing gay rights and objectives since he's heterosexual.
HorsesInMdstrm | Aug 09, 2010, 04:09 PM EDT
2BorNot2B - you do spew an impressive array of venom. Of course, by your logic, no Latino judge could rule on a case where a Latino was a party. Ditto African-American, female or possibly even Irish. But maybe you wouldn't want any gay person or Latino or African American on the bench without proper scrutiny. The kind of scrutiny that Chief Justice Roberts received when he said that he believed in precedent. You are living in a world of bile, I'm afraid, and you will not be the better for it. President Obama is the leader, he was born in Hawaii, the birth certificate is real, he won the election, and the black helicopters up there are inspecting the oil and natural gas pipelines - not coming for you. Keep track of your blood pressure. And thanks for the enlightenment that gay man is actually one word. Nobody I ever read before knew that. You might also working on reading comprehension, because Cahir O'Doherty clearly noted that Judge Walker is gay, although he did not state whether the judge was skilled or still needed practice in his lifestyle. It's a shame that President Obama appointed this judge, isn't it? Oh, wait, President Bush (41) did that. That was in the story too.
jacersisityourself | Aug 09, 2010, 04:07 PM EDT
Hello again Holl’gurl – That quote you use fm Cahir’s 4th para is selectively chosen, just as Cahir has simplistically used it. 51-49. Work out how much the 2% difference is of 200m people in the USA that works out at as a majority. Then work out how much 2% of the world’s population, of a multitude of religions and none, who do not support the LGBT Brigade’s rants, works out at as a majority. You’ll see then the impact of that difference. Whichever way you look at it, Cahir’s final paragraph speaks volumes of the self-disillusionment that he and LGBT people live under. Please get real, no one can push an agenda, in this case for gay ‘marriage’, for something that just does not and can never exist. It’s that simple.
jacersisityourself | Aug 09, 2010, 04:04 PM EDT
Erm, say, 2B *whisper* – Cahir did mention that the Judge was gay (buried in his 9th paragraph). While I agree with the tenets of your post, I can’t hang with your derisive method of expressing them – a bit over the top, uncharitable perhaps, as we say.
2BorNot2B | Aug 09, 2010, 02:21 PM EDT
Let's take a scalpel to the following comments made by holl-on-backgurl: "It's comical how conservatives can never accept it when things don't go their way." -- Excuuuse me?? Who has been throwing the tantrums, doing the screaming, fighting and agitating to have the will of the people subverted? -- The people spoke but the 'drama queens' would not rest until the 9th district court gave a partisan the ability to nullify it and stuff them!-- Who then does not accept when things don't go their way, genius? --"Obama isn't really the president": You're right on that one, obummer is just a puppet, by now we the people have seen the strings are pulled by others: the unions, and a consortium of moneyed interests that bought the presidency for him to the tune of close to a billion dlls. which ovomit certainly did not and could have not had!-- "repeal health care reform,": Anyone could argue that an aberration that will sink this country into untenable debt which will finally sink it into economic oblivion and, further, is rejected by some 70% of voters should not be contemplated, much less enforced, right?-- "get another judge that will rule their way.": Why is that even relevant, that's what people like you did and you are a negligible minority!-- "If all else fails, get your gun and shout about God's will." -- Oh, we've seen plenty of gun-wielding people shouting, but strangely they sound more like you, holl-onback and like plants by the left in demonstrations held by those who want to preserve America as America, not as a sick imitation of Europe.-- - "(As if you had any idea what's God's will is).": Well, your convenient arguments so far have fully shown you are a competent 'situational theologian' Oh, how we could learn from you, if we'd just listen!
2BorNot2B | Aug 09, 2010, 01:42 PM EDT
How did I know that this Mr/Ms O'Doherty, along with holl-on-backgurl would be quick to crow about the 'victory' of the forces of disolutness over rationality? People...I think I'm becoming a prophet!-- There's a minor fact O'Doherty conveniently excluded from his 'reporting'.. the judge that handed down the 'decision' JUST HAPPENS to be an openly practicing GAYMAN. Isn't that a COINCIDENCE? -- I mean, what are the chances this might have been a 'purely uninterested, objective and lacking in personal bias' type of landmark decision?? -- This just goes to prove it is imperative for Americans who are in full possession of their faculties demand that judges -who are not voted in, but appointed for life- be carefully scrutinised before any power to render 'idiocy' as opinion or law is given them. If that judge had any integrity he would have recused him/herself. -- What does marriage have to do with gay sex? There is no complementarity possible in it, only utilitarianism. Those inclined to engage in this type of 'unions' have been doing it since the beginning of time; the objective, now that PC has infected the mind of venal politicians for expediency's sake, is to have the rest of the citizenry swallow the same object the licentious and perverted use to pleasure each other.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 01:32 PM EDT
God created Adam and Eve, and Adam and Steve, and Eve and Niamh. All creatures great and small have to get their start somewhere. And isn't it marvelous? Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Searlit | Aug 09, 2010, 12:14 PM EDT
The photograph speaks a thousand words. Did anyone read the sign? Comparing the right of gays to marry to women's rights and African Americans rights? Women have not attained equality, yet. Remember, that equal rights ammendment was voted against, a few years back. Gays now have a law that makes it a hate crime, if they are killed, due to being gay. Who's protecting the women and children of the world from all the domestic murder and abuse? As far as leadership positions, it appears that many more gay people are holding office than women. I agree with some other comments that said the focus should be on more important issues.
mayoman | Aug 09, 2010, 11:45 AM EDT
You're right, Cahir. The judge made the correct call. All men and women deserves equal rights, and marriage is no exception.
HorsesInMdstrm | Aug 09, 2010, 11:42 AM EDT
In response to mrkennedy, do you believe this as literal truth? Or is evolution a possibility for you? I don't think you can believe in both. In response to JamesMurphy, could you please clarify what is a joke? The ruling? mrkennedy's comment? My earlier post? The topic? The entire website? Thank you.
JamesMurphy | Aug 09, 2010, 10:53 AM EDT
Let's call it what it is: a joke.
mrkennedy | Aug 09, 2010, 10:28 AM EDT
I wonder why God created "ADAM AND EVE" and not Adam and John or Eve and Gloria?
HorsesInMdstrm | Aug 09, 2010, 09:17 AM EDT
Wow, what a spirited discussion. Back in the long ago, when I went to Catholic grade school, I remember that we called the sacrament 'Matrimony', not marriage. If jacersisityourself wants to defend matrimony, I'd say go to it. But marriage exists outside the Catholic church and outside any church, for that matter. My suspicion is that if civil unions conveyed all the benefits of marriage to gay couples, this argument about gay marriage would almost completely disappear from the LGBT community. So if we call sacramental wedlock in the Catholic church 'Matrimony' and call civil wedlock 'Marriage' where is the space we're fighting over. Then, as Monsoonman suggests, we could move on to important issues. And stop quoting people like Michael Youssef Ph.D whom jacersisityyourself "Browsing another site I found the following: ...". I've known some Ph.D.s in my time and they are not all informed or rational. My congratulations to Hollabackgurl for her tenacious defense of a brilliant, well-reasoned legal decision. Even if most Ph.D.s agree. Disclosure - my Catholic matrimony did not last; my Ba'hai marriage has.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 08:24 AM EDT
"Rights are not enumerated by a 51% majority. We vote on a lot of things in America, but we should not vote on whether other Americans are equal under the law."
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 03:24 AM EDT
btw Barack Obama still says he opposes homosexual marriage, even after this lone judge's ruling...so according to the foreign agitator Cahir he must be wrong too, along with those 7 million California voters and the American majority, eh? Yeah, that's it...
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 02:40 AM EDT
You couldn't even resist bringing up that flatly unlawful health scare deform which Obama's Congress (with an 11% approval) rammed through against the popular will, also. You're a champion of fascism, hollabackgurl. Don't ever claim to speak for the people, because your side is litrally at WAR with them, on a daily, non-stop basis.
IrishAndProud | Aug 09, 2010, 02:35 AM EDT
hollabackgurl, like the non-American Cahir who wrote this left-wing trash piece, you're just a fascist agitator. One single unelected judge has just disenfranchised SEVEN MILLION VOTERS (who represent the conservative majority in this nation, who have rejected homosexual 'marriage' -- an oxymoron -- in every single state where it's actually been up for a vote) and you sit there with that silly, sneering sarcasm typical of one who can only get their way by steamrolling the voters. Prop 8 was a voter-passed, voter-approved initiative, taken through the legal, constitutinal process, and some homosexual judge just told democracy to go you-know-what itself because HE sees it differently, after all...and then this foreigner Cahir chirps in with his BS about it just as I predicted he would (telling the American people who he's not even part of 'na-na-ni-naaaa-na!')...and you're right there joining him. How you can claim to speak for the majority and/or democracy at this point is beyond me, because you openly support the fascist stomping of the people of the USA -- and it's only sealing your political fate all the more, because the people will only be slapped down for so long. And don't try the anti-Xtian, anti-gun crap with me, sister -- because I'm neither a Xtian nor a gun owner.
hollabackgurl | Aug 09, 2010, 12:18 AM EDT
It's comical how conservatives can never accept it when things don't go their way. Obama isn't really the president, repeal health care reform, get another judge that will rule their way. If all else fails, get your gun and shout about God's will. (As if you had any idea what's God's will is).
jacersisityourself | Aug 08, 2010, 10:47 PM EDT
Gack! Why should God keep me awake tonite in Ireland long enough to reply to hollerbackgurl once again? - Does God have voting rights? Does God have a day in court? How long is a day in God’s life? How long is your day, or that of your friends and family members, before God? Did God, erm - give equality to men and women? Of course He did – one can’t survive without the other – how more simply equal can that be? The LGBT Circus brigade world would have us believe differently, their world filled with emptiness for future mankind. May the LGBT get real and face Truth is aprayer of mine – pls God? There can be no argument over something that doesn’t exist for LGBT communities. Pulllease, find God’s Truth delivered through His Son, Jesus Christ; all will be happier in it.
hollabackgurl | Aug 08, 2010, 09:20 PM EDT
Did you read his article before you commented on it: "Rights are not enumerated by a 51% majority. We vote on a lot of things in America, but we should not vote on whether other Americans are equal under the law." That says it all.
jacersisityourself | Aug 08, 2010, 08:24 PM EDT
Hollerbackgurl, I wish you a nice day for today too and for everyday of your future life. I think you clearly miss recognising what I am posting. Your interpretation of bigotry is wrong: a bigot is an intolerant person. I’m a very tolerant person - my family and friends have often accused me of being overly so; I respect others views, even if I disagree with them. Your posting’s choice of words of ‘vile’ and ‘abominations’ in your reply are out of context – I didn’t write them, a Michael Youssef, a man with a Ph D qualification did – but I posted his words as something that in my view spoke undeniable truth. I know untruthful human interpretations of God’s design of nature, including His design of men and women’s bodies. Abuse of God’s design of nature is, simply, abuse - abuse of a most abhorrent kind by one human being towards and of another human being. In yr posting, you failed to recognise where my hopes, wishes and prayers for LGBT people are - that they would see the errors of their ways, change back to the truth of God’s designs of and for men and women. Please take time to step back instead of hollering in favour of Cahir's article above on this issue, especially in the face of the beauty of God’s designs of men and women’s bodies and holler forward to stop the abuse of God’s nature for men and women. All abuse must stop. Full stop.
Monsoonman | Aug 08, 2010, 06:38 PM EDT
Good point regarding what's the point of voting anymore? In California thee people overwhelmingly voted to outlaw gay marriage and one person, a judge, erased all of those votes. We had another vote a few years back called prop 187 that outlawed the state from giving any benefits to illegal aliens, it too passed by an overwhelming majority of 67%, it too was erased by one person, a judge. Now we have another law passed by Arizona voters overwhelmingly to protect and defend itself from an illegal alien invasion, it too was erased by one person a judge....You keep thwarting the will of the people there will be consequences and it could get ugly.
pat52rk | Aug 08, 2010, 06:03 PM EDT
so what's the point of voting if it can be over turned by a judge ,what happened to 'we the people'. this country is going to hell in a hand basket..
jacersisityourself | Aug 08, 2010, 05:49 PM EDT
I apologise: the opening lines of my post at 05.18pm were worded wrongly. I meant to say marriage isn’t just any old union, it is a conjugal union, and two persons of the same sex are constitutionally incapable of uniting with each other conjugally, so it is absurd to speak of them marrying each other. Gay marriage is therefore impossible. Any attempt to live a homosexual lifestyle under a sham marriage tarnishes the very institution of Marriage.
hollabackgurl | Aug 08, 2010, 05:35 PM EDT
Calling gay people 'vile' and 'abominations' is the essence of bigotry. Marriage is possible in many, many contexts, between people who heterosexual sex or homosexual sex, or who coinhabit in sexless marriages. It's not impossible, it's commonplace. Your point is absurd and reductionist. As for God and the Lord, you don't speak for Him or His 'truth' with any more authority than you arrogantly claim for yourself. If I had to choose between marrying a gay couple or a righteous blowhard like yourself I'd choose the gays. I think they're closer to the Lord than judgmental bigots like yourself. Have a nice day.
jacersisityourself | Aug 08, 2010, 05:32 PM EDT
I agree with Monsoonman once again btw - there is no argument. Cahir O'D shouldn't even write a headline like the above. You can't have an argument about something that doesn't exist or ever will. So-called "civil unions" are different - they are not even "unions". They are legal civil contracts, based on Offer, Acceptance and some form of Consideration - like any contract agreement. They can never be a 'marriage' in its true sense.
jacersisityourself | Aug 08, 2010, 05:18 PM EDT
Sadly, hollabackgurl screams ‘bigotry’ completely and misses the point. My point was simple: marriage between people who do not have conjugal sex is impossible. It can’t exist for them, ever. Browsing another site I found the following: >>> “The reason why the homosexual community works so hard and fights so tenaciously to become accepted in society, the very reason why they want church leaders to sanctify their abomination & their lifestyle by ordaining them into ministry, the reason why they want society to bless their vile acts, and that reason is guilt…guilt because deep down these men and women created in God’s own image, know that their lifestyle is an abomination to the Lord. It is unnatural and they want church leaders to sanction what God could never sanction. They know that, and deep down they feel the guilt, so they look to anyone who would say “That’s really your own business”, and because of the nature of guilt acceptance is not enough. So the next step they want, not just acceptance, is the promotion of the lifestyle. They want to be treated as elite, but that’s not going to be enough, you see nothing is enough when guilt is seething in the conscience – nothing is enough”. -Michael Youssef Ph.D <<< As I said in my earlier post, people of LGBT communities are trying to persuade us of a legitimacy of their lifestyle or right to a marriage that can never ever be, however it will be acted out - a sham. LGBT people have parades through ordinary neighbourhoods, projecting fun and laughter but we know they are working insidiously to force us into accepting their lifestyle. Do you see married people having parades through local neighbourhoods with an agenda to persuade all to marry? No, you don't. Sorry, that ain’t on for us; we are not bigoted, we know the truth. One hopes LBGT people might wake up learn truth someday too.
Monsoonman | Aug 08, 2010, 02:28 PM EDT
There is no argument, no one gives a rats azz what kind of sex you may prefer if it is consensual between two adults....Why do you resort to calling those who question validating "marriage" between two men or between two women as bigots, or even an hysterical octave higher, racists because we do not agree? Why can't there be a rational discussion without you tossing in bigot, racist, intolerant, etc.? Just curious.
hollabackgurl | Aug 08, 2010, 07:56 AM EDT
Some heterosexual holdouts who still don't get it insist that the courts and the LGBT groups are attempting to 'persuade' them to get over their bigotry. But they are doing no such thing. LGBT people don't actually care if you can't. They aren't seeking your approval, they are seeking legal equality, a totally different objective. If you hypocritically insist that the purpose of heterosexuality is to solely produce children then you've lost your own argument: clearly it is not.
jacersisityourself | Aug 08, 2010, 07:30 AM EDT
I agree wholeheartedly with Monsoonman. In my view, Cahir O'D is disillusioning himself and attempting to persuade everybody else on his sexual mores. Marriage is a religiously-blessed institution between man and woman who form a conjugal relationship. LGBT people refuse to have conjugal relationships and therefore by their own actions are not entitled to marriage. All judges should know that civilian rights and religious rights are not, by their very nature, mutually compatible.
AmAncINED | Aug 07, 2010, 08:39 PM EDT
Raised in a Christian church, I was taught that marriage was between a man & a woman. Period. It hasn't been easy to give that up, but I have on legal grounds. I think the Supreme Court will rule that gays will be allowed to marry under the U.S. Constitution and then we'll move on to more pressing issues in this country, like terrorism, the economy, illegal immiagration, etc. Hollabackgurl, we finally agree on something.
hollabackgurl | Aug 07, 2010, 11:42 AM EDT
You can oppose homosexuality on moral or religious grounds. However, you cannot oppose equal civil rights for minorities under law in the United States. Judge Vaughn's ruling demonstrates this concisely and you should read it. Nobody is trying to stop you from being a bigot. We're just trying to stop you from making laws enforcing your bigotry.
Monsoonman | Aug 07, 2010, 12:08 AM EDT
Being gay is a lifestyle choice, it is not the same as being black or being a woman or having a disability. I have a problem with people identifying themselves and demanding special "rights" because of the kind of sex they practice. Do yer thing in private and if you want to partner up get a civil union. Marriage is more a religious thin anyway. They want want society to to give them our blessing for buggering each other.
Southernpride | Aug 06, 2010, 11:28 PM EDT
In a few years they will be allowing people to marry their pets