“Overreaching on Gay Marriage,” Steve Chapman, Reason:
What the federal court decision in favor of same-sex marriage will do for gay couples and their children is heartening and welcome. What it will do for our law and politics—well, that’s a different story, and a dismal one.
If I favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I would have considered Wednesday a very good day. When a judge in California found that same-sex couples have a right to wed, he cemented the widespread notion that the courts are out of control and that the Constitution means whatever judges want it to mean. The verdict will go far to energize and expand opposition to gay rights, at a time when they were on the rise.
Let me be clear: Had I been a Californian, I would have voted against Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. I would like all 50 states and the federal government to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. But it would be far better for that change to come from elected institutions than from the courts.
Me, I likely would have voted for Proposition 8 — but only because I am against the idea that “marriage” should be expanded to mean what it never has. My argument is essentially a semantic one, but given that I believe we need to be careful with our definitions — and the way they evolve — it isn’t an argument that should surprise many regular readers.
As I noted the other day, I’m perfectly fine with the idea that same-sex couples who wish to acknowledge a long-term monogamous relationship be able to do so — and as a result receive the recognized benefits (and potential punishments) that obtain, in traditional marriages, with such a commitment. But there is no reason to call such a commitment “marriage” — other than to force a societal redefining of what marriage is.
But shouldn’t that societal redefining come from, you know, society? Because as it stands, society is — at least in my estimation — on the whole very open and liberal with respect to the rights and dignities of homosexuals. And this is as it should be. However, what people object to is the suggestion that because they don’t happen to agree with what is in effect a linguistic coup, enacted by a single judge, they are somehow bigoted or intolerant.
The pushback is visceral. And shaming, in this instance, doesn’t appear to be a viable rhetorical maneuver. After all, we’re all racist bigots anyway. So what’s one more phobia to add to our invidious, backward-ass hatey cravenness?
To be clear, I suspect that most of those who oppose same-sex marriage on some ground or other would be perfectly resigned to the expansion of “marriage” should proponents win the argument in the court of public opinion, and pass legislation that mirrors such a popular victory. Change can take time, but when it comes, it comes with the sanction of the people — or better, the consent of the governed. What opponents of same-sex marriage object to is the courts’ insisting that the will of the electorate is less important than the opinion of a single judge who finds the majority voters “irrational” and bigoted.
Continues Chapman:
Most people and judges agree that the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to outlaw interracial marriage. Most would also say the Constitution does allow the government to outlaw polygamous marriage. Those who applaud this ruling should ask themselves: Would they feel the same way if the court had ruled in favor of polygamy?
The same arguments, after all, apply in both realms. The judge said authorizing same-sex marriage would further social goals like fostering stable relationships, protecting children, and allowing adults to follow their natural sexual desires. Ditto for permitting polygamy.
The ban prevents the polygamous from marrying their chosen partners just as the prohibition of same-sex marriage deprives gays of that freedom. Josh can’t marry Zack; Michael can’t marry Katie and Nicole. If the right to marry encompasses the former, why not the latter?
Gays argue, correctly, that they can’t be expected to change their inborn sexual orientation to get married. But polygamists can assert that monogamy is impossible for them—and, judging from the prevalence of sexual infidelity, for most people.
Nor does the polygamy ban solve any problems. Men can already have sex with multiple females, produce offspring with them, and furnish them with financial support. Former NFL running back Travis Henry has nine children by nine different women.
Prohibiting polygamy does nothing to prevent such conduct. It just keeps people who want to do it responsibly from operating within an established legal framework.
That’s why I would legalize polygamy as well as same-sex marriage. But it’s one thing to believe those changes would make sound policy and entirely another to think that the Constitution requires either—especially when California, which passed Proposition 8, has granted gay couples access to most of the rights afforded by marriage.
The decision may very well lead the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If so, it would be the most polarizing decision since Roe v. Wade in 1973, which we are still fighting about.
It would spark a furious backlash from Americans who, whatever their views about homosexuality, think such decisions belong with them and their elected representatives. It could even lead to a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.
Thanks to Judge Walker, the debate is no longer about whether gays deserve protection from the law, a debate they were steadily winning. It is more about whether democratic processes should be trusted to resolve the question. That’s a debate they are likely to lose.
It’s hard to formulate precisely, but I think something along the lines of an elision of “due process” and “equal protection” for the emergence of language is going on with this decision.
In any event, it seems to me that it’s politics as such which gets lost in the shuffle, not “democratic processes” as Chapman puts it in his penultimate line.
I mostly agree about the courts being a bad way to go except for I think your idea that we don’t call it marriage will run into the problem that people will call it that anyway…
but the way he sells it with the polarizings and the furious backlashing as an almost fait accompli makes it all sound very exciting, no?
This doesn’t really move the dial that much for me either way honestly.
but a constitutional amendment is out of the question altogether I think
Well, we’re in agreement, Jeff.
No one stops two or more consenting adults to set up any kind of housekeeping arrangement they want. Polyamourous, incestuous, etc.
Making the government acknowledge it and sanction it is something else entirely.
For at least the last 220 years, American society decided the historical configuration of marriage as the combination of male and female, of particular age and consanguinity, to be the ideal fundamental unit for the General Welfare.
The appeals to interracial marriage bans are a distraction for several reasons; the least of which there are no religious traditions/principles behind it, no nation majority ever supported it, and even the case of Loving v Virginia it was an affirmation of the Constitutional right that a man was a man, whether black/white/red/etc and any man has the right to marry any woman who consents to the same.
If this is so, why force people to do so at the front end — especially if this is what the pushback is about?
I pretty much agree with Chapman’s conclusions. And if the left is intent on protecting what they have gained in the culture wars, they ought to be pretty darned careful about opening a new front when they are in danger of losing in the current political cycle or two.
Chapman gets it. You obviously get it.
Many do not. That Ted Olson does not get it disturbs me greatly, because I suspect Anthony Kennedy does not get it either.
You do not need a constitutional amendment for gay marriage. You could pass a federal statute (like DOMA).
At the end of a long, drawn out process, a single federal judge will make the penultimate decision about gay marriage.
That single federal judge will not be Vaughan Walker, it will be Anthony Kennedy.
With the current polar structure of the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy is the single most powerful individual in the country.
His views on every matter that goes before the court will determine the legal and social structure of our country for decades.
His literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the only thing that currently stands between gun ownership rights for all American and the progressive gun grabbers who would revoke a 225 year old Constitutional right.
Scary.
why force people to do so at the front end
I think it’s actually a lot helped the gay marriage cause to do so cause of it appeals to Americans’ egalitarian spirit.
So tyrannical judges are egalitarian? Neat trick.
A common thread through Jeff’s posts remain, “It matters how you get there.”
Remains, that is.
More coffee, please.
I’m talking more about the 48% what were on the gay marriage side of Prop 8 – and I think that 48% will only grow as long as it’s framed as an equality issue
hf, we get it, you will spin and twist to no end in support of gay “marriage” – have you read NOTHING of what Jeff has written or commented on?
I’d roll up my juris doctorate diploma and swat you with it, were you in arms reach.
oh, well but I took the thrust of Jeff’s question to be aiming at the judge and his decision. The public tussle over the language can go however it wants, for all that, and the long-run most persuasive wins, but the long-run has to run, that’s the deal. Without it, we ain’t got what we’re meant to have.
For me it is semantic also. Once that door is opened, you can’t close it. I can’t see how one can presume marriage implies sex for example. Therefore related individuals should be also free to “marry”. It could be just for convenience, especially among older siblings who could use the benefits. In fact I will support laws that protect these people as we should not discriminate against them. We could even form new concepts like pod marriage. Join the pod and be married to the members of the pod. Why not!
Why is this one particular sexual fetish to be elevated above all other types of sexual deviancy? Homos are only one type of sexual deviant group, yet for some unknown reason, their preferred method of getting off has legal standing where other types do not. What criterion are we supposed to imagine this “judge” was using to render his dumbass decision?
I think we do need a constitutional amendment for gay marriage, but that’s just because I’ve got like thirty bars of gold pressed latinum riding on the reductio ad absurdam of the Supreme Court ruling a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.
I haven’t spun anything Mr. LTC I think I’m more suggesting that they can just wait til after another crop or two of kids get enfranchised and the gay marriage people will be in pretty good shape in California –
For all the backlash gay marriage is still the future like India and ramen noodles and Sharni Vinson. Whose mom is Indian by the way.
India is already passe, and ramen noodles were old 20 years ago.
we will see
My comment wasn’t a retort to yours, sdferr, but rather just a bit of stand alone meta about how folks can disagree on their various desired outcomes yet still agree on accepted methods for getting there.
(Or maybe your comment wasn’t directed at mine either. I’m still not running at full speed today.)
The road to le guillotine is paved with Égalité.
My comment (which?) wasn’t aimed at you bh.
17 > 15, 12 > 11, 1 > nowheres
Well talking about the Federal Courts ruling a state’s Constitutional Amendment is against the US Constitution. Why can’t California just apply the principal of Nullification and ignore the federal ruling as just bias against a state. Time for a push towards Federalism. Same with Arizona and MIssouri for that matter.
If it’s the future, hf, so be it. But that was kind of the point, wasn’t it?
Then why not wait to claim victory? Or is 48% the new kind of majority – I mean, can’t let a measly 4% comprised entirely of bigots win the day, right?
17 > 13. Mistook your “thrust” as related to my “common thread”.
oh. yes you are right Mr. sdferr about the judge and his decision being central to the discussion cause he apparently used very bad reasonings for overturning prop 8… I won’t read his decision but I’ll probably read the Supreme Court one and the dissents just cause of it will be so historic and all however they decide
I think they can wait to claim victory Mr. Alec that’s exactly what I said at #21
brb
“Historic” in the sense that you can mark the exact moment when the Constitution died.
So if a same sex couple wish to spend their lives together, fine and dandy. Let them be cradled in the protections provided by civil unions.
I have no problem with same sex unions, just with the in your face attitude displayed by so many proponents. Getting a bit tiresome.
Ah. I’ve sort of been leaning on the minuscule opening as a signal now and then bh (talk about semantics).
Haven’t been consistent about it though, so vague? – hoo baby – could hardly get vaguer. It’s acause I’m a retard. heh
This ruling is nothing more than the latest example of the special-interest groups lemming-like rush for the cliffs.
They appear to all be united in a desperate bid to destroy themselves and their own interests through almost psychatic over-reaching.
Big business got TARP.
The Connected got the Stimulus.
The blacks got Eric Holder.
The gays got Prop 8 killed.
The Congress got 800,000 worth of bottled water.
Michelle got a vacation.
Barack got to play President.
The Senate got to appoint another idiot to the court.
The judge that killed Prop 8 got some glory hole time.
BP got a twenty billion dollar bill.
Social Security got insolvency.
And ten thousand others, all adding up to ??????
The demise of the welfare state or America. I can’t tell yet…
Wayne, you have your email address showing instead of a web site link.
The Constitution’s been dead for years and years Jeff. It’s just that nobody’s got the gut’s to take the ol’ girl off of life support.
Tomato, Schiavo, Ernst.
it appeals to Americans’ egalitarian spirit.Appeals to the Progg’s drumbeat that
genderbiological sex is a social construct.And who wants to be cut from the Bestest Academic/Hollywood/Celeb/MSM/Journolist Cocktail Parties?
Why can’t California just apply the principal of Nullification and ignore the federal ruling as just bias against a state.
Well, there’s a reason one can walk into a Marijuana dispensary on the boardwalk in Venice Beach, but any person on the donation list to defend Prop 8 runs the real risk of being harassed at their home and losing their jobs.
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because judicial restraint really does not mean anything anymore and the separation of power issues are making me colicy.”
Um – I think the burgeoning Hispanic population might make 48% the high-water mark. “Gender” being “no longer an essential part of marriage” is gringospeak nonsense.
One interesting side effect of gay marriage. It could be the beginning of the end for gays. All these years gay men have married women and have had children, thus keeping the “gay” gene in the gene pool. However without siring children, that gene fades away.
I doubt there is a gay gene. At least, I think there’s more to it than that. Identical twins are not always both gay or both straight.
Hey – here’s an idea. Maybe it is a form of psychological pathology, as was thought in the 1970s, and suddenly never discussed again. Benign, you may argue, but still . . .
#16 LTC John:
You are wasting your time. happyfeet is the staunchest protector of the Constitution except when it inconveniences him and his causes. Then its nuance, history, and growth.
Anne Heche could not be reached for comment.
Doesn’t the Judge’s fiat ruling essentially nullify bisexualism? Bastard.
Doesn’t the Judge’s fiat ruling essentially nullify bisexualism?
That would certainly upset the latent homo in happyfeet.
I consider happyfeet’s comments to be “living” and “evolving,” so I generally interpret them to conform to my own opinions.
Doesn’t the Judge’s fiat ruling essentially nullify bisexualism? Bastard.
serial monogamy, JD
I don’t know about serial monogamy, but if he banned hot bisexuals chicks, or asserted that they do not exist, then he and I are going to have a problem.
Denise and Dorinda’s panties
Are the same shade of green; I sees
That they’re identical
right down to each wrinkle
though Denise is infested with bees.
..and ouch.
Hypotheticallly speaking, I would say that hot bisexual chicks only exist in theory. In fact (i.e., around me) they’d all be lesbians. Fortunately for me I’m too old and too married to be more than hypothetically interested in hot bisexual chicks.
Mikey and Jeff – I keep trying because someday, maybe, we’ll get some admission of “I don’t care how we get there, just so we get there. There being where I want ______ to be…” That is all I am looking for at this point.
Ernst – are you saying you have left the age that P.J O’Rourke once described as “being able to look at a Victoria’s Secret Catalog with more hope than longing”?
hf, on 31, there’s a sense in which it simply doesn’t matter how good or bad the judge’s reasonings are, and this sense is that in which the judgment – in the form it takes – is an act of tyranny, plain and simple.
From my point of view, there are no guarantees that politics as a whole, broad and jumbled, must be rational. In fact, it appears to me that Madison’s 10 demonstrates conclusively that for the most part, it can’t be.
The Madison’s discovery though, is right there in the phrase of the first line: “…advantages promised by a well constructed…”.
Any rationality, to the extent that we can get it at all, must be built into the architecture of plan, which then makes necessary allowances for the irrationality that must follow in the detail. Where we abandon that architecture, we stand to loose any chance at rationality. Which is where the judge’s decision to forgo the messy political aspects of policy making has left us, I think.
LTC John, I’m saying I’m at the stage in life where I’ve acquired enough self awareness to be careful what I wish for. Two hot chicks plus me in the sack equals the odd man out, iykwIm&Ityd.
Jesus I’m shite for the typist today. Take the “the” before Madison and move it to before “plan”, and lose an “o” in loose. Sorry.
Ernst – That would make you either a likely heart attack victim, or a photographer, no?
Mr. LTC through this whole thing I’ve said the judge was wrong and also that gay marriage is neato cause of it’s a lot classically liberal
the judgment – in the form it takes – is an act of tyranny, plain and simple.
It’s weird though. The California legislature passed gay marriage and poofter Arnold vetoed it saying specifically that the issue should be settled by the courts. The Prop 8 people did nothing if not invite judicial review of their little law.
So here we are.
oh.
that’s more what he said actually
The Prop 8 people did nothing if not invite judicial review of their little law.
WRONG! They did this specifically so it was out of the hands of the political class and the judiciary…or so they thought, stupid proles…
that was kind of willfully naive then… this being California and all
Little did they know that one Judge would define the intent of 7,000,000+ voters as bigots and homophobes.
“The Prop 8 people did nothing if not invite judicial review of their little law.”
See, I don’t think this is so, unless we were to say that a law written about the treatment of cattle invites a judge to review the meaning of “cattle” to make it about not cows, but about all animals with powers of locomotion.
No really it was entirely predictable.
It makes me chuckle to hear the same people that promote hate crimes laws wailing about equal protection.
So are most acts of tyranny predictable though.
Being predictable does not make it more right.
I suppose you haven’t considered the problem that the Court will say everyone has to call it marriage but the majority of the people don’t think it is, and won’t call it marriage?
That would seem to be a much bigger problem, at least to me.
No really it was entirely predictable.
Agreed. When a progressive cause gets movement it tends to take whatever path is available to it and it rarely quits. This is because the progressive movement believes it is better then the law and much better then some stupid majority.
Iceland has same-sex marriagings so I guess we know where bjork stands.
an ur all gonna die
Shorter happyfeet: heads, proggs win via the political process; tails, anti-proggs lose via judicial process.
Some nice nuancing going on here. Hmm, would that make happyfeet a nuancey-boy?
I denounce myself. And then some.
That Iceland went crazy bankrupt doesn’t enter into the gay marriaging questions though, I just want to say. Nor that it sits on the Atlantic Rift where Europe and North America schizophrenically creep away from one another.
that’s not shorter happyfeet shorter happyfeet is more like: *shrug* what am I gonna do for lunch maybe I’ll go to Panda gack Express just cause of it’s close and easy
I wanna know what the hell happened to Iceland. Those people, every last damn one of them, is a direct descendant of a Viking! It’s got to be something in the water, right?
yeah you better denounce yourself mister y’all have no idea most of you how annoying it is to have these endless stupid propositions all the time it’s a big part of why I don’t even bother owning a tv that plus I’m pretty sure tv is of the devil
But anyway there’s two kinds of Californians ones what take these proposition thingies super serious (dorks) and then people what just want to make some retirement monies so they can get the fuck out of here someday.
I’m in the latter group.
“But anyway there’s two kinds of Californians ones what take these proposition thingies super serious (dorks) and then people what just want to make some retirement monies so they can get the fuck out of here someday.”
Good luck on that last part, because responsible people who save money for a rainy day and so one are probably looked at the same way a vampire views humans.
Cattle.
I’ve news for you, the dorks are going to vote to help themselves to you’re retirement monies, because they can. So you’re never going to get the fuck out of there.
Sorry feets. The fact that you spend your days talking politics and societal issues puts you firmly in the former group. I understand why you want to believe yourself in the latter, because it’s much more peaceful I think.
yes the odds are not in my favor
I figure there wasn’t much to rape in pillage in Iceland. The real raping and pillaging action was in Western Europe, but plenty of the would-be Viking descendants there are pretty flaccid as well.
they must have better spam filters
[…] said, in commenting on Chapman’s piece, Jeff Goldstein writes (emphasis in original): I suspect that most of those who oppose same-sex marriage on some ground or […]
Propositions stink as plebiscites stink by nature. And let that be a lesson to me.
I had a plebiscite removed a couple of years ago. I don’t remember it smelling, but God, if it did then color me embarrassed.
I found some plebiscite once while I was rockhounding. Shiny stuff, but not worth a whole lot.
The gay-marriage advocates like to trot out sob stories like the guy who couldn’t be there when his life partner died, because the hospital didn’t recognize him as a spouse, etc.
That particular problem is entirely solvable by a couple of attornies (one from Louisiana and one from pretty much any other state) working up a document that serves as a medical power of attorney, and an order to medical personnel to consider the named person as a close family member for the purposes of visitiation rules. I’m sure that every bit of what they need can be done by the two parties getting such a document notarized, which is probably going to run less than getting a marriage license anyway.
But advocates for “social change” never do their part to fix the problem in the private sector. To do so would take away the ability to tell sob stories. They will accept nothing less than the enshrinement of their position in law, and forced upon everyone else whether they like it or not.
you’d think sob stories about having to use the phrase “life partner” would be tragic enough
#92 – A lot of people would agree with you feets. But they wouldn’t mean “tragic” in quite the same way as you do.
plebiscites with gravy
kos has a smiley face on his book cover too
newrouter
well, there’s a book that should see the $1 fiction bargain bin soon.
You are wasting your time. happyfeet is the staunchest protector of the Constitution except when it inconveniences him and his causes. Then its nuance, history, and growth.
Which, by some definitions, puts grieferfeet smack in the middle of Leftie La La Land.
>Sorry feets. The fact that you spend your days talking politics and societal issues puts you firmly in the former group. I understand why you want to believe yourself in the latter, because it’s much more peaceful I think.
It’s known as “denialism”, Makewi, and grieferfeet is wallowing in it.
do happyfeet wear different shoes than grieferfeet? maybe doc scholls or something?
I disdain to notice your puerile commentings I’m busy staunchly fighting to preserve our liberties and also tasting these different hummuses and the baba I got at the kosher grocery store. That’s why it’s closed on Saturdays. Duh. It threw me off cause they make sushi there and they have it on the sign and I just don’t make that association really. It looked like very very good sushi too but I had more shoppings to do so I didn’t want it to sit in the hot car. I got some neat foozle there though. I’d never had these before ever and they must be like a staple almost like hummus.
I got a bunch of different ones of these too just cause they looked so novel… they’re those totally sketch type of instant meals wif meats that aren’t refrigerated except these ones are kosher. They weren’t austere really.
you hit the butler with clarks in the den
here’s a whole page of the different kinds of that last stuff you can get but there were other ones I got that I don’t see on that page
I didn’t get the salmon the idea kind of freaked me out.
Even though I am the a decendent of polygamists (all of my great-great-grandfathers), I cannot countenance the legalization of polygamy in this country. Not because I disapprove of my ancestors’ marriages (I don’t), but because polygamy is a horrible arrangement when administered as casually and indiscriminately as it will be in our modern society.
Imagine what the Muslims will do with it here! They’ll do what they do in the old country, which is count the man as one party and the women as a fraction of a party: four wives means each wife counts as one-quarter of a person. And the squabbling between the children of each wife for supremacy and inheritance, and the men playing favorites…
…yes, people fool around on each other, but that doesn’t make it something we ought to sanction simply because we can’t find a good reason to say no that doesn’t sound bigoted or closed-minded to the proggs.
Polygamy may not inherently deprive children of a mother or a father, but it can and will be a messy, ugly thing, given human weakness.
When my ancestors did it, the primary reason was to take care of widowed, abandoned, and single women. Wives were assigned by the prophet according to each family’s capacity and needs, and if the first wife didn’t want to be involved in polygamy, then that was that: they weren’t.
Furthermore, only women were allowed to initiate divorce from a plural marriage, and the men couldn’t just keep dating after marriage, bringing home one sweet young thang after another to vex his other wives.
Even within the confines of a super-religious community, polygamy was difficult to pull off well. In our modern anything-goes society, it will be perfectly awful.
how many “life partners” i gotta kill to
get a table in this dump?
geez louise..
gay polygamy would be even more worser cause there’d be no place to park anywhere
just look at journolist
Wow. Ross Douthat comes down on the side of Judeo-Christian monogamy.
i like gay polygamy next to the 9/11 mosque maybe some bbq
Definitely BBQ, newrouter. But beef only — we don’t want to scare off those Muslims who aren’t straight-laced and ideologically blinkered.
Which is a pity — ain’t nothin’ like baby back ribs cooked to perfection. Delicious!
i like match.com with black guy hitting up white woman then the alarm co. with white guy attacking white women. where are the black girls in this propaganda? where are the white fags attacking black fags in the home with the alarm?
yes the black fag parents with their chinese made child being attacked by white fags wearing al franken 2012 tee shirts
i’ll settle for plebiscite with gravy
gay polygamy was my favorite board game as a child..
like that game operation..
but i could never figure out where to
put the gerbil in the end..
or whose end! nyuck nyuck..
How about the Wrong Angle? Since your major concern is the definition of marriage, and your objection is to the imputation of bias against homosexuals to those who oppose same sex marriage, you must really despise her. She’s explained she wouldn’t even take money from Intel merely because they give benefits to same sex partners – without calling it marriage. She’s consistently referred to homosexuals as perverts and worse. You must really resent her for contributing to the stereotype that opponents of same sex marriage have negative feelings about homosexuals – don’t you?
Wrong Angle?
Do you have a similar loathing for Barack Obama David?
is he talking about bjork?
say ur prayers mister
oh. Sharon Angle
Who the hell knows. Unless you are responding to rather immediately to a post David it is best to actually quote it first. Unless you like looking like an idiot babbling to himself.
If he’s talking about Bjork, I’m out of here. Bad juju.
Did David used to be this big of a dumbass? I remember him being kind of clueless, but not just an outright fucking idiot like this.
ij wjill jill go on a bjork tjangent ijf u wjant..
djon’t pjoke mje..
mjeow..
rjuff rjuff
we used to put our supper plates
on the floor and the dog would eat everthing but the peas..
i mean everything!
gravy and shit..
and as i bent down to pick up the plate..
and there’d be like 7 peas and a wicked clean plate….
i’d ask her..
why don’t u give peas a chance?
because if you want to create humans you stick your prick in a male’s asshole.
that’s nice you know what the donors believe. they’re homocons too i’m sure ann coulter types
darwin should make the ghey thing go away. no proggs?
asses/donkeys and burros..
are bjorks way to remind u ur a weak human
who couldn’t carry ur own dignity up a flight of stairs..
polo ponies are bjorks way to remind u that rich people wear
helmets and have hard things that they to score
polo goals but also could be used to bash ur poor un-polo-pony face in..
seagulls are bjorks way of shitting on u when ur having a calm/relatively/ day at the beach..
sharks/ well..
only time..
i think..
that bjork pricked my ass..
when was she was taking the census..
i’m now officially registered!
i salute u!
David, there’s a bit of foam on your lips. You might want to wipe it off.
There’s a good lad.
I wouldn’t know what Sharon Angle looked like if you showed me a picture, but I’m beginning to believe she walks on water and cures scrofula at a touch.
Reason? Well, enough of the residents of Nevada are waking up to the reality of Harry Reid that is approve/disapprove numbers are seriously underwater, and that’s got the Democrats hysterical. They spent a lot of money interfering with the primaries so that what they considered the weakest Republican won, and whattaya know, the weakest Republican is neck-and-neck with Reid in the polls, with the lead trading off, despite Democrats also spending s*loads of money on ads portraying Angle as a nutcase. David, above, is merely quoting the Democratic “talking points”. Since my default assumption is that anything spouted by the DxCC or Matt Yglesias (assuming the two are distinct) lies somewhere on a line between “intentionally distorted” and “damnable, palpable lie”, I tend to assume that Angle is the Second Coming of Jeremiah Butz, or perhaps the Mahdi (which would irritate the Proggs, the mullahs, and Reid, a trifecta worth anybody’s $2).
Regards,
Ric
Yeah, I’ve no idea what Sharon Angle has to do with anything. From what I can gather, she holds a view of homosexuality that isn’t much different from those who vote Barack Obama at a rate of 97%.
“I’m talking more about the 48% what were on the gay marriage side of Prop 8 – and I think that 48% will only grow as long as it’s framed as an equality issue”
Also, framed by the new morality police in such a way that Carrie Prejean serves as an object lesson.
The church lady ain’t got nothin’ on happyfeet.
Only time for one comment but I think it might be a good cudgel to throw in (where is Cranky-D?)
I caught a little of a local news show her in NY and they were all pooh-poohing the not-so-secret word that the judge in the case is gay.
Discuss;)
Does anyone believe an openly gay judge would act differently? What ever happened to we the people?
The law is an ass.
Dude you should hear Jeremiah go off on the queers when there aren’t any cameras around! I about fell out of my fucking pew laughing!