19 responses

  1. Lindoro Almaviva
    August 4, 2010

    Read one and it is like reading all:

    This is not fair, we heterosexuals have a god-given right to impose our views on the rest of the world. Our sense of entitlement should be rewarded at all costs. We demand to be given our way or we will hold our breaths until we pass out or die


  2. Larry Gist
    August 4, 2010

    I would like to know how 18% of the citizens of CA constitutes a “vast” majority of the populace. Do the math folks – 18% voted yes 16% voted no. That represents 79% of the electorate, but barely 30% of the population. So their arguments about “majority” are invalid.

  3. Jaft
    August 4, 2010

    I had thought to remark when I first heard the news that today was like Christmas. After a beautifully wrapped equality, I get to go to the stockings!

    They were rather stuffed, but oh so delectable.

  4. CPT_Doom
    August 4, 2010

    I’m loving all the statements about how this ruling goes against the “original framers” of the Constitution (alternatively, the “Founding Fathers”). The ruling was based on the 14th Amendment, which didn’t pass until 1868. All of the Constitution’s original framers and the Founding Fathers were long dead by then.

  5. Burr
    August 4, 2010

    Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance.

    Agreed, actually. It’s just to truly agree with that you must give up the fight and allow gays to marry. No more preferred status for heteros, no more seeking acceptance for your fringe theories of superiority.

  6. DN
    August 4, 2010

    Minor correction, Jim, if I may: Gingrich believe in love between three consecutive women – he believes in loving two consecutive women, marrying a third, and having an affair while at the same time screaming for the impeachment of a president for getting an extra-marital blowjob.

  7. justsearching
    August 4, 2010

    Time to get out the popcorn, sit back, and watch the crazies give a good show.

  8. andrewdb
    August 4, 2010

    The Lopez comment was probably dropped because, as a Federal Judge, there is no election for them.

  9. Regan DuCasse
    August 4, 2010

    Do they have ANY idea how frikkin’ STUPID they all sound?
    They are SO single minded that legal historical context gets by them completely. To say nothing of NO EVIDENCE to prove their assertions.
    Didn’t they think they had to have evidence or did they think they only had to breath heavily and that’s enough to get their way?

    The Constitution is a serious document they played with for an abominable reason.
    All in the name of jacking gay people around. And even then, their stated purpose of Prop. 8, doesn’t have the result of protecting anything.

    NOM might be counting on SCOTUS to rule in their favor because it is heavily Catholic.
    But even THEY require evidence to come to a ruling.
    Judge Walker gave them an ironclad template to review and draw from.
    What part of they. had. no. rational.case. doesn’t the opposition understand?

  10. Greg P
    August 5, 2010

    They would probably have agreed with William F. Buckley Jr. on the Brown decision.

    So long as (the white South) is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.”

  11. VapoRob
    August 5, 2010

    Umm I’m under the impression that the tea party is made up of Libertarians. Libertarians want limited government in peoples lives which means government not interfering in who can and cannot get married. I’m under the impression that they are on our side.

  12. Greg
    August 5, 2010

    Isn’t there something odd about the people who have been claiming that the majority should not rule through all of the obstruction in the Senate now saying that “the majority have spoken”?

  13. Jim Burroway
    August 5, 2010

    The tea party is most definitely NOT “on our side.” Nor are they really libertarians. They had no objection to governmental interference in the Patriot Act, and when they carried signs to their rallies saying “keep your hands of my Medicare,”they can be as statist as anyone else.

    To say that they are Libertarians with a capital “L” will comes as a surprise to everyone who has ever been a member of the Libertarian Party or the Cato Institute. Every single member of the Tea Party Caucus is an on-the-record ardent opponent to LGBT equality, especially marriage. Tea party leaders like Dick Armey have chosen to keep their opinions in the closet for now, but the rank-and-file haven’t. Among Washington state Tea Partiers, only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.


    That same survey found that only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.

    These are the same group of people who will, in order to demonize immigrants, lie about spiraling crime rates (crime has been going down), increased property crimes along the border (all crime, including property crimes, along the border has been going down), beheaded bodies in the desert (officials have found none anywhere in America). These are different lies from those hurled at gay people, but the tactics are the same.

    What gives anyone the comfort that when LGBT issues become the hot topic again that the tea party will be “on our side”?

  14. Markus
    August 5, 2010

    None of those anti-gay organizations’ comments even compare to the anti-gay, anti-marriage nastiness that you can find at the supposedly “gay” site GayPatriot.org.

    If you don’t believe me check it out for yourselves. The further you get into the comments the deeper and more extreme the level of anti-gay animus gets.

    The all too familiar North Dallas Thirty fears that ruling that gay people can’t be discriminated against for their “so-called innate sexual orientation” (which he doesn’t believe in) opens the door for pedophiles to petition for the same “sexual behavior based” rights and protections.

    I warn you. If you don’t have a strong stomach, as in one strong enough to wade through a Free Republic (Freeper) comment thread, then DON’T go to GayPatriot. They really give the Freeper’s a run for their money when it comes to hating queers.


  15. TampaZeke
    August 5, 2010

    Why are we expected to base all of our rights today on what the founding fathers wrote over 230 years ago. The people at GayPatriot are making the case that there is NO basis for protecting gays because the founding fathers didn’t include it in the constitution.

    Are they forgetting that MANY of the founding fathers OWNED SLAVES including Thomas Jefferson, who authored good parts of the documents that they claim should be the ONLY basis for rights today. Are they forgetting that in the 18th Century world where “all men [were] created equal” women couldn’t own property or vote.

    If women and African-Americans can find their rights in the later amendments to the constitution then whey should gays be able to use those same amendments?

  16. TampaZeke
    August 5, 2010

    “then why shouldn’t gays be able to use those same amendments”?

  17. Timothy Kincaid
    August 5, 2010


    It might be most accurate to think of Tea Party activists as single-issue voters. Most of them are not on our side, but that isn’t their issue. And they are infuriating social conservatives by refusing to focus on Teh Geys and instead obsessing on fiscal issues for the most part.


    No one can hate quite like those who hate themselves. I’m certainly not one who accuses every gay Republican of being self-loathing, but if that term has a meaning, it can be witnessed at GayPatriot

  18. Erin
    August 5, 2010

    All they can say is it’s not about discrimination, but about upholding an institution that lets men and women come together to raise children responsibly. This argument would be valid and make sense if what we are trying to do is ban marriage between heterosexuals. I’m all for responsible procreation. Have at it. But what about those heterosexuals who don’t want kids or decide they want to give kids who have been given up by their birth parents a loving home through the adoption process? Should they not have the protections of marriage? It’s not about children. It’s about punishing us because they don’t like that we blow a huge hole in their theology and/or we threaten the self-denial of the closeted ones (George Rekers!) by being comfortable with ourselves.

  19. Matthew
    August 5, 2010

    1. Hitler agrees with these people that gays are inferior. I disagree with them.
    2. plus, the conservative Catholic nations of Latin America are giving Gays the right to marry.
    3. If that wasn’t enough, Osama bin Laden agrees with everything these people said, including
    4. On gays participating, what important person helped the Civil Rights movement be won? An African American on the SUPREME COURT.
    5. Our Constitution never gives one religion the right to put their religion into the law. Actually, it forbids every religion from being codified. All religions and ways of life are equal.

    Some arguments are so fallacious you need to face-palm them five times.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop