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

That's cool Dave Attell posts here. He waited 2 weeks to post too, so his link will work. Smart guy.

Edit: sh*t, tannhausered.

I was so sad when my brother got engaged and then married his long time girlfriend, because up until that point I could very easily get away with "my brother's partner, Chris". Now I have to say "wife" I guess...

bnpederson wrote:

I was so sad when my brother got engaged and then married his long time girlfriend, because up until that point I could very easily get away with "my brother's partner, Chris". Now I have to say "wife" I guess...

He he he... Marvelous.

"My brother's spouse, Chris".

Update from SCOTUS - Again, no gay marriage orders

"It now appears that those cases will be rescheduled for the Conference this Friday."

Was a spam post removed or something? 'cause I'm not understanding the Dave Attell comments :S

Trachalio wrote:

Was a spam post removed or something? 'cause I'm not understanding the Dave Attell comments :S

Yup. Gay porn spam.

Stengah wrote:
Trachalio wrote:

Was a spam post removed or something? 'cause I'm not understanding the Dave Attell comments :S

Yup. Gay porn spam.

Under the account hilariously named "daveattell"

So, how long can the Court keep punting this back down to the states? Until their ruling would be moot? I assume that's what they're doing, right?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Trachalio wrote:

Was a spam post removed or something? 'cause I'm not understanding the Dave Attell comments :S

Yup. Gay porn spam.

Under the account hilariously named "daveattell"

So, how long can the Court keep punting this back down to the states? Until their ruling would be moot? I assume that's what they're doing, right?

I expect them to not pick up Prop8 at all and instead pick a DOMA case. A favorable ruling on DOMA could allow states to continue to recognize or not recognize same sex marriage.

My opinion has always been, the federal Republicans want to make it a state issue, as they believed that those groups that are Democrat, but against gay marraige as a matter of religion would win out against those "few" who want it to pass...

Up until it starts to pass. Now I'm sure many Republicans will be scrambling to make it a national issue.

Some people just gotta be brought into the future (note: for civil rights, really should be saying the modern world) kicking and screaming.

At 12:01 AM this morning, the great State of Washington began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Due to the Washington State three-day waiting period, the first marriages can take place on Sunday.

Congratulations to our friends in the Evergreen State!!

A hard-earned victory to be sure!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

At 12:01 AM this morning, the great State of Washington began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Due to the Washington State three-day waiting period, the first marriages can take place on Sunday.

Congratulations to our friends in the Evergreen State!!

A hard-earned victory to be sure!

I love that they opened at 12:01 so they didn't have to wait a minute longer than legally necessary.

Happy December 6! It's official Get Gay-Married and Smoke Weed Day here.

I have at least a couple of Washington friends on FB who got or are getting their licenses. I'm thrilled for them.

Nice photo gallery of the King County courthouse in the Seattle Times.

Full of happy couples, a few politicians, and a LAN administrator.

IMAGE(http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2012/12/06/2019842678.jpg)

My god! Can't you see how allowing gays to marry is just destroying families? I mean just look at the horror on the faces of these seven adopted kids.

OG_slinger wrote:

IMAGE(http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2012/12/06/2019842678.jpg)

My god! Can't you see how allowing gays to marry is just destroying families? I mean just look at the horror on the faces of these seven adopted kids.

Well the one all the way on the left does look a bit like a young Steve Buscemi...poor little guy.

A tie, blazer, and jeans? Blegh. Well so much for all gay couples being fashion sensible. And those orange pants?

KingGorilla wrote:

A tie, blazer, and jeans? Blegh. Well so much for all gay couples being fashion sensible. And those orange pants?

Gay men are known for having fashion sense. Lesbians? Not so much. I go out of my way to dispel that stereotype. Today I look like a Lesbian mom dressed me.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

A tie, blazer, and jeans? Blegh. Well so much for all gay couples being fashion sensible. And those orange pants?

Gay men are known for having fashion sense. Lesbians? Not so much. I go out of my way to dispel that stereotype. Today I look like a Lesbian mom dressed me.

Me too Rough..... me too

Mixolyde wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

IMAGE(http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2012/12/06/2019842678.jpg)

My god! Can't you see how allowing gays to marry is just destroying families? I mean just look at the horror on the faces of these seven adopted kids.

Well the one all the way on the left does look a bit like a young Steve Buscemi...poor little guy.

I was thinking more like a strung out MacCully Culkin.... well... a more strung... you know what, never mind, Steve it is.

It's one thing to have convictions.

It's quite another to dishonestly use your convictions in order to get your way.

Today, as I noted above, Washington State started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Maryland also started issuing those licenses as well.

And, right out of the gate, we have a business owner in Maryland whining up a storm because he can't discriminate against gay couples who want to buy services from that business (the business rents trolley cars for transportation during special events like weddings).

"The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don’t have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don’t count for anything," Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs wrote in an email.

The email was provided to Patch by Chris Belkot on Nov. 29. He received it from Grubbs after Belkot inquired about using the company's wedding services this spring.

Grubbs confirmed the email, and said his attorney advised him to shut down the wedding part of his business immediately because he could be sued for refusing services to same-sex couples.

"We’re a Christian-owned company, and we just can't support gay marriages," Grubbs said. "We're not trying to make a statement. We're not trying to make a point. We're just trying to be faithful Christians."

The decision will cost him approximately $50,000 a year in revenue.

And it's all completely dishonest.

Grubbs was not allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples even before the election on Nov. 6 that approved gay marriage in Maryland.

Maryland has had, for some time, a law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation. Grubbs, of course, knew that, but continued his business anyway.

Now that gay marriage is a reality in Maryland, it has provided dishonest hacks like Grubbs a new scapegoat and he can wear his religion on his sleeves and cry his crocodile tears about how oppressed he is.

I just wonder what Grubbs' so-called "Christian convictions" say about renting his trolleys to divorced people.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just wonder what Grubbs' so-called "Christian convictions" say about renting his trolleys to divorced people.

...and adulterers, and usurers, and non-Christians, and people who have paid for abortions...

Damn, his background check system must put the DHS to shame.

The decision will cost him approximately $50,000 a year in revenue.

...

Wow, we actually found someone in the wedding industry who opposes making money off this.

Well color me impressed that someone that stupid exists! Ten bucks says he would be up at arms if a wedding cake place owned by Muslims refused to make a cake for him because he's Christian. I mean, that person would also only not be baking for him based on his own religious beliefs.

EDIT: Not to mention shooting himself in the foot with any socially liberal straight couples who will hear about this in the area thanks to his idiocy in loudly proclaiming it. Can we officially call this "pulling a Chik'Fil'A" now?

I have come to the conclusion that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) officially endorses lying as a Christian virtue.

Yet again, NOM blatantly lies about ministers being forced to perform same-sex marriages. This time, it concerns military chaplains.

From NOM:

Senators Roger Wicker and James Inhofe have introduced these provisions in the Senate as a stand-alone bill, the “Military Religious Freedom Act of 2012,” but the Senate leadership has blocked their efforts every step of the way.

But even if the Senate never votes on the Wicker/Inhofe bill, we can still protect the Defense of Marriage Act and the religious liberty of our military chaplains, who could otherwise be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies as part of their official duties.

We have one chance, but we need to take action immediately.

The Department of Defense has very strict guidelines that say very clearly that no military chaplain can be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, but that a military chaplain can perform a same-sex wedding where it is legal.

The Military Religious Freedom Act would have prevented any military chaplain from performing a same-sex marriage, even by those military chaplains who wanted to perform such a ceremony.

Only in the insane little minds of the people at NOM does "military religious freedom" mean preventing a chaplain from performing a same-sex marriage if he or she wishes.

Clearly the Ten Commandments from are just suggestions... while those lines from Leviticus that were not even quotes from Jesus (who last I heard, was supposed to be pretty important to the relgion, but who knows anymore) are completely required and if even a single letter is not followed, BAM! Hell.

Also, where the hell is all this "religious freedom" stuff coming from? Allowing someone to interpret Christianity as being nice to gays = the devil. Not letting Christians from using their religion as a bludgeon on the rest of the population of this country = persecution?

Demosthenes wrote:

Clearly the Ten Commandments from are just suggestions... while those lines from Leviticus that were not even quotes from Jesus (who last I heard, was supposed to be pretty important to the relgion, but who knows anymore) are completely required and if even a single letter is not followed, BAM! Hell.

Also, where the hell is all this "religious freedom" stuff coming from? Allowing someone to interpret Christianity as being nice to gays = the devil. Not letting Christians from using their religion as a bludgeon on the rest of the population of this country = persecution?

For about 1700 years, Christianity's been the winners, while at the same time their story's been about their persecution, from the crucifixion to the Romans tossing people into the lion pits. There's a major cognitive break between those two things that looks very ugly from the outside.

Does he rent to gay graduation ceremonies or gay birthdays? Look chump, every Jewish Deli I have been to in my life sells ham, and will put mayo on your sandwich. You can shut the f*ck up.

I am not sure if the tour cars are the same as typical public accommodations like hotels or restaurants. He might be able to get away with it. Maryland could also make it so that he loses his business license over discrimination, methinks.

I've been to several Muslim owned businesses that serve alcohol. I even ate steak at a place owned by Hindus.

Devil's advocate: they're not saying that no one should do it, they're saying they're forced to. Which is wrong, but examples of other people going against their religion for business purposes don't really make a different.