Which is exactly where they belong, and that includes Maggie. And her Pope.

At least she’ll have like minded company.

BTW, Catholic church – still hasn’t EXCOMMUNICATED their boy Hitler.

But last year RATZI UNexcommunicated a holocaust denier, a bishop williamson. At least Argentina threw him out of the country. And is already 2/3 rds of the way to legalizing gay mmarriage. As did Portugal a month ago

BINGO!

If anyone cares to study the rise of the religious right back from the days of Billy James Hargis and early Jerry Falwell, you’ll find out that it’s all about marketing. What will scare our donor base the most? Communism? Abortion? Homosexuals? Go for the money maker. The religious right has always preyed on the socially ignorant, deluging them with constant extremist, Armageddon-like scenarios of “what might happen” if they don’t send $10 NOW to fight the .

If you notice, the Tea Party has broken with the religious right and (for the most part) doesn’t care doodly squat about gay marriage or religious issues– they’re more concerned with the direction they perceive the economy is going in. This has redoubled the efforts of Maggie’s ilk to target, scare, and fleece thier donor base. There are only so many dollars to go around in today’s economy, and the scarcer the donatons get, the more desperate and devious Maggie/Barber/Labarbera, et al., will become.

I’m sure it won’t surprise you to learn that Maggie was just, well, ‘speaking words that don’t exactly align with reality’. The transcript suggests something quite else.

At times it seems that Maggie suffers from Honesty Deficit Disorder.

Their response, by the way, won’t be a Supreme Court bid. It will be a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Lots of money to get the right people elected, and Maggie gets a percentage of it all.

And depending on the timing of this case, it could become an issue for the 2012 Presidential elections and the “Federal Marriage Amendment” will probably rear it’s ugly head again.

I don’t believe for 1 nano second that the Republicans won’t use this case as anti-gay fodder to bring out their extreme right wing religious base to the polls.

Article One of DOMA (states don’t have to recognize the marriages of other states) is constitutional.

Article Two (the federal government doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages/unions) is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds (duh).

I make no prediction how they (read Kennedy) will rule on constitutionality of Prop 8. I bet it comes down to whether they find animus to have been the driving force behind it, as in Romer vs Evans.

I don’t foresee a sweeping decision legalizing same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea. No way they will do this unless, perhaps, one of the conservatives is replaced by the time the case is heard.

Cooper fighting hard to protect 18,000 gay marriages
Postted by Maggie on Wednesday June 1th at 1:47 pm.

Cooper: Long discussion of 18,000 marriages. Cooper fighting hard to protect 18,000 marriages and Prop 8. “We think that grandfathering of those marriages is perfectly rational and
common and perfectly constitutional.” Judge seems to suggest it is all or nothing.

* * * *

How sly of her not to mention that it was what the Prop 8 folks put in their answer to the “remedy” question from Judge Walker, that, oh yes, while you’re at it, they would also like to see 18,000 marriages annulled.

Please Mrs. Srivastav, just go away. Far away. Haven’t you got a marriage to attend to? And a child to care for? Time to retreat from public life and just melt back into a private life away from the cameras, web-pages and halls of justice. You will be so much happier that way and can spend more quality time with your traditional family in your traditional marriage with all its sanctity (hopefully) still intact. Cutting down on your addiction to lies and distortion will also help your state of mind and general well-being.

We lost because the judge was gay and he could not separate his sexual preference from the arguments. We even asked him to reccuse and he refused, so we knew we were going to lose all along, so we gave up the battle. See? We are so beaten by this, why don’t you give us some money so we can take this to the Supreme court where there is a majority of republican judges and they will favor us.

Of course, if the judge has been a heterosexual the excuse would have been:

We lost because the judge was a socialist activist and he could not separate his activism from the arguments. We even asked him to reccuse and let a republican judge preside but he refused, so we knew we were going to lose all along, so we gave up the battle. See? We are so beaten by this, why don’t you give us some money so we can take this to the Supreme court where there is a majority of republican judges and they will favor us.

And if the judge was a republican the excuse would have been:

We lost because the judge was from CA and in CA there are no real conservatives, they are all conservatives in name only so he couls not separate his underlining liberal leanings from the arguments. We even asked him to reccuse and he refused, so we knew we were going to lose all along, so we gave up the battle. See? We are so beaten by this, why don’t you give us some money so we can take this to the Supreme court where there is a majority of republican judges and they will favor us.

They have been preparing this argument for a long time. One way or another they are going to spin this so they look like the victims of some evil empire who is out to get them.

Problem is that there are people stupid enough on this country to believe their crap.