In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.

The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But in clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow such unions.

The decision on federal benefits will immediately extend many benefits to couples in the states where same-sex marriage is legal, and it will give the Obama administration the ability to broaden other benefits through executive actions…

The decision on the federal law was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.

The decision will raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

Overdue – and like many SCOTUS rulings, the court noted responsibility from here forward lies with Congress.

I’m not certain Congress could produce a bus schedule.



  1. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    What was scuttled was democracy, votes were voided and the will of the minority imposed.

    While I might agree (as a libertarian) Government had no say in this, California voters had their will overturned by a minority.

    • Dallas says:

      A key responsibility of government is to ensure the rights of it’s citizens are not enacted via a popularity contest.

      It’s pretty clear that God, being all powerful, wanted this to happen. Your defiance of God will result in you burning in a lake of fire for all eternity.

      • Jesus says:

        Just when I thought you may have pulled your head out of your ass you brought up the subject of god.

        Care to tell us how Humpty Dumpty relates to morals? Or maybe you want to remind everyone how Jack and the Bean Stalk is fact in your fucked up world TOO!

        STFU! The subject is government and gay marriage, NOT GOD! Although I do see how your “believing” mind tends to mix up the two. There’s just something about a pile of shit in a suit and tie that a MAJORITY of idiots want to “believe” in – despite any FACTS!

    • deegee says:

      “What was scuttled was democracy”

      +1

      Unfortunately, far too many people these days subscribe to this idiotic idiom:
      When the majority of the people vote the same as I, then “democracy works”.
      When the majority of the people vote different than I, then it is “mob rule”.
      So then we need to get the courts involved or lobbyists, to change the democratically voted will of the majority, to pander to the “so called” rights of the minority or special interest.

      It only goes to show that democracy in any country is just an illusion.

  2. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    It was argued gay marriage did no harm to heterosexual marriage, but that was misdirection.

    The court did harm to the will of the majority, put the court above the legislature, executive branch and the people.

    Judicial tyranny, applauded by the left now, can be used later to justify voiding our constitution on every other area.

    thanks progressives, once again you proved yourselves a clear and present threat to our liberty.

    • spsffan says:

      The will of the majority once condoned slavery. Rule solely by the will of the majority is mob rule. Or as a very wise man once put it, two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

      Fortunately, we have a system of checks and balances and a Constitution that oversees the mob rule.

      I don’t say this very often, but The Supremes got it (both rulings) right today.

      • pedro says:

        “Fortunately, we have a system of checks and balances and a Constitution that oversees the mob rule.”

        Hahahahahahahaha. Suuuuure.

    • Confused says:

      “The court did harm to the will of the majority, put the court above the legislature, executive branch and the people.”

      So where were you yesterday when they struck down the voter’s rights bill that passed in the senate 98-0?

      • dusanmal says:

        Mixing apples and oranges.
        What was scuttled was a clearly unconstitutional law (voters right bill) that treated DIFFERENTLY some states and some municipalities despite Constitutional guarantees not to.
        What was done today was NOT decision to approve or disapprove of CA gay marriage. That bill is still for discussion, Supreme Court have said nothing about its validity. What was scuttled in that case was right of voters to legal protection of the bill they voted in vs. Government who didn’t like it. NO decision on the bill itself. Just decision that people can’t have standing in the legal challenging. That is the doom that cements Progressive want to apply law at the ideological whim. That will hurt us, …
        Notice that the Supreme Court could have accepted The People as valid challengers of CA gay marriage mess and ruled that CA court was right. Than it would mean what all comments here tend to. But no, the only decision was that The People can vote but that The Government can interpret their vote as it likes and as it suits elite in charge. It is trivial to see that such power can be used not only for good (ex. slavery comments) but for any Government purpose (ex. you elect officials who stop the NSA spying through legislation, just for Executive in Charge to decide not to implement or defend such law… and you The People now legally have NO standing to challenge such situation. NONE).

    • Dallas says:

      Are you ready to marry your iguana?

      • Tim says:

        Damn, Dallas — I’m not quite sure people are ready to embrace that yet. But I admire your courage no matter how dis-tasteful it seems to me for you to be sniffing after your sister like that.

        • Dallas says:

          The important thing is I communicated to your level !

          • Tim says:

            Well, that is something, I guess. I have to walk up six flights to get to the sewer, most days.; At least, plants like me.

          • Dallas says:

            LOL. OK then.

            Every once in a while, I’ll shout down something absurd to wake you up.

    • Jesus says:

      This is CLASSIC of the ills of a DEMOCRACY! Look up the word and you will find that democracy is really just another way of saying MOB RULE! (And yes, I did get that bit of insight from Chuck Woolery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9qE7GJSc4)

      And before you start getting all Constitutional, you may want to read THAT document too! The Constitution mentions a REPUBLIC — NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!

      And as much as I hate to say it, “Dumb Ass” made an excellent quote (just goes to show that even an idiot can be correct at least once in a lifetime): A key responsibility of government is to ensure the rights of it’s citizens are not enacted via a popularity contest.

    • So What? says:

      “A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.”

      Plato

  3. Tim says:

    Boggie in the butt — The pusher, pushed.

    • spsffan says:

      As though straight people don’t engage in anal sex. Didn’t you know that’s the new thing with the Christian Right kids….if it’s anal you are still a virgin :).

      • Mextli says:

        Who said anything about Christian Right kids or are you just going down the “progressive” hit list?

        • spsffan says:

          Well, nobody said anything about Christian Right kids here. But they are the ones in the news story a few years back who reportedly deluded themselves to think that anal sex was not sex.

          Not to worry. It applies to all humans.

          But, then again, if you believe in some Big Daddy in the sky, winged angels, fork tailed fallen angels, and all that jazz, you’ll believe anything.

          • Mextli says:

            Yep, but I’ll never believe in the travesty of Gaaaaay marriage. Some Big Daddy in the bathhouse.

      • Tim says:

        Boing!

  4. Jay says:

    California lost because the government decided that they didn’t want to fight so if the people want to blame someone they need to look at the state not the Supreme Court. Also DOMA isn’t completely dead: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

  5. spsffan says:

    If someone would like to comment about the subject at hand, the Defense of Marriage Act, go right ahead.

    If you’re going to carry on about the ruling regarding California’s Proposition 8, then we need another thread.

    As far as DOMA goes, I have a question for the dissenters. “What part of “equal protection under the law” don’t you understand?

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      I doubt you even read the three dissenting opinions…

      • bobbo, in Repose says:

        “Dissenting Opinions:”===aka, BS that doesn’t matter.

        Ha, ha.

        Keep your eyes on the balls.

        • Sea Lawyer says:

          Neither did you apparently.

          The crux of the dissent was that, in their opinions, the case should have never been heard by the SCOTUS in the first place because Constitutional thresholds of jurisdiction and standing were not met.

          Since you are so keen to “keep your eye on the ball,” even if it is short-sighted, I’d guess that even you should see how a ruling like this will probably come up again to justify the court inserting itself into things in the future it has no business in.

          • bobbo, in Repose says:

            My Good Ness Sea Lawyer—too long at sea…. you don’t have your legs underneath you at all. Just READ WHAT YOU SAID!!! Ha, ha.

            The crux of the dissent was that, in their opinions, the case should have never been heard by the SCOTUS /// Yeah==BUT IT WAS HEARD AND RULED ON. How is this response anything other than IRONCLAD AGREEMENT with what I posted? Geeze SL–this is Brain Tumor stupid.

            in the first place because Constitutional thresholds of jurisdiction and standing were not met. /// I picture men in jail rattling their tin cups on the bars: “You can’t do this to me.” Very poor orientation to reality.

            Since you are so keen to “keep your eye on the ball,” /// no–I said balls. A gay joke if you will. I see you haven’t spent that much time at sea. (x-2)

            even if it is short-sighted, I’d guess that even you should see how a ruling like this will probably come up again to justify the court inserting itself into things in the future it has no business in. /// Of course, there is no end to conflict. But RESOLVING fundamental constitutional rights against the vicious stupidity of our fellow men is just what the Supremes are for. Where ya been?

            Your next cruise should be on a ship with a good library.

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            Issues of a purely political nature are not the place for a non-elected, non-political branch of government to be injecting itself. That is major objection.

            And as an aside, any activity for which you have to request permission and receive a license from the government, before engaging in, can’t really be considered a “fundamental constitutional right” under any reasonable definition.

          • LibertyLover says:

            And as an aside, any activity for which you have to request permission and receive a license from the government, before engaging in, can’t really be considered a “fundamental constitutional right” under any reasonable definition.

            Bingo!

        • spsffan says:

          Well, Bobbo, you are actually right. But, for the record, I haven’t read the dissent yet.

          I have a feeling that it will confirm my suspicion that Scalia was abused by a priest in his youth.

          • bobbo, in Repose says:

            spsffan says:
            6/26/2013 at 1:06 pm

            Well, Bobbo, you are actually right. But, for the record, I haven’t read the dissent yet. /// But me no buts. The point is only about .023 of Dissenting Opinions ever come round to Majority Opinions. And on point, the original dissenting opinion is still BS. Its the “idea” that has operative in the new Majority Opinion. Simple Stuff.

            I have a feeling that it will confirm my suspicion that Scalia was abused by a priest in his youth. /// Something happened to him. That other guy too.

    • Jesus says:

      Jurisdiction? Are you fucking kidding me?!!!

      Care to go back to grade school and recite the THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT?! (Hint: The press is NOT one of them despite claims to the contrary.)

      Holly crap! What a stupid thing to say.

      • Jesus says:

        … And just in case you didn’t realize what SCOTUS was an abreviation for, it’s this:

        (S)upreme
        (C)ourt
        (O)f
        (T)he
        (U)nited
        (S)tates

      • Sea Lawyer says:

        The SCOTUS does not have universal jurisdiction, or maybe you should read the Constitution.

  6. Msbpodcast says:

    The SCOTUS just put into law the fact that the gummint will screw you over regardless of gender, religion, color, orientation or anything else.

    • Jesus says:

      Still reeling over the health care decision? Me too.

      But this is NOT something I regret – and I’m straight!

  7. MikeN says:

    >and like many SCOTUS rulings, the court noted responsibility from here forward lies with Congress.

    That’s the exact opposite of what the court did. What they said was any law passed by Congress adverse to the interest of gays is unconstitutional.
    The DOMA case was not about federalism. Just another muddled opinion from Anthony Kennedy.

    You actually have the California case wrong as well. The proper result from what the Supreme Court did would be to vacate the District Court ruling and Prop 8 stands in California, while the two named plaintiffs are allowed to get marriage licenses. However, liberals who don’t care for the law will probably ignore that as well.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      The problem with Liberals is they only care about the favorable outcome, even if how they accomplished it has consequences down the road.

    • Jesus says:

      Get out of the Republican party! WE DON’T NEED YOUR (IGNORANT) HELP!

      I can elaborate, but I see even BoBo doesn’t want to waste any more time with true “repukes”!

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Thats Right!!!!!

        Fricking
        Evil
        Republican
        Pukes.

        They used to be just stupid and money grasping but with the ascendency of the Anti-Science Religious Right, they done sloped over into evil.

        Funny when the religious do that…… eh Jebus?

  8. Sea Lawyer says:

    Really, what this ruling did was reinforce that the individual states have the prerogative, through their democratically elected legislatures, in defining and administering the rules around marriage (which has always been the tradition in the U.S. before DOMA was passed). That is the context in which DOMA was found to violate the Constitution.

    • bobbo, in Repose says:

      Yeah but it sets up two gay couples exactly the same one married in California and one not allowed to be married in some shit hole of a Red State and the Supremes are going to have to decide about “Equal Protection” on point.

      Its an interesting question (still) in my mind. I’m not gay, have no known relatives or friends who are gay so I’ve got no dog in this fight. I don’t see gay marriage as a “fundamental right” rather as all the benefits except xyz can be obtained contractually, I see it more as social engineering with the economic consequences that apply. xyz are the economic benefits that are given to spouses of heterosexual unions–tax benefits, survivor benefits and so forth. That being the case, fundamental rights normally don’t center on such issues. What is fundamental is to BE with that other person, and to be LEFT ALONE. The gays would not be fighting for the label of Married (by and large) if there was not a financial benefit going with it.

      MONEY = CORRUPTION even the pure state of gayfull bliss. Seems they are no better/different than the straights. Ha, ha…… the sweet irony.

      I don’t see how the Supremes will be able to avoid finding gay marriage a constitutional right with the right case brought before them….. and thats ok. Just because I don’t care, and it will increase the cost to non gays… the governing principle is that the damage to my own interests is close to zero while the benefit to an identifiable group is “huge.”

      FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM = leaving other people alone.

      • Jesus says:

        This probably wouldn’t even be an issue if it hadn’t been a TRADITION to exclude a group of people based on some bullshit idea or BELIEF. (Sounds a lot like the slavery issue when you think about it that way.)

        • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

          I’d take a more Christian approach.

          • So What? says:

            I wouldn’t.

          • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

            …. but you ain’t Jebus. Different strokes for different folks. See how carefully and individually a comment should be crafted?

            Yea, Verily!!

          • So What? says:

            Not a christian either so to take a “christian” approach would be hypocritical.

          • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

            Only if you want to define it that way. Christian to various degrees can describe the actor or the action or both.

            I am an evangelical existential anti-theist AND an atheist, but also quite christian in my care for my fellow man. Sadly, actions alone don’t provide access to heaven…. according to those who speak with God privately.

            Your choice.

          • pedro says:

            Are liberuls afraid of being seen as hypocrites? I think NOT!

        • pedro says:

          Being able to reproduce & form families is a bullshit belief? Man, the things one has to read!!!!!

  9. bobbo, in Repose says:

    MikeN says:
    6/26/2013 at 12:29 pm

    >and like many SCOTUS rulings, the court noted responsibility from here forward lies with Congress.

    That’s the exact opposite of what the court did. What they said was any law passed by Congress adverse to the interest of gays is unconstitutional. /// Bravo. I agree.

    The DOMA case was not about federalism. Just another muddled opinion from Anthony Kennedy. /// Oops. In point of fact….. EVERY Sup Ct case is about federalism. Thats what the Supremes are all about, either directly or all the degrees of indirectness. Just look for the dots…. note their relative positions…. and draw the lines.

    You actually have the California case wrong as well. The proper result from what the Supreme Court did would be to vacate the District Court ruling and Prop 8 stands in California, while the two named plaintiffs are allowed to get marriage licenses. //// Thats what Eideard said.

    However, liberals who don’t care for the law will probably ignore that as well. /// Entered on a high note…. still left the dance retarded. Well, half assed is an improvement.

    • MikeN says:

      >Thats what Eideard said.

      I missed where Eideard said that gay marriage is now banned in California. The post also looks diferent from what I remember as he makes no comment on the case.

      • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

        Well Mickey—just read the OP again, or have someone else read it to you until you see your 180 Degree Opposite Error.

        ….. or until you get your talking points to rant onward. Until then….. how’s the bus schedule coming?

  10. anonymous Coward says:

    It’s like eating shellfish : an abomination.

  11. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Sea Lawyer providing even more evidence he is but a stow away on these judical seas says:
    6/26/2013 at 1:29 pm

    Issues of a purely political nature /// define purely political as it applies to laws/constraints that are placed upon the people. Distinguish from fundamental rights? aka: a supposition so unmet in nature as to constitute a Pink Unicorn.

    are not the place for a non-elected, non-political branch of government to be injecting itself. That is major objection. /// Yeah, but the Supremes in Majority view disagree with you. You do know/recognize/understand what being the Supremes means don’t you???? It means saying “You can’t do this to me” or “but this is a purely political issue” means Unicorn Shit.

    And as an aside, any activity for which you have to request permission and receive a license from the government, before engaging in, can’t really be considered a “fundamental constitutional right” under any reasonable definition. //// Again, the Supremes ruled expressly that the right to marriage is fundamental. Came up in inter-racial marriages so the open issue now is does the same reasoning apply to gays.

    Must suck to always be riding a Unicorn.

  12. Jesus says:

    Funny how everyone want’s to cite the Constitution and the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (often confused for the fifth) which wasn’t even part of the Bill of Rights!

    So, would any of you idiot liberals care to look at the SECOND AMENDMENT which IS in the Bill of Rights?! Or would that be like asking you to pull your heads out of your asses?

    • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

      Funny how everyone want’s to cite the Constitution and the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT /// Funny like a knock knock joke during opening argument in a Murder Trial?—THAT funny??===or actually the gravamen of the issue before the Court?

      (often confused for the fifth) /// only an idiot would confuse such different provisions

      which wasn’t even part of the Bill of Rights! /// So what? The BOR has an interesting history but once adopted, it is read with no greater weight than any other constitutional provision. Stop listening to the Devil.

      So, would any of you idiot liberals care to look at the SECOND AMENDMENT which IS in the Bill of Rights?! /// Sure. How do guns apply??? I must be REALLY LIBERAL because I see NO CONNECTION AT ALL.

      Or would that be like asking you to pull your heads out of your asses? /// Ha, ha….. the only pulling relevant here is pud pulling.

      But I digress.

  13. So What? says:

    Traditional biblical marriage:
    One man and his sister.
    One man and his dead brother’s wife.
    One man and one women and her servants.
    One man and his rape victim.
    One man and many women.

    • deegee says:

      Maybe you should read a bible.

      Genesis 5:2 etc.
      They were created as a pair, a man and a woman.

      Matthew 19:5 etc.
      A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.

      It is clearly stated in the bible that any other relationships such as incest, bigamy, etc. are counted as not the correct thing to do (sin, “missing the mark”).
      These people were allowed to do these things, just like people continue to do today, Matthew 19:8 for one example states a reason why it has been allowed so far.
      Read Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the scriptures of Matthew 19:3-12 for what the bible really says about marriage.

      • So What? says:

        You might want to read the rest of the old testament.

        • deegee says:

          The bible is not a book filled with only examples of what you should do, it also shows the many things that you should not do and what the consequences of those are.

          Just because person A or B in the bible did this or that, it does not mean that it was correct or condoned.

          Did YHWH or Jesus approve of the behavior of those people? NO.

          If you would have bothered to read the scriptures I posted you would know that.

          • So What? says:

            Like I said, you might want to actually read the fairy tale all the way through.

            PS. I don’t care for fiction.

          • deegee says:

            I have more than 30 years into the study of theology, ancient languages, scriptures, biblical and ancient archaeology, etc.
            From an academic point of view.
            I have read the entire book around 25 times and more than half of the books over 50 times. Including many transliterations and translations.
            And I am not making this up.

            If you have not read it, then you have no authority at all to comment on it.
            If you have not understood any of the philosophy contained in it, then you have no authority to comment on it.
            So your comments are meaningless and you do not know that of which you speak.

  14. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Supreme Court says Obama (who support DOMA until recently), Clinton and the Democrat Congress that passed DOMA, did so solely to harm gays….

    Therefore we should submit their names to an international court for adjudication for hate crimes and Genocide…immediately:

    Let the their incarceration begin now!

    Now, if you ever had any doubt that the left is intolerant and fully invested in the low art of personal destruction through smear tactics, just read Scalia’s dissent in United States v. Wade. In this dissent he quotes the majority and illustrates how they smear — in a Supreme Court ruling, smear — supporters of traditional marriage as a means of justifying their opinion. What Scalia says is that the majority in the DOMA case, in order to arrive at their decision, actually says that the supporters of traditional marriage…

    Well, they name-call. There’s no legal reasoning here, or very little. Scalia says the majority has arrived at its point of view because the opponents of homosexual marriage are reprobates and bigots. It’s disgusting. It demeans the Supreme Court, and it’s turned the Supreme Court into nothing different from any venue in this country where people argue. It proves that we are up against people who don’t give a damn about the rule of law or about basic decency or about decorum.

    I have often said that what animates people on the left — what motivates them, what informs them — is defeating us. No matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means. Their hatred for us overwhelms anything else. No matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek. It’s what makes them happy. Now, the left politicizes everything, and in this case, hardball politics became the name of the game.

    Hardball politics, bare knuckles, rather than learned judicial reasoning….

    Here’s a little of Scalia’s dissent: “The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the ‘bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group.’”

    Now, stop and think of that. Scalia in his dissent says that the majority, Anthony Kennedy and the four libs, in their ruling, said “the only reason” that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed was because supporters of it want to “harm a politically unpopular group.” Just that, just that allegation has nothing to do with the law. This has nothing to do with adjudication of cases.

    This is Antonin Scalia saying the majority attacks the supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act as having as their sole motivation, the only motive was to harm homosexuals. They proceed from there in declaring it unconstitutional. The majority said that it’s unconstitutional because the people who wrote it… By the way, it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat Congress, and a Democrat president who made this law possible

    Scalia continues, “Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state … but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States,” and in this case the presidency was held by Bill Clinton. So Scalia’s pointing out that the majority in this case was accusing Clinton and the Democrat Congress of passing DOMA because they only wanted to hurt gay people.

    “Laying such a charge,” Scalia writes, “against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite — affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification” for DOMA. So it gets worse. Not only does the majority decision today accuse the people who supported DOMA of doing it only to hurt gay people…

    He then accuses the majority of concealing the just arguments for the statute. He says the majority “makes only a passing mention of the ‘arguments put forward’ by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them.’ I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them. …

    I am sure,” Scalia writes, “these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.

    “To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.”

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/06/26/supreme_court_rulings_on_gay_marriage_represent_the_fracturing_of_the_american_culture

    • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

      Hey TEA-Dud==did you read the dissent yourself?

      I didn’t think so.

      Dissent Opinion x Rush Limbaugh / Not Read it = BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Thanks Alfie.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        ” The Constitution’s guarantee of
        equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.

        http://supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

        So congress (Democrat majority & Clinton in 1996) desired to harm gays, a politically unpopular group by enacting DOMA.

        Until a few months ago, Obama supported DOMA, campaigned he would defend it.

        Therefore they are guilty of hate crimes according to the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court and should be brought before an international court for this and their many other crimes…

        particularly his covert war against the secular Arab Spring in favor of Jihadism, just because of their hatred for America…

        http://rt.com/news/irish-politicians-tyrade-obamas-238/

        What a guy.

        RT News is actually quite interesting, never checked it out before…seems a lot better than the Elite Propaganda channeled through our media.

    • So What? says:

      Well I’ll be damned until I got to the end and saw limbaugh I thought alfie had a cogent thought. Yeah I should have known better.

    • Dallas says:

      You’re on bath salts and hopefully nobody is near you

  15. MikeN says:

    The push for marriage politically is young people telling their parents that children don’t need a mother and a father.

    • bobbo, one proud liberal kicking Conservative Ass since High School Detention says:

      Well, THAT makes no sense at all…. about three different ways. You sure you don’t want to channel Rush Limbaugh and put it in bolded caps?

      Bueller?

  16. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    deegee endeavoring mightily to bring this forum to its knees in righteous observation of his certainty in the Lord says:
    6/26/2013 at 8:42 pm

    Maybe you should read a bible. /// Forever…. why?

    Genesis 5:2 etc.
    They were created as a pair, a man and a woman. /// Even if “they” were…. so what?

    Matthew 19:5 etc.
    A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. /// What? Is being unmarried a sin then? Or not the way it was from the beginning? Or some unnatural state ….. or what?

    It is clearly stated in the bible that any other relationships such as incest, bigamy, etc. are counted as not the correct thing to do (sin, “missing the mark”). /// I don’t doubt that but how about an example since what you have posted so far is meaningless gibberish?

    These people were allowed to do these things, just like people continue to do today, Matthew 19:8 for one example states a reason why it has been allowed so far. /// Because the one wanting the divorce had a “hardened heart?” Ha, ha. You (and Moses)—so stupid. IE–rather a circular reasoning.

    Read Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the scriptures of Matthew 19:3-12 for what the bible really says about marriage. /// Why?

    One of my best insights FROM THIS VERY FORUM: If the religious could be reasoned with, there wouldn’t be any.

    Care to reason?

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Your brief, like the majority opinion, is vacuous smear. Marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman.

      This is irrelevant to how secular society might define marriage, given the separation of church and state.

      This essential separation of church and state is not Obama’s default position…being unAmerican, he intuitively believes he has power over the Church:

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-wont-make-churches-conduct-gay-marriages/article/2532418

      Being foreign born no doubt explains that “alien in the White House” aura he projects, by the sycophants in the US media are too occupied hoping Obama will have sex with them, to notice.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Quite a subtle rant there Alfie. I wonder if you think it means the clear reading I give it?

        Given the calcification/regimentation/dogmafication of your brain……I doubt it.

        I did have an image of the Holy Ghost, or was it the spirit of the Holy Ghost?==(whatever) which is one of the states of God Himself causing Mary to become pregnant. Where is this philandering on our chart of normalcy and how things are supposed to be?

        DeeGee?

        Greg?????

        Moses?

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          Clearly you are reprobate beyond any Christian help I might offer.

          32 “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Mat 12:32 NKJ)

          But I didn’t discuss religion, as a Constitutional Originalist Republican, I accept the separation of church and state and allow the state can make laws independent of what scripture says is right or wrong.

          Then I have the 1st Amendment right to make known their errors according to the Bible.

          Obama has no right to silence my speech or interfere with my religion whatsoever.

          But his first reaction to the news was to consider forcing churches do gay weddings.

          Then he decided against it…what a guy.

          I put as much faith in his word as his promise health care would not be mandated via fines….or that he would defend DOMA if elected….

          However, that elementary observation was too much for your limited intellectual capacity for debate.

          Only bigotry….smear…do you produce in support of your irrational opinions….

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Work It Alfie!!!!

          Does it ever froth up to Santorum Levels?

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Froth; Sanitarium, evangelical anti-theist….

            Clearly those ethereal alien probes were more substantial than you let on.

  17. Captain Obvious says:

    About fucking time.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      For deciding they didn’t have standing?

      Gay marriage was neither approved or condemned by this ruling.

      The only thing it really accomplished was to smear Clinton, the Democrat Congress and Obama…all supporters of DOMA at one time or another, as persons wanting to harm a politically unpopular group.

      Being a Tea Party Dude, I can sympathize….these crimminals should be brought before an international court for their crimes.

      I propose we put them on UN property and take away their citizenship and passports, so like Snowden at the airport…they can roam the halls for the UN forever.

  18. TooManyPuppies says:

    Had to sit my gay neighbor down and explain to him how this was a terrible death blow to democracy. And a huge fucking for for a constitutional republic. In a democracy Prop 8 would be law, period, end of story. Take your boo hoo whining and stick you know where. And there would be allowable challenge to it. A pure and true democracy that my other CA comrades like to wave around is nothing but mob/majority rule. If the majority rulled that everyone must die by suicide on their 30th birthday, then it RULES and must be adhered to. If the majority says we can scan the voter registration records so we can find and hang all republicans and democrats for being in a cult? It’s LAW and must be carried out, no allowable challenge is accepted.

    But, since we are and always shall be a Constitutional Republic any law or policy that infringes on that constitution in any way shape or form it is null and void.

    My neighbors brain melted before he crawled away to tell off all his democracy loving friends.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      You misread their reaction. I would buy them something to make up for the time you stole from their lives.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Your hypothetical is absurd, a majority would never rule everyone must die by suicide on any birthday…

      Therefore your argument is absurd…why not allege a democracy might vote on gravity, that it propels rather than attracts…and therefore democracy is stupid…

      What is stupid is your argument.

  19. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Will affirmative action be used to remedy past discrimination.

    Will “addadicktome” or “removeadictome” be covered by Obamacare?

    Will Janet Napalitano and Hillary Clinton finally tie the knot?

    Will Obama come out of the closet?

    inquiring minds want to know.

    Stay tuned.

  20. Mr Diesel says:

    DOMA isn’t dead, it still applies to state that do not recognize gay “marriage”. I have about 30 gay friends (no lesbians because they are just too freakin mean) and they all know I support equal rights for everyone, not gay or straight. I support civil unions but you can’t change the meaning of marriage just because you get a wild hair (or anything else) up your ass.

    Equal rights are equal rights.

    Stand by for the next round of bullshit in the states that do not recognize so called gay marriage. DOMA still applies in those.

    • Phydeau says:

      you can’t change the meaning of marriage just because you get a wild hair (or anything else) up your ass.

      The definition of “Marriage” in the US used to include “… between two people of the same race.” Now it doesn’t. We changed the definition of marriage.

      And how does Adam and Steve getting married affect your marriage? Do tell.

      • pedro says:

        Again with the same question? Do you want a different answer?

        • Phydeau says:

          Pedrito, your answers have all been BS. We’ve had gay marriage for at least 8 years in Massachusetts and heterosexual homophobes are still getting married, their marriages are still surviving, no fire and brimstone has rained down on us, no one has married their dog. Society hasn’t crumbled. Other countries with gay marriage have had the same results.

          The evidence is clear. Gay marriage has not been a threat to the institution of marriage. No one has been able to show ANY harm to anyone.

          So why are you idjits still bent out of shape over it?

          • pedro says:

            Sure, you’re not full of BS. You tout about being “different” yet wanna get married like heterosexuals. Seems to me, you’re the one full of it

      • LibertyLover says:

        It doesn’t affect my marriage, but it does affect my society.

        For years we have admitted as a society that children are better off in a two-parent home. There are loving, single parents who have done a wonderful job, and there are unhealthy, dysfunctional two-parent families. But pointing out exceptions to the rule ignores the rule itself, which stares us directly in the face.

        Ideally, children need a healthy father and a healthy mother. They need both, because men and women are different and each one has different things to offer in a child’s upbringing. We used to feel free to admit this rather obvious truth.

        Unfortunately, the need to be accepted by friends in a politically correct world results in people shoving truth under a rug. The more children are raised by fathers and mothers together, the better we will all be as a society. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.

        Many self-described liberals insist we need diversity of genders on the Supreme Court because women will “bring a different perspective” and yet, when these same people are asked about males and females together as role models for children, they suddenly switch gears.

        Studies on ancient Rome and other cultures show that when the family breaks down, the entire country breaks down. But then, history always provides 20-20 hindsight.

        With all due respect to those desiring same-sex companionship, forcing an affirmation from the entire country will have a rather large influence upon our joint future as Americans.

        Bob Siegel

        • Phydeau says:

          Copy and paste of my answer to Pedrito, same thing.

          Your answers have all been BS. We’ve had gay marriage for at least 8 years in Massachusetts and heterosexual homophobes are still getting married, their marriages are still surviving, no fire and brimstone has rained down on us, no one has married their dog. Society hasn’t crumbled. Other countries with gay marriage have had the same results.

          The evidence is clear. Gay marriage has not been a threat to the institution of marriage. No one has been able to show ANY harm to anyone.

          So why are you idjits still bent out of shape over it?

          You want to talk about families “breaking down”, talk about divorce between heterosexual couples. You want to “save” marriage, have the courage of your convictions, have some balls, and try to get divorce banned. Good luck.

          But spare us your bigotry disguised as “concern” for “the family”.

          • LibertyLover says:

            I didn’t say it was a threat to marriage so quit trying to change my answer.

            I said it was threat to society.

            And I’m on record as stating I could care less if they want to get married or not. I personally don’t think government ought to have a say in it. Society will solve the problem itself. Government doesn’t need to stick its nose in it at all.

          • Phydeau says:

            Oh really. A threat to society. More BS. Go ahead, show us how “society” has been damaged in Massachusetts from having gay marriage for the last 8 years. Show us how the societies of other countries that have gay marriage have been damaged.

            Or you could just STFU and stop embarrassing yourself.

          • LibertyLover says:

            You’re fairly short-sighted.

            Time will tell.

            Rome didn’t fall in 8 years.

          • pedro says:

            Liberuls have been weakening society by weakening marriage for a long time.

            First, it was the women “liberation”, brainwashing women about being “equal”. The result: there’s nobody home to take care of the kids because both parents have to “live their lives” and “grow as individuals”. On top of that, this is ground for an increment in divorces because “my partner is not supportive of my needs” and “I feel trapped in this marriage”

            So after that achievement, they start to cite this fact as example of why gay people are as competent as heterosexuals in bringing a healthy home. Clever! They destroy marriage and now they say marriage can be done better by them.

            This goes hand in hand with what John & Adam describe as the “Pussification” of society (I’ll go a step beyond and say the pussyfication of western civilization) in which immature men believe they can do the work previously done by women and can perfectly assume the role of housewife.

            Of course, after all those achievements, marriage is a broken institution and a bunch of people that are not even sure how they became what they are (so, is it a choice or were you born that way huh?) want to be “equals” to those they swore were different from.

            Because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

            Let’s know when you feel you wanna eat & poop at the same time.

            While we’re at it, the editor can put up the pic of the redneck drinking beer on a toilet outside the house, befits this topic perfectly

          • Phydeau says:

            It just boggles the mind when people claim that gays getting married is “destroying” marriage and society, while they ignore all the DIVORCES that actually destroy marriages!

            The divorced fundies who bitch about gay marriage are particularly disgusting.

            You’re straining at gnats while swallowing camels. Divorce actually destroys marriages and affects society, there is rock-solid proof of that. But you ignore that, and focus on gays trying to get married. And there is no evidence that is harming society at all.

            Ignoring the obvious facts indicates you’re not thinking rationally, so you’re most likely reacting out of bigotry.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Divorce actually destroys marriages and affects society, there is rock-solid proof of that

            Marriages end long before a divorce comes into the picture. Divorce is what happens after the marriage is destroyed. Divorce is not the cause of a failed marriage.

            But let’s move on past your logical error and get to the point you are failing miserably at:

            Perhaps you are proving our point — If you get a divorce, any kids are no longer are raised by a mom AND a dad.

    • Bob says:

      I have an interesting question for you? Why is the government even involved in marraige in the first place?

      Put it like this, if two consenting adults decide to merge their assets, and legal affairs what business is it of the government?

      From my point of view every union should be a civil union when dealing with the government. If you should want a “marriage”, then you can go to a church to get one. If having a marriage certificate stamped by the say, the catholic church is so important to you, then you will have to abide by their rules.

      • pedro says:

        “Put it like this, if two consenting adults decide to merge their assets, and legal affairs what business is it of the government?”

        That’s not marriage, that a civil or corporate contract.

        Feel free to use that one for gay unions, leave marriage alone.

  21. JimD says:

    I guess most people cant tell the difference between “Holy Matrimony” and Civil Marriage ! Holy Matrimony is for Church-goers, and civil marriage is for those who have progressed beyond the fairy tales that have enslaved civilization for milenia !!! Church-goers should stop TRYING TO IMPOSE THEIR RELIGION ON THE REST OF US !!!

    • pedro says:

      Another one that hates his family and his parents.

      • Nikelectric says:

        WTF Pedro. If you don’t believe in some god or another that leads you to the conclusion that you hate your parents and family. Where the hell does that conclusion come from?

        Yet another non-nonsensical argument from the religious half of our society.

        • pedro says:

          It’s obvious he thinks his family is a bad example and that homosexuals could have raised him just as well.

          • So What? says:

            Maybe they could, who’s to say?

          • Mayor Bloomburger says:

            Don’t vote for Pedro. I’d love to see you try and pull that a typical American middle-class dinner part, you know, the type you would’t be invited to in a million years.

          • pedro says:

            Sure, gay men (lesbian can still harbor it) know from deep biological experience what maternal instincts are and act upon them, what with all the births they have experienced.

  22. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    LibertyLover says:
    6/27/2013 at 9:46 am

    You’re fairly short-sighted. /// Better than blind.

    Time will tell. /// No. time simply rolls on, uncaring about stoopid hoomans and their hopes, dreams, and resulting despair.

    Rome didn’t fall in 8 years. /// It didn’t fall because of gay marriage either. What an ass wipe trying to hide your anti-gay (marriage) fears and misconceptions behind a totally bogus representation of History.

    LL–do you think ANYTHING in the course of human affairs is so simple as to be given direction by one factor and one factor alone? Connect your dots for us: HOW does gay marriage/relationships negatively affect a society? True or not, it is often commented that gay relationships in the Spartan Army made in one of the fiercest fighting machines ever known. Imagine being in LOVE with the guy in the foxhole with you? How hard would you fight for your society then.

    confront your issues DIRECTLY.

    Stop the BULL SHIT.

    • pedro says:

      “Stop the BULL SHIT.”

      The moment you & others of like ilk in the blog stops posting, that’ll happen.

    • LibertyLover says:

      Thank Me!

      I was starting to feel lonesome here, no worship and all.

      Thanks, booger!

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        That was rather ironic: asking Bullshit to stop the Bullshit. Thats like asking Alfie to stop being irrelevant.

  23. MikeN says:

    Let’s supposed Mark Perkel organized an anti-surveillance proposition to be put on the ballot, arranging for millions of signatures. It wins with 90% of the vote. Meanwhile Dianne Feinstein and Condoleeza Rice are elected governor and attorney general.

    Someone files a lawsuit against Perkel’s anti-surveillance bill, and Governor Feinstein and Atty Gen Rice refuse to defend it in court. So Mark Perkel then hires his own attorneys out of pocket to make the case, but still loses with the presiding judge having a wife in training at NSA. Then he appeals to the 9th Circuit and loses again, but then appeals to the Supreme Court. There the Court says Perkel has no business bringing the case, only the state executive branch can appear in court.

    That is roughly what the California ruling is.
    I can’t get a better analogy for what to do next, unless the measure is all NSA employees must wear a scarlet letter. Then the correct result is the law cannot be thrown out as there was noone in court to argue the state’s case, but the named employees who filed the lawsuit can get a default judgment that they are not required to wear the scarlet letter.

  24. Grandpa says:

    Just the thought of what gays do disgusts me. But if we can allow millions of lawbreakers amnesty for their crimes we can also allow gays legal rights under the law. Given a choice, I’d chose a gay any day.

    • pedro says:

      In essence, you’re saying that DUHllass is marginally better than a wetback.

      Hahahahahahahaha

    • jpfitz says:

      Grandpa, I enjoy the lesbian sexual acts. I think you are being anal. HA