Yesterday the Left decried the activist Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Today?

Strange new respect for SCOTUS after the court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional:

Twitchy will monitor this breaking news and provide reaction throughout the day.

Hardest hit: Bill Clinton.

Update:

Surprisingly, not much of a circus so far. Will the sore winners keep their sniping to themselves?

Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets and the title has been updated.

  • Clete Torres

    Roberts again against.

    Who is surprised?

    • nc

      No, Roberts dissented. It was Kennedy that was the 5th vote.

      • Clete Torres

        I know. My fricking Mac decided ‘against’ wasn’t a real word, and decided to substitute ‘again.’

        Editing my original now…

        I’m starting to hate this predictive text…

    • Jennifer

      If I read correctly, Roberts dissented.

      • Lovejoy

        You read correctly.

      • Clete Torres

        I know, see above, reply to nc.

    • http://redstate.com/ midwestconservative

      Read the freaking case before you spout off ignorance. Roberts dissented, Kennedy was the 5th vote and I believe authored the majority opinion.

      • Clete Torres

        Read my freaking reply to nc, below my original, before you spout off, junior.

        KMA.

      • Clete Torres

        Read my freaking reply to nc, below my original, before you spout off, junior.

        KMA.

    • http://twitter.com/4ever_a_kafir Travis Wolfeil

      No, that was with Prop 8. It was along ideological lines with DOMA (with Kennedy writing the opinion), while with Prop 8, it was Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan who formed the majority. Technically, they didn’t even rule on the merits of Prop 8, just that the defense had no legal standing to appeal, since they were a third party.

      • Clete Torres

        I know, see above reply to nc.

  • Mister A

    Didn’t we see this change of heart about SCOTUS coming? Predictable.

  • Hiraghm

    According to you on the left, we still have no problem oppressing blacks women and defectives…

    • Blake Waymire

      Wait, weren’t all the idiot libs just yesterday screaming that SCOTUS’s VRA decision empowers conservatives to oppress everyone?

      • ObamaFail

        Even though it’s more likely liberal states will oppress conservatives and Christians when it comes to voting rights.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg Booker

    It only applies to States that have voted for gay marriage. It’s a very skewed ruling. The left will now start working to strike off the rest. Enjoy your victory, gay interest groups. Sigh.

    • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

      Basically nothing has changed though. I’m against the ruling, but it isn’t the end of the world.

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg Booker

        I agree. Trust me, I’m not apoplectic. Life goes on, that’s why reaction has been relatively muted today.

    • Robin Nelson-Herlihy

      Booker, actually, Judge Andrew Napolitano just explained that in states that don’t recognize gay marriage will still have to recognize their rights to have benefits like health insurance and social security survivors’ benefits. He also explained that this will also start controversy with heterosexual, unmarried couples. That (heterosexual couples) they can make the same argument for the same benefit rights as what gay couples can have. And rightly so because a couple is a couple, is a couple, now in the eyes of SCOTUS.

      • Robin Nelson-Herlihy

        Maybe this means that later, marriage won’t seem as important because if heterosexual couples will have the same benefits rights as gay couples, then more hetero couples will see no need for marriage.

  • Hiraghm

    The gloves are off. No longer will I be using the word “gay” to describe homosexuals. From now on, they are “defectives”.

    • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

      Oh no you diiiiiiiidnnn’t.
      *wags finger*

    • Richo

      Yeah, and the world will lose nanoseconds of sleep that some twitchy commenter is going from rude nutjob to even more rude nutjob.

      • Hiraghm

        Well… ideas are infectious. :) We’ll see if the idea of calling them what they are catches on.

    • Robbie C

      You can do whatever you want. And they probably don’t care. All they wanted was the right to marry. You know, that thing that has absolutely no effect on you.

      • Hiraghm

        They had the right to marry all along. They didn’t have the right to redefine a fundamental institution to suit their mental illness.

        The rest of us are under no obligation to help them pretend that their illness is normalcy. And I’m through doing so just to be polite.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “Call off the wedding, some dude on the internet has decided to be even more honest about his bigotry now!”

  • nc

    Expect to see two old dudes in those twin tubs any day now. Sigh.

  • walterc

    Without reading the decision yet, I kind of agree with SCOTUS, this is a state issue. Now to see what they decide regarding the people of California’s choice of no gay marriage via Prop 8.

    • Hiraghm

      It’s not an “issue” at all. People suffering from homosexuality are not a 3rd sex. They can get married based on the same restrictions anyone else has. It is not the fault of normal people that defectives are mentally/emotionally ill and refuse to recognize their illness. This is the equivalent of legislating PI to be 3.0

      • DarkKnight2016

        Now I am not a liberal but you lose your argument by trying to state that homosexuality is an illness.

        • Hiraghm

          I’m not trying; it is.
          Sexual attraction and romance exist for the creation and nurturing of young. Just as the lung’s function is to process air, and the stomach’s function is to digest food, the genitalia’s function is to procreate.

          If a person with one set of genitalia is attracted to the same sex, or attracted to lawn furniture, or farm animals, s/he’s defective, and has a mental/emotional illness. It needs treatment, not indulgence.

          • Joe Skinner

            So people whose genitalia are not capable of producing offspring should not be allowed to get married then by your logic. Or anyone who wants to get married but does not want to have children. In your echo chamber you will get tons of likes for this comment, but out in the real world this does not hold up in a court of law.

          • Hiraghm

            Nobody’s genitalia are capable of producing offspring. They require the genitalia of the opposite sex to do so.

            By my logic, the definition of “marriage” should not be changed to accommodate the mentally ill. By my logic, no change to the definition of “marriage” is required for sterile people to marry…. provided they marry members of the opposite sex. A man’s sterility wouldn’t require a redefinition of the institution. In fact, I have already asserted that homosexuals CAN marry… provided they marry members of the opposite sex. In that arrangement, children are also unlikely.

            However, a guy might be in for a lawsuit who hides his sterility from his prospective bride, and vice versa.

            The issue is the necessity of changing the definition of the institution, and the implications of the redefinition of a mental illness into a 3rd sex, based upon the false premise that someone’s rights are being violated. Correction; that some group’s collective rights are being violated (which, as I’ve said, isn’t possible since groups don’t have rights).

            Nice attempt at deflection, however.

          • mark kelley

            was allowing women or blacks the right to vote changing the institution of voting?

          • Bill Person

            its all about the function of body parts!! Nature requires procreation, it allows for fun, but is all about function.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Nobody is stopping you from procreating.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That would be why no sane person has ever had non-procreative sex, then. Righto.

      • Robbie C

        You don’t suffer from it, sorry. Learn about the word outside your private school.

    • Lovejoy

      What is the federal government here recently ever been in favor of states rights? Only when it suits them.

    • Norm McDonald

      I agree..DOMA was stupid…the Feds have no right to doing anything not enumerated in the Constitution…PERIOD!

  • Hiraghm

    Btw, does this ruling mean that in States which do not recognize marriage to include two people of the same sex, they are required to give equal accommodation as with people who are actually married?

    • journogal

      Where has people been turned away from hotels or other accommodations because they are gay? I am not familiar with that every happening.

      • Hiraghm

        I dunno, I suppose if they’re too gay and carefree they might be too rowdy and rambunctious and be turned away for fear they might damage the furniture.

        But, as for people being turned away because they were suffering from homosexuality, I don’t know, but I could see it happening in OK, where the religious convictions of the owners of hotels/motels might prevent them from accommodating what they considered an abomination.

        • journogal

          That’s discrimination, which can bring tons of lawsuits against accommodations. I never heard of this happening, and very doubtful it will.

          • Wootsauce

            Has happened many times. A photographer was sued for 7000 dollars for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding recently. Then this little old couple lost their bed and breakfast fos refusing service to a gay couple. Easy google will show you.

          • Hiraghm

            Even when it’s based upon 1st Amendment religious convictions? Which trumps which? 1st Amendment rights, or 1964 civil rights act (which didn’t include sexual illnesses)?

            Again, the left uses the judiciary to force people to surrender their own protected rights.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          “suffering from homosexuality”
          Most of the gays I’ve met thoroughly enjoy it.

      • ObamaFail

        I live in Kentucky, and I’ve never seen any gay people here being oppressed. Sure we haven’t legalized gay marriage here yet, but other than that, they aren’t treated any different than anyone else.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          I’ll be sure to tell the gays of the world that they’re just imagining all that discrimination then. “Gary’s never seen it, mustn’t exist!”

      • Robbie C

        That would be a crime and it happens. But the ruling wasn’t about that.

    • chapoutier

      No. Section 2 of DOMA, which covers that scenario, was not affected by this decision. That will probably be the next big legal battle.

    • Robbie C

      It paves the way for it if legislation is brought up for it.

  • http://facebook.com/metalchick007 Lisa Renee’ Jones

    Oh, NOW the celebs come out to play. Seen that one coming.
    Why should Government be involved in ANY marriage?

    • Hiraghm

      Because those bent on the destruction of our society use the judicial system to attack marriage, with the end game being a complete dissolution of the institution.

      • mark kelley

        so wanting to partake in the institution is somehow attacking it?

        • Hiraghm

          I want to partake in the institution. Why are the rules changed to accommodate those afflicted with homosexuality and not me?

          Everyone can partake in the institution. Find a willing member of the opposite sex and marry him/her.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            This sounds familiar.

            “Everyone can partake in the institution. Find a willing member of the same race and marry him/her.”

      • Robbie C

        And all those heterosexual divorces surely don’t have an effect on the sanctity of marriage. Nope, none.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Funny how everyone was perfectly happy for government to be involved in marriages… right up until the point that they started allowing gays to get in on it.

  • Hal Fast

    Well forget the foolishness of man, God will have the last say in the matter, and you cannot overrule God and His will. Good luck those of you for this ruling because you are going to need it.

    • Robbie C

      That is if there is a God. You don’t know. It’s faith, not fact.

  • Kenneth Pace

    Sad day for America…Is equal to the law any kind of morality in Our Heavenly Fathers omniscient mind? History repeats itself…correct? This moral decadence in the Promised Land will bring and is bringing curses upon our nation. We are heading down the same path as it happened in the downfall and destruction of the once great [ I repeat…once great ] Roman Empire. Welcome to history’s repeat my fellow Americans.

    • Catchance

      But we know we are living in the last days.

      2 Peter 3:3: Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.

      This decision was disappointing, but hardly surprising.

      • Robbie C

        And what happens when 200 years from now, we are still alive and kicking? Will you renounce your “end of days” talk? Probably not.

    • Robbie C

      Please put your Bible down. This country is a melting put on religions. If you are going to make an argument against this, please present fact and not faith as there is no way to scientifically prove it exist or doesn’t.

  • Albert Schmitlap.

    OK, honor Gay marriage, multiple partner marriages will follow (Have to honor Muslims that marry outside the US and bring their wives here to get MORE welfare, etc.), marrying children, No marriage just have kids with whomever is already here so what’s next, Legalize Pedophilia, no wait, they are already working on that, gee nice future.

    • Richo

      Citation please that any of your nutjob predictions have even inched towards fulfillment in any jurisdiction that has had equal marriage for years.

      • Hiraghm

        Oh PLEASE I am so tired of this old crap!
        1983, Geraldine Ferraro predicts, while advocating for feminazi “equality”, that we would NEVER put women in combat; the idea was laughable! And we’d never have unisex bathrooms, that’s just ridiculous.

        and now, 30 years later, we have both.
        When you nutjobs are continually driving to have nutty ideas, usually dangerously nutty ideas, become mainstream behavior, there’s no such thing as a “nutjob prediction”.

        • LtColO

          Exactly. In Colorado, the “Civil Rights Division” upheld the right of SIX YEAR OLD CHILD (let that sink in–SIX YEARS OLD) to use the girl’s bathroom because little Coy Mathis believes he is a girl. We heard years ago it would never get to this point.

          The press, in typical Orwellian fashion, twisted the story right from the beginning, starting with the lead sentence, “Coy Mathis had been barred from using the girls’ bathroom at her local elementary school.” “Her” elementary school. Isn’t the “her” issue exactly what’s under debate in the first place in our culture? The first reaction, esp from the older generation who don’t know exactly what transgendered means, is that a little “girl” (biologically) was barred from using the bathroom set aside for her sex. Language is used to deceive.

          I’m waiting to see what happens when big, burly, 16 yr old Tom Smith decides “she” is a girl and needs to use the girl’s locker room.

          Brave new world, indeed.

      • Albert Schmitlap.

        OK,,,One man One Woman is now non existence, Right? Think about it,,,No more ONE of each,,now we can have multiples of each or Child-Adult (the Man, Woman thing is no more law) Human-Animal,,,(no more Man and Woman). We have some sick people in this country since we are no longer a Religious people,,,and even some of them are sick. Think back 30 yrs,,,if you are old enough,,,(remember, with age come experience) What would you have said about things that are happening now? Think back 10 yrs. Or,,,,,,,just Think!!! It will all come unraveled and our country will be a cesspool of NO law or Standards. If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for Anything.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Are all rights slippery slopes? I mean, if we allow people to practice Christianity, we’ll have to allow all the other religions too, including the ones that practice human sacrifices. These damn slopes are so slippery that we are apparently unable to judge each of these things on their own merits, we have to allow all of them or none!

          • Albert Schmitlap.

            I like to live by the old sayings of an elementary school teacher I had in the 50s
            #1 Your rights end where the next person’s begin.
            #2 We have a lot of freedoms in this country But, with those rights comes responsibility, and when we are irresponsible you will Lose those Freedoms.
            Words to live by and are SO deep you would have o think for hours to understand the means and scope.

    • Bill Person

      Sounds like standards of behavior to me. From the 60’s forward there has been an assualt on the standards of behavior to the point where there are no standards–anything goes brother!!
      Thank the lawyers out for a buck because there are too many of them—They go to court to test every little line of what freedom and personal rights mean—look at the history from the 60’s forward!!!

  • Bruce Watson

    God is not struck down. Jesus you will face one day. Laugh then!

    • Richo

      LOL!

    • MissJames

      Day of reckoning for all of us. Forgive me for posting this twice ,but I love this song. It’s makes it all very real.
      By Mercy Me
      Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
      Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
      Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
      Will I sing ‘Hallelujah!’? Will I be able to speak at all?
      I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!

    • MissJames

      Day of reckoning for all of us. Forgive me for posting this twice ,but I love this song. It’s makes it all very real.
      By Mercy Me
      Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
      Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
      Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
      Will I sing ‘Hallelujah!’? Will I be able to speak at all?
      I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!

  • Ken Reid

    Another win for all the pervs out there! Minority rules now days! But God is still in charge, notwithstanding mans “inclusiveness” ! Judgment day is going to settle all of this! Till then, enjoy your “enlightenment”!

    • Richo

      Yeah yeah, we get it, the next natural disaster that occurs, even if it kills innocent children, even if it is in another country, will be God’s judgment because of this court ruling. Time to get a new shtick. After 2000 years Ye olde house of end time judgment is getting really tired.

      • LtColO

        You don’t need a natural disaster. The Left seems adept at killing countries just fine without those. Witness Europe.

        • Bill Person

          Thats part of them problem, most people have never been out of their home state never mivd abroad–no points of refference or better comparison!!

      • Ken Reid

        Hope you know everything you think you do! But what if, by the wildest possibility of course, I’m right???

        • Bathing Suit Area

          But what if, by the wildest possibility of course, God really wants us to be gay and sends straight people to hell? Seems about as likely.

          • Ken Reid

            If you can live with those terms, so be it! And it seems that you can, if in fact “this life” is the only one you care about!

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Deal. Let us have secular laws in the real world, and you can have whatever God wants in the afterlife.

  • Nadine Faber

    The majority of Americans were discriminated against today and the march on to destroying marriage between a man and woman with the continuation of the family “children” is the intent of this whole thing. Christianity and/or religion on all fronts is being challenged and people who are faithful to God and now this decision has come down, immorality and the most unique relationship of all is going down because of Politics and Financial gains. This is not really about equality, nothing close to it. It is a means to end marriage between a man and woman along with destroying the very foundations of what this Nations laws and freedoms were based on. We the people lost in a big way today because no government made this decision, God did, now they took away a God given right today.

    • Robbie C

      No they aren’t. Nothing was said about heterosexual marriages. Please put down the Bible.

    • Bill Person

      Didn’t the big “O’ proclaim during his first election campaign that eh woudl “fundamentally change” the USA. That is done by destroying either in part or whole the foundations, and beliefs of a society!!

  • Don

    good now lets get some of Obamas legislation knocked down.

    • ObamaFail

      Like Obamacare.

  • TexasDan48

    The Gays are happy……and soon those who want to marry their own children……and someday those who want to marry their sheep, horses or other livestock, issues to be decided in the future.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      Not yet they’re not–but the lawsuits are coming. THAT’s the purpose of this decision. Anybody who refuses to endorse homosexual relationships–priests who don’t conduct and churches that don’t host homosexual weddings, bakers who don’t cater them, and photographers that don’t photograph them–can now be punished with the full force of the government.

      And that’s been their goal all along.

      • Hiraghm

        Remember, the purpose of making Winston believe that 2+2=5 wasn’t because two plus two actually equals five.

      • LtColO

        Preach it. That’s exactly what’s going on. That’s what’s so contemptible about the sanctimony of those who say, “You’re just overreacting because you’re disappointed.” No, many people saw this coming from decades back and it’s playing out exactly as we thought.

      • TexasDan48

        You are correct…..the gay agenda has the money to take small businesses to court, while a small family owned business could be ruined. However, in at least 37 states which do not recognize gay “marriage” those lawsuits won’t have any legal standing.

      • Bathing Suit Area

        There are still churches that have never performed interracial marriages, and show no signs of being willing to. They have not been sued. Your paranoia is unfounded.

    • Hiraghm

      I’ve already proposed to my Amiga 3000, and it accepted (well, it didn’t say “no”…)

    • Richo

      Um, sounds like someone is thinking a bit too much about his livestock. Way to represent the Texas stereotypes :)

      • TexasDan48

        Yup…..we like our beef on a platter.

  • C-Saw

    Would have been nice if they supported my right to not have to pay a fine simply for being alive (ocare,) as much as i supported their right to get equal protection. The one way street goes on ..

    • journogal

      True…

    • Bathing Suit Area

      It’s not a fine for being alive, it’s a tax for living in the US. There are other countries with smaller governments, if they’re all so great move there.

      • C-Saw

        No, It’s a tax for being alive. Nice try though. How about we stop wasting the sweat equity of the citizens and then come asking for more by clobbering them over the head with the judicial system.

  • Bruce Watson

    People voting to mae a sinful act something right. If a man said It’s right for me tro run around with someone elses wife. The courts would say he’s crazy ansd wrong. So is what you have done Supreme court condemed your selves to Hell and those who stand with you. Jesus saves sin kills Gay marriage is against God. Feel sorry for our leaders when God Judges you.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      There’s no law against running around with someone else’s wife. If you think it’s a sin, don’t do it.

  • Kim

    “sore winners”…..sounds like the alleged small gov’t conservatives at twitchy want the feds to have more power regarding marriage.

    • journogal

      Nope; I want government out of my bedroom (liberals want others to pay for their $9 birth control), my bank, my thermostat, my car, my house, my business, my religion… and let me pursue happiness. If I fail, I fail – not anyone else’s fault if I do. It’s called personal responsibility, something liberals can’t and won’t handle.
      Seems to me, anytime liberals what something, they turn to government to demand it. The government just declared DOMA unconstitutional, thus government getting into marriage, isn’t it?

      • Kim

        If DOMA, hadn’t been there in the first place, there wouldn’t have been a hearing on it today. Seems like a two-way street. When conservatives want gay marriage banned they turn to government, instead of just prohibiting it in their churches.

        • journogal

          Blame Clinton for DOMA, he didn’t have to sign it, did he? Who was holding a gun to his head (oops, I said gun; oh no!) I am a conservative and personally don’t care who marries whom, that a personal choice that I’m not involved with (too bad liberals don’t understand that about responsible gun ownership.) I know it’s hard for you to believe that, since liberals tend not to have an open mind and can see others as individuals but lump them into groups.
          Remember, what the government give, the government can take away too. Seems like you want government decide everything in your life for you…

          • Kim

            Actually, you seem a little too myopic in your political views…there is only conservative/liberal. I am not a liberal but libertarian, so no I do not want gov’t making decisions for me, whether that be who I marry or how easy I can purchase a gun. For someone who claims not to care who someone sleeps with, this decision seems to sting for you.

          • journogal

            Not at all…sorry…anyone can marry who they want to, I don’t care. I am tired of government being involved in every aspect of everyone’s life.

          • Kim

            Something we agree on! :)

          • Hiraghm

            That’s always been the case; anybody can marry who they want to. The problem is, the left want to redefine “marry”.

          • Hiraghm

            This decision has nothing to do with who you marry.
            It has everything to do with what type of person entity you may marry..

            Who you marry is “Bob Jones” or “Susan Thomas”. Homosexual or heterosexual has to do with what you marry.

        • Hiraghm

          If liberals hadn’t sought legal course to get a tail named a leg (to paraphrase Heinlein), government wouldn’t be involved.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      Because using government power to punish people for refusing to endorse homosexuality is really the small-government position.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    Being Gay is nothing more than a sexual preference, it is not a Civil Rights issue. Calling it a Civil Rights issue should be an insult to every Black American!

    • mark kelley

      I don’t think being gay is any more a personal preference than being black is.

      Is it your personal preference to be straight? Could you wake up one morning and just decide, hey i think i want to be gay today?

      I KNOW it doesn’t work that way. I am curious however, how others can think it does.

      • Franklin Crittenden

        No Mark, I do not believe that a Gay person wakes up one morning and decides to be Gay anymore than I believe a Pedophile wakes up one morning and just decides, hey I think I want to be a Pedophile today, but it doesn’t make it right or normal…

        The problem is that both no more than sexual preferences which does not make them a noble cause or a Civil Rights Issue.

        To say so would be an insult to real Civil Rights issues that actually involve Race, Creed and Gender and the people that are fighting those for those Noble causes,

        • mark kelley

          preference isn’t an accurate description. A preference is like, i prefer the brown tie over the blue tie with that shirt.

          Your sexual orientation is part of who you are, that cant be changed.

          Comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is kind of, well, disturbing.

          These human beings are only asking to be treated the same as heterosexuals. They are not hurting anyone.

          Sexual orientation should go right along with race, gender, and religion when it comes to equal treatment.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, So you find comparing pedophilia to homosexuals disturbing? Well, I don’t want to ruin your buzz today but many Heterosexuals find the Gay lifestyle disturbing as well.

            You personal opinion of Pedophiles is just that, just your personal opinion. You may mean no harm but a Pedophile might be offended by your obvious discrimination against someone else’s Sexual preference?

            Maybe Gay men and women should be more accepting and tolerant to Pedophiles since they feel like second class citizens just like Gay people say you do?

            Do you see my point, where does this sexual revolution end?

            The next thing you know Gays and other sexual preference groups will want all the Voting Districts rezoned to give them an upper hand on Election Day?

            I am of course just exaggerating to make my point Mark…

            The fact is that we all don’t see every group’s self proclaimed Civil Rights as a Constitutional Right. I have read the Constitution many times and I have yet to find one word mentioned about any Rights covered by the US Constitution involving Sexual preferences?

            Mark, I am no shape or form a bigot, but I am a Conservative, and Liberals and Conservatives just see life differently:

            If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
            If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

            If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
            If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

            If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
            If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

            If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
            If a Liberal is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

            If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
            A Liberal demands that those they don’t like be shut down.

            If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
            A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

            If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

            If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

            Mark, Live your life quietly and please stop trying to force the rest of the world to agree with your PERSONAL BELIEFS…

            I wish you well…

          • mark kelley

            a pedophile is a sexual predator of children.

            I am not a liberal, nor am i or gay people trying to force anything upon you.

            I am a libertarian. People should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing upon your rights to do the same.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Libertarian Party Activists: Inconsistency on Marriage Equality

            “With the Supreme Court poised to release decisions in two landmark same-sex marriage cases, now would be a good time for libertarians to take a hard look at their message on this issue.

            As public opinion continues to move toward extending civil marriage to same-sex couples, one would think that libertarians would be on the vanguard of this winning social issue

            Unfortunately most libertarians are either silent or openly hostile towards this and other gay issues. When they comment on this issue, those statements are usually inconsistent with what Libertarians have advocated for nearly 42 years now.”

            I rest my case…

          • mark kelley

            So someone’s opinion on what a libertarian is supposed to believe proves some point you made?

            Not all libertarians think exactly the same thing just like not all conservatives take the same stance on every issue.

            I think for myself. I dont need someone else to define my beliefs for me.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, There is no provision in the Constitution that protects the Rights of anyone based solely on their Sexual preference.

            From here on out we will be just arguing in circles and I see no need for either of us to waste our time doing that…

          • mark kelley

            Your right. People are not open minded enough to learn anything through conversation. They dont change their opinions even when the other party has a valid point.

            The constitution didnt protect anyones rights based on gender or race either. That doesnt mean that the way women and minorities were treated in the past was advocated in the constitution.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, “The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.

            The Equal Rights Amendment

            Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

          • mark kelley

            “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

            So a man and a woman have a certain right, but a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not have the same right? sounds like discrimination based on sex to me :)

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, That means individuals (Male and Female) have the same basic Rights put forth in the Constitution, not that a man married to another man or a woman married to another woman have the same Rights as a Married Heterosexual couple.

            Those decisions are made by individual States, but it now appears that even if the people of a particular State vote against Gay marriage it can be overturned by that State’s Governor,

            I sure hope that all the Governors don’t decide to ignore the laws they disagree with or we might be right back to square one as far as Civil Rights and other important laws are concerned.

            You can’t have it both ways Mark…

            It’s not Constitutional for the majority to rule when it is convenient for certain groups and then not rule when it isn’t convenient…

            Being Gay is just a sexual preference, no more, no less

            I really do not care if every Gay couple in America gets married, I am just arguing the legality of the Gay Community or you thinking that it is a Right under the Constitution because it is not…

            In fact, I believe Married Gay Couples should have the Right to be just a miserable as Heterosexual Married Couples and have to deal with Divorce Courts, Child Custody, Alimony, Child Support and dividing their property just like the rest of us to deal with…

            So Gay community be very careful what you ask for because marriage comes with more bad things than it does good things…

            But there is no mention of sexual preference in the Constitution nor should there ever be…

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, That means individuals (Male and Female) have the same basic Rights put forth in the Constitution, not that a man married to another man or a woman married to another woman have the same Rights as a Married Heterosexual couple.

            Those decisions are made by individual States, but it now appears that even if the people of a particular State vote against Gay marriage it can be overturned by that State’s Governor,

            I sure hope that all the Governors don’t decide to ignore the laws they disagree with or we might be right back to square one as far as Civil Rights and other important laws are concerned.

            You can’t have it both ways Mark…

            It’s not Constitutional for the majority to rule when it is convenient for certain groups and then not rule when it isn’t convenient…

            Being Gay is just a sexual preference, no more, no less

            I really do not care if every Gay couple in America gets married, I am just arguing the legality of the Gay Community or you thinking that it is a Right under the Constitution because it is not…

            In fact, I believe Married Gay Couples should have the Right to be just a miserable as Heterosexual Married Couples and have to deal with Divorce Courts, Child Custody, Alimony, Child Support and dividing their property just like the rest of us to deal with…

            So Gay community be very careful what you ask for because marriage comes with more bad things than it does good things…

            But there is no mention of sexual preference in the Constitution nor should there ever be…

  • Justin Jurek

    Secession time

    • Richo

      Absolutely. Get out!

  • Red

    Libtards are cannibals. They eat their own.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Why are you such an anti Catholic bigot?

  • Norm McDonald

    I am so conservative, I make Ted Nugent look like a flower child…this is a good ruling. The Feds have no business in the …uhh, business of marriage…and a hell of a lot of other crap they have taken over that the 10th Amendment absolutely is clear that the Fed should stay away from.

    • Hiraghm

      Marriage is a business? Do brides and grooms now have to file for incorporation?

      • Norm McDonald

        I used business as a verb…you took it as a noun; you knew that of course. And yes, marriage is business…..you signed a contract. And those of us who have gone through a divorce trying to get out of that contract know very well that the whole process is a business.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          I don’t think you know what verbs and nouns are.

  • Thomas A. Rice

    Having Bill Clinton’s name in the same sentence as the phrase “Defense of Marriage,” sounds a bit ironic don’t ya think?

  • rambler

    Now wait for all the attacks on churches by radicals who want to know which churches will perform the marriages and which ones won’t. This was more about getting to the churches that giving equal rights. There were other routes to take to legalize gay marriage and the lib/progs chose this route. As for the gays…… becarefull what you wish for because it may not be what you envisioned it would be. There are always those unintended consequences which occur and which lib/progs always fail to explore.

  • mikeinmn

    I guess I’m confused. While I support the right to marry, it worries me that a state’s citizens can use the process to legally vote on and approve an amendment to its constitution only to have it overturned by SCOTUS? If it’s truly a STATES issue, shouldn’t the STATES be allowed to decide without intervention?

    • Catchance

      That’s actually what SCOTUS did. They have said that the federal government does not have the right to overturn any state’s decision on same-sex marriage. DOMA was a federal law. In Hollingsworth vs Perry (Prop 8) they sent it back to the district court.

      I don’t agree with it, but it is a state-by-state decision.

  • ee1774

    Looks like the SCOTUS has now cleared the way for Polygamists to prepare their cases/lawsuits.
    Ditto any siblings who fall in love and wish to marry.

    Because (according to the SCOTUS) it all boils down to this:
    2 adult human beings who love each other should be allowed to marry each other.

    It’s a brand-new day, folks……

    • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

      Well if it’s 2 adult human beings than polygamists are kinda out of luck…

      • kssturgis62

        the LGBTQ community paved the way. The Show Sister Wives has been opening people’s Eyes to say look it isn’t bad we love each other. they will Sue, they will get their way, it will happen. The SCOTUS has become an Activist Court. the 14th Amendment was PASSED for one reason to give BLACKS equal Protection under the Law and state they were citizens of the USA. It was part of the Civil Rights Amendments specifically for black americans and because they dont know their history, no one knows history and therefore it has become whatever anyone means it to say.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Who said it will be limited to “adult” human beings.

    • Hiraghm

      Where did SCOTUS limit it to “two”, “human beings” or “love each other”?

    • Catchance

      Well, no. SCOTUS didn’t say same-sex marriage was constitutional. They said that it’s up to the states to decide individually.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Really, legally speaking, the decision is a correct extension of the Lake Erie Doctrine which requires the Federal Government to apply substantive state law. So their decision doesn’t surprise me, they left it up to the individual states to define marriage.

        Personally, I think the outcome should have been more fundamental, they could have stated that legislatures, federal or state, do not have the authority to “define” words, such as marriage. It is an assumed power of government not in keeping with traditional common law or Constitutional enumeration of powers.

        • Catchance

          Well said.

  • jenreg

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned!!! Think about it!

  • notenoughtime

    Hang on, because this same group that wants their choice of sex to be legislated, will be knocking on our church doors next. As usual with every traditional institution, they must invade and change it instead of producing their own traditions.

    • LtColO

      You are 100% spot ON. That’s exactly it. They need to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” and the standing witness of others who disagree with their worldview angers them. They won’t stop until those of us who think differently are treated as criminals.

  • Batman

    Love the left’s hypocrisy. :)

  • kssturgis62

    Everything Protected by the 1st Amendment is gone. Freedom Of Speech, Freedom of Religion

    We haven’t seen nothing yet. It is an all out day to Celebrate Sin. It is all out day to celebrate the Removal of the Lord God from everything, morals and Values.

    Pedophilia, Beastiality, Polygamists, Triologists, Watch out for NAMBLA who was riding on the tails of the LGBTQ community. They will push for the Lowering of consent Age. Because after all CHILDREN can make those Consent decisions, and they should have NO RAMIFICATIONS for their actions.

    They will be attacking and looking for any business that wants to Declare Free Association, Parental Rights, or Rights of Conscious. You think Doctors have quit over Obamacare, watch When a Physician says because of his Conscious he can’t perform a Sex Change Operation. Watch them Go After that Dr. Watch carefully, because in California and Massachusetts they already have !!

    Watch for LGBTQ history to be shoved down your children’s Throats, and it will be passed in your state like California that they don’t have to notify you as parents. They have Harvey Milk Day in California and they DO NOT TEACH HE WAS A PEDOPHILE !!! His runaway boyfriend, Jack McKinley, was 16 when Harvey was 33. Harvey was also well known for seducing boys with substance abuse problems at the youth center he ran.

    SB 48, mandating the celebration of LGBT history in all California schools for all children in all grades, is now law.

    If you think that this will not HAPPEN your Blind. This will become the Norms. These Were just Waiting in the wings, thank the Gay community, because the Deviancy that will be pushed on this nation has just begun. This is an all out assault on the Freedoms that we hold dear, on the everything Moral.

    The Lord God will not be Mocked.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “The Lord God will not be Mocked.”
      The guy still gets around in sandals, I say he’s asking for a good mocking.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Doesn’t DOMA infringe in the 1st amendment rights of churches that do recognize gay marriage?

      • kssturgis62

        Trolls – n Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people.[1]. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Nice job avoiding answering the question.

          • kssturgis62

            I didn’t avoid it, I gave you the answer, Your the one on here trolling. I see you starting to argue with everyone on this thread with your Meaningless statements. I gave you several links from the note posted, I gave you new Links, I gave you all kinds of information. You are showing how pathetic you are by not reading.

            I give you this, I am done. Have a nice day promoting yourself.
            http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025483

  • http://www.successfulliving.me/ Frank Eriksen

    As a conservative Christian, I have to question those that would deprive one person, regardless of sexual preference” the right to leave their money/estate to whomever they choose” without our Government taxing the daylights out of the it.”

    • Steve in Katy

      You ok with me marrying my daughter, Frank? Or do you have a moving goal post?

    • People Corporation

      So leaving someone your property in your will was legal for everyone except teh gays? I did not know that.

    • Hiraghm

      I have no problem with that whatsoever. That’s an entirely separate issue in my mind.

      You should be able to leave your estate to whomever you choose, based upon whatever criterion you choose, in whatever proportion you choose. This does not require marriage, but a correction of the tax code. A truly flat tax, preferably a flat sales tax, would fix it.

      I’ll join any homosexual or heterosexual or celibate in happily opposing the death tax.

    • unklbrad

      It’s more about Social Security benefits and the like.

  • ObamaFail

    It’s good to see not everyone is an idiot. At least some people out there acknowledge that Bill Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, was the one who put DOMA in place. With full support of his wife, we can’t forget that.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      With this and Obama overturning Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and rolling back welfare reform, is anything left of Clinton’s prized “legacy”?

  • Marjorie

    I am so tired of this whole argument. There are so many bigger issues that need to be addressed. This IS a “bump in the road!”

  • Pizza the Hutt

    I could care less what someone does in their own bedroom as how people worship if no one else is harmed.

    • Hiraghm

      I know, I could care a lot less, myself. Because I care a lot.
      It’s that “if no one else is harmed” that’s the tricky bit.
      People are going to be forced to act against their principles and beliefs now.

      • Pizza the Hutt

        No church hopefully will be forced to something they do not want to do.

        • Spinmamma

          That’s the big question, isn’t it?

        • Spinmamma

          That’s the big question, isn’t it?

        • kssturgis62
          • Bathing Suit Area

            I actually looked at that link and found no instances of churches being required to marry gays. I suspect you’re enjoying your persecution paranoia party too much to care though.

          • kssturgis62

            Then I guess YOU DID NOT READ IT, By YOUR Statement You Proved You did not Read it. The Beginning of the Note states the following:

            This is lengthy. I am aiming for the more intelligent among us who will not read briefly and look at the full meaning of the destruction to come.

            So Because you Chose NOT to read the Note, you Missed the Following when it COMES TO CHURCHES

            http://christiannews.net/2013/01/08/massachusetts-pastor-sued-by-ugandan-homosexual-activist-group-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/

            Churches being harassed

            Churches and religious people have been demonized, harassed and threatened – with no punishment for the perpetrators. Since the “gay marriage” ruling, those who publicly disagree with “gay marriage” or the normalcy of homosexuality – or hold events promoting traditional beliefs – are targets of militant retribution by homosexual activists. Police and public officials have shown no interest in stopping this. We are not aware of a single homosexual activist arrested (or charged with any “hate crime”) for disrupting a religious event or threatening and harassing people at a church. For example:

            In 2012 someone threatened to burn down a Catholic Church in Acushnet which posted the words “Two men are friends, not spouses” on its outdoor sign. The church immediately received a flood of profane phone calls. At least one person threatened to burn down the church. An activist nailed a sign to church’s fence saying, “Spread love not hate.” Activists staged a protest outside of the Sunday Mass to intimidate parishioners with a sign saying, “It is legal for two men or women to be spouses.” Neither the police nor the District Attorney pursued the threats as a hate crime or other offense.

            In 2010 a Catholic elementary school balked at letting a lesbian couple enroll their son. As a result, the school was excoriated in the media and even by the local liberal state representative as “discriminatory.” The privately-run Catholic Schools Foundation then threatened to withhold funding to the school unless it relented. The Archdiocese eventually backed down and the school reversed its policy.

            In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church.

            In 2006 dozens of screaming homosexual activists drowned out the speakers at an outdoor pro-marriage rally in Worcester organized byCatholic Vote, yelling “Bigots” and disgusting chants. Police did not stop them, even though the rally had a permit. When one of the rioters rushed the stage and started shouting, a rally organizer tried to lead her to the side. She subsequently sued that organizer for assault! He went through a four-day trial and was acquitted by a jury. But no charges were filed against any of the rioters.

            In 2006 a group of homosexual activists with signs taunted and screamed at people entering and leaving the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in downtown Boston, which was holding a nationally televised pro-marriage event inside.

            In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street.

          • kssturgis62

            See People Read things to Learn here is some more you MISSED BECAUSE YOU CHOSE NOT TO READ

            GONE — Religious freedom, conscience rights: Under threat of a $150,000 penalty, business owners and property owners cannot decline to hire or rent to homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals despite an owner’s religious or moral conscience: Homosexuality and bisexuality — AB 196 – Gender Nondiscrimination Prohibits discrimination in employment and housing based on gender non-conformity. Signed by Governor Davis. Omnibus Labor and Employment Non-Discrimination Act (AB 2900) Omnibus Hate Crimes Act (SB 1234)

            http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025483

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That’s commerce, not worship. You said churches forced to marry gays, please provide examples.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That’s a nice long comment, yet it still contains no instances of a church being required to host a gay wedding.

  • Michael Nappi

    Congratulations. Now can we get that Muslim loving Anti-American Obama out of the white house and into a jail cell where he belongs?

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Why do I get the feeling that you work that into every conversation you have? And are utterly oblivious to how sick most people around you are of hearing you go on about it?

      “Would you like fries with that?”

      “Yes, AND I’d like to get that Muslim loving…”

      • Michael Nappi

        It’s your right to sit idly by while Obama destroys our nation piece by piece, but it is also my right and my choice to talk about it and bring it to the attention of others. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, post back against it or just go look at pictures of warm fuzzy kittens.

  • ERMERGERD

    Don’t… care…

    • Hiraghm

      Then… why… comment… ?

  • Arapahoman15

    This is a sad day for mankind in it’s march into moral oblivion. It is sadder that people who know better helped to facilitate today’s court decisions. Their victory, in the end, will be short-lived. Christ’s coming will end all wickedness including gay marriage.

  • GolfPro

    Most of the people elected to serve and many others need to get their mind from between their legs and take care of business. If these people “fighting for their rights” would keep it in the bedroom where it belongs, no one would take notice. They wish to convert the world to their perverted way of living. It can never be for God set his seal of non-approval upon it. I heard a Rabbi speaking about it make the following statement: He said: “They state we’re here, we’re queer, we’re in your face.” And so it is! I am glad Christ is coming to take us out of this to a place where they can never come…unless they convert, becoming ‘born again.” Heterosexuals do not run the streets dressed like circus clowns, shouting “we are coming out! We are normal! It is our right! We want it this way.” The reason they do not have to do this is because that way IS NORMAL AND THE WAY GOD ORDAINED IT TO BE. It is not expected, or even thought of by heterosexuals. The other way is perverted and they know it, so in their rage eating at them inside, they shove it in others’ face. God will accept them as quickly as any other person if they are willing to change. Get angry at truth if you like. Here is what God says about it: “Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” .

  • neoface

    Not sure why small population of gays have so much power in this country, is it because the liberals always need a victim in their talking point? Will they now fight for marrying your dog?

    • Hiraghm

      I know I will, now.

    • unklbrad

      Um, have you taken a close look at most liberal chicks? They mistakenly believe they need to look like a boy to be taken seriously.

    • Grandma HeadInjury

      It’s already going on in Europe. They call themselves zoophiles. Their argument: they were “born this way.” Sound familiar?

  • Bill Person

    None of this will be settled until gene mapping is completed and a very high level of genetic interaction is undeerstood. Untill then we are left with, at the most a behavior being nothing more than a genetic predisposition. So the question really becomes, can the Federal government really legislate behavior? Agree or not with DOMA this is the larger question.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Hunh? You saying homosexuality is genetic? Not at all environmental? Not at all the product of suggestion and acceptance? Is cigarette smoking likewise a genetic predisposition? It is after all addictive behavior, and the Federal government has been legislating cigarette commercials for years. So I guess the Federal government has been legislating behavior for a long time.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Hunh? You saying homosexuality is genetic? Not at all environmental? Not at all the product of suggestion and acceptance? Is cigarette smoking likewise a genetic predisposition? It is after all addictive behavior, and the Federal government has been legislating cigarette commercials for years. So I guess the Federal government has been legislating behavior for a long time.

  • Not Anonymous

    If they allow same sex marriage, then they are going to have to allow polygamy. While, I don’t subscribe to polygamy, it seems only fair to accept both regimes. I bet we would be surprised how many people out there support Heterosexual polygamy over gay marriage. I believe in freedom as a whole, so I think you should be able to marry a duck, if you get along well.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Bring on the harem! While we’re at it, why have age limits on marriage? I am sure NAMBLA would concur.

      • Not Anonymous

        Polygamy between adults, is hardly pedophilia…

        I was merely pointing out that those two marital regimes fall into the same category in many people’s eyes; so they should allow both.

  • KayGee

    Because just about the only possible way that this ruling can be approached with a positive note on Twitchy is if it’s spun into a Clinton-bashing orgy. Never mind that he keeps publicly stating how much he regrets signing the law, and especially never mind all that pesky Constitutional reasoning behind it being struck down, since that document is valid ONLY when it’s being used to justify and uphold a modern conservative agenda.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Nah. It’s just fun watching the entire Clinton presidency come undone under Obama. And the Bush presidency got a shot in the arm – with steroids (NSA surveillance, Patriot Act extended, Bush tax cuts extended, GITMO still open, escalation in Afghanistan, …).

    • LtColO

      Not to mention Christian teaching is almost universally against divorce whenever possible. Oops. attached reply to wrong comment.

      • mark kelley

        but you arent trying to make divorce illegal?

    • LtColO

      Not to mention Christian teaching is almost universally against divorce whenever possible. Oops. attached reply to wrong comment.

    • http://commentspammersmustdie.blogspot.com/ Kakarot

      Yeah. Who really cares what Bill Clinton DID. What is important is how he FELT about it. Especially five years later.

      • KayGee

        also never mind the congress that voted it onto his desk, either. Because LOL Clinton sux or something.

    • http://commentspammersmustdie.blogspot.com/ Kakarot

      Yeah. Who really cares what Bill Clinton DID. What is important is how he FELT about it. Especially five years later.

  • mark kelley

    So a man and a woman can get up in church and swear an oath before GOD and community to be true to one another, until death do us part and all that. Then go get a divorce and remarry and get a divorce.. Where is the outcry?

    But a gay couple can not get married, its an abomination? It goes against GOD’s plan? Its an affront to your religion?

    I would think christians would be more upset about the people breaking their oaths before GOD.

    Where is the logic? I believe in GOD, I’ve read the bible. I have studied history. Someone make me understand.

    • FlyoverGuy

      So, the choice is to either outlaw civil divorce or redefine marriage?

      It wasn’t traditional Christians pushing easy divorce in the 1960s and 1970s.

      You make no sense.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Um, Christians ARE upset about breaking marriage oaths made before God. It is YOUR logic that I cannot follow. How does divorce justify same-sex marriage? Are you suggesting that same-sex marriage would be immune to divorce? Or are you suggesting that heterosexuals have so screwed up marriage that hiomosexuals couldn’t screw it up worse? You’ve read the Bible? How about 1 Cor 6:9-10? According to St. Paul, it isn’t just homosexuals who will have hell to pay, because fornicators and adulterers will as well. But he is pretty explicit about “sodomites” (homosexuals). This ruling today was not biblical, it was an interpretation of the 5th and 10th Amendments.

      • mark kelley

        Well, you touched on what my question was in your reply. The “sanctity” of marriage has been destroyed for decades.

        I was wondering how christians can argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry based on their religions beliefs when its totally acceptable in our society to marry on a whim, and divorce if you change your mind.

        A lot of christians are in an uproar over this gay marriage issue but when was the last time you saw a protest or any media coverage of christians upset about the prevalence of divorce.

        • LtColO

          How is the sanctity of marriage destroyed? Is the sanctity of life destroyed because of murder? Huh??

        • LtColO

          How is the sanctity of marriage destroyed? Is the sanctity of life destroyed because of murder? Huh??

  • Mickey O’Brien

    First DADT, then DOMA. Poor President Clinton. What next: the EIC?

  • Love of Country

    In other words, John Roberts made Owebamaocare law for absolutely no reason …. clearly no one respected that regrettable malfeasance!

  • Alan Milton

    Actually Bill Clinton is very happy that this portion of the DOMA was overturned. In 1996 DOMA was introduced by Don Nickles (R) in the GOP controlled Senate and by Rep Bob Barr (R) in the House which were both controlled by the GOP. President Clinton didn’t support gay marriage then but was against passing DOMA He had to sign this law even though he didn’t want to as the GOP controlled Congress had enough votes to overturn a Presidential veto. Please check your facts Malkin before posting. OH OH OH I forgot you are with FAUX News you don’t check facts.

    • mark kelley

      Regardless of who controlled congress, no one forced him to sign it. Even if they could have overridden his veto, he should have used his conscience in making a decision on what to do…sounds like a copout to me.

      • Alan Milton

        My point was that Clinton isn’t sad about it at all as was claimed by Malkin

  • Alan Milton

    Actually Bill Clinton is very happy that this portion of the DOMA was overturned. In 1996 DOMA was introduced by Don Nickles (R) in the GOP controlled Senate and by Rep Bob Barr (R) in the House which were both controlled by the GOP. President Clinton didn’t support gay marriage then but was against passing DOMA He had to sign this law even though he didn’t want to as the GOP controlled Congress had enough votes to overturn a Presidential veto. Please check your facts Malkin before posting. OH OH OH I forgot you are with FAUX News you don’t check facts.

  • $4752944

    If government got out of the business of licensing and regulating marriage, this wouldn’t be a problem, to begin with. As is, most laws wrt marriage are some form of Jim Crow law, punishing one group or individual -including men- over another, including gays and lesbians, et al., while rewarding religious traditionalists – and women.

    • unklbrad

      Rewarding us with a higher combined tax rate?

  • $4752944

    If government got out of the business of licensing and regulating marriage, this wouldn’t be a problem, to begin with. As is, most laws wrt marriage are some form of Jim Crow law, punishing one group or individual -including men- over another, including gays and lesbians, et al., while rewarding religious traditionalists – and women.

  • Darren Perkins

    Doesn’t really matter, it wasn’t enforced anywayy

  • billy86

    The American Psychiatric Association, (APA) dropped the “homosexuality” diagnosis (as a mental disorder) from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual in 1973 due to nothing more than political correctness pressure by a couple of powerful liberal psychiatrist editors. Science not required. (financial and pharma-associations are also suspect in the decision)

    • Bathing Suit Area

      On what scientific evidence was it put into the DSM?

      • Bathing Suit Area

        *tumbleweed*

  • ICOYAR

    While I do not like Bill Clinton, he did the right thing here.

  • Damien Johnson

    I think we should do what MSNBC did, when they asked a five year old how they feel about gay marriage. We should start asking kids how would they feel if they were aborted. If they play dirty, we should too.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Remember to ask them how they’ll feel being forced into giving birth, too.

      • cocodrie

        Why? Are you gonna force them to have sex?

        Jesus loves you so much He died for you

        • Bathing Suit Area

          No forcing, but most people do at some point in life choose to have sex.

          • cocodrie

            Yes, but should we be teaching 5 year olds to get abortions?

            Jesus loves youn so much He died for you

  • Whokilledkenny

    I really don’t care, but the brain-washers got me thinking, the
    courts and law cannot change what nature has bloomed. Procreation.So scientifically thinking, what is man made? Global warming or homosexuality.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Laws are also man made.

      • mark kelley

        we all come from nature., men are nature therefore what is created by man is from nature. ants make anthills, naturally, bees make hives, thats also natural.

        Homosexual activity is represented in many other species besides man.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    I believe Married Gay Couples should have the Right to get married and be just a miserable as over 50% of Heterosexual Married Couples are… That way you guys can deal with Divorce Courts, Child Custody battles, Alimony, Child Support and dividing up their family’s property just like the rest of us are forced to deal with in our lives…

    So Gay community, Be very careful what you ask for because marriage comes with many trappings and there just as much misery involved in being married as there is happiness!

    You people don’t realize that you already have the best of both worlds. Take from someone who was cleaned out in a divorce and still hasn’t recovered financially over 15 years later.

    Don’t be STUPID!

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Sounds like you really want to ban straight marriage.

      • Franklin Crittenden

        The way things are going these days Straight Marriage will be a thing of the past with a decade or two.

        You know the old saying, “why buy the Cow when you can get the milk for free”? Well, these days with women pushing for abortions on demand and over 300,000 being performed each year it is a free for all! Take that along with men expecting sex on the first date and getting it and that old saying takes on a whole new meaning!

        The next time you go out for dinner take a look around and see just how many Heterosexuals couples are out on a actual date and then notice how many tables are full of just Women paying for their own dinner and then heading out to a bar or nightclub afterwords? I am telling you, it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the single guys out there!

        Man, In the old days we had to at least buy them a few dinners and take them to a movie a time or two before we could expect anything. These days they actually feed themselves, buy their own drinks until they are drunk and when closing time comes aroung you can just take your pick, LOL!

        God Bless Women’s Lib and Abortion on demand!

        • Bathing Suit Area

          So because we can have sex without getting married, marriage will vanish? Are you suggesting that the only reason anyone ever got married in the old days was to have sex?

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Just telling it like it is Bathing Suit Area:

            I have seen several reports over the past few months that say that fewer Americans are getting married. In fact, married people are now the minority. The prospects are even worse for Black women, with all the problems with finding “suitable” Black men. Furthermore, Americans who do decide to marry are generally waiting longer. But few of the reports dare to mention the real reason behind the decline.

            Fewer marriages are no surprise. It basically comes down to economics. Few news outlets look at the relationship between marriage and money. What is marriage really??? Marriage is basically an arrangement or contract of economic convenience….and it’s been that way for Centuries. This was especially the case up until the 1950’s and 60’s, when fewer women worked (right before the Nuclear Family began to fade). Women were more dependent on men for financial security at that time.

            Recent research show that divorce rate has increase over the years with over 50% of divorce cases in the customary courts. This is alarming.

            Why do couple divorce? You may want to ask. Well, it simply because there is no true LOVE in such relationship. Period. Where is true love between couples such relationship will stand no matter the challenges and difficulties they may face. True love is missing in so many marriages today. In the first place many singles lack this true love, all that runs in their vein is infatuation and lust. Little wonder, break up is on the rise.