Joe My God blog articles and comments

  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Forget Iran, Iraq, Ukraine: This is Where War WWIII Starts  Money Morning 




Hilarious Filming Mistakes That You Never Noticed in "Friends"  Answers.com 




5 Times Lady Gaga Looked Normal  SESSIONS X 




60 Year Old Grandma Looks 30  Her Life & Beauty 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   197 comments 


 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


 Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow   98 comments 


 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   40 comments 






 91 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Yeah. Same Sex Marriage is going to be the thing that pisses God off.
He was totally okay with Native American genocide, Slavery, Nuclear Weapons and bombing innocent people in Iraq and Vietnam but you issue one marriage license to the gays and he's going to quit us.
 
35 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Genocide, Slavery, Nuclear Weapons and the Kardashians were not enough?
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dan > Gustav2  • 9 hours ago 




I always considered the Kardashians more of the punishment than the cause....
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joseph Miceli > Dan  • 8 hours ago 




They can be both. They have enough ass to cover both possibilities.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh > Gustav2  • 7 hours ago 




Justin Bieber.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrueWords > Gustav2  • 7 hours ago 





  


 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Todd20036 > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




So THAT's what caused the earthquake in Nepal. Gay marriage in the US! It's so obvious!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




As I always say, god has notoriously bad aim.
He drinks to soften the blow of his omniimpotence.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > vorpal  • 9 hours ago 




Well he did inspire Dubya to attack countries with no connection to 9/11. It's the christofascist way.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sashineb > Todd20036  • 8 hours ago 




Oh, yes!! And so what if god gets mixed up with his geography? It's the warning that counts! And I'm sure Christine will be very happy to raise her voice to tell us about it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > Sashineb  • 8 hours ago 




The way I figure it is this: god gets pissed and sends a punishment down from the heavens. Unfortunately for god, because of the whole time dilation thing (see Genesis), god never remembers to compensate for the Earth's rotation AND orbit around the sun. So, most of the "punishments" exacted by god miss Earth entirely, and the few that do hit Earth miss by thousands of miles.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > barracks9  • 8 hours ago 




That would mean God would have to do ....dare I say.....math!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
D. J. > barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




I think Gawd screws up his punishments because he's 'Murikun. 'Murikuns are notoriously bad at geography. He'll get better when Tony Perkkkins buys him a GPS or hires white Santa as his geographical target consultant.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sashineb > barracks9  • 7 hours ago 




Oh, we can't expect too much from god. He has so much on his mind, such as still being furious with Eve for taking that apple. It's no wonder he's forever randomly pressing that "smite" button on his computer.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jmax > Sashineb  • 7 hours ago 




Love that cartoon.
 
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
vorpal > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




I love to ask these nut jobs exactly how many same-sex marriages it'll take before their histrionic, emotionally unstable little god finally decides to throw his temper tantrum and put in an appearance. We're up to around 300,000 now, so I'm guessing... never.
If god removes his "loving hand of blessings", maybe the crushing pressure it places on the skulls of fundies will let up and their minds will start functioning again, although I'm not hopeful.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
PeterC > vorpal  • 9 hours ago 




NO, With the pollution, which is causing climate change, and over-population of the earth, we will cause our demise all by ourselves.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > PeterC  • 9 hours ago 




Yes, and I'm pretty convinced that the sad thing will be that Christians will go to their graves screeching that this is the End Times as brought about by America's acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, when in reality, it will have been their denial of climate change that would be the biggest factor contributing to it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SonOfMargit > vorpal  • 7 hours ago 




And their breeding fetish. They love celebrating couples with a multitude of children. Of course, that's just more innocent lives to indoctrinate for them.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Isn't he in an eternal state of pissed off?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
furyatx > Anastasia Beaverhousen  • 8 hours ago 




He needs zoloft and anger management counseling.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen > furyatx  • 8 hours ago 




I find Ability does a better job for those that are bi-polar/maniac-depressive.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
vorpal > Anastasia Beaverhousen  • 8 hours ago 




It does seem to be the default setting.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TheSeer > Pollos Hermanos  • 5 hours ago 




Of course he was okay with slavery. Slavery is God ordained institution.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
George > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Don't forget rapist priests.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




The Westboro Baptist Church must be there, right? They must be annoyed at being eclipsed by other people.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




I've come to respect the WBC somewhat. They've been saying all along what all the haters say, but they are blatant about it.
The WBC has actually helped our cause. They've shown a lot of fence sitters the truth of the haters, even if most haters didn't say those things in public.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
prestonbuell > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




I think you're right. The underlying message of them all is 'God hates fags and so do I'.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
medaka > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




I think you nailed the nutshell on the head.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




Same here. Plus, while late paterfamilias Fred Phelps was reportedly physically as well as mentally abusive to his own family, the cult he founded doesn't make any calls for violence; they just tell everyone God is going to get them.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > KnownDonorDad  • 8 hours ago 




And the fact that the cult actually disowned him on his death bed is seriously schadenfreudic. I wonder what he said. Maybe that he was, in fact, gay? Maybe he realized that hating others doesn't help anyone? Maybe he figured that if God existed he'd have talked to him?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Todd20036  • 8 hours ago 




I don't know, but I picture his last moments like this:

  


 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Cousin Bleh > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




There's a picture on another thread of Shirley. I'm thinking about going over there at lunch so I can take a selfie with her.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Cousin Bleh  • 9 hours ago 




Ask her how her kids are doing.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




You're so mean. I like that!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > medaka  • 8 hours ago 




I'm actually super nice most of the time, there's something about the WBC that just brings out the meanness. ;)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > KnownDonorDad  • 8 hours ago 




Like when Shirley starts singing wacky hymns to drown out someone asking her questions?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > medaka  • 8 hours ago 




Ooh, that's the point where I like to go all Billy Porter on the hymns they're singing. Sister, a good tune is a good tune, and I can tear that fucker up - freaks them the hell out.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
People4Humanity > Cousin Bleh  • 9 hours ago 




Aw, something for your granddogs to chew.
Ain't that just the sweetest thang?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
People4Humanity > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




Westboro Baptist Church must be annoyed at being eclipsed by other crazies.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Reality.Bites > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




Yes, someone mentioned they are there in another thread.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Richard Rush  • 9 hours ago 




The Holy Trinity of mental disorders:
GOD = Gay Obsession Disorder
GOD = Gender Obsession Disorder
GOD = God Obsession Disorder
(And yes, the people suffering from GOD are
 'intrinsically disordered.')
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Abbett  • 9 hours ago 




Oh, good. I see we've reached critical mass. I was hoping this dingbat would show up. I would love to be a vendor there right now. I could really make a killing on these.
 
Thumbnail
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Michael Abbett  • 9 hours ago 




As long as you weren't selling Monster
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Christopher   • 9 hours ago 




Once you've sat down with Daniel Tosh, and he mocks you to your face, it destroys all credibility you may think you have.
This woman is insane and should be treated as such.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > Christopher   • 9 hours ago 




Tosh-O~!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > People4Humanity  • 9 hours ago 




:)
 
Thumbnail
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




If God has a protecting hand on us right now, he's not doing a very good job. CA is dry as a bone, the rest of the country is being slapped with floods and storms, the east coast was slammed this winter...kids are being killed in the streets, and families broken apart.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




Monarch butterflys are down 90 %. The bees are all gone too. My apple trees are in full bloom. No bee.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > Ragnar Lothbrok  • 9 hours ago 




Time to get your teeny-tiny paintbrush out, and pollinate your apple blossoms while you can.
Thank the chemical companies for bee decline.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > People4Humanity  • 8 hours ago 




That is how I do it. Every few days I go out with a paintbrush and go from plant to plant. I had a great crop the last 2 years. All we see are Bumble Bees.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Bj Lincoln  • 7 hours ago 




Around here, people put up nesting boxes for blue mason bees. And all the garden centers sell replacements for the cardboard tubes that have to be replaced annually.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Dick518 > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




And don't forget, we're
responsible for the riots in Baltimore last night... Of the fury...There is no
god, the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever perpetrated on humankind... When will these people realize they have LOST this battle...
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
goofy_joe > Dick518  • 9 hours ago 




Not to negate you, but I don't think they have lost the battle. If they had, then this all would be moot and we wouldn't be hanging on the SCOTUS decision.
If watching the Prop 8 fiasco in California taught me anything, it's that nothing is a slam dunk and we shouldn't become complacent just because everyone we talk to is in support. For every person I know who supports my rights to be equal, I'm sure there are a few out there who don't.
The battles aren't over, and won't be for some time. Let's not get comfortable because we'll begin making mistakes.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mark > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




But but but gay people married makes the baby jeebux cry.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LonelyLiberal > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




Tru dat. Our temperatures are holding at below normal, which is going to impact your corn and soy prices this year.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Righ  • 9 hours ago 




Christine Weick and NOM deserve each other. I am also amused that Peter LaBarbera showed up. A few years ago he showed up uninvited in Maine and told the press "The elephant in the living room is homosexuality." Crazy statements from crazy people only help us.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Patrick  • 9 hours ago 




So God protected us thru Katrina, 100 year flood, 100 year drought, World trade center bombing.... Wow he's doing a wonderful job ... NOT
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Deus Emeritus > Patrick  • 9 hours ago 




God's getting too old for heavy-lifting. He's more of a figurehead now anyway.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Larry Gist  • 9 hours ago 




OK sweetie, the rest of us will wait with baited-breath for your god to pummel us into the dirt. What will it be this time? A flood? A tornado? A hurricane? It must be so nice to be able to blame all these natural disasters on "teh gayz" - I mean none of those things would ever happen anyway right?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok  • 9 hours ago 




Draw a line ?? LOL God couldn't even draw the boundaries
 of the United States right.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SoCalVet  • 9 hours ago 




I don't take seriously any warnings from crazy people.
If you stop to listen, they will warn you of all kinds of apocalyptic shit.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Piotr  • 9 hours ago 




She seems nice.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gene > Piotr  • 9 hours ago 




she's nuttier than squirrel shit in a peanut packing factory.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gene > Gene  • 7 hours ago 




ps..post more...I like looking at your icon :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
SockMikey  • 9 hours ago 




I'd much rather watch some sweaty Roman Gladiators bonding than read it from your nitwit-picked "law(d)" book.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > SockMikey  • 9 hours ago 




SPARTACUS!
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LonelyLiberal > People4Humanity  • 9 hours ago 




I am Spartacus!
I am Spartacus!
I'm not Spartacus, but he let me give him a BJ last night!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
YakHerder  • 9 hours ago 




Also, Count Chocula will come and demand his skateboard back.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
furyatx  • 9 hours ago 




OH NO! Look out the invisible force field of gods sweaty palm is going to fail!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




TOT. The #Pizza4Equality currently stands about $1000 shy of its readjusted goal of $160,00, The campaign is just about over. Maybe you could donate some bucks citing this auspicious day?
http://www.gofundme.com/Pizza4...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David F.  • 9 hours ago 




This woman is so nuts that she craps peanut butter.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LonelyLiberal > David F.  • 9 hours ago 




So her name's actually Janine?
/obscure pointless commercials reference
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate  • 9 hours ago 




Who let the crazy dogs out?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 8 hours ago 




Oh great! Now that silly song is wandering around in my head again!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Reality.Bites  • 9 hours ago 




These hearings are like the TVLand awards for crazy people.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rod Steely  • 8 hours ago 




Her god is really mean. Kind of like the same god who would create two people, tempt them with an apple then kick them out of paradise for doing what he had planned all along.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Marides48  • 8 hours ago 




Why is it that religion brings out the crazy in some people?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Marides48  • 8 hours ago 




Sky cake!

  


 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
justmeeeee  • 8 hours ago 




I LOVE HER! She's the most entertaining wacko since Tammy Faye!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bryan  • 9 hours ago 




My demonic gay semen goes to Starbucks. They pay more than Monster Energy Drinks.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rough Love  • 9 hours ago 




God will only remove his/her protective hand from America in order to lube his fist before s/he forcefully inserts it into Christine's ano-rectal cavity. Allahu akhbar!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
D. J.  • 5 hours ago 




Christine, if there was ever Gawd's protective hand over America, she removed it when you were born.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JR  • 7 hours ago 




... popping the top on a fresh can of Monster "Zero Ultra" energy drink. Cheers, Ms. Weick!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 7 hours ago 




there is NO GOD, bitch; get that through your thick skull!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Leo  • 8 hours ago 




C-Span 3's live-stream is giving me a headache. All the shouting matches. Christine's not the worst in that square.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
George  • 9 hours ago 




Too bad his protective hand did not stop the progression of her mental illness.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
medaka  • 9 hours ago 




This is the "homeless" one who shows up at events all over the country and yells at Muslims, right. Glad you made it, kiddo! How ya durrin?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 9 hours ago 




The crazy is strong, this one…..
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
IamM  • 2 hours ago 




Religion: Absolute certainty about things you cannot possibly know,
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JCF  • 4 hours ago 




If ever there were someone to be deported to ISIS-controlled territory...
[j/k. Barely.]
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/crazy-christine-weick-is-at-scotus.html#disqus_thread








  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Forget Iran, Iraq, Ukraine: This is Where War WWIII Starts  Money Morning 




Hilarious Filming Mistakes That You Never Noticed in "Friends"  Answers.com 




5 Times Lady Gaga Looked Normal  SESSIONS X 




60 Year Old Grandma Looks 30  Her Life & Beauty 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   197 comments 


 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


 Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow   98 comments 


 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   40 comments 






 91 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Yeah. Same Sex Marriage is going to be the thing that pisses God off.
He was totally okay with Native American genocide, Slavery, Nuclear Weapons and bombing innocent people in Iraq and Vietnam but you issue one marriage license to the gays and he's going to quit us.
 
35 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Genocide, Slavery, Nuclear Weapons and the Kardashians were not enough?
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dan > Gustav2  • 9 hours ago 




I always considered the Kardashians more of the punishment than the cause....
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joseph Miceli > Dan  • 8 hours ago 




They can be both. They have enough ass to cover both possibilities.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh > Gustav2  • 7 hours ago 




Justin Bieber.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrueWords > Gustav2  • 7 hours ago 





  


 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Todd20036 > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




So THAT's what caused the earthquake in Nepal. Gay marriage in the US! It's so obvious!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




As I always say, god has notoriously bad aim.
He drinks to soften the blow of his omniimpotence.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > vorpal  • 9 hours ago 




Well he did inspire Dubya to attack countries with no connection to 9/11. It's the christofascist way.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sashineb > Todd20036  • 8 hours ago 




Oh, yes!! And so what if god gets mixed up with his geography? It's the warning that counts! And I'm sure Christine will be very happy to raise her voice to tell us about it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > Sashineb  • 8 hours ago 




The way I figure it is this: god gets pissed and sends a punishment down from the heavens. Unfortunately for god, because of the whole time dilation thing (see Genesis), god never remembers to compensate for the Earth's rotation AND orbit around the sun. So, most of the "punishments" exacted by god miss Earth entirely, and the few that do hit Earth miss by thousands of miles.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > barracks9  • 8 hours ago 




That would mean God would have to do ....dare I say.....math!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
D. J. > barracks9  • 5 hours ago 




I think Gawd screws up his punishments because he's 'Murikun. 'Murikuns are notoriously bad at geography. He'll get better when Tony Perkkkins buys him a GPS or hires white Santa as his geographical target consultant.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sashineb > barracks9  • 7 hours ago 




Oh, we can't expect too much from god. He has so much on his mind, such as still being furious with Eve for taking that apple. It's no wonder he's forever randomly pressing that "smite" button on his computer.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jmax > Sashineb  • 7 hours ago 




Love that cartoon.
 
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
vorpal > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




I love to ask these nut jobs exactly how many same-sex marriages it'll take before their histrionic, emotionally unstable little god finally decides to throw his temper tantrum and put in an appearance. We're up to around 300,000 now, so I'm guessing... never.
If god removes his "loving hand of blessings", maybe the crushing pressure it places on the skulls of fundies will let up and their minds will start functioning again, although I'm not hopeful.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
PeterC > vorpal  • 9 hours ago 




NO, With the pollution, which is causing climate change, and over-population of the earth, we will cause our demise all by ourselves.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > PeterC  • 9 hours ago 




Yes, and I'm pretty convinced that the sad thing will be that Christians will go to their graves screeching that this is the End Times as brought about by America's acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, when in reality, it will have been their denial of climate change that would be the biggest factor contributing to it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
SonOfMargit > vorpal  • 7 hours ago 




And their breeding fetish. They love celebrating couples with a multitude of children. Of course, that's just more innocent lives to indoctrinate for them.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Isn't he in an eternal state of pissed off?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
furyatx > Anastasia Beaverhousen  • 8 hours ago 




He needs zoloft and anger management counseling.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen > furyatx  • 8 hours ago 




I find Ability does a better job for those that are bi-polar/maniac-depressive.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
vorpal > Anastasia Beaverhousen  • 8 hours ago 




It does seem to be the default setting.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TheSeer > Pollos Hermanos  • 5 hours ago 




Of course he was okay with slavery. Slavery is God ordained institution.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
George > Pollos Hermanos  • 9 hours ago 




Don't forget rapist priests.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




The Westboro Baptist Church must be there, right? They must be annoyed at being eclipsed by other people.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




I've come to respect the WBC somewhat. They've been saying all along what all the haters say, but they are blatant about it.
The WBC has actually helped our cause. They've shown a lot of fence sitters the truth of the haters, even if most haters didn't say those things in public.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
prestonbuell > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




I think you're right. The underlying message of them all is 'God hates fags and so do I'.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
medaka > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




I think you nailed the nutshell on the head.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Todd20036  • 9 hours ago 




Same here. Plus, while late paterfamilias Fred Phelps was reportedly physically as well as mentally abusive to his own family, the cult he founded doesn't make any calls for violence; they just tell everyone God is going to get them.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > KnownDonorDad  • 8 hours ago 




And the fact that the cult actually disowned him on his death bed is seriously schadenfreudic. I wonder what he said. Maybe that he was, in fact, gay? Maybe he realized that hating others doesn't help anyone? Maybe he figured that if God existed he'd have talked to him?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Todd20036  • 8 hours ago 




I don't know, but I picture his last moments like this:

  


 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Cousin Bleh > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




There's a picture on another thread of Shirley. I'm thinking about going over there at lunch so I can take a selfie with her.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Cousin Bleh  • 9 hours ago 




Ask her how her kids are doing.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




You're so mean. I like that!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > medaka  • 8 hours ago 




I'm actually super nice most of the time, there's something about the WBC that just brings out the meanness. ;)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > KnownDonorDad  • 8 hours ago 




Like when Shirley starts singing wacky hymns to drown out someone asking her questions?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > medaka  • 8 hours ago 




Ooh, that's the point where I like to go all Billy Porter on the hymns they're singing. Sister, a good tune is a good tune, and I can tear that fucker up - freaks them the hell out.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
People4Humanity > Cousin Bleh  • 9 hours ago 




Aw, something for your granddogs to chew.
Ain't that just the sweetest thang?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
People4Humanity > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




Westboro Baptist Church must be annoyed at being eclipsed by other crazies.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Reality.Bites > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




Yes, someone mentioned they are there in another thread.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Richard Rush  • 9 hours ago 




The Holy Trinity of mental disorders:
GOD = Gay Obsession Disorder
GOD = Gender Obsession Disorder
GOD = God Obsession Disorder
(And yes, the people suffering from GOD are
 'intrinsically disordered.')
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Abbett  • 9 hours ago 




Oh, good. I see we've reached critical mass. I was hoping this dingbat would show up. I would love to be a vendor there right now. I could really make a killing on these.
 
Thumbnail
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Michael Abbett  • 9 hours ago 




As long as you weren't selling Monster
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Christopher   • 9 hours ago 




Once you've sat down with Daniel Tosh, and he mocks you to your face, it destroys all credibility you may think you have.
This woman is insane and should be treated as such.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > Christopher   • 9 hours ago 




Tosh-O~!
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > People4Humanity  • 9 hours ago 




:)
 
Thumbnail
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




If God has a protecting hand on us right now, he's not doing a very good job. CA is dry as a bone, the rest of the country is being slapped with floods and storms, the east coast was slammed this winter...kids are being killed in the streets, and families broken apart.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




Monarch butterflys are down 90 %. The bees are all gone too. My apple trees are in full bloom. No bee.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > Ragnar Lothbrok  • 9 hours ago 




Time to get your teeny-tiny paintbrush out, and pollinate your apple blossoms while you can.
Thank the chemical companies for bee decline.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > People4Humanity  • 8 hours ago 




That is how I do it. Every few days I go out with a paintbrush and go from plant to plant. I had a great crop the last 2 years. All we see are Bumble Bees.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Bj Lincoln  • 7 hours ago 




Around here, people put up nesting boxes for blue mason bees. And all the garden centers sell replacements for the cardboard tubes that have to be replaced annually.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Dick518 > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




And don't forget, we're
responsible for the riots in Baltimore last night... Of the fury...There is no
god, the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever perpetrated on humankind... When will these people realize they have LOST this battle...
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
goofy_joe > Dick518  • 9 hours ago 




Not to negate you, but I don't think they have lost the battle. If they had, then this all would be moot and we wouldn't be hanging on the SCOTUS decision.
If watching the Prop 8 fiasco in California taught me anything, it's that nothing is a slam dunk and we shouldn't become complacent just because everyone we talk to is in support. For every person I know who supports my rights to be equal, I'm sure there are a few out there who don't.
The battles aren't over, and won't be for some time. Let's not get comfortable because we'll begin making mistakes.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mark > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




But but but gay people married makes the baby jeebux cry.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LonelyLiberal > goofy_joe  • 9 hours ago 




Tru dat. Our temperatures are holding at below normal, which is going to impact your corn and soy prices this year.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Righ  • 9 hours ago 




Christine Weick and NOM deserve each other. I am also amused that Peter LaBarbera showed up. A few years ago he showed up uninvited in Maine and told the press "The elephant in the living room is homosexuality." Crazy statements from crazy people only help us.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Patrick  • 9 hours ago 




So God protected us thru Katrina, 100 year flood, 100 year drought, World trade center bombing.... Wow he's doing a wonderful job ... NOT
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Deus Emeritus > Patrick  • 9 hours ago 




God's getting too old for heavy-lifting. He's more of a figurehead now anyway.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Larry Gist  • 9 hours ago 




OK sweetie, the rest of us will wait with baited-breath for your god to pummel us into the dirt. What will it be this time? A flood? A tornado? A hurricane? It must be so nice to be able to blame all these natural disasters on "teh gayz" - I mean none of those things would ever happen anyway right?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok  • 9 hours ago 




Draw a line ?? LOL God couldn't even draw the boundaries
 of the United States right.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
SoCalVet  • 9 hours ago 




I don't take seriously any warnings from crazy people.
If you stop to listen, they will warn you of all kinds of apocalyptic shit.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Piotr  • 9 hours ago 




She seems nice.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gene > Piotr  • 9 hours ago 




she's nuttier than squirrel shit in a peanut packing factory.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gene > Gene  • 7 hours ago 




ps..post more...I like looking at your icon :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
SockMikey  • 9 hours ago 




I'd much rather watch some sweaty Roman Gladiators bonding than read it from your nitwit-picked "law(d)" book.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > SockMikey  • 9 hours ago 




SPARTACUS!
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LonelyLiberal > People4Humanity  • 9 hours ago 




I am Spartacus!
I am Spartacus!
I'm not Spartacus, but he let me give him a BJ last night!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
YakHerder  • 9 hours ago 




Also, Count Chocula will come and demand his skateboard back.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
furyatx  • 9 hours ago 




OH NO! Look out the invisible force field of gods sweaty palm is going to fail!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




TOT. The #Pizza4Equality currently stands about $1000 shy of its readjusted goal of $160,00, The campaign is just about over. Maybe you could donate some bucks citing this auspicious day?
http://www.gofundme.com/Pizza4...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David F.  • 9 hours ago 




This woman is so nuts that she craps peanut butter.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
LonelyLiberal > David F.  • 9 hours ago 




So her name's actually Janine?
/obscure pointless commercials reference
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate  • 9 hours ago 




Who let the crazy dogs out?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 8 hours ago 




Oh great! Now that silly song is wandering around in my head again!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Reality.Bites  • 9 hours ago 




These hearings are like the TVLand awards for crazy people.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rod Steely  • 8 hours ago 




Her god is really mean. Kind of like the same god who would create two people, tempt them with an apple then kick them out of paradise for doing what he had planned all along.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Marides48  • 8 hours ago 




Why is it that religion brings out the crazy in some people?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Marides48  • 8 hours ago 




Sky cake!

  


 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
justmeeeee  • 8 hours ago 




I LOVE HER! She's the most entertaining wacko since Tammy Faye!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bryan  • 9 hours ago 




My demonic gay semen goes to Starbucks. They pay more than Monster Energy Drinks.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rough Love  • 9 hours ago 




God will only remove his/her protective hand from America in order to lube his fist before s/he forcefully inserts it into Christine's ano-rectal cavity. Allahu akhbar!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
D. J.  • 5 hours ago 




Christine, if there was ever Gawd's protective hand over America, she removed it when you were born.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JR  • 7 hours ago 




... popping the top on a fresh can of Monster "Zero Ultra" energy drink. Cheers, Ms. Weick!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 7 hours ago 




there is NO GOD, bitch; get that through your thick skull!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Leo  • 8 hours ago 




C-Span 3's live-stream is giving me a headache. All the shouting matches. Christine's not the worst in that square.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
George  • 9 hours ago 




Too bad his protective hand did not stop the progression of her mental illness.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
medaka  • 9 hours ago 




This is the "homeless" one who shows up at events all over the country and yells at Muslims, right. Glad you made it, kiddo! How ya durrin?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 9 hours ago 




The crazy is strong, this one…..
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
IamM  • 2 hours ago 




Religion: Absolute certainty about things you cannot possibly know,
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JCF  • 4 hours ago 




If ever there were someone to be deported to ISIS-controlled territory...
[j/k. Barely.]
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


Avatar






http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/crazy-christine-weick-is-at-scotus.html#disqus_thread








     

  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D262363941%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D%2D1884370798723894768%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E47240%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D64%2E95%2E36%2E220%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdYS55kGAAe%2D9qqsGoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB4M%2DUAcgB6O%2DektAp2gEULTE4ODQzNzA3OTg3MjM4OTQ3NjjlAVzoRzzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBEBfJNzAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=262363941?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=262363941;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=%2D1884370798723894768;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.47240,_qc.template;rtbip=64.95.36.220;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdYS55kGAAe-9qqsGoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB4M-UAcgB6O-ektAp2gEULTE4ODQzNzA3OTg3MjM4OTQ3NjjlAVzoRzzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBEBfJNzAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262363941?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262363941?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliati...
Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread
NORTHERN IRELAND: Assembly Narrowly Rejects Same-S...
FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site
Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS





Christine "Monster Energy Drink is by Satan" Weick has taken time off from disrupting Muslim events to protest outside the Supreme Court, where she just told C-SPAN that "God will remove his protecting hand from America" if they rule for same-sex marriage.
Labels: Christine Weick, crackpots, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       91 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   

 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/crazy-christine-weick-is-at-scotus.html#disqus_thread








     

  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D262363941%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D%2D1884370798723894768%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E47240%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D64%2E95%2E36%2E220%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdYS55kGAAe%2D9qqsGoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB4M%2DUAcgB6O%2DektAp2gEULTE4ODQzNzA3OTg3MjM4OTQ3NjjlAVzoRzzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBEBfJNzAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=262363941?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=262363941;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=%2D1884370798723894768;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.47240,_qc.template;rtbip=64.95.36.220;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdYS55kGAAe-9qqsGoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB4M-UAcgB6O-ektAp2gEULTE4ODQzNzA3OTg3MjM4OTQ3NjjlAVzoRzzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBEBfJNzAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262363941?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262363941?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
Clinton Campaign Goes Rainbow
ACLU: Love Is In The Air
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliati...
Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread
NORTHERN IRELAND: Assembly Narrowly Rejects Same-S...
FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site
Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS





Christine "Monster Energy Drink is by Satan" Weick has taken time off from disrupting Muslim events to protest outside the Supreme Court, where she just told C-SPAN that "God will remove his protecting hand from America" if they rule for same-sex marriage.
Labels: Christine Weick, crackpots, religion, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
      91 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   

 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/crazy-christine-weick-is-at-scotus.html#disqus_thread









  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Controversial 'Roid Alternative' Putting Gyms Out of Business  Easy Bulk Muscle 




Michelle Duggar Gets Startling News About Her Pregnancy  Answers.com 




Top 10 Cancer Causing Foods You Eat Every Day  Naturalon 




30 Hottest Female Celebrity Bodies of All Time  Rant, Inc. 



Also on JoeMyGod

Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  77 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  108 comments 


 NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy   67 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   117 comments 






 72 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




EW Jackson: “I don’t think that anyone here at this podium wants to see people denied the right to work” except that he opposed the repeal of DADT and wants people like me discharged from the military so that’s a straight up lie, he does want people denied the right to work in at least certain occupations. Beyond that Mat Staver thinks that homosexuality should be illegal so it is simply a lie to pretend that their agenda is only limited to marriage.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




gee. So he opposes all the 29 or so state laws that allow one to be fired strictly for being gay? Cool ! *snark*
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Indeed, these bigots have fought any ANYTHING that gives us rights in any way shape or form.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lymis  • 9 hours ago 




Typical Teabagger spelling problems on their signage. Fixed it for them.
 
Thumbnail
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




Thanks, Joe. This is going to be a busy day. Thank you for keeping us up to speed.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




And to ArchiLaw for the bottom pic and other JMG'ers on the ground.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




I know. I went for a walk with the dog before work and so much happened in less than 2 hours. I can't keep up. I'll get no work done today I guess.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




I get to crash before it gets really frenzied here. Sleep, miss all the fun, then wake up my tomorrow/your this evening to find out how it all went down.
Trying to stay awake as long as I can though...at least until the scotusblog liveblogging starts...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Abbett > medaka  • 9 hours ago 




In the same boat. Way past my bedtime but had to keep the coffin lid up a little longer. This is going to be an amusing news day that I'll be catching up on later.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > medaka  • 9 hours ago 




It's going to be an interesting day to say the least. Enjoy your shuteye time.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David Walker > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




Fortunately, I volunteer at the LGBT Center and all of us are trying to keep up.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




It appears there will be no limit to the craziness from the haters.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
medaka > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




Super-seconded -- thanks Joe!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Some anti-gay man ranting about “men sodomizing each other”…these people are always obsessed with the sex.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Melissia > bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




And it's always about manly buttsex, too.
Because we all know lesbians don't 'really exist, they can just rape us straight or something...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Schlukitz > Melissia  • 4 hours ago 




Oops....I repeted your post inadvertently.
Didn't read down further before posting.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Schlukitz > bill@19D  • 4 hours ago 




Especially butt-secks. lol
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Snownova  • 9 hours ago 




Who wants to bet that if you stand in the middle of the group of haters, your Grindr will light up like a christmas tree.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > Snownova  • 9 hours ago 




like a north dakota antigay gay republican asshole
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
CPT_Doom  • 9 hours ago 




I'm here at the Supreme Court. Haters have infiltrated the crowd and are trying to drown out Unite for Marriage speakers. Christian love in action.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > CPT_Doom  • 8 hours ago 




Stay safe!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




EW Jackson is now complaining that business can’t deny wedding services to gay couples without facing legal repercussions. Also complaining about the comparison to the civil rights movement for African Americans because race is a visible characteristic and sexual orientation isn’t as if only visible characteristics could be a basis for discrimination which is clearly not the case.
BTW a LOT of empty chairs at that event, the anti-gay activists are just talking to themselves.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




In other words, stay in the closet and you won't face any bigoted reprucussions.
 I wonder if he is prepared to say that about religious practices as well then.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
LovesIrony  • 9 hours ago 




Bill@19D, Thanks for the updates
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > LovesIrony  • 9 hours ago 




Of course, glad the anti-gay event is done with, that was getting repetitive very quickly and the ex-gay activist was beyond annoying with the complaints about not being recognized.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Who?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Tor  • 9 hours ago 




Janet Boynes, Claims to have “left the lesbian lifestyle”
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




when nobody will sleep with them, they claim to have left,
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Nexus1 > bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




I can't stand that woman. She is more insane than all the other 'ex-lesbians' of the 'ex-gay' movement. She is clearly a woman with some serious emotional health issues and more of a shill than the typical women that are part of that movement. When she becomes disillusioned with this like she has everything else in her life her fall will be especially hard. It's just pitiful and sad.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




she meant "they left me ...."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




Steve King is outside talking about his effort to strip the
courts of their ability to rule on Marriage, I should say his DOA attempt although he is claiming that momentum is building for it. I doubt leadership would even let it move up to a vote.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




As to "momentum" , remember NOM is "just getting started" !
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




NOM has a small cluster outside the court with their signs
from the march on Saturday and their white balloons. It is what a NOM gathering looks like when they don’t buss in a bunch of people who don’t even know that the event is actually about. I would also note that both sides are very intermixed, looks to be boisterous but calm.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




again from C-span 3, We don’t fear the ex-gay activists and no it won’t soon be illegal to have an ex-gay “ministry” rather we want to protect people from the abuse that comes from engaging in SOCE and the harm that comes from engaging in SOCE and we also want to protect minors from being subjected to that abuse. The laws are about protecting minors, not about what adults do.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Corey > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Just watched the hatefest CSPAN-3 at the National Press Club. It was near comical. That lady at the end though that Dolce was a designer from Hollywood. Oh the ignorance...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




Indeed, as much as I hate the fact adults will subject themselves to quack therapy, it is their choice.
 Minors don't have a choice and shouldn't be forced into this crap.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 10 hours ago 




I would also note that a significant portion of the ex-gay “client” base is made up of minors and so protecting minors from this is by itself a
large step. When it comes to adults there is also the option of civil suits like the one that the SPLC is working on right now.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LovesIrony > Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




and I don't accept them when they coming running back to the gay community for forgiveness when they FINALLY admit that they are still gay after lying for so long. Notice these folks always talk about themselves not the harm they do when a gay kid's mom sees them on tv and signs their kids up for this torture.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
NMNative  • 10 hours ago 




I hope they film their heads exploding when equality becomes the law of the land. I'd pay a dollar to see that!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




An ex-gay activist is now speaking at the anti-gays event at
the National Press Club…shows the connection between the anti-marriage crowd and the ex-gay ideology. The two are always eventually connected because if gay people can’t get married the anti-gays must want them to do something and they don’t want them to have sex outside of marriage so it comes down to either being celibate or “changing” to hetrosexual.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Bottom line: they don't want us to exist. We're extremely inconvenient for them because we don't fit into their neat and tidy (albeit completely fabricated) little world view.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Abbett > teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




Everyone who doesn't buy into their worldview is inconvenient to them. They know it is preposterous and the only way they can believe it themselves is if they can convince others to believe it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




Exactly right. If gay people stay closeted and hidden they are okay with that because it doesn’t challenge their world view but if gay people are openly gay it does challenge their world view and thus they must attempt to do away with openly gay people. For the anti-gays in the US this looks like ex-gay therapy because they can’t make homosexuality illegal but if they can they will use the force of the law to try and do away with gay people and we still see this in many nations in the world.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Gustav2  • 10 hours ago 





  


 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
CanuckDon > Gustav2  • 8 hours ago 




This one's even better.

  


 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




So much misinformation in the anti-gay protesters who are
still around and getting talked to, talking about how churches will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages, ect…shows the people who readily lap up all the lies that the anti-gay groups pump out. Significantly cleared out now but people who were off to the sides have been taking their turn in front of SCOTUS so there are many still there, George Washington made another appearance.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 6 hours ago 




The crowd in front of SCOTUS is slowly dispersing but some people from both sides are remaining to continue their conversations, media continuing to mill around as well, continued conversations with the Plaintiffs.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 6 hours ago 




We heard from the attorneys for our side and now are hearing
from the attorneys from the other side---wraping up now.
C-Span 3 now taking calls from both sides on the issue.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Ultra-Orthodox Jewish contingent off to the side telling the court not to turn America into Sodom, so we have them plus the evangelicals, plus the Catholics.
Pro-equality clergy are also present as well.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




The anti-gays have a red sign with two white lines of text on
them clearly trying to mock the red equal sign. The funny thing is that unless you get close enough to read the text they look like marriage equality supporters so I would say that effort backfired on them.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




It always backfiring on them! I think there are a lot of gay PR folks that are giving them "good" advice! (and the haters have zero clue)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Leo  • 9 hours ago 




There's the Gay Men's Chorus singing Ragtime. I remember that better than anything when I went back in 2013.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Peter sprigg from the FRC is on the ground outside of SCOTUS, both sides have a lineup of speakers, lots of boos from the crowd when Peter’s name was announced.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader  • 9 hours ago 




huh. the way the banner looks in the photo, I was reading "treepreachers".
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Anti-gay event on c-span 3 has concluded and it is now
showing the crowd outside of SCOTUS. Our side has more people and the anti-gays are in street=preacher mode.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rocco Gibraltar  • 9 hours ago 




Will there be any live blogging of the oral arguments?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > Rocco Gibraltar  • 9 hours ago 




http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




The anti-gay event at the national press club is wrapping up
now, Mat Staver talking about what their “resistance” will look like basically saying that people should not voluntarily do things like step down from acting as a clerk but rather should force the state to fire them, (thus generating more business for his group)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




They must be so upset that the handful of magistrates in North Carolina resigned rather than, as you noted, helped him generate more business.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




Exactly right. Magistrates who resign do nothing for Mat and Liberty Counsel. Liberty Counsel can’t swoop in to use them as their new fake victim and fundraise off of them if they resign and so Liberty Counsel wants them to claim the right to refuse to do their job while keeping it so they can swoop in.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




When marriage equality become the law throughout Canada, BC (which already had it by virtue of a more local judicial decision) sent out a circular letter to all marriage commissioners asking them to please submit a letter of resignaiton if they felt they could not solemnize a same-sex marriage.
I have no idea how many people felt compelled to so do.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Lots of cheering from the crowd as people start to stream out of SCOTUS following the conclusion of the arguments, lots of people pausing to wave/ photo ops.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Happy Dance  • 7 hours ago 




Preacher sex is taboo!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Tony Perkins is outside right now attempting to compare this
to abortion, oh and there is that absurd phrase “nature and natures god”
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




"more than 450 species have been documented engaging in non-procreative sexual behavior — including long term pairings."
from Michael Broooks, "13 Things That Don't Make Sense", p. 148, reporting findings by Bruce Bagemihl.
So much for "nature".
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Louie Gohmert Is speaking right now, going off an SCOTUS acting as kings and queens, making themselves to be god.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




Anti-gay street preacher going at it with a cluster around him. Figures that the anti-gay street preachers with nothing better to do would all make a point to show up, there seems to be more of them for the anti-gay side than people affiliated with anti-gay groups.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




One word: bear spray.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Marides48  • 8 hours ago 




Perhaps all this hate energy could be redirected in feeding the poor, adapting orphans, caring for the sick, helping the elderly, etc.?
Hypocrite christants.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




“Marriage was created God not man”…..civil marriage is a socio-legal construct and thus it is very much created by man
“Concerned with the free exercise of religion” and that will still exist, but denying business services to gay couples doesn’t count as free-exercise of religion.
Anti-gay in the background yelling about bestiality and pedophilia coming next
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Not "very much created by man". Try "entirely created by man."
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Abbett  • 10 hours ago 




God's gentle people? I can hardly believe what I am reading.
 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/aclu-love-is-in-air.html#disqus_thread






  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



Controversial 'Roid Alternative' Putting Gyms Out of Business  Easy Bulk Muscle 




Michelle Duggar Gets Startling News About Her Pregnancy  Answers.com 




Top 10 Cancer Causing Foods You Eat Every Day  Naturalon 




30 Hottest Female Celebrity Bodies of All Time  Rant, Inc. 



Also on JoeMyGod

Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  77 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  108 comments 


 NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy   67 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   117 comments 






 72 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




EW Jackson: “I don’t think that anyone here at this podium wants to see people denied the right to work” except that he opposed the repeal of DADT and wants people like me discharged from the military so that’s a straight up lie, he does want people denied the right to work in at least certain occupations. Beyond that Mat Staver thinks that homosexuality should be illegal so it is simply a lie to pretend that their agenda is only limited to marriage.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




gee. So he opposes all the 29 or so state laws that allow one to be fired strictly for being gay? Cool ! *snark*
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Indeed, these bigots have fought any ANYTHING that gives us rights in any way shape or form.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lymis  • 9 hours ago 




Typical Teabagger spelling problems on their signage. Fixed it for them.
 
Thumbnail
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




Thanks, Joe. This is going to be a busy day. Thank you for keeping us up to speed.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




And to ArchiLaw for the bottom pic and other JMG'ers on the ground.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




I know. I went for a walk with the dog before work and so much happened in less than 2 hours. I can't keep up. I'll get no work done today I guess.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




I get to crash before it gets really frenzied here. Sleep, miss all the fun, then wake up my tomorrow/your this evening to find out how it all went down.
Trying to stay awake as long as I can though...at least until the scotusblog liveblogging starts...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Abbett > medaka  • 9 hours ago 




In the same boat. Way past my bedtime but had to keep the coffin lid up a little longer. This is going to be an amusing news day that I'll be catching up on later.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > medaka  • 9 hours ago 




It's going to be an interesting day to say the least. Enjoy your shuteye time.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David Walker > oikos  • 9 hours ago 




Fortunately, I volunteer at the LGBT Center and all of us are trying to keep up.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




It appears there will be no limit to the craziness from the haters.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
medaka > David Walker  • 9 hours ago 




Super-seconded -- thanks Joe!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Some anti-gay man ranting about “men sodomizing each other”…these people are always obsessed with the sex.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Melissia > bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




And it's always about manly buttsex, too.
Because we all know lesbians don't 'really exist, they can just rape us straight or something...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Schlukitz > Melissia  • 4 hours ago 




Oops....I repeted your post inadvertently.
Didn't read down further before posting.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Schlukitz > bill@19D  • 4 hours ago 




Especially butt-secks. lol
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Snownova  • 9 hours ago 




Who wants to bet that if you stand in the middle of the group of haters, your Grindr will light up like a christmas tree.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > Snownova  • 9 hours ago 




like a north dakota antigay gay republican asshole
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
CPT_Doom  • 9 hours ago 




I'm here at the Supreme Court. Haters have infiltrated the crowd and are trying to drown out Unite for Marriage speakers. Christian love in action.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > CPT_Doom  • 8 hours ago 




Stay safe!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




EW Jackson is now complaining that business can’t deny wedding services to gay couples without facing legal repercussions. Also complaining about the comparison to the civil rights movement for African Americans because race is a visible characteristic and sexual orientation isn’t as if only visible characteristics could be a basis for discrimination which is clearly not the case.
BTW a LOT of empty chairs at that event, the anti-gay activists are just talking to themselves.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




In other words, stay in the closet and you won't face any bigoted reprucussions.
 I wonder if he is prepared to say that about religious practices as well then.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
LovesIrony  • 9 hours ago 




Bill@19D, Thanks for the updates
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > LovesIrony  • 9 hours ago 




Of course, glad the anti-gay event is done with, that was getting repetitive very quickly and the ex-gay activist was beyond annoying with the complaints about not being recognized.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Who?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Tor  • 9 hours ago 




Janet Boynes, Claims to have “left the lesbian lifestyle”
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




when nobody will sleep with them, they claim to have left,
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Nexus1 > bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




I can't stand that woman. She is more insane than all the other 'ex-lesbians' of the 'ex-gay' movement. She is clearly a woman with some serious emotional health issues and more of a shill than the typical women that are part of that movement. When she becomes disillusioned with this like she has everything else in her life her fall will be especially hard. It's just pitiful and sad.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




she meant "they left me ...."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




Steve King is outside talking about his effort to strip the
courts of their ability to rule on Marriage, I should say his DOA attempt although he is claiming that momentum is building for it. I doubt leadership would even let it move up to a vote.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




As to "momentum" , remember NOM is "just getting started" !
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




NOM has a small cluster outside the court with their signs
from the march on Saturday and their white balloons. It is what a NOM gathering looks like when they don’t buss in a bunch of people who don’t even know that the event is actually about. I would also note that both sides are very intermixed, looks to be boisterous but calm.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




again from C-span 3, We don’t fear the ex-gay activists and no it won’t soon be illegal to have an ex-gay “ministry” rather we want to protect people from the abuse that comes from engaging in SOCE and the harm that comes from engaging in SOCE and we also want to protect minors from being subjected to that abuse. The laws are about protecting minors, not about what adults do.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Corey > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Just watched the hatefest CSPAN-3 at the National Press Club. It was near comical. That lady at the end though that Dolce was a designer from Hollywood. Oh the ignorance...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




Indeed, as much as I hate the fact adults will subject themselves to quack therapy, it is their choice.
 Minors don't have a choice and shouldn't be forced into this crap.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 10 hours ago 




I would also note that a significant portion of the ex-gay “client” base is made up of minors and so protecting minors from this is by itself a
large step. When it comes to adults there is also the option of civil suits like the one that the SPLC is working on right now.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LovesIrony > Ninja0980  • 9 hours ago 




and I don't accept them when they coming running back to the gay community for forgiveness when they FINALLY admit that they are still gay after lying for so long. Notice these folks always talk about themselves not the harm they do when a gay kid's mom sees them on tv and signs their kids up for this torture.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
NMNative  • 10 hours ago 




I hope they film their heads exploding when equality becomes the law of the land. I'd pay a dollar to see that!
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




An ex-gay activist is now speaking at the anti-gays event at
the National Press Club…shows the connection between the anti-marriage crowd and the ex-gay ideology. The two are always eventually connected because if gay people can’t get married the anti-gays must want them to do something and they don’t want them to have sex outside of marriage so it comes down to either being celibate or “changing” to hetrosexual.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Bottom line: they don't want us to exist. We're extremely inconvenient for them because we don't fit into their neat and tidy (albeit completely fabricated) little world view.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Abbett > teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




Everyone who doesn't buy into their worldview is inconvenient to them. They know it is preposterous and the only way they can believe it themselves is if they can convince others to believe it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > teeveedub  • 9 hours ago 




Exactly right. If gay people stay closeted and hidden they are okay with that because it doesn’t challenge their world view but if gay people are openly gay it does challenge their world view and thus they must attempt to do away with openly gay people. For the anti-gays in the US this looks like ex-gay therapy because they can’t make homosexuality illegal but if they can they will use the force of the law to try and do away with gay people and we still see this in many nations in the world.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Gustav2  • 10 hours ago 





  


 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
CanuckDon > Gustav2  • 8 hours ago 




This one's even better.

  


 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 5 hours ago 




So much misinformation in the anti-gay protesters who are
still around and getting talked to, talking about how churches will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages, ect…shows the people who readily lap up all the lies that the anti-gay groups pump out. Significantly cleared out now but people who were off to the sides have been taking their turn in front of SCOTUS so there are many still there, George Washington made another appearance.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 6 hours ago 




The crowd in front of SCOTUS is slowly dispersing but some people from both sides are remaining to continue their conversations, media continuing to mill around as well, continued conversations with the Plaintiffs.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 6 hours ago 




We heard from the attorneys for our side and now are hearing
from the attorneys from the other side---wraping up now.
C-Span 3 now taking calls from both sides on the issue.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Ultra-Orthodox Jewish contingent off to the side telling the court not to turn America into Sodom, so we have them plus the evangelicals, plus the Catholics.
Pro-equality clergy are also present as well.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




The anti-gays have a red sign with two white lines of text on
them clearly trying to mock the red equal sign. The funny thing is that unless you get close enough to read the text they look like marriage equality supporters so I would say that effort backfired on them.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TrollopeReader > bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




It always backfiring on them! I think there are a lot of gay PR folks that are giving them "good" advice! (and the haters have zero clue)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Leo  • 9 hours ago 




There's the Gay Men's Chorus singing Ragtime. I remember that better than anything when I went back in 2013.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Peter sprigg from the FRC is on the ground outside of SCOTUS, both sides have a lineup of speakers, lots of boos from the crowd when Peter’s name was announced.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TrollopeReader  • 9 hours ago 




huh. the way the banner looks in the photo, I was reading "treepreachers".
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




Anti-gay event on c-span 3 has concluded and it is now
showing the crowd outside of SCOTUS. Our side has more people and the anti-gays are in street=preacher mode.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rocco Gibraltar  • 9 hours ago 




Will there be any live blogging of the oral arguments?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > Rocco Gibraltar  • 9 hours ago 




http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 10 hours ago 




The anti-gay event at the national press club is wrapping up
now, Mat Staver talking about what their “resistance” will look like basically saying that people should not voluntarily do things like step down from acting as a clerk but rather should force the state to fire them, (thus generating more business for his group)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > bill@19D  • 9 hours ago 




They must be so upset that the handful of magistrates in North Carolina resigned rather than, as you noted, helped him generate more business.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > KnownDonorDad  • 9 hours ago 




Exactly right. Magistrates who resign do nothing for Mat and Liberty Counsel. Liberty Counsel can’t swoop in to use them as their new fake victim and fundraise off of them if they resign and so Liberty Counsel wants them to claim the right to refuse to do their job while keeping it so they can swoop in.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




When marriage equality become the law throughout Canada, BC (which already had it by virtue of a more local judicial decision) sent out a circular letter to all marriage commissioners asking them to please submit a letter of resignaiton if they felt they could not solemnize a same-sex marriage.
I have no idea how many people felt compelled to so do.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Lots of cheering from the crowd as people start to stream out of SCOTUS following the conclusion of the arguments, lots of people pausing to wave/ photo ops.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Happy Dance  • 7 hours ago 




Preacher sex is taboo!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Tony Perkins is outside right now attempting to compare this
to abortion, oh and there is that absurd phrase “nature and natures god”
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




"more than 450 species have been documented engaging in non-procreative sexual behavior — including long term pairings."
from Michael Broooks, "13 Things That Don't Make Sense", p. 148, reporting findings by Bruce Bagemihl.
So much for "nature".
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Louie Gohmert Is speaking right now, going off an SCOTUS acting as kings and queens, making themselves to be god.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




Anti-gay street preacher going at it with a cluster around him. Figures that the anti-gay street preachers with nothing better to do would all make a point to show up, there seems to be more of them for the anti-gay side than people affiliated with anti-gay groups.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




One word: bear spray.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Marides48  • 8 hours ago 




Perhaps all this hate energy could be redirected in feeding the poor, adapting orphans, caring for the sick, helping the elderly, etc.?
Hypocrite christants.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
bill@19D  • 8 hours ago 




“Marriage was created God not man”…..civil marriage is a socio-legal construct and thus it is very much created by man
“Concerned with the free exercise of religion” and that will still exist, but denying business services to gay couples doesn’t count as free-exercise of religion.
Anti-gay in the background yelling about bestiality and pedophilia coming next
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Not "very much created by man". Try "entirely created by man."
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Abbett  • 10 hours ago 




God's gentle people? I can hardly believe what I am reading.
 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/aclu-love-is-in-air.html#disqus_thread












     

  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D262725996%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D%2D6533298180256791982%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E97123%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E74%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdcviBkKAAcqwm%2DkPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAByYGyAcgB6fS0ktAp2gEULTY1MzMyOTgxODAyNTY3OTE5ODLlAa4fTTzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QErAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=262725996?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=262725996;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=%2D6533298180256791982;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.97123,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.74;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdcviBkKAAcqwm-kPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAByYGyAcgB6fS0ktAp2gEULTY1MzMyOTgxODAyNTY3OTE5ODLlAa4fTTzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QErAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262725996?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262725996?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliati...
Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread
NORTHERN IRELAND: Assembly Narrowly Rejects Same-S...
FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site
Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots
Protesters Chant "Shame!" At Midtown Hotel Owned B...
Foundation For Moral Law Files Recusal Demand Agai...
BALTIMORE: Governor Declares State Of Emergency, C...
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


ACLU: Love Is In The Air











The ACLU and many other LGBT allies are live-tweeting from outside the Supreme Court where a cavalcade of crackpots is fighting for camera time with repulsive banners, including on that reads "You are worthy of death." (That's infamous street preacher Ruben Isreal's group.) Other nutters are screaming abuse over portable loudspeakers while annoyed civil rights activists roll their eyes. If you have access to a television, CSPAN 1 is regularly cutting away from their panel discussions to the riotous scene outside the court. Over on CSPAN 3, hate groups are hold a press conference at the National Press Club, where at this writing Mat Staver is ranting in his familiar nutjob fashion. Oral arguments commence at 10AM and are scheduled to run until about 1PM. Shortly after the arguments conclude we'll get audio files and I'll posted those here immediately.[Bottom photo by JMG reader ArchiLaw]
Labels: marriage equality, SCOTUS, Washington DC


posted by Joe Jervis
       72 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   

 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/aclu-love-is-in-air.html#disqus_thread










     

  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D262725996%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D%2D6533298180256791982%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E97123%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E74%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdcviBkKAAcqwm%2DkPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAByYGyAcgB6fS0ktAp2gEULTY1MzMyOTgxODAyNTY3OTE5ODLlAa4fTTzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QErAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=262725996?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=262725996;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=%2D6533298180256791982;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.97123,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.74;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdcviBkKAAcqwm-kPoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAByYGyAcgB6fS0ktAp2gEULTY1MzMyOTgxODAyNTY3OTE5ODLlAa4fTTzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QErAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262725996?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=262725996?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
FRC: This Will Never Be Over
What If We Lose?
NORTH DAKOTA: GOP Lawmaker Outed, Claims Retaliati...
Our Big Day Is Here: Open Thread
NORTHERN IRELAND: Assembly Narrowly Rejects Same-S...
FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site
Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots
Protesters Chant "Shame!" At Midtown Hotel Owned B...
Foundation For Moral Law Files Recusal Demand Agai...
BALTIMORE: Governor Declares State Of Emergency, C...
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


ACLU: Love Is In The Air











The ACLU and many other LGBT allies are live-tweeting from outside the Supreme Court where a cavalcade of crackpots is fighting for camera time with repulsive banners, including on that reads "You are worthy of death." (That's infamous street preacher Ruben Isreal's group.) Other nutters are screaming abuse over portable loudspeakers while annoyed civil rights activists roll their eyes. If you have access to a television, CSPAN 1 is regularly cutting away from their panel discussions to the riotous scene outside the court. Over on CSPAN 3, hate groups are hold a press conference at the National Press Club, where at this writing Mat Staver is ranting in his familiar nutjob fashion. Oral arguments commence at 10AM and are scheduled to run until about 1PM. Shortly after the arguments conclude we'll get audio files and I'll posted those here immediately.[Bottom photo by JMG reader ArchiLaw]
Labels: marriage equality, SCOTUS, Washington DC


posted by Joe Jervis
       72 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
   

 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/aclu-love-is-in-air.html#disqus_thread







  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



The Newest Engagement Ring Trends for 2015  Brilliant Earth 




How to Lose 20lbs. Of Belly Fat in a Month?  Fit Moms Diet 




9 Frightening Airplane Facts Your Pilot Won't Tell You  TravelVersed 




Pay Absolutely No Credit Card Interest Until 2017 With These Jaw-Dropping Credit Cards  Next Advisor 



Also on JoeMyGod

 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   120 comments 


Janet Porter At SCOSU: Gay Marriage Will …  60 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  112 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   198 comments 






 100 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr  • 12 hours ago 




Perhaps someone savvy with such things can launch a victims of homophobia and religious extremism site and post photos of the LGBT community that have been killed for who they are, along with the children and young adults bullied into suicide due to bullying or ex gay torture. And include those that have been turned out of their homes and those that turn to drugs to get over the pain of rejection. I'm pretty sure it would take days to get through that site as opposed to the few whiners who actually broke laws or those that don't believe their free speech should come with consequences.
 
26 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
crewman > Wynter Marie Starr  • 12 hours ago 




The victims on the Christian site did something to a gay person or the gay community to draw negative attention, e.g. refuse to do business with them, suggest our existence should be criminalized, etc.
The victims on the gay site would be people who were targeted for just existing.
It's not hard to see who the real victims are and who the actual bullies are. The Christians on that site are desperately trying to fool the world just one more day into seeing them as something they're not.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > crewman  • 11 hours ago 




That's the point, crewman. The people on that site are "victims" of their own bigoted and discriminatory behavior, and narrow minding thinking and lack of any real education.
A site of real victims would be there just for having the audacity of being born and breathing.
These people are vile, and the fact that they are being marginalized can only be good for our society.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David Walker > Wynter Marie Starr  • 10 hours ago 




It would be especially good if the site you suggest could be hacked onto this FRCin' site and be especially hard to delete. Not necessarily forever, but long enough for a few fence-sitters to see the difference between those who beg for money and those who just want to live.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > David Walker  • 10 hours ago 




Hopefully Anonymous will stick their noses into this. The people featured on the site are there due to their own bad behavior, and I don't feel one bit sorry for them. They can come back and talk to me when their children are committing suicide because they've been bullied for being christian.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Prion > Wynter Marie Starr  • 10 hours ago 




WIKI: History of Anti-gay violence in the US
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > Prion  • 10 hours ago 




This is a start and doesn't seem to include suicides or all the transgendered people murdered this year alone. It also doesn't include personal bios or photos or children thrown out of their homes or those rejected by parents and sent to torture camps. It should also include those preaching death or incarceration for the LGBT community as there are many people unaware of such activities.
I know they're unaware of the hate that is spewed daily because I'm a straight ally and very few straight people, allies or not, pay attention because it doesn't truly affect them. When I talk to these people, they are always shocked.
I just think we have to answer bigots point for point. Being quiet is no longer an option for anyone in the LGBT community or their allies.
Thank you for the link.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Prion > Wynter Marie Starr  • 10 hours ago 




Damn if there isn't a link for everything! ;-)
Wiki:
Anti-gay rhetoric
Anti-gay propaganda
Anti-gay bashing
Gay-realted suicides
Suicides among gay youth
Shameless plug: I made a donation to Wikipedia this year for the first time and I regret not doing it sooner. I've come to realize what a great source of info it is and how often I check there. Not perfect, of course, but pretty good for mere humans.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > Prion  • 9 hours ago 




True, but it's still not on one neatly packaged site, There's also a GIF for everything!
I like Wikipedia as well, but as a starting point only. Manly, because anyone can edit and the information isn't always as accurate as you might require. At least in the academic world.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh > Prion  • 8 hours ago 




I donated too. I use Wikipedia a lot, have done some editing (usually of quite minor problems with idiom), and even created one brand new article.
When Wales' email arrived, I immediately sent them $100. Generous? Cheese-paring? I don't know, but I felt that was at least enough to make my support something more than token.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
B Snow > RoFaWh  • 7 hours ago 




The DH practically lives on Wikipedia. He even goes there first instead of googling. So we send them a small donation every year. (Bigger than the $3 they suggest but not as generous as yours. :) )
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Lawerence Collins > Wynter Marie Starr  • 9 hours ago 




Glad I read a few comments before posting my own, identical to yours.
Cheers🍻
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
StraightGrandmother  • 12 hours ago 




Boo-Hoo
I'm sick and tired of Christians expecting Special Rights
 
24 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Homo Erectus > StraightGrandmother  • 12 hours ago 




Last gasps. SCOTUS hears us today!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




i was wondering who the cute dude was, so checked out the site... apparently his persecution isn't set to happen for another 6 months..
"On Thanksgiving Day 2015, Chaplain Joe Lawhorn was summoned to his commander's office where Col. David Fivecoat reprimanded him...
 
Thumbnail
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




Prophetic grifting! I think this was in Revelation - a true sign that we must be in the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the End Times®!!!1 (Thanks, Obama!)
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gustav2 > Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




It is a terrible thing when the military makes Christianists follow the rules. Plus there is this:
Atheists Outnumber Southern Baptists in US Military
http://www.christianitytoday.c...
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Gustav2  • 12 hours ago 




This was bound to happen once they got rid of foxholes
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > Gustav2  • 12 hours ago 




And that is a good thing.
 I can tell from having friends that have served that the SOBS who go overseas and try to push their religion on people, it does NOT go over well.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Ninja0980  • 12 hours ago 




I have a family friend who is a nominal Christian (baptisms, weddings and funerals) and lists himself as an atheist so he will be left alone. His brother just signed up and he was adamant his kid brother do the same.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Prixator > Gustav2  • 3 hours ago 




I truly believe that the majority of Americans and Canadians, despite the polling suggesting otherwise, are atheists or agnostics.
For many, it's just difficult to make a total break when you have been indoctrinated from birth. I think the feeling is "go along to get along" - because no one really knows what any person *really* believes.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Prixator  • 3 hours ago 




This is old, but:
http://www.churchleaders.com/p...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Prixator > Gustav2  • 3 hours ago 




Thanks, but I am not going to read 5 pages of that. "Going to church" probably has some correlation with religiosity - but many people go to church under pressure from others. And some religious people don't attend a church because they don't feel it fills their needs/is not appropriate/whatever.
My hypothesis can probably never be proven until religiosity has faded much more than it has (but then it will become true!).
It's almost like the surveys asking if one is gay. Some will answer truthfully, but some will not because of social pressure and guilt.
It's just my feeling from all of my interactions with other people during my many years of life.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 















Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




I'd never heard of him. It was 2014. As usual, the spin isn't exactly true....
http://www.armytimes.com/story...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mister Don > Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




Predestination!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Hal Watts  • 12 hours ago 




You know the shallow Christianist religion is in pathetic shape when their hollowed-out, 21st Century litany of "martyrs" begins with Phil Robertson...
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Hal Watts  • 12 hours ago 




It shows the level of entitlement that they have, they act
as if they are entitled to say whatever they want and not even private businesses or private citizens are allowed to react negatively to that. It is supposedly persecution when a network suspends someone, as if Phil Robertson has a right to being featured in a TV show. Bottom line when it comes to their own actions they want to extend freedom of speech to freedom of speech without the potential for any negative reactions to what they say.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
medaka > Hal Watts  • 12 hours ago 




in his Ayatollah drag....
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Doug105 > Hal Watts  • 8 hours ago 




Let them make a future martyrs webpage with Khristian business by the city, state, then we can help them out by never setting foot in them.
 
Thumbnail
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
j.martindale  • 12 hours ago 




These poor people! I can hardly imagine how powerless they feel, having the right to prevent gay people from marrying one another wrested from their hands! It must be a bit like the segregationists who, after the Loving decision, could no longer decide which races could intermarry. And then to have to face unjust laws which make them treat gay people the same as straight people! Unconscionable!
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stogiebear > j.martindale  • 12 hours ago 




MY palms and feet are bleeding at the prospect!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 12 hours ago 




Forgive me if I don't feel for bigots who felt they had the right to ignore discrimination laws or impose their religious views on their co-workers or people they had power over.
 Instead, I'll be thinking of the countless LGBT youth and adults who have been driven to suicide because of rejection by family and society.
 And I'll be thinking of the countless same sex couples who lost everything when their loved one died, from the right to be able to bury them to their homes to benefits etc.
 And most of all, I'll be thinking of my husband's grandmother, who come this Friday, will have been dead five years, having passed without the knowledge that her grandson that she loved and his boyfriend would be treated as equal citizens.
 The haters can go fuck themselves.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael  • 12 hours ago 




The correct name should be "Free to Discriminate" as they continue their sinful, greedy anti-Jesus efforts to redefine discrimination as a "sincerely held religious belief."
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > Michael  • 8 hours ago 




Yes. They're perfectly free to believe whatever they want, they're just not allowed to force those beliefs on others anymore or exclude different opinions from the public square.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




Oh, I see Natalie Porter launched her new version of ReaganBook.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




I wish that had lasted longer. What a blast everyone had.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > medaka  • 12 hours ago 




Best Liberal gathering place on the internet for that glorious few days.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stogiebear > vorpal  • 11 hours ago 




Decades from now people will refer to it in the same wistful tones and with nostalgic tales currently reserved only for Woodstock. But we were there!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Corey > vorpal  • 10 hours ago 




I was thinking they should call the page "The Wall of Nuts" or "Wallnuts"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > Corey  • 10 hours ago 




Hall of Shame would do nicely, too.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bryan  • 12 hours ago 




There is not a site big enough to include all the victims of religious anti gay fundamentalists. And, if it is created, it would have to be updated by the minute.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > bryan  • 12 hours ago 




There's already a pretty good one started over at http://www.beyondexgay.com.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stephen Elliot Phillips > bryan  • 12 hours ago 




The avatar of said site should be a picture of oscar wilde
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mister Don  • 12 hours ago 




First lie: "Freedom. It caused pilgrims to uproot and endure dangerous passage to the wild and unsettled land that was America." Tell that to the Native Americans
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stev84 > Mister Don  • 9 hours ago 




Never mind that they were perfectly free in the Netherlands, which was renowned for its religious tolerance at the time. But the society was too open for them. What they wanted was an oppressive theocracy of their own.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




Why didn't they just name the site ChristianMartyrs.com (aka LawlessChristianBigots.com)? They could even have made it into an iPhone app with such features as:
1. Upload photos of yourself and apply Christian-themed filters such as Gay Bully Tears and Stigmata;
2. One-click set up a GoFundMe grifter campaign;
3. Mad libs (word salad) article generator. (Business name? Owner name? Derogatory term to describe gay people? etc.)
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LiberalDeacon > vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




Christian Martyrs v Christian Mingles?
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Homo Erectus > LiberalDeacon  • 12 hours ago 




..
 
Thumbnail
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen > Homo Erectus  • 8 hours ago 




I love this.... I wanted to wear them to our rehearsal dinner a few years back. My husband wouldn't let me and I couldn't find them.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
RoFaWh > vorpal  • 8 hours ago 




You could set up the LawlessChristianBigots.com website and have it do nothing but redirect the visitor to ChrisitanMartyrs.com.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Homo Erectus > vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




I'd like to see the list grow longer.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 12 hours ago 




My first though was that even after the FRC puts all their fake
victims in one place, an even includes even the mostly completely debunked cases, they still have a very small list of fake victims. This isn’t evidence of some widespread “persecution” this is evidence of a small fringe of anti-gay
people who are under the delusion that they have a special right to be anti-gay and break laws without facing any kind of negative consequences. And in all of these cases it wasn’t about what they believed, rather it was always about what they said and did.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 12 hours ago 




Get back to us FRC when any of these people are beaten, killed, fired from their job or denied housing for being christian.

  
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ed Burrow  • 12 hours ago 




um, so far, 153 supporters?
am i reading that correctly?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stogiebear > Ed Burrow  • 12 hours ago 




Quick! Somebody set up a GoFundMe account for this poor website. It's being martyred by the fact that it hasn't garnered much support. Double-Martyrdom!!!
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
tom_beauchamparnold > Stogiebear  • 9 hours ago 




I wonder if most of the clicks are from us mocking?
New meme: mockclicks.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Mister Don  • 12 hours ago 




Covening the pearl-clutching society
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Mister Don  • 12 hours ago 




hey that looks familiar :-D
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd20036 > Mister Don  • 11 hours ago 




That actually sounds pretty good about now.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Raising_Rlyeh  • 12 hours ago 




It really is amazing how conservatives seem to think that there is some right to having a tv show as illustrated by including the Benham brothers and the guy from duck dynasty.
Really though I feel so unclean after going to that site. Like I should scrub it from my browser history.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > Raising_Rlyeh  • 8 hours ago 




Pseudo-christian bigots and grifters have a gawd given right to media exposure and public adulation, apparently. Meanwhile gays and atheists don't even have the right to be let alone much less speak in public.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MBear  • 10 hours ago 




well, lucky for them: their martyrs are still alive
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GayOldLady  • 10 hours ago 




Mr. Phil Robertson. Go fuck a duck!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LiberalDeacon  • 11 hours ago 




This is the best! Right at the very top of their introduction is the lie that both are Major League Baseball Players. While they in fact were both drafted neither played a single out in the Majors.
I love the fact that they get all victim-y then lie through their teeth.
 
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TexasBoy  • 11 hours ago 




Why is this song running through my head?

  


 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > TexasBoy  • 9 hours ago 




In June the lyrics will be "That's all folks!"
LOL
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TexasBoy  • 11 hours ago 




Christians do love their martyrs, especially the ones that publicly and verbosely self-martyr in the media.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > TexasBoy  • 8 hours ago 




On Planet Fundagelical-homophobia, martyrdom is synonymous with being a delicate snowflake who can't take any criticism at all.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Regan DuCasse  • 6 hours ago 




In each and every one of these cases, these various people acted ILLEGALLY. Either against anti discrimination laws, or against their employer's contracts or their oaths of office (as in the case of justices and county clerks).
 THEY were acting out of spite and anti gay bigotry. We are not a nation of religious law, but secular Constitutional laws that are for the protection of others against ABUSES. Regardless the origins of the abuse itself. Including religious abuse.
 Gay people are not to blame for responding to ILLEGAL behavior with informing the authorities or the media about it.
 These so called Christians, are being held accountable for their actions, but it's so much easier to blame gay people, than the excesses of religious animus.
Which is moral cowardice, not religious convictions.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Octavio  • 8 hours ago 




I wonder if I can post my personal tragedy of being duped out of the family fortune by gay lizard aliens from the planet Smackmar. :-)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > Octavio  • 6 hours ago 




Oh you poor dear! Those nasty aliens from Smackmar ruin everything, dont they?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Octavio > biki  • 5 hours ago 




Last week they ate the poodle.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > Octavio  • 5 hours ago 




OH PASTA NOOOOOOS! Not the POODLE!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Stev84  • 9 hours ago 




They can believe what they want. But they don't get to act on their disgusting, immoral beliefs.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok  • 10 hours ago 




" Truth Teller Todd Starnes "
Thanks for the LOL !
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > Ragnar Lothbrok  • 9 hours ago 




I know - that was rich huh? LOL
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GayOldLady  • 10 hours ago 




Whaaaaaaaa.....Whaaaaaaa!!! Poor mistreated MAJORITY. You are free to believe whatever religious hocus-pocus you please, but you are NOT FREE to enshrine your religious beliefs in Civil Law. You Don't like gay marriage? Then I'd suggest that you don't marry someone of the same gender. But, if you decide to open a business to the Public, then you must serve the public, If you don't want to serve the public and want to be able to pick and choose your clientele, then start a club with membership requirements. Hell, Country Clubs have been keeping out the "undesirables" like people of color, the poor & middle class, women and LGBT people for decades. Try that formula and see how it works for your bottom line.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > GayOldLady  • 9 hours ago 




Get your ear plugs - We will be hearing much more of this whining.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
nycmcmike  • 11 hours ago 




Where are the pictures of the victims of homophobia?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > nycmcmike  • 9 hours ago 




"What victims?" - The Religious-Right
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
seant426  • 11 hours ago 




If Ian and Mati come out as Christian, will FRC add them, too?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 11 hours ago 




these idiots ain't "martyrs"; nobody died, they live to spout h8 and lies another day.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




hey Joe! where's our pre-game thread? the guy i've been stalking on twitter all weekend is all cleaned up and ready to roll this morning😋
 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Sam_Handwich  • 8 hours ago 




Notice that he's properly dressed for attending a Supreme Court hearing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Happy Chappy  • 12 hours ago 




Ironci - the person that set this up looks like the biggest victum. What about victums of ISIS, far scarier than having to tone down your homophobia.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
customartist  • 9 hours ago 




Great! Let others beware!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 11 hours ago 




It's the Great Wall of Cake Martyrdom!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ProjectFabrizio  • 11 hours ago 




should we all sign up in an extension of our pity to all, what 30-ish of them?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
geoffalnutt  • 11 hours ago 




Everything has been leading up to this moment! It's thrilling!! Fire up the Oldsmobile, get out yer good hat. Martyrdom on parade!! I hope they have Funnel Cakes!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




Brian Brown and Evan Woflson are on c-span right now
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...
sorry for o/t...i'm so excited this morning
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ed Burrow > Sam_Handwich  • 11 hours ago 




Thanks Sam.
So far, same talking points...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ed Burrow  • 11 hours ago 




Brian Brown pushing the same absurd over-inflated view of religious liberty in order to claim that it is being violated when in reality true religious liberty isn’t being violated at all. It is quite stark to have him sit right next to Evan and say “your marriage isn’t a really marriage even though it is just as legal as mine under the law.”
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eric in Oakland > bill@19D  • 3 hours ago 




And they never address the fact that many churches perform same sex marriages. If he believes religious liberty means government endorsement of religious views, what about the liberty of the pro gay religious?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 11 hours ago 




Brian Browns face when our side calls in…. he just frowns and looks at the ground while blinking constantly, doesn’t even try to look interested or engaged.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > bill@19D  • 11 hours ago 




that last phone call, omg
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 11 hours ago 




Brian Brown shaking his head yes when a caller says there is no such thing as gay marriage…they can disagree all they want but same-sex marriage clearly exists, there are hundreds of thousands of same-sex marriages in the US right now, thus saying there is no such thing as gay marriage is completely wrong and delusional, which fits Brian Brown exactly.
Evan is totaly rocking it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics  • 12 hours ago 




To my knowledge, most, if not, all of these so called victims have gotten at least a 6 figure windfall... Please tell me where I can sign up to be America's Next Top Biggot (Victim)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
bambinoitaliano  • 12 hours ago 




In times of crisis and when faith are question chritianistas should seek solace from jeebus and pray. Instead these whiners bitch and moan and pointing the fingers of blame. Their current behaviour almost revert us back in history before jeebus was born. Where uncivilized villagers would just blindly follow those fake leaders who claim to know the teaching of god...ohhh how jeebus weep back in the days before he offer to accept punishment on their behalf...and now these son of the bitches are trying to get jeebus nail on the cross again......poor jeebus I weep for you.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 12 hours ago 




Here's a real victim, just one of many.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...
 The injustice done to him and so many others sickens me when I hear bigots whine.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Homo Erectus  • 12 hours ago 




I'm glad there are sites like this one that chronicle some of the martyrs of our community.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/frc-launches-victims-of-gays-site.html#disqus_thread








  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



The Newest Engagement Ring Trends for 2015  Brilliant Earth 




How to Lose 20lbs. Of Belly Fat in a Month?  Fit Moms Diet 




9 Frightening Airplane Facts Your Pilot Won't Tell You  TravelVersed 




Pay Absolutely No Credit Card Interest Until 2017 With These Jaw-Dropping Credit Cards  Next Advisor 



Also on JoeMyGod

 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   120 comments 


Janet Porter At SCOSU: Gay Marriage Will …  60 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  112 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   198 comments 






 100 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr  • 12 hours ago 




Perhaps someone savvy with such things can launch a victims of homophobia and religious extremism site and post photos of the LGBT community that have been killed for who they are, along with the children and young adults bullied into suicide due to bullying or ex gay torture. And include those that have been turned out of their homes and those that turn to drugs to get over the pain of rejection. I'm pretty sure it would take days to get through that site as opposed to the few whiners who actually broke laws or those that don't believe their free speech should come with consequences.
 
26 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
crewman > Wynter Marie Starr  • 12 hours ago 




The victims on the Christian site did something to a gay person or the gay community to draw negative attention, e.g. refuse to do business with them, suggest our existence should be criminalized, etc.
The victims on the gay site would be people who were targeted for just existing.
It's not hard to see who the real victims are and who the actual bullies are. The Christians on that site are desperately trying to fool the world just one more day into seeing them as something they're not.
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > crewman  • 11 hours ago 




That's the point, crewman. The people on that site are "victims" of their own bigoted and discriminatory behavior, and narrow minding thinking and lack of any real education.
A site of real victims would be there just for having the audacity of being born and breathing.
These people are vile, and the fact that they are being marginalized can only be good for our society.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David Walker > Wynter Marie Starr  • 10 hours ago 




It would be especially good if the site you suggest could be hacked onto this FRCin' site and be especially hard to delete. Not necessarily forever, but long enough for a few fence-sitters to see the difference between those who beg for money and those who just want to live.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > David Walker  • 10 hours ago 




Hopefully Anonymous will stick their noses into this. The people featured on the site are there due to their own bad behavior, and I don't feel one bit sorry for them. They can come back and talk to me when their children are committing suicide because they've been bullied for being christian.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Prion > Wynter Marie Starr  • 10 hours ago 




WIKI: History of Anti-gay violence in the US
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > Prion  • 10 hours ago 




This is a start and doesn't seem to include suicides or all the transgendered people murdered this year alone. It also doesn't include personal bios or photos or children thrown out of their homes or those rejected by parents and sent to torture camps. It should also include those preaching death or incarceration for the LGBT community as there are many people unaware of such activities.
I know they're unaware of the hate that is spewed daily because I'm a straight ally and very few straight people, allies or not, pay attention because it doesn't truly affect them. When I talk to these people, they are always shocked.
I just think we have to answer bigots point for point. Being quiet is no longer an option for anyone in the LGBT community or their allies.
Thank you for the link.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Prion > Wynter Marie Starr  • 10 hours ago 




Damn if there isn't a link for everything! ;-)
Wiki:
Anti-gay rhetoric
Anti-gay propaganda
Anti-gay bashing
Gay-realted suicides
Suicides among gay youth
Shameless plug: I made a donation to Wikipedia this year for the first time and I regret not doing it sooner. I've come to realize what a great source of info it is and how often I check there. Not perfect, of course, but pretty good for mere humans.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > Prion  • 9 hours ago 




True, but it's still not on one neatly packaged site, There's also a GIF for everything!
I like Wikipedia as well, but as a starting point only. Manly, because anyone can edit and the information isn't always as accurate as you might require. At least in the academic world.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RoFaWh > Prion  • 8 hours ago 




I donated too. I use Wikipedia a lot, have done some editing (usually of quite minor problems with idiom), and even created one brand new article.
When Wales' email arrived, I immediately sent them $100. Generous? Cheese-paring? I don't know, but I felt that was at least enough to make my support something more than token.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
B Snow > RoFaWh  • 7 hours ago 




The DH practically lives on Wikipedia. He even goes there first instead of googling. So we send them a small donation every year. (Bigger than the $3 they suggest but not as generous as yours. :) )
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Lawerence Collins > Wynter Marie Starr  • 9 hours ago 




Glad I read a few comments before posting my own, identical to yours.
Cheers🍻
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
StraightGrandmother  • 12 hours ago 




Boo-Hoo
I'm sick and tired of Christians expecting Special Rights
 
24 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Homo Erectus > StraightGrandmother  • 12 hours ago 




Last gasps. SCOTUS hears us today!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




i was wondering who the cute dude was, so checked out the site... apparently his persecution isn't set to happen for another 6 months..
"On Thanksgiving Day 2015, Chaplain Joe Lawhorn was summoned to his commander's office where Col. David Fivecoat reprimanded him...
 
Thumbnail
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




Prophetic grifting! I think this was in Revelation - a true sign that we must be in the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the End Times®!!!1 (Thanks, Obama!)
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gustav2 > Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




It is a terrible thing when the military makes Christianists follow the rules. Plus there is this:
Atheists Outnumber Southern Baptists in US Military
http://www.christianitytoday.c...
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Gustav2  • 12 hours ago 




This was bound to happen once they got rid of foxholes
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > Gustav2  • 12 hours ago 




And that is a good thing.
 I can tell from having friends that have served that the SOBS who go overseas and try to push their religion on people, it does NOT go over well.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Ninja0980  • 12 hours ago 




I have a family friend who is a nominal Christian (baptisms, weddings and funerals) and lists himself as an atheist so he will be left alone. His brother just signed up and he was adamant his kid brother do the same.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Prixator > Gustav2  • 3 hours ago 




I truly believe that the majority of Americans and Canadians, despite the polling suggesting otherwise, are atheists or agnostics.
For many, it's just difficult to make a total break when you have been indoctrinated from birth. I think the feeling is "go along to get along" - because no one really knows what any person *really* believes.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > Prixator  • 3 hours ago 




This is old, but:
http://www.churchleaders.com/p...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Prixator > Gustav2  • 3 hours ago 




Thanks, but I am not going to read 5 pages of that. "Going to church" probably has some correlation with religiosity - but many people go to church under pressure from others. And some religious people don't attend a church because they don't feel it fills their needs/is not appropriate/whatever.
My hypothesis can probably never be proven until religiosity has faded much more than it has (but then it will become true!).
It's almost like the surveys asking if one is gay. Some will answer truthfully, but some will not because of social pressure and guilt.
It's just my feeling from all of my interactions with other people during my many years of life.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 















Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Sam_Handwich  • 9 hours ago 




I'd never heard of him. It was 2014. As usual, the spin isn't exactly true....
http://www.armytimes.com/story...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mister Don > Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




Predestination!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Hal Watts  • 12 hours ago 




You know the shallow Christianist religion is in pathetic shape when their hollowed-out, 21st Century litany of "martyrs" begins with Phil Robertson...
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Hal Watts  • 12 hours ago 




It shows the level of entitlement that they have, they act
as if they are entitled to say whatever they want and not even private businesses or private citizens are allowed to react negatively to that. It is supposedly persecution when a network suspends someone, as if Phil Robertson has a right to being featured in a TV show. Bottom line when it comes to their own actions they want to extend freedom of speech to freedom of speech without the potential for any negative reactions to what they say.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
medaka > Hal Watts  • 12 hours ago 




in his Ayatollah drag....
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Doug105 > Hal Watts  • 8 hours ago 




Let them make a future martyrs webpage with Khristian business by the city, state, then we can help them out by never setting foot in them.
 
Thumbnail
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
j.martindale  • 12 hours ago 




These poor people! I can hardly imagine how powerless they feel, having the right to prevent gay people from marrying one another wrested from their hands! It must be a bit like the segregationists who, after the Loving decision, could no longer decide which races could intermarry. And then to have to face unjust laws which make them treat gay people the same as straight people! Unconscionable!
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stogiebear > j.martindale  • 12 hours ago 




MY palms and feet are bleeding at the prospect!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 12 hours ago 




Forgive me if I don't feel for bigots who felt they had the right to ignore discrimination laws or impose their religious views on their co-workers or people they had power over.
 Instead, I'll be thinking of the countless LGBT youth and adults who have been driven to suicide because of rejection by family and society.
 And I'll be thinking of the countless same sex couples who lost everything when their loved one died, from the right to be able to bury them to their homes to benefits etc.
 And most of all, I'll be thinking of my husband's grandmother, who come this Friday, will have been dead five years, having passed without the knowledge that her grandson that she loved and his boyfriend would be treated as equal citizens.
 The haters can go fuck themselves.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael  • 12 hours ago 




The correct name should be "Free to Discriminate" as they continue their sinful, greedy anti-Jesus efforts to redefine discrimination as a "sincerely held religious belief."
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > Michael  • 8 hours ago 




Yes. They're perfectly free to believe whatever they want, they're just not allowed to force those beliefs on others anymore or exclude different opinions from the public square.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




Oh, I see Natalie Porter launched her new version of ReaganBook.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




I wish that had lasted longer. What a blast everyone had.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > medaka  • 12 hours ago 




Best Liberal gathering place on the internet for that glorious few days.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stogiebear > vorpal  • 11 hours ago 




Decades from now people will refer to it in the same wistful tones and with nostalgic tales currently reserved only for Woodstock. But we were there!
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Corey > vorpal  • 10 hours ago 




I was thinking they should call the page "The Wall of Nuts" or "Wallnuts"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > Corey  • 10 hours ago 




Hall of Shame would do nicely, too.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bryan  • 12 hours ago 




There is not a site big enough to include all the victims of religious anti gay fundamentalists. And, if it is created, it would have to be updated by the minute.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vorpal > bryan  • 12 hours ago 




There's already a pretty good one started over at http://www.beyondexgay.com.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Stephen Elliot Phillips > bryan  • 12 hours ago 




The avatar of said site should be a picture of oscar wilde
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mister Don  • 12 hours ago 




First lie: "Freedom. It caused pilgrims to uproot and endure dangerous passage to the wild and unsettled land that was America." Tell that to the Native Americans
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stev84 > Mister Don  • 9 hours ago 




Never mind that they were perfectly free in the Netherlands, which was renowned for its religious tolerance at the time. But the society was too open for them. What they wanted was an oppressive theocracy of their own.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




Why didn't they just name the site ChristianMartyrs.com (aka LawlessChristianBigots.com)? They could even have made it into an iPhone app with such features as:
1. Upload photos of yourself and apply Christian-themed filters such as Gay Bully Tears and Stigmata;
2. One-click set up a GoFundMe grifter campaign;
3. Mad libs (word salad) article generator. (Business name? Owner name? Derogatory term to describe gay people? etc.)
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LiberalDeacon > vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




Christian Martyrs v Christian Mingles?
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Homo Erectus > LiberalDeacon  • 12 hours ago 




..
 
Thumbnail
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen > Homo Erectus  • 8 hours ago 




I love this.... I wanted to wear them to our rehearsal dinner a few years back. My husband wouldn't let me and I couldn't find them.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
RoFaWh > vorpal  • 8 hours ago 




You could set up the LawlessChristianBigots.com website and have it do nothing but redirect the visitor to ChrisitanMartyrs.com.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Homo Erectus > vorpal  • 12 hours ago 




I'd like to see the list grow longer.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 12 hours ago 




My first though was that even after the FRC puts all their fake
victims in one place, an even includes even the mostly completely debunked cases, they still have a very small list of fake victims. This isn’t evidence of some widespread “persecution” this is evidence of a small fringe of anti-gay
people who are under the delusion that they have a special right to be anti-gay and break laws without facing any kind of negative consequences. And in all of these cases it wasn’t about what they believed, rather it was always about what they said and did.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 12 hours ago 




Get back to us FRC when any of these people are beaten, killed, fired from their job or denied housing for being christian.

  
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ed Burrow  • 12 hours ago 




um, so far, 153 supporters?
am i reading that correctly?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stogiebear > Ed Burrow  • 12 hours ago 




Quick! Somebody set up a GoFundMe account for this poor website. It's being martyred by the fact that it hasn't garnered much support. Double-Martyrdom!!!
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
tom_beauchamparnold > Stogiebear  • 9 hours ago 




I wonder if most of the clicks are from us mocking?
New meme: mockclicks.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Mister Don  • 12 hours ago 




Covening the pearl-clutching society
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Mister Don  • 12 hours ago 




hey that looks familiar :-D
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Todd20036 > Mister Don  • 11 hours ago 




That actually sounds pretty good about now.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Raising_Rlyeh  • 12 hours ago 




It really is amazing how conservatives seem to think that there is some right to having a tv show as illustrated by including the Benham brothers and the guy from duck dynasty.
Really though I feel so unclean after going to that site. Like I should scrub it from my browser history.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > Raising_Rlyeh  • 8 hours ago 




Pseudo-christian bigots and grifters have a gawd given right to media exposure and public adulation, apparently. Meanwhile gays and atheists don't even have the right to be let alone much less speak in public.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MBear  • 10 hours ago 




well, lucky for them: their martyrs are still alive
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GayOldLady  • 10 hours ago 




Mr. Phil Robertson. Go fuck a duck!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LiberalDeacon  • 11 hours ago 




This is the best! Right at the very top of their introduction is the lie that both are Major League Baseball Players. While they in fact were both drafted neither played a single out in the Majors.
I love the fact that they get all victim-y then lie through their teeth.
 
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TexasBoy  • 11 hours ago 




Why is this song running through my head?

  


 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > TexasBoy  • 9 hours ago 




In June the lyrics will be "That's all folks!"
LOL
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TexasBoy  • 11 hours ago 




Christians do love their martyrs, especially the ones that publicly and verbosely self-martyr in the media.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > TexasBoy  • 8 hours ago 




On Planet Fundagelical-homophobia, martyrdom is synonymous with being a delicate snowflake who can't take any criticism at all.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Regan DuCasse  • 6 hours ago 




In each and every one of these cases, these various people acted ILLEGALLY. Either against anti discrimination laws, or against their employer's contracts or their oaths of office (as in the case of justices and county clerks).
 THEY were acting out of spite and anti gay bigotry. We are not a nation of religious law, but secular Constitutional laws that are for the protection of others against ABUSES. Regardless the origins of the abuse itself. Including religious abuse.
 Gay people are not to blame for responding to ILLEGAL behavior with informing the authorities or the media about it.
 These so called Christians, are being held accountable for their actions, but it's so much easier to blame gay people, than the excesses of religious animus.
Which is moral cowardice, not religious convictions.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Octavio  • 8 hours ago 




I wonder if I can post my personal tragedy of being duped out of the family fortune by gay lizard aliens from the planet Smackmar. :-)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > Octavio  • 6 hours ago 




Oh you poor dear! Those nasty aliens from Smackmar ruin everything, dont they?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Octavio > biki  • 5 hours ago 




Last week they ate the poodle.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
biki > Octavio  • 5 hours ago 




OH PASTA NOOOOOOS! Not the POODLE!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Stev84  • 9 hours ago 




They can believe what they want. But they don't get to act on their disgusting, immoral beliefs.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok  • 10 hours ago 




" Truth Teller Todd Starnes "
Thanks for the LOL !
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > Ragnar Lothbrok  • 9 hours ago 




I know - that was rich huh? LOL
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GayOldLady  • 10 hours ago 




Whaaaaaaaa.....Whaaaaaaa!!! Poor mistreated MAJORITY. You are free to believe whatever religious hocus-pocus you please, but you are NOT FREE to enshrine your religious beliefs in Civil Law. You Don't like gay marriage? Then I'd suggest that you don't marry someone of the same gender. But, if you decide to open a business to the Public, then you must serve the public, If you don't want to serve the public and want to be able to pick and choose your clientele, then start a club with membership requirements. Hell, Country Clubs have been keeping out the "undesirables" like people of color, the poor & middle class, women and LGBT people for decades. Try that formula and see how it works for your bottom line.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > GayOldLady  • 9 hours ago 




Get your ear plugs - We will be hearing much more of this whining.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
nycmcmike  • 11 hours ago 




Where are the pictures of the victims of homophobia?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
customartist > nycmcmike  • 9 hours ago 




"What victims?" - The Religious-Right
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
seant426  • 11 hours ago 




If Ian and Mati come out as Christian, will FRC add them, too?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 11 hours ago 




these idiots ain't "martyrs"; nobody died, they live to spout h8 and lies another day.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




hey Joe! where's our pre-game thread? the guy i've been stalking on twitter all weekend is all cleaned up and ready to roll this morning😋
 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RoFaWh > Sam_Handwich  • 8 hours ago 




Notice that he's properly dressed for attending a Supreme Court hearing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Happy Chappy  • 12 hours ago 




Ironci - the person that set this up looks like the biggest victum. What about victums of ISIS, far scarier than having to tone down your homophobia.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
customartist  • 9 hours ago 




Great! Let others beware!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 11 hours ago 




It's the Great Wall of Cake Martyrdom!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ProjectFabrizio  • 11 hours ago 




should we all sign up in an extension of our pity to all, what 30-ish of them?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
geoffalnutt  • 11 hours ago 




Everything has been leading up to this moment! It's thrilling!! Fire up the Oldsmobile, get out yer good hat. Martyrdom on parade!! I hope they have Funnel Cakes!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 12 hours ago 




Brian Brown and Evan Woflson are on c-span right now
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...
sorry for o/t...i'm so excited this morning
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ed Burrow > Sam_Handwich  • 11 hours ago 




Thanks Sam.
So far, same talking points...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ed Burrow  • 11 hours ago 




Brian Brown pushing the same absurd over-inflated view of religious liberty in order to claim that it is being violated when in reality true religious liberty isn’t being violated at all. It is quite stark to have him sit right next to Evan and say “your marriage isn’t a really marriage even though it is just as legal as mine under the law.”
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eric in Oakland > bill@19D  • 3 hours ago 




And they never address the fact that many churches perform same sex marriages. If he believes religious liberty means government endorsement of religious views, what about the liberty of the pro gay religious?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 11 hours ago 




Brian Browns face when our side calls in…. he just frowns and looks at the ground while blinking constantly, doesn’t even try to look interested or engaged.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > bill@19D  • 11 hours ago 




that last phone call, omg
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 11 hours ago 




Brian Brown shaking his head yes when a caller says there is no such thing as gay marriage…they can disagree all they want but same-sex marriage clearly exists, there are hundreds of thousands of same-sex marriages in the US right now, thus saying there is no such thing as gay marriage is completely wrong and delusional, which fits Brian Brown exactly.
Evan is totaly rocking it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
VodkaAndPolitics  • 12 hours ago 




To my knowledge, most, if not, all of these so called victims have gotten at least a 6 figure windfall... Please tell me where I can sign up to be America's Next Top Biggot (Victim)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
bambinoitaliano  • 12 hours ago 




In times of crisis and when faith are question chritianistas should seek solace from jeebus and pray. Instead these whiners bitch and moan and pointing the fingers of blame. Their current behaviour almost revert us back in history before jeebus was born. Where uncivilized villagers would just blindly follow those fake leaders who claim to know the teaching of god...ohhh how jeebus weep back in the days before he offer to accept punishment on their behalf...and now these son of the bitches are trying to get jeebus nail on the cross again......poor jeebus I weep for you.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 12 hours ago 




Here's a real victim, just one of many.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...
 The injustice done to him and so many others sickens me when I hear bigots whine.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Homo Erectus  • 12 hours ago 




I'm glad there are sites like this one that chronicle some of the martyrs of our community.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/frc-launches-victims-of-gays-site.html#disqus_thread













     

 

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D263128944%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D6472e247aa1e9dbb616f95c61569e76111515693%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E49516%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D64%2E95%2E36%2E16%3Brtbdata2%3DEAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenX7dIhBgAGDxbO%2DDaABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAeayXcgB0cLNktAp2gEoNjQ3MmUyNDdhYTFlOWRiYjYxNmY5NWM2MTU2OWU3NjExMTUxNTY5M%2DUBsNdEPOgBZJgCw%5F8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8kEMACAsgCAA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=263128944?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=263128944;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=6472e247aa1e9dbb616f95c61569e76111515693;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.49516,_qc.template;rtbip=64.95.36.16;rtbdata2=EAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenX7dIhBgAGDxbO-DaABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAeayXcgB0cLNktAp2gEoNjQ3MmUyNDdhYTFlOWRiYjYxNmY5NWM2MTU2OWU3NjExMTUxNTY5M-UBsNdEPOgBZJgCw_8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8kEMACAsgCAA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263128944?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263128944?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots
Protesters Chant "Shame!" At Midtown Hotel Owned B...
Foundation For Moral Law Files Recusal Demand Agai...
BALTIMORE: Governor Declares State Of Emergency, C...
NOM Hate March Attendee: We Were Told This Would B...
On The Eve Of HISTORY
Free Republic Tyranny Reponse Team: Join Us Tomorr...
Chad Griffin Vs. Ryan T. Anderson
GLAD: From Goodridge To Obergefell
Irish Prime Minister: Yes Equality
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site





The Family Research Council has launched Free To Believe, a warehousing site for all of the sad, sad, clutch-the-Kleenex stories of the noble Christian martyrs and victims of evil homofascists. Among those victims are multimillionaires David and Jason Benham, multimillionaire Phil Robertson, a Utah cop who wouldn't do his job, an Atlanta fire chief who broke the rules at his job, several small business owners who broke long-standing state laws, and several others who claims were debunked after having been first publicized by noted truth-teller Todd Starnes. You'll recognize pretty much all the names, they are the same tiny group that has been trotted out over and over and over for the last few years.
Labels: FRC, hate groups, liars, religion


posted by Joe Jervis
       100 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
  

  
.
  Quantcast
 
Quantcast
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/frc-launches-victims-of-gays-site.html#disqus_thread











     

 

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=728x90;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F225%2FAdId%3D6749041%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D263128944%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217803%3Bkvc%3D700594%3Bkvi%3D6472e247aa1e9dbb616f95c61569e76111515693%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D728x90%3Bkp%3D691353%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E49516%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D64%2E95%2E36%2E16%3Brtbdata2%3DEAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenX7dIhBgAGDxbO%2DDaABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAeayXcgB0cLNktAp2gEoNjQ3MmUyNDdhYTFlOWRiYjYxNmY5NWM2MTU2OWU3NjExMTUxNTY5M%2DUBsNdEPOgBZJgCw%5F8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8kEMACAsgCAA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=263128944?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/225/AdId=6749041;BnId=1;itime=263128944;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217803;kvc=700594;kvi=6472e247aa1e9dbb616f95c61569e76111515693;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=728x90;kp=691353;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.49516,_qc.template;rtbip=64.95.36.16;rtbdata2=EAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCy4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenX7dIhBgAGDxbO-DaABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAeayXcgB0cLNktAp2gEoNjQ3MmUyNDdhYTFlOWRiYjYxNmY5NWM2MTU2OWU3NjExMTUxNTY5M-UBsNdEPOgBZJgCw_8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEQF8kEMACAsgCAA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263128944?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815115;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=728x90;ord=263128944?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Hillary Reacts To Baltimore Riots
Protesters Chant "Shame!" At Midtown Hotel Owned B...
Foundation For Moral Law Files Recusal Demand Agai...
BALTIMORE: Governor Declares State Of Emergency, C...
NOM Hate March Attendee: We Were Told This Would B...
On The Eve Of HISTORY
Free Republic Tyranny Reponse Team: Join Us Tomorr...
Chad Griffin Vs. Ryan T. Anderson
GLAD: From Goodridge To Obergefell
Irish Prime Minister: Yes Equality
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


FRC Launches Victims Of Gays Site





The Family Research Council has launched Free To Believe, a warehousing site for all of the sad, sad, clutch-the-Kleenex stories of the noble Christian martyrs and victims of evil homofascists. Among those victims are multimillionaires David and Jason Benham, multimillionaire Phil Robertson, a Utah cop who wouldn't do his job, an Atlanta fire chief who broke the rules at his job, several small business owners who broke long-standing state laws, and several others who claims were debunked after having been first publicized by noted truth-teller Todd Starnes. You'll recognize pretty much all the names, they are the same tiny group that has been trotted out over and over and over for the last few years.
Labels: FRC, hate groups, liars, religion


posted by Joe Jervis
       100 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
  

  
.
  Quantcast
 
Quantcast
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/frc-launches-victims-of-gays-site.html#disqus_thread

















  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



7 Engagement Ring Trends of 2015  Brilliant Earth 




27 Family Photos That Went Very Wrong  Brainjet.com 




What is Caribana?  SESSIONS X 




The Hottest NBA Baby Mamas  WURA 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   41 comments 


 Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS   91 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  78 comments 


 AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments   28 comments 






 205 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder




















































Show One New Comment








Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 5 hours ago 




It makes absolutely no sense that scotus would let marriage rulings take effect in circuits 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 (FL), and then reverse their tracks now.
The point of hearing the 6th circuit appeal was to mend the circuit split, not to perpetuate it indefinitely.
 
26 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




What happened with the 11th was telling.
 The fact they didn't put in stays even though the 11th hadn't ruled speak volumes.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




oh that was AL too, right?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




Yes.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
teddy21 > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




I'm with you Sam! It defies logic to think they didn't have 5 votes to declare a constitutional right for ssm but they did have 5 votes to deny stays to the point of making it legal in 70% of the country.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ErikDC > teddy21  • 4 hours ago 




You only need 4 votes to grant a stay. There had to be at least 6 votes against granting a stay.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Timothy Kincaid > ErikDC  • 4 hours ago 




Which is why I predict a 6-3 split on Question 1 and a 7-2 split on Question 2 (It's so obviously covered by the Full Faith and Credit Clause that only Scalia and Thomas could convince themselves otherwise
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gordon. > Timothy Kincaid  • 2 hours ago 




I agree with your 6/3 split, but I feel that there will never be a 7/2 split. Never.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Timothy Kincaid  • 4 hours ago 




the ruling will render the 2nd question moot
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eric in Oakland > Sam_Handwich  • 2 hours ago 




Only with respect to gay marriage. What about instances like 1st cousin marriages?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




I don't agree. When deciding the Ohio case, for example, they must specifically say that the US Constitution requires the state to recognize their out-of-state marriage. If they don't, then Ohio could say that the couple would have had to remarry in state for their marriage to be valid.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Former Ohioan here. If there is any arcane, obscure nook & cranny in the law that can be used against gays, Ohio will find it and use it.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




not if marriage is "required" under the constitution which is why they hit so hard on that point.
For example if the age to marry in one state is 16 and that person moves to a state where it is 18, they still get all the rights of marriage.
Ohio, to have that outcome, would have to craft new state law that subverts the decision in Q1 allowing them to not give full faith and credit. Which is a whole can of worms and could not be applied to the current cases.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I think there are unresolved legal questions as to whether or not FF&C apply to marriages, no?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I think there can be crafted many arguments that Full Faith and Credit does NOT have to be applied to marriage even though it normally is.
additionally legal questions are different than constitutional questions, so it is best to be keep them distinct when we evaluate those claims.
state and federal laws are considered both legal and constitutional, until a court says they are not. And a law can be constitutional but not legal in the sense the wording is bad. For example right now there is a case heading to SCOTUS about "related cases" law and how it was applied to a 3 time dangerous felon when he was found with a sawed off shotgun.
The legal concept of "related cases" is constitutional but the way the law is worded has been giving Scalia and Kennedy heartburn for 10 years.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Paula > Timothy Kincaid  • an hour ago 




Good reasoning.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > ErikDC  • 4 hours ago 




No, you need 5 votes to grant or deny a motion. You only need 4 votes to grant certiorari.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Corey > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




Let them be deluded for 2 months. Time to take a vacay until the sadzfest...
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > Corey  • 4 hours ago 




Who says they're deluded? They may well know what's in store for them, but want to squeeze 2 more months of checks from the sheeple.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Steverino > Todd20036  • 4 hours ago 




And this bunch is notorious for cherry-picking out of context.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
pj > Steverino  • 4 hours ago 




or flat out lying
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Stuart Wyman-Cahall > Corey  • 4 hours ago 




I don't have enough imbibing fluid in the house for these next 2 months.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bkmn > Stuart Wyman-Cahall  • 4 hours ago 




One word for you:
COSTCO
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
MarkOH > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




More importantly, if the SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, I truly belief there will be an uproar to overturn the state laws. A decision for the anti-gays will also be a death knell to any GOP Pres candidate and would most likely result in the Dems taking back the Senate.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stuart Wyman-Cahall > MarkOH  • 4 hours ago 




You overestimate the importance of this issue to most Americans. Unless THEIR lives are directly affected they could really care less!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Stuart Wyman-Cahall  • 4 hours ago 




Correct, it's a shoulder shrug issue for the vast majority of Americans. They're fine, if called by a pollster, saying they don't care if gay people get married, it doesn't affect them...but that's the point, it doesn't affect them. Most Americans are of a "who am I to judge" mindset, but that's about as far as it goes.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > John Masters  • 4 hours ago 




John I think you and Stuart are right on track there.
It would be "great" to believe in what MarkOH wrote, but that is just wishful thinking.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 Show 3 new replies 












Avatar
sherman > MarkOH  • 4 hours ago 




Even if we take back the Senate, 2018 could be brutal. I think we defend 25 seats, and Republicons only 8. Long term things look bleak for this country.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




There you go with your reasoned analysis, Ryan T Anderson doesn’t have time for all that, he is much too busy with his spin.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Marriage got redefined the minute women could make their own choices and weren't considered property anymore.
 
24 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




How much was Ryan's mother's dowry?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > barracks9  • 4 hours ago 




a 3 legged goat and a chicken, she came cheap cause her hymen was shredded
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > LovesIrony  • 3 hours ago 




That's how the goat lost its other leg.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > barracks9  • 3 hours ago 




ha!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Todd20036 > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TampaDink  • 4 hours ago 




I was unaware that upholding "man-woman marriage laws" was being weighed by the Supreme Court, where have the rights of men & women being granted the right to marry ever questioned?
 
21 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > TampaDink  • 4 hours ago 




you and your logic, don't you ever get tired of being right?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




Bookmarking this post for use in June so I can remind Ryan on Twitter.
 
18 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




He must not have followed SCOTUS very much in previous cases. Historically, taking a few out-of-context questions during oral arguments as an indication of how particular justices will rule has been the downfall of much smarter people than Ryan Anderson.
Our side should be aware of this, as well. The truth is that we will only know when the full court hands down the decision(s) in June.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
teddy21 > Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




Yeah and you can then remind him what he said about their having read his book. Book must not have been so convincing.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
2amor > Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




I would like to remind the little fuck in person!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > 2amor  • 3 hours ago 




Because I read your last two words as
"... in prison!"
-- does that make me a bad person?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KarenAtFOH > People4Humanity  • 3 hours ago 




No. Now come sit by me.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Did people not listen to the question Kennedy asked of the states?
 Those weren't the questions of someone who sounded like he bought anything the anti side had to say.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




And have you noticed that there seems to be this odd air of delusion among the rank and file, at least (nothing new, but hear me out) about these proceedings? The other side seems to think that if they win, all gay marriages ever will be null and void and forever forbidden from The Land of True Christian Americans.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > barracks9  • 4 hours ago 




Barracks, I think you are correct about their delusions, but I caution that many on our side are also letting their hopes override the reality of what will happen if SCOTUS rules in our favor.
The RFRA's and attempts to circumvent equality will continue for some time, a decade or more, unless SCOTUS delivers us a ruling using a heightened level of scrutiny.
There are many ways to deliver a very narrow ruling on Q1 and Q2 could be ruled only valid for states that already have SSM.
I certainly hope it is a broad and resounding ruling but I will not count my chickens before they hatch.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




"There are many ways to deliver a very narrow ruling on Q1 and Q2 could be ruled only valid for states that already have SSM." I can think of no way they can rule on Q1 that keeps marriage in the states that have it already (especially the 19+ that got it thru federal court cases) while not demanding it in the rest. Care to elaborate?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




certainly, on Q1 they can rule that the bans, as written, in those 4 states are unconstitutional. That leaves the other existing bans in place and leaves the other rulings intact. That allows for the further "debate" on the marriage question, and they could view it as allowing the "experiment" to continue without having to say it is a constitutional requirement.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




You need to give me an example of legal rationale that could limit the scope of their ruling to only those 4 states, when marriage bans are pretty much identical across the board. If a rationale applies to Ohio, it's next to impossible it won't apply to Nebraska.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




it all depends on wording of a particular state ban. If you want examples of their differences you will have to dig that up yourself.
I am suggesting that it is on possible situation and as the justices pointed out repeatedly, there has never been found a constitutional right to ssm but we are asking for them to find one. They are loath to "find" previously undiscovered rights as their past decisions have shown. So creative writing will be on the agenda as their opinions are written.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I'll never say anything is impossible with SCOTUS, but this scenario is as close as it would come. I've looked at state bans--they are mostly worded very similarly, and in many cases identically. The principles behind these bans are all the same, the major differences being whether or not they expand the ban to include civil unions and domestic partnerships, and/or contracts. It would be one hell of a ruling that would plop the bans of Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan into one corner and somehow separate those from the rest of the nation. It would be almost impossible. Perhaps actually impossible. If the justices find no constitutional right to SSM, then this will affect every state that achieved equality through federal courts.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I'll respond to the different parts of that.
SCOTUS has surprised us in many ways over the decades, so being surprised is nothing new. They crafty devils at splitting hairs.
I would say that a closer look at the bans is required. Just like the claims of RFRA's being the same as the Federal government ban, the state bans all have unique signature styles that differentiate them. It gets down to the minutia and supporting claims as well as the wording of the ballot that placed them into the state constitution.
While such a narrow ruling might seem difficult, it is in no way impossible, as I said they are crafty devils.
They have yet to find a right to SSM in the constitution, and the state bans have been struck down.
the danger comes in that some of those states might try for a reworded ballot initiative to revive the bans already struck down.
the good news is that they have a harder time in most of those states now, than they did 20-30 years ago. The sky has not fallen with gay marriages which undercuts their claims as we have seen.

see more
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I understand your concerns about them being "crafty devils." However, I don't think this group, as crafty as they are, want to go so far as to look like they're pulling things out of their asses. And that's exactly what most people would see them as. Furthermore, I might say that most or even all 9 of them like to at least think that their rulings are rationally fair and sound. I'll just say that while anything is possible, your punt scenario here is, in my opinion, about as unlikely as anything I can think of short of Kennedy writing about conferring with alien species as to how to rule.
I wrote something above in a response regarding how the justices could punt by not requiring the term "marriage" in their ruling. This would be a far more likely, though still unlikely, result if the 5th vote wants to "punt," IMO.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




again the posting I made is about a possible outcome. I am not advocating for it or suggesting that is the one that will happen. I am stating it is a possible outcome. That the conversation has gone this far is only in response to posts asking questions about the possibility.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




Well, in that case, let's not talk past each other too much and I'm sure we can agree that these scenarios are highly unlikely. I'll just say that there are possibilities and there are possibilities, and some are much more impossible than others.
As far as your point about RFRAs go, I'm sure you are correct that they will rear their ugly heads for years to come, and the SCOTUS ruling will be narrow enough so as to not preclude the attempts to pass them. But that ruling will almost certainly affect the laws in all states uniformly, either way it goes.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I am hoping for (but not particularly hopeful) for uniformity.
In that hope, it is for a ruling using at least Heightened Scrutiny if not Intermediate, in our favor.
I am small minded and evil enough to want to laugh in their faces and urge them to move to Uganda if they want a different result.
but that does not override my knowledge of reality and I know that we stand a great chance of NOT getting everything we want in this ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I don't see us getting strict scrutiny on the basis of sexual orientation in this ruling, nor do I expect heightened scrutiny TBH. In fact, I think the ruling will look like Kennedy's previous ones in that it skirts around those terms altogether. I do hope and expect that the ruling will be a narrow one in favor of ME that applies to all 50 states. My 2nd most likely expectation after that would be that the court rules 5-4 against a constitutional right to SSM and throws dozens of states into chaos, and our movement is set back decades. It's only after that that I'd expect any kind of punt.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oink > Bruno  • an hour ago 




Interesting set of expectations...
I for one do see a Heightened Scrutiny possibility out of Kennedy, but oddly I think Sotomayor would be the drawback on that...just a vague thought nothing formal or specific on her.
As for your 1, 2, 3 list, I would hope the punt before the chaos, but who knows you might be right.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > oink  • an hour ago 




For sure. At least a punt would connote that the justices are just trying to delay things...thinking that the country isn't, or parts of it, aren't ready. But I think they had more seamless ways to do that. They could've relisted the cases indefinitely; it's not like there's a *requirement* to grant cert to a circuit split. These justices, at least to some degree, do things by the book, and that leads me to believe that a punt is a highly unlikely option here.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • an hour ago 




so true, but I still hope that a punt happens before chaos....the eternal optimist that the court has not all entered senility at the same time :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • an hour ago 




Perhaps some b.s. remand back to the 6th based on Baker not being valid anymore would do the trick :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 44 minutes ago 




now that would be fun to watch...not for the people in the 6th maybe, but truly from a legal perspective the entertainment possible is infinite.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



























Avatar
pickypecker > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




listening (nor understanding) is not their strong suit, dontchaknow.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




At this point the anti-gays are searching for anything they can use to claim that they aren’t going to lose so they can stay in denial just a little bit longer. They want to put of recognition of reality for as long as possible.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teddy21 > bill@19D  • 4 hours ago 




and keep collecting that money
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > teddy21  • 3 hours ago 




Right, it just doesn’t do to say, “well looking at the argument we are sure to lost but please send money so we can continue to fight for marriage.”
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Brian G  • 4 hours ago 




I don't think Ryan understands that sometimes the justices make rhetorical questions and statements to air questions to those arguing the cases before them.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Brian G  • 2 hours ago 




It's often, "Let me state your opponent's claim, so you can explain why it's completely stupid."
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
ryan charisma  • 4 hours ago 




Save those tweets for a lovely "in your face" when the ruling comes out.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd E. > ryan charisma  • 4 hours ago 




yaaassssss.......
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Greg B.  • 4 hours ago 




As we saw in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, the justices often ask questions - sometimes in the form of a statement - because they want to hear the argument for or against. It doesn't mean they believe the statement to be true and they're certainly not themselves arguing the merits of one position or another. I recall in one of the prior cases, Sotomayor made a statement (essentially an anti-equality talking point) in which she was playing devil's advocate, pressing the pro-marriage side to addresss the argument. The anti-gay pundits were cheering as if she was stating her view. We know how well that worked out for them.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Greg B.  • 2 hours ago 




Stephens is famous for doing exactly that. And, of course, they're completely ignoring the even more pointed pro-equality questions he asked the respondent's lawyer.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Greg B.  • 3 hours ago 




Yup, one has to take a very narrow and uninformed view of how the system works to reach the conclusion that the anti-gays arrived at. They are cherry picking to support their effort to deny reality as long as possible.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Smith  • 4 hours ago 




If Anderson thinks Breyer and Ginsburg are voting to uphold these laws, then he's crazier than we thought.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Brett Gilbert  • 4 hours ago 




If he's right, then why didn't SCOTUS stop all of the marriage equality decisions over the past year?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




Did anyone expect this little shit to say otherwise?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Exactly, some of the anti-gays are the type who will admit that they are losing but the other type will claim that they are winning right to the bitter end. Ryan t Anderson decidedly falls into the latter category.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Doughnuts to Dollars > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Ry-ry is delusional, but he's not completely stupid. He knows that conceding defeat is bad for 'business' (i.e. fund raising, book sales), and there's bigot money left to be grifted.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bob_Seattle  • 4 hours ago 




"There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate..."
Can someone tell me what those good policy arguments are opposing marriage equality without using religion?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bkmn  • 4 hours ago 




1. Never, ever base a prediction on what the court will do on oral arguments
2. Just because a Justice phrases a question a certain way does not indicate how they will rule
3. The lawyers arguing for the status quo did not do a very good job and it does not take a lawyer to understand that
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rebecca Gardner  • 4 hours ago 




Did this annoying little fuck actually hear the oral arguments? Their side got their ass handed to them. I'm listening to it from beginning to end, not the sound bites but the entire thing and their side has no argument in defense of the two questions.
Question 1
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
Question 2
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Why does America exist in a fucking vacuum? They only need to look north to Canada where marriage equality has been the law of the land for years now and not one single heterosexual marriage was impacted one iota.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cjs > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




but we're the New Jerusalem (TM) and God's most favorite-est nation and we must bear deference to a book that was written by humans who've reinterpreted and retranslated it over the centuries, or we won't be Sky Daddy's favorite anymore!!!
Something like that.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ETownCanuck > cjs  • 4 hours ago 




It's just ridiculous that America is considered to be it's own special little snowflake and that things that don't impact anyone else on the planet will somehow hurt their little feelings...and also bring about the end of the world.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Six Pins Delores > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




SILENCE! You are not a Murican! :)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ETownCanuck > Six Pins Delores  • 4 hours ago 




Thank FSM...LOL
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
cjs > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




The 2016 GOP presidential primary clusterfuck is starting at a point where opinionators on that side of the aisle are arguing whether or not certain candidates believe enough in "American exceptionalism."
My home state of Georgia and other states with legislatures under control of Republicans have considered or have passed, resolutions against The College Board because the Advanced Placement U.S. History suggested curriculum does not emphasize said "exceptionalism" enough. (Also, too much "focusing on the negative." Because we should whitewash racism, slavery, genocide of Native Americans, repression against women, aggression against the working class which includes poor white males among others, etc.)
(Advanced Placement, or AP, for those who don't know, is a program for high schoolers whereby the makers of the SAT college entrance exam have an examination for different subjects, exams for which if students score high enough, depending on the college/university, said college/university may award course credit. AP courses basically prepare high school students for the test.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
2amor > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




So true!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
tom_beauchamparnold > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




Or in Massachusetts, where it's now been 11 years. How long does it take for these supposed 'bad effects' to show up?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > tom_beauchamparnold  • 4 hours ago 




That's my disappointment. Why didn't Bonauto make that exact point..."We have an 11 year experiment. This is not a sea-change, but has been playing out for 11 years, and not only have none of worries of defendants been evidenced in MA, but in fact, MA not only has one of the lowest rates of divorce in the country, but also one of the highest standards of living."
That's the argument Kennedy and Roberts needed to hear.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


One other person is typing… 










Avatar
lymis > tom_beauchamparnold  • 2 hours ago 




These are people who argue the existence of dinosaurs.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Todd E.  • 4 hours ago 




Stupid, jump-the-gun tweets like this will make the ruling (for the good guys) even sweeter. I'll drink those totes delish sadz tears whilst being lulled to sleep to the gentle sound of neocon heads exploding.
Can.Not.Wait.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Because there is already evidence that it doesn't harm marriage one bit, something your side chooses to ignore.
 Since my wedding to my husband back in 2011, we have been to 24 weddings, only one of which was a same sex one.
 Most of those couples were ones who had been at our wedding.
 And for some strange reason, the fact we got married didn't make any of my straight friends or family decide to cancel their weddings.
 They all got married and life moved on.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 3 hours ago 




Exactly right and I think that it is always important to
ask: “well and how long should we wait”? It’s already been over a decade so how long do they envision us waiting to see if these supposed negative consequences ever materialize? 20 years, 50 years??? If no one was being harmed in the interim then sure, a longer waiting period might be reasonable but people are being harmed in the interim and thus this ever expanding waiting period simply isn’t justified. There is a need to act now and so without a compelling reason not to do so we need to act. hypothetical negative impacts that haven’t materialized after over a decade simply don’t count as a compelling reason to wait longer.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > Ninja0980  • 2 hours ago 




Not only that - which is more than enough - but it's not like public opinion is oscillating on the issue. The trend is steady in the direction of approval. Nobody has proposed anything other than Divine Intervention that might change that trend.
So, wait for what, exactly?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JakiChan  • 4 hours ago 




If it ends up being the case that marriages in one state are not valid in another then I'll push for CA to not recognize marriages from any state that doesn't recognize all of theirs. So if your wifey gets hurt on her trip to Disneyland your Alabama marriage don't mean shit. We'll kick you out of her hospital room and treat you like crap.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
FAEN  • 4 hours ago 




@Ryan T Anderson-you also said you'd win the DOMA case and the ACA case. Your record sucks.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Lightman  • 4 hours ago 




If they go that route, letting states decide, then they're essentially overturning Loving vs. Virgina and saying states are free to make their own laws on interracial marriage too. Alabama will be free to outlaw same sex and opposite race marriage. Kennedy would also be ruling against his own Romer vs Evans where passing laws against gays for no other reason than animus weren't allowed. They're in a bit of a bind. Maybe they shouldn't have taken the easy way out in Windsor.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
S. Parilla  • 4 hours ago 




If you absorb today's arguments and questions in a vacuum, I suppose you might be able to reach a conclusion similar to Ryan's. If you, however, keep today's events in context with the last two years, and with the Supreme Court historically.. not so much. We'll know in June, but I think Ryan might be disappointed.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
pickypecker  • 5 hours ago 




Why yes, Mr. Anderson.....and the dish ran away with the spoon.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gordon.  • 2 hours ago 




"Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage." Really ? Really ? If you take the time to READ the Constitution, you'll see that marriage isn't mentioned, AT ALL.
“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Two reasons: equal rights shouldn't have to WAIT. And, after TEN YEARS of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts, it should be OBVIOUS that nothing harmful has occurred.
Then, there's that idiot Alito talking about polygamy. Someone should remind him that THIS HEARING ISN'T ABOUT POLYGAMY !"
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Gordon.  • an hour ago 




That wait and see approach is such bullshit. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for over a decade, Iowa, I believe, for about six years other states for at least a year, all with no negative repercussions.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MBear > Rich  • an hour ago 




Of course there were negative repercussions: chrustains lost their freedom of religion, Jesus cried, and bakers and florists were forced into immoral acts.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > MBear  • 19 minutes ago 




Oh, I forgot about those, and all the men who were forced to leave their wives so that they could gay marry another dude.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Bj Lincoln  • 3 hours ago 




I don't think any side has bragging rights based on what I heard. There were good questions asked and you could tell each lawyer had butterflies when it came their time. They had nothing because God is not allowed in the court room.
I do believe we will win because of the moves they made concerning stays and the amount of winning cases before this. Most of the states where their bans were struck down, haven't had a problem or a peep. Only a handful of states are fighting back by giving the finger to the federal government.
I do hope come June, we will ALL be free to marry and be recognized no matter where we travel.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LovesIrony  • 4 hours ago 




lets see 2 more days in April, 31 in May, 30 in June, 63 days till he eats crow, I'd prefer he eat shit, but crow will do.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > LovesIrony  • 4 hours ago 




I think he eats something else, behind closed doors.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
People4Humanity > LovesIrony  • 4 hours ago 




Mmm-mmm ... Crow Pie.
Tastes kinda like chicken.

 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
The Professor  • 4 hours ago 




I am now listening to the actual audio. Ryan is pipe dreaming. Go listen, guys.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > The Professor  • 3 hours ago 




I’m going to listen to the full audio when I get the chance but from what I have already seen I am very confident. Our side is taking a more inclusive evaluation in making our predictions while the other side is only pulling a few soundbites and spinning those.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
HomerTh  • 4 hours ago 




A supposed virgin blabbering away. So "fresh-faced."
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > HomerTh  • 4 hours ago 




It only takes "one."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh  • 4 hours ago 




"marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of year"
Even Supreme Court justices seem to have a poor grip of history and the wide variation of all cultural institutions, both geographic and chronological.
"Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Because (a) that experiment has been carried out in many states and other countries and no harm to anyone has been seen and (b) delay causes active harm to now-unmarriagable same-sex couples.
He's an idiot.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TampaZeke  • 3 hours ago 




This "time in history when gay people weren't discriminated against" seems to have been raised by two SCOTUS justices.
I would like to hear more specifics about this unrecorded part of history and what planet it happened on.
Of course, these are the same justices who claim that there's no discrimination against gay people now.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RLK2  • 4 hours ago 




This guy is such a tool!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Octavio > RLK2  • 3 hours ago 




And the cheap plastic type made overseas.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Snarkaholic > Octavio  • 3 hours ago 




With the assembly instructions written in Ancient ASSyro-BABBYLonian.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Octavio  • 4 hours ago 




It's so good to see so many well-reasoned comments for equal marriage from JMG folks on that site. Thanks, all. I haven't the time, patience nor inclination to mix with those "people." :-)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
John Masters  • 4 hours ago 




“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Bonauto missed an opportunity here, that I seem to never hear argued, that MA has had marriage equality for 10 years, and the one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, and one of highest overall standards of living. So we've got a 10 year experiment, and none of the bad things predicted by equality opponents has happened. Why didn't she ever say that?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sample My Size > John Masters  • 4 hours ago 




I think they alluded to a similar metric on a different point. In reality, 10 years is too short a window for the kinds of questions being asked.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Sample My Size  • 3 hours ago 




50 years would be too small for these guys/gals.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Sample My Size  • 2 hours ago 




Sure 10 years is too short a time period for the full question to be answered and if people weren’t being harmed in the interim a longer waiting people would be justified but people are being harmed in the interim and so we need to go with what we have got. Over a decade in things are going fine and there is no reason to believe that that won’t continue to be the case. Those who say “we need to wait longer” technically have a little bit of a point but it gets outweighed by the very real harm that we know does exist if we don’t act and real harm outweighs hypothetical harm especially when the hypothetical harm hasn’t emerged after a decade.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
joe ho  • 4 hours ago 




I'm sure the judges did read Ryan and Robby George's book on the definition of marriage. Scalia, Alito and Thomas have probably memorized it.
It sounded to me that Mary may not have. And that was a serious error.
Nor did she seem to have studied all the rebuttals of those arguments which have been published by Martha Nusbaum, John Corvino, and other professional scholars and philosophers. She should have had all of those counterarguments ready to go when faced with the barage of questions from the right wing catholics. She didn't.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > joe ho  • 4 hours ago 




It's not like Robbie Kaplan kicked butt during the DOMA hearing either.
 She did better at the end though.
 At the end of the day though, we will get our 5-4 ruling, just not on the grounds of heightned scrunity.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




The justices have a way of making even the best lawyers look bad at times. They pepper them with left-field questions, interrupt them, and rattle them with their tones of voice.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > Ninja0980  • 2 hours ago 




I actually expect them to use heightened scrutiny, but only because marriage is a fundamental right, repeatedly declared by SCOTUS, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
Doing that allows them to completely sidestep the broader question of heightened scrutiny for other LGBT issues.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Javier Smith  • 4 hours ago 




I want to ask if this is first day on bath salts, but it doesn't seem likely.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell  • an hour ago 




Yes, and darling, you've openly bragged that you're a virgin. A 30 year oldish virgin. Like that's something to be proud of. The patheticnesh of the pathetic is beyond pathetic. You so need to get over yourself. Give yourself over to the truth where men need the men they need.
I know that mommy told you you're the cleverest little boy in the world but you're not. Take it up with her.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ClevelandJim  • 3 hours ago 




Oh look, they're cherry-pickin' and interpretatin' this just like they do the bybull!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Exatron  • 3 hours ago 




I find his phrasing interesting. He seems to be implying that we want all same sex relationships to be considered marriages when we really want the ability to get married.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Exatron  • an hour ago 




True, not all gay or lesbian people will want to be married, just as not all straight people do, but we should have that option.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dave  • 3 hours ago 




I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ryan Anderson is grossly overrated. He isn't persuasive and he makes a lot of boneheaded statements. There's zero evidence that he has had any impact on this issue. Also, as a hook to appeal to young people, he is decidedly uncool in his demeanor and he is turning grey prematurely.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Dave  • 2 hours ago 




I 100% agree with that, he only gets as much play as he does because the other side is desperate for people who are willing to speak on their behalf and yet will at least pretend to speak from a slightly less animus filled, less religious position. It’s the same reason Brian Brown still has his job as well, they keep failures because they don’t have any better options that could fill that role.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dave > bill@19D  • 2 hours ago 




Do you remember his "primer" on debating gay marriage? Came out about a year ago and was supposed to be a manual for people to use in their arguments against SSM. The golden boy stoops to help the little people learn how to speak. The thing was a ponderous, unreadable mess. Something like 50 or 60 pages of rambling abstract musings on communication theory, a field in which he has no experience and which, in any event, is not the proper subject of extended discussion in a primer. Well, that whole thing went over like a lead balloon. No one read it and not even Anderson follows its recommendations.
Like I said, totally overrated. The only thing I like about him is that how he goes around claiming that his side still has a chance to win because no one has really heard the anti-SSM case expressed well. This, of course, is a slam on NOM and everything it has been doing since 2007. How I wish someone would quote Anderson to Brian Brown and ask Brown to respond.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Robert  • 3 hours ago 




Don't anyone despair.... These justices ALWAYS ask tough, aggressive questions to both sides to appear impartial. Pretty much they already have their minds made up how they will vote. Furthermore, the questions they ask they already know the answers to. Even if a lawyer doesn't give the answer they want, in their written opinion, they will provide it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
sherman  • 4 hours ago 




I would be more concerned for his opinion if the Black Knight weren't his older brother.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 4 hours ago 




Pride goeth before a fall.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
2amor  • 4 hours ago 




This asshole again... 2 days in a row. I hate this bitch!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
FlKeysKevin  • 4 hours ago 




And that, my friends, is what being delusional is like. See also, "truthyism."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bill  • 5 hours ago 




It's going to feel like a dozen years, for the next almost 3 months.
I guess I might as well continue to take my meds and vitamins to listen to the outcome.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teddy21 > Bill  • 5 hours ago 




Well considering it's really exactly only 2 months... feel better
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > teddy21  • 4 hours ago 




LOL....... I sent my husband that article about the new dildo contraption, that could hold his ashes, if I so choose.
He just replied that he wanted to "check my meds".
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 40 minutes ago 




His ludicrous inclusion of Ginsburg and Breyer in showing leaning toward the States' position, against the consensus of all impartial commentators, shows him for what he and his tweets are: 💩
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin'  • an hour ago 




Over on Think Progress is an interesting perspective on how we might get a 7-2 ruling in our favor. Just one of the many possible out comes. The headline is great,
The Lawyer Defending Discrimination In The Supreme Court May Have Just Talked Himself Out Of Victory
http://thinkprogress.org/justi...
check out the article.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robert  • 2 hours ago 




It is a given that everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law. That supports ending the bans and legalizing marriage equality.
It is also constitutional that states are supposed to determine marriage law.
Could the SCOTUS rule by saying to the states: You can control your marriage laws and ban gays from the institution, but if you do, you must create a parallel institution that provides all of the same rights and benefits... every single one. And both systems will be regarded as equal in law by the federal government and other states.
Basically upgrading Civil Unions to be totally equal to marriage. Those states that have marriage equality or vote for it can have gay marriages, and if a couple from there moves to a state that does not have it, their marriage is now a civil union completely equal in all aspects of law and benefits and nothing changes for them but the name?
This way equality is granted, while the states ability to make the decision is also honored.
I am hoping they just force gay marriage nationwide. I do not believe in separate but equal solutions, but my question for the legal scholars is... COULD they do this so that they think they are pleasing everyone???
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > Robert  • an hour ago 




That would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It would require thousands of Federal and statewide laws to be rewritten. Require thousands of companies to rewrite policy and take years to implement. I can't see them creating more chaos and bureaucracy that would make their corporate overlords and the majority of our nation fuming mad, all in order to placate an ever shrinking minority of wingnuts and bigots. A flat out loss would almost be better because that could be overturned in a decade if a Democrat wins the next Presidential election and gets to replace at least 2 justices. The effort it would take to undo that mess would make Reconstruction look like a organizing a bookshelf.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin' > Robert  • 2 hours ago 




Robert, Separate but Equal is a condition, that to date, has been considered constitutionally unallowable.That does not mean they won't try and find a way for it, but that is one of the outlier possibilities as it upends a lot of "settled" law on other civil rights issues.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > Robert  • 2 hours ago 




I have mentioned this possibility before, and I think it is possible, if unlikely. What the justices (or rather, the 5th vote, in this case Kennedy or Roberts) could do is say "these states cannot constitutionally allow these couples to be discriminated against when it comes to relationship rights." They must provide all the same rights and obligations to same-sex couples as they do opposite-sex couples. However, as happened in state court cases in Vermont and New Jersey, they could stop short of requiring the term "marriage." That way, they could claim they satisfied the plaintiffs in terms of rights and obligations, while not actually overruling the lower courts across the nation that required the term "marriage." It would put the term "marriage" in flux in many states for same-sex couples, but would stop short of a constitutional finding that precluded gay couples from the term "marriage." All that said, it would come out of left field, and is probably not going to happen. I just think Kennedy has too strong an understanding of what the term "marriage" means to cop out like that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




Bruno, while they most certainly could do that, such a ruling creates a separate but equal situation being condoned by the Constitution. It would have to be much stronger in wording for it to be a "constitutional requirement".
It would be interesting to see what plays out if they do, but I envision even more decades of legal fights if they do that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I wouldn't say it would explicitly have the Constitution condoning separate but equal. The plaintiffs have come to SCOTUS for something, in this case marriage rights, but if SCOTUS feels that they can narrowly (as narrowly as possible) afford them relief without settling the ultimate question of the word "marriage," they might choose to do so. Not likely, but it's an option. That could then leave the lower court rulings that found in favor of equal marriage intact while punting on the question of whether or not the word "marriage" is required by the US Constitution. Maybe a few years later, a case like Hollingsworth takes care of that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




it's all possible, I just don't see Kennedy or Roberts saying separate but equal, and most certainly not Scalia or Thomas. Alitio might go for it, but I am not sure.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I think Roberts and Alito would go for it, but Kennedy will not.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • an hour ago 




could be but Roberts still has the "legacy of his court" issue fanning his flames. He really does not want to be on the wrong side of history in this... at least from all that I know of him, and no I don't know him. Just from reading his opinions, briefs and some interviews.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • an hour ago 




While I'm sure he (and any other chief justice would be too) is concerned by his legacy, I've just never sensed that would be enough to have him essentially reverse what he's previously shown to be his opinions on marriage equality in the Windsor dissent and the 2013 hearings. Who says the things he's said, asked the questions he's asked, then turns around and says "oh yeah, it's an equality issue?" He'd have to be pretty brazen, but it's more likely than Scalia or Thomas for sure.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • an hour ago 




Well anything is possible.
I just read an article on Think Progress that shows a possible way to 7-2. will post link at top of this posting so maybe more will read it. I think you might enjoy its possibilities.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
Robert > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I hope you are right...
My fear is that it has also been reported that he has grave concerns about a ruling causing violence or being too soon or tarnishing the Supreme Court...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > Robert  • an hour ago 




We are at 60+% approval nationally and growing. Do we need to be at 80% first? The country is ready. At this point and after denying Cert last year and allowing over a hundred thousand Same Sex Couples to marry, it would literally cause more upheaval if they voted to keep the bans. There would literally be riots in the streets in some cities if they did that. The violence that might occur from the side of the anti gay will be minimal compared to the the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. If the court has any integrity they will not let the threat of violence slow the wheels of justice, freedom and progress in our society.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > Robert  • 2 hours ago 




People will report things, but it's all guesswork. I think if he had those issues, he wouldn't have voted to allow marriages to begin in the states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits, as well as Alabama and Florida. And there has been no violence in those places and I don't think this issue will tarnish them any more than anything else.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Dave  • 3 hours ago 




Can someone help me? I wanted to go back to the archives for March 2013 to see if the anti-gays made similar optimistic statements after oral arguments in Windsor. However, I don't see the archives on JMG's homepage. Does anyone know how to find old posts?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > Dave  • 3 hours ago 




You can hit the search and type in a name or topic. The links at the bottom of each piece will pull up similar pieces.
Hope they work for you. :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
kaydenpat  • 3 hours ago 




Bursch's arguments appear to be centered around children. As if gays don't have children, I guess.
Anderson knows his side has lost. He's just fooling himself.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
noname > kaydenpat  • 2 hours ago 




love the puppy pic :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Six Pins Delores > noname  • 2 hours ago 




Yeah! Anderson is hatefuckable.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
David L. Caster  • 3 hours ago 




Nope.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin'  • 4 hours ago 




This ass-clown is a moron and most people know that.
However I also hope people here are ready for a more narrow decision than they hope for.
I do believe it will be (at least) 5-4, but I think there will be room left for all the RFRA crap and additional claims to try and circumvent a nation wide ruling.
The questions all seem to be about how to get to the decision, not what the decision should be, and that makes a big difference in how the decision is written.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
kevin vincent > JustSayin'  • 4 hours ago 




And RFRA got brutalized really quick, how many of those bills are still alive? The NC just let theirs die for example
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > kevin vincent  • 4 hours ago 




Louisiana and Texas for 2 has amplifying bills for their RFRA's, I have heard Missouri and Idaho legislators are considering putting forth similar legislation.
This won't be over for many years.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




Louisiana and Texas are the best chances of one of those bills passing right now (perhaps Alabama too). Missouri has a Dem governor who would veto. Not sure Idaho has the stomach.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Bruno, you may be right about MO but these bills are not only symbolic, a ruling in our favor might have the negative effect of pushing more right wingers to vote for it. with enough votes it can override a veto.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I think they'll be pushing hard for these bills again next year. Right now, they've become somewhat toxic after the fallout in Indiana and Arkansas.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Bruno, I don't know what your state government is like but in LA, and on social issues Texas, the religious right and the republicans (that control state government) love to be contrary to public opinion.
in Texas we have the advantage of having Chevron there and most of Austin. They will make a financial stink. Here in LA, not so much along that line will happen as we don't have a lot of major tech or business centers that are on our side.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I live in California, so not an issue here. As I said above, LA & TX and maybe AL are the only states I can see that happening in THIS year. They have a combo of deep-rooted conservatism, Republican governors and legislatures, and not having addressed the issue finally this year. I don't see Idaho and Missouri in the same boat as those two, possibly three states. Another state like Georgia, which is in the same boat, has already shelved their version of the bill indefinitely.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




Missouri has a lot of issues that they don't want attention to , so advancing an RFRA or supplement might be a tool they use for distraction. Idaho, while a beautiful state with a lot of nice people suffers from the same thing the south does. Progressive population centers but a lot of rural people with hard core religious views. in short it is a possibility.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




Yeah, it is possible in Idaho for sure, especially with Bitch Otter in power. But my feeling is outside of LA & TX, it's a non-winning issue for the other states this year. 2016 may tell a different story.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




right, and again, these RFRA laws being pushed is in expectation of SCOTUS giving us the right to SSM as a constitutional right. How the haters react is what is in question, not that they will act.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 

















Avatar
Ninja0980 > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I don't think the spliting the baby will happen but I sadly predict you are right on the fact we won't get the ruling we need to stop crap like that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Ninja0980  • 3 hours ago 




Ninja, assuming "happy" is a typo for "happen" in your post, I am not so sure.
conceivably they could vote in our favor on Q2, while pushing Q1 off and or sending the cases back down to a lower court. The second part is unlikely but possible.
If they do that, then the other cases in the 5th circuit would then reach SCOTUS, because frankly the 5th will vote against us at every possible turn.
there are other possible combinations, and I think many of us are not going to be prepared for.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




"pushing Q1 off and or sending the cases back down to a lower court," while they could do that theoretically, I don't see any principled way they could justify it. They have cases in front of them that were dutifully decided by the lower courts (Judge Sutton made it a point not to only rely on Baker in his opinion), and plaintiffs that need relief. I'd put the chances of that at less than 1%.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




maybe so, just listing possibilities.. As I said earlier, I don't think we will get the decision most people are expecting.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




What decision do you foresee?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




I am vacillating between some options.
I will listen to the arguments again later tonight... so glad for the recordings :)
Right now I am leaning towards a narrow ruling on the 4 state bans being unconstitutional but not a definitive striking down of the remaining bans.
For Q2, I am thinking it will read in our favor. which still leaves the bans in place and room for more litigation, as kennedy and roberts both opined would disappear on the direct issue of marriage.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




Tell me what rationale would reverse the bans in those 4 states but leave the bans in the other states intact? I do not think it's logically possible.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Technically there are only 4 states with cases before the court. Unless the court specifically finds that there is a constitutional right to ssm, then the ruling can be narrowed to only those 4 states.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




And on what basis could they find that those states violated federal law regarding marriages, sexual orientation, sex, etc. that don't involve the Constitution? I haven't seen one federal case decided so far that doesn't involve the US Constitution, in either direction. Not only would it be novel, I can't even think of what it would be. Can you elaborate?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dave > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




There is no way to strike down the 4 bans w/o having that apply nationally. Similarly, if SCOTUS were to uphold these 4 bans, it would pave the way for the other bans struck down last year to be revived. JustSayin is incorrect. With the 2 exceptions below, this is going to be all or nothing.
The only possible compromises are: 1) Upholding the bans but requiring inter-state recognition of marriages. That would mean that you couldn't get married in Kentucky, but you could go to Iowa, get married, and force Kentucky to recognize it. 2) An opinion that the bans are constitutionally suspect, but that, with SSM only having existed for 11 years in the US, the record is insufficient to determine whether the state can justify them. This outcome would leave the bans in place, but would signal that they will be struck down in the future if the states can't come forward with more to justify them.
The former compromise is possible, but unlikely. This latter option, which would really be a defeat for us, is similar to what the Court has done with affirmative action. I think that it is very unlikely that this would be the outcome, but if for some reason Kennedy were inclined to uphold the bans, I could see him adding this in to a concurring opinion so as to soften the blow.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Dave  • 2 hours ago 




Dave, you are constitutionally incorrect. They can narrow the decision to only the cases before them. They DON"T have to find for a constitutional right to SSM to do that.
Claiming otherwise is the equivalent of a Brian Brown claim to have "won the day" at SCOTUS.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dave > JustSayin'  • 32 minutes ago 




Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing in the 4 amendments before them that is substantively different from the others. A ruling here necessarily impacts them all. RFRA, which you mentioned above, is a federal statute and has nothing to do with these cases, and it was not briefed or argued. If you have some other argument as to how SCOTUS could craft an opinion which strikes down these 4 bans while having no impact on any other identically worded ban, please articulate that argument. Just asserting it isn't helpful.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 Show 1 new reply 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Dave  • 20 minutes ago 




it does not have to be substantially different for them to rule only on the cases before them, which is not only their right but their usual progress.
Scotus can and does rule that a state or federal statute is invalid for being vague or other reasons, see Citizens United, that leaves open the possibility for Congress or a State to refile/rewrite that law.
Dropping these 4, as they are the case before the court, has no demanded impact on any other existing ban. It can be presumed they would also fail if they reach scotus but that does not mean they will either reach scotus or be found invalid. It all depends on how they are worded and how scotus rules.
you seem to think that a law before the court must be substantially different from any other law for it to be struck down separately, and you seem to think that the converse is also true.
That will only happen if scotus says that we have a constitutional right to ssm, that will dump the other bans.
you are substantially mistaken to think that just because they might find these particular 4 bans as invalid that the other bans don't have a chance to defend at scotus. If scotus finds a way to drop these particular bans and not find a constitutional right to ssm then the remaining states will still have the right to reach scotus in defense of their bans, and we will still have the right to sue over those bans.
If they find that there is NO constitutional right to SSM, that will also NOT upend the rulings from the other courts striking down their bans. It will only allow them to try and pass new bans based on the method of constitutional amendments in their particular states, and in fact in that circumstance they might not even have to amend their state constitutions, just pass new laws.
that you don't know or understand that does not mean I am wrong, it means you need to learn more about what scotus can do and often does.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




The wording of the actual ban may be construed as unconstitutional without finding the ban itself unconstitutional. SCOTUS continually sidesteps certain issues until they are ready to decide, as all the marriage and gay related cases show. so my opinion is that they might do so in this particular set of rulings also.
Again it is all speculation and a good part of the first session was devoted to questions that seem to ask "how do we get there AND avoid finding it an absolute constitutional right".
Scalia was correct in his questioning that if it is found a constitutional right then it is possible for it to be in contention with other constitutional rights. So in that case some clown looking to be a provocation, think a Tammy Bruce type, might demand a wedding in a Catholic Church and a Priest to preside. In that situation her intent would be to get a SCOTUS ruling that says religion outranks other constitutional rights (she would be trying to lose even as she pressed the case).
If they decide narrowly that the written bans are unconstitutional for wording, and only apply it to those cases, that leaves the debate alive and they will have the opportunity to try and rewrite their laws, which starts this mess all over again.
At no time, to date, has a SCOTUS ruling found a constitutional right to SSM. We are hoping they find one now, but I will not count on that until it happens.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




"Scalia was correct in his questioning that if it is found a constitutional right then it is possible for it to be in contention with other constitutional rights."
Hogwash, and he knows it. No Catholic priest is required to marry two Methodists or two Jews, or even two Catholics if he doesn't think they are serious enough. And no church or clergy can be sued for that. That's settled law, even with opposite-sex marriages. There is absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that changes that.
Some moron may file a lawsuit to try to force it, but that will be laughed out of court, and rightly so.
If a member of the clergy happens to have a day job a a county courthouse or as a civil justice of the peace, they might be sued in their civil capacity for denying a license, but again, that's no different than if a county clerk refused a license to two Jews for not accepting Jesus.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > lymis  • 2 hours ago 




you assume that because different religions have been given a pass for not obeying the letter of the law, that this will happen if a case as I suggested was provoked.
I can think of at least 4 states, LA, TX, AL, MS, that would not laugh it out of court.
The only way a clergy who is a clerk at a county courthouse could be sued, under current law is if they refused to do their day job, and only in states with current protections.
If SSM is found as a Constitutional right, some clown like a Tammy Bruce, will bring that case against a clergy in their religious role. They will be trying to provoke a Constitutional crisis between the ruling and the 1st Amendment.
denying that that will happen is setting yourself up to be upset and surprised and it still won't affect the reality that Rabbis don't marry Catholics in their church or do interfaith marriages.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




As I've responded elsewhere, if they find no constitutional right to SSM, then every federal case we've won will most likely be controverted in subsequent court cases. The bans in OH, KY, TN, and MI do not as a group differ from bans in any other state. This really is an either/or scenario in terms of the constitution.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




Well don't be surprised if/when SCOTUS rules and you are wrong.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I will be very surprised if I'm wrong.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




well let's hope you are not surprised and that we get a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling in our favor.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




We will. I'll even take 5-4. :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




there ya go, I'm just shooting for the moon. :)
It would really upset the fundies if a 7-2 happened which would just break my fucking heart.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




Right. Boo frickin' hoo.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


























Avatar
kevin vincent > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




Well what do you expect from Louisiana and Texas? Part of me doubt's that La will go for it as for Texas what happened to that Marriage bill thing by the 'Marriage is so Sacred I knocked up my Mistress and left my first wife to marry her' proposed? It went into pending right?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
JustSayin' > kevin vincent  • 3 hours ago 




Kevin,
Piyusha has stomped his little hindu-christian foot and said it will happen so I guessing it will make it out of committee onto the floor for a vote.
the majority of our "republicans" in office include a great many former democrats that switched when Obama was first elected. They are not likely to want to fight Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family here in LA.
I have not checked on the Texas bill for a few days, last I saw it was in committee or going into committee.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/ryan-t-anderson-were-gonna-win.html#disqus_thread











  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



7 Engagement Ring Trends of 2015  Brilliant Earth 




27 Family Photos That Went Very Wrong  Brainjet.com 




What is Caribana?  SESSIONS X 




The Hottest NBA Baby Mamas  WURA 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Baltimore To See Pro Baseball First   41 comments 


 Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS   91 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  78 comments 


 AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments   28 comments 






 205 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder




















































Show One New Comment








Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 5 hours ago 




It makes absolutely no sense that scotus would let marriage rulings take effect in circuits 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 (FL), and then reverse their tracks now.
The point of hearing the 6th circuit appeal was to mend the circuit split, not to perpetuate it indefinitely.
 
26 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




What happened with the 11th was telling.
 The fact they didn't put in stays even though the 11th hadn't ruled speak volumes.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




oh that was AL too, right?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




Yes.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
teddy21 > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




I'm with you Sam! It defies logic to think they didn't have 5 votes to declare a constitutional right for ssm but they did have 5 votes to deny stays to the point of making it legal in 70% of the country.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ErikDC > teddy21  • 4 hours ago 




You only need 4 votes to grant a stay. There had to be at least 6 votes against granting a stay.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Timothy Kincaid > ErikDC  • 4 hours ago 




Which is why I predict a 6-3 split on Question 1 and a 7-2 split on Question 2 (It's so obviously covered by the Full Faith and Credit Clause that only Scalia and Thomas could convince themselves otherwise
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gordon. > Timothy Kincaid  • 2 hours ago 




I agree with your 6/3 split, but I feel that there will never be a 7/2 split. Never.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Timothy Kincaid  • 4 hours ago 




the ruling will render the 2nd question moot
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eric in Oakland > Sam_Handwich  • 2 hours ago 




Only with respect to gay marriage. What about instances like 1st cousin marriages?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




I don't agree. When deciding the Ohio case, for example, they must specifically say that the US Constitution requires the state to recognize their out-of-state marriage. If they don't, then Ohio could say that the couple would have had to remarry in state for their marriage to be valid.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Former Ohioan here. If there is any arcane, obscure nook & cranny in the law that can be used against gays, Ohio will find it and use it.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




not if marriage is "required" under the constitution which is why they hit so hard on that point.
For example if the age to marry in one state is 16 and that person moves to a state where it is 18, they still get all the rights of marriage.
Ohio, to have that outcome, would have to craft new state law that subverts the decision in Q1 allowing them to not give full faith and credit. Which is a whole can of worms and could not be applied to the current cases.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I think there are unresolved legal questions as to whether or not FF&C apply to marriages, no?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I think there can be crafted many arguments that Full Faith and Credit does NOT have to be applied to marriage even though it normally is.
additionally legal questions are different than constitutional questions, so it is best to be keep them distinct when we evaluate those claims.
state and federal laws are considered both legal and constitutional, until a court says they are not. And a law can be constitutional but not legal in the sense the wording is bad. For example right now there is a case heading to SCOTUS about "related cases" law and how it was applied to a 3 time dangerous felon when he was found with a sawed off shotgun.
The legal concept of "related cases" is constitutional but the way the law is worded has been giving Scalia and Kennedy heartburn for 10 years.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Paula > Timothy Kincaid  • an hour ago 




Good reasoning.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > ErikDC  • 4 hours ago 




No, you need 5 votes to grant or deny a motion. You only need 4 votes to grant certiorari.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Corey > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




Let them be deluded for 2 months. Time to take a vacay until the sadzfest...
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > Corey  • 4 hours ago 




Who says they're deluded? They may well know what's in store for them, but want to squeeze 2 more months of checks from the sheeple.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Steverino > Todd20036  • 4 hours ago 




And this bunch is notorious for cherry-picking out of context.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
pj > Steverino  • 4 hours ago 




or flat out lying
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Stuart Wyman-Cahall > Corey  • 4 hours ago 




I don't have enough imbibing fluid in the house for these next 2 months.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bkmn > Stuart Wyman-Cahall  • 4 hours ago 




One word for you:
COSTCO
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
MarkOH > Sam_Handwich  • 4 hours ago 




More importantly, if the SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, I truly belief there will be an uproar to overturn the state laws. A decision for the anti-gays will also be a death knell to any GOP Pres candidate and would most likely result in the Dems taking back the Senate.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stuart Wyman-Cahall > MarkOH  • 4 hours ago 




You overestimate the importance of this issue to most Americans. Unless THEIR lives are directly affected they could really care less!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > Stuart Wyman-Cahall  • 4 hours ago 




Correct, it's a shoulder shrug issue for the vast majority of Americans. They're fine, if called by a pollster, saying they don't care if gay people get married, it doesn't affect them...but that's the point, it doesn't affect them. Most Americans are of a "who am I to judge" mindset, but that's about as far as it goes.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > John Masters  • 4 hours ago 




John I think you and Stuart are right on track there.
It would be "great" to believe in what MarkOH wrote, but that is just wishful thinking.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 Show 3 new replies 












Avatar
sherman > MarkOH  • 4 hours ago 




Even if we take back the Senate, 2018 could be brutal. I think we defend 25 seats, and Republicons only 8. Long term things look bleak for this country.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 3 hours ago 




There you go with your reasoned analysis, Ryan T Anderson doesn’t have time for all that, he is much too busy with his spin.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Marriage got redefined the minute women could make their own choices and weren't considered property anymore.
 
24 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




How much was Ryan's mother's dowry?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > barracks9  • 4 hours ago 




a 3 legged goat and a chicken, she came cheap cause her hymen was shredded
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > LovesIrony  • 3 hours ago 




That's how the goat lost its other leg.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > barracks9  • 3 hours ago 




ha!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Todd20036 > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TampaDink  • 4 hours ago 




I was unaware that upholding "man-woman marriage laws" was being weighed by the Supreme Court, where have the rights of men & women being granted the right to marry ever questioned?
 
21 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
LovesIrony > TampaDink  • 4 hours ago 




you and your logic, don't you ever get tired of being right?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




Bookmarking this post for use in June so I can remind Ryan on Twitter.
 
18 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teeveedub > Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




He must not have followed SCOTUS very much in previous cases. Historically, taking a few out-of-context questions during oral arguments as an indication of how particular justices will rule has been the downfall of much smarter people than Ryan Anderson.
Our side should be aware of this, as well. The truth is that we will only know when the full court hands down the decision(s) in June.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
teddy21 > Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




Yeah and you can then remind him what he said about their having read his book. Book must not have been so convincing.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
2amor > Pollos Hermanos  • 4 hours ago 




I would like to remind the little fuck in person!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > 2amor  • 3 hours ago 




Because I read your last two words as
"... in prison!"
-- does that make me a bad person?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KarenAtFOH > People4Humanity  • 3 hours ago 




No. Now come sit by me.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Did people not listen to the question Kennedy asked of the states?
 Those weren't the questions of someone who sounded like he bought anything the anti side had to say.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
barracks9 > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




And have you noticed that there seems to be this odd air of delusion among the rank and file, at least (nothing new, but hear me out) about these proceedings? The other side seems to think that if they win, all gay marriages ever will be null and void and forever forbidden from The Land of True Christian Americans.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > barracks9  • 4 hours ago 




Barracks, I think you are correct about their delusions, but I caution that many on our side are also letting their hopes override the reality of what will happen if SCOTUS rules in our favor.
The RFRA's and attempts to circumvent equality will continue for some time, a decade or more, unless SCOTUS delivers us a ruling using a heightened level of scrutiny.
There are many ways to deliver a very narrow ruling on Q1 and Q2 could be ruled only valid for states that already have SSM.
I certainly hope it is a broad and resounding ruling but I will not count my chickens before they hatch.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




"There are many ways to deliver a very narrow ruling on Q1 and Q2 could be ruled only valid for states that already have SSM." I can think of no way they can rule on Q1 that keeps marriage in the states that have it already (especially the 19+ that got it thru federal court cases) while not demanding it in the rest. Care to elaborate?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




certainly, on Q1 they can rule that the bans, as written, in those 4 states are unconstitutional. That leaves the other existing bans in place and leaves the other rulings intact. That allows for the further "debate" on the marriage question, and they could view it as allowing the "experiment" to continue without having to say it is a constitutional requirement.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




You need to give me an example of legal rationale that could limit the scope of their ruling to only those 4 states, when marriage bans are pretty much identical across the board. If a rationale applies to Ohio, it's next to impossible it won't apply to Nebraska.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




it all depends on wording of a particular state ban. If you want examples of their differences you will have to dig that up yourself.
I am suggesting that it is on possible situation and as the justices pointed out repeatedly, there has never been found a constitutional right to ssm but we are asking for them to find one. They are loath to "find" previously undiscovered rights as their past decisions have shown. So creative writing will be on the agenda as their opinions are written.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I'll never say anything is impossible with SCOTUS, but this scenario is as close as it would come. I've looked at state bans--they are mostly worded very similarly, and in many cases identically. The principles behind these bans are all the same, the major differences being whether or not they expand the ban to include civil unions and domestic partnerships, and/or contracts. It would be one hell of a ruling that would plop the bans of Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan into one corner and somehow separate those from the rest of the nation. It would be almost impossible. Perhaps actually impossible. If the justices find no constitutional right to SSM, then this will affect every state that achieved equality through federal courts.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I'll respond to the different parts of that.
SCOTUS has surprised us in many ways over the decades, so being surprised is nothing new. They crafty devils at splitting hairs.
I would say that a closer look at the bans is required. Just like the claims of RFRA's being the same as the Federal government ban, the state bans all have unique signature styles that differentiate them. It gets down to the minutia and supporting claims as well as the wording of the ballot that placed them into the state constitution.
While such a narrow ruling might seem difficult, it is in no way impossible, as I said they are crafty devils.
They have yet to find a right to SSM in the constitution, and the state bans have been struck down.
the danger comes in that some of those states might try for a reworded ballot initiative to revive the bans already struck down.
the good news is that they have a harder time in most of those states now, than they did 20-30 years ago. The sky has not fallen with gay marriages which undercuts their claims as we have seen.

see more
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I understand your concerns about them being "crafty devils." However, I don't think this group, as crafty as they are, want to go so far as to look like they're pulling things out of their asses. And that's exactly what most people would see them as. Furthermore, I might say that most or even all 9 of them like to at least think that their rulings are rationally fair and sound. I'll just say that while anything is possible, your punt scenario here is, in my opinion, about as unlikely as anything I can think of short of Kennedy writing about conferring with alien species as to how to rule.
I wrote something above in a response regarding how the justices could punt by not requiring the term "marriage" in their ruling. This would be a far more likely, though still unlikely, result if the 5th vote wants to "punt," IMO.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




again the posting I made is about a possible outcome. I am not advocating for it or suggesting that is the one that will happen. I am stating it is a possible outcome. That the conversation has gone this far is only in response to posts asking questions about the possibility.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




Well, in that case, let's not talk past each other too much and I'm sure we can agree that these scenarios are highly unlikely. I'll just say that there are possibilities and there are possibilities, and some are much more impossible than others.
As far as your point about RFRAs go, I'm sure you are correct that they will rear their ugly heads for years to come, and the SCOTUS ruling will be narrow enough so as to not preclude the attempts to pass them. But that ruling will almost certainly affect the laws in all states uniformly, either way it goes.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I am hoping for (but not particularly hopeful) for uniformity.
In that hope, it is for a ruling using at least Heightened Scrutiny if not Intermediate, in our favor.
I am small minded and evil enough to want to laugh in their faces and urge them to move to Uganda if they want a different result.
but that does not override my knowledge of reality and I know that we stand a great chance of NOT getting everything we want in this ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I don't see us getting strict scrutiny on the basis of sexual orientation in this ruling, nor do I expect heightened scrutiny TBH. In fact, I think the ruling will look like Kennedy's previous ones in that it skirts around those terms altogether. I do hope and expect that the ruling will be a narrow one in favor of ME that applies to all 50 states. My 2nd most likely expectation after that would be that the court rules 5-4 against a constitutional right to SSM and throws dozens of states into chaos, and our movement is set back decades. It's only after that that I'd expect any kind of punt.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oink > Bruno  • an hour ago 




Interesting set of expectations...
I for one do see a Heightened Scrutiny possibility out of Kennedy, but oddly I think Sotomayor would be the drawback on that...just a vague thought nothing formal or specific on her.
As for your 1, 2, 3 list, I would hope the punt before the chaos, but who knows you might be right.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > oink  • an hour ago 




For sure. At least a punt would connote that the justices are just trying to delay things...thinking that the country isn't, or parts of it, aren't ready. But I think they had more seamless ways to do that. They could've relisted the cases indefinitely; it's not like there's a *requirement* to grant cert to a circuit split. These justices, at least to some degree, do things by the book, and that leads me to believe that a punt is a highly unlikely option here.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • an hour ago 




so true, but I still hope that a punt happens before chaos....the eternal optimist that the court has not all entered senility at the same time :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • an hour ago 




Perhaps some b.s. remand back to the 6th based on Baker not being valid anymore would do the trick :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 44 minutes ago 




now that would be fun to watch...not for the people in the 6th maybe, but truly from a legal perspective the entertainment possible is infinite.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



























Avatar
pickypecker > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




listening (nor understanding) is not their strong suit, dontchaknow.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




At this point the anti-gays are searching for anything they can use to claim that they aren’t going to lose so they can stay in denial just a little bit longer. They want to put of recognition of reality for as long as possible.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teddy21 > bill@19D  • 4 hours ago 




and keep collecting that money
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > teddy21  • 3 hours ago 




Right, it just doesn’t do to say, “well looking at the argument we are sure to lost but please send money so we can continue to fight for marriage.”
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Brian G  • 4 hours ago 




I don't think Ryan understands that sometimes the justices make rhetorical questions and statements to air questions to those arguing the cases before them.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Brian G  • 2 hours ago 




It's often, "Let me state your opponent's claim, so you can explain why it's completely stupid."
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
ryan charisma  • 4 hours ago 




Save those tweets for a lovely "in your face" when the ruling comes out.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd E. > ryan charisma  • 4 hours ago 




yaaassssss.......
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Greg B.  • 4 hours ago 




As we saw in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, the justices often ask questions - sometimes in the form of a statement - because they want to hear the argument for or against. It doesn't mean they believe the statement to be true and they're certainly not themselves arguing the merits of one position or another. I recall in one of the prior cases, Sotomayor made a statement (essentially an anti-equality talking point) in which she was playing devil's advocate, pressing the pro-marriage side to addresss the argument. The anti-gay pundits were cheering as if she was stating her view. We know how well that worked out for them.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Greg B.  • 2 hours ago 




Stephens is famous for doing exactly that. And, of course, they're completely ignoring the even more pointed pro-equality questions he asked the respondent's lawyer.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Greg B.  • 3 hours ago 




Yup, one has to take a very narrow and uninformed view of how the system works to reach the conclusion that the anti-gays arrived at. They are cherry picking to support their effort to deny reality as long as possible.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Smith  • 4 hours ago 




If Anderson thinks Breyer and Ginsburg are voting to uphold these laws, then he's crazier than we thought.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Brett Gilbert  • 4 hours ago 




If he's right, then why didn't SCOTUS stop all of the marriage equality decisions over the past year?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




Did anyone expect this little shit to say otherwise?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Exactly, some of the anti-gays are the type who will admit that they are losing but the other type will claim that they are winning right to the bitter end. Ryan t Anderson decidedly falls into the latter category.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Doughnuts to Dollars > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




Ry-ry is delusional, but he's not completely stupid. He knows that conceding defeat is bad for 'business' (i.e. fund raising, book sales), and there's bigot money left to be grifted.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bob_Seattle  • 4 hours ago 




"There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate..."
Can someone tell me what those good policy arguments are opposing marriage equality without using religion?
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bkmn  • 4 hours ago 




1. Never, ever base a prediction on what the court will do on oral arguments
2. Just because a Justice phrases a question a certain way does not indicate how they will rule
3. The lawyers arguing for the status quo did not do a very good job and it does not take a lawyer to understand that
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rebecca Gardner  • 4 hours ago 




Did this annoying little fuck actually hear the oral arguments? Their side got their ass handed to them. I'm listening to it from beginning to end, not the sound bites but the entire thing and their side has no argument in defense of the two questions.
Question 1
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
Question 2
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Why does America exist in a fucking vacuum? They only need to look north to Canada where marriage equality has been the law of the land for years now and not one single heterosexual marriage was impacted one iota.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cjs > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




but we're the New Jerusalem (TM) and God's most favorite-est nation and we must bear deference to a book that was written by humans who've reinterpreted and retranslated it over the centuries, or we won't be Sky Daddy's favorite anymore!!!
Something like that.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ETownCanuck > cjs  • 4 hours ago 




It's just ridiculous that America is considered to be it's own special little snowflake and that things that don't impact anyone else on the planet will somehow hurt their little feelings...and also bring about the end of the world.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Six Pins Delores > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




SILENCE! You are not a Murican! :)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ETownCanuck > Six Pins Delores  • 4 hours ago 




Thank FSM...LOL
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
cjs > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




The 2016 GOP presidential primary clusterfuck is starting at a point where opinionators on that side of the aisle are arguing whether or not certain candidates believe enough in "American exceptionalism."
My home state of Georgia and other states with legislatures under control of Republicans have considered or have passed, resolutions against The College Board because the Advanced Placement U.S. History suggested curriculum does not emphasize said "exceptionalism" enough. (Also, too much "focusing on the negative." Because we should whitewash racism, slavery, genocide of Native Americans, repression against women, aggression against the working class which includes poor white males among others, etc.)
(Advanced Placement, or AP, for those who don't know, is a program for high schoolers whereby the makers of the SAT college entrance exam have an examination for different subjects, exams for which if students score high enough, depending on the college/university, said college/university may award course credit. AP courses basically prepare high school students for the test.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
2amor > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




So true!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
tom_beauchamparnold > ETownCanuck  • 4 hours ago 




Or in Massachusetts, where it's now been 11 years. How long does it take for these supposed 'bad effects' to show up?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John Masters > tom_beauchamparnold  • 4 hours ago 




That's my disappointment. Why didn't Bonauto make that exact point..."We have an 11 year experiment. This is not a sea-change, but has been playing out for 11 years, and not only have none of worries of defendants been evidenced in MA, but in fact, MA not only has one of the lowest rates of divorce in the country, but also one of the highest standards of living."
That's the argument Kennedy and Roberts needed to hear.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


One other person is typing… 










Avatar
lymis > tom_beauchamparnold  • 2 hours ago 




These are people who argue the existence of dinosaurs.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Todd E.  • 4 hours ago 




Stupid, jump-the-gun tweets like this will make the ruling (for the good guys) even sweeter. I'll drink those totes delish sadz tears whilst being lulled to sleep to the gentle sound of neocon heads exploding.
Can.Not.Wait.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Because there is already evidence that it doesn't harm marriage one bit, something your side chooses to ignore.
 Since my wedding to my husband back in 2011, we have been to 24 weddings, only one of which was a same sex one.
 Most of those couples were ones who had been at our wedding.
 And for some strange reason, the fact we got married didn't make any of my straight friends or family decide to cancel their weddings.
 They all got married and life moved on.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Ninja0980  • 3 hours ago 




Exactly right and I think that it is always important to
ask: “well and how long should we wait”? It’s already been over a decade so how long do they envision us waiting to see if these supposed negative consequences ever materialize? 20 years, 50 years??? If no one was being harmed in the interim then sure, a longer waiting period might be reasonable but people are being harmed in the interim and thus this ever expanding waiting period simply isn’t justified. There is a need to act now and so without a compelling reason not to do so we need to act. hypothetical negative impacts that haven’t materialized after over a decade simply don’t count as a compelling reason to wait longer.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > Ninja0980  • 2 hours ago 




Not only that - which is more than enough - but it's not like public opinion is oscillating on the issue. The trend is steady in the direction of approval. Nobody has proposed anything other than Divine Intervention that might change that trend.
So, wait for what, exactly?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JakiChan  • 4 hours ago 




If it ends up being the case that marriages in one state are not valid in another then I'll push for CA to not recognize marriages from any state that doesn't recognize all of theirs. So if your wifey gets hurt on her trip to Disneyland your Alabama marriage don't mean shit. We'll kick you out of her hospital room and treat you like crap.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
FAEN  • 4 hours ago 




@Ryan T Anderson-you also said you'd win the DOMA case and the ACA case. Your record sucks.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Lightman  • 4 hours ago 




If they go that route, letting states decide, then they're essentially overturning Loving vs. Virgina and saying states are free to make their own laws on interracial marriage too. Alabama will be free to outlaw same sex and opposite race marriage. Kennedy would also be ruling against his own Romer vs Evans where passing laws against gays for no other reason than animus weren't allowed. They're in a bit of a bind. Maybe they shouldn't have taken the easy way out in Windsor.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
S. Parilla  • 4 hours ago 




If you absorb today's arguments and questions in a vacuum, I suppose you might be able to reach a conclusion similar to Ryan's. If you, however, keep today's events in context with the last two years, and with the Supreme Court historically.. not so much. We'll know in June, but I think Ryan might be disappointed.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
pickypecker  • 5 hours ago 




Why yes, Mr. Anderson.....and the dish ran away with the spoon.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gordon.  • 2 hours ago 




"Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage." Really ? Really ? If you take the time to READ the Constitution, you'll see that marriage isn't mentioned, AT ALL.
“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Two reasons: equal rights shouldn't have to WAIT. And, after TEN YEARS of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts, it should be OBVIOUS that nothing harmful has occurred.
Then, there's that idiot Alito talking about polygamy. Someone should remind him that THIS HEARING ISN'T ABOUT POLYGAMY !"
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Gordon.  • an hour ago 




That wait and see approach is such bullshit. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for over a decade, Iowa, I believe, for about six years other states for at least a year, all with no negative repercussions.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MBear > Rich  • an hour ago 




Of course there were negative repercussions: chrustains lost their freedom of religion, Jesus cried, and bakers and florists were forced into immoral acts.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > MBear  • 19 minutes ago 




Oh, I forgot about those, and all the men who were forced to leave their wives so that they could gay marry another dude.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Bj Lincoln  • 3 hours ago 




I don't think any side has bragging rights based on what I heard. There were good questions asked and you could tell each lawyer had butterflies when it came their time. They had nothing because God is not allowed in the court room.
I do believe we will win because of the moves they made concerning stays and the amount of winning cases before this. Most of the states where their bans were struck down, haven't had a problem or a peep. Only a handful of states are fighting back by giving the finger to the federal government.
I do hope come June, we will ALL be free to marry and be recognized no matter where we travel.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
LovesIrony  • 4 hours ago 




lets see 2 more days in April, 31 in May, 30 in June, 63 days till he eats crow, I'd prefer he eat shit, but crow will do.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > LovesIrony  • 4 hours ago 




I think he eats something else, behind closed doors.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
People4Humanity > LovesIrony  • 4 hours ago 




Mmm-mmm ... Crow Pie.
Tastes kinda like chicken.

 
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
The Professor  • 4 hours ago 




I am now listening to the actual audio. Ryan is pipe dreaming. Go listen, guys.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > The Professor  • 3 hours ago 




I’m going to listen to the full audio when I get the chance but from what I have already seen I am very confident. Our side is taking a more inclusive evaluation in making our predictions while the other side is only pulling a few soundbites and spinning those.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
HomerTh  • 4 hours ago 




A supposed virgin blabbering away. So "fresh-faced."
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
People4Humanity > HomerTh  • 4 hours ago 




It only takes "one."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoFaWh  • 4 hours ago 




"marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of year"
Even Supreme Court justices seem to have a poor grip of history and the wide variation of all cultural institutions, both geographic and chronological.
"Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Because (a) that experiment has been carried out in many states and other countries and no harm to anyone has been seen and (b) delay causes active harm to now-unmarriagable same-sex couples.
He's an idiot.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TampaZeke  • 3 hours ago 




This "time in history when gay people weren't discriminated against" seems to have been raised by two SCOTUS justices.
I would like to hear more specifics about this unrecorded part of history and what planet it happened on.
Of course, these are the same justices who claim that there's no discrimination against gay people now.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RLK2  • 4 hours ago 




This guy is such a tool!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Octavio > RLK2  • 3 hours ago 




And the cheap plastic type made overseas.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Snarkaholic > Octavio  • 3 hours ago 




With the assembly instructions written in Ancient ASSyro-BABBYLonian.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Octavio  • 4 hours ago 




It's so good to see so many well-reasoned comments for equal marriage from JMG folks on that site. Thanks, all. I haven't the time, patience nor inclination to mix with those "people." :-)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
John Masters  • 4 hours ago 




“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Bonauto missed an opportunity here, that I seem to never hear argued, that MA has had marriage equality for 10 years, and the one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, and one of highest overall standards of living. So we've got a 10 year experiment, and none of the bad things predicted by equality opponents has happened. Why didn't she ever say that?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sample My Size > John Masters  • 4 hours ago 




I think they alluded to a similar metric on a different point. In reality, 10 years is too short a window for the kinds of questions being asked.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Sample My Size  • 3 hours ago 




50 years would be too small for these guys/gals.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Sample My Size  • 2 hours ago 




Sure 10 years is too short a time period for the full question to be answered and if people weren’t being harmed in the interim a longer waiting people would be justified but people are being harmed in the interim and so we need to go with what we have got. Over a decade in things are going fine and there is no reason to believe that that won’t continue to be the case. Those who say “we need to wait longer” technically have a little bit of a point but it gets outweighed by the very real harm that we know does exist if we don’t act and real harm outweighs hypothetical harm especially when the hypothetical harm hasn’t emerged after a decade.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
joe ho  • 4 hours ago 




I'm sure the judges did read Ryan and Robby George's book on the definition of marriage. Scalia, Alito and Thomas have probably memorized it.
It sounded to me that Mary may not have. And that was a serious error.
Nor did she seem to have studied all the rebuttals of those arguments which have been published by Martha Nusbaum, John Corvino, and other professional scholars and philosophers. She should have had all of those counterarguments ready to go when faced with the barage of questions from the right wing catholics. She didn't.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > joe ho  • 4 hours ago 




It's not like Robbie Kaplan kicked butt during the DOMA hearing either.
 She did better at the end though.
 At the end of the day though, we will get our 5-4 ruling, just not on the grounds of heightned scrunity.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Ninja0980  • 4 hours ago 




The justices have a way of making even the best lawyers look bad at times. They pepper them with left-field questions, interrupt them, and rattle them with their tones of voice.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis > Ninja0980  • 2 hours ago 




I actually expect them to use heightened scrutiny, but only because marriage is a fundamental right, repeatedly declared by SCOTUS, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
Doing that allows them to completely sidestep the broader question of heightened scrutiny for other LGBT issues.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Javier Smith  • 4 hours ago 




I want to ask if this is first day on bath salts, but it doesn't seem likely.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell  • an hour ago 




Yes, and darling, you've openly bragged that you're a virgin. A 30 year oldish virgin. Like that's something to be proud of. The patheticnesh of the pathetic is beyond pathetic. You so need to get over yourself. Give yourself over to the truth where men need the men they need.
I know that mommy told you you're the cleverest little boy in the world but you're not. Take it up with her.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ClevelandJim  • 3 hours ago 




Oh look, they're cherry-pickin' and interpretatin' this just like they do the bybull!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Exatron  • 3 hours ago 




I find his phrasing interesting. He seems to be implying that we want all same sex relationships to be considered marriages when we really want the ability to get married.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rich > Exatron  • an hour ago 




True, not all gay or lesbian people will want to be married, just as not all straight people do, but we should have that option.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dave  • 3 hours ago 




I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ryan Anderson is grossly overrated. He isn't persuasive and he makes a lot of boneheaded statements. There's zero evidence that he has had any impact on this issue. Also, as a hook to appeal to young people, he is decidedly uncool in his demeanor and he is turning grey prematurely.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
bill@19D > Dave  • 2 hours ago 




I 100% agree with that, he only gets as much play as he does because the other side is desperate for people who are willing to speak on their behalf and yet will at least pretend to speak from a slightly less animus filled, less religious position. It’s the same reason Brian Brown still has his job as well, they keep failures because they don’t have any better options that could fill that role.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dave > bill@19D  • 2 hours ago 




Do you remember his "primer" on debating gay marriage? Came out about a year ago and was supposed to be a manual for people to use in their arguments against SSM. The golden boy stoops to help the little people learn how to speak. The thing was a ponderous, unreadable mess. Something like 50 or 60 pages of rambling abstract musings on communication theory, a field in which he has no experience and which, in any event, is not the proper subject of extended discussion in a primer. Well, that whole thing went over like a lead balloon. No one read it and not even Anderson follows its recommendations.
Like I said, totally overrated. The only thing I like about him is that how he goes around claiming that his side still has a chance to win because no one has really heard the anti-SSM case expressed well. This, of course, is a slam on NOM and everything it has been doing since 2007. How I wish someone would quote Anderson to Brian Brown and ask Brown to respond.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Robert  • 3 hours ago 




Don't anyone despair.... These justices ALWAYS ask tough, aggressive questions to both sides to appear impartial. Pretty much they already have their minds made up how they will vote. Furthermore, the questions they ask they already know the answers to. Even if a lawyer doesn't give the answer they want, in their written opinion, they will provide it.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
sherman  • 4 hours ago 




I would be more concerned for his opinion if the Black Knight weren't his older brother.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 4 hours ago 




Pride goeth before a fall.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
2amor  • 4 hours ago 




This asshole again... 2 days in a row. I hate this bitch!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
FlKeysKevin  • 4 hours ago 




And that, my friends, is what being delusional is like. See also, "truthyism."
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bill  • 5 hours ago 




It's going to feel like a dozen years, for the next almost 3 months.
I guess I might as well continue to take my meds and vitamins to listen to the outcome.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teddy21 > Bill  • 5 hours ago 




Well considering it's really exactly only 2 months... feel better
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > teddy21  • 4 hours ago 




LOL....... I sent my husband that article about the new dildo contraption, that could hold his ashes, if I so choose.
He just replied that he wanted to "check my meds".
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Claude Jacques Bonhomme  • 40 minutes ago 




His ludicrous inclusion of Ginsburg and Breyer in showing leaning toward the States' position, against the consensus of all impartial commentators, shows him for what he and his tweets are: 💩
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin'  • an hour ago 




Over on Think Progress is an interesting perspective on how we might get a 7-2 ruling in our favor. Just one of the many possible out comes. The headline is great,
The Lawyer Defending Discrimination In The Supreme Court May Have Just Talked Himself Out Of Victory
http://thinkprogress.org/justi...
check out the article.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robert  • 2 hours ago 




It is a given that everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law. That supports ending the bans and legalizing marriage equality.
It is also constitutional that states are supposed to determine marriage law.
Could the SCOTUS rule by saying to the states: You can control your marriage laws and ban gays from the institution, but if you do, you must create a parallel institution that provides all of the same rights and benefits... every single one. And both systems will be regarded as equal in law by the federal government and other states.
Basically upgrading Civil Unions to be totally equal to marriage. Those states that have marriage equality or vote for it can have gay marriages, and if a couple from there moves to a state that does not have it, their marriage is now a civil union completely equal in all aspects of law and benefits and nothing changes for them but the name?
This way equality is granted, while the states ability to make the decision is also honored.
I am hoping they just force gay marriage nationwide. I do not believe in separate but equal solutions, but my question for the legal scholars is... COULD they do this so that they think they are pleasing everyone???
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > Robert  • an hour ago 




That would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It would require thousands of Federal and statewide laws to be rewritten. Require thousands of companies to rewrite policy and take years to implement. I can't see them creating more chaos and bureaucracy that would make their corporate overlords and the majority of our nation fuming mad, all in order to placate an ever shrinking minority of wingnuts and bigots. A flat out loss would almost be better because that could be overturned in a decade if a Democrat wins the next Presidential election and gets to replace at least 2 justices. The effort it would take to undo that mess would make Reconstruction look like a organizing a bookshelf.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin' > Robert  • 2 hours ago 




Robert, Separate but Equal is a condition, that to date, has been considered constitutionally unallowable.That does not mean they won't try and find a way for it, but that is one of the outlier possibilities as it upends a lot of "settled" law on other civil rights issues.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > Robert  • 2 hours ago 




I have mentioned this possibility before, and I think it is possible, if unlikely. What the justices (or rather, the 5th vote, in this case Kennedy or Roberts) could do is say "these states cannot constitutionally allow these couples to be discriminated against when it comes to relationship rights." They must provide all the same rights and obligations to same-sex couples as they do opposite-sex couples. However, as happened in state court cases in Vermont and New Jersey, they could stop short of requiring the term "marriage." That way, they could claim they satisfied the plaintiffs in terms of rights and obligations, while not actually overruling the lower courts across the nation that required the term "marriage." It would put the term "marriage" in flux in many states for same-sex couples, but would stop short of a constitutional finding that precluded gay couples from the term "marriage." All that said, it would come out of left field, and is probably not going to happen. I just think Kennedy has too strong an understanding of what the term "marriage" means to cop out like that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




Bruno, while they most certainly could do that, such a ruling creates a separate but equal situation being condoned by the Constitution. It would have to be much stronger in wording for it to be a "constitutional requirement".
It would be interesting to see what plays out if they do, but I envision even more decades of legal fights if they do that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I wouldn't say it would explicitly have the Constitution condoning separate but equal. The plaintiffs have come to SCOTUS for something, in this case marriage rights, but if SCOTUS feels that they can narrowly (as narrowly as possible) afford them relief without settling the ultimate question of the word "marriage," they might choose to do so. Not likely, but it's an option. That could then leave the lower court rulings that found in favor of equal marriage intact while punting on the question of whether or not the word "marriage" is required by the US Constitution. Maybe a few years later, a case like Hollingsworth takes care of that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




it's all possible, I just don't see Kennedy or Roberts saying separate but equal, and most certainly not Scalia or Thomas. Alitio might go for it, but I am not sure.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I think Roberts and Alito would go for it, but Kennedy will not.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • an hour ago 




could be but Roberts still has the "legacy of his court" issue fanning his flames. He really does not want to be on the wrong side of history in this... at least from all that I know of him, and no I don't know him. Just from reading his opinions, briefs and some interviews.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • an hour ago 




While I'm sure he (and any other chief justice would be too) is concerned by his legacy, I've just never sensed that would be enough to have him essentially reverse what he's previously shown to be his opinions on marriage equality in the Windsor dissent and the 2013 hearings. Who says the things he's said, asked the questions he's asked, then turns around and says "oh yeah, it's an equality issue?" He'd have to be pretty brazen, but it's more likely than Scalia or Thomas for sure.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • an hour ago 




Well anything is possible.
I just read an article on Think Progress that shows a possible way to 7-2. will post link at top of this posting so maybe more will read it. I think you might enjoy its possibilities.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















Avatar
Robert > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




I hope you are right...
My fear is that it has also been reported that he has grave concerns about a ruling causing violence or being too soon or tarnishing the Supreme Court...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nexus1 > Robert  • an hour ago 




We are at 60+% approval nationally and growing. Do we need to be at 80% first? The country is ready. At this point and after denying Cert last year and allowing over a hundred thousand Same Sex Couples to marry, it would literally cause more upheaval if they voted to keep the bans. There would literally be riots in the streets in some cities if they did that. The violence that might occur from the side of the anti gay will be minimal compared to the the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. If the court has any integrity they will not let the threat of violence slow the wheels of justice, freedom and progress in our society.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Bruno > Robert  • 2 hours ago 




People will report things, but it's all guesswork. I think if he had those issues, he wouldn't have voted to allow marriages to begin in the states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits, as well as Alabama and Florida. And there has been no violence in those places and I don't think this issue will tarnish them any more than anything else.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Dave  • 3 hours ago 




Can someone help me? I wanted to go back to the archives for March 2013 to see if the anti-gays made similar optimistic statements after oral arguments in Windsor. However, I don't see the archives on JMG's homepage. Does anyone know how to find old posts?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bj Lincoln > Dave  • 3 hours ago 




You can hit the search and type in a name or topic. The links at the bottom of each piece will pull up similar pieces.
Hope they work for you. :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
kaydenpat  • 3 hours ago 




Bursch's arguments appear to be centered around children. As if gays don't have children, I guess.
Anderson knows his side has lost. He's just fooling himself.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
noname > kaydenpat  • 2 hours ago 




love the puppy pic :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Six Pins Delores > noname  • 2 hours ago 




Yeah! Anderson is hatefuckable.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
David L. Caster  • 3 hours ago 




Nope.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
JustSayin'  • 4 hours ago 




This ass-clown is a moron and most people know that.
However I also hope people here are ready for a more narrow decision than they hope for.
I do believe it will be (at least) 5-4, but I think there will be room left for all the RFRA crap and additional claims to try and circumvent a nation wide ruling.
The questions all seem to be about how to get to the decision, not what the decision should be, and that makes a big difference in how the decision is written.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
kevin vincent > JustSayin'  • 4 hours ago 




And RFRA got brutalized really quick, how many of those bills are still alive? The NC just let theirs die for example
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > kevin vincent  • 4 hours ago 




Louisiana and Texas for 2 has amplifying bills for their RFRA's, I have heard Missouri and Idaho legislators are considering putting forth similar legislation.
This won't be over for many years.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




Louisiana and Texas are the best chances of one of those bills passing right now (perhaps Alabama too). Missouri has a Dem governor who would veto. Not sure Idaho has the stomach.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Bruno, you may be right about MO but these bills are not only symbolic, a ruling in our favor might have the negative effect of pushing more right wingers to vote for it. with enough votes it can override a veto.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I think they'll be pushing hard for these bills again next year. Right now, they've become somewhat toxic after the fallout in Indiana and Arkansas.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Bruno, I don't know what your state government is like but in LA, and on social issues Texas, the religious right and the republicans (that control state government) love to be contrary to public opinion.
in Texas we have the advantage of having Chevron there and most of Austin. They will make a financial stink. Here in LA, not so much along that line will happen as we don't have a lot of major tech or business centers that are on our side.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I live in California, so not an issue here. As I said above, LA & TX and maybe AL are the only states I can see that happening in THIS year. They have a combo of deep-rooted conservatism, Republican governors and legislatures, and not having addressed the issue finally this year. I don't see Idaho and Missouri in the same boat as those two, possibly three states. Another state like Georgia, which is in the same boat, has already shelved their version of the bill indefinitely.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




Missouri has a lot of issues that they don't want attention to , so advancing an RFRA or supplement might be a tool they use for distraction. Idaho, while a beautiful state with a lot of nice people suffers from the same thing the south does. Progressive population centers but a lot of rural people with hard core religious views. in short it is a possibility.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




Yeah, it is possible in Idaho for sure, especially with Bitch Otter in power. But my feeling is outside of LA & TX, it's a non-winning issue for the other states this year. 2016 may tell a different story.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




right, and again, these RFRA laws being pushed is in expectation of SCOTUS giving us the right to SSM as a constitutional right. How the haters react is what is in question, not that they will act.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 

















Avatar
Ninja0980 > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




I don't think the spliting the baby will happen but I sadly predict you are right on the fact we won't get the ruling we need to stop crap like that.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Ninja0980  • 3 hours ago 




Ninja, assuming "happy" is a typo for "happen" in your post, I am not so sure.
conceivably they could vote in our favor on Q2, while pushing Q1 off and or sending the cases back down to a lower court. The second part is unlikely but possible.
If they do that, then the other cases in the 5th circuit would then reach SCOTUS, because frankly the 5th will vote against us at every possible turn.
there are other possible combinations, and I think many of us are not going to be prepared for.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




"pushing Q1 off and or sending the cases back down to a lower court," while they could do that theoretically, I don't see any principled way they could justify it. They have cases in front of them that were dutifully decided by the lower courts (Judge Sutton made it a point not to only rely on Baker in his opinion), and plaintiffs that need relief. I'd put the chances of that at less than 1%.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




maybe so, just listing possibilities.. As I said earlier, I don't think we will get the decision most people are expecting.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




What decision do you foresee?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




I am vacillating between some options.
I will listen to the arguments again later tonight... so glad for the recordings :)
Right now I am leaning towards a narrow ruling on the 4 state bans being unconstitutional but not a definitive striking down of the remaining bans.
For Q2, I am thinking it will read in our favor. which still leaves the bans in place and room for more litigation, as kennedy and roberts both opined would disappear on the direct issue of marriage.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




Tell me what rationale would reverse the bans in those 4 states but leave the bans in the other states intact? I do not think it's logically possible.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 3 hours ago 




Technically there are only 4 states with cases before the court. Unless the court specifically finds that there is a constitutional right to ssm, then the ruling can be narrowed to only those 4 states.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




And on what basis could they find that those states violated federal law regarding marriages, sexual orientation, sex, etc. that don't involve the Constitution? I haven't seen one federal case decided so far that doesn't involve the US Constitution, in either direction. Not only would it be novel, I can't even think of what it would be. Can you elaborate?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dave > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




There is no way to strike down the 4 bans w/o having that apply nationally. Similarly, if SCOTUS were to uphold these 4 bans, it would pave the way for the other bans struck down last year to be revived. JustSayin is incorrect. With the 2 exceptions below, this is going to be all or nothing.
The only possible compromises are: 1) Upholding the bans but requiring inter-state recognition of marriages. That would mean that you couldn't get married in Kentucky, but you could go to Iowa, get married, and force Kentucky to recognize it. 2) An opinion that the bans are constitutionally suspect, but that, with SSM only having existed for 11 years in the US, the record is insufficient to determine whether the state can justify them. This outcome would leave the bans in place, but would signal that they will be struck down in the future if the states can't come forward with more to justify them.
The former compromise is possible, but unlikely. This latter option, which would really be a defeat for us, is similar to what the Court has done with affirmative action. I think that it is very unlikely that this would be the outcome, but if for some reason Kennedy were inclined to uphold the bans, I could see him adding this in to a concurring opinion so as to soften the blow.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Dave  • 2 hours ago 




Dave, you are constitutionally incorrect. They can narrow the decision to only the cases before them. They DON"T have to find for a constitutional right to SSM to do that.
Claiming otherwise is the equivalent of a Brian Brown claim to have "won the day" at SCOTUS.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dave > JustSayin'  • 32 minutes ago 




Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing in the 4 amendments before them that is substantively different from the others. A ruling here necessarily impacts them all. RFRA, which you mentioned above, is a federal statute and has nothing to do with these cases, and it was not briefed or argued. If you have some other argument as to how SCOTUS could craft an opinion which strikes down these 4 bans while having no impact on any other identically worded ban, please articulate that argument. Just asserting it isn't helpful.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 Show 1 new reply 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Dave  • 20 minutes ago 




it does not have to be substantially different for them to rule only on the cases before them, which is not only their right but their usual progress.
Scotus can and does rule that a state or federal statute is invalid for being vague or other reasons, see Citizens United, that leaves open the possibility for Congress or a State to refile/rewrite that law.
Dropping these 4, as they are the case before the court, has no demanded impact on any other existing ban. It can be presumed they would also fail if they reach scotus but that does not mean they will either reach scotus or be found invalid. It all depends on how they are worded and how scotus rules.
you seem to think that a law before the court must be substantially different from any other law for it to be struck down separately, and you seem to think that the converse is also true.
That will only happen if scotus says that we have a constitutional right to ssm, that will dump the other bans.
you are substantially mistaken to think that just because they might find these particular 4 bans as invalid that the other bans don't have a chance to defend at scotus. If scotus finds a way to drop these particular bans and not find a constitutional right to ssm then the remaining states will still have the right to reach scotus in defense of their bans, and we will still have the right to sue over those bans.
If they find that there is NO constitutional right to SSM, that will also NOT upend the rulings from the other courts striking down their bans. It will only allow them to try and pass new bans based on the method of constitutional amendments in their particular states, and in fact in that circumstance they might not even have to amend their state constitutions, just pass new laws.
that you don't know or understand that does not mean I am wrong, it means you need to learn more about what scotus can do and often does.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




The wording of the actual ban may be construed as unconstitutional without finding the ban itself unconstitutional. SCOTUS continually sidesteps certain issues until they are ready to decide, as all the marriage and gay related cases show. so my opinion is that they might do so in this particular set of rulings also.
Again it is all speculation and a good part of the first session was devoted to questions that seem to ask "how do we get there AND avoid finding it an absolute constitutional right".
Scalia was correct in his questioning that if it is found a constitutional right then it is possible for it to be in contention with other constitutional rights. So in that case some clown looking to be a provocation, think a Tammy Bruce type, might demand a wedding in a Catholic Church and a Priest to preside. In that situation her intent would be to get a SCOTUS ruling that says religion outranks other constitutional rights (she would be trying to lose even as she pressed the case).
If they decide narrowly that the written bans are unconstitutional for wording, and only apply it to those cases, that leaves the debate alive and they will have the opportunity to try and rewrite their laws, which starts this mess all over again.
At no time, to date, has a SCOTUS ruling found a constitutional right to SSM. We are hoping they find one now, but I will not count on that until it happens.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




"Scalia was correct in his questioning that if it is found a constitutional right then it is possible for it to be in contention with other constitutional rights."
Hogwash, and he knows it. No Catholic priest is required to marry two Methodists or two Jews, or even two Catholics if he doesn't think they are serious enough. And no church or clergy can be sued for that. That's settled law, even with opposite-sex marriages. There is absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that changes that.
Some moron may file a lawsuit to try to force it, but that will be laughed out of court, and rightly so.
If a member of the clergy happens to have a day job a a county courthouse or as a civil justice of the peace, they might be sued in their civil capacity for denying a license, but again, that's no different than if a county clerk refused a license to two Jews for not accepting Jesus.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > lymis  • 2 hours ago 




you assume that because different religions have been given a pass for not obeying the letter of the law, that this will happen if a case as I suggested was provoked.
I can think of at least 4 states, LA, TX, AL, MS, that would not laugh it out of court.
The only way a clergy who is a clerk at a county courthouse could be sued, under current law is if they refused to do their day job, and only in states with current protections.
If SSM is found as a Constitutional right, some clown like a Tammy Bruce, will bring that case against a clergy in their religious role. They will be trying to provoke a Constitutional crisis between the ruling and the 1st Amendment.
denying that that will happen is setting yourself up to be upset and surprised and it still won't affect the reality that Rabbis don't marry Catholics in their church or do interfaith marriages.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




As I've responded elsewhere, if they find no constitutional right to SSM, then every federal case we've won will most likely be controverted in subsequent court cases. The bans in OH, KY, TN, and MI do not as a group differ from bans in any other state. This really is an either/or scenario in terms of the constitution.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




Well don't be surprised if/when SCOTUS rules and you are wrong.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




I will be very surprised if I'm wrong.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




well let's hope you are not surprised and that we get a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling in our favor.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




We will. I'll even take 5-4. :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JustSayin' > Bruno  • 2 hours ago 




there ya go, I'm just shooting for the moon. :)
It would really upset the fundies if a 7-2 happened which would just break my fucking heart.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > JustSayin'  • 2 hours ago 




Right. Boo frickin' hoo.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


























Avatar
kevin vincent > JustSayin'  • 3 hours ago 




Well what do you expect from Louisiana and Texas? Part of me doubt's that La will go for it as for Texas what happened to that Marriage bill thing by the 'Marriage is so Sacred I knocked up my Mistress and left my first wife to marry her' proposed? It went into pending right?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
JustSayin' > kevin vincent  • 3 hours ago 




Kevin,
Piyusha has stomped his little hindu-christian foot and said it will happen so I guessing it will make it out of committee onto the floor for a vote.
the majority of our "republicans" in office include a great many former democrats that switched when Obama was first elected. They are not likely to want to fight Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family here in LA.
I have not checked on the Texas bill for a few days, last I saw it was in committee or going into committee.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/ryan-t-anderson-were-gonna-win.html#disqus_thread












     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS
NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided
NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win







Anderson writes for the Heritage Foundation:
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
 Even Justice Stephen Breyer got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.”
 He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy. If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.
Earlier today Anderson boasted that it sounded like the justices have read his anti-gay marriage book.
Labels: crackpots, hate groups, Heritage Foundation, LGBT rights, marriage equality, religion, Ryan T. Anderson, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       198 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    


Quantcast



Quantcast  

 





Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/ryan-t-anderson-were-gonna-win.html#disqus_thread










     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Haters Ranted Nonstop Outside SCOTUS
NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided
NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy
Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys
AUDIO: Court Hears Recognition Question
Early Reports As Hearings Conclude
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win







Anderson writes for the Heritage Foundation:
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
 Even Justice Stephen Breyer got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.”
 He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy. If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.
Earlier today Anderson boasted that it sounded like the justices have read his anti-gay marriage book.
Labels: crackpots, hate groups, Heritage Foundation, LGBT rights, marriage equality, religion, Ryan T. Anderson, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       198 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    


Quantcast



Quantcast  

 





Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/ryan-t-anderson-were-gonna-win.html#disqus_thread









  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



20 Stars Who Are Aging Terribly…#6 Will Make You Cringe!  PressRoomVIP 




Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product revealed!  The Motley Fool 




The Highest Paying Cash Back Credit Card Has Just Hit The Market  NextAdvisor 




Free Installation and Activation* on ADT Pulse®  ADT Home Security 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  112 comments 


 PBS Examines Kentucky's Case   66 comments 


Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex …  37 comments 






 119 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
TampaZeke  • 7 hours ago 




Bullshit argument. Churches have ALWAYS been allowed to discriminate. They can deny to perform ANY marriage, even if such denial would be illegal in a civil circumstance. Pastors can refuse to marry couples of mixed races (violating Constitutional racial protections and Loving v Virginia); they can refuse to marry people of other, or mixed, faiths (in violation of laws and Constitutional religious protections). They can, AND DO, refuse to marry people based on ethnicity, creed, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any number of personal prejudices. Allowing same-sex marriage will in no way change this and Scalia knows this good and well.
 
37 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > TampaZeke  • 7 hours ago 




Yup, the Bapist church in my area hasn't been forced to perform any same sex weddings despite the pastor's warning day after day that if same sex marriage came to NY, we would kicking down the doors demanding to be married.
 Didn't happen, it's a crock and Scalia knows it.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Who in their right mind would even want a bigot like that to perform their ceremony? Not gonna happen.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ginger Snap > Tor  • 5 hours ago 




Most of us have spent our whole lives trying to forget what churches have done to us. So why on earth would we want to crawl back to them to celebrate our special day.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Houndentenor > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




And if someone did no judge would even hear the case.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Stogiebear > TampaZeke  • 6 hours ago 




This bullshit from Scalia just proves he's an ideologue and idiot.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Houndentenor > Stogiebear  • 6 hours ago 




No, he knew exactly what he was doing. He's injecting a right wing fear-mongering talking point into the public record. Not stupid at all. Evil, perhaps, but not stupid.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoyalScribe > TampaZeke  • 6 hours ago 




Yeah, Scalia's question is stupidly disingenuous. Legislators could carve out protections for churches but SCOTUS can't use the Establishment Clause and centuries of precedent to do the same? Bull fucking shit.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > RoyalScribe  • 5 hours ago 




They don't need to, it's already there. No one can sue the Catholic Church for not hiring female priests and you can't sue to make them perform weddings for gay couples any more than you could force them to conduct a Jewish ceremony or a wedding for divorcées. Saying that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual ones can't possibly give them a legal right to a Catholic wedding because heterosexuals don't have that 'right'.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell > TampaZeke  • 6 hours ago 




Of course. religious freedom, which includes whether or not to sanctify a marriage is enshrined in the Constitution. However, it is a completely different issue than equal governmental recognition of marriage agreements, and Scalia knows it. Kennedy or Roberts could pressure whoever's job it is to write the official decision of the court to include this if they wish, but the argument is so ridiculous that religions would be compelled to recognize or perform such marriages, I doubt they will bother.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MikeBx2  • 7 hours ago 




Ministers being forced? That sounds more like the nonsensical lies Bryan Fischer spreads, not an argument from a Supreme Court Justice.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
canoebum > MikeBx2  • 6 hours ago 




Question for Scalia: are Roman Catholic priests required to marry Episcopalians? How many Methodists has your son married in his parish? They are shown the door, legally...and Scalia knows it. He's such a shitbag liar.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MikeBx2 > MikeBx2  • 6 hours ago 




There would be no law needed to force ministers to perform ceremonies, simply because a minister is not required for legal marriage. I know of Baptist Ministers who won't perform a ceremony for those who have previously been married. They have the right to refuse.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > MikeBx2  • 7 hours ago 




Guess who sent out the e-mail to the haters and told them to use that line.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
oikos  • 7 hours ago 





  
Thumbnail
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Smith > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




This is going to be a long two months.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




Sure is.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ed Burrow > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




so...i saw this porn once (ok, this morning), and boy, it made the time go by really fast.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Derek in DC > Ed Burrow  • 6 hours ago 




No matter what SCOTUS decides, at least we have Colby Keller.
 
Thumbnail
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > Ed Burrow  • 7 hours ago 




I see some of that most mornings and you are right, time flies. :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
matt n  • 7 hours ago 




what a terrible point of view from roberts. we are trying to join the institution. we just want to be able to get married. we don't want to change some abstract idea of what marriage is. this is not abstract to us. it's our lives.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




And nothing we're demanding changes marriage for a single straight person anywhere.
People who marry do not join the institution of marriage. They marry each other. Every individual marriage stands alone. Nothing about how or who the neighbors marry changes that.
Even once same-sex couples have full and equal marriage rights, the subset of married people who are opposite sex couples experience no change whatsoever to their own marriage or their involvement in the "institution."
A change which makes no difference is no change whatsoever, as far as straight couples are concerned.
Other than feeling that their own marriage is tarnished because some other people are allowed to marry - which is not and cannot be the basis of constitutional inequality.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
PLAINTOM > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




This is ironic, because Robert's adopted children changes the definition of family which was based on biological relationships.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
matt n > PLAINTOM  • 6 hours ago 




good point
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Stev84 > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




I'm just sick to death of this absurd idea that there is this one unchanging view of the so-called "institution of marriage". It's incomprehensible how a learned person can think that.
Actually, I'm sick of the term and how it is even seen as an "institution". I see marriage as a legal framework. And a very flexible one at that.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Stev84  • 7 hours ago 




Because they're bigots and their religious beliefs paint us as sinners who will burn in hell.
 That trumps any logic they have, best shown by Chester Straub, who was the only judge out of the ten on the district and circuit level who heard Doma related cases to think it should be upheld.
 He used the same arguments Roberts did but couldn't resist putting in a couple of lines about how holy and sacred marriage was, thus showing his entire 40 page dissent to be based on religion and nothing more.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
mbmarquis69 > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




The other side has yet to explain how their marriages will be changed by allowing mine to join in equal recognition.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Derek in DC  • 7 hours ago 




"Scalia concerned about ministers being forced to perform SS marriages."
How many Hindu couples go into Episcopal churches and demand that a priest perform a Hindu wedding ceremony? How many Baptist couples walk into Muslim mosques demanding that the imam marry them? This would all be so much easier if anti-ssm folk would just reacquaint themselves with reality.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > Derek in DC  • 6 hours ago 




Hell, even the UU church I used to go to requires that one of the people must be a member of that congregation. If the UUs can do it, obviously any church can do it.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Christophe > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




We were married in UU church here in Pa, they did not even ask. They took our freewill donation and gave us a standard, beautifully respectful service, by the minister who signed the license properly. The couple behind us waited 38 years - got the same caring, professional service. And so on. No issues.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > Christophe  • 6 hours ago 




Congratulations...all the way around.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Christophe > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




Many thanks - and to all those loving, committed couples out there who know far better than to approach a hostile, inhospitable clergy or congregation to officiate on their big day. Why, if UU had not *offered*, the runner-up was the clerk of the court, just doing her daily job, according to the law.. Oops, that's rather the crux of the matter huh ;)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
TommyTune > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




So true. Ever heard the joke "Unitarians believe in one God, at most?"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




I used to attend a UU Fellowship 30 years ago. When a couple wanted to get married, the Minister, Tony, chatted with the couple long enough to figure out that they weren't getting married on a whim - that they took it seriously - and that there was mutual respect. If they weren't members, he asked for a donation for the heat and lights, pretty much whatever they could afford, but he waived that if money was tight. For the SS couples, he couldn't file paperwork with the state, but as far as the UU Congregation was concerned, there was no difference with OS couples - whose paperwork was filed with the state.
I don't know that he turned away any couples, my guess is yes, but not based on gender, theism/atheism. Quite a few Atheists, Buddhists, etc., etc. as well as Liberal Christians were members of the fellowship. Fairly mixed race and SocioEconomic status too.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Derek in DC  • 5 hours ago 




How many Hindu couples go into Episcopal churches and demand that a priest perform a Hindu wedding ceremony?
I think some need to start doing so, but they should go to Scalia's Catholic parish and say he sent them...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Tor  • 7 hours ago 




Hey Scalia, When was the last Catholic priest ordered to marry a divorced person?
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teddy21 > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




Yeah, I can't believe he said that.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




Please be gentle, but is it possible that he asked to set up his way out for voting on our side? That is, if that's his objection and it was answered to his satisfaction, might that not...?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




Fat chance that Scalia will end up on the pro-marriage equality side.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




Never mind. That was probably too stupid to post.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > David Walker  • 3 hours ago 




Not stupid at all.
More generous than Scalia has earned though.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BlueberriesForMe > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




In a comment in another post, someone wrote about the possibility of a 9-0 decision but only in the environment of our universe being merged with a parallel universe at the time. So, I'm looking at your possibility in that light. :+)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > BlueberriesForMe  • 5 hours ago 




You're being kind...kinder than it merits. Thank you.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Houndentenor > BlueberriesForMe  • 6 hours ago 




I might die of shock if that happens. Warn me please beforehand if that's an actual possibility.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 7 hours ago 




Scotusblog
Kennedy's relative silence in the second argument may be good evidence that he intends to rule in favor of the couples on the main question -- that is, it suggests he will vote to require states to allow same-sex marriages in their own states, which will effectively moot the question of whether they are required to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in other states.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
PLAINTOM > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




If individual states are required to allow same sex marriage it will almost render the recognition question moot. In some instances, if states don't change their laws to recognize out of state same sex marriages, couples would could simply get a new licence in their current state of residence. This would be a minor inconvenience compared to the extensive legal work couples now face trying to create wills, power of attorney...etc.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




I believe that if SCOTUS does compel all states to recognize a marriage performed in another state it will be a first. By custom, this is an issue that has never been resolved -- for example first cousin marriage is recognized in California but illegal in Texas- yet states which do not recognize cousin marriage as far as I know have never enforced this for people who have been married in other states. I do not think SCOTUS has ever made a decision on this, and the US federal government does not have an opinion on cousin marriage.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Houndentenor > Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




It is actually illegal (a criminal offense) to marry your 1st cousin in Texas but legal in quite a few states. (There's a whole wikipedia page on this with maps. In fact it's rare worldwide for cousin marriage to be outlawed. (I only learned that last part yesterday!) Anyway, you are right, this has never really gone to SCOTUS and maybe should have. If a couple gets married in a way that would be illegal in another state, does that state have to recognize that marriage. Technically I think that answer is yes. They do have to honor a divorce, however, because full faith and credit applies to legal decisions but not to laws. A lot of unresolved issues that will probably not be resolved in this decision.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > Sam_Handwich  • 7 hours ago 




Exactly what I was thinking.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Bruno  • 7 hours ago 




Everybody is freaking out about that one question and ignoring the fact Kennedy talked twice about the length of Lawrence till now being the same as the gap between Brown and Loving.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I'll admit that that question does freak me out slightly. The way he presented the whole idea of the definition being established for millennia gives me pause that he's ready to change it. We'll just have to see how it plays into his ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Bruno  • 7 hours ago 




It freaked me out as well but he followed that question up with the but Lawrence question.
 He seemed far more concerned about dignity and the children being raised by same sex couples then the other question.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Yes and this article addressed that very well: http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
(hat tip to Claude)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Corey > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




Someone asked a good question on SCOTUSBlog a short while ago:
"Is it possible that the more conservative justices were angling to rule against the states on the second question (requiring them to acknowledge marriages performed in other states) so that they could convince Kennedy to rule against the plaintiffs on the first question and limit the overall scope of the ruling?"
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 7 hours ago 




I 100% agree with that interpretation, very encouraging in
my mind.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TommyTune  • 7 hours ago 




Perhaps someone should have asked Roberts if allowing blacks and whites to marry each other in 1967 "changed what the institution is." Anyone who's a student of marital history knows that the institution has been in a state of perpetual change since its inception. What a stupid thing to say from a supposedly learned man.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
joeyj1220 > TommyTune  • 7 hours ago 




yeah, I'm surprised they never challenged him on that
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Paul Forsyth  • 7 hours ago 




I'm on pins and needles for you my American friends!
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Pete  • 6 hours ago 




I can not believe that Scalia actually belies that ministers could be forced to preform marriages of their denomination for couple who do not qualify for the particular religious ceremony.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Pete  • 6 hours ago 




Well, 'cause I can walk into an Orthodox synagogue and just ask the rabbi to perform my wedding even though I'm not Jewish. Right? Everyone knows that. *massive facepalm* This man is on the Supreme Court….
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Pete  • 6 hours ago 




Well, in Scalia's defense, everyone knows (knows!!!) the five closed Walmarts are being converted to FEMA re-education camps (connected by tunnels!!1!) for clergy that dare to stand against BigGay. Jade Helm 15, contrails, Agenda21, and stuff. We all know where this is headed.
♫ ♪ It's the end of the World as we know it...♪ ♫
/s
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




From SCOTUSblog:

  

"Best evid Kennedy will strike down SSM bans is disinterest in “recognition” case. If bans survived, he would be interested in recognition."
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis  • 7 hours ago 




I'm still waiting to see how Scalia gets out of the corner he painted himself into in his Lawrence dissent, wherein he said that there was no conceivable reason remaining not to allow same-sex marriages.
I don't for a moment think he'll vote for us, but the contortions he'll have to put himself through to get out of that one will be epic. And grumpy.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Oh, but wouldn't it be delicious if he wrote a dissent that laid similar ground work for "If we allow this, then there's no conceivable justification for laws privileging religious liberty or exemptions to recognizing gay rights" to be repeatedly quoted in future LGBT equality lawsuits.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > lymis  • 6 hours ago 




Here, I'll diagram his dissent:
  
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
m_lp_ql_m > GreatLakeSailor  • 6 hours ago 




I've seen santorum that looks a lot like mustard. :/
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Reality.Bites > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




He'll simply ignore it. Easy.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stev84 > Reality.Bites  • 6 hours ago 




The same way he ignored this great line of his from Employment Division v. Smith:
"...while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




I have no idea what Scalia is on about. There is no requirement that churches or ministers marry anyone or provide a ceremony of any sort to anyone. There are still churches that don't allow racial mixing!
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
sherman > MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




And our lawyer did not do a good job of swatting that argument down.
She could have simply said in Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS took interracial marriage out of the hands of states, yet churches are still able to refuse marriage to them.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
matt n > MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




he knows that very well. he is lying. time for him to go to confession with his gay priest son.https://
  
Thumbnail
 
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




Does he call his son "Father?"
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
matt n > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




probably. all right wing catholics with sons who are preists call them father. liberal catholic parents use their name.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TommyTune > matt n  • 6 hours ago 




I see gay behind those lying eyes.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ginger Snap > TommyTune  • 5 hours ago 




I thought I was seeing glory hole visitor in his eyes, but yous will do.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
trouble94114 > matt n  • 5 hours ago 




how sad that this guy is a priest. He's actually kinda cute. Lose the collar and I'd wind up cruising in Home Depot on a Sunday morning.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ray Butlers > MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia is a classic bigot.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




If I were Kenedy I would want to appear as if my mind is not completely made up on the issue, even playing devil's advocate with my own views in public. After all, politics, even on SCOTUS deliberations is all about show business, and Kennedy will be enjoying the light focused on him over the next two months as the deciding vote here. I wanted to post the video of Nathan Lane singing the Irving Berlin classic "there no business like show business" from You Tube here, but the seriousness of the subject matter does not call for levity.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Duh-David  • 6 hours ago 




The haters have spent so much time and venom trying to conflate civil marriage and church marriage. That Scalia is confusing the two is further proof that he has had a stroke. Can someone please give him an aspirin and get him to the hospital without delay.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
kevin vincent  • 7 hours ago 




Leave it too the most conservite judge to be the one most ignorant of the 1st amendment *facepalm*
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
matt n > kevin vincent  • 7 hours ago 




he's lying.time to go to confession with his gay son, a priest in arlington, just across the river. hopefully he won't have a heart attack in the next few hours before he can clear his soul.
  
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
kevin vincent > matt n  • 6 hours ago 




Yeah still exasperating though I'm like REALLY!? Churches are protected by the First Amendment they are free to refuse SSM as it is their right and plenty are ready already (hell it was CHURCHES which brought NC down saying banning SSM violated their religious belief which was hilarious)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Houndentenor  • 6 hours ago 




Scalia needs to be impeached. No minister, rabbi, imam, priest or any other religious officiant has EVER been forced to marry anyone and they won't be forced to marry gay couples either. He knows this and threw it in anyway. He and Thomas both need to be impeached for accepting bribes and removed from the court.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
garygdw  • 6 hours ago 




Transcript part 1: http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
garygdw > garygdw  • 6 hours ago 




Part 2 Transcript is up:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




From what I have seen I would say that Kennedy is ready to
rule for us on the first question and that even without that the court is certainly at least open to the 2nd question. I think this went very well for us and I look forward to listening to the full audio.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Oh, horseshit, Tony, and you know it.
SCOTUS already recognizes a fundamental, inalienable right to marriage for straight couples, and your priest is isn't forced to marry anyone he disapproves of. This is no change to that.
If a minister happens to have a day job at the county courthouse, or is a licensed civil justice of the peace, then he or she will be required to follow civil law for any eligible candidates. But if they're doing weddings as a minister in a religious capacity, they're free to pick and choose and you damn well know it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Your post is making all those Buddhist/Muslim couples longing for an Orthodox Jewish wedding very sad.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Robincho  • 6 hours ago 




If I were arguing this in front of the Supremes, I would merely darken the chamber and roll Betty Bowers and her definitions of Xtian "marriage."
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
perversatile > Robincho  • 3 hours ago 




Tho that would be delightful,
(Betty Bowers saves the World ~ yet again)
it seems that Facts have very little to do with Truth,
and Truth doesn't always defeat ignorance and prejudices. It merely revels them.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
giddypony  • 6 hours ago 




Catholic Scalia knows that Catholic churches can refuse to perform marriages if the couple doesn't agree to raise any children Catholic.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I'll say this, Kennedy asked pretty much the same questions here as he did during the Prop 8 hearing.
 Would have been nice if our side was ready for him this time.
 I think he's going to rule in our favor but no need to stumble in front of him.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jodie  • 5 hours ago 




I wonder if the people against same-sex marriage realize that it doesn't take religion to have a marriage. Marriage, to me, is a legal contract, not a religious one. It binds a couple together legally.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JJS_prime > Jodie  • an hour ago 




Most of them do not know that the church service is totally optional. Sad.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
matt n  • 6 hours ago 




every time this lawyer says "the state wants to link each child to his mom and dad," i want to add "the state wants to link each child to his mom and dad and apple pie. jesus...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > matt n  • 6 hours ago 




I wish RBG had asked, "So when can we expect a case against divorce?"
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
ben  • 7 hours ago 




I'm pretty sure they will decide based on SEX discrimination and not sexual orientation discrimination in order to avoid creating a new protected class. That's sort of the minimalist way to do it. I think Roberts will join the 4 liberals and Kennedy in a majority with either an Alito or Alito/Scalia concurrence saying that they agree with the legal logic but think that lawrence and windsor should have gone the other way. And then Thomas or Thomas/Scalia saying that gay marriage bans should stand because Jesus, and also reasons.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




He apparently argued that even a 70 year old couple could still have children. I just don't see how anyone can take his argument seriously.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
grada3784 > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




It says so in the Bible. Several times.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Freep this poll: http://www.nj.com/politics/ind...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd Allis > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Currently 68% yes!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TampaZeke > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Done! We need more flying monkey love!
Send an alert to Joe so that he can send out a call to take wing!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RobynWatts > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Done. I'm surprised at the numbers at the moment (54% yes, 44% no, 2% undecided.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




We need to fly! The votes are very close at 10.56 mdt, 52% for 46% against.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > Mark  • 6 hours ago 




79% says Yes now
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JJS_prime  • 2 hours ago 




Chris Johnson, calling you a stupid ass doesn't begin to express the truth. Look up the address of a library. Go there and have them show you a copy of the constitution. READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Also, when the court mandated interracial marriage, there was no requirement that a church perform such marriages. NONE! Why? Read the first amendment again.
You are such a dumb fuck I am amazed you can use twitter.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




If we're doing anything, we're trying to REjoin an institution the early Catholic Church tossed us out of and then proceeded to spread their poison worldwide.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
garygdw  • 6 hours ago 




I'm holding my tongue until I hear from Lyle Denniston
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paula  • 6 hours ago 




Maybe, I'm just too pessimistic, I don't have a good feeling about this so far
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor  • 6 hours ago 




Ari Ezra Waldman always worth a read...
http://www.towleroad.com/ari-e...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




Breyer grilling the state lawyer is great, roughly at the hour mark in part one

  
Thumbnail
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cjs > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




This is the look on my face every time I read one of Scalia's opinions.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > cjs  • 6 hours ago 




Just add an eyeroll for mine.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Chris H.  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia been watching Fox Noise or something??? That's been the right's talking point for years. But, of course I expect nothing less from Scalia than right-wing rhetoric.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Interviews with plaintiffs are ongoing on C-span 3…some
interesting thoughts there.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




I wish I was as confident as Chris Geidner apparently is.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisg...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
another_steve > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




Chris is displaying chutzpah, going out on that limb. I haven't seen anything as "celebratory" anywhere else on the web, and (like a lot of people here) I've been reading quite a bit today.
Most analysts who follow the Supreme Court say you can't necessarily tell how a Justice is going to vote on a case based on this or that question s/he asks.
Nevertheless, it's always good to be hopeful. :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
garygdw  • 7 hours ago 




Part 2 audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TexPlant  • 7 hours ago 




Hard to know what to think....what if the evil right got to Kennedy....then again how can they rule against their prior rulings or lack of rulings. I guess they could rule and just never actually clear up the issue at all. where they mandate non-marriage states recognize sum but allow them to decide as a state. That would fuck everything up!!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/early-reports-as-hearings-conclude.html#disqus_thread








  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



20 Stars Who Are Aging Terribly…#6 Will Make You Cringe!  PressRoomVIP 




Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product revealed!  The Motley Fool 




The Highest Paying Cash Back Credit Card Has Just Hit The Market  NextAdvisor 




Free Installation and Activation* on ADT Pulse®  ADT Home Security 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Buzzfeed Predicts Win For The Good Guys   147 comments 


Mat Staver: All GOP Candidates Must …  112 comments 


 PBS Examines Kentucky's Case   66 comments 


Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Same-Sex …  37 comments 






 119 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
TampaZeke  • 7 hours ago 




Bullshit argument. Churches have ALWAYS been allowed to discriminate. They can deny to perform ANY marriage, even if such denial would be illegal in a civil circumstance. Pastors can refuse to marry couples of mixed races (violating Constitutional racial protections and Loving v Virginia); they can refuse to marry people of other, or mixed, faiths (in violation of laws and Constitutional religious protections). They can, AND DO, refuse to marry people based on ethnicity, creed, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any number of personal prejudices. Allowing same-sex marriage will in no way change this and Scalia knows this good and well.
 
37 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > TampaZeke  • 7 hours ago 




Yup, the Bapist church in my area hasn't been forced to perform any same sex weddings despite the pastor's warning day after day that if same sex marriage came to NY, we would kicking down the doors demanding to be married.
 Didn't happen, it's a crock and Scalia knows it.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Who in their right mind would even want a bigot like that to perform their ceremony? Not gonna happen.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ginger Snap > Tor  • 5 hours ago 




Most of us have spent our whole lives trying to forget what churches have done to us. So why on earth would we want to crawl back to them to celebrate our special day.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Houndentenor > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




And if someone did no judge would even hear the case.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Stogiebear > TampaZeke  • 6 hours ago 




This bullshit from Scalia just proves he's an ideologue and idiot.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Houndentenor > Stogiebear  • 6 hours ago 




No, he knew exactly what he was doing. He's injecting a right wing fear-mongering talking point into the public record. Not stupid at all. Evil, perhaps, but not stupid.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
RoyalScribe > TampaZeke  • 6 hours ago 




Yeah, Scalia's question is stupidly disingenuous. Legislators could carve out protections for churches but SCOTUS can't use the Establishment Clause and centuries of precedent to do the same? Bull fucking shit.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > RoyalScribe  • 5 hours ago 




They don't need to, it's already there. No one can sue the Catholic Church for not hiring female priests and you can't sue to make them perform weddings for gay couples any more than you could force them to conduct a Jewish ceremony or a wedding for divorcées. Saying that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual ones can't possibly give them a legal right to a Catholic wedding because heterosexuals don't have that 'right'.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell > TampaZeke  • 6 hours ago 




Of course. religious freedom, which includes whether or not to sanctify a marriage is enshrined in the Constitution. However, it is a completely different issue than equal governmental recognition of marriage agreements, and Scalia knows it. Kennedy or Roberts could pressure whoever's job it is to write the official decision of the court to include this if they wish, but the argument is so ridiculous that religions would be compelled to recognize or perform such marriages, I doubt they will bother.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MikeBx2  • 7 hours ago 




Ministers being forced? That sounds more like the nonsensical lies Bryan Fischer spreads, not an argument from a Supreme Court Justice.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
canoebum > MikeBx2  • 6 hours ago 




Question for Scalia: are Roman Catholic priests required to marry Episcopalians? How many Methodists has your son married in his parish? They are shown the door, legally...and Scalia knows it. He's such a shitbag liar.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
MikeBx2 > MikeBx2  • 6 hours ago 




There would be no law needed to force ministers to perform ceremonies, simply because a minister is not required for legal marriage. I know of Baptist Ministers who won't perform a ceremony for those who have previously been married. They have the right to refuse.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > MikeBx2  • 7 hours ago 




Guess who sent out the e-mail to the haters and told them to use that line.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
oikos  • 7 hours ago 





  
Thumbnail
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Smith > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




This is going to be a long two months.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




Sure is.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ed Burrow > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




so...i saw this porn once (ok, this morning), and boy, it made the time go by really fast.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Derek in DC > Ed Burrow  • 6 hours ago 




No matter what SCOTUS decides, at least we have Colby Keller.
 
Thumbnail
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos > Ed Burrow  • 7 hours ago 




I see some of that most mornings and you are right, time flies. :)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
matt n  • 7 hours ago 




what a terrible point of view from roberts. we are trying to join the institution. we just want to be able to get married. we don't want to change some abstract idea of what marriage is. this is not abstract to us. it's our lives.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




And nothing we're demanding changes marriage for a single straight person anywhere.
People who marry do not join the institution of marriage. They marry each other. Every individual marriage stands alone. Nothing about how or who the neighbors marry changes that.
Even once same-sex couples have full and equal marriage rights, the subset of married people who are opposite sex couples experience no change whatsoever to their own marriage or their involvement in the "institution."
A change which makes no difference is no change whatsoever, as far as straight couples are concerned.
Other than feeling that their own marriage is tarnished because some other people are allowed to marry - which is not and cannot be the basis of constitutional inequality.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
PLAINTOM > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




This is ironic, because Robert's adopted children changes the definition of family which was based on biological relationships.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
matt n > PLAINTOM  • 6 hours ago 




good point
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Stev84 > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




I'm just sick to death of this absurd idea that there is this one unchanging view of the so-called "institution of marriage". It's incomprehensible how a learned person can think that.
Actually, I'm sick of the term and how it is even seen as an "institution". I see marriage as a legal framework. And a very flexible one at that.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Stev84  • 7 hours ago 




Because they're bigots and their religious beliefs paint us as sinners who will burn in hell.
 That trumps any logic they have, best shown by Chester Straub, who was the only judge out of the ten on the district and circuit level who heard Doma related cases to think it should be upheld.
 He used the same arguments Roberts did but couldn't resist putting in a couple of lines about how holy and sacred marriage was, thus showing his entire 40 page dissent to be based on religion and nothing more.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
mbmarquis69 > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




The other side has yet to explain how their marriages will be changed by allowing mine to join in equal recognition.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Derek in DC  • 7 hours ago 




"Scalia concerned about ministers being forced to perform SS marriages."
How many Hindu couples go into Episcopal churches and demand that a priest perform a Hindu wedding ceremony? How many Baptist couples walk into Muslim mosques demanding that the imam marry them? This would all be so much easier if anti-ssm folk would just reacquaint themselves with reality.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > Derek in DC  • 6 hours ago 




Hell, even the UU church I used to go to requires that one of the people must be a member of that congregation. If the UUs can do it, obviously any church can do it.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Christophe > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




We were married in UU church here in Pa, they did not even ask. They took our freewill donation and gave us a standard, beautifully respectful service, by the minister who signed the license properly. The couple behind us waited 38 years - got the same caring, professional service. And so on. No issues.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > Christophe  • 6 hours ago 




Congratulations...all the way around.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Christophe > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




Many thanks - and to all those loving, committed couples out there who know far better than to approach a hostile, inhospitable clergy or congregation to officiate on their big day. Why, if UU had not *offered*, the runner-up was the clerk of the court, just doing her daily job, according to the law.. Oops, that's rather the crux of the matter huh ;)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
TommyTune > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




So true. Ever heard the joke "Unitarians believe in one God, at most?"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




I used to attend a UU Fellowship 30 years ago. When a couple wanted to get married, the Minister, Tony, chatted with the couple long enough to figure out that they weren't getting married on a whim - that they took it seriously - and that there was mutual respect. If they weren't members, he asked for a donation for the heat and lights, pretty much whatever they could afford, but he waived that if money was tight. For the SS couples, he couldn't file paperwork with the state, but as far as the UU Congregation was concerned, there was no difference with OS couples - whose paperwork was filed with the state.
I don't know that he turned away any couples, my guess is yes, but not based on gender, theism/atheism. Quite a few Atheists, Buddhists, etc., etc. as well as Liberal Christians were members of the fellowship. Fairly mixed race and SocioEconomic status too.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Derek in DC  • 5 hours ago 




How many Hindu couples go into Episcopal churches and demand that a priest perform a Hindu wedding ceremony?
I think some need to start doing so, but they should go to Scalia's Catholic parish and say he sent them...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Tor  • 7 hours ago 




Hey Scalia, When was the last Catholic priest ordered to marry a divorced person?
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
teddy21 > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




Yeah, I can't believe he said that.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




Please be gentle, but is it possible that he asked to set up his way out for voting on our side? That is, if that's his objection and it was answered to his satisfaction, might that not...?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




Fat chance that Scalia will end up on the pro-marriage equality side.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David Walker > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




Never mind. That was probably too stupid to post.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
IamM > David Walker  • 3 hours ago 




Not stupid at all.
More generous than Scalia has earned though.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BlueberriesForMe > David Walker  • 6 hours ago 




In a comment in another post, someone wrote about the possibility of a 9-0 decision but only in the environment of our universe being merged with a parallel universe at the time. So, I'm looking at your possibility in that light. :+)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Walker > BlueberriesForMe  • 5 hours ago 




You're being kind...kinder than it merits. Thank you.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Houndentenor > BlueberriesForMe  • 6 hours ago 




I might die of shock if that happens. Warn me please beforehand if that's an actual possibility.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 7 hours ago 




Scotusblog
Kennedy's relative silence in the second argument may be good evidence that he intends to rule in favor of the couples on the main question -- that is, it suggests he will vote to require states to allow same-sex marriages in their own states, which will effectively moot the question of whether they are required to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in other states.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
PLAINTOM > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




If individual states are required to allow same sex marriage it will almost render the recognition question moot. In some instances, if states don't change their laws to recognize out of state same sex marriages, couples would could simply get a new licence in their current state of residence. This would be a minor inconvenience compared to the extensive legal work couples now face trying to create wills, power of attorney...etc.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




I believe that if SCOTUS does compel all states to recognize a marriage performed in another state it will be a first. By custom, this is an issue that has never been resolved -- for example first cousin marriage is recognized in California but illegal in Texas- yet states which do not recognize cousin marriage as far as I know have never enforced this for people who have been married in other states. I do not think SCOTUS has ever made a decision on this, and the US federal government does not have an opinion on cousin marriage.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Houndentenor > Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




It is actually illegal (a criminal offense) to marry your 1st cousin in Texas but legal in quite a few states. (There's a whole wikipedia page on this with maps. In fact it's rare worldwide for cousin marriage to be outlawed. (I only learned that last part yesterday!) Anyway, you are right, this has never really gone to SCOTUS and maybe should have. If a couple gets married in a way that would be illegal in another state, does that state have to recognize that marriage. Technically I think that answer is yes. They do have to honor a divorce, however, because full faith and credit applies to legal decisions but not to laws. A lot of unresolved issues that will probably not be resolved in this decision.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bruno > Sam_Handwich  • 7 hours ago 




Exactly what I was thinking.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Bruno  • 7 hours ago 




Everybody is freaking out about that one question and ignoring the fact Kennedy talked twice about the length of Lawrence till now being the same as the gap between Brown and Loving.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I'll admit that that question does freak me out slightly. The way he presented the whole idea of the definition being established for millennia gives me pause that he's ready to change it. We'll just have to see how it plays into his ruling.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ninja0980 > Bruno  • 7 hours ago 




It freaked me out as well but he followed that question up with the but Lawrence question.
 He seemed far more concerned about dignity and the children being raised by same sex couples then the other question.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bruno > Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Yes and this article addressed that very well: http://www.bloombergview.com/a...
(hat tip to Claude)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Corey > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




Someone asked a good question on SCOTUSBlog a short while ago:
"Is it possible that the more conservative justices were angling to rule against the states on the second question (requiring them to acknowledge marriages performed in other states) so that they could convince Kennedy to rule against the plaintiffs on the first question and limit the overall scope of the ruling?"
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D > Sam_Handwich  • 7 hours ago 




I 100% agree with that interpretation, very encouraging in
my mind.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TommyTune  • 7 hours ago 




Perhaps someone should have asked Roberts if allowing blacks and whites to marry each other in 1967 "changed what the institution is." Anyone who's a student of marital history knows that the institution has been in a state of perpetual change since its inception. What a stupid thing to say from a supposedly learned man.
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
joeyj1220 > TommyTune  • 7 hours ago 




yeah, I'm surprised they never challenged him on that
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Paul Forsyth  • 7 hours ago 




I'm on pins and needles for you my American friends!
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Pete  • 6 hours ago 




I can not believe that Scalia actually belies that ministers could be forced to preform marriages of their denomination for couple who do not qualify for the particular religious ceremony.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnownDonorDad > Pete  • 6 hours ago 




Well, 'cause I can walk into an Orthodox synagogue and just ask the rabbi to perform my wedding even though I'm not Jewish. Right? Everyone knows that. *massive facepalm* This man is on the Supreme Court….
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > Pete  • 6 hours ago 




Well, in Scalia's defense, everyone knows (knows!!!) the five closed Walmarts are being converted to FEMA re-education camps (connected by tunnels!!1!) for clergy that dare to stand against BigGay. Jade Helm 15, contrails, Agenda21, and stuff. We all know where this is headed.
♫ ♪ It's the end of the World as we know it...♪ ♫
/s
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




From SCOTUSblog:

  

"Best evid Kennedy will strike down SSM bans is disinterest in “recognition” case. If bans survived, he would be interested in recognition."
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis  • 7 hours ago 




I'm still waiting to see how Scalia gets out of the corner he painted himself into in his Lawrence dissent, wherein he said that there was no conceivable reason remaining not to allow same-sex marriages.
I don't for a moment think he'll vote for us, but the contortions he'll have to put himself through to get out of that one will be epic. And grumpy.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Oh, but wouldn't it be delicious if he wrote a dissent that laid similar ground work for "If we allow this, then there's no conceivable justification for laws privileging religious liberty or exemptions to recognizing gay rights" to be repeatedly quoted in future LGBT equality lawsuits.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor > lymis  • 6 hours ago 




Here, I'll diagram his dissent:
  
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
m_lp_ql_m > GreatLakeSailor  • 6 hours ago 




I've seen santorum that looks a lot like mustard. :/
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Reality.Bites > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




He'll simply ignore it. Easy.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stev84 > Reality.Bites  • 6 hours ago 




The same way he ignored this great line of his from Employment Division v. Smith:
"...while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




I have no idea what Scalia is on about. There is no requirement that churches or ministers marry anyone or provide a ceremony of any sort to anyone. There are still churches that don't allow racial mixing!
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
sherman > MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




And our lawyer did not do a good job of swatting that argument down.
She could have simply said in Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS took interracial marriage out of the hands of states, yet churches are still able to refuse marriage to them.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
matt n > MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




he knows that very well. he is lying. time for him to go to confession with his gay priest son.https://
  
Thumbnail
 
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tor > matt n  • 7 hours ago 




Does he call his son "Father?"
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
matt n > Tor  • 6 hours ago 




probably. all right wing catholics with sons who are preists call them father. liberal catholic parents use their name.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TommyTune > matt n  • 6 hours ago 




I see gay behind those lying eyes.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ginger Snap > TommyTune  • 5 hours ago 




I thought I was seeing glory hole visitor in his eyes, but yous will do.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
trouble94114 > matt n  • 5 hours ago 




how sad that this guy is a priest. He's actually kinda cute. Lose the collar and I'd wind up cruising in Home Depot on a Sunday morning.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Ray Butlers > MJ Wise  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia is a classic bigot.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




If I were Kenedy I would want to appear as if my mind is not completely made up on the issue, even playing devil's advocate with my own views in public. After all, politics, even on SCOTUS deliberations is all about show business, and Kennedy will be enjoying the light focused on him over the next two months as the deciding vote here. I wanted to post the video of Nathan Lane singing the Irving Berlin classic "there no business like show business" from You Tube here, but the seriousness of the subject matter does not call for levity.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Duh-David  • 6 hours ago 




The haters have spent so much time and venom trying to conflate civil marriage and church marriage. That Scalia is confusing the two is further proof that he has had a stroke. Can someone please give him an aspirin and get him to the hospital without delay.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
kevin vincent  • 7 hours ago 




Leave it too the most conservite judge to be the one most ignorant of the 1st amendment *facepalm*
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
matt n > kevin vincent  • 7 hours ago 




he's lying.time to go to confession with his gay son, a priest in arlington, just across the river. hopefully he won't have a heart attack in the next few hours before he can clear his soul.
  
Thumbnail
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
kevin vincent > matt n  • 6 hours ago 




Yeah still exasperating though I'm like REALLY!? Churches are protected by the First Amendment they are free to refuse SSM as it is their right and plenty are ready already (hell it was CHURCHES which brought NC down saying banning SSM violated their religious belief which was hilarious)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Houndentenor  • 6 hours ago 




Scalia needs to be impeached. No minister, rabbi, imam, priest or any other religious officiant has EVER been forced to marry anyone and they won't be forced to marry gay couples either. He knows this and threw it in anyway. He and Thomas both need to be impeached for accepting bribes and removed from the court.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
garygdw  • 6 hours ago 




Transcript part 1: http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
garygdw > garygdw  • 6 hours ago 




Part 2 Transcript is up:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




From what I have seen I would say that Kennedy is ready to
rule for us on the first question and that even without that the court is certainly at least open to the 2nd question. I think this went very well for us and I look forward to listening to the full audio.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Oh, horseshit, Tony, and you know it.
SCOTUS already recognizes a fundamental, inalienable right to marriage for straight couples, and your priest is isn't forced to marry anyone he disapproves of. This is no change to that.
If a minister happens to have a day job at the county courthouse, or is a licensed civil justice of the peace, then he or she will be required to follow civil law for any eligible candidates. But if they're doing weddings as a minister in a religious capacity, they're free to pick and choose and you damn well know it.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > lymis  • 7 hours ago 




Your post is making all those Buddhist/Muslim couples longing for an Orthodox Jewish wedding very sad.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Robincho  • 6 hours ago 




If I were arguing this in front of the Supremes, I would merely darken the chamber and roll Betty Bowers and her definitions of Xtian "marriage."
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
perversatile > Robincho  • 3 hours ago 




Tho that would be delightful,
(Betty Bowers saves the World ~ yet again)
it seems that Facts have very little to do with Truth,
and Truth doesn't always defeat ignorance and prejudices. It merely revels them.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
giddypony  • 6 hours ago 




Catholic Scalia knows that Catholic churches can refuse to perform marriages if the couple doesn't agree to raise any children Catholic.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




I'll say this, Kennedy asked pretty much the same questions here as he did during the Prop 8 hearing.
 Would have been nice if our side was ready for him this time.
 I think he's going to rule in our favor but no need to stumble in front of him.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jodie  • 5 hours ago 




I wonder if the people against same-sex marriage realize that it doesn't take religion to have a marriage. Marriage, to me, is a legal contract, not a religious one. It binds a couple together legally.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JJS_prime > Jodie  • an hour ago 




Most of them do not know that the church service is totally optional. Sad.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
matt n  • 6 hours ago 




every time this lawyer says "the state wants to link each child to his mom and dad," i want to add "the state wants to link each child to his mom and dad and apple pie. jesus...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > matt n  • 6 hours ago 




I wish RBG had asked, "So when can we expect a case against divorce?"
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
ben  • 7 hours ago 




I'm pretty sure they will decide based on SEX discrimination and not sexual orientation discrimination in order to avoid creating a new protected class. That's sort of the minimalist way to do it. I think Roberts will join the 4 liberals and Kennedy in a majority with either an Alito or Alito/Scalia concurrence saying that they agree with the legal logic but think that lawrence and windsor should have gone the other way. And then Thomas or Thomas/Scalia saying that gay marriage bans should stand because Jesus, and also reasons.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




He apparently argued that even a 70 year old couple could still have children. I just don't see how anyone can take his argument seriously.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
grada3784 > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




It says so in the Bible. Several times.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Freep this poll: http://www.nj.com/politics/ind...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd Allis > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Currently 68% yes!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TampaZeke > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Done! We need more flying monkey love!
Send an alert to Joe so that he can send out a call to take wing!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RobynWatts > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




Done. I'm surprised at the numbers at the moment (54% yes, 44% no, 2% undecided.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark > Chuck Anziulewicz  • 7 hours ago 




We need to fly! The votes are very close at 10.56 mdt, 52% for 46% against.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > Mark  • 6 hours ago 




79% says Yes now
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
JJS_prime  • 2 hours ago 




Chris Johnson, calling you a stupid ass doesn't begin to express the truth. Look up the address of a library. Go there and have them show you a copy of the constitution. READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Also, when the court mandated interracial marriage, there was no requirement that a church perform such marriages. NONE! Why? Read the first amendment again.
You are such a dumb fuck I am amazed you can use twitter.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 5 hours ago 




If we're doing anything, we're trying to REjoin an institution the early Catholic Church tossed us out of and then proceeded to spread their poison worldwide.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
garygdw  • 6 hours ago 




I'm holding my tongue until I hear from Lyle Denniston
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paula  • 6 hours ago 




Maybe, I'm just too pessimistic, I don't have a good feeling about this so far
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
GreatLakeSailor  • 6 hours ago 




Ari Ezra Waldman always worth a read...
http://www.towleroad.com/ari-e...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




Breyer grilling the state lawyer is great, roughly at the hour mark in part one

  
Thumbnail
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cjs > Sam_Handwich  • 6 hours ago 




This is the look on my face every time I read one of Scalia's opinions.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rambie > cjs  • 6 hours ago 




Just add an eyeroll for mine.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Chris H.  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia been watching Fox Noise or something??? That's been the right's talking point for years. But, of course I expect nothing less from Scalia than right-wing rhetoric.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Interviews with plaintiffs are ongoing on C-span 3…some
interesting thoughts there.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




I wish I was as confident as Chris Geidner apparently is.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisg...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
another_steve > Michael Smith  • 6 hours ago 




Chris is displaying chutzpah, going out on that limb. I haven't seen anything as "celebratory" anywhere else on the web, and (like a lot of people here) I've been reading quite a bit today.
Most analysts who follow the Supreme Court say you can't necessarily tell how a Justice is going to vote on a case based on this or that question s/he asks.
Nevertheless, it's always good to be hopeful. :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
garygdw  • 7 hours ago 




Part 2 audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TexPlant  • 7 hours ago 




Hard to know what to think....what if the evil right got to Kennedy....then again how can they rule against their prior rulings or lack of rulings. I guess they could rule and just never actually clear up the issue at all. where they mandate non-marriage states recognize sum but allow them to decide as a state. That would fuck everything up!!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/early-reports-as-hearings-conclude.html#disqus_thread















     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Early Reports As Hearings Conclude

















Johnson reports for the Washington Blade.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Mary Bonauto, Michigan, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       119 Comments 
 
  comments powered by Disqus   
<<Home
 


 
  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D264797737%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D751cae1de0f899157cfdc342fbcf32a2b55d41cd%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E25300%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E133%3Brtbdata2%3DEAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenV4NAlCgAGe8rT7D6ABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAaz%2DpgHIAbaxs5PQKdoBKDc1MWNhZTFkZTBmODk5MTU3Y2ZkYzM0MmZiY2YzMmEyYjU1ZDQxY2TlAU%2DhKzzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QIXAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=264797737?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=264797737;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=751cae1de0f899157cfdc342fbcf32a2b55d41cd;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.25300,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.133;rtbdata2=EAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenV4NAlCgAGe8rT7D6ABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAaz-pgHIAbaxs5PQKdoBKDc1MWNhZTFkZTBmODk5MTU3Y2ZkYzM0MmZiY2YzMmEyYjU1ZDQxY2TlAU-hKzzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QIXAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=264797737?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=264797737?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/early-reports-as-hearings-conclude.html#disqus_thread









     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Early Reports As Hearings Conclude

















Johnson reports for the Washington Blade.
Labels: Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Mary Bonauto, Michigan, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       119 Comments 
 
  comments powered by Disqus   
<<Home
 


 
  

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D264797737%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D751cae1de0f899157cfdc342fbcf32a2b55d41cd%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E25300%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E133%3Brtbdata2%3DEAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenV4NAlCgAGe8rT7D6ABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAaz%2DpgHIAbaxs5PQKdoBKDc1MWNhZTFkZTBmODk5MTU3Y2ZkYzM0MmZiY2YzMmEyYjU1ZDQxY2TlAU%2DhKzzoAWSYAsP%5FBqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QIXAAgLIAgA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=264797737?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=264797737;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=751cae1de0f899157cfdc342fbcf32a2b55d41cd;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.25300,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.133;rtbdata2=EAQaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6G2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2F5YWRuZXR3b3JrLmNvbVooWUU3VEF6Rk8wbFI0UzRVSFpCN05BbTFPZ1ZSNFNZUlZOaG5vdy1HenV4NAlCgAGe8rT7D6ABAagB5cT2AboBKFlFN1RBekZPMGxSNFM0VUhaQjdOQW0xT2dWUjRTWVJWTmhub3ctR3rAAaz-pgHIAbaxs5PQKdoBKDc1MWNhZTFkZTBmODk5MTU3Y2ZkYzM0MmZiY2YzMmEyYjU1ZDQxY2TlAU-hKzzoAWSYAsP_BqgCBqgCBbACCLoCBMC4QIXAAgLIAgA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=264797737?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=264797737?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/early-reports-as-hearings-conclude.html#disqus_thread












  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



The Best Way To Remove Eye Bags Without Surgery  Wrinkle Free Face 




60 Year Old Grandma Looks 30  Her Life & Beauty 




10 Celebs You Had No Clue Were Married To Each Other  Answers.com 




6 Engagement Rings with Amazing Little Details  Brilliant Earth 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Here Is Todays SCOTUS Protester   43 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  78 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   118 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   196 comments 






 63 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Stev84  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia is an asshole. Also, water is wet.
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Stev84  • 6 hours ago 




How can you say this? How can you insult assholes like this? My asshole, unlike Scalia who simply is one, has a very important role to play in my life and contribution to this planet by removing bodily waste and making some lucky guys very happy if I so decide. Scalia, on the other hand, just spreads shit and doesn't clean it up, hence his stench. So please leave assholes alone.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Smith > Stev84  • 7 hours ago 




I would be more likely to believe that water wasn't wet.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




But water evaporates........we can only hope.....
Life has a way to fix and justify "things"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > Bill  • 7 hours ago 




I don't think Life will fix Scalia soon enough.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MarkOH  • 7 hours ago 




"Mr. Bursch again discussed the states’ position that traditional
marriage binds children and biological parents. And he said states had a
 legitimate interest in stopping the decades-long rise in out-of-wedlock
 births. Justice Sotomayor said that rise had nothing to do with
allowing same-sex couples to marry. Justice Kennedy said gay couples
were the ones who were standing ready to adopt unwanted, out-of-wedlock
children. So that line of argument cuts against the states, he said."
 
26 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > MarkOH  • 7 hours ago 




Excellent!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cylux > MarkOH  • 6 hours ago 




They'd be better off looking at scrapping child support, no fault divorce and alimony if they really want to begin tackling out of wedlock births. What precisely do they think that combo incentivizes?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lymis  • 7 hours ago 




So, if we can find four upset people raised by straight people, they'll ban all straight marriages for everyone?
What is this, the "Mommie Dearest" theory of jurisprudence?
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ScottJL  • 7 hours ago 




Well then obviously he must recluse himself! Someone start the petitions!
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > ScottJL  • 7 hours ago 




I know it's a typo -- but recluse is right! Recluse all the way off the court and in to a blessed retirement!
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




It is beyond amazing that Scalia would assign equal weight to a brief from nutjob ROL to that of a comprehensive, thorough review of actual data by psychology experts. Wingers like Scalia just don't get that whole scientific method thingie.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
canoebum > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




If Scalia wants to credit briefs like those of ROL, he's going to have to convince his fellow justices of their credibility during the conference. I just don't see that happening.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




They don't like us so they of course will ignore anything that paints us in a positive light.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




It's all he's got.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 4 hours ago 




and why does he get away with it?
religion. b/c we privilege religion, over and over, in our laws and society.
believers, please remember this. if it weren't for religion, we'd have equal rights already.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JibbersCrabst  • 7 hours ago 




Shockingly, a worthless homophobe backs another worthless homophobe.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > JibbersCrabst  • 7 hours ago 




May you be ever blessed with lemon and butter!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




I fry my fish with butter and sprinkle lemon juice over it......depending upon the fish.
I am trying to think of another combination of food products...... I am not terribly found of vegs......I'll need to look at my recipes
But I do understand JibbersCrabst comment.
Homophobe= Homophobe, maybe the two of them have something more in common.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
TommyTune  • 7 hours ago 




Well, it's not like Scalia was ever going to vote our way to begin with, something that's no doubt lost on no one.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Blake Jordan  • 7 hours ago 




And for those 4 (?) ungrateful children of LGB parents, we could find 1000s of cases of straight parents beating, raping, killing,... their children!!!
So clearly children are FAR worse off with straight parents.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
D. J. > Blake Jordan  • 5 hours ago 




Or straight married State Representatives that re-home their adoptive daughters into the loving arms of convicted rapists.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
LADY MABELINE  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia's jurisprudence will find itself in the dustbin of history. He is such an embarrassment to this country.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > LADY MABELINE  • 6 hours ago 




I just want him to die quickly.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




I'd prefer he retire and hang around for a long, long, long time.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Why are we shocked by this?
 He is easily among the most homophobic jurists sitting on any court.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




We aren't. We are just shocked that he would go on official records saying that.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
oikos  • 7 hours ago 




Don't forget his son is part of the ex gay movement. Like father, like son, haters through and through.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia was always going to be against us, just looking for
excuses to do so. ROL’s brief didn’t deserve any serious consideration.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dcurlee  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia is a douche. But not as refreshing
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lattebud > dcurlee  • 7 hours ago 




And even though he's is used, there is still a bunch of crap left in his wake.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
SunsetGay  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia just proved why we need marriage equality. He is clearly in love with erotic fiction author Robert Oscar Lopez.
Scalia therefore inadvertently undercut his own argument.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Little Kiwi  • 7 hours ago 




dear gays, and straights who love us, if we don't win this - RIOT.
yeah. i said it. RIOT. because we will never, ever live free lives if we grovel and beg. i'm not saying hurt people. i'm not saying destroy the property of good civilians. i'm not saying be violent. but i am saying, direct your rage. public rage is all that we have. and it has power.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Little Kiwi  • 7 hours ago 




Here's a thought, whether we win this or not, - VOTE.
That'll teach the bastards. And, it's an excellent channel to direct your rage into.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Little Kiwi  • 6 hours ago 




If we do not win this, we need to make sure every one of our supporters, and there are many, including people who do not usually vote in high numbers in the 18 - 34 bracket, register and vote for pro equality candidates in November 2016. Younger voters sat out the 2014 elections in large numbers and look what happened. We have to make sure marriage equality becomes the #1 wedge social issue and drives those who hate LGBT people out of office. Setting police cars and businesses on fire is not going to help us much. I do not think riots would be as effective as harnessing the rage of all people who support us -- gay, straight, whatever -- at the voting booth. And if the answer is no, there WILL be many angry people out there.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
brian > Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




Regardless of the outcome of todays action, everyone needs to vote and encourage others to do the same.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
canoebum > Little Kiwi  • 7 hours ago 




Like Baltimore? No thanks.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Lawerence Collins > canoebum  • 6 hours ago 




Re read the post. NO Vilolence! Just every LGBT people in every state taking to the streets, being as fucking loud and frustrated as they would rightfully be.
Have you been paying attention to the ones that want is dead at all? Calling for War, being willing to go to jail?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
D. J. > Lawerence Collins  • 4 hours ago 




March, protest, sit in, etc. might be better word choices than riot.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
canoebum > Lawerence Collins  • 5 hours ago 




Yes, I've been paying attention.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Little Kiwi > canoebum  • 6 hours ago 




how about like Stonewall, eh?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
danolgb  • 7 hours ago 




"With all due respect, your Honor, there's always a possibility in any family for a bad seed. I mean, your parents seemed normal."
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
mbmarquis69  • 7 hours ago 




Thanks Scalia for pointing out that some of the briefs are dwarfed by the mountain of scientific evidence against them. See, he's not such a bad guy.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > mbmarquis69  • 7 hours ago 




I think we should honor him by signing him up for 30 or 40 subscriptions to the High Cholesterol Steak of the Month Club.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TominDC  • 7 hours ago 




I hope someone from our side would just come out and say in open court that some of those briefs are not worth the paper they're printed on. Or fit to wipe one's ass with.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cuberly  • 6 hours ago 




He's ruling on behalf of the RCC, not the Constitution.
No surprises there.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




As vile as Scalia is, keep in mind Roberts is the only one who has a gay or lesbian relative that we know of.
 And just like two years ago, he is again ready to tell her that it's okay for her to be treated as a second class citizen.
 What a vile man he is.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale  • 5 hours ago 




I am gay and participated fully in the raising of two children. They are not, like this twisted and deformed creature Lopez, malcontents bent on damaging the lives of people who have done nothing to them. My 38 year old son just sent me a three page e-mail telling me excitedly about the interpretation of the Obergefell arguments by his friend who works with the Supreme Court. Both he and my daughter were at my wedding to my companion of 25 years, where they handed us our rings. They share with my husband and me the anxious hopes for a successful outcome of this historic case. They are our cheerleaders. They are our successes.
Lopez must not be taken as the exemplar of the product of same sex marriages. He is merely a bitter, failed human being. I wish I could pity him, but his vile conduct simply evokes disgust.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
John T  • 6 hours ago 




"Good science" = someone with a PhD after his name wrote an article that supports my prejudices.
"Bad science" = mountains of peer-reviewed studies in support of a scientific consensus that contradicts my prejudices.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell  • 7 hours ago 




As he's the father of a closeted gay son who's a bight in the Roman Catholic pray-away-the-gay racket Courage he would be impressed.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
FARN  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia should have been a priest not a SCJ. He is so full of animus for gay Americans there is no way he can be an objective party.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 6 hours ago 




12 minutes in... What I heard is: tradition is tantamount and validates that the past predicts the future. So exclusion by Plato is exclusion forever.
I've always thought that tradition is stagnation. And allowing the past to predict the future is disservice to free will.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia and Thomas wanted to oppose the lower courts regarding lifting stays. Their votes will be no surprise.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
grada3784  • 6 hours ago 




Oh, I just can't say how truly surprised I am.
Does anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
joe ho  • 6 hours ago 




in windsor arguments i think he also said the social science was mixed, implicitly referencing the regnerus hoax.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Just a long list of many in why the hubby and I don't want kids.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I can understand not wanting to have kids, but you would have to be pretty bad parents to turn out a Robert Oscar Lopez.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JCF  • an hour ago 




"Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez"
Barely. (See what I did there?)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 2 hours ago 




scalia is a dirty liar!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paula  • 3 hours ago 




I really feel bad for the women that had to parent ROL. Imagine having to face this _____________ (I don't even have a word to describe him) person at Thanksgiving.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
Joseph Miceli  • 4 hours ago 




If a minister that does civic marriage refuses to marry gays, then that minister is discriminating and should not be allowed to conduct civic marriage. Scalia's argument is ridiculous. Just because you are a religious shaman doesn't mean you get to discriminate on civic matters.
This bullshit about allowing exceptions... screw that.
I find it slightly disconcerting that Buanotto (I apologize for the spelling) needed to be bailed out by Ginsburg and Sotomayor about 4 times in her argument.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
D. J.  • 5 hours ago 




If proper Bib-lick-all law had been properly followed, ROL would have never written his brief that was submitted to the SCOTUS.
He would have been stoned as a petulant ungrateful child years before he ever got to college.
Has any parent of ROL ever granted an interview?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
DesertSun59  • 5 hours ago 




Indeed. That was the one question I heard him ask that made me stop the recording and back up to hear it again. I was appalled that he would state such a thing. But it also comes as NO SURPRISE he would believes such nonsense. After all, he believes that contraception is abortion in the Hobby Lobby case.
Scalia is a moron and should be ejected from the court. He is simply not intelligent enough to make decisions of this nature.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 



http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/scalia-backs-robert-oscar-lopez.html#disqus_thread








  

 







What's this? 


Around The Web



The Best Way To Remove Eye Bags Without Surgery  Wrinkle Free Face 




60 Year Old Grandma Looks 30  Her Life & Beauty 




10 Celebs You Had No Clue Were Married To Each Other  Answers.com 




6 Engagement Rings with Amazing Little Details  Brilliant Earth 



Also on JoeMyGod

 Here Is Todays SCOTUS Protester   43 comments 


Jimmy Kimmel Interviews "I'm Not Gay No More" …  78 comments 


 NYT: Supreme Court Seems Deeply Divided   118 comments 


 Ryan T. Anderson: We're Gonna Win   196 comments 






 63 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Stev84  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia is an asshole. Also, water is wet.
 
31 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Stev84  • 6 hours ago 




How can you say this? How can you insult assholes like this? My asshole, unlike Scalia who simply is one, has a very important role to play in my life and contribution to this planet by removing bodily waste and making some lucky guys very happy if I so decide. Scalia, on the other hand, just spreads shit and doesn't clean it up, hence his stench. So please leave assholes alone.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael Smith > Stev84  • 7 hours ago 




I would be more likely to believe that water wasn't wet.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > Michael Smith  • 7 hours ago 




But water evaporates........we can only hope.....
Life has a way to fix and justify "things"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > Bill  • 7 hours ago 




I don't think Life will fix Scalia soon enough.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
MarkOH  • 7 hours ago 




"Mr. Bursch again discussed the states’ position that traditional
marriage binds children and biological parents. And he said states had a
 legitimate interest in stopping the decades-long rise in out-of-wedlock
 births. Justice Sotomayor said that rise had nothing to do with
allowing same-sex couples to marry. Justice Kennedy said gay couples
were the ones who were standing ready to adopt unwanted, out-of-wedlock
children. So that line of argument cuts against the states, he said."
 
26 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > MarkOH  • 7 hours ago 




Excellent!
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cylux > MarkOH  • 6 hours ago 




They'd be better off looking at scrapping child support, no fault divorce and alimony if they really want to begin tackling out of wedlock births. What precisely do they think that combo incentivizes?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lymis  • 7 hours ago 




So, if we can find four upset people raised by straight people, they'll ban all straight marriages for everyone?
What is this, the "Mommie Dearest" theory of jurisprudence?
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ScottJL  • 7 hours ago 




Well then obviously he must recluse himself! Someone start the petitions!
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frank Butterfield > ScottJL  • 7 hours ago 




I know it's a typo -- but recluse is right! Recluse all the way off the court and in to a blessed retirement!
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




It is beyond amazing that Scalia would assign equal weight to a brief from nutjob ROL to that of a comprehensive, thorough review of actual data by psychology experts. Wingers like Scalia just don't get that whole scientific method thingie.
 
16 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
canoebum > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




If Scalia wants to credit briefs like those of ROL, he's going to have to convince his fellow justices of their credibility during the conference. I just don't see that happening.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980 > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




They don't like us so they of course will ignore anything that paints us in a positive light.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 7 hours ago 




It's all he's got.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
chicago dyke, bacon, fungus > Dreaming Vertebrate  • 4 hours ago 




and why does he get away with it?
religion. b/c we privilege religion, over and over, in our laws and society.
believers, please remember this. if it weren't for religion, we'd have equal rights already.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JibbersCrabst  • 7 hours ago 




Shockingly, a worthless homophobe backs another worthless homophobe.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
oikos > JibbersCrabst  • 7 hours ago 




May you be ever blessed with lemon and butter!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bill > oikos  • 7 hours ago 




I fry my fish with butter and sprinkle lemon juice over it......depending upon the fish.
I am trying to think of another combination of food products...... I am not terribly found of vegs......I'll need to look at my recipes
But I do understand JibbersCrabst comment.
Homophobe= Homophobe, maybe the two of them have something more in common.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
TommyTune  • 7 hours ago 




Well, it's not like Scalia was ever going to vote our way to begin with, something that's no doubt lost on no one.
 
15 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Blake Jordan  • 7 hours ago 




And for those 4 (?) ungrateful children of LGB parents, we could find 1000s of cases of straight parents beating, raping, killing,... their children!!!
So clearly children are FAR worse off with straight parents.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
D. J. > Blake Jordan  • 5 hours ago 




Or straight married State Representatives that re-home their adoptive daughters into the loving arms of convicted rapists.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
LADY MABELINE  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia's jurisprudence will find itself in the dustbin of history. He is such an embarrassment to this country.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddi Haskell > LADY MABELINE  • 6 hours ago 




I just want him to die quickly.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BobSF_94117 > Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




I'd prefer he retire and hang around for a long, long, long time.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Why are we shocked by this?
 He is easily among the most homophobic jurists sitting on any court.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > Ninja0980  • 5 hours ago 




We aren't. We are just shocked that he would go on official records saying that.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
oikos  • 7 hours ago 




Don't forget his son is part of the ex gay movement. Like father, like son, haters through and through.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia was always going to be against us, just looking for
excuses to do so. ROL’s brief didn’t deserve any serious consideration.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dcurlee  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia is a douche. But not as refreshing
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lattebud > dcurlee  • 7 hours ago 




And even though he's is used, there is still a bunch of crap left in his wake.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
SunsetGay  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia just proved why we need marriage equality. He is clearly in love with erotic fiction author Robert Oscar Lopez.
Scalia therefore inadvertently undercut his own argument.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Little Kiwi  • 7 hours ago 




dear gays, and straights who love us, if we don't win this - RIOT.
yeah. i said it. RIOT. because we will never, ever live free lives if we grovel and beg. i'm not saying hurt people. i'm not saying destroy the property of good civilians. i'm not saying be violent. but i am saying, direct your rage. public rage is all that we have. and it has power.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > Little Kiwi  • 7 hours ago 




Here's a thought, whether we win this or not, - VOTE.
That'll teach the bastards. And, it's an excellent channel to direct your rage into.
 
8 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Eddi Haskell > Little Kiwi  • 6 hours ago 




If we do not win this, we need to make sure every one of our supporters, and there are many, including people who do not usually vote in high numbers in the 18 - 34 bracket, register and vote for pro equality candidates in November 2016. Younger voters sat out the 2014 elections in large numbers and look what happened. We have to make sure marriage equality becomes the #1 wedge social issue and drives those who hate LGBT people out of office. Setting police cars and businesses on fire is not going to help us much. I do not think riots would be as effective as harnessing the rage of all people who support us -- gay, straight, whatever -- at the voting booth. And if the answer is no, there WILL be many angry people out there.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
brian > Eddi Haskell  • 6 hours ago 




Regardless of the outcome of todays action, everyone needs to vote and encourage others to do the same.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
canoebum > Little Kiwi  • 7 hours ago 




Like Baltimore? No thanks.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Lawerence Collins > canoebum  • 6 hours ago 




Re read the post. NO Vilolence! Just every LGBT people in every state taking to the streets, being as fucking loud and frustrated as they would rightfully be.
Have you been paying attention to the ones that want is dead at all? Calling for War, being willing to go to jail?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
D. J. > Lawerence Collins  • 4 hours ago 




March, protest, sit in, etc. might be better word choices than riot.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
canoebum > Lawerence Collins  • 5 hours ago 




Yes, I've been paying attention.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Little Kiwi > canoebum  • 6 hours ago 




how about like Stonewall, eh?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
danolgb  • 7 hours ago 




"With all due respect, your Honor, there's always a possibility in any family for a bad seed. I mean, your parents seemed normal."
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
mbmarquis69  • 7 hours ago 




Thanks Scalia for pointing out that some of the briefs are dwarfed by the mountain of scientific evidence against them. See, he's not such a bad guy.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
lymis > mbmarquis69  • 7 hours ago 




I think we should honor him by signing him up for 30 or 40 subscriptions to the High Cholesterol Steak of the Month Club.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
TominDC  • 7 hours ago 




I hope someone from our side would just come out and say in open court that some of those briefs are not worth the paper they're printed on. Or fit to wipe one's ass with.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cuberly  • 6 hours ago 




He's ruling on behalf of the RCC, not the Constitution.
No surprises there.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




As vile as Scalia is, keep in mind Roberts is the only one who has a gay or lesbian relative that we know of.
 And just like two years ago, he is again ready to tell her that it's okay for her to be treated as a second class citizen.
 What a vile man he is.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale  • 5 hours ago 




I am gay and participated fully in the raising of two children. They are not, like this twisted and deformed creature Lopez, malcontents bent on damaging the lives of people who have done nothing to them. My 38 year old son just sent me a three page e-mail telling me excitedly about the interpretation of the Obergefell arguments by his friend who works with the Supreme Court. Both he and my daughter were at my wedding to my companion of 25 years, where they handed us our rings. They share with my husband and me the anxious hopes for a successful outcome of this historic case. They are our cheerleaders. They are our successes.
Lopez must not be taken as the exemplar of the product of same sex marriages. He is merely a bitter, failed human being. I wish I could pity him, but his vile conduct simply evokes disgust.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
John T  • 6 hours ago 




"Good science" = someone with a PhD after his name wrote an article that supports my prejudices.
"Bad science" = mountains of peer-reviewed studies in support of a scientific consensus that contradicts my prejudices.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
prestonbuell  • 7 hours ago 




As he's the father of a closeted gay son who's a bight in the Roman Catholic pray-away-the-gay racket Courage he would be impressed.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
FARN  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia should have been a priest not a SCJ. He is so full of animus for gay Americans there is no way he can be an objective party.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 6 hours ago 




12 minutes in... What I heard is: tradition is tantamount and validates that the past predicts the future. So exclusion by Plato is exclusion forever.
I've always thought that tradition is stagnation. And allowing the past to predict the future is disservice to free will.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 7 hours ago 




Scalia and Thomas wanted to oppose the lower courts regarding lifting stays. Their votes will be no surprise.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
grada3784  • 6 hours ago 




Oh, I just can't say how truly surprised I am.
Does anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
joe ho  • 6 hours ago 




in windsor arguments i think he also said the social science was mixed, implicitly referencing the regnerus hoax.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 7 hours ago 




Just a long list of many in why the hubby and I don't want kids.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Doug105 > Ninja0980  • 6 hours ago 




I can understand not wanting to have kids, but you would have to be pretty bad parents to turn out a Robert Oscar Lopez.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
JCF  • an hour ago 




"Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez"
Barely. (See what I did there?)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 2 hours ago 




scalia is a dirty liar!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paula  • 3 hours ago 




I really feel bad for the women that had to parent ROL. Imagine having to face this _____________ (I don't even have a word to describe him) person at Thanksgiving.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
Joseph Miceli  • 4 hours ago 




If a minister that does civic marriage refuses to marry gays, then that minister is discriminating and should not be allowed to conduct civic marriage. Scalia's argument is ridiculous. Just because you are a religious shaman doesn't mean you get to discriminate on civic matters.
This bullshit about allowing exceptions... screw that.
I find it slightly disconcerting that Buanotto (I apologize for the spelling) needed to be bailed out by Ginsburg and Sotomayor about 4 times in her argument.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
D. J.  • 5 hours ago 




If proper Bib-lick-all law had been properly followed, ROL would have never written his brief that was submitted to the SCOTUS.
He would have been stoned as a petulant ungrateful child years before he ever got to college.
Has any parent of ROL ever granted an interview?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
DesertSun59  • 5 hours ago 




Indeed. That was the one question I heard him ask that made me stop the recording and back up to hear it again. I was appalled that he would state such a thing. But it also comes as NO SURPRISE he would believes such nonsense. After all, he believes that contraception is abortion in the Hobby Lobby case.
Scalia is a moron and should be ejected from the court. He is simply not intelligent enough to make decisions of this nature.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
 Privacy 


http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/scalia-backs-robert-oscar-lopez.html#disqus_thread











     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez









Labels: Antonin Scalia, crackpots, gay families, gay parenting, homocons, marriage equality, Robert Oscar Lopez, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
       63 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D265477171%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D3851424384902704993%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E45283%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E197%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdejZYEKAAbSbtccHoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB25qQAsgBwfPck9Ap2gETMzg1MTQyNDM4NDkwMjcwNDk5M%2DUBMQE7POgBZJgCw%5F8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEwLhAxcACAsgCAA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=265477171?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=265477171;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=3851424384902704993;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.45283,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.197;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdejZYEKAAbSbtccHoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB25qQAsgBwfPck9Ap2gETMzg1MTQyNDM4NDkwMjcwNDk5M-UBMQE7POgBZJgCw_8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEwLhAxcACAsgCAA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=265477171?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=265477171?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/scalia-backs-robert-oscar-lopez.html#disqus_thread











     

 

 
   



Joe.
My.
God.
  

          
JMG: Blog Year Ten JoeMyGod@gmail.com
 Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.
Follow JMG on Twitter!
Facebook page.
RSS Feed.

Previous Posts
AUDIO: Court Hears Obergefell Arguments
Gay Men's Chorus Sings Outside SCOTUS
Uh Oh
Protester Ejected From SCOTUS Hearing
Janet Porter At SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Will Totally ...
Outside The Supreme Court
PBS Examines Kentucky's Case
SCOTUSblog Is Live-Blogging
Crazy Christine Weick Is At SCOTUS
IRELAND: Ben & Jerry's Say Yes Equality
 
 
blogroll
Aatom Bomb
After Ellen
Americablog
Andrew Sullivan
Autostraddle
Angry Black Bitch
belle de jour
The Back Lot
Bilerico
big ass belle
BJ's Porn (NSFW)
Blabbeando
blog active
Box Turtle Bulletin
Boy Culture
Chris Glass
Dan Savage/SLOG
Designer Blog
Daddy Hunt Blog
Daily Blague
David Mixner
D O G P O E T
Durban Bud
Gay Politics/Victory Fund
Glaad Blog
good as you
HRC's Back Story
Homer's World
It's Good To Be A Guy
Jimbo
Kitchen Scratchings
Life Lube
Living In The Bonus Round
Mad Professah
Michelangelo Signorile
The Moby Files
Morel World
My Fabulous Disease
New Civil Rights
Nightcharm (NSFW)
NoFo
OMG Blog
Oriol's Poz Blog
Peter Staley
Perge Modo
Postcards From Hell's Kitchen
Pride Agenda Blog
Princess Sparkle Pony
Queer New York
Queerty
Rex Wockner
Rob Tisinai
Rod 2.0
Shakesville
Someone In A Tree
Sore Afraid
The Awl
The Lesbian Lifestyle
The Mark Of Kane
The Search For Love
towleroad
Troubled Diva
Wayne Besen
 
 
Powered by Blogger
   





Main | Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez









Labels: Antonin Scalia, crackpots, gay families, gay parenting, homocons, marriage equality, Robert Oscar Lopez, SCOTUS


posted by Joe Jervis
      63 Comments 
 
    
<<Home
 


 
    

  
 <SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/adj/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie;dcopt=;sz=160x600;click=http%3A//adserver.adtechus.com/adlink%2F5399%2F3207271%2F0%2F154%2FAdId%3D6749461%3BBnId%3D1%3Bitime%3D265477171%3Bkvp36%3Dp36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p%3Bkva%3Dp%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5%3Bkr14135%3D2217801%3Bkvc%3D700592%3Bkvi%3D3851424384902704993%3Bkr11092%3D2215205%3Bkvl%3D117392%3Bkvs%3D160x600%3Bkp%3D691346%3Blink%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexch%2Equantserve%2Ecom%2Fr%3Fa%3Dp%2DFrQ74bc0xrcw5%3Blabels%3D%5Fqc%2Eclk%2C%5Fclick%2Eadserver%2Ertb%2C%5Fclick%2Erand%2E45283%2C%5Fqc%2Etemplate%3Brtbip%3D192%2E184%2E64%2E197%3Brtbdata2%3DEAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdejZYEKAAbSbtccHoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB25qQAsgBwfPck9Ap2gETMzg1MTQyNDM4NDkwMjcwNDk5M%2DUBMQE7POgBZJgCw%5F8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEwLhAxcACAsgCAA%3Bredirecturl2%3D;ord=265477171?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5399/3207271/0/154/AdId=6749461;BnId=1;itime=265477171;kvp36=p36%2D04d4tq96o6d8gy0p;kva=p%2Dfrq74bc0xrcw5;kr14135=2217801;kvc=700592;kvi=3851424384902704993;kr11092=2215205;kvl=117392;kvs=160x600;kp=691346;nodecode=yes;link=http://exch.quantserve.com/r?a=p-FrQ74bc0xrcw5;labels=_qc.clk,_click.adserver.rtb,_click.rand.45283,_qc.template;rtbip=192.184.64.197;rtbdata2=EAgaHFNlYVdvcmxkXzIwMTVfRGlzY292ZXJ5X0NvdmUgwdYTKJCVBzCw4So6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuam9lbXlnb2QuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tWigxM245OFlaNV9LYlBmS3YxMHluajhOcDVyNmJQZnFxbmdTNkM4UUtBdejZYEKAAbSbtccHoAEBqAHlxPYBugEoMTNuOThZWjVfS2JQZkt2MTB5bmo4TnA1cjZiUGZxcW5nUzZDOFFLQcAB25qQAsgBwfPck9Ap2gETMzg1MTQyNDM4NDkwMjcwNDk5M-UBMQE7POgBZJgCw_8GqAIGqAIFsAIIugIEwLhAxcACAsgCAA;redirecturl2=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/jump/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=265477171?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/ad/N9074.151350QUANTCAST/B8642811.116815066;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcopt=;sz=160x600;ord=265477171?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=160 HEIGHT=600 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>  Quantcast

 
Quantcast 
 
   



Read more...

Buy a Blogad!
  


 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                
last network in chain
 




  http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/scalia-backs-robert-oscar-lopez.html#disqus_thread