I'm pretty sure they've said that no marriages can take place until after the Supreme Court appeal. So, I'm just holding my breath.Flanger-Hanger wrote:
Excellent news indeed! Does this mean same-sex marriages are legal in California once again, or do we have to wait until after the case goes through the Supreme Court?
I was talking about the comic book nerds, not the Church itself.Goliath wrote:I don't agree. I think they don't have the right (or *shouldn't* have the right) to protest at funerals or anywhere near a funeral. But then again, I'm used to laws which would have landed people like them in jail a long time ago. Because spreading hatred is not the same as freedom of speech.pap64 wrote:[...] so this form of counter protest is the best way to deal with them, since they too have the right to protest (as long as they do it without any serious confrontations, and it's likely the Church knows this as well).
that's right on soooooo many more levels/topics than just Gay Marriage laws.jpanimation wrote:Just to make it clear, the judge has adjourned his ruling to give the other side a say, so I really hope people don't hold their breath (since this may be wrapped up court for some time). I'm mad at two things: 1) the government thinks they can overturn the will of the people and 2) that something unconstitutional was left up to the people to begin with. If this ruling goes through, it sets a bad precedence that will allow the government to decide whether or not the people voted right (which WILL bite us in the butt later).
I think the quickest and easiest way to resolve this would be the federal government changing their law but I don't see that happening (considering Obama's stance on the matter). I don't understand why they can't just settle on granting everyone civil unions with all the rights of marriage. This way they've at least laid some groundwork that could lead to it being called marriage later (when people are no longer sensitive on the subject after seeing the world hasn't imploded in upon itself by granting civil unions).
I also think that's a very fair assessment of the state of this matter. Hard to hear, difficult to process. But quite fair, regardless.jpanimation wrote:Just to make it clear, the judge has adjourned his ruling to give the other side a say, so I really hope people don't hold their breath (since this may be wrapped up court for some time). I'm mad at two things: 1) the government thinks they can overturn the will of the people and 2) that something unconstitutional was left up to the people to begin with. If this ruling goes through, it sets a bad precedence that will allow the government to decide whether or not the people voted right (which WILL bite us in the butt later).
I think the quickest and easiest way to resolve this would be the federal government changing their law but I don't see that happening (considering Obama's stance on the matter). I don't understand why they can't just settle on granting everyone civil unions with all the rights of marriage. This way they've at least laid some groundwork that could lead to it being called marriage later (when people are no longer sensitive on the subject after seeing the world hasn't imploded in upon itself by granting civil unions).
We'll see what happens but as of late, this administration has been killing state rights and sovereignty.
http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/h ... nn-coulterGOProud, a 14-month-old 527 organization dedicated to representing the viewpoints of gay conservatives, will be holding their first New York gala in September, and it will be hosted by Ann Coulter, the conservative commentator who has gotten into trouble in the past for anti-gay comments.
The event, called "HOMOCON 2010"--a reference to gay conservatives, according to the group's founder Jimmy LaSalvia--bills Coulter as "the right wing Judy Garland."
LaSalvia acknowledged her previous statments, but said, "But she is fun, she is smart, she is hilarious, provocative and insightful. And our folks love her."
He added, "You are not going to see us placating the uber-PC crowd. We can laugh and enjoy everybody."
GOProud was formed last April, LaSalvia said because he said he believed that the perspective of gay conservatives were not being represented in national politics.
"There are a whole range of issues where we feel we can bring a gay perspective to it and where conservatives policies uniquely benefit gay people," he said.
The group opposed Obama-care, opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, and favored the repeal of the estate tax.
"We call it the gay tax," LaSalvia said, because there is no marriage exemption. He said the group favors marriage equality, but he noted that it was not currently a federal issue. And, instead of more hate crime legislation, LaSalvia said, his group faces less-stringent gun control regulations.
"If I'm able to defend myself then we can prevent a crime from happening," he said. "So many people on the left want you to become a victime so that the government can help you."
He said the group currently has close to 5,000 members, and the group's board of directors includes Bruce Carroll, the founder of gaypatriot.net, Christopher Barron, a D.C-based political consultant, and Jessica Lee, an investment banker.
LaSalvia added that he felt the group was welcome at right-wing get-togethers.
"We feel much more welcome at CPAC or at a Tea Party event than at a gay pride event. It's the gay left who are the least inclusive of any group I've been around. There can be dissent of opinion from the gay left."
He declined to reveal where in New York HOMOCON would be held.
Hmm...sounds a bit paradoxical. Anyone think that she looks a bit like Maleficent?Super Aurora wrote:Homocon Coming to New York, Bringing Ann Coulter
There are plenty of men and women who have concealed their homosexual desires and have gone on to marry and have normal robust sexual relations with their spouses. These sort of things are hardly ever black-and-white.ajmrowland wrote:If Walt was gay, then how would he have had daughters? surely his wife would've known if he wasnt being turned on?
What's that?Wonderlicious wrote:the red hater
A red is a slang term for a communist or socialist (what with the colour red being associated with leftist activity and thought). During the early days of the Cold War, Walt part-founded the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (an anti-communist group), and supplied the US government with details of supposed communist activity in Hollywood.Disney Duster wrote:What's that?Wonderlicious wrote:the red hater
I assume that this remark was purely ironic (though probably taken slightly out of context by Disney's critics), what with the amount of money that Mickey made for him.Disney Duster wrote:I will leave you with this though: Walt Disney told someone he loved Mickey Mouse more than any woman.
