http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/-1/LIFE04
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html?_r=2&hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57749.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-13/washington-state-gay-marriage-law/53079236/1
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-20120302,0,998081.story
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/11/06/maine-voters-approve-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/02/180647841/rhode-island-house-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/delaware-gay-marriage/2142703/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/minnesota-gay-marriage-legal-_n_3275484.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california/2013/06/26/87ddb4d0-d9ac-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/18/us-usa-gaymarriage-newjersey-idUSBRE99H0VB20131018
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/governor-signs-bill-to-legalize-gay-marriage-in-hawaii/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/illinois-gay-marriage-bil_1_n_4312368.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/new-mexico-becomes-17th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/20/federal-judge-rules-utahs-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/michigan-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-is-struck-down.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/2014/05/09/93a6a8cc-d7c5-11e3-8f7d-7786660fff7c_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/14/us-usa-idaho-gaymarriage-idUSBREA4D00Y20140514
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/19/same-sex-marriage-oregon/9291377/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/20/federal-judge-overturns-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ban/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Iowa
Vermont
New Hampshire
Washington,DC
New York
Washington State
Maryland
Maine
Rhode Island
Delaware
Minnesota
California
New Jersey
Hawaii
Illinois
New Mexico
Utah
Michigan
Arkansas
Idaho
Oregon
Pennsylvania
All Others
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 States & DC Down. akudood;
(http://i.imgur.com/Ajt2K9h.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)
Cool. I'm surprised that California wouldn't do it but a religious state like Iowa would.
Quote from: Zach on April 03, 2009, 08:05:55 AM
Cool. I'm surprised that California wouldn't do it but a religious state like Iowa would.
California voted to ban it after the mormontards funneled money into the state for prop 8.
Iowa's supreme court made this decision so the fucktard bigots can't really violate the laws about churches keeping out of politics to keep their tax exempt status.
Heeheehee... giggle;
Very good.
Quote from: Veal on April 03, 2009, 09:03:38 AM
well this is unsettling
Oh, it's likely to come to you.
No worries. I'll be there to comfort you.
Quote from: ACTION BASTARD! on April 03, 2009, 09:06:20 AM
Oh, it's likely to come to you.
No worries. I'll be there to comfort you.
i meant you, not gay marriage.
Quote from: Veal on April 03, 2009, 09:10:01 AM
i meant you, not gay marriage.
OoOOOOooooOooOoOoOoh.
Well, if a heterosexual couple can get married and be MISERABLE for the rest of their lives, why not me? giggle;
For some reason, I'm guessing there will be many chants about sodomy when we play the hawkeyes this year goonish
Quote from: YPR on April 03, 2009, 09:11:39 AM
For some reason, I'm guessing there will be many chants about sodomy when we play the hawkeyes this year goonish
oh god i hope so
Finally. hocuspocus;
now hopefully the rest of the country will soon follow
Quote from: YPR on April 03, 2009, 09:11:39 AM
For some reason, I'm guessing there will be many chants about sodomy when we play the hawkeyes this year goonish
i might actually watch big ten football this year
Some kid got really mad this morning in my English teacher's first period about it. n_u
Though, I'm pretty sure that if we didn't have an assembly during advisory today it would probably have been more interesting.
Quote from: ra-ˈkün on April 03, 2009, 08:17:54 AM
Iowa's supreme court made this decision so the fucktard bigots can't really violate the laws about churches keeping out of politics to keep their tax exempt status.
The Republicans in the Iowa General Assembly have already said that they plan to introduce a constitutional amendment for the 2010 legislative session. It'll just take a lot longer for it to get to around to as we're not an initiative state.
me86 are you out yet
Quote from: Det in Fâ,,¯ Major on April 03, 2009, 02:41:23 PM
why not
what reason would he have to do that?
i doubt high school would be very easy if people knew he was gay
Everyone learn from me...
...wait until you're out of school. :(
Quote from: im on a boat on April 03, 2009, 02:54:34 PM
what reason would he have to do that?
i doubt high school would be very easy if people knew he was gay
uh
nobody gives a shit about sexual orientation at my school
Quote from: Det in Fâ,,¯ Major on April 03, 2009, 03:40:55 PM
uh
nobody gives a shit about sexual orientation at my school
Same.
same but well this is the north lol.
tyler lives in the magical south though me86 is in the north too
Down here, they think God has something to do with anything. n_u
This is great. It's a small step, but we're getting there. I'll be happier when my home state, California, finally turns itself around after the retarded prop 8 ordeal.
Quote from: ra-ˈkün on April 03, 2009, 04:09:14 PM
same but well this is the north lol.
My Pennsylvanian high school wouldn't be so fine with it
Quote from: YPR on April 03, 2009, 05:21:54 PM
My Pennsylvanian high school wouldn't be so fine with it
You also only had dial up so you were in the bad part. akudood;
Quote from: ra-ˈkün on April 03, 2009, 05:26:47 PM
You also only had dial up so you were in the bad part. akudood;
Most people in my district have some form of high speed internet akudood;
Quote from: YPR on April 03, 2009, 05:28:41 PM
Most people in my district have some form of high speed internet akudood;
Yet they never even saw happy homos akudood;
Quote from: ra-ˈkün on April 03, 2009, 05:30:05 PM
Yet they never even saw happy homos akudood;
because they make homos miserable akudood;
Wow, your origin sucks Aubrey.
Makes me want to say you're the same. akudood;
Quote from: ACTION BASTARD! on April 03, 2009, 07:00:08 PM
Wow, your origin sucks Aubrey.
Sorry, not all of us can be shipped out of Krypton at the last minute. akudood;
Quote from: ACTION BASTARD! on April 03, 2009, 07:00:08 PM
Makes me want to say you're the same. akudood;
The same as what huhdoodame;
Quote from: YPR on April 03, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
Sorry, not all of us can be shipped out of Krypton at the last minute. akudood;
Oh yeah, as if you're any Superman. akudood;
Quote from: YPR on April 03, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
The same as what huhdoodame;
Your people. akudood;
Quote from: ACTION BASTARD! on April 03, 2009, 07:06:52 PM
Oh yeah, as if you're any Superman. akudood;
That was my point akudood;
Quote from: ACTION BASTARD! on April 03, 2009, 07:06:52 PM
Your people. akudood;
I'm nice to gay people and I don't believe in white supremacy baddood;
most people at my school say they don't care if someones gay.
but then they turn around and say shit about them when they walk by and what not.
It will be all 50 states eventually.
My school is sort of split. There are the obnoxious people who support "the gays" (but at least they are supporting) and then the people who think it is disgusting.
Uh, I live in Arkansas. I think that is all you need to know.
Kind of surprising, but the civil unions bill was shot down in Hawaii. akudood;
legalize it
don't criminalize it
I realized how stupid it sounds that something like marriage has to be legalized.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016
okay baddood;
Quote from: ra-ˈkün on April 07, 2009, 09:56:23 AM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016
okay baddood;
Not surprising.
And they need to get their own page design. baddood;
Quote from: Emperor LXXXVI on April 07, 2009, 02:00:37 PM
Not surprising.
And they need to get their own page design. baddood;
a lot of paperrs use the same company for their sites akudood;
Quote from: ra-ˈkün on April 07, 2009, 02:03:03 PM
a lot of paperrs use the same company for their sites akudood;
i know :[
yes
I think Rhode Island is next. akudood;
That's good.
http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-gay-marriage-rally-040909,0,4148393.story
http://www.kcci.com/cnn-news/19131429/detail.html
Oh yay. ^_^
my honest opinion is that it should be legalized everywhere and religions should just stop worrying about it.
they aren't going to stop anyone from being gay.
everyone should just be able to live their lives and be happy.
how can you stop people from loving?
Quote from: lacette on April 09, 2009, 06:08:22 PM
how can you stop people from loving?
by letting them get married ZING akudood;
Quote from: guff on April 09, 2009, 06:55:00 PM
by letting them get married ZING akudood;
lmfao oh my.
Quote from: guff on April 09, 2009, 06:55:00 PM
by letting them get married ZING akudood;
you are a regular jackie gleason guff
Quote from: Rahkün on April 06, 2009, 01:33:52 PM
I realized how stupid it sounds that something like marriage has to be legalized.
I think marriage as a legalized institution should be rid of altogether. People who actually want children (whether to adopt or to make them) should be tested to see if they meet basic requirements that demonstrate they are capable (psychologically and financially) of raising kids. Of course this would mean making huge changes to the legal system, but I think society would be better off.
Maine legalized it today. baddood;
Oh, and the House of Representatives in NH approved the bill.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82799.asp
It seems to be down for me though.
http://gayrights.change.org/blog?category_id=35365
Quote from: ,µÎ© on May 06, 2009, 04:26:27 PM
Oh, and the House of Representatives in NH approved the bill.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82799.asp
It seems to be down for me though.
http://gayrights.change.org/blog?category_id=35365
Also the federal government might have to pick the issue up if DC decides to recognise same-sex marriages from other places and then later decide to leaglise it there as well. baddood;
Though I can see congress killing it in a heartbeat.
Quote from: divaD on May 06, 2009, 04:54:30 PM
Also the federal government might have to pick the issue up if DC decides to recognise same-sex marriages from other places and then later decide to leaglise it there as well. baddood;
Though I can see congress killing it in a heartbeat.
Didn't DC vote to recognize them?
I also don't see congress killing it that quickly. If enough Dems that are higher up support it, the rest will follow and they have a majority.
Quote from: µΩ on May 06, 2009, 05:29:28 PM
Didn't DC vote to recognize them?
I also don't see congress killing it that quickly. If enough Dems that are higher up support it, the rest will follow and they have a majority.
Yes.
And perhaps, but I could imagine that the Democrats closer to the centre wouldn't be too eager to get on board. Though I could be way off, I know at least four of my state's congressmen would vote against it most likely though.
complete and utter bullshit y/n
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85458351849&ref=mf
Hey det:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=a1c835ab048aebea9f94f54e1a0f6801&gid=2204465246&ref=search
Quote from: Hïro on May 24, 2009, 12:43:44 PM
Hey det:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=a1c835ab048aebea9f94f54e1a0f6801&gid=2204465246&ref=search
i KNEW it >:(
Quote from: Hïro on May 24, 2009, 12:43:44 PM
Hey det:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=a1c835ab048aebea9f94f54e1a0f6801&gid=2204465246&ref=search
Dinosaurs must have been pretty smart to be able to see into the future like that. baddood;
Quote from: Canard Diapason Funambule on May 24, 2009, 01:52:13 PM
Dinosaurs must have been pretty smart to be able to see into the future like that. baddood;
It was gay dino marriage.
Also, uh I don't think NH has acted upon its bill yet and NY is waiting for idk
Quote from: Crazy Fucking Raccoon on May 24, 2009, 01:58:01 PM
It was gay dino marriage.
Also, uh I don't think NH has acted upon its bill yet and NY is waiting for idk
I thought it passed the State Assembly but is getting hold up in the Senate because it's pretty much a fifty-fifty split and then there are the Democrats who don't support it, or am I wrong?
Um, well the Supreme Court of California decided to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage, but allow ones already performed to remain. befuddlement
Quote from: Canard Diapason Funambule on May 26, 2009, 10:17:57 AM
Um, well the Supreme Court of California decided to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage, but allow ones already performed to remain. befuddlement
dumb
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html?_r=2&hp
New Hampshire has now legalized same-sex marriage.
I'm glad these things are happening
Still waiting for New York to pass the legislation in, I think, the house.
I remember hearing NJ has something similar. I'm going to guess the next 3 states are NY, NJ, and RI. The latter being the only New England state without it.
also lol:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg)
i don't think svgs work with img tags jim akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 03, 2009, 09:48:10 PM
i don't think svgs work with img tags jim akudood;
They do on Safari which is all that matters.
that makes no sense to me but one day I will get married maybe
We're the lone outlier. n_u
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html
It seems Maine repealed it.
Quote from: ДавиÌд on November 03, 2009, 10:16:29 PM
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html
It seems Maine repealed it.
wow
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 12:50:07 AM
wow
will of the people
however,
[spoiler]this is a little peculiar,
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side â,"will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.â,[/spoiler]
Quote from: Socks on November 04, 2009, 01:37:38 AM
however,
[spoiler]this is a little peculiar,
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”[/spoiler]
The issue is because the church and its funders probably brought in out of state resources.
see: Mormon Church and California.
It's not the will of the people when illegal conduct is taking place. It's illegal for a church(as it is tax exempt) to push its political agenda the way it did.
If the church wants to give up its tax exemption then it can lead its sheep all it wants.
edit: also
QuoteWe don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic REPUBLIC. We use democratic processes, but have a constitution and bill of rights in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. A subtle but important difference.
why do you hate america?
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:55:03 AM
The issue is because the church and its funders probably brought in out of state resources.
it's a vote jmv, about an unambiguous topic, "out of state resources" are not going to change perception of that issue.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:55:03 AM
see: Mormon Church and California.
see: more votes against legal gay marriage than in favor of
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:55:03 AM
It's not the will of the people when illegal conduct is taking place.
come on, don't throw cluster fuck statements like this around. the people decide what's legal and what is not, simple, just by prevailing attitude. there is no list which shot out from the big bang's snatch that lists illegal and legal practices, i even hate using those words. it is because of this flimsy and arbitrary nature of the social binding order that I have begun more and more to act in a manner which conforms to the immediate senses and not to something which conflicts with that.
now, if you want to essentially burn bridges a la Thoreau and Whitman style, go ahead. you can criticize the masses all you want, spread doubt in the processes, seek justice for your beliefs, and validate your sense of being. however, do not try to make sense of the established order of things by choosing to explain this result as an anomaly, and improper, when in fact, it is neither.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:55:03 AM
why do you hate america?
you're an idiot. NOTHING in the Constitution is above being amended, thus above CHANGE. So, if a majority of the nation decided they want the President to be the man who can throw a rock the furthest, it can happen. every judicial and police body would have to then obey that... no matter how ridiculous you may find such a thing.
the supreme court has yet to say that this course of events is unconstitutional for gay citizens, leaving the issue up to the states and the people. even if they were to say such a thing, a constitutional amendment essentially telling them to STFU and reversing course is, theoretically, possible
how can you even consider the issue separate of Hobbes social contract?
Quote from: Socks on November 04, 2009, 02:39:23 AM
it's a vote jmv, about an unambiguous topic, "out of state resources" are not going to change perception of that issue.
If you have people who aren't really residents of maine voting in maine it does change the perception of that issue. That's what the person was implying.
Quotesee: more votes against legal gay marriage than in favor of
But not solely from residents of Maine.
If the Taliban poured resources and propaganda into a candidate in the US it doesn't somehow make him legitmate.
Quotecome on, don't throw cluster fuck statements like this around. the people decide what's legal and what is not, simple, just by prevailing attitude.
Clusterfuck statement? I'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious. The support by their churches telling them to vote against it had a lot to do with it
QuoteWhere is no list which shot out from the big bang's snatch that lists illegal and legal practices, i even hate using those words. it is because of this flimsy and arbitrary nature of the social binding order that I have begun more and more to act in a manner which conforms to the immediate senses and not to something which conflicts with that.
Uh, the IRS prohibits such conduct by non-profit organizations. The church classifies itself as one and uses that to gain tax exemption. doodhuh;
Quotenow, if you want to essentially burn bridges a la Thoreau and Whitman style, go ahead. you can criticize the masses all you want, spread doubt in the processes, seek justice for your beliefs, and validate your sense of being. however, do not try to make sense of the established order of things by choosing to explain this result as an anomaly, and improper, when in fact, it is neither.
How many times was the catholic church mentioned in that article. It's improper for them to endorse political motives when they are claiming tax exemption.
The church can either take its moronic base and start paying taxes or it can stop injecting itself into politics in violation of IRS policy.
Quoteyou're an idiot. NOTHING in the Constitution is above being amended, thus above CHANGE. So, if a majority of the nation decided they want the President to be the man who can throw a rock the furthest, it can happen. every judicial and police body would have to then obey that... no matter how ridiculous you may find such a thing.
Then how did Bush win? And 65% of the senators would have to support such, not the people.
Quotethe supreme court has yet to say that this course of events is unconstitutional for gay citizens, leaving the issue up to the states and the people. even if they were to say such a thing, a constitutional amendment essentially telling them to STFU and reversing course is, theoretically, possible
cjlubdoods;
Quotehow can you even consider the issue separate of Hobbes social contract?
How can you even defend depriving someone of their civil rights under the guise of religion?
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:55:03 AMIt's illegal for a church(as it is tax exempt) to push its political agenda the way it did.
When did that bill pass?
Quote from: Title on November 04, 2009, 06:01:40 AM
When did that bill pass?
@_@
Quote
Section 501(c)(3) organisations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities.
Quote501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organisations
It's okay, when you're a bigot you don't need facts.
So fuck both of you.
ok watch him ignore the fact that the law exists and pull out an ad hominem instead of maybe admitting that he didn't know something though i doubt that would happen because he needs to oppose liberalism.
Furthermore, I really want to know how this is defensible to either one of you since you don't even have the "lol skydaddy told me to" excuse.
also 100 years ago what else was supported by "the majority":
-Women can't vote
-Segregation
-Lynching of blacks
-Mistreatment of Immigrants (hi socks. the majority says you have to work in unfair conditions lol)
Protip: Just because "the majority" vote says something doesn't mean shit when "the majority" is voting with their ignorance and bigotry.
unless you guys agree that somehow it was okay to segregate blacks then but now. just let me know what changed that suddenly made it ok
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 08:15:37 AM
-Mistreatment of Immigrants (hi socks. the majority says you have to work in unfair conditions lol)
Also, no immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, Amurica's for good whites only
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 02:56:03 AM
If you have people who aren't really residents of maine voting in maine it does change the perception of that issue. That's what the person was implying.
prove it. Bush won, twice.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 02:56:03 AM
Clusterfuck statement? I'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious. The support by their churches telling them to vote against it had a lot to do with it
what makes you think I was even remotely interested in what motivated people to chose the way they did? this adds nothing to the discussion nor does it serve to strengthen your point. it is irrelevant why people voted the way they did, all that matters it that most Maine voters, for the time being, do not support making gay marriage legal. this is an inescapable fact that you're trying to conveniently ignore with your rants on religion, the tax status of churches, etc... as if it is important.
even if the RCC had to pay taxes, the result would not have been different. all that would change is you feeling perhaps a little glee about the fact that the RCC had one of it's privileges taken away.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 02:56:03 AM
And 65% of the senators would have to support such, not the people.
this is hypothetical James. if the issue was that polarizing and pressing, they would be voted out.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 02:56:03 AM
How can you even defend depriving someone of their civil rights under the guise of religion?
first,
I am not depriving anyone of anything. second,
I do not see the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights violation. third,
I do not give a damn under what guise those people voted under,
I can only speak for myself. so let me assure you, religion plays 0 role in my views. there is no need to either be a religious zealot or a platonic droid open to anything, even your brains falling out. i'm a man, inspired and influenced by many things, a product of my world. as such, i have no shame about my convictions.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 08:07:01 AM
Furthermore, I really want to know how this is defensible to either one of you since you don't even have the "lol skydaddy told me to" excuse.
once again i was never interested in defending anything, so i have nothing to explain on that end, much less to you. i was merely responding to your unwarranted astonishment and in a way taking preemptive action to the cries of foul that i was sure would come.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 08:15:37 AM
Protip: Just because "the majority" vote says something doesn't mean shit when "the majority" is voting with their ignorance and bigotry.
nothing means shit dude. the sun rises and sets, the world goes round and round. however, when you live in a society as ours, majority views do have sway. it's just hard for you to accept that a majority of people do not agree with your way of thinking. that will likely change. but you're trying to insist there is some universal truth here, some unquestionable moral aspect, some more righteous path... and that you have it and others don't. pardon me, but i have half a good mind to bust out laughing here. you're lucky the romantic in me still has some sway.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 08:15:37 AM
unless you guys agree that somehow it was okay to segregate blacks then but now. just let me know what changed that suddenly made it ok
it was OK for the people back then. that's all that frankly matters. social views change like the wind with each generation. who's to say something we hold today as a model and beacon of humanity won't be regarded in the future, by those that think even more highly of themselves, as a foolish endeavor. you're trying to deal in absolutes about something that's as fluid and subjective as it gets.
JMV, this is the only parts where the mention the church
QuoteThe Yes on 1 campaign, led by the group Stand for Marriage Maine, built its lead by winning votes in rural Maine as well as in some larger towns such as the Roman Catholic and Franco-American stronghold of Lewiston.
Quoteâ,"We went up against tremendous odds,â, Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland who has been on loan to the campaign, said from Portland. â,"We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed. We prevailed because the people of Maine â,” the silent majority â,” the folks back home spoke with their votes.
So considering the information above, the article is just telling us that Roman Catholic towns tended to favor Yes on 1 Campaign and Marc Mutty is a Roman Catholic who campaigned against gay marriage.
QuoteI'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious. The support by their churches telling them to vote against it had a lot to do with it
Well considering the 53 percent to 47 percent vote, I'm sure there were religious people on both sides. So you must think every single nonreligious people supports gay marriage.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 08:15:37 AM
also 100 years ago what else was supported by "the majority":
-Women can't vote
-Segregation
-Lynching of blacks
-Mistreatment of Immigrants (hi socks. the majority says you have to work in unfair conditions lol)
Protip: Just because "the majority" vote says something doesn't mean shit when "the majority" is voting with their ignorance and bigotry.
unless you guys agree that somehow it was okay to segregate blacks then but now. just let me know what changed that suddenly made it ok
Socks make the point clear.
Quoteit was OK for the people back then. that's all that frankly matters. social views change like the wind with each generation. who's to say something we hold today as a model and beacon of humanity won't be regarded in the future, by those that think even more highly of themselves, as a foolish endeavor. you're trying to deal in absolutes about something that's as fluid and subjective as it gets.
It is very easy now to point out the social wrongdoings of the past. However, you must understand the view of the people.
Quote from: Socks on November 04, 2009, 09:33:30 AM
prove it. Bush won, twice.
Prove what? That people not from Maine voting will skew the results of a poll?
That doesn't look like winning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000)
Quotewhat makes you think I was even remotely interested in what motivated people to chose the way they did?
Because you don't care the issue doesn't exit?
Quotethis adds nothing to the discussion nor does it serve to strengthen your point. it is irrelevant why people voted the way they did, all that matters it that most Maine voters, for the time being, do not support making gay marriage legal. this is an inescapable fact that you're trying to conveniently ignore with your rants on religion, the tax status of churches, etc... as if it is important.
Uh it was religion that was the largest supporter of banning it. doodhuh;
Quoteeven if the RCC had to pay taxes, the result would not have been different. all that would change is you feeling perhaps a little glee about the fact that the RCC had one of it's privileges taken away.
If it had followed the law on its tax exemption it wouldn't be pushing its political goals.
Quotethis is hypothetical James. if the issue was that polarizing and pressing, they would be voted out.
65% voted out? I think not.
Quotefirst, I am not depriving anyone of anything.
I never said
you were
Quotesecond, I do not see the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights violation.
Equality under the law?
Quotethird, I do not give a damn under what guise those people voted under, I can only speak for myself. so let me assure you, religion plays 0 role in my views.
I don't care about
your views(except when I asked what argument you had). It's the fact the the views in this situation are religiously motivated.
Quotethere is no need to either be a religious zealot or a platonic droid open to anything, even your brains falling out. i'm a man, inspired and influenced by many things, a product of my world. as such, i have no shame about my convictions.
Because supporting equality and religious Freedom (because you know, not every religion is against homosexuality) is which of those?
Quoteonce again i was never interested in defending anything, so i have nothing to explain on that end, much less to you. i was merely responding to your unwarranted astonishment and in a way taking preemptive action to the cries of foul that i was sure would come.
You don't like gay people.
Quotenothing means shit dude. the sun rises and sets, the world goes round and round. however, when you live in a society as ours, majority views do have sway. it's just hard for you to accept that a majority of people do not agree with your way of thinking. that will likely change. but you're trying to insist there is some universal truth here, some unquestionable moral aspect, some more righteous path... and that you have it and others don't. pardon me, but i have half a good mind to bust out laughing here. you're lucky the romantic in me still has some sway.
"Tyranny of the majority" Does that mean anything to you?
I don't get why Title isn't on that either since it's a huge part in Libertarian views. If he really is "a libertarian" and not just some moron who bashes someone for liberalism then he would also see the problem with creating laws to restrict the actions of others.
Quote
it was OK for the people back then. that's all that frankly matters. social views change like the wind with each generation. who's to say something we hold today as a model and beacon of humanity won't be regarded in the future, by those that think even more highly of themselves, as a foolish endeavor. you're trying to deal in absolutes about something that's as fluid and subjective as it gets.
How the hell was that OK?
It was regarded as socially acceptable, but that was never OK.
Really, did you just argue that since society supported racism it was okay?
Quote from: WILD4WII1 on November 04, 2009, 09:54:09 AM
JMV, this is the only parts where the mention the churchSo considering the information above, the article is just telling us that Roman Catholic towns tended to favor Yes on 1 Campaign and Marc Mutty is a Roman Catholic who campaigned against gay marriage.
It was church groups that supported such.
QuoteWell considering the 53 percent to 47 percent vote, I'm sure there were religious people on both sides.
I never claimed otherwise.
Considering that atheists don't make up anything close to 47% of the population that should be a given fact. doodhuh;
Most people who voted for the law != most religious people voted for the law
QuoteSo you must think every single nonreligious people supports gay marriage.
Generally, a larger percent do since the most common arguments regarding such are religiously motivated.
Quote
Socks make the point clear.
That it's okay to be a bigot if the majority thinks it's ok?
QuoteIt is very easy now to point out the social wrongdoings of the past. However, you must understand the view of the people.
It's just as easy to point out a social wrongdoing currently. I don't give a shit about the view of the people. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to get one.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 10:07:13 AM
It was church groups that supported such.
I never claimed otherwise.
Isn't everyone entitled to their opinions?
QuoteConsidering that atheists don't make up anything close to 47% of the population that should be a given fact. doodhuh;
I know. They are 17% of Maine's population.
QuoteMost people who voted for the law != most religious people voted for the law
QuoteI'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious.
I don't know why but I see two conflicting statements. doodhuh; I'm probably just missing something blatantly obvious. lol
QuoteThat it's okay to be a bigot if the majority thinks it's ok?
To compare it to other social issues, to fully understand what happened prior to the Civil War, you have to put yourself in the mindset of the southern plantation owners. They viewed slaves as property. That was the social norm. To most white people in the south it was normal. By today's standards, it is a ridiculous idea. Society's social views change all the time. In the future, gay marriages will most likely be allowed. However, in today's society, it isn't normal and the majority doesn't want it. Everyone has different, conflicting opinions.
QuoteIt's just as easy to point out a social wrongdoing currently. I don't give a shit about the view of the people. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to get one.
Well in this country, the view of the people is what happens, whether if you agree with it or not. Unfortunately, it isn't always a good thing.
Ok I can't quote your bullshit since I'm in my car
every INDIVIDUAL is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to legally enforcing it upon others. And groups LIKE THE CHURCH are banned from getting involved with such politically due to their taxation status.
And you are missing something. Read it again. They support not contradict eachother.
And I still fail to see the argument that just because something is supported by mass bigotry it is a valid and okay thing
I disagree with religion but I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with extreme promiscuity. I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with raw foodism but I wouldn't ban that either
I CAN just use my opinion and not exercise those rights without touching anyone elses
Ok cars are moving brb
Who gives a shit, the vote is over. Like it or not people voted for it to be repealed. You can construe conspiracy theories as to why this happened, but the fact of the matter is that it happened, and that's that until a new proposition pops up to re-legalize gay marriage.
Think the gay and lesbian residents of Maine give a shit that they aren't regarded as equals under the law
the term conspiracy theory implies something was hidden. The church was open about it's opposition to such
oh mister title changer learn the difference between stalinism and socialism. your insults would make a lot more sense.
i'm going to assume it was title since he seems to throw around terms like that which is funny becuase he is unaware of irs regulations.
WHY DO THOSE QUEER-O-SEXUALS EVEN WANNA MARRY ANYWAY
Shut up Travis.
Quote from: Travis on November 04, 2009, 11:47:24 AM
WHY DO THOSE QUEER-O-SEXUALS EVEN WANNA MARRY ANYWAY
idklol
But "who gives a shit" when the law doesn't affect me n_u
Now if it was a law denying the right of x to Muslims or ordering the deportation of Albanians I'm sure certain people (including me) would give a shit and realize that the protection of the minority from the Majority is important
Or Socks since you brought up a hypothetical: If the majority voted to strip the rights of all people from Albania or to deport them would you support such and give up the rights or agree to be deported or would you be disgusted by such?
Bolded for Socks to see because I want an answer.
Title, RDX, Socks: have you ever seen the look of happiness on homosexual's face when their state finally recognizes them as equals? I have. There were a few lesbian Californians here when prop 8 passed. The reaction they had was awful. Their equality under the law had just been voted away.
If you've experienced either you'd see why I care about this. I'm pretty sure none of you three, as well as I, (well RDX is a muslim--not trying to be insulting, being factual--so he'd experienced it to a degree I suppose) could imagine how it feels to be treated as a second rate citizen where, because of a way you were born, you do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. Where it's seen as a legitimate view that you're "an abomination". Ask any of the gay members here or one you go to school or work with if they think they should be second-rate citizens.
It's not about religion in particular, I've already said a large number of religious people voted against it. My mentioning of the church was its
illegal injection of itself into politics to push its own agenda. Here is a source of it happening in the past. Spoiler I'll make it a right wing source to appeal to title and his boner for propaganda http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125408,00.html
if that article is tl;dr, it involves the church's threat to excommunicate Kerry during the 2004 election for his view on abortion.
When you have people raised to believe that the church is the only way to heaven and the church is telling, or at least heavily implying, you to vote against gay marriage you sure as hell know a large number would vote against it. Yes, a large number of people to oppose the ban, but it was still less than half.
I'm not even saying all of the votes were direct interference from the church, but even 10-20% of those votes would have changed the result.
Quote from: Travis on November 04, 2009, 12:19:18 PM
Take a joke, TYLER
"Serious Discussion
No screwing around here."
Trust me. I love a good joke more than anyone.
(See: the McCain/Palin campaign)
Satire is allowed if it's srs bzns
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 12:20:28 PM
Now if it was a law denying the right of x to Muslims or ordering the deportation of Albanians I'm sure certain people (including me) would give a shit and realize that the protection of the minority from the Majority is important
you're muddying up the issue. gays are not being denied "protection", nor are they being denied a civil right. now, on that latter point, by default, the highest court agrees with this. i don't mention that to give creditability to my position, i mention it to highlight that you are your own source for that bit of comparison and claim.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 12:20:28 PM
Or Socks since you brought up a hypothetical: If the majority voted to strip the rights of all people from Albania or to deport them would you support such and give up the rights or agree to be deported or would you be disgusted by such?
Bolded for Socks to see because I want an answer.
well since you asked, hypothetically, of course i would not support such, nor would i enjoy it. and you, and anyone else who care to do so, can be just as disgusted by the Main result. i never said you have to like it or not criticize it. However, would i (in the case you brought up) have any grounds to claim (solely on the process) that a decision reached in such a manner is invalid? NOPE.
i would consider it unjust and likely not comply with it, and
i would be prepared for the full ramifications of my refusal to follow society's say. it essentially means that i would no longer be able to live within the normal bounds of the social contract to which i was formally a member of. so i can bitch and moan all i want but at the end of the day i can either live as a fugitive or go find another place more accepting. in the meantime, as in this case, all efforts to try and reverse the decision are be welcomed.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 12:20:28 PM
I'm not even saying all of the votes were direct interference from the church, but even 10-20% of those votes would have changed the result.
we get it, you want to eradicate religion.
so for the last time, how would lifting the tax exempt status of all religious institutions in America have changed the results of the Main vote? IT WOULD NOT. inferring from your post, only eliminating all religious institutions and banning all 'religious' beliefs could do that.
Quote from: Socks on November 04, 2009, 01:01:00 PM
you're muddying up the issue. gays are not being denied "protection", nor are they being denied a civil right. now, on that latter point, by default, the highest court agrees with this. i don't mention that to give creditability to my position, i mention it to highlight that you are your own source for that bit of comparison and claim.
Marriage provides insurance, tax, and several other benefits. Denying the right to marriage to homosexuals denies them those benefits. Denying a class of people benefits provided to another class is violating their civil rights.
Quotei would consider it unjust
Exactly. I never said the vote was invalid. The closest I said to that was that the conduct of one of its biggest funders was engaged in illegal activity
Quotewe get it, you want to eradicate religion.
Uh, where did you get that from 10-20% of the voters who were directly manipulated by the church would make a difference == eradicating religion?
See:
QuoteI disagree with religion but I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with extreme promiscuity. I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with raw foodism but I wouldn't ban that either
I CAN just use my opinion and not exercise those rights without touching anyone elses
Quoteso for the last time, how would lifting the tax exempt status of all religious institutions in America have changed the results of the Main vote? IT WOULD NOT. inferring from your post, only eliminating all religious institutions and banning all 'religious' beliefs could do that.
I didn't say it would. I'm saying that the current conduct is illegal and actually enforcing such would either:
a.)At least shut them up with their bigotry
b.)Punish them for their violation of the law and open a new revenue stream. If they're a tax paying institution then they can delve into politics all they want--they pay taxes.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:11:17 PM
Denying a class of people benefits provided to another class is violating their civil rights.
we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as i don't view marriage as a right for all regardless of circumstance. i see it more as a government mediated service subject to a state's voters.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:11:17 PM
Exactly. I never said the vote was invalid.
So we agree everyone that has an unfavorable decision placed upon them has a right to dislike it? Ok, glad we established that.
Quote from: JMV on November 04, 2009, 01:11:17 PM
See:I didn't say it would.
your desire to remove religious affiliated decision making is evident though
Quote from: Socks on November 04, 2009, 01:44:54 PM
we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as i don't view marriage as a right for all regardless of circumstance. i see it more as a government mediated service subject to a state's voters.
yeah that really isn't going to go anywhere
personally, I agree with Joe Biden and don't think the government should have a role in marriage at all (Meaning marriage is a religious ceremony with no rights itself and civil unions should be available to everyone)
QuoteSo we agree everyone that has an unfavorable decision placed upon them has a right to dislike it? Ok, glad we established that.
And people that are affiliated with such too. madood;
Quote
your desire to remove religious affiliated decision making is evident though
When under threats of damnation yes. But I'm also against corporations threatening or scaring their employees to support something.
I don't think fear should force votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html?_r=1&hp
ffffffff
My stance on gay marriage is as follows:
Marriage is not a right, and therefore is not within the realm of civil rights. The government shouldn't even be involved with marriage, and federal legislation concerning marriage is unconstitutional anyway since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over marriage, leaving it to the states. If individual states vote to legalize gay marriage, then that's fine, even though I find it morally reprehensible.
Quote from: Zach on December 03, 2009, 04:01:22 PM
My stance on gay marriage is as follows:
Marriage is not a right, and therefore is not within the realm of civil rights. The government shouldn't even be involved with marriage, and federal legislation concerning marriage is unconstitutional anyway since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over marriage, leaving it to the states. If individual states vote to legalize gay marriage, then that's fine, even though I find it morally reprehensible.
Once there are legal benefits to marriage(taxes, visitation in hospitals, adoption, etc) it becomes a civil right.
You can't give one group an opportunity for protections but exclude another.
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 04:08:17 PM
Once there are legal benefits to marriage(taxes, visitation in hospitals, adoption, etc) it becomes a civil right.
i must be missing my fuzzy lobe because i only get a 'lol wat' response to that
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 04:08:17 PM
You can't give one group an opportunity for protections but exclude another.
vague, vague, vague, general, general. general, obscure, obscure, obscure, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, subjective, subjective, subjective, moral, moral, moral,
Quote from: Socks on December 03, 2009, 04:40:01 PM
i must be missing my fuzzy lobe because i only get a 'lol wat' response to that
It's not that hard to read. doodhuh;
There are tax incentives to marriage.
There are insurance benefits related to marriage
There are adoption related issues related to marriage
There is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on marriage.
You agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, according to your vote in that other poll, so denying equal protections that the person did not choose to give up violates civil rights.
Quotevague, vague, vague, general, general. general, obscure, obscure, obscure, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, subjective, subjective, subjective, moral, moral, moral,
How is that vague, general, obscure, or subjective? And there are laws to enforce that "moral".
The problem is that marriage should either be opened to 2 consenting adults, regardless of sexuality, or that it should carry no legal significance and be a private matter up to individual churches leaving civil unions as a legal gateway to those benefits open to all.
I get that you don't agree with homosexuality or gay marriage but that isn't the issue, Socks. Don't pretend you can't read and just post "lol words words hurrrrrrrrr" and ignore the fact that you allowing your bigotry to deny a class of people equality under the law.
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
The problem is that marriage should either be opened to 2 consenting adults
Why limit it to adults?
Quote from: Pancake Persona on December 03, 2009, 10:50:00 PM
Why limit it to adults?
Uh well technically you can get married at 14 in some states but if you're arguing that children should be able to marry then you're being stupid.
Minors cannot enter into a contract, which marriage is. Children are not fully developed physically or mentally. It would only serve to allow pedophiles a legal excuse to fuck children: "BUT SHE'S MY WIFE". Mormons and muslims have shown a tendency towards childfucking, with the latter greatly abusing such in countries where it's legal.
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 11:54:49 PM
Minors cannot enter into a contract
I was just being silly but technically minors can enter contracts, but only contracts of nominal value.
buying food involves a contract, and i do believe kids are allowed to buy lunches at school and are required to fulfill certain duties in class as well
But yes I think only stable minded adults should be allowed to marry, and gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.
I think marriages should be a purely religious ceremony and not officially recognized by the state, while civil unions are allowed for heteros and homos and have all the benefits a marriage currently has.
A church can choose not to marry someone if they choose, but the government shouldn't be allowed to deny gays something because of their sexuality.
Quote from: Hïro on December 04, 2009, 08:35:29 AM
I think marriages should be a purely religious ceremony
why does everyone say this
Atheists have been getting married for thousands of years.
Quote from: Pancake Persona on December 04, 2009, 09:11:27 AM
why does everyone say this
Atheists have been getting married for thousands of years.
I didn't say they
are purely religious, I said they
should be.
My grandma has the funniest view on gay marriage. She thinks gay marriage should be illegal, as marriage should be between a man and a woman, but they should be allowed to have civil unions. He reasoning is that at a wedding, somebody has to wear a dress and one person has to wear a tux, and that guys don't look right in dresses, nor girls in tuxedos.
Quote from: Hïro on December 04, 2009, 09:25:55 AM
I didn't say they are purely religious, I said they should be.
why should they be when atheists have been allowed to get married since the dawn of time
Quote from: Pancake Persona on December 04, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
why should they be when atheists have been allowed to get married since the dawn of time
civil unionSame thing, just a different word and without religious connotations baddood;
Quote from: Hïro on December 04, 2009, 09:44:14 AM
civil union
Same thing, just a different word and without religious connotations baddood;
why remove rights people have had forever
Quote from: Pancake Persona on December 04, 2009, 09:45:45 AM
why remove rights people have had forever
uh what lol
call it marriage if you want I don't care lol
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
It's not that hard to read. doodhuh;
how dare you,
sirQuote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
There are tax incentives to marriage.
there are tax incentives to own a business (owning a business is NOT a civil right)
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
There are insurance benefits related to marriage
there are insurance benefits related to being a good driver (to be considered a good driver is NOT a civil right)
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
There are adoption related issues related to marriage
there are coverage related issues related to being healthy (to be healthy is NOT a civil right)
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
There is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on marriage.
there is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on you being above the age of 62, but not dead (to be above the age of 62, but not dead, is NOT a civil right)
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
You agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, according to your vote in that other poll, so denying equal protections that the person did not choose to give up violates civil rights.
marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil liberty, BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, HUGE. because it is a civil liberty, and thus open to greater and varying definition/restriction, the people of the society that the person did not choose to give up made their definition of marriage and who is eligible for it, law. as such, there is essentially nothing to discuss as far as that goes. and so your fuzzy logic is still relatively fuzzy in relation to fuzzyness
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
How is that vague, general, obscure, or subjective?
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
You can't give one group an opportunity for protections but exclude another.
doodthing;
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
I get that you don't agree with homosexuality or gay marriage but that isn't the issue, Socks.
yes it is the issue. and i happen to agree with murder and letting felons vote.
Quote from: JMV on December 03, 2009, 10:25:17 PM
Don't pretend you can't read and just post "lol words words hurrrrrrrrr" and ignore the fact that you allowing your bigotry to deny a class of people equality under the law.
i can read perfectly well. but i will not acknowledge vague bullshit that seeks to generalize and find some compelling argument in the goodness and fairness of things to impose some false sense of universal understanding and agreement.
also, the law is what decides if a class of people are or were wronged. in this case it is the law itself that is authorizing a denial of service for homosexuals toward marriage. so really, as far as the law is concerned, everything is hunky dory.
Quote from: Socks on December 04, 2009, 03:59:57 PM
there are tax incentives to own a business (owning a business is NOT a civil right)
I'm pretty sure they don't discriminate based on who can own a business either.
Quotethere are insurance benefits related to being a good driver (to be considered a good driver is NOT a civil right)
I'm talking about carrying a policy. You can carry your spouse on your policy. If you are gay and you can't marry you have to carry two policies for a household. Furthermore, a good driver can be white, black, gay, straight, male, female, muslim, christian, republican, or democrat. There is no discrimination, just risk assessment.
Quotethere are coverage related issues related to being healthy (to be healthy is NOT a civil right)
Read above.
Quotethere is quite a bit of stuff that is dependent on you being above the age of 62, but not dead (to be above the age of 62, but not dead, is NOT a civil right)
Yet that is available to everyone who needs such and doesn't discriminate against a class of people.
Quotemarriage is not a civil right, it is a civil liberty, BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, HUGE. because it is a civil liberty, and thus open to greater and varying definition/restriction, the people of the society that the person did not choose to give up made their definition of marriage and who is eligible for it, law. as such, there is essentially nothing to discuss as far as that goes. and so your fuzzy logic is still relatively fuzzy in relation to fuzzyness
Civil rights include:
Ensuring peoples' physical integrity and safety and to make sure people were not forced into labor.
Protection from discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)
Equal access to health care, education, culture, etc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
The rights are listed in the UDHR which the US adopted.
Quotedoodthing;
Are you slow?
There is nothing vague or obscure about that.
Quoteyes it is the issue.
"i hate fags so they don't deserve equality under the law"
Quoteand i happen to agree with murder and letting felons vote.
you agree with murder but not a woman's right to choose.
and ok i think felons should have the right to vote too, they're american citizens. i'd think being born here makes them more eligible for such than SOME people.
Quotei can read perfectly well. but i will not acknowledge vague bullshit that seeks to generalize and find some compelling argument in the goodness and fairness of things to impose some false sense of universal understanding and agreement.
Except that it wasn't vague and it was pretty specific.
Quotealso, the law is what decides if a class of people are or were wronged. in this case it is the law itself that is authorizing a denial of service for homosexuals toward marriage. so really, as far as the law is concerned, everything is hunky dory.
Except that anti-discrimination laws and certain protections of equality are more important and/or in the constitution.
Quote from: Hïro on December 04, 2009, 09:44:14 AM
civil union
Same thing, just a different word and without religious connotations baddood;
They aren't the same thing.
It's clear this is a hard conversation to follow for some.
Quote from: Thyler on December 05, 2009, 06:12:06 AM
It's clear this is a hard conversation to follow for some.
for me it is sillydood;
Seems useless to me, a lot of semantics and misunderstandings and debate tactics.
Quote from: Socks on December 04, 2009, 03:59:57 PMalso, the law is what decides if a class of people are or were wronged. in this case it is the law itself that is authorizing a denial of service for homosexuals toward marriage. so really, as far as the law is concerned, everything is hunky dory.
Okay, but as far as you're concerned,
in your own personal opinion, should gays be allowed to get married or not? Forget about the law for now.
Quote from: Slim on December 05, 2009, 07:32:56 AM
Okay, but as far as you're concerned, in your own personal opinion, should gays be allowed to get married or not? Forget about the law for now.
Vague, obscure, vague vague. I debate like a republican, obscure.
Also, in addition to Slim's question. Regardless of if you think gays should be married or not. Do you think they should be eligible for the same tax breaks on tax returns, visitation in hospitals, joint insurance policies, and such?
Quote from: Hïro on December 04, 2009, 09:44:14 AM
civil union
Same thing, just a different word and without religious connotations baddood;
um hello
can we get back to how utterly incorrect this statement is?
Quote from: Sam on December 06, 2009, 03:42:09 AM
um hello
can we get back to how utterly incorrect this statement is?
ya, it's incorrect
what else do you want us to say?
Quote from: Slim on December 05, 2009, 07:32:56 AM
Okay, but as far as you're concerned, in your own personal opinion, should gays be allowed to get married or not? Forget about the law for now.
Although I am not fully at peace with the idea, I do indeed think they should be allowed to get married. I base the decision on my own feelings (which are, as I said, mixed) and judgment, and not because marriage is a civil right that's being denied to gays. Being gay is not a trend or an exclusively false state, so it is here to stay. As such, the phenomena should be accommodated as much as possible within the legal structure of the law and incorporated into the many civil liberties we enjoy. In due time I think this will almost inevitably happen as our society progress and conditions change.
My main issue and concern is dramatic upheaval that may be based on legitimate desires and points, but that's being argued for in extreme and absolute terms under the false pretense of civil rights. This seeks to nullify the view and opinion of the majority by trying to impose the will of the minority via a civil rights violation argument. I do not think that's right. I think the process by which things are being decided now is legitimate and the correct one. If the results are not in favor of gays, then of course I can understand and sympathize with the unhappiness. However that alone is not reason enough to disregard such results as illegitimate or as abhorrent. It is simply the state of society and the will of the people, for the time being at least. I see nothing wrong with that (the process), personally speaking.
Quote from: JMV on December 05, 2009, 07:56:08 AM
Do you think they should be eligible for the same tax breaks on tax returns, visitation in hospitals, joint insurance policies, and such?
Of course. There is no point in being petty by altering the benefits of married individuals based on their orientation, seeing as how (in this hypothetical) they're eligible to get married in the first place. On top of all the things such a situation may be categorized as, it also serves to undermine the process and institution of marriage.
Quote from: Sam on December 06, 2009, 03:42:09 AM
um hello
can we get back to how utterly incorrect this statement is?
yeah it's not exactly the same thing, but you know what I mean baddood;
aaah forgot to update this for DC after the crash
If California doesn't suck I can update this on Friday to include California.
lol mormons
It is a free country, you should be able to marry a goat of you want to. n_u
Quote from: BlackDS on August 21, 2010, 01:33:53 PM
It is a free country, you should be able to marry a goat of you want to. n_u
I don't think goats can enter contracts.
Oh I thought maybe Wisconsin had done it today or something... I guess it's just a gay pride day with all the flags and men in leather and chains riding around on flatbeds yelling at people
Quote from: YPR on August 22, 2010, 03:12:35 PM
Oh I thought maybe Wisconsin had done it today or something... I guess it's just a gay pride day with all the flags and men in leather and chains riding around on flatbeds yelling at people
That's actually the homo army mobilizing.
Quote from: Khadafi on August 22, 2010, 03:27:45 PM
That's actually the homo army mobilizing.
Do they have tanks with rainbows and flowers on them?
Quote from: BlackDS on August 22, 2010, 03:54:06 PM
Do they have tanks with rainbows and flowers on them?
If by tanks you mean unicorns, yes.
With Republicans gaining power, you may as well take the list down. :3
Quote from: Raku-Chan on November 13, 2010, 01:55:15 PM
With Republicans gaining power, you may as well take the list down. :3
It doesn't mean very much that one particular party is controlling the lower-chamber of Congress and has gained several governorships. The Democrats were in charge for four years and hardly made any difference.
Let's not forget, the Democrats controlled a majority of Congress back when major Civil Rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, it doesn't mean much. doodhuh;
democrats are wimpy thou
Quote from: Jim on November 13, 2010, 03:58:08 PM
It doesn't mean very much that one particular party is controlling the lower-chamber of Congress and has gained several governorships. The Democrats were in charge for four years and hardly made any difference.
Let's not forget, the Democrats controlled a majority of Congress back when major Civil Rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, it doesn't mean much. doodhuh;
WHY DO YOU NEVER LET ME OVERREACT akudood;
Quote from: Raku-Chan on November 13, 2010, 05:33:29 PM
WHY DO YOU NEVER LET ME OVERREACT akudood;
Measured reactions are best. baddood;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57749.html
Bill just passed in the New York senate. It will most likely be signed by the governor.
That means, using the 2010 census info 11.16% of the US population (50 states + DC) now live in a state that allows same sex marriage.
This is also around the same population as california though :| Meaning california alone would double that into almost 1/4 americans. Right now it's about one out of eight.
hocuspocus;
Sorry David. I know you're not happy about it. :(
Quote from: ClassicTyler on June 25, 2011, 07:43:55 AM
hocuspocus;
Sorry David. I know you're not happy about it. :(
Too bad your state will probably never legalize it.
Someone would have to be able to put up with me in order to get married. giggle;
Quote from: ClassicTyler on June 26, 2011, 06:15:25 AM
Someone would have to be able to put up with me in order to get married. giggle;
Why don't you just become bisexual?
Quote from: yoseph on June 26, 2011, 01:43:46 PM
Why don't you just become bisexual?
i thought this was serious discussion
Quote from: Tectrinket on June 26, 2011, 01:58:40 PM
i thought this was serious discussion
i thought this was boyah
Quote from: yoseph on June 26, 2011, 01:43:46 PM
Why don't you just become bisexual?
You're an idiot. It doesn't work that way.
Quote from: Tectrinket on June 26, 2011, 01:58:40 PM
i thought this was serious discussion
As did I.
why don't you become a black woman tyler
Quote from: Khadafi on June 26, 2011, 04:50:25 PM
why don't you become a black woman tyler
You mean I'm not!?! O_0
You are, but just on the inside. Follow your hearttt
Washington is next. THE POWER OF GOD
California, again THE POWER OF GOD
Quote from: vziard on February 07, 2012, 12:21:47 PM
California, again THE POWER OF GOD
absolutely appalling
i can't wait to update the title NOBODY TOUCH IT I'VE ALREADY LAID CLAIM
On a related note, does anyone else feel that making a clear distinction between religious and secular marriage would make this essentially a non-issue? befuddlement
Quote from: Tectrinket on February 09, 2012, 09:35:12 AM
i can't wait to update the title NOBODY TOUCH IT I'VE ALREADY LAID CLAIM
On a related note, does anyone else feel that making a clear distinction between religious and secular marriage would make this essentially a non-issue? befuddlement
Isn't that essentially what civil unions are supposed to be?
Quote from: NPR on February 09, 2012, 09:51:34 AM
Isn't that essentially what civil unions are supposed to be?
well yes, but if we are to replace secular marriages with civil unions then it would need to apply to both homo and heterosexual couples
(((and that's assuming the word 'marriage' is exclusively for the religious, which i disagree with)))
Well Catholics at least could just get by on "Matrimony." It's supposed to be clear and distinct from marriage anyway in its spiritual properties
honestly, i think the word "marriage" can stick around as no particular group of people can realistically lay claim to any particular words
But we need to recognize that there are two (often concurrent, yet distinct) types of marriage and do a better job at separating them.
marriage is lame as heck. if you get married you are afukin retard. ok pc
The California decision has no leg to stand on, the Judge essentially declared a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. This bullshit about it being a right and then not a right is a moot fucking point. We had a right, explicit or not, not to pay income tax and to drink liquor and to own and use any substance we wanted to prior to the 20th century. But they were all taken away by various legislation, does that mean all of those things are unconstitutional too?
Brave New World
WA has legalized it starting the 7th of June.
NJ would probably have it legalized within the next week but Christie is a loser who will veto it
GOD DAMMIT JMV I WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT POST awdood;
...But guys gays, if we legitimize faggotry, doesn't that mean we'll soon be expected to tolerate incest, bestiality, polygamy*, and pedophilia? (http://i.picasion.com/pic49/b88a03eec4fd2fbb5e43cbd66847ae94.gif)(http://i.picasion.com/pic49/8b239897ff98850b635c424814273b7f.gif)(http://i.picasion.com/pic49/428592445fe5987e711fa09deaea806a.gif)
[spoiler=*]i actually have no problem with this i'madamnretard;[/spoiler]
Ask Rick Santorum!!!
http://www.businessinsider.com/tennessee-republican-bill-to-ban-teaching-gay-people-exist-2012-2
News flash: The South is still motherfucking stupid
lmao ifeelbetter;
Christie's getting prepared to veto NJ's bill, but perhaps things will go better in Maryland.
Quote from: Zidone on February 16, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/tennessee-republican-bill-to-ban-teaching-gay-people-exist-2012-2
News flash: The South is still motherfucking stupid
that one guy is too fat the get married anyway.
Christie was pretty hateful about it.
Maybe this is the pot calling the kettle black, but we should trow twinkies and other hostess snacks at him. 5thgrade;
We can be hateful about it too. THAT'LL SHOW 'EM.
Quote from: Zidone on February 16, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/tennessee-republican-bill-to-ban-teaching-gay-people-exist-2012-2
News flash: The South is still motherfucking stupid
so much for less government
Quote from: Kaz on February 18, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
so much for less government
WE MEANT FOR STRAIGHT, WHITE, WEALTHY, CHRISTIAN MALES.
MORE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
(http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/images/md_fi.gif)
BASED MARYLAND THE POWER OF GOD THE POWER OF GOD THE POWER OF GOD
Fairyland (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-maryland-idUSTRE8202CV20120301) was just dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. tomatoes;
[spoiler]
unless it gets overturned by the referendum in november lol[/spoiler]
In related news, my state legislature has:
- Struck down a bill that would reinstate DADT in the state National Guard (don't want to lose those federal monies we're always whining about getting)
- Struck down a bill that would overturn all municipal anti-discrimination statutes for city employees that were more strict than those covered by state anti-discrimination laws (statutes protecting sexual orientation and gender identity are the only ones missing at the state level that have been passed by cities)
Both of these submitted by the same guy (http://www2.okhouse.gov/Committees/Member.aspx?MemberID=108), coincidentally. I'm proud, I guess, considering the stranglehold the Republicans have here. thumbup;
ok more post.
thanks tec for updating title i added link and fixed number.
Governor of Delaware seems to think it will happen there next.
I can't wait for Texas' bloody battle. sillydood;
I feel like the federal government will attempt to strike down all these state decisions someday.
And if we get a republican president and some new supreme court justices, then there's no hope for the states. goonish
Quote from: Pancake Persona on March 02, 2012, 10:47:18 PM
I feel like the federal government will attempt to strike down all these state decisions someday.
And if we get a republican president and some new supreme court justices, then there's no hope for the states. goonish
No way, the Federal government is the most gay of them all. What do you think congressmen do in their little private chambers in the Capitol building? Well, I mean besides blow, prostitutes and young boys...
Gob dless you North Carolina. The LORD smiles upon you for resisting thee Liberal Homosexual Agenda.
Quote from: Zidone on May 08, 2012, 08:53:44 PM
Gob dless you North Carolina. The LORD smiles upon you for resisting thee Liberal Homosexual Agenda.
Like a seawall of shining morality against a tumulus sea of the evils of
Equality.
[youtube]M7BP2Gclzj0[/youtube]
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/13/1483783/house-oks-amendment-banning-gay.html
Quote"They're going to bring with them their same-sex marriages," said Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican and House majority leader. "They're going to want to get divorced" and have custody issues decided, he said. "We're not equipped to handle that."
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/13/1483783/house-oks-amendment-banning-gay.html#storylink=cpy
THE DUMBEST GODDAMN THING I HAVE EVER FUCKING HEARD OH MY CHRIST.
This might get updated some time. Maine is projected to legalize same sex marriage again, and it's on the ballot in a few other states.
Minnesota is, so far, rejecting a ban too.
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21944546/maine-votes-favor-legalizing-gay-marriage
Quote from: Tectite on November 06, 2012, 11:00:48 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21944546/maine-votes-favor-legalizing-gay-marriage
ino.
washington and maryland upheld gay marriage.
minnesota rejected ban
I'm surprised it hasn't been passed in PA. befuddlement We're assholes but we're not that bad.
Quote from: Snowy on November 08, 2012, 05:08:19 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been passed in PA. befuddlement We're assholes but we're not that bad.
No, Philly really does make your state that bad.
Quote from: Dovydas on November 08, 2012, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: Snowy on November 08, 2012, 05:08:19 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been passed in PA. befuddlement We're assholes but we're not that bad.
No, Philly really does make your state that bad.
Only part of Philly. akudood;
everyone outside of philly kind of sucks too. but not as mucha s everyone else does. since we are god's nation
Quote from: Khadafi on November 07, 2012, 09:10:29 AM
minnesota rejected ban
slowly but surely we're getting somewhere
but unfortunately the twin cities only hold a slim majority of the state's opinion, honestly this state is red outside the metro area
Quote from: Snowy on November 08, 2012, 05:08:19 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been passed in PA. befuddlement We're assholes but we're not that bad.
Pennsyltucky
Quote from: Snowy on November 08, 2012, 05:08:19 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been passed in PA. befuddlement We're assholes but we're not that bad.
central pa is 100% against is
philly is black
pittsburgh is all catholics
good luck
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-14/news/chi-illinois-senate-approves-gay-marriage-20130214_1_civil-unions-marriage-law-lesbian-couples
boom
Quote from: Snowy on November 08, 2012, 05:08:19 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been passed in PA. befuddlement We're assholes but we're not that bad.
Oh poor sheltered Philly boy
Quote from: Dovydas on November 08, 2012, 09:46:53 AM
No, Philly really does make your state that bad.
Oddly, Philly would be literally the only part of the state which would vote in favor of gay marriage girl;
but it hasn't passed the house yet doodhuh;
Psh you expect me to read articles?
Illinois, you must save the Midwest's pride. Do not do this.
Quote from: Dovydas on February 15, 2013, 08:41:31 PM
Illinois, you must save the Midwest's pride. Do not do this.
2late n_u
one day i will go to chicago to see what a gay pride parade looks like
Quote from: The Last MIB on February 28, 2013, 09:58:17 AM
2late n_u
one day i will go to chicago to see what a gay pride parade looks like
u know they have those in places other than chicahgo asheville has one
Minnesota house passed same-sex marriage today. The democrat-controlled senate will vote on Monday and Dayton already said he'll sign it. hocuspocus;
didn't delaware just pass it too
nvm just saw thread title lol.
the world is ending
Quote from: Dovydas on May 09, 2013, 05:34:33 PM
the world is ending
the slippery slope tumbling towards degeneracy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/top-human-rights-barrister-sparks-outrage-with-call-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-13-8608794.html
Same-sex marriages begin august 1st in Minnesota bassir;
Quote from: applesauce on May 14, 2013, 05:48:46 PM
Same-sex marriages begin august 1st in Minnesota bassir;
god's wrath will level minneapolis on the first of august
coincidentally, brazil went down the path of destruction today as well
Quote from: Dovydas on May 14, 2013, 06:31:52 PM
god's wrath will level minneapolis on the first of august
then there really will be nothing in this state
Quote from: Madotsuki on May 14, 2013, 06:46:34 PM
then there really will be nothing in this state
meaning those explore minnesota ads will finally go away tomatoes;
meaning ypr will be totally justified in calling it east dakota
Quote from: HumuHumu...Tec on May 14, 2013, 06:59:49 PM
meaning ypr will be totally justified in calling it east dakota
i'd rather be in east dakota than western michigan
Michigan is a shithole. At least WI has beer and lakes.
Minnesota, more like Minneshota
Quote from: Snowy on May 15, 2013, 12:09:28 PM
Minnesota, more like Minneshota
just called the police
remember when ypr tried to claim that madison had more culture than all of mn? n_u
Quote from: applesauce on May 15, 2013, 01:51:53 PM
remember when ypr tried to claim that madison had more culture than all of mn? n_u
oh, poor ypr
minneapolis spawned husker du and they made the greatest punk concept album ever
so
minnesota has a lot of good music
GOD'S WRATH
Dear people who updated my thread
Did you update the numbers in the OP too?
I know someone didn't include news links WHY YOU MESS MY FORMAT
Quote from: YPR Classic on April 03, 2009, 05:21:54 PM
My Pennsylvanian high school wouldn't be so fine with it
yeah same.
There was a transexual kid and they were p harsh 2 him/her idr what gender he was.
SODOM AND GOMORRAH
Quote from: Khadafi on May 17, 2013, 03:22:24 PM
Dear people who updated my thread
Did you update the numbers in the OP too?
I know someone didn't include news links WHY YOU MESS MY FORMAT
yes, i updated the numbers and news links
THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA HAS CLAIMED YET ANOTHER INNOCENT LIFE
poor france succumed to their every whim a few days ago, and illinois and the uk are next
i thought uk already passed teh laws
Quote from: silvertone on May 21, 2013, 09:16:41 PM
i thought uk already passed teh laws
it has to survive another house first, then it'll be implemented
I always knew the French were gay.
soon gay spread will be sold for breakfast
hocuspocus;
OKLAHOMA PAID FOR THE SINS OF THE WICKED
WHO WILL BE NEXT
Quote from: ,ラ,ッ,·,,ラー on May 28, 2013, 05:59:15 PM
OKLAHOMA PAID FOR THE SINS OF THE WICKED
WHO WILL BE NEXT
HOpefully texas again
sorry tyl
rip michele bachmann
slain by homos
Quote from: [hedy]Zidone on May 29, 2013, 07:28:14 AM
rip michele bachmann
slain by homos
christ you know it ain't easyt.
There is a lesbian who works at a hair salon across our restaurant, she comes in sometimes, so does her daughter, who is also gay. When that happens, I have a field day in my mind over this topic.
it's not as worse as a male transitioning into a female and then classifies themselves as lesbian
Quote from: K L U X on June 03, 2013, 06:10:28 AM
it's not as worse as a male transitioning into a female and then classifies themselves as lesbian
It's worse when they do said transitioning after the age of 40, and screw with the statistics that way, though.
it's like, not making it any easier to get taken seriously over here peoples
but anyways
doma was struck down
DOMA WAS STRUCK DOWN
and now the quers and there socialist DICKTATOR obongo have destroyed the onse great america
im moving to canada
Quote from: Pancake Persona on June 26, 2013, 09:47:16 AM
and now the quers and there socialist DICKTATOR obongo have destroyed the onse great america
im moving to canada
don't worry, you're still safe in 37 states, since prop 8 was dismissed on standing
What's the situation in New Jersey? confuseddood;
Quote from: bluaki on September 28, 2013, 10:37:40 PM
What's the situation in New Jersey? confuseddood;
the fat man is on top of keeping it safe
Quote from: David on September 29, 2013, 06:57:46 AM
the fat man is on top of keeping it safe
I'm not in NJ. O_0
Quote from: bluaki on September 28, 2013, 10:37:40 PM
What's the situation in New Jersey? confuseddood;
christie has no direct say in what happens himself, but he can (and likely will) appeal to the new jersey supreme court if only to delay implementation of the lower court's ruling
looks like something similar is happening in pennsylvania now too
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/18/us-usa-gaymarriage-newjersey-idUSBRE99H0VB20131018
christie has failed us
look out for new mexico, pennsylvania and michigan next
pennsylvania must honorable warrior agains tthe homo virus mental disease
Quote from: silvertone on October 18, 2013, 08:06:25 PM
pennsylvania must honorable warrior agains tthe homo virus mental disease
pennsylvania will be the turning point for godly marriage
Quote from: #rektron on October 18, 2013, 07:44:29 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/18/us-usa-gaymarriage-newjersey-idUSBRE99H0VB20131018
christie has failed us
look out for new mexico, pennsylvania and michigan next
it already went to court in pennsylvania
the good judge said he knew what the judgement would be before walking in the court room and it was over in a day
he's sticking to his good christian values
smart man
new mexico and hawaii are the latest hot spots
Quote from: Pancake Persona on October 24, 2013, 09:05:03 AM
it already went to court in pennsylvania
the good judge said he knew what the judgement would be before walking in the court room and it was over in a day
he's sticking to his good christian values
it's still in federal district court however
Passed the Illinois house today. Now the Senate just has to reconcile the two bills (expected by the end of the day) and then quinn will sign it. Woo!
Passed the house by 1 vote, narrow fucking margins!
some [spoiler]faggot[/spoiler] please add illinois to the list
congrats mib you and tomboh can get married
Lee wouldn't even be honest w/ us
Isn't she a man now?
more importantly, david and i can finally get married in either of our states
giggle;
you guys updated illinois prematurely, again
the bill isn't being signed into law until the 20th akudood;
Quote from: #rektron on November 08, 2013, 08:08:16 PM
you guys updated illinois prematurely, again
the bill isn't being signed into law until the 20th akudood;
9/10 boyagers are premature
Someone updated the first post but not title so i updated the title akudood;
Quote from: Khadafi on November 11, 2013, 09:16:43 AM
Someone updated the first post but not title so i updated the title akudood;
Quote from: #rektron on November 08, 2013, 08:08:16 PM
you guys updated illinois prematurely, again
the bill isn't being signed into law until the 20th akudood;
Quote from: Naoto Shirogane on November 08, 2013, 02:36:53 PM
more importantly, david and i can finally get married in either of our states
Take good care of him, okay? :(
hawa'i'i'i confirmed
to be updated wednesday
hawaii added as the actual 15th state
illinois will be updated for real this time as #16 in seven days
How do you feel about this Obamanation, Tec?
i'm turning and tossing in my grave
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/illinois-gay-marriage-bil_1_n_4312368.html
third time's the charm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/new-mexico-becomes-17th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
well that was sudden
Quote from: A Fatass Penguin Named Tec on December 19, 2013, 07:11:24 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/new-mexico-becomes-17th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
well that was sudden
eight more states and half of the nation is gone cry;
new mexico will get killed by texas
Wisconsin
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania
who will give in to the gays
michigan might soon give in as well
is nowhere safe
Also don't forget about Utah
Quote from: Will Gregory on December 20, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
Also don't forget about Utah
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/20/federal-judge-rules-utahs-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/
well would you look at that
utah up
Quote from: Khadafi on December 20, 2013, 08:26:09 AM
Wisconsin
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania
who will give in to the gays
it already lost in pa
oregon's probably most likely
florida will shock the nation by being next
Wow, Utah? UTAH?! What is going on here.
Quote from: Hippopo on December 20, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
Wow, Utah? UTAH?! What is going on here.
srsly that came out of nowhere
willard would not have allowed this
he must be screaming in his grave
Utah is one of the states i expected to be last in line lol
yeah
it's by far the most conservative state to have legalized this thus far (fifth most conservative state overall according to recent polls), and it's the only state which didn't vote for obumma in 2012 (or ever) to have legalized it
particularly ironic because of willard, and because the moremen spent >$20m advocating for prop 8 in california
i think they realized that gay marriage is a step towards legal polygamy
Quote from: silvertone on December 21, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
i think they realized that gay marriage is a step towards legal polygamy
relevant:
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/18/255261969/judge-softens-utahs-anti-polygamy-law-to-mixed-reactions
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BHnsKCKoGnM/UrbpnfeiXeI/AAAAAAACsGg/WL44lkGgxbE/s400/FunFact.jpg)
if we had elected willard, gay marriage would probably be legal in every state by now
lol
fun fact: popular support for gay marriage is a mere 22 percent in utah, making it the only gay marriage state in which support is <50 percent
nationwide it's at about 55 percent
Quote from: A Fatass Penguin Named Tec on December 22, 2013, 07:53:24 PM
lol
fun fact: popular support for gay marriage is a mere 22 percent in utah, making it the only gay marriage state in which support is <50 percent
nationwide it's at about 55 percent
oh wow. befuddlement
can utah have a popular referendum on it like california did? huhdoodame;
Quote from: David on December 22, 2013, 08:01:09 PM
oh wow. befuddlement
can utah have a popular referendum on it like california did? huhdoodame;
maybe since the supreme court never approached prop 8 even with a ten feet pole due to the defendants' standing
but utah can't supercede a federal ruling on gay marriage so there's that
what the utah
Quote from: Pancake Persona on December 20, 2013, 07:22:13 PM
it already lost in pa
oregon's probably most likely
pa is surrounded by the gays they will invade some day!
Oregon or Nevada i think next
both surrounded by gay people
West Iowa is next
(http://i.imgur.com/DHibXwC.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2013)
ignoring unpredictable utah-like scenarios, this is probably the best indicator of where it's likeliest to pass next
Quote from: A Fatass Penguin Named Tec on December 23, 2013, 12:55:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/DHibXwC.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2013)
ignoring unpredictable utah-like scenarios, this is probably the best indicator of where it's likeliest to pass next
virginia is an exception because both houses of the general assembly are dominated by republicans so it won't necessarily "pass" gay marriage
wtf is the difference between light blue and red
Quote from: silvertone on December 23, 2013, 01:07:37 PM
wtf is the difference between light blue and red
>50 percent oppose in red states
<50 percent oppose or support in light blue states, i'm guessing in many of these a plurality of the population but not quite a majority is supportive
Quote from: David on December 22, 2013, 08:01:09 PM
oh wow. befuddlement
can utah have a popular referendum on it like california did? huhdoodame;
a federal appeal is just about the ultimate legal recourse utah could have taken, and uh
welp (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-court-no-halt-to-gay-marriages-in-utah/2013/12/24/f9ca583c-6cfa-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html)
looks like it's here to stay goowan
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1227/Utah-growing-desperate-to-ask-Supreme-Court-to-halt-gay-marriages
utah must be looking to drag the last 32 states down with it, because this could only ever backfire if they don't just reject it on standing
will utah leave the union and start a highly advanced mormon utopia with it?
Quote from: A Fatass Penguin Named Tec on December 27, 2013, 02:33:46 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1227/Utah-growing-desperate-to-ask-Supreme-Court-to-halt-gay-marriages
utah must be looking to drag the last 32 states down with it, because this could only ever backfire if they don't just reject it on standing
i don't think it will be rejected on standing because in the california prop 8 case, the state didn't defend the law and a quasi-religious organization elected to defend the law
So far, the flood of marriage licenses has provided an unexpected financial benefit for the state: More than $49,000 in nearly three days.
lol
The gays will save our crumbling economy.
marriage is an industry
i'm surprised ±$49,ooo over the course of three days for an entire state is even worth a mention at all
Quote from: A Fatass Penguin Named Tec on December 28, 2013, 11:44:50 AM
i'm surprised ±$49,ooo over the course of three days for an entire state is even worth a mention at all
yeah, that seems pitiful. especially when describing it as a 'flood' lol befuddlement
Quote from: CLASSIC on December 28, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
The gays will save our crumbling economy.
gays are officially counter revolutionary bourgeoisie scum
I won't disagree with that one.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/06/260156223/supreme-court-halts-gay-marriages-in-utah
god truly does look out for His people
genuinely surprised that didn't backfire on them
although i guess it still could
i hope oklahoma bans all marriages
I hope Oklahoma
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/michigan-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-is-struck-down.html?_r=0
NOW ROBOCOP CAN GET MARRIED
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/2014/05/09/93a6a8cc-d7c5-11e3-8f7d-7786660fff7c_story.html
[spoiler]
til we have a state named arkansas[/spoiler]
Our potato supply has become 100% more gay.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/19/same-sex-marriage-oregon/9291377/
Quote from: Tectron on May 19, 2014, 01:29:02 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/19/same-sex-marriage-oregon/9291377/
the boyah house will have the most married people per square foot in all of oregon
west coast is gay coast
Quote from: Khadafi on May 20, 2014, 08:09:36 AM
west coast is gay coast
don't get too cocky, now
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/20/federal-judge-overturns-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ban/
Quote from: ncba93ivyase on December 20, 2013, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: Khadafi on December 20, 2013, 08:26:09 AM
Wisconsin
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania
who will give in to the gays
it already lost in pa
oregon's probably most likely
COURTS CAME BACK WITH A VENGEANCE
Can't imagine that going over well in central pa
I hope virginia catches the gay
the anti gays have lost baddood;
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.html
which means that same-sex marriage is now or has been legal in 25/50 states
Land of the gays and home of the cheese?
Head cheese.
Madison can finally compete with Berkeley for most liberal again
http://time.com/2874294/wisconsin-judge-puts-same-sex-marriages-on-hold/
Gay cheese
gay marijuana
Staying rulings and overturning shit really makes this thread a pain
it really does
might be best to redo the list from scratch
isamericagayyet.com
the number in OP didn't change but the supreme court made gays gayer2day
now confirmed legal in indiana, oklahoma, utah, virginia, wisconsin
bringing the total up to 25 + dc
I should update the OP with better links and stuff l8r once cindy isn't using my dual screen desktop so i dont have to type it on small mac
new court decisions have nullified the bans in nevada and idaho, and montana/alaska/arizona are probably next
texas we're coming for you
RIP the American family
Pretty sure the bible says something about this.
Bet Texas (minus Austin) wished it had stayed with Mexico now
they'd only be delaying the inevitable
[spoiler](http://i.imgur.com/NnwVqQa.png)[/spoiler]
even mexico isn't safe
now legal in nevada
GAY VAYGAYS
also west vagina and nyerp apparently
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/12/gay-marriage-alaska_n_5974232.html
and sarah palin rolls in her grave
Quote from: Tectron on October 12, 2014, 08:52:05 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/12/gay-marriage-alaska_n_5974232.html
and sarah palin rolls in her grave
are you sure it's not punching somebody in her grave
You betcha
now legal in idaho
look out for arizona and montana next
ARIZONA NOW
Arizona is very surprising.
well it was a court decision linked to the one that struck down the bans in idaho and nevada
but our attorney general p. much said there won't be any fighting it, so yeah it's pretty neato
Montana is super gay now. giggle;
kansas and south carolina, too
When is this thread going to be updated?
now legal in florida and parts of missouri
now de jure legal in alabama
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/us/alabama-supreme-court-same-sex-marriages.html?_r=0
but the vast majority of counties have refused to comply
http://abcnews.go.com/US/alabama-37th-state-sex-marriages/story?id=28836644
Thread is obsolete now.
Everywhere is gay
Gayest country in the world
nice thumbup;
fake and gay
i honestly still can't believe it lol
i'm ecstatic though
Not being my obtuse self; I legit don't get being 'ecstatic' over this
there are ppl destined to be more than basement dwellers, some of these people are gays, and all of those normies must die.
Quote from: David on June 26, 2015, 11:11:25 PM
Not being my obtuse self; I legit don't get being 'ecstatic' over this
agreed.
Look, I'm very happy for them, but unfortunately, some of them are being quite immature about it (tumblr)
Now they're trying to single out straight people, which, as you know, is TOTALLY the way to go about this
marriage is the opiate of the asses...................
Quote from: Nyerp on June 27, 2015, 01:02:43 AM
marriage is the opiate of the asses...................
i will be the opiate for your ass..... ; )
(http://i.imgur.com/RjcXMDw.gif)
The problem is that there will only be another group to demand marriage 'rights' so classifying this as full is retarded
Snowy and Horse should have the right to marry if they love each other.
jk ilu snowy
Quote from: Snowy on May 29, 2020, 05:18:07 PMQuote from: Classic on June 30, 2015, 05:35:39 PMSnowy and Horse should have the right to marry if they love each other.
jk ilu snowy
9;m glad that this is the post that killed this thread
You killed the whole gay rights movement gj Snowy