Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the Obama administration had filed a legal brief encouraging the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Holder said in a statement:

In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law. Throughout history, we have seen the unjust consequences of decisions and policies rooted in discrimination. The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our nation as a whole.

Holder hinted yesterday that the administration might insert itself into the case, telling ABC News that “this is really the latest civil-rights issue.” In short, the brief argues that tradition cannot justify discrimination against a minority group.

The filing of the brief was big news to supporters of same-sex marriage, who sent #Prop8 trending.

Not everyone is so happy to see Obama and his administration evolve.

  • J. Cox

    I said that within 20 years,Churches would be sued because they refused to “marry” ss couples…..this opens that door just a bit further…Because dignity is now a right?

    • SpinMeNot

      It goes way past that — this opens the door to overturning any and all laws that reflect traditional morality. Mark Levin talked about this at length tonight.

      Eventually, there will be a rebound. The US has fallen behind the curve with regard to birthrate. If you only consider the religious right (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) we are in better shape. The liberals are going to disappear, but before that happens, one single religion is likely to come to power. That religion will likely be Islam (Belgium is just about to this point now).

      I’ll be long gone by then … but all the lemmings, err, lefties are going to have a very unpleasant awakening.

      • Joe W.

        You are correct. Islam WILL be the word’s religion when Armegedden occurs. The US will have been destroyed by Iranian lead, Islamic jihadists.

        • SpinMeNot

          I am right there with you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

    Normally, I wouldn’t care but Obama can’t form a consistent opinion when it comes to SS marriage. Whenever I hear him site scripture and/or the Constitution…it pisses me off to no end. The unmitigated audacity of this guy is beyond unbelievable

    • https://twitter.com/tweetyuo Tangchung

      You are right. He been all over the map on this one. Remember right before the last election he was against it BUT his stance “evolved” or something and he embraced SS.

      • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

        My opinion on gay marriage has “evolved” but it definitely hasn’t vacillated. Evolution is usually gradual. This drastic back and forth (flip flop), when it suits him, isn’t evolution.

        • https://twitter.com/tweetyuo Tangchung

          Obama is like a wedding band. Friday night he is singing do the “Hokey Pokey” and Saturday he dong a campaign stop in Vegas singing “Summer Wind” (sorry Frank) Sunday Obama is LA doing singing “Baby Got Back”.

        • $44640340

          Whew… When you said Flip-Flop visions of Mitt Romney came to mind. A man that ran on a premise to be more better to gay people than Ted Kennedy on gay rights then abandon them after election.

          But why am I rehashing him, hes irrelevant, he lost.

          Barack DID flip his stance as well… But to his credit, I can see his progress in his views through legislation that he helped to implement.

      • $44640340

        Actually during the election, He verbally came out and said it. He also made incredible changes to laws to show that he was not against gay people.

    • $44640340

      So when he quotes scripture to bolster his point in support, he’s wrong; but if scripture is quoted in opposition its ok?

      I’m just trying to understand your point.

    • $23629333

      I don’t see the political payoff in this. That’s what confuses me about the whole gay marriage campaign. How many votes do the Democrats win with that?

  • https://twitter.com/davidjkramer DavidKramer

    For those of you not familiar with politispeak, evolve is replaceable with lie.

    edit to add- just remember when attempting to understand what a politician is saying, it has absolutely nothing to do with what is coming out of their mouths.

  • Joe W.

    Let them go ahead and glorify and sanction sin before God. No different from those who support and champion abortion. Sin is sin, and we all know what happens to sinners who deny their sin as well as deny their God. The Bible has already said that this will happen, folks. So it is no surprise at all. Just a bit disgusting. It will get worse, as well, I’m afraid. We will devolve spiritually, culturally and morally into an abyss of deprivation unheard of in the history of mankind. The good news is that God wins in the end, along with the faithful. Cheers, y’all…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/luke.givens.963 Luke Givens

      LOL. Cheers!

      • Joe W.

        Hardy-har-har, Sonny…Laugh & mock at your peril…..

      • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

        The Great Tribulation… Laugh? I will pray for you.

        I don’t know if homosexuality is a sin, it’s not for me to judge. I know many homosexuals and would never persecute them or try to deny them a happy life.

        The only thing I can say, is read the Bible and try to understand the meaning. Scoff at it, to your own peril.

        EDIT: I find it weird and distressing that the guy sarcastically LOL’ing at the post, has more upvotes then my attempt to dissaude him from laughing…

        • SpinMeNot

          You don’t have to judge, you just need to read the Bible — it is pretty clear.

          I’m guessing you haven’t read the Epistles of Paul.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            I read the Bible everyday :)

            Edit: you’d be wrong; you are welcome to and I would be elated if you would quote scripture for us. If it helps spread the good word. If you are using it to demean me, I would have you reconsider. Paul’s letters are some of my favorite writings, ever. They have brought me to tears on numerous occasions. Paul was a tough dude, man. I am a little more compassionate. I love and respect his words and fully understand where he was coming from. It is just not my approach…

            Even Paul and Peter disagreed at times.

          • SpinMeNot

            Shall I point to you the relevant passages in the Epistles then?

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Do you not understand it’s my salvation?
            Salvation is personal

            Spin, I have seen you around and think you are a cool person who has valid opinions. Not trying to be at odds with you. I love Christ. Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. It’s just not prudent to bash gays…what’s the point…you think that’s the approach to win hearts and minds?

          • SpinMeNot

            Fair enough, and I agree with you, salvation is a very personal thing. The Church is both online and offline, and it is our responsibility to support each other, that was all I was attempting to do.

        • Junie3

          God said it’s an abomination, men are destroying the seed of children he meant to be born, he killled Judahs 2 brothers for spilling it on the ground and not impregnating the wife of their dead brother, he wanted that seed to carry on. (Mothers determine the ethnicity in the Jewish families, not the men.) He also said that Abel’s blood cries out from the ground, this crying out of blood represents the generations that were meant to be born but are not.
          If you’re a Christian, then yes it is for you to judge right from wrong and not commit sin.
          God said women lying with animals is an abomination, do you have those kind of friends too, would you judge them, do you find that wrong?

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            I don’t care if a person is gay or not. I live a life of probity, continency and fidelity. I think a homosexual can live the same life. Not going to give high fives nor point fingers.

            I stand up for my faith(and Christ) at every turn but I am not going to chastise homosexuals. You think hating and demeaning people is going to fix the problem? Should I tell them how repugnant they are? Should I burn them at the stake??

            Bestiality is illegal…homosexuality isn’t; An animal doesn’t have the ability to say no and thus not really analogous IMO

            Kindness, Diligence, Chastity, Temperance, Caritas, Humility, and Patience are the undeniable truths. Everything else is open to my interpretation. Sodom and Gomorrah had more to do with sexual deviance than homosexuality. I would take a gay conservative over a straight liberal; ALL DAY. I am allowed to have my own opinion. If the Bible disagrees, St. Peter and I can talk about it at the gate. I’ll be happy to pled my case. If I burn, then I burn. But I’ll burn for what I believe.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            I don’t know why I used the words life style “choice”, They can’t help it . They were born that way…If it were a choice I would be quicker to condemn them.

          • captaingrumpy

            Don’t fool yourself….it IS a choice

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            In some cases I would be inclined to agree with you. Our society just doesn’t tolerate but in many instances glorifies homosexuality. We have to be very careful about the message we are sending and it needs to be very clear. It’s not something for shame or pride; it just is. People question their sexuality, it is a normal human experience. Flippant attitudes is where we run into problems. Currently, I am upset with both sides. It doesn’t need to be such a polarizing issue. Let us please use some sense and compassion when addressing it.

          • Junie3

            Suppose it’s a generational curse.

          • $44640340

            If so, then I invite you to go have gay sex and enjoy it, it shoukd be easy IF ITS A CHOICE.

            Just wake up and say “I want to perform fellacio today, and I think ill do it several times”

            Can’t do it… Why, it’s easy… Its a choice right, you chose what pants to wear, or what to eat, what to read… Can you also chose who your attracted to.

            Foolish.

          • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

            Amen brother! Just like my sister and me.

          • AMSilver

            Because you were using the word ‘choice’ to describe the lifestyle, not the temptation or drive to live that way. We all have things that we are driven to do from birth, both good and bad. It is what we choose to do – both giving in to and resisting – those drives that makes a lifestyle. One can argue over whether being homosexual is a choice or not (personally I think for some it is a conscious choice, for others not), but engaging in homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice, the same as engaging in any other behavior. We may not control all the impulses that run through our brains, but we do control how to act (or not act) on them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Yes, I agree. Well said.

            p.s. I haven’t down voted anyone (except Luke Givens, who did not contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way). I just wanted that to be known. I appreciate any and all input. I know I don’t have all the answers

          • Junie3

            I don’t hate gay people, I know what the bible says about and I try to live my accordingly. I don’t hang out with them and I don’t know where you came up with me hating them, I just tried to show you why it’s an abomination. I don’t think gay women are in the danger of hell like men are since they are not the seed carriers, but them lying with animals is the abomination from God, even though the Apostle Paul witnessed and told the congregation that women were not to lie with women, that was because in Greece men were lying with men and women were lying with women. Greece was a wild place.
            Your president made beastiality legal in the military.

            If the bible disagrees, what? God disagrees and guess what you won’t be taking anything up with Peter, you’ll answer to God. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed only because of homosexuality Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me… Jude 7 declares, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

            As far as hell is concerned, I don’t believe people are burned for an eternity, I think some are thrown in the fired and burned to ashes and the wages of sin is death, how is death eternal burning? Micah spoke of ashes under our feet, who’s ashes will be under our feet? The bible speaks of men turning into vapors in the fire.
            Hell was meant for Satan and his angels, not men. Some men will burn to ashes, other sinners will just have eternal death and they are forgotten, no memory of them will live, it will be as if they never existed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            I was using hyperbole…I did not mean to put words in your mouth, I don’t think there is “hate” in your opinion.

            Yes. Paul was addressing a specific population with a certain issue (he witnessed in said population) i.e. addressing circumcision with the Ephesians or depravity and iniquity with the Corinthians.

            My main issue is immorality. I would rather focus on that, because it’s the underling issue; whether it be homo or hetero. The comparison’s to ancient Greece (and Rome) are not lost on me. We are heading in a very scary direction. As the secular progressive movement gains credibility, we must not let them control the narrative. It’s a tight rope walk. My adherence to the Bible counterpoised with the gen pop’s complete lack of understand of the scripture. Siting the Bible to people is not going to work, if the second you bring God into the conversation, a large segment of society immediately closes their minds…and they will ‘win’ on this issue. We are on the right side of it and we need people to understand that and not be viewed as intolerant.

          • AMSilver

            Chastising does not equal hating. The scriptures state that those who the Lord loves, he chastens.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            I could have chosen my words more carefully. That’s what happens when you write off the cuff. ‘Hate’ was a poor choice. I was using hyperbole (always count to 10 and re-read before you hit enter). :)

            It is a very tough issue for me and there are a lot of things to take into account. I am still trying to fully formulate my opinion, while trying to be consistent and honest with my thoughts and feelings. I am still “evolving”

          • Sons Thunder

            I agree with you completely. I know that the PC police want us to be ‘tolerant’ and accept the people who eat shrimp and lobster. It is an abomination!

            Everywhere you look, you see some shellfish lover demanding they be treated like a human being. Hollyweird Lieberals used Forrest Gump as a vehicle to push their pro-shrimp agenda.

            There is even a restaurant chain called Red Lobster that has Shrimp Fest every year. Those people ladvertise on TV, radio and billboards and force their abomination down our throats!

            I’m trying to raise my children in this culture of sin. Everywhere you look, you find people celebrating the shellfish lifestyle. If you have the courage to speak up and tell shrimp eaters that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity, people treat you as that you are the crazy one. Surely, this is the end of times!

          • $44640340

            And you know we live in a world with all of these Women who were not Virgins on their wedding night … We allowed them to live, (Us devotees of the Bible or BibleBeaters as I like to call them) they weren’t taken into the square and stoned.

            And what about all these people who have marked their flesh with ink; horrible. We cant forget the women who sit on furniture while on their cycle. The list goes on & on.

            But, I could go on and on about this issue, but I wont. I will leave this behind though she makes excellent points for all those that like to”cherry pick” from the Bible to bolster their points.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

            Get your Bibles out and follow along as she list scripture at the bottom

          • Junie3

            The stoning of women stopped because the law of blood sacrifice for sin was about to be fulfilled by Jesus, that is what he came to do, be that sacrifice for sin. He asked them who is without sin, cast the first stone, none did. So even during the time of Jesus, they were still stoning women, until this event. He was teaching and about to fulfill the law of sin sacrifice.
            Many who marked or cut their flesh with ink were doing it to honor dead people.
            Getting taught by mocking Betty, that explains it.
            I won’t go into the woman’s cycle, but you’d probably be quite surprised at why they were sent outside of the camp.

            Are slaves the next issue?

          • $44640340

            LoL yes, and the 700 wives & 300 concubines (which takes away 1man 1woman)
            The blending of fabrics
            Shell fish
            Eating of animals with the split hooves

            We can go on and on. Its all BS.

            Dont cherry pick verses from the bible to bolster their bigoted points.

          • Junie3

            The blending of fabrics was for the Aaronic Priesthood, not for everyday people, and guess what, the temple no longer stands, the priests are not needed, Yeshua fulfilled all of the temple requirements and is the living temple. The wives and concubines that you’re talking about were from King Solomon and God told him not to marry those women that they would turn his heart from him, he didn’t listen. Solomon lost his soul because of it.
            The only one cherry picking bible verses is you and you’re pretty sad at it.

          • Joe W.

            Read your Bible, son. Jesus Christ ushered in the New Covenant with God that made the “rules” of the Old Testament invalid. He paid for your sins on the cross, pal. Eat what you wish.

          • Junie3

            Hey pal has the earth passed away yet, are the jots and titles still there in the Hebrew language. Yeshua did not do away with any of God’s laws. What is gone are laws that were required for the temple, laws that required the bet diem court to be in process in Israel. Next time you read your NT try to see all the things he did that showed him teaching how to keep the law of Moses, how to keep the Sabbath. He said to listen to the Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat.
            (Mat 23:1-4 KJV) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, {2} Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: {3} All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. {4} For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
            Do what Moses taught. If the Old is done away with, then there are no 10 commandments, there is no bride, no covenant for the children of Abraham, nothing for Israel. In other words you think God is a liar,

          • Joe W.

            Hey Junie, while I do not wish to engage in another theological discussion, I will say that I never said that the NT did away with the Ten Commandments, but that many of God’s laws as set forth in Leviticus were made archaic. You have a lot of gall to accuse me of calling God a liar. Your attempt to trivialize and discount my posting is pathetic. Have a nice day, sport…and Bless your little heart…….

          • Junie3

            No dear you said: Jesus Christ ushered in the New Covenant with God that made the “rules” of the Old Testament invalid. He paid for your sins on the cross, pal. Eat what you wish.

            The 10 are in the OT. Then you throw in the book of Leviticus which that book expounds on the laws. Did you know that Jewish kids at the age of 5 start their biblical studies with this book? The age of 5, learning the hardest book in the bible, the book of Laws. They may need your help in understanding the laws that were first given to them are of no use to their relationship to God, throw it out.

            Bless your heart and live in peace.

          • Joe W.

            Oh come on, Junie. You need to understand that I was speaking of the Christian Faith, hence my use of Jesus Christ. The Jewish folks do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, so yes, I understand that Jews remain under the old covenant with God. If you wish to parse words with me, I’ll not oblige you. My conversation was with an ignorant fool atheist, and was obviously simplified in order to convey the basics to him. I will defer to your holiness and pious pomposity in keeping the rest of us properly schooled in matters of religion. Sorry if my ignorance offended you Sheeesh….

          • Joe W.

            Hey Junie, while I do not wish to engage in another theological discussion, I will say that I never said that the NT did away with the Ten Commandments, but that many of God’s laws as set forth in Leviticus were made archaic. You have a lot of gall to accuse me of calling God a liar. Your attempt to trivialize and discount my posting is pathetic. Have a nice day, sport…and Bless your little heart…….

          • Junie3

            Hey pal has the earth passed away yet, are the jots and titles still there in the Hebrew language. Yeshua did not do away with any of God’s laws. What is gone are laws that were required for the temple, laws that required the bet diem court to be in process in Israel. Next time you read your NT try to see all the things he did that showed him teaching how to keep the law of Moses, how to keep the Sabbath. He said to listen to the Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat.
            (Mat 23:1-4 KJV) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, {2} Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: {3} All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. {4} For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
            Do what Moses taught. If the Old is done away with, then there are no 10 commandments, there is no bride, no covenant for the children of Abraham, nothing for Israel. In other words you think God is a liar,

        • $44640340

          Religion is personal.
          What works for you, may not work for others.
          It is not your place to judge, you have to do what you feel is right and thats it.

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      What if I don’t believe in your god? Are you still going to try and force me to follow those laws?

      • Joe W.

        God grants you the choice to accept Him or reject Him. always has. That does NOT change the fact that He is still your God as well as mine. And I am forcing you to do nothing, Aaron. Never have, nor will I ever. Just ignore me AND God if that is your desire. I’ll STILL pray for you and God will still love you. Simple as that, Aaron. Simple as that.

    • Admiral_Shackleford

      I thought this was a political blog, not a bible-board for the rapture readies…

      • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

        Oh look, the Godless are telling us what a “bible-board” and what the “rapture” is.

        This isn’t a political BLOG either, btw.

        • Joe W.

          Atheists cannot help themselves, Angie. They twist, they turn, they try every means they can to invalidate our Lord. And they fail miserably at every attempt. The “Admiral” is no different.

        • Joe W.

          Atheists cannot help themselves, Angie. They twist, they turn, they try every means they can to invalidate our Lord. And they fail miserably at every attempt. The “Admiral” is no different.

      • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

        Oh look, the Godless are telling us what a “bible-board” and what the “rapture” is.

        This isn’t a political BLOG either, btw.

      • Joe W.

        Well, for your information, Admiral, I, like many traditional Americans, happen to believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. This blog subject has to deal with you and your butt buddies desiring me and the rest of America to support, sanction and promote your vulgar behavior. If you cannot discuss the issue at hand, perhaps you should visit a site that is a bit less conservative and “American” than this one? Bless your little heart.

      • Joe W.

        Well, for your information, Admiral, I, like many traditional Americans, happen to believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. This blog subject has to deal with you and your butt buddies desiring me and the rest of America to support, sanction and promote your vulgar behavior. If you cannot discuss the issue at hand, perhaps you should visit a site that is a bit less conservative and “American” than this one? Bless your little heart.

    • Admiral_Shackleford

      I thought this was a political blog, not a bible-board for the rapture readies…

  • Emma Jay

    Man, those gays are worse than murderers and rapists. We should deny them rights because they’re violating the ten commandments! When Moses came down with the stone tablets, all they said was “1. Gays are yucky! 2. Gays are gross! 3. Gays are not children of God!”

    Seriously, those of you that are opposed to gay marriage are so idiotic that you make me ashamed to have voted with you for 15 years.

    • marcellucci

      Seeing as you sound like a 15 year old, I imagine you’ve been voting Democrat for the last 15 years…..

      • 1CatEye

        And will continue to do so, long after death.

    • SpinMeNot

      Pardon us for having the courage and conviction to stand by our beliefs rather than go along with the crowd.

      Not one single person that I am familiar with in this community has said gays are not the children of God.
      I’ve not seen anyone use the word gross or yucky either. We have however pointed out that scripture tells us that it is a sin. Just like premarital sex is a sin.

      Those of us that you are complaining about actually understand that you can’t pick and choose those portions of the Bible that are relevant. I pray that one day, you come to follow Christ.

      • AaronHarrisinAlaska

        The problem isn’t that your standing by your beliefs. No. That’s to be respected. The problem is that your forcing others who don’t hold your beliefs to stand by them as well.

        • SpinMeNot

          But you expect us to accept yours.

          :Everybody, Say it with Me:

          NOT ON MY WATCH JUNIOR.

    • Joe W.

      Your support of gay “marriage” gives you much more to be ashamed of. Fact is that gays ARE children of God. Their behavior is yucky, gross, and quite sinful. But we pray for their salvation and redemption…Even as they would rather we did not.

    • grais

      You can’t be opposed to 3-person marriage then, can you?

      • 1CatEye

        Or person-animal marriages. Didn’t work too well for Catherine the Great, but hey, at least she TRIED.

        • grais

          Well, if the argument is in favor of equal human rights, we need to leave the animals out of it.

          How can anyone in favor of equal marriage rights for everyone reasonably exclude polygamist marriages? (I know some don’t) That’s the question I always ask. That’s the question that never gets answered.
          Oh, well

          • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

            Talk to PETA, they’re busy trying to get “human” rights for animals.

          • Junie3

            The Gov is looking into giving food stamps for pets.

    • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

      No one is saying gays are like murders and rapists — that is the straw man YOU brought up because you are too stupid to think logically about anything and idiotic fearmongering is the only thing that you can understand. Also, like a child, you insist on getting what you WANT RIGHT NOW even if that means completely lying about what the other side is saying.

    • 1CatEye

      Please cite the section of the Constitution that says marriage, of any kind, is a “right”, much less a “civil right”.

      • NRPax

        It’s somewhere between “right to privacy” and “separation of church and state.” When you come across “right to sing the blues” you’ve gone one paragraph too far.

    • Junie3

      Maybe reading the bible would help clear that up.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Forget Biblical opposition for minute. How about providing some proof that homosexuality is anything other than a personal lifestyle choice and worthy of special, legislative consideration?

      If that scientific proof has been made public, I seem to have missed it. Anecdotes are all I ever read.

      • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

        The story broke around the holiday’s and didn’t get a lot of media attention. So it was easy to miss. Google: ‘epigenetic homosexuality’.

        The problem now if it can be identified in the womb…think of the implications and/or possible outcomes. Can we go back to gay is a choice? What a $%^& storm.

        • NRPax

          Can we selectively abort fetuses when genetic screening shows homosexuality? Or will abortion suddenly be wrong?

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Exactly. The left will have a conflict of interest. What if they could ‘cure’ the child in utero, could a mother choose that?

          • NRPax

            And if she could, imagine the backlash.

    • TocksNedlog

      Yes folks, it’s the all-intent, no-effect channel!

  • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

    Wait so same people who say 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets (because that was what was “arms” when Constitution was written) not scary “assault” weapons, now argue that SSM is violation of equal protection. Um, when Constitution was written — even when 14th Amendment was enacted — marriage was between one man & one woman.

    Funny how you can hold opposite judicial interpretations of the same Constitution when you have no logic, values or beliefs other than “this is what *I* want.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

      Very good point. This administration picks and chooses what amendments should be upheld/followed.

    • SpinMeNot

      The 14th amendment is perhaps the most carefully crafted and discussed amendment. It served two purposes. Grant to the freed slaves citizenship and the full and equal protection of the law. It also denied those same rights to the Native Americans. It was not until 1940 that Native Americans were granted full citizenship.

      Original intent means nothing to the left.

    • http://twitter.com/redsoxunixgeek Smitty 

      No. marriage was a religious ceremony, not regulated by the Government like it is now. Let Religions have “Marriage” and the Government regulate civil Unions. Problem Solved.

      • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

        I can’t believe it. I kinda agree with Smitty K…I am not exactly sure how that would work, legalistically. Tax filing etc. It can’t be that simple. The problem I see is that civil union’s are not good enough for SS couples. Or at least they make it seem that way. They want marriage…

        • nc

          It’s not just marriage. Why do you think they’re fighting so hard for it?

          Here’s a great answer to this question, from a commenter on Hot Air:
          When the Supreme Court finally decides that the will, (vote), of the people is not valid in deciding social issues, the “game” is over. And everyone loses. The ultimate goal of the gay community is to have society as a whole accept the premise that their lifestyle is as “completely normal” as a heterosexual relationship, leaving those who discriminate against, (disagree with) this lifestyle to become a legal criminal action, virtually breaking the laws of this societal evolution. Their argument that this decision IS a civil right will weigh heavy on the courts, and again, the will of the people will be over-ridden by how the courts believe this social change is in the best interest of this national trend. The Obama administration and the DOJ could care less about the States right of choice in this matter. Why would they, when the opportunity to “change an entire nation” is within their grasp. Pandora’s box is wide open.

          Rovin on March 1, 2013 at 6:08 AM

        • http://twitter.com/redsoxunixgeek Smitty 

          Yes they want marriage, because of the rules that DOMA suspends for SSC’s. Make those available, the clamor for Marriage goes down, and Civil Unions can commence.

          States won’t be force to perform, just recognize. In Utah I can be married Via Common Law, in Washington State I can’t. If I am married common law to a female in Utah, and Move to Washington State, the full faith and credit act, requires that Washington recognize my marriage even if they have no provisions to perform it.

          Churches won’t be affected because they deny someone access. Mormons do it already with requiring membership requirements to enter their temples. The same would apply here.

      • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

        Yeah — that’s neither true nor relevant.

        First, civil consequences (such as inheritance and property rights) have ALWAYS flown from marriage, irrespective of whether the ceremony itself was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the church. Thus claiming it was not regulated by the “government” displays a narrow minded understanding of what constitutes “government.”

        Second, it is irrelevant to the point I was discussing — i.e.., the fact that when the 14th Amendment was enacted marriage was between a man & a woman. Perhaps you should try reading & understanding what someone else writes before responding with simpleminded suggestions that most definitely do not “solve” any problems that are actually being discussed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

          Honest questions and friendly discussion :)
          I understand that the church “governed” marriage before government existed as we know it. I agree marriage is between a man and a women. Does marriage falls under: Life, Liberty or Property? Liberty is such a broad definition.The Due Process Clause has “marry” in the wording.

          If the civil consequences were the same in both traditional and SS marriages/unions what would be the problem? Is the argument that SS couples are not entitled to the same rights as traditional couples?

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Marriage would most like fall under the pursuit of happiness/property category because the main point of the civil contract of marriage (and yes, it has always been a civil contract even when it was exclusively governed by the church) was to ensure legitimate inheritance rights.

            However, you are asking me to argue for a position I don’t *actually* hold as to SSM itself — previous to what I have witnessed the last few months with a huge, frantic push to circumvent my right to bear arms based basically on what constituted arms when the 2nd Amendment was written and how many bullets one “needs” to shoot a deer (which has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment at all) — I would have supported SSM. Not anymore — these vile, intellectually dishonest progs want to take away my rights which are *clearly* written in the 2nd Amendment for all to see while simultaneously arguing that they have rights that are in the unwritten, vague “penumbras” of the Constitution that *for sure* didn’t exist when the 14th Amendment was written? No. They are going to have to do it without my support AND they are going to have to do it with my pointing out their dishonesty and intellectual inconsistency.
            And to further use their 2nd Amendment logic, gay people don’t NEED to marry — they aren’t going to have legitimate children which are biologically related to BOTH of them from the marriage so they don’t have to worry about inheritance rights as any children they have will have to be legally adopted by at least one of the two in the union (the non-biological parent), and that adoption process will take care of the inheritance rights that would have flowed from a marriage and as to “surviving spouse” inheritance rights that would have flowed from a marriage — that is easily taken care of by writing a Last Will and Testament. They have enough legal avenues to ensure they (and any children from their union) receive the same traditional benefits marriage would have given them (and no — filing joint tax returns doesn’t count — the income tax has only been in place since 1913 with the passage of the 13th Amendment — compared to how long marriage has been around, that doesn’t qualify as a traditional benefit of marriage).

            ETA: Oh, as to that ultimate heart-tugger that is always thrown out when discussing SSM — the ability of one partner to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner? That’s what Living Wills are for.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Intellectual consistency means nothing to the left. I totally agree. They want to change the law citing vague wording in the 14th Amd. While completely ignoring the very clear wording in the 2nd Amd.

            I feel…sometimes when I try to have a little compassion and understanding, I am complicit in furthering the left’s agenda. They don’t share my sensibilities for right and wrong. They don’t care if it’s the right thing to do. If they have to infringe someone else right’s in the process, so be it.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Your last paragraph is a perfect summation of where I am at right now with the left. Thank you. ANYTHING that furthers their agenda — even things I would have been perfectly fine supporting before the rise of the ignorant, racist, stupid vile progs who have taken over — such as SSM, I’m not lifting one finger, signing one petition, etc. to help them with.

          • $44640340

            No one needs you.. LoL

            It’s happening ANYWAY..

            DOMA will be over turned, and SS Couples will be afforded the same rights as Heterosexual couples. What makes you think YOU have the power to change, hinder or prevent anything…

            *Newsflash*

            You dont!

            John Boehner has spent over $3,000,000 to try and defeat it, and has lost every time. What could a measly piece of PWT like you do…?

            LMAO

          • TexSizzle

            Bless your heart. They already have the same rights. What they want to do is change the definition of marriage.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Your last paragraph is a perfect summation of where I am at right now with the left. Thank you. ANYTHING that furthers their agenda — even things I would have been perfectly fine supporting before the rise of the ignorant, racist, stupid vile progs who have taken over — such as SSM, I’m not lifting one finger, signing one petition, etc. to help them with.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Intellectual consistency means nothing to the left. I totally agree. They want to change the law citing vague wording in the 14th Amd. While completely ignoring the very clear wording in the 2nd Amd.

            I feel…sometimes when I try to have a little compassion and understanding, I am complicit in furthering the left’s agenda. They don’t share my sensibilities for right and wrong. They don’t care if it’s the right thing to do. If they have to infringe someone else right’s in the process, so be it.

        • $44640340

          Ever hear of the phrase:
          “Times change… ”

          During those times, Black people were considered LESS OF A MAN. If A person had” one drop” of negro blood in them… They were considered Black.

          But times changed didn’t they. Well, so will these laws.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Still not my point — my point is be consistent with the way you view the Constitution — if you contend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to scary “assault” weapons because our founders couldn’t imagine such things as “arms” when they wrote it, then don’t come trying to sell me that equal protection applies to SSM when marriage was between one man & one woman when the 14th Amendment was written. I’m talking about intellectual consistency; you’re discussing something else ENTIRELY.

          • $44640340

            You’re a fool, plain and simple.

            Your feces for brains logic cant comprehend what the subject is. How in the world does The second ammendment have anything to do with the topic of this post.

            I can definitely spot the Redneck inbred on this post. Spit out the chewing tabacco, change the TV from Fox & NASCAR and maybe you’ll know whats going on in the world.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Typical prog projection — you are responding to *my* OP and claiming I can’t comprehend what the subject is? Reading comprehension — how the eff does it work?

            Bwahahahaha — no wonder you support Obama — you actually can’t think.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Typical prog projection — you are responding to *my* OP and claiming I can’t comprehend what the subject is? Reading comprehension — how the eff does it work?

            Bwahahahaha — no wonder you support Obama — you actually can’t think.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Also — we had an AMENDMENT to change that LESS OF A MAN law. You want to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment? Get cracking on passing an AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

            Seriously — do they even teach logic anymore in schools?

            Oh, btw — that “one drop” law still seems to hold with you vile progs — at least when it suits you. Because you morons consider Obama “black” when, in fact, he has LESS black blood in him then the “white Hispanic” George Zimmermann. Racist, intellectually dishonest morons — the lot of ya.

          • $44640340

            Now this bitter (name4femaledog) brings up George Zimmerman..

            You are a Moron. Plan and simple. I know there are some logically sane people in the Republican party, but you definitely arent one.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            See — the mere mention of someone’s name sends you into a rage. As I said, you are an irrational, sexist, racist pig — thanks for proving it.

          • $44640340

            I’ve yet to get in a rage and call you what you are… A used tampon. So don’t label me, you vermin.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            Sexist pig. Now you’re just a stalker.

          • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

            See — the mere mention of someone’s name sends you into a rage. As I said, you are an irrational, sexist, racist pig — thanks for proving it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            I will take her logic and sanity over what you’ve been displaying…

      • NRPax

        As long as any lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages and businesses that refuse to work for such a ceremony are thrown out of court so hard they leave a crater, I’d be all for that.

        • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

          OH, but they won’t be — sure at first they will, but after 20, 30 years we will be hearing about how it is a denial of CIVIL RIGHTS for churches not to perform SSM.

        • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

          OH, but they won’t be — sure at first they will, but after 20, 30 years we will be hearing about how it is a denial of CIVIL RIGHTS for churches not to perform SSM.

      • $44640340

        They miss that point.

        People get married in a Church OR Govt office.
        You get married in a church for the ceremony, nothing else. The church has no power over marriage, if it did… It would and could do Divorces, but it cant, why… Its empowered to marry, but not to separate.

        You dont need the church. SSM has nothing to do with infringement on anyone’s religious beliefs, its EQUAL TREATMENT thats everyones after (and benefits).

        • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

          Oh look the Godless are telling us what the Church does — the church does grant divorces — they’re called annulments, moron.

          • $44640340

            This dumb (name4femaledog) thinks Catholicism is the only reason…

            The group Garbage named a song after you.. “Stupid Girl”

        • http://twitter.com/TheAngieNC2 Angie (D)

          Oh look the Godless are telling us what the Church does — the church does grant divorces — they’re called annulments, moron.

  • Bryan

    As a Christian I view homosexual activity as sin. My opinion is that the government should get completely out of defining marriage. Marriage didn’t originate with the government so the government should not be able to use the term let alone define it. If the government wants to legally recognize the same contract between consenting adults then fine.

    I have a first amendment right to express my definition of marriage as the traditional model, while others have their individual rights to view it differently. I have no problem with our legally protected difference of public opinion. The government forcing everyone to define marriage in one particular way violates everyone’s rights.

    The true gay agenda is not to be able to have a monogamous life-long committed relationship with one person–it is to legally force their definition of marriage onto people who otherwise disagree.

  • nc

    “First, preserving a tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexuals is not itself a sufficiently important interest to justify Proposition 8.” Page 9 of the brief

    Really? It’s not? Maybe if this tradition was limited to just the space and age of the United States. But marriage (not just sex) has been understood to be between men and women across all time and cultures. So we should just casually throw away this “outdated tradition” and plunge head first into this untested social experiment? Do we have any idea what impact this will have on our culture? On children? I know, I know, as long as we make things “fair,” everything will be all right. Beware the Pandora’s Box you are opening.

    • photonblaster

      Making sex to another’s sewer, where is the dignity in that?

  • https://twitter.com/tweetyuo Tangchung

    Obama is like a wedding band. Friday night he is singing do the “Hokey Pokey” and Saturday he dong a campaign stop in Vegas singing “Summer Wind” (sorry Frank) Sunday Obama is LA singing “Baby Got Back”. Hat tip Patrick Dennehy

    • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

      *high five*

    • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

      *high five*

  • Maxx

    .

    When I think of marriage, I think of one man, one woman. Must every decent tradition this country has be treated by liberals as Silly Putty…twisted and pulled apart to render it almost unrecognizable from its original form and intent?

    Civil unions? You bet.

    Marriage? No

  • TocksNedlog

    Still waiting for my state to present compelling evidence as to why I can’t marry my gerbil.

  • TocksNedlog

    Our AG is all about states rights.

    As in “you states have the right to do what we tell you you can do.”

  • captaingrumpy

    GAY MUSLIMS DON’T CARE.

  • photonblaster

    It’s all about the dirty sex, trying to elevate to something else is what makes it all so disgusting.

  • Guest

    Sacrilege.

  • JohnMt427

    Why are they excluding other sexual minorities like the polygamists, those with incestuous inclinations, and zoophiles? If we are going to frame sexual orientation as a civil rights issue, we need to somehow include all of them; otherwise, it would be like granting civil liberties to blacks, but denying them to Latinos, Asians and other races. Look. We need to find a way to acknowledge all sexual orientations regardless of our own personal morality [“it needs to be consensual!”] or their lack of over-all benefit to society [“WTF? tax benefits to those who have sex with objects?!”). To have anything else is simply discriminatory! *tear* (/sarcasm)

  • AaronHarrisinAlaska

    So if gay marriage trivializes and mock “traditional” marriage, will all you traditional types refuse to marry/get a divorce?

    • Joe W.

      Nope. We will simply not acknowledge yours, Sonny.

      • SpinMeNot

        Get some … hooah!

      • TexSizzle

        Not even acknowledge such a farce as marriage.

    • SpinMeNot

      Yes, I did refuse … and this year we will have been married for 42 years.

      I understand commitment. Even though I spent a good 15 years away from her over those 42.

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    This shouldn’t even be at the Supreme Court.

  • Axelgreaser

    WHY THE GAY PANDER? Obama is a notorious cash whore, we know that, so is America a gay majority? Gays with hordes of wealth that he wants to get his hands on to perpetuate the next camapagn? Or what? Gay, women, gay, women, gay, women! It’s a resounding, mind boggling never ending theme. Obama is obsessed with GAY. And like EVERYTHING else, Obama jumps on the previous successes of others, even up and to legislation that is already in place, i.e., gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gun laws. If you listen to this part time President, full time Community Organizer, NOTHING had changed on Earth since mankind crawled out of the swamps till Barrack Hussein Obama arrived on the scene. Does Obama know that in many states gays have equal rights according to the laws on the books regarding property and medical,etc. Black Americans have civil rights and by the way, women have the vote now! Of course, he’s fully aware of that as he played women like a violin (again) to secure another four years of devastation as our President in absentia. Why is this Carnival Barker so obsessed with gays?

    Is he gay and just on a personal mission for an equality which he perceives is not there? Rumor has it he is gay, but irregardless, how about some of the same fervent attenton paid to the fiscal mess he has created. Because, reverting back to the words original meaning, we’re not feeling all too gay over Obama’s leadership in that area. Why is this man so invested in Alinsky tactics to the compete detriment of our nation?

    This President doesn not seem to be on the job. He is still campaigning. And he behaves lik a recalcitrant child who needs a time out. Someone needs to take his favorite toy away from him and ground him: Air Force One. Because it’s keeping him from doing his job. He’s spent entirely too much time in it since the day it buzzed Manhattan and scared the holy living hell out of the 32-oz sode and salt free Metropolis. Does he even know how to do his job? Or does he just think he’s the President of Perks?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephanie-Warren/100001648091118 Stephanie Warren

    Gay marriage is NOT in the consitution!

  • Eric Hutchison

    Marriage was never a “right,” but now the pro-gay marriage people want to define it as such so they can get their way.

    • http://twitter.com/sasha_ari Sasha Williams

      If it was never a “right” why haven’t they previously been allowed to marry yet heterosexual couples could? Why weren’t the heterosexual couples denied?