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

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

37!?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

37!?

Try not to commit any crimes against nature on the way to the parking lot!

muttonchop wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

37!?

Try not to commit any crimes against nature on the way to the parking lot!

I'm sorry, none of you are expressing yourselves monosyllabically enough for me to understand.

I love how the virulently anti-abortion people are also against the best way of preventing babies in the first place: putting it somewhere else!

Two couples getting married in the Pottstown area of PA (outside of Philadelphia) as the Register of Wills bucks the state:

The licenses were issued a day after Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes said he would grant them to gay couples because he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

The ACLU is also fighting the law through normal legal channels.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7688587264/h02309717/)

A part of me genuinely wonders how that might lower the resale value. Like how does a gay hand print stack up to a spotty service history?

Man, that "we want a mommy and a daddy" sticker is so stupid.

KingGorilla wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7688587264/h02309717/)

A part of me genuinely wonders how that might lower the resale value. Like how does a gay hand print stack up to a spotty service history?

I would have put the Demos in my pants on the car for maximum effect. Probably on the door handle.

KingGorilla wrote:

A part of me genuinely wonders how that might lower the resale value. Like how does a gay hand print stack up to a spotty service history?

More importantly, doesn't teh gay touch completely void that DoD vehicle registration tag?

McIrishJihad wrote:

Man, that "we want a mommy and a daddy" sticker is so stupid.

The part that is really annoying me is that "and" is capitalized.

obirano wrote:
McIrishJihad wrote:

Man, that "we want a mommy and a daddy" sticker is so stupid.

The part that is really annoying me is that "and" is capitalized.

Well, when you hit enter in a word processor, it usually thinks you're starting a new sentence and auto-capitalizes for you.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Two couples getting married in the Pottstown area of PA (outside of Philadelphia) as the Register of Wills bucks the state:

The licenses were issued a day after Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes said he would grant them to gay couples because he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

The ACLU is also fighting the law through normal legal channels.

As much as I support gay marriage, I'm against this. This is the same thing as the nutjobs who refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples where it is legal because of their religious beliefs. You aren't elected to that position to promote your ideals; your job is to process legal paperwork.

I wholeheartedly support where he's coming from, but yeah, those marriage licenses will be declared invalid the second someone challenges them.

A few posts late, but PhoenixRev, my thoughts are with both you and RubbEd. I'm not sure what I can do for you two all the way from Ohio, but whatever I can, just ask.

On another note, the Dictionary of Dictionaries, the Oxford English dictionary, is changing the definition of marriage.

So, San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg is either a huge liar or one of the biggest concern trolls of the year:

Dronenburg, who appeared at the end of the event, said his intention was to protect same-sex couples from the possible disappointment of having their marriages voided if a future court decision affirms the validity of Prop. 8.

“I asked for a stay because I believe it’s cruel to set up people,” he said.

Yeah, Ernest. I am sure you did this just because your heart was filled with the love of Jehovah with not a whit of animus toward gay people.

Yeah.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

Two couples getting married in the Pottstown area of PA (outside of Philadelphia) as the Register of Wills bucks the state:

The licenses were issued a day after Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes said he would grant them to gay couples because he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

The ACLU is also fighting the law through normal legal channels.

As much as I support gay marriage, I'm against this. This is the same thing as the nutjobs who refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples where it is legal because of their religious beliefs. You aren't elected to that position to promote your ideals; your job is to process legal paperwork.

But it isn't quite the same thing.

In one case you have a clerk denying a couple a marriage license they are legally able to obtain because of the clerk's religious beliefs. In this scenario, couples are being granted licenses because their state constitution and federal law says it's illegal to discriminate against them.

While I see your distinction, in my mind it smacks of the same type of hypocrisy that we are always pointing out in the conservatives. They are illegal marriages and amounts to a county clerk operating on what he thinks the law should be.

The big story today is the investigative news piece coming out of Baton Rouge where it has been uncovered that since 2011, the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office has arrested a dozen gay men for... agreeing to consensual gay sex.

An undercover East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff’s deputy was staking out Manchac Park about 10 a.m. one day this month when a slow-moving sedan pulling into the parking lot caught his attention. The deputy parked alongside the 65-year-old driver and, after denying being a cop, began a casual conversation that was electronically monitored by a backup team nearby.

As the two men moved their chat to a picnic table, the deputy propositioned his target with “some drinks and some fun” back at his place, later inquiring whether the man had any condoms, according to court records. After following the deputy to a nearby apartment, the man was handcuffed and booked into Parish Prison on a single count of attempted crime against nature.

There had been no sex-for-money deal between the two. The men did not agree to have sex in the park, a public place. And the count against the man was based on a part of Louisiana’s anti-sodomy law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago.

The District Attorney refuses to prosecute, but the local sheriff says the laws are on the books and until the Louisiana Legislature removes them, he has an obligation to enforce them, no matter what the SCOTUS says:

Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, denied that investigators had been misapplying the anti-sodomy law, which remains among the state’s criminal statutes.

“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Hicks said. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”

Gee, I am sure that nice Mr. Cuccinelli running for governor of Virginia would never use that state's anti-sodomy law against gay people (even married ones). Why, that just doesn't happen!

Ever!

That is up to the courts to decide? They... did? In fact the highest court decided.

Both a civil rights travesty... and I would argue a criminal misuse of police time and money (thus taxpayer money as well). I would love to be there during the next election cycle to find out how much money this has cost for cases that won't be prosecuted and why that time (I am assuming for Vice?) wasn't used fighting drugs instead.

Also sounds like entrapment.

IMAGE(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/shameful-dawn.jpg)

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

In case any frequents to this thread missed it... Phoenix in the hospital thread.

It makes me livid that in addition to the trauma of a health scare that RubbEd and PhoenixRev are faced with the additional hurdle of navigating institutionalized homophobia (since AZ doesn't recognize gay marriage).

Dimmerswitch wrote:

It makes me livid that in addition to the trauma of a health scare that RubbEd and PhoenixRev are faced with the additional hurdle of navigating institutionalized homophobia (since AZ doesn't recognize gay marriage).

I told Rubb to tell us visitation rights aren't recognized there. We will internet hulk that hospital.

I didn't get the chance to mention it prior to this, but it does appear that the specific hospital IS gay-friendly, so I don't think I'd have to put up a fight with them for visitation or any such. However, it doesn't mean I wouldn't bring my documentation with me or something silly like that. I'm not that dumb, trust me.

Edwin wrote:

:lol:

IMAGE(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/shameful-dawn.jpg)

...I would read the sh*t outta that. But then again, I am a huge fan of http://wtfbadromancecovers.tumblr.com/.

Amoebic wrote:

...I would read the sh*t outta that. But then again, I am a huge fan of http://wtfbadromancecovers.tumblr.com/.

Even though Scalia [em]is[/em] a noted writer of fantasy, I think his writing style might be a little too dried up to really do justice to the subject matter.

I know where he lives, kinda nearby in fact. I may have to send him a cookie bouquet.

I'm sure most of you are aware of PhoenixRev's health issues. If you'd like to help him and RubbEd have one less thing to worry about, please consider paypaling something over to redbearca (at) gmail dawt com. That's RubbEd's paypal account. This wasn't their idea, I talked them into it.

I've been talking to some people and we're coming up with some ideas to do fundraising that's a little more ornate but in the meantime, there are plan tickets to purchase and bills to pay. Please consider helping out. Thanks, all.

I don't even know where to begin with this. I am so disgusted with NPR right now that for the first time ever, I will be filing a grievance with their Ombudsman.

On yesterday's edition of NPR's "All Things Considered," they did a piece on John Arthur and Jim Obergefell, the gay married couple in Ohio that got a federal restraining order to prevent Ohio from listing John as "unmarried" on his death certificate when he dies in the coming weeks due to ALS. Boht Gov. Kasich and AG DeWine have decided not to challenge the order because it applies only to John and Jim. However, that wasn't a good enough story for NPR.

After discussing the bare facts of the case, NPR then had two very anti-gay blowhards talk about the case. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council and John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage were asked to opine on the restraining order. Gee, who would have thought that they would have been against it and were clutching their pearls over it all.

PETER SPRIGG: It may be a sort of bait and switch. I think the courts will have to twist themselves into knots, taking the argument that the federal government has to recognize the policy choices of the state and then turning that into precedent for saying that states are not permitted to make their own policy choices to begin with. I don't see the logic in that.

JOHN EASTMAN: The Supreme Court said that the states are supposed to be the primary place where marriage policy is set, and this judge has just replaced Ohio's policy with his own.

What NPR didn't tell it's listeners is that Sprigg has gone on the record stating that sodomy laws should be put back on the books and homosexuality re-criminalized and gays imprisoned for their crimes. Additionally, Sprigg wants all gay American citizens to be physically expelled from the republic as a matter of public policy (same link).

Eastman, for his part, has called homosexuality "barbarism," believes that any government that approves of same-sex marriage should be abolished, and believes that anti-sodomy laws are good for the nation. (You can read about his various positions here.)

There is no instance, no scenario, no case where Sprigg or Eastman would ever entertain the idea of a man being allowed to list another man on his death certificate as his husband, even in a simple act of compassion such as in the instance of John Arthur who will be dead within several weeks due to ALS. These two men are wickedly evil.

Meanwhile, I have no idea why NPR was thinking. Sprigg and Eastman have nothing to offer to the discussion except the same anti-gay rhetoric we have heard until we are all sick to death. NPR, I am sure, will justify its position by stating that they were just presenting an opposing viewpoint. That is garbage. The question is whether or not a dying man should be granted his wish to have the truth listed on his death certificate.

This is the truth: John Arthur is married to Jim Obergefell whether the State of Ohio recognizes it or not. The State of Ohio could pass a state constitutional amendment stating that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East and that won't make it true.

NPR's position is extremely bad journalism. In its effort to look "fair," it comes across as looking desperate. If they really want to look "fair" then they have no reason to deny a seat at the mic for a representative of the Flat Earth Society to talk about how the communications satellite being launched to orbit the Earth is a fraud. Also deserving a seat is the guy from the Creationist Museum to tell us that the recent discover of a galaxy 11.5 billion light years away is just a test from God because the entire universe is only 6,000 years old.

This is just shockingly awful coverage by NPR. I have no idea why the producer allowed this piece to progress, but their listeners and Jim and John in particular deserve a sincere, honest and heartfelt apology for including the likes of two horrible human beings like Sprigg and Eastman in this piece.