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

Eh, they heard that eventually letting gay's marry will mean that they can marry cattle.

OG_slinger wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

From our fiscally conservative friends in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives...

House Republican leaders have signed on to spend up to $3 million to keep defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, according to a copy of their newly revised legal contract obtained by The Huffington Post.

Your tax dollars at work.

Thank God they are the fiscal conservatives.

I guess.

It's actually much worse than that. The original allocation of funds to defend DOMA was a mere $500,000. House Republicans tripled that in late 2011 to $1.5 million and now they've doubled it again.

Good on you for demonstrating how to reduce spending to control the deficit, House Republicans.

KingGorilla wrote:

Eh, they heard that eventually letting gay's marry will mean that they can marry cattle.

Same-sex cattle, or just opposite-sex cattle, as God intended?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Eh, they heard that eventually letting gay's marry will mean that they can marry cattle.

Same-sex cattle, or just opposite-sex cattle, as God intended?

What a man does with his chattel is his busin-

... er, sorry, almost skirted actual biblical passages there.

Jonman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

And that moment when you have to re-read an article several time to let it sink in...

Bi-partisan marriage equality bill introduced in... Wyoming.

Wyoming.

If passed, it would make Wyoming more progressive on gay marriage than California, Oregon, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Illinois.

Wyoming.

Operative words bolded. I'm going to save my faint for when it passes.

Knowing Wyoming as I do, even with those operative words, I'm pretty aghast. If it were Idaho, my head would have exploded.

Yeah, the fact that this is even under consideration at all is pretty wild. Wyoming, peeps.

clover wrote:

Yeah, the fact that this is even under consideration at all is pretty wild. Wyoming, peeps.

I forgot this state existed, actually.

Demosthenes wrote:
clover wrote:

Yeah, the fact that this is even under consideration at all is pretty wild. Wyoming, peeps.

I forgot this state existed, actually.

I still am not convinced it does.

KingGorilla wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
clover wrote:

Yeah, the fact that this is even under consideration at all is pretty wild. Wyoming, peeps.

I forgot this state existed, actually.

I still am not convinced it does.

But if it passes, they will have my respect, if they do in fact exist to receive it.

WTF. What next; you guys are going to tell me that Idaho is real and people actually live there?!

KingGorilla wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
clover wrote:

Yeah, the fact that this is even under consideration at all is pretty wild. Wyoming, peeps.

I forgot this state existed, actually.

I still am not convinced it does.

I thought "Wyoming" was a Native American word for "No state here."

I can not think of single place in Wyoming aside from Jackson Hole and Devil's Tower. Are there actually any cities there?

Evanston, known as the place where...uh...some people from Utah go to grab Fat Tire beer and slip it back over the border. Terrible people. Certainly no one I know.

Evanston is a Chicago suburb, that seems like a far trek from Utah.

Nevin73 wrote:

I can not think of single place in Wyoming aside from Jackson Hole and Devil's Tower. Are there actually any cities there?

...define "city".

Anyone from Wyoming who hears this discussion is going to be deeply offended by you people. Of course, at only 5.85 people/square mile, you might have to yell really, really hard for one of them to be able to hear you.

FWIW, my dad actually worked in Wyoming for the last year, and said it was a great place, lots of nice people where he was. And no, I don't remember where he worked.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

...at only 5.85 people/square mile...

Farscry wrote:

FWIW, my dad actually worked in Wyoming for the last year, and said it was a great place, lots of nice people where he was.

...and none whatsoever in the rest of the state...

Nevin73 wrote:

I can not think of single place in Wyoming aside from Jackson Hole and Devil's Tower. Are there actually any cities there?

Well, there's Laramie and it's wonderful reputation for being gay friendly.

Jackson Hole isn't a city, it's a vast collection of art galleries at the base of several ski slopes.

Good grief, what a douche. He can't give a straight answer to save his career, apparently.

You have to feel sad for Maryland Delegate Sam Arora.

Despite running on a pro-marriage equality platform, accepting money from marriage equality groups and co-sponsoring a marriage equality bill in the Maryland Assembly, he turned around at the last minute and voted against his own bill and never once gave a reason for his sudden about face.

Now that Maryland has marriage equality, one would think that Arora would finally come clean on the issue of why he sold out those who put him in office and took their money.

One would think.

Alas, Arora still can't bring himself to provide an explanation. Instead, he thinks that since gays can now marry in Maryland, it's time to move on and forget his turncoat ways.

See it for yourself:

No, Sam. People aren't going to forget and you aren't getting any money for your re-election campaign from those who supported you in the past.

But perhaps Maggie Gallagher can come to the rescue for you.

I am sure the two of you will have plenty to talk about.

If I recall, much of Wyoming politics is that old school conservatism of hard work mixed with staying the hell out of others' private lives. Seems marriage equality is a pretty natural ft there.

Today, the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to send a marriage equality bill to the House floor. Prospects are very good for full passage in the House, but a bit more problematic in the RI Senate.

Still, a very good sign.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is representing the US House of Representatives in the Prop. 8 trial, filed its opening brief with the SCOTUS.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Probably a little of both.

Two of the notable takeaways are that 1) Congress meant no animus toward gay people by passing DOMA, and 2) it's all about procreation, deary.

As for #1, it is laughable on its face. DOMA is filled to the brim with animus. It says that gay people are not worthy of federal recognition of their marriages that are legal in one or more of the states. Only a dishonest hack would believe otherwise.

For #2, here is the part of the brief that should be insulting to everyone:

Congress recognized the basic biological fact that only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Congress sought to encourage the raising of such children by both their biological parents in a stable family structure.

Isn't that lovely? Human biology does what human biology is supposed to do, but let's punish the gays because straight people are shacking up and having babies outside of wedlock.

And this is what the taxpayers have spent $3 million (and growing) on in defense of keeping the filthy gays away from marriage.

Ah, so that's why they're anti-Planned Parenthood. They prefer unplanned pregnancies!

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Congress recognized the basic biological fact that only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Congress sought to encourage the raising of such children by both their biological parents in a stable family structure.

Isn't that lovely? Human biology does what human biology is supposed to do, but let's punish the gays because straight people are shacking up and having babies outside of wedlock.

And this is what the taxpayers have spent $3 million (and growing) on in defense of keeping the filthy gays away from marriage.

This is perfect! Now that birth control is free to all women we can dismantle the entire institution of marriage!

Yonder wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Congress recognized the basic biological fact that only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Congress sought to encourage the raising of such children by both their biological parents in a stable family structure.

Isn't that lovely? Human biology does what human biology is supposed to do, but let's punish the gays because straight people are shacking up and having babies outside of wedlock.

And this is what the taxpayers have spent $3 million (and growing) on in defense of keeping the filthy gays away from marriage.

This is perfect! Now that birth control is free to all women we can dismantle the entire institution of marriage!

I am totally OK with (A) birth control being free to all women and (B) totally dismantling the entire institution of "marriage" as we know it. They're all civil unions, and if you want to call it a fancy-pants "marriage", get yourself to a church and do your little ceremony.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I am totally OK with (A) birth control being free to all women and (B) totally dismantling the entire institution of "marriage" as we know it. They're all civil unions, and if you want to call it a fancy-pants "marriage", get yourself to a church and do your little ceremony.

In my experience, most of them aren't all that civil, either.

BA-DUMP TISH!

/me will be here all week.