The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Oh, and the GOP secretly added another $500,000 to the fund to defend DOMA in the courts.

It has come to light that House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase to a contract with a private law firm to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. While the increase was approved in September, neither the public nor the Democratic House minority was informed until this week, Roll Call reports.

The contract now authorizes Bancroft PLLC and former Solicitor General Paul Clement (R) to spend up to $2 million in to defend DOMA — the second increase to what was originally a $1 million cap.

Apparently, we need to slash federal spending except when it comes to stopping those filthy homos from getting married.

So says Speaker Boehner:

At a Thursday press conference — ironically focusing on his view that “Washington has a spending problem” — House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the expenditures. The Ohio Republican angrily responded that if the Department of Justice won’t defend the law of the land, Congress will.

Your tax dollars at work!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

So says Speaker Boehner:

At a Thursday press conference — ironically focusing on his view that “Washington has a spending problem” — House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the expenditures. The Ohio Republican angrily responded that if the Department of Justice won’t defend the law of the land, Congress will.

Your tax dollars at work!

There's a reason I make a point of mispronouncing his name in the most childish way possible.

Oh, don't worry, that's not an actual spending increase, since apparently the funds were raided from the DoJ's salary budget. That's the line of defense, anyway.

Those salaries, I'm certain, will not have to be recouped somehow else, actually ending up in a real spending increase. Nope.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

So if that's the definition of marriage used for millennia, can someone tell me for how long that's been the definition of "consummate"?

Bloo Driver wrote:

Oh, don't worry, that's not an actual spending increase, since apparently the funds were raided from the DoJ's salary budget. That's the line of defense, anyway.

Those salaries, I'm certain, will not have to be recouped somehow else, actually ending up in a real spending increase. Nope.

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

RoughneckGeek wrote:

I think that ship has sailed. ;)

You just had to bring up seamen... guilty by association!

Rezzy wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:

I think that ship has sailed. ;)

You just had to bring up seamen... guilty by association!

RNG? Association.. umm...

Phoenix Rev wrote:

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

This is so sig-able.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

I think that ship has sailed. ;)

Quite. *grin*

January 1st is World Peace Day.

And what would World Peace Day be without a missive from the Bishop of Rome to let us know about peace and justice?

Probably better, considering this little gem in the middle of his letter to those seeking peace and justice:

There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union; such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.

These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity. The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation. Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace.

Perhaps I was asleep that day in Justice and Peace Studies in seminary, but I am fairly confident that there is absolutely not one scintilla of evidence that my marriage to Rubb Ed brings serious harm to justice or peace. In fact, I would claim that it actually promotes justice and peace.

But I have to give the pontiff credit for his statement.

After all, who better to lecture us on justice and peace than someone who aided and abetted one of the largest pedophile protection rackets in history?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

So if that's the definition of marriage used for millennia, can someone tell me for how long that's been the definition of "consummate"?

According to Catholic canon law, consummation is an act suitable to produce offspring. Given her background I am pretty certain that is where she would be getting her definition. And it's no use arguing about it with her - Since it's written in canon law, no other interpretations or definitions would be allowable, basically.

imbiginjapan wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

So if that's the definition of marriage used for millennia, can someone tell me for how long that's been the definition of "consummate"?

According to Catholic canon law, consummation is an act suitable to produce offspring. Given her background I am pretty certain that is where she would be getting her definition. And it's no use arguing about it with her - Since it's written in canon law, no other interpretations or definitions would be allowable, basically.

Nice find!

So... those guys who bone a bridesmaid before the reception (i.e. before he and his new wife can consumate their marriage) are in the clear?

More seriously... what about a couple who is physically incapable of having kids. Their intimate act is one that doesn't lead to having children. Are they also incapable of consumating their marriage?

Demosthenes wrote:

So... those guys who bone a bridesmaid before the reception (i.e. before he and his new wife can consumate their marriage) are in the clear?

More seriously... what about a couple who is physically incapable of having kids. Their intimate act is one that doesn't lead to having children. Are they also incapable of consumating their marriage?

Following up on imbiginjapan's post, I learned that while infertility is not a bar to consummation, impotence is. So that kinda sucks if you got your junk blown off in Iraq by an IED before you got married and had the chance for P-in-the-V sex.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

So... those guys who bone a bridesmaid before the reception (i.e. before he and his new wife can consumate their marriage) are in the clear?

More seriously... what about a couple who is physically incapable of having kids. Their intimate act is one that doesn't lead to having children. Are they also incapable of consumating their marriage?

Following up on imbiginjapan's post, I learned that while infertility is not a bar to consummation, impotence is. So that kinda sucks if you got your junk blown off in Iraq by an IED before you got married and had the chance for P-in-the-V sex.

Back in the 1980s, a Catholic couple in England were prohibited by the their parish priest from getting married in the Church because the husband was a paraplegic and could not consummate the marriage. They appealed to the Bishop who also denied them the right to marry in the church. They ultimately appealed to the Vatican who went to great lengths to "educate" the couple about the importance of consummation but they finally granted their appeal and let the couple marry in the Church.

A similar incident happened in Brazil in the mid-90s and was the focus of a film made for the Sundance channel entitled "Forbidden Wedding." (In that case, the Vatican did not grant the appeal.)

BTW, here is the canonical citations on it:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

After all, who better to lecture us on justice and peace than someone who aided and abetted one of the largest pedophile protection rackets in history?

Of course he did - that would be bad publicity, and the church is all about the bottom line, really. Hence the family resemblance below:
IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/0b3bf71b75c2f0f6fc214fe89ed3c7d2/tumblr_mf5baqTnj01rpw5gqo1_500.jpg)

The pope is Benedict Shimerman?

Heh! I'll note that Quark's hand was photoshopped in for comedic effect.

It's been a busy day on the marriage equality front, so let's get started.

First, to Montana where that state's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that gays and lesbians do not have a case to claim they are being treated unequally unless they actually have some real-time discrimination against them... or something. It is a bizarre ruling that told the couples suing to wait until they actually are harmed in the specific sense (i.e. fired from a job for being gay or being denied visitation rights in a hospital) instead of being victims of general animus. In other words, just because you don't have equal rights doesn't mean you are actually suffering anything.

Ooookay.

In a blistering 119-page dissent, Justice James Nelson, who will be retiring next month, pretty much told the majority to shove it:

There are many who believe that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens; that they are morally inferior; that they are objects worthy of societal scorn, derision, and hatred; that they may be reviled and demonized on the floor of the Legislature with impunity; that they may be discriminated against by local governments; that they may be bullied in their schools and workplaces; and that they are not entitled to the same rights accorded to heterosexuals. Such views parallel those held by many—even the United States Supreme Court—regarding racial minorities and women a century ago. . . . We legitimize those similar, pernicious views about gays and lesbians when, as the Court does today, we abrogate our solemn obligation to declare and uphold the constitutional rights of all Montanans—especially those among us who have been subjected to majoritarian and state-imposed hatred and discrimination.

My abiding belief is that no person—no human being—in our society should be reviled, demonized, and discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, any more than they should be treated in that fashion for being Native American, Presbyterian, female, disabled, poor, or Irish. No person should be the object of state-sanctioned bigotry simply for being born homosexual or for choosing to love another person of the same sex. No person should be made to suffer the deprivation of their civil rights and liberties because of the religious beliefs and doctrines of others—doctrines that are now constitutionalized in the Marriage Amendment and enforced by Montana’s government. And no person should be stripped of her or his inviolable human dignity based on sexual orientation. Ever!

Hear, hear!

Next up, Rhode Island.

This is an interesting turn of events. The President of the Rhode Island Senate, a Democrat, is a staunch opponent of marriage equality and had refused to allow a vote on marriage equality to come to the floor. However, she has said that if the Rhode Island House of Representatives passes a marriage equality bill, she will allow a committee to hear it and allow it to the floor.

Rhode Island is the only state left in New England that does not allow gay marriage. However, if couples from Rhode Island get legally married in another state, Rhode Island will recognize their marriage.

Gov. Lincoln Chaffee has stated that he supports marriage equality and will sign the bill the minute it hits his desk.

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

When you claim to be the only true path to peace and happiness, it's bad for business if people figure out how to get there without following your rules.

Stengah wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

When you claim to be the only true path to peace and happiness, it's bad for business if people figure out how to get there without following your rules.

...can't believe I never thought of it that way. Genius!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

Always glad to hear my marriage is invalid because of my vasectomy. In other news, the Pope is now on Twitter (@pontifex), presumably because Twitter is 6.

We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

I'm confused. Is the pope comparing supporting equal rights to socialism/communism? Did the pope really come out with a statement saying social equality is bad? Is the pope really against the idea of "chase"ing after a utopia where all people are treated equally regardless of who they are? Wow. Dumbass. Isn't there a line in the bible that we are all equal before the eyes of god?

EDIT:

Always glad to hear my marriage is invalid because of my vasectomy. In other news, the Pope is now on Twitter (@pontifex), presumably because Twitter is 6.

Heyooooooooooo!

*double take*

*double double take*

Wha?

This can't be right.

On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a "marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state" -- the latter being acceptable.

"I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with," he said, noting that the debate's dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. "It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."

Welcome to the new reality, Newt. Glad you recognized it.

:Shock:

Newt's going rogue!

It was inevitable that a GOP politician would eventually wake up and smell the polling numbers.

And what a better time to rail against same-sex marriage than in a Christmas address to the faithful:

At his annual Christmas speech to the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI called same-sex marriage a “manipulation of nature” to be deplored and an attack on the “essence of the human creature.”

It was the second time this week that Benedict took aim at marriage equality:

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.

Says the man who took a vow of celibacy and, you know, denied his nature and decided that it is not something previously given to him.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And what a better time to rail against same-sex marriage than in a Christmas address to the faithful:

At his annual Christmas speech to the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI called same-sex marriage a “manipulation of nature” to be deplored and an attack on the “essence of the human creature.”

It was the second time this week that Benedict took aim at marriage equality:

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.

Says the man who took a vow of celibacy and, you know, denied his nature and decided that it is not something previously given to him.

So, on the day the Catholic Church celebrates Christ and all his glory, he spends a chunk of his address talking about something that Jesus himself had nothing to say on. Does he understand most people probably listened to this to get some good Christmas stories and not his new hellfire topic of the month?