You Can’t Fix Stupid – Gay Marriage Cont.

And at this point, there is a whole lot of stupid walking around. I find it hard to believe that with gas prices nearing $4/gal., unemployment persistently high, GDP persistently sluggish, record debt, record deficits, higher taxes, increased food stamp dependency, and record number of people on disability, that gay marriage seems to be the most pressing issue. But according to liberals and the media, and again I apologize for the redundancy, gay marriage is paramount to all other concerns. And it isn’t even about equality, of course don’t tell your stupid liberal friend that, because they are bound to become unglued and call you an extremist, and when that happens you know darn well that racist word isn’t far behind. Every single human being in America has equal rights in terms of marriage – we are all free to marry a member of the opposite sex, whom is not closely related and of the age of consent. Love is not required, never has been. Therefore, every living being in this country is on equal terms. Expanding on that, none of us has the right to marry a member of the same sex, with the exception of nine states (can you see where I might be going with this?), nor do we have the right to marry a close relative, or a minor, so again equal terms. Expanding even further, legal rights really aren’t even in question here in that through wills and living wills (thank you Amazona), same sex couples can bequeath personal property to their partner, extend visiting rights and/or POA’s, so the only unsettled issue would then be the tax considerations extended to them on behalf of the IRS, which really would be a minor issue to resolve. What this issue really boils down to is the redefinition of a word and ultimate acceptance. Attitudes are certainly shifting on this issue as evidenced by recent elections at the various states, and this is of course where the issue belongs. If liberals were so confident in the shifting political winds on this issue, they wouldn’t be relying on nine robed justices to impose this mandate for them, but I believe that confidence is not as strong as they would have you believe. Equally wrong in my opinion, is their insistence to offend the hundreds of millions of people of Faith worldwide, who hold dear the timeless and rich tradition of the institution of marriage.

Enough of gay marriage – again hard to believe that this issue has risen to this level. In two other news items, which should be of much more import, unless you listen to the media of course, Kathleen Sebelius today has admitted that health care premiums will in fact rise. This announcement will only surprise the media and brain dead liberals, again sorry for the redundancy, as many conservatives have mentioned this since day one despite the persistent lies from the POTUS. And Janet Napolitano has stated that a pathway to legalizing illegal immigrants should come before securing the border, an effort of which has almost completely dropped off her radar. The cost of illegal immigration, the rising costs of entitlement dependency, the rising costs of SS and Medicare with no sensible reform in sight, and the legacy costs of public unions pensions, which is bankrupting our cities and states, is what our national dialogue should be centered around. Instead, we discuss ad nauseum, an issue of relatively minor concern that is quite frankly intellectually beneath us. Sadly though, you can’t fix stupid.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  A libertarian in favor of gay marriage notes his problem

…I have a feeling that if the push to end DOMA and Prop 8 were primarily the work of Reason or the Ayn Rand Institute, certain traditionalist conservatives would be at least slightly more amenable to it. This would be because the implicit threat of future civil-rights lawsuits against, say, churches that refuse to marry gays would be a moot point. No Cato Institute senior fellow wants to file suit against the Catholic Church for exercising its First Amendment rights. Social conservatives know this; they trust libertarians enough even if they don’t agree with them.

With the New Left, however, all bets are off. You know what’s coming: a whole new bureaucratic tangle of “disparate impact” and “hate crimes”-style legal crusades, backed by the full faith and credit of the Democratic Party and the American Trial Lawyers Association. The targets of this campaign will be Catholics and Protestant evangelicals. This campaign has really already begun, but it will continue and be amped up to radical intensity. Phony legal arguments will be cooked up by the professional activists to eviscerate the First Amendment on grounds of “equality.” The goal is not tolerance but conversion.

What’s a guy like me to do, then? In actuality, I support neither side in this debate. The radical identitarian Left is all of a sudden pretending to be Constitutionalists, citing the 14th Amendment as if they actually gave a sh*t about equal protection under the law — this canard after decades of shilling for affirmative action, PC campus speech codes, reparations, anti-male divorce courts, the subsidization of contraception by religious objectors, “abortion on demand,” etc. I have no time for this gang of phonies and tyrants; I don’t believe a word they say….

About these ads

114 thoughts on “You Can’t Fix Stupid – Gay Marriage Cont.

  1. neocon01

    marx, alinsky, cloward piven, al-Ubama………over load the system, crash the system, rebuild the system as a socialist hell hole. EXCEPT for the ruling class.

    1. neocon01

      Cluster

      in order to tear down a society you must rid it of it’s norms, standards, Christianity, family, ethics, morals, customs.

      This is but one front on a much larger battle for the heart and soul of our country. We can not pull our forces out of the fight to concentrate on a single issue or two. The enemy, and believe me they are our enemy is fighting the battle of the bulge on several fronts.We need to stand and fight every inch of the way.
      This battle is not about love, marriage, bigotry, it is about helping rip the very foundation and fabric of our culture and country to shreds.

      1. neocon01

        Is the Republican Party America’s Achilles Heel?
        By Steve McCann

        The hierarchy of the Republican Party has published a 100 page new and improved game plan entitled the “Growth and Opportunity Project” ostensibly to win future elections and re-tool the party. While this effort is an improvement over similar exercises in recent years, it contains a number of major flaws indicative of the fact that the Party is still operating as if the national political landscape was the same as the 1980’s and 90’s with a recognition that demographics and news dissemination has changed.

        The most egregious of these flaws is the inability of the Republican Establishment to understand that the American Left, who are now in control of the Democratic Party, are the implacable enemy in a battle for the heart and soul of America. A further amplification of this failure is the inability to recognize what the strategy of the left has been over the past 50 plus years as well as why it has been so successful.

        “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear for the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

        It has become painfully obvious over the past twenty years that the Republican Party leadership knows neither who the enemy is nor do they have a firm and unalterable conviction in what the Republican Party stands for.

        whole article here….

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/is_the_republican_party_americas_achilles_heel.html#ixzz2OmuvCDGf

  2. percybeezer

    If they can make it so my brother and i can get married, I’ll vote for all of the Supreme Court Judges in the next election.

    Get your wedding dress ready Gary, we’re stepping out tonight.

    A little wine, a little sushi, take the Prius to the mall and pick up our rings. We’ll do Carnival Cruse to Acapulco for our honeymoon. Mom can share a cabin with her wife; cousin Pat.

  3. M. Noonan

    It is a gigantic misdirection for Obama, serving to distract us from the fact that Obama is a failure…but the marriage issue, itself, is very important for uber-leftists who want to use it as a club to destroy religious liberty.

    That said, I was caught up short yesterday by the phrase “marriage equality”…seen it a thousand times, of course, but until yesterday never realized just how stupid a thing that is…if it means anything, it means that people believe that a man marrying a man is just the same as a man marrying a woman. Now, whether you want gay marriage, or not, what happens when a man marries a man is clearly different from what happens when a man marries a woman…we can call it by the same word all we want, but it simply is not the same.

    But such is the propaganda success of the left – after all, who can be opposed to “marriage” or “equality”? So, tack the two together, pretend they mean something and get the rubes to go along with it because they simply aren’t thinking the matter through…

    1. Cluster Post author

      Oh that’s not the only thing the rubes have been distracted by. While they are currently hyperventilating over “marriage equality”‘, incomes are going down, health care premiums are going up, health access is decreasing, food stamp usage is increasing, people in poverty is increasing, gas prices are increasing, tensions in the Middle East is increasing, etc., etc. The FAA has announced closures of towers which results in loss of jobs, meanwhile Obama promises $200 million for Syrian refugees and then goes off on another vacation.

      And the rubes wring their hands over equality.

  4. watsonthethird

    One of the things that came up in the testimony before the Supreme Court today was Justice Elena Kagan quoting from the rationale behind DOMA in the report issued by Congress upon DOMA’s passage:

    Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.

    So for you constitutional experts out there, just exactly which enumerated duties expressly give Congress the authority to make moral judgements about human sexuality?

    The report also quotes Rep. Henry Hyde: “‘[S]ame-sex marriage, if sanctified by the law, if approved by the law, legitimates a public union, a legal status that most people … feel ought to be illegitimate. … And in so doing it trivializes the legitimate status of marriage and demeans it by putting a stamp of approval … on a union that many people … think is immoral.”

    The same Henry Hyde who at age 41 had an affair with a woman married to another man with whom she had three children. Talk about demeaning the legitimate status of marriage.

    1. Cluster Post author

      Yes Watson, God forbid a human being should have failings. And of course, any human that does fall short of the ideal, has no right to advocate for the ideal, isn’t that right?

      What part of my position that marriage belongs at the state level did you not understand?

    2. neocon01

      Talk about demeaning the legitimate status of marriage.

      like JFK, JFnK, slic willy, john edwards, algore, “rev” je$$e and obammy?

    3. M. Noonan

      Watson,

      All law is an imposition of morality – its only a question of which morality will impose. To legalize gay marriage is to impose morality just as much as to keep it illegal.

      1. neocon01

        Mark

        To legalize gay marriage is to impose morality just as much as to keep it illegal.

        now there you go again, using truth, logic, and common sense on drones who wouldnt know the truth if it fell out of the sky and hit them on the head.

      2. M. Noonan

        Neocon,

        There is a great deal of silliness believed out there – which is why once Matt and I finish up Worst, I’ll return to the book I’ve been working on since 2010 to finish it up and release it, hopefully, by the end of the year…and as it turns out, there is so much idiocy to be dealt with, that book is going to become a trilogy of books (I hope to have the 2nd out in 2015, the third in 2017).

      3. watsonthethird

        Mark, my question was, which enumerated powers of the United States Constitution give Congress the authority to make moral judgements about human sexuality? Surely you believe in a limited federal government, limited by the Constitution. I guess your argument is that since it is the business for Congress to create laws, and all laws impose morality, then Congress can pass any laws they choose.

      4. M. Noonan

        Watson,

        First off, we on the right find it enormously funny that liberals have suddenly discovered a love for keeping Congress to its enumerated powers…too bad you didn’t care about that for the last 80 years, because then we’d have a lot less trouble.

        That said, there is a case to be made against DOMA on such grounds – and it is probably why there will be a 7-2 or higher decision to strike down DOMA (the liberals will strike it down because they want to be popular at Georgetown cocktail parties, but one or two conservatives might join them on legal grounds). But, then again, we have federal laws regarding a great deal of sexual morality – so if DOMA Is to be struck down on grounds that Congress has no power to regulate sexual activities, then a lot of laws will have to go down with it. I never was too enthused about DOMA on federalism grounds – to me, it was more a signal to the left that the actual national consensus is against gay marriage (and it still remains that way – at best, gay marriage is 3-30 when placed in front of the voters). My preference has been for a long time for the enactment of a Freedom of Conscience amendment which would have words along the following:

        Congress shall make no law requiring a person to carry out an action in contravention of personal conscience, nor make any law restricting the ability of religious bodies to carry out religious, educational, social or charitable work.

        This would free all of us from ever having to worry that a law will force us to engage in an act we consider an intrinsic evil, and it would also allow religious groups to carry on with their work without having to worry that some nutcase of a liberal fascist will sue them for, say, not hiring a transgendered person to work in a Church-run organization, or refusing to adopt out to the strange, new versions of “family” your side is determined to create – but it also wouldn’t put the slightest block on you from making a mockery of family, provided you can convince people to go along. Essentially, it ends the whole issue as far as believers are concerned – it makes us what we’re supposed to be, a live and let live society…do whatever you wish (within reason) but don’t even think about trying to force anyone else to go along with you or agree with you. The really good thing about it is that we on our side could pretty much duplicate the whole social support network (schools, hospitals, etc) without interference from liberals – a sort of parallel society where we will look after our own and just wait for liberals to die off so we can take over the whole show, again. Liberals would, of course, oppose such an act tooth and nail because it essentially prohibits liberals from acting like bullies and pushing everyone around.

    4. neocon01

      watstooge

      e Elena Kagan quoting from the rationale behind DOMA

      THIS kagan??

      The gay establishment is suspiciously quiet: Sure, Andrew Sullivan has said she’s gay (as have several gay blogs), but much of the gay media has been mum about Kagan’s sexuality. Is this because they’re waiting for her to get her seat on the court first and don’t want to rock the boat until then? It’s entirely possible.

      CBS News reported it: When Kagan’s name was first floated last month, CBS News published a post by Republican blogger Ben Domenech calling her the “first openly gay justice.”

      When pressured about the veracity of his claim, Domenech added to his post, “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted—odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”
      Oh, so there’s a partner? It’s beginning to sound like Kagan is living in a glass closet, going about campus with her lady lover, but refusing to confirm it on the record.

      my my

    5. Amazona

      wattle, I think I speak for many of us when I thank you for your generosity in stepping up to prove the truth of the thread post title—you really CAN’T fix stupid.

      You ask “…just exactly which enumerated duties expressly give Congress the authority to make moral judgements about human sexuality?”

      This ridiculous question is so backward it’s hard to believe ANYONE could pose it, not even you.

      No, no one is claiming that the Constitution “.. expressly give Congress the authority to make moral judgements about human sexuality..” Duh. And I don’t know where Elena got that quote, but it sounds like something she would come up with.

      You seem to have accepted that the defense of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is exclusively a comment on human sexuality. Nonsense. You seem to have accepted the claim that it s a comment on, or judgment of, morality. Nonsense.

      It is a comment on the value of deeply held beliefs which have, for centuries, contributed to the stability of society, which is based on the stability of the family unit. And it is a comment on the need for boundaries.

      If you are truly so utterly stupid that you actually believe anyone is claiming that the Constitution expressly, or even indirectly, gives Congress the authority to make moral judgments about human sexuality, then you prove the truth of the statement that you really can’t fix stupid.

      Yes, I know that Jeremiah sees everything through the prism of his own deeply held religious beliefs. That’s fine. But to extrapolate from that that all decisions about the benefit of limiting marriage to one man and one woman are, by definition, moral judgments or comments on human sexuality is a gross distortion of fact .

      But I can see why you like it—-it is exactly the kind of canard that would appeal to you.

      As for your Henry Hyde comment, that is just more of your stupidity and bigotry. Why not claim that a man who has run a red light is not qualified to vote on traffic laws? What Henry Hyde did or did not do is (1) None of your damned business and (2) Not a disqualifier for having a legitimate opinion on the value of a law defining marriage. And it most certainly did NOT “demean the legitimate status of marriage”.

      You are such an idiot.

      And before you start bleating about “civility” you might stop and think that one has to EARN respect, which you have made no effort to do.

    6. Amazona

      ” Paul Clement, the attorney defending DOMA…….. suggests, ‘Look, we are not going to strike down a statute just because a couple of legislators may have had an improper motive……….

      In short, he argued, “The House Report says some things that … we’ve never invoked in trying to defend the statute”.”

    1. neocon01

      a leftys sexual paradise……

      CDC: 110,197,000 VENEREAL INFECTIONS IN USA

      No taxpayer money wasted there eh?

    2. neocon01

      Jer

      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

      In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, ****and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.****

      1. Jeremiah

        Neo,

        Yes, those verses reflect the Old Testament’s view concerning marriage. Many people today want to do away with, or throw away the Old Testament because of God’s many commands on sin … people don’t want to face the reality of the human condition, the evilness of man’s heart, so they feel convicted…and it burns their conscience like a hot iron. Conversely they want to keep all of Jesus’ message of love and compassion, and kindness. But in order to understand the New Testament one has to have the Old…as it is complimentary to the New. Jesus said, “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” So all the Ten Commandments and the many laws that God gives in the Old are manifest through Jesus’ teachings. Everything that was the law for Israel, Jesus’ recognized, as well. Everything that is there is real in spiritual terms. There are spiritual, as well as physical consequences for disobedience. We cannot avoid the physical per se, but we can avoid the spiritual by following Jesus, and the Word of the Father God.

      2. neocon01

        all

        CONTEXT: Each year, millions of U.S. youth acquire sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Estimates of the economic burden of STDs can help to quantify the impact of STDs on the nation’s youth and on the payers of the cost of their medical care.

        METHODS: We synthesized the existing literature on STD costs to estimate the lifetime medical cost per case of eight major STDs—HIV, human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus type 2, hepatitis B, chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis and syphilis. We then estimated the total burden of disease by multiplying these cost-per-case estimates by the approximate number of new cases of STDs acquired by youth aged 15-24.

        RESULTS: The total estimated burden of the nine million new cases of these STDs that occurred among 15-24-year-olds in 2000 was $6.5 billion (in year 2000 dollars). Viral STDs accounted for 94% of the total burden ($6.2 billion), and nonviral STDs accounted for 6% of the total burden ($0.4 billion). HIV and HPV were by far the most costly STDs in terms of total estimated direct medical costs, accounting for 90% of the total burden ($5.9 billion).

        CONCLUSIONS: The large number of infections acquired by persons aged 15-24 and the high cost per case of viral STDs, particularly HIV, create a substantial economic burden.

        SIX and a half BILLION a YEAR and that is only considering 15-24 yo’s

      3. Jeremiah

        sexually passed diseases we can 100%

        Sure. I agree.

        What I am referring to is the consequences of sin in general. Mankind will continue to suffer as long as he is on this green earth.
        And venereal diseases are one consequence of committing that particular type of sin whether it be adulterous, fornication, promiscuity or homosexuality. Homosexuality by far being the main lifestyle that spreads diseases such as HIV AIDS. Once it is in the body it is unavoidable.

        On the spiritual side, far worse is the death of one’s soul, spending eternity in hell.

        You know, i’ve been reading comments in various places on the Internet regarding the debate over homosexuals being allowed the right to marry. And many of them are saying “well, what if a homosexual goes to hell? What business is that of yours?”

        If people only knew what they were saying … if those in favor of, and are advocates for homosexuality could only spend one day in hell, they would make a 180 and be on their knees praying for their loved ones who are lost and in sin, and all their friends who are the same. They would be on their knees begging their friends to turn from their wicked beliefs.

      4. watsonthethird

        Greetings Jeremiah. Hmmm. I was told here on B4V that the old laws are no longer in effective because they have been superseded by new laws. Perhaps there is some disagreement on that point. Perhaps you can explain to us what the Golden Rule.

      5. Jeremiah

        Watsonthethird,

        That is what Jesus taught. Which many have copied and took credit for it. Humans have taken that rule, and try to give the human the credit for such a rule, when it did not come from humans, and never could come from humans, because the human heart is set to do evil.

        Yes, Jesus said, “And the whole law rests on this one, that you love your neighbor as yourself.”

        Does this teaching nullify the Old Testament? No. In no way does it nullify, or abolish the Old Testament teaching. God did His very best to teach the Israelites…but many, many times they would not listen. They had impenitent hearts. They were rebellious to what God wanted…so they had to suffer God’s judgment for their disobedience.

        Now, in relation to the thread, does the Golden Rule mean that we have to accept the lifestyle of homosexuality? No. God does not approve of homosexuality.

        Does the Golden Rule mean that we cannot call homosexuality a sin? No. It is sin. Maybe no more grievous than any other sin, but it was sin enough in God’s eyes to destroy the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. And to disallow anyone who is living that lifestyle no entry into heaven.

        Jesus said to the adulterous woman, “Go and sin no more”

        If the Supreme Court rules that homosexuals should have the right to marry, does that mean we have to accept their decision? No. We have no obligation to obey or accept any law that is contrary to that Law which is from Above, from the God of Creation. God is the Author and Creator of marriage. He has the final say. And judiciaries down here are not held to any less or lower standard. They are held to that standard from Above.

        What is so hard to explain is that life choices and doing the right thing is a heart thing…getting people to understand it…this is what was so mysterious about Jesus to others, and why He was so different to the people, and why He was hated and despised for us.

        When we do something wrong it starts in the heart.

        When we do something right it starts in the heart.

        The heart is the soul and mind in sync, working like a well oiled mechanism that put into action choices we make.

        Jesus wants people to have a complete makeover, a complete life change, heart change, mind change, spiritual change so that we can spend eternity with Him. As without Him we are dead. But to be with Him is to be Alive in the most real sense.

        Going back to the adulterous woman, again, Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” … He told her to sin no more because He cared about her soul. And He cares about those living the homosexual lifestyle in the same way, and would say the same thing, “Go and sin no more.”

        Judgment day is nothing to be taken lightly.

        I hope that gives you a little better understanding.

      6. watsonthethird

        Jeremiah, thank you for that explanation. You didn’t trivialize the Golden Rule, as your pal did.

        As for your statement, “We have no obligation to obey or accept any law that is contrary to that Law which is from Above, from the God of Creation”:

        I understand that that is what you believe, but fortunately the United States is governed by the constitution, not by each individuals’ beliefs in whatever deity they choose. That is the beauty of it.

      7. Jeremiah

        but fortunately the United States is governed by the constitution, not by each individuals’ beliefs in whatever deity they choose. That is the beauty of it.

        Sure, we have the Constitution as the civil law of the United States. Sure. But, I would remind you that it does not supersede God’s law. It does not take precedence over God’s Law.

        This is where more people would do well to be more vocal. But they don’t….they say, “well, these social issues, they don’t belong in the political debate…but they are…. because the liberal left, people on your side of the debate have made it so…from 1963 onward into the 21st century. And it is for the simple reason that people did not want to defend what was right…they said, “Oh this is political…I ain’t meddlin’ my religion with these Supreme Court decisions” … but it was their right to pray at a high school football game….their right to say Jesus and God at a high school ceremony…their right to put up a public display of the Ten Commandments….their right to share Bible verses with students …. and now their right to keep the sanctity of the only institution left holding this nation together marriage that has been and is being taken away. If they do not soon find the will to fight for what is right, the government will take their right to live away!

        If the Supreme Court gives homosexuals the right to redefine marriage, even all Churches will be effected because the homosexual will want sanctions placed against churches that says they aren’t allowed to speak out against the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality.

        The redefinition of marriage will have far reaching impacts. For the negative.

        I would also remind you that America and its Constitution were founded and signed by Godly men. Men who would never consider giving marital status to those of the same-sex. They wouldn’t even receive any recognition. Our Founding Fathers knew God’s Law and they kept it, and employed it in their lives, and is what made them the honorable men that they were!

        America’s congress-critters of today would do well to study America’s roots, and mimic the lives of those men who Founded this country!

  5. dbschmidt

    Not to distrub a rational I have had for years, which would be DOMA . I found an interesting piece that maybe anyone could answer–Well, he was speaking of the 2nd amendment but it appies.

    “That said, if gay marriage wins, will The Government require churches to perform them, an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment? Will churches, mosques, synagogues, pastors, priests, clerics, etc be held liable for criminal and/or civil penalties if they refuse to perform a gay marriage? Would one be charged with a “hate crime” if they refuse?

    Second, if gay marriage is OK, why not polygamous/bigamous marriage? One of the main arguments for same sex marriage is that it denies the right of equality to same sex couples. Yet, those who want to voluntarily engage in a polygamous/bigamous marriage have been denied under law for hundreds of years. It is a felony to be married to more than one person at a time. What if these people love each other? Is it hurting anyone else? Where’s the equality? You may think that’s a specious argument, but, it shows that certain forms of marriage have been banned under the law.

    Wailiam Teach from Priate’s Cove: http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/03/27/maddow-rights-are-not-supposed-to-be-open-to-popularity-contests/

    1. Amazona

      db, don’t expect an answer to any of these questions from casper or the wattle. Oh, cappy may restate the questions in his usual catty way, so he can snicker at them, but you can bet he will not man up and actually address them. He can’t.

    2. Bob1

      With the establishment of gay marriage as a right, I would expect other forms of marriage, such as polygamous/bigamous marriages to soon be allowed. And then incestuous relationships between consenting partners will no longer be frowned upon. And prostitution will become recognized as a “legitimate” business anywhere. And statutory rape will be removed as a crime in cases where both participants consented to the activity. The establishment of “gay marriage” as a legal term really eliminates any justification for the inclusion of any form or consensual sexual activity in any law regarding what individuals do privately with their bodies.

  6. watsonthethird

    Cluster said:

    Yes Watson, God forbid a human being should have failings. And of course, any human that does fall short of the ideal, has no right to advocate for the ideal, isn’t that right?

    What part of my position that marriage belongs at the state level did you not understand?

    Henry Hyde is a hypocrite of the first order. No, I don’t think he has any standing to complain that same sex marriage undermines the institution. That argument has been tried and has utterly failed, in part thanks to people like him proving that the argument is baseless.

    Regarding your position that “marriage belongs at the state level,” I take it you think that DOMA should be struck down on that basis. If so, on that you and I agree. Common ground!

    The next step is to ask if state laws prohibiting same sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was in part the rationale for the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Loving against the State of Virginia, invalidating state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

    1. dbschmidt

      14th amendment does not apply to this case nor is it the matter before the SCOTUS. “You can’t fix stupid” however, does seem to apply to you Watson.

    2. Amazona

      wattle, you really do need to try to keep up.

      The Loving case is in no way germane to the question of what gay couples can CALL their unions.

      In the Loving case, one man and one woman were not allowed to marry solely because of race. This has nothing in common with laws saying that while homosexual couples can enter into contracts very very similar to the marriage contract, they cannot use the word “marriage” to describe them.

      This question has been asked and answered, so many times I would think that even you ought to have learned something about it by now.

      If there is any area of inequality regarding homosexual unions, it can and often has been addressed via legislation. No, the issue is not equality. It is about a WORD .

      1. 02casper

        Amazona,
        Please prattle on and don’t forget to use the CAPS LOCK whenever you want to make a point.

      2. Amazona

        Too funny that when I make a solid point, based on fact and the law, all you can do is squeal that it is “prattle”.

        At least you have gotten as far as a de facto admission that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this blog except peevishness and surly cattiness.

      3. Amazona

        Awww, wittow cappy has his wittow claws out. Isn’t he just the darlingest thing, chins flapping and wrists fluttering? Did you hiss, too, you big manly man you?

        I have to say, I did love seeing you come out of the closet like that. You really are entertaining, sometimes.

    3. 02casper

      Cluster,
      I find it interesting that you complain about the attention same sex marriage is getting while putting up a post on same sex marriage.

      Watson,
      At this point the arguments against same sex marriage seem to fall into the following categories:

      1. It’s against the Bible (at least the parts they want to quote).

      2. It’s redefining a WORD.

      3. It will make many of them mad.

      4. Gays already have the right to marry anyone they want as long as it isn’t who they really want to marry (another gay).

      5. People will want to marry relatives (strawman).

      6. Mark’s newest argument- Christians might get sued.

      I might have missed one, but most people outside the conservative bubble would consider all of these arguments as rather silly.

      Personally, I consider this a civil rights issue. Gays aren’t deviants. They are just different. As humans they deserve the same opportunities as the rest of us.

      1. Amazona

        Yes, cappy, I am sure you DO consider this a “civil rights” issue. I would expect nothing more from you than a mindless acceptance of a blatantly false assertion because it has emotional appeal.

        BTW, your silly misstating of arguments really says nothing but that you are silly.

      2. 02casper

        Amazona,
        I find your arguments especially silly and I look forward to sharing them with others. It’s been a long week and we could all use a good laugh.

      3. Amazona

        Yeah, so silly all you can do is hiss and spit. You would have been much better off to just go away, instead of trying to respond and failing so miserably.

        No, pumpkin, my arguments are not silly. If they were, you could refute them. Nice try, though, claiming to actually laugh at them, when you’ve made it pretty obvious all you can manage is a high-pitched titter.

        You are quite happy being brainless and emotion-driven. Why not just own that, instead of trying to posture as something you are not?

      4. M. Noonan

        Casper,

        That word, “same”, I don’t think it means what you think it means. Just as in my comment here about “marriage equality”, you on the left are living in a land of make-believe where a man marrying a man is considered the same sort of act as a man marrying a woman. Its like saying a man walking uphill is doing the same thing as a man walking down hill on grounds that in both cases the man is, indeed, walking…but the men are doing different things.

        Now, to correct your list of what is wrong with gay marriage:

        1. Is in direct violation of the commands of God as understood by the overwhelming bulk of people who follow Christian theology – that is, of course, less well understood by our weaker brothers and sisters who have not made an actual commitment to following Christ. This bears no direct relationship on what political settlement will be made save in the fact that those of us who are committed to Christ cannot do certain things vis a vis gay marriage without committing mortal sin – and our concern is that attempts will be made post-legalization to force us to do just that, and this in clear violation of the political laws of the United States, namely our First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, which does include our right to exclude people from our religious exercises – which by command of God go far beyond religious services on Sunday (we simply must engage in charity, etc.).

        2. It is in direct violation of common sense about what marriage is for – the gateway to the creation of a family which may of nature produce children. That gay people may come in to a relationship with children or adopt them or go through such modern horrors as “surrogate motherhood” to obtain children does no change the fact that of nature no gay relationship can produce children.

        3. It proposes to equate homosexual acts with heterosexual acts – to pretend that they are morally the same thing, having the same purpose and results when clearly they are not the same thing and cannot have the same results. In this, we get the grave risk of trying to enforce – in law and custom – a falsehood (that gay and straight are the same), and whenever it is attempted to enforce a falsehood the entirety of society suffers (see those nations where falsehoods were enshrined in law and custom all through the 20th century).

      5. watsonthethird

        casper, those arguments have been shown to have no merit, especially in the arguments that lead to the overturning of Proposition 8. Mark, Amazona and their ilk are on the losing side of this one. It is ironic considering they profess to be constitutional conservatives. They are, but only up to a point.

        Mark’s suggestion of a “Freedom of Conscience amendment” is certainly a topic that should be followed up.

    4. neocon01

      waspstooge

      you seem stuck on stupid on the “golden rule” in this subject…….**sodomy**, why are you stuck on DO UN to OTHERS as they DO UN to YOU.………a message there for the forkers?
      or for your “buddies” ?

  7. bardolf2

    Off topic- but the whole gay marriage seems to be bringing my buddy Neoconehead down in the dumps. To cheer him up and if his grandkids decide to plagiarize from Wikipedia they can just say they are following in Jane Goodall’s steps!

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/jane-goodall-s-troubling-error-filled-new-book-seeds-of-hope.html

    “One of the more troubling aspects of Seeds of Hope is Goodall’s embrace of dubious science on genetically modified organisms (GMO). On the website of the Jane Goodall Foundation, readers are told—correctly—that “there is scientific consensus” that climate change is being driven by human activity. But Goodall has little time for scientific consensus on the issue of GMO crops, dedicating the book to those who “dare speak out” against scientific consensus. Indeed, her chapter on the subject is riddled with unsupportable claims backed by dubious studies.”

    1. Amazona

      dolf, what exactly is “consensus”?

      What percentage of a group—let’s say ‘scientists’—-has to agree on something for there to be “consensus”?

      And does a certain level of agreement change a fact? There have been so many areas in which there was unanimous “consensus” on things, even on things deemed scientific, such as the consensus that there were humors in the blood that caused disease, that I would expect a little more prudence in leaping upon the “consensus” bandwagon, especially given the number of equally ( and sometimes more) qualified scientists who either dispute this “consensus” or reserve judgment because the science supporting it is so bad.

      1. Retired Spook

        especially given the number of equally ( and sometimes more) qualified scientists who either dispute this “consensus” or reserve judgment because the science supporting it is so bad.

        Not to mention that many of the leaders of the consensus got caught not once, but twice, in hacked emails, admitting to subverting the peer review process, lying and manipulating data to support their false position, as well as denying FOIR’s that would show they were lying,

      2. Cluster Post author

        I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that money might have an influence on the AGW debate. I think some people stand to reap big financial rewards in the form of government grants, taxes, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t someone selling carbon credits?

        Just a hunch.

    2. neocon01

      Dr baldork

      Off topic- but the whole gay marriage seems to be bringing my buddy Neoconehead down in the dumps.

      NOT at all, I am merely doing my duty to God and country, fighting the good fight so to speak. if our country wants to become a cesspool that is it’s collective choice. When I stand before God I will not have to account for the souls lost by sitting on the sidelines.

      However I do not think that is our collective choice, it is a radical minority, helped by an insider group of homosexuals from the white hut to the supreme court. A true Trojan horse if you will. THAT my friend is tyranny!! (not tranny)

  8. Amazona

    Let’s take a quick look at the actions of the Left lately.

    I have just become a felon. I own guns for which I cannot prove ownership because there are no receipts, as I inherited them, and some of them have magazines which either can hold more than 15 rounds or which could, possibly, with effort, be converted to hold more than 15 rounds.

    I live in a nation which has suddenly also abandoned the 1st Amendment, and allowed the federal government to restrict religious freedom by making it mandatory for people of faith to act against that faith or break the law.

    I live in a nation in which millions of people are actively promoting further incursions into religious freedoms by hysterically pushing the passage of laws which can make it illegal for churches to act according to their religious beliefs and teachings.

    I live in a nation in which the federal government, in a blatant violation of the Constitution, has taken over one-sixth of the economy and assumed authority never imagined by the Founders, who took every step they could imagine to stop something like this from happening—–and the sheeple find nothing wrong with this.

    I have to admit, the United States (look away here, casper—don’t want to get those panties in a twist) HAS been “fundamentally transformed”.

    1. Cluster Post author

      I live in a nation in which the federal government, in a blatant violation of the Constitution, has taken over one-sixth of the economy and assumed authority never imagined by the Founders, who took every step they could imagine to stop something like this from happening—–and yet was said to be constitutional by nine robed justices who contradicted the lies of the president and the speaker when securing its passage.

      Don’t ever forget that Obamacare was sold to the American public based on OUTRIGHT, BLATANT LIES by the POTUS.

      I do want to thank Watson, Casper and Sarah for so brilliantly confirming the title of the thread. There is a permanent level of stupidity that has permeated our society to a point of what I believe is no return. And we can thank people like Casper for that condition, in that he has been instrumental in churning out the next generation of mindless citizens.

      Watson, I do have a question for you. If Henry Hyde’s indiscretions preclude him from defending DOMA. Wouldn’t someone’s lack of homosexual experience preclude them from supporting gay marriage?

      Let that rattle around in your empty head for a little bit.

      1. Cluster Post author

        Au contraire Ms Bloch. It is absolutely the same logic. In fact, Bill Clinton needs to recuse himself from any debate on marriage, as does Hillary for that matter. She has obviously condoned marital indiscretions, which is a violation of the strict principles that liberals like you hold people to, so Hillary is also not able to defend or support any issue pertaining to marriage.

        I just want you to consistent. Is that ok?

    1. watsonthethird

      Little Amy asks:

      No, no one is claiming that the Constitution “.. expressly give Congress the authority to make moral judgements about human sexuality..” Duh. And I don’t know where Elena got that quote, but it sounds like something she would come up with.

      You sound like the lawyer when Justice Kagan brought this quote to his attention yesterday. Since you can’t be bothered to do some simple research–a hallmark of your arguments–let me help you.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/22636325/Defense-of-Marriage-Act-DOMA-H-R-Report-104-664-1996

      104th Congress, Second Session, House of Representatives Report 104-664, Defense of Marriage Act.

      Amy further said:

      You seem to have accepted that the defense of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is exclusively a comment on human sexuality. Nonsense. You seem to have accepted the claim that it s a comment on, or judgment of, morality. Nonsense.

      I haven’t accepted that. It’s what Congress said.

      1. watsonthethird

        More Little Amy:

        As for your Henry Hyde comment, that is just more of your stupidity and bigotry. Why not claim that a man who has run a red light is not qualified to vote on traffic laws? What Henry Hyde did or did not do is (1) None of your damned business and (2) Not a disqualifier for having a legitimate opinion on the value of a law defining marriage. And it most certainly did NOT “demean the legitimate status of marriage”.

        It is absolutely relevant and demonstrates just how bankrupt the arguments against same sex marriage are.

        You are such an idiot.

        And you are so mature.

        And before you start bleating about “civility” you might stop and think that one has to EARN respect, which you have made no effort to do.

        I couldn’t care less whether you respect me. But for the record, you remain as uncivil as ever. The only thing missing is that you haven’t called for civility in this thread.

      2. watsonthethird

        dbschmidt says:

        14th amendment does not apply to this case nor is it the matter before the SCOTUS. “You can’t fix stupid” however, does seem to apply to you Watson.

        And Amazona:

        wattle, you really do need to try to keep up.

        The Loving case is in no way germane to the question of what gay couples can CALL their unions.

        Aside from your snide insults-proud of yourself, db?–the Fourteenth Amendment _is_ germane from a civil rights point of view. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        That clause isn’t specifically about race, as Little Amy suggested in her comment. It’s about protecting the rights of individuals. I think eventually laws against same sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional based in part on the Equal Protection Clause, just as laws against inter-racial marriage were.

        And Little Amy adds:

        If there is any area of inequality regarding homosexual unions, it can and often has been addressed via legislation. No, the issue is not equality. It is about a WORD .

        If it’s simply about a word, why are people like you fighting it so hard???

      3. M. Noonan

        Watson,

        It is useful that the 14th speaks of “privileges” – because that, essentially, is what made the Loving decision correct: persons who are unmarried, of age and not closely related have the privilege of getting married if they so choose – laws in some States which said that this particular unmarried, of age and not closely related person could not marry that particular unmarried, of age and not closely related person on account of skin color were clearly a suppression of a privilege otherwise held. But the privileges of the American people have never – until very recently – been even so much as thought to include marrying someone of the same sex. Unless and until same sex marriage becomes general in the United States (let’s say legalized by a theoretical constitutional majority of 34 States), then for any particular State to ban same-sex marriage would not be a suppression of a privilege held by the American people. And, so, the 14th doesn’t really apply to same sex marriage – and thus Prop 8 is constitutional until such time as a very large majority of Americans decide otherwise.

        In addition, since the left is suddenly in love with the Constitution – hey, there’s a first time for everything! – I point out the 10th Amendment – which says that powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the States. As the Constitution is silent on what constitutes marriage, it is entirely a State matter…so, Prop 8 is also constitutional on that level. On the other hand, DOMA is much weaker on 10th amendment grounds – I still don’t believe it is unconstitutional, but it is not the preferred mechanism for dealing with the issue. Better, though, to repeal rather than go to court – and your side had two years when it could have been easily repealed, and took no action on it.

      4. Amazona

        wattle, you really do need to try to work on that reading comprehension thing. I did not refer to the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment so please do not claim I did. What I said, quite clearly, is that the Loving ruling WAS about race.

        And then you say—and this was quite amusing—- “If it’s simply about a word, why are people like you fighting it so hard???”

        ???????????

        No, the question is why are people like YOU fighting it so hard?

        Who brought it up? Who takes it to court? Who has wall-kicking temper tantrums about it? Who lies repeatedly and claims this is a civil rights issue when it has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of gay people but only what WORD they can use?

        It’s not an issue brought up by straight people, or religious people, or culturally traditional people. No, it is a fake issue concocted by a radical segment of a subculture.

      5. Amazona

        wattle, you may actually believe that the Hyde situation “…is absolutely relevant and demonstrates just how bankrupt the arguments against same sex marriage are.” but this is nothing but your bias and bigotry coming through.

        The very idea that the actions of one man could possibly impact an entire argument about an entire cultural disagreement is just another example of the superficiality of the Left’s grasp of issues. You people reduce everything to personality, scandal and emotion.

        A am clearly far more mature than you are, at least intellectually, as I can sort through the emotional chaff thrown up by demagogues to see through to the underlying facts, while you skim along on the surface of hysteria and faux outrage.

      6. Amazona

        “It’s what Congress said.”

        No, it is not. It is what a small committee formed in Congress said, and it has not been used as a defense of DOMA specifically because it was an opinion of some but not the underlying argument for the Act. And even that did not say that “…..the defense of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is exclusively a comment on human sexuality…”

        You would sound marginally less ignorant, and stupid, if you would bother to understand what is actually said instead of chugging down the slop your minders feed you and then regurgitating it here. They are not your friends. They don’t care if you make a fool of yourself. You are mere intellectual cannon fodder for them, serving only the purpose of ankle-biting.

      7. Amazona

        Going by what seems to pass for logic for the wattle, President Obama could never come out in favor of legislation regarding penalties for selling drugs to high school age children, given his admitted history of heavy use of drugs as a high school aged child.

        As has been pointed out, neither Clinton could support any issue involving traditional marriage.

    2. watsonthethird

      And by the way, dbschmidt, did you ever read the article I cited describing how all of the same sex marriage ballot measures won in the November 2012 elections?

      1. Cluster Post author

        Watson,

        May I extend your logic and say that since Obama claimed that the debt increase of $4 trillion under Bush was immoral and unpatriotic, but has since added more than $6 trillion to the debt himself, that all of his arguments for debt reduction and impact on the middle class are “morally bankrupt”?

        Help me out here. I know what a stickler you are for values.

      2. Cluster Post author

        If it’s simply about a word, why are people like you fighting it so hard??? – Watson

        Actually that question needs to be asked of you. Since it’s not about actual rights, and only about redefining a word, why are you so hell bent on offending other people to get your way?

      3. watsonthethird

        Cluster, regarding your comment “at what level,” go read your “Are We There Yet” thread. Or you can stop playing silly games.

        May I extend your logic and say that since Obama claimed that the debt increase of $4 trillion under Bush was immoral and unpatriotic, but has since added more than $6 trillion to the debt himself, that all of his arguments for debt reduction and impact on the middle class are “morally bankrupt”?

        Of course you may, so long as you cite a source. (I’m not saying he didn’t say it–I actually don’t know–but since you are putting words into his mouth, you need a source. We’ve had enough of you all putting forth supposed facts that turn out to be false.)

        Actually that question needs to be asked of you. Since it’s not about actual rights, and only about redefining a word, why are you so hell bent on offending other people to get your way?

        My answer is, I don’t think it’s simply about a word. (I would have thought that was clear by now.) I do think it’s about actual rights. Which is why ultimately same sex marriage will be the law of the land. Read my post just above.

        As for playing the victim, dear Cluster, I see that you have company:

        http://prospect.org/article/oppressed-christians-and-second-class-citizenship

      4. neocon01

        waspstooge

        MURDER is just a word so if we chose to “relieve” liberals from our midst that would be ok?…after all Murder is just a word!! so we will call it relief and you will be with the 300 million you marxists have relieved.

      5. Cluster Post author

        Of course you may, so long as you cite a source. (I’m not saying he didn’t say it–I actually don’t know – watson

        Do your homework moron. That was actually a famous quote from the 2008 campaign. But like all morons, ie: liberals, you can’t remember shit. And the marriage issue ISN”T about rights. If you knew anything about wills, living wills, POA’s, etc. same sex unions have ALL the rights. They just want to word.

        Watson, you are what this thread is about – CAN’T FIX STUPID! Below is an excellent line from Churchill – you will probably see yourself in it.

        Winston Churchill stated so tartly, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Voters – a clear majority – are easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. Said another way, too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads.

      6. Bob1

        You say, “They just want to (the) word”. The word that they really want is not “marriage”; it is “legitimate” for their life style. And this is why other forms of marriage, such as polygamy and even incestuous relationships, may also be made “legitimate”. And statutory rape may not be considered a crime as long as it is between consenting partners, even if one is a “minor” who can get pregnant without committing a “crime”. And prostitution may become a “legitimate” business anywhere. .

      7. Cluster Post author

        From our fabulous President Obama in 2008:

        “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.

        That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

      8. tiredoflibbs

        watty, I have directed the same question towards you concerning the debt and provided the source of obAMATEUR’s quote on more than one occasion. Each time you ignored and avoided it.

        Stop playing games, grow a spine and answer the question.

      9. M. Noonan

        Watson,

        Of the four, however, one was a vote against defining marriage as one man and one woman in the Minnesota constitution – which is not the same as a vote to approve same-sex marriage (and recent polling shows a majority of Minnesotans against legalizing same sex marriage). Of the other three, two were mere affirmations of laws already passed by the legislature and thus were pro-forma of nature, and so no great fight was put up against them. The only clear same sex marriage victory was in Maine – which was the first time, ever, that an American electorate had given approval to same sex marriage. And even there it was only a 53-47 victory. Meanwhile, the last time the people voted against same sex marriage was in North Carolina just a few months before Maine voted, and that was a 61-39 victory for traditional marriage…and in a State which Obama had won in 2008 and only narrowly lost in 2012 (which means, by the way, that a very large segment of the Democrat coalition is opposed to same sex marriage…and that will be the electoral leverage we need to undo whatever the Supreme Court gets wrong). North Carolina also became the 30th State to so vote. So at worst, traditional marriage is winning 30-3…at best, its 30-1-2. No matter how you slice it, there isn’t any indication that the American people want gay marriage – certainly no indication they’ll be pleased if the SC rams it down our throats.

      10. watsonthethird

        Cluster said:

        Do your homework moron. That was actually a famous quote from the 2008 campaign. But like all morons, ie: liberals, you can’t remember shit. And the marriage issue ISN”T about rights. If you knew anything about wills, living wills, POA’s, etc. same sex unions have ALL the rights. They just want to word.

        Charming, Cluster. About the only thing this thread has proven is that conservatives like you just get angry and nasty when someone disagrees with them. Mark is the only exception here on B4V, and it is to his credit that he always makes rational arguments without resorting to personal insults.

        As for what then candidate Obama said, you claimed he said the debt increase under Bush was “morally bankrupt.” I asked for a source. You produce the supposed source, but I don’t see the phrase “morally bankrupt” anywhere in it. So all you’ve done is proved that you fabricated the quote.

      11. watsonthethird

        Mark said:

        No matter how you slice it, there isn’t any indication that the American people want gay marriage – certainly no indication they’ll be pleased if the SC rams it down our throats.

        Mark, you can mince words and parse what the ballot measures actually meant, and come up with an answer that you like. Fine. I don’t really care that much.

        I view it as a civil rights matter, and in that sense it’s not unlike the fight for civil rights with respect to race. Sometimes the rights of the minority have to be affirmed even though the majority don’t like it. Either we’re governed by the constitution, and its amendments, or we’re not. This country has had a long history of minorities having their constitutionally guaranteed rights denied until finally the Supreme Court put a stop to it. Eventually, that will happen here as well. At least that’s the way I see it. You don’t. Enough said.

      12. M. Noonan

        Watson,

        There is no right to marry – marriage requires the consent of at least two people and no human right can require the consent of another to carry it out. Marriage is a privilege – and the debate is over whether or not this privilege will be extended to same sex couples. The rational answer is “no” because a union of two same sex people will not produce the situation which marriage is designed to produce.

        You may well have talked yourself in to believing that is a matter of civil rights, but all you’ve actually done is put yourself on the side of a silly, potentially destructive yet fashionable cause.

      13. Cluster Post author

        Watson,

        Forgive me if I am not civil, but I have zero respect for you, so insulting you just comes naturally. Funny how liberals insult anyone they please but are offended when their own tactics are used against them. Grow the f**k up.

        Morally bankrupt was my quote moron. Please, please raise your game here. It’s hard for me to wallow in your pool of stupidity for too long.

      14. Amazona

        ” I do think it’s about actual rights.”

        What rights?

        The right to be treated the same as married couples are treated, regarding taxation, employment benefits, inheritance, adoption, contracts, ??????????

        Each of these either has been or is in the process of being addressed via civil union legislation.

        So what “right” cannot be addressed via civil union legislation?

        Only the claimed “right” to use a certain word.

      15. watsonthethird

        Amazona, you ask what rights?

        I would say the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Section One reads:

        Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        Personally, I’m not hung up on the word marriage like some of you folks, and I agree that if civil unions were recognized as equivalent to marriage in all legal ways, it would ameliorate the need to press for the right to marry. If that had truly been so, then Edith Schlain wouldn’t have had to pay estate taxes when her spouse died, and she wouldn’t have taken the federal government to court, and the Supreme Court wouldn’t have heard the case yesterday.

        But obviously making civil unions equivalent to marriage in all legal ways is a laborious, time-consuming task. I don’t believe it will ever happen, and the only way gay people will achieve the same legal standing will be by proving in court that their rights are being abridged. It may not happen now, but I think it’s just a matter of time.

        The argument that gay people are trampling on the rights of people who believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is akin to complaining that Brown v. Board of Education trampled on the rights of people who believed segregation was acceptable.

      16. Amazona

        Yes, I did ask “what rights”? And you did not answer. You did a little cut-and-paste but never came out and explained just what “rights” you mean.

        So let’s go through this, slowly, so you have at least a chance of keeping up. From your quote:

        “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

        OK, just what “privileges or immunities” would be abridged if homosexual unions were given the exact same protections and responsibilities as actual marriage, just without the use of the word “marriage”?

        Is that question clear enough for you?

        Does the inability to apply the word “marriage” to a relationship “……..deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (or) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”?

        You see, when you people are dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the emotional fever swamp in which you marinate, and are asked to deal with facts, you fall apart.

      17. Amazona

        “the only way gay people will achieve the same legal standing will be by proving in court that their rights are being abridged. ”

        Which can only happen in a logical world if the courts are as emotionally disturbed and irrational as you are, because as you have illustrated in your inability to come up with a single “right” that would be abridged in civil unions which provide the same protections and responsibilities as real marriage, there IS no “right” that would be “abridged” by using different terms to define different relationships.

        No, wattle, the more you bleat, the clearer it becomes that the real issue is just about a WORD

  9. Cluster Post author

    Proving once again that you can’t fix stupid – I give you President Obama:

    President Obama called for action to be taken on gun control measures in a speech today at the White House, and said that “speeches aren’t enough”. “And that’s my attitude,” Obama said. “Tears aren’t enough. Expressions of sympathy aren’t enough. Speeches aren’t enough. We’ve cried enough. We’ve known enough heartbreak. What we’re proposing is not radical. It’s not taking away anybody’s gun rights. It’s something that, if we are serious, we will do. And now’s the time to turn that heartbreak into something real. It won’t solve every problem, there will still be gun deaths, there will still be tragedies, there will still be violence, there will still be evil. But we can make a difference, if, not just the activists here on the stage, but the general public, including responsible gun owners say, you know what, we can do better than this. We can do better to make sure that fewer parents have to endure the pain of losing a child to an act of violence.”

    You just can’t make this up. Did everyone get that? Speeches are not enough. Now mind you, Obama did not spell out one proposal, but knows for certain that speeches are not enough. Hard to argue with that.

    1. neocon01

      you cant fix stupid

      al-Ubama stupidest man on the planet….welllllll except for all the other donks.

      1. neocon01

        Der Führer

        as we have seen congress is T–s on a bull, we are run now by fiat from a foreign marxist and an oligarchy partially made up of homosexuals. = The late great USA

        Chicago ranks LAST in prosecuted federal gun crimes…

        Big Sis Ignores Congressman’s Demand For Briefing on Bullet Buys…

        Biden says gun control votes ‘only the beginning’…

  10. tiredoflibbs

    Once again, incompetent watty needs his hand held. Here is the link again for obAMATEUR’s criticism of Bush on the debt.

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1kuTG19Cu_Q

    Watty it is more than a “simple disagreement” that is the cause of the so-called hostility toward you. It is your willful ignorance and selective memory that is the cause. The FACTS are out there you are not wiling to find them due to the FACT it exposes the proggy agenda for the failure it is. Gay marriage, or whatever catch phrase is being used, is a distraction for this SCOAMF’s failure as a pResident. (MF = miserable failure).

    As I said, you are a coward and can’t handle the truth.

    1. watsonthethird

      More insults from the B4V conservatives. Too funny.

      Look tired, Cluster said this:

      May I extend your logic and say that since Obama claimed that the debt increase of $4 trillion under Bush was immoral and unpatriotic, but has since added more than $6 trillion to the debt himself, that all of his arguments for debt reduction and impact on the middle class are “morally bankrupt”?

      By any reasonable interpretation, putting quotes around “morally bankrupt” clearly meant that he was quoting then candidate Obama. If Cluster wasn’t quoting him, then why the quotes? I simply asked for a source. Cluster provided one in which Obama didn’t say that. I called Cluster on it, and now he claims it was Cluster’s quote. That’s pretty lame. But it’s good to know he’s got you in his corner. There is nothing wrong or cowardly in asking for a source when you quote.

      1. tiredoflibbs

        watty: “By any reasonable interpretation…”

        Well that leaves your interpretation out of the mix. I see you still won’t address obAMATEUR’s words towards himself. Since he has spent more in 4 years than Bush’s entire 8 years, how would you characterize his administration based on his own words to the opposition party? You are still too much of a coward to address it.

        Let’s pick apart Cluster’s post.

        “May I extend your logic and say….” – He is directing this question towards YOU. This should have been your first hint.

        “…that since Obama claimed that the debt increase of $4 trillion under Bush was immoral and unpatriotic.” SINCE OBAMA CLAIMED…. – the part that followed is obAMATEUR’s quote.

        “… but has since added more than $6 trillion to the debt himself, that all of his arguments for debt reduction and impact on the middle class are “morally bankrupt”?” Now this is a continuation of the question towards YOU. Cluster is characterizing obAMATEUR’s actions with the debt in a similar fashion he himself did towards Bush. The quotes are for cluster’s characterization and not a quote from obAMATEUR.

        watty: “Cluster provided one in which Obama didn’t say that.”

        Sheesh you are dense. If you had read cluster’s original post in which he provided the quote (and you whined about the source) “morally bankrupt” is not there.

        watty: “There is nothing wrong or cowardly in asking for a source when you quote.” There is when I and others have posted it before and you and your fellow mindless drones ignore it and dodge the question LIKE YOU ARE NOW.

        “More insults from the B4V conservatives.” – all you can do is whine and be the “victim” (my quote). You are still a coward afraid of the facts and still dodging the question. Surely you can clearly see why we have become frustrated with you and your lame tactics.

        Pathetic.

      2. watsonthethird

        tired, I asked Cluster for his source before you or he presented the quote. Nice to try imply otherwise. But let’s talk about what President Obama actually said:

        “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.

        That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

        It is absolutely hypocritical to claim one president is irresponsible for running up the debt, and then do it yourself. Of course, when Senator Obama said that, he was on the campaign trail, which is full of hyperbole on all sides. It was also June 2008, well before the economy finally collapsed under the weight of President Bush’s policies, leading to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, which lead to even lower federal revenues as well as policies aimed at stimulating the economy. And if you look at the data showing what policies have been responsible for continued deficit spending, you will see that a lot of it is due to President Bush’s policies. But these are nuances that would naturally escape you.

        As far as all of your questions, you guys just throw out question and question and then complain when they go unanswered. Too bad. Make your case without asking them.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        Cluster, after reading watty’s talking points, many of which have been refuted here time and again (he is still regurgitating the dumbed down theme – “everything is Bush’s fault”), I have to agree with you – “you can’t fix stupid”.

        “And if you look at the data showing what policies have been responsible for continued deficit spending, you will see that a lot of it is due to President Bush’s policies. But these are nuances that would naturally escape you.”

        Tell me was Bush was responsible for:

        25% increase in baseline budgeting in 2009 & 2010?
        2010 tax cut?
        Stimulus spending added to the baseline budgeting as well?
        Obama care?
        – just to name a few… the last two have cost more than the White House has projected and the last one is not fully implemented!

        obAMATEUR is the EXECUTIVE. EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE TAKING OFFICE IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY!!! But, of course, he won’t accept responsibility for anything. He won’t do what is necessary to battle high deficits. Cutting spending is not in his nature – and he LIES when he has claimed deficit reduction and spending cuts.

        For example, he set up the deficit commission with great speeches and fanfare. Their conclusions was tax increases and spending cuts. OBAMA IGNORED THEM! He pushed for tax increases and NEVER for spending cuts. This has stagnated the economy and has also resulted in a reduction of our credit rating and threatening another one. His “balanced approach” is non-existent and heavily one sided. Then we have the sequestration LIE that he alone is responsible for and as usual he is trying to place blame on others rather than where is squarely belongs.

        In short, he is a LIAR and you are too stupid to see otherwise. You are just the typical mindless drone – all fat dumb and happy. No one can fix your “stupid”.

        Pathetic.

      4. watsonthethird

        That’s great, tired. President Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING that has happened since he took office. Fine. And the same goes for President Bush.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the worst attack on American soil ever.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of more Americans at the hands of terrorist than anyone before or since.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for initiating a war with another country for reasons that were not true.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for bungling the occupation in Iraq, thereby resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for initiating an unnecessary war that will cost American’s $4 to $6 trillion.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for turning a federal surplus into a deficit.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the housing bubble.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the collapse of the economy in 2008.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the collapse of the American automobile industry that brought the big three automakers to the verge of bankruptcy.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for America become a nation that tortures people.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the feeble federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for failing to provide American soliders in Iraq and Afghanistan with body armor.

        President Bush was RESPONSIBLE for letting Osama Bin Ladin get away.

        Shall I go on, tired? We can both play this game.

      5. tiredoflibbs

        In regard to watty’s mindless rant: Yep, you can’t fix stupid.

        You already blame Bush for your list no matter the facts to the contrary, BUT YOU CONTINUE refuse to place blame on obAMATEUR where it is due – Everything that is wrong is someone else’s fault, a natural disaster, Congress’, whatever and NEVER his, REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS PRESENTED. You mindlessly follow this SCOAMF’s BS and regurgitate the stupidity. He has done NOTHING to reduce spending, deficit or debt – whatever happened to “going through the budget line by line” and reducing wasteful programs and spending? Another sound bite for the the dumb-mASSES, the obama-bots, the drones. He has FAILED TO LEAD. He takes credit where he should not and places blame on all others but himself – and the sycophants dutifully fall in line.

        Here is the link before you get your dainty undergarments in a twist and start whining again:
        http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/obama_vows_line.html

        You have kool-aid dripping from your chin, wipe it.

        Pathetic drone, really pathetic.

      6. neocon01

        waspstooge

        WOW
        talk about paranoia, “married” to stupidity…..

        here is one more

        the disappearance of the dinosaurs…… yup Bushes fault.

        Tired
        it is a good thing ole watty is on welfare and lives in his mama’s basement or he would be institutionalized in a padded room somewhere.

      7. Amazona

        You have to admit, the wattle is one of the more compliant trolls, quite eager to outline, often in all-caps, the insanity of his side. Thanks for the summary, wattle.

        What the wattle’s shrill rant really says is that Bush never whined about INHERITING things from Clinton—not the artificial housing bubble, not the impending housing and banking collapse, not Bin Laden, not any of the economic and social rubble that is inevitably left behind when a Liberal leaves office.

        Like the honorable man he is, he just rolled up his sleeves and went to work. I never agreed with everything he did, but I admired him as a person and understood that he took on a clean-up job of such immensity, in a climate of such seething irrational hatred and nonstop vitriolic attack, that he could not possibly resolve everything.

        And you know what else the wattle’s vile little rant showcased? His absolutely nasty self. What a thoroughly unpleasant person, steeped as he is in blind hatred, resentment, ignorance and spite. It oozes out of every post.

        It would be so nice if, just once, the wattle could step away from this hatefest that drives him, and tell us how he thinks the nation should be governed.

        I know, I know, the Lefty mentality does not include such objective discourse, not when it gets so much visceral pleasure out of venting its considerable spleen. But still—–it would actually be like political discussion instead of dumping mental excrement into what they seem to consider their litter box.

      8. watsonthethird

        Little Amy, sweetie, the point of my “shrill rant” was to demonstrate that for tired to be consistent, then he must agree with all of the points I raised. Obviously, he can’t, which he demonstrated by his response. The reason I used all caps was to repeat the same style that your little buddy tired used. Did you read his post that I was responding to? Probably not. You’re not too good at understanding context.

        tired said:

        obAMATEUR is the EXECUTIVE. EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE TAKING OFFICE IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY!!!

        Fine. Then the same holds for President Bush. Of course, tired can’t bring himself to admit that if he holds President Obama to one standard, then it would be hypocritical of him to not hold President Bush to the same standard. Instead, he just goes on attacking me. And you simply join in the fun.

      9. tiredoflibbs

        watty the only thing you have demonstrated is the ability to regurgitate dumbed down talking points. You have regurgitated obAMATEUR pathetic excuses for his failures and massive debt VERBATIM!!!

        Like Amazona so accurately pointed out, in order to be consistent, Bush would have to blame Clinton for all the ills that happened during his Presidency – like obAMATEUR does for his consistent failures and incompetence. He did not. He tried to fix the situation. On the housing, he tried to reign in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s overextension and over-reaching policies. He failed thanks to prominent Democrats on the committee that stonewalled his legislation – one of them being the mush-mouth from Massachusetts.

        Unlike Bush, obAMATEUR has done nothing to combat the problems that we have. When he had control of all houses of government he pushed through MASSIVE spending. He could have repealed the so-called “policies that Bush implemented to cause deficit spending” he did not – he did NOTHING!

        Your guy is a massive failure as a leader and all you can do is continue to rant about previous administrations and parrot the dumbed down talking points – like a good little mindless drone.

        obAMATEUR has ran up more debt than Bush did in half the time. If it were Bush’s policies that caused it, don’t you think that the debt would be rising close to Bush’s? Of course not, you are not that intelligent.

        Put it this way, obAMATEUR kept up the theme “tax the rich” to pay down the debt or deficit (he used them interchangeably). Well, he received his tax increases and promptly proposed NEW spending which spent the increase. Some balanced approach there, eh?

        In your case, there is no way to fix your stupidity. You are cursed with it (and unfortunately so are we).

      10. watsonthethird

        No, tired. You said:

        obAMATEUR is the EXECUTIVE. EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE TAKING OFFICE IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY!!!

        If that’s your standard, then you must believe the same standard applies to every president, including President Bush.

        So tell us tired… Instead of dancing around, dodging, evading, calling everyone and everything pathetic… Is that the standard you apply to President Bush? It’s a simple question.

        Because if you do, then President Bush is responsible for everything in my list, which I easily compiled off the top of my head. Unlike you, I don’t need Rush Limbaugh or anyone else telling me what to thing.

        Oh, and speaking of Rush, yesterday he said the issue of same sex marriage is “lost” for conservatives. Anytime now I expect you to begin parroting that talking point.

    2. tiredoflibbs

      watty, I am being consistent. I am holding obAMATEUR to the standards set by proggy looting politicians, their moochers and the mindless drones when it came to the Bush Presidency.

      Each and every response by the left was that “Clinton is not President anymore”, they dutifully regurgitated that when it came to 9/11 and Clinton’s refusal to take bin Laden into custody when he was given the chance THREE times. Then this just carried over to everything else that Clinton did – deregulation of banks, modifying the Community Reinvestment Act and lowering lending standards across the board, which led to the housing and mortgage market collapse. That was their answer to everything.

      As I said, I made the statement since that was the standard set by the left. Now that their words are used against them and their SCOAMF of a pResident, they (and you) don’t like it.

      Typical.

  11. tiredoflibbs

    watty the whiner: “So tell us tired… Instead of dancing around, dodging, evading, calling everyone and everything pathetic… Is that the standard you apply to President Bush? It’s a simple question.”

    Asked and answered watty.

    The FACT is, it is you who are “dancing around, dodging, evading”. The original thread that started it all was cluster’s used of obAMATEUR’s words against him and characterizing his massive spending as “irresponsible and unpatriotic”.

    You, as usual, started in with the usual deflections of asking for a source. I provided one here long ago on several occasions. Cluster provided the direct quote and asked YOU if his spending was “morally bankrupt”. You still whined about the source and claimed that obAMATEUR never said such a thing. I provided the source and stated that Cluster was directing the quote towards YOU. Cluster stated the same and you continued the whine that the quote applied to obAMATEUR. You dodged the question the whole way.

    Finally, after losing with no way out, you dismiss the whole quote as “campaign hyperbole” then lock on to the next statement and continue your “dancing around, dodging and evading” about responsibility.

    You regurgitated the infamous dumbed down talking points VERBATIM! – It wasn’t “off the top of your head” – just indoctrination (and no original thought). I contrasted, and so did Amazona, the two men as one who takes responsibility, did not blame the prior administration, and tried to correct the situation and the other who takes credit for everything and continues to blame others while deflecting all responsibility away from himself.

    Now that we have relived your “dancing around, dodging and evading” any and all blame away from obAMATEUR, you will continue to do the same. You and your fellow mindless drones will regurgitate the party line – just like you are with gay marriage or whatever “sound bite” that is the present deflection away from this SCOAMF’s failure. He needs gay marriage, gun control or whatever social issue as the headline. Any time spent on his piss-poor handling of the economy cannot be on the front page and reveal his massive failure as pResident.

    Try again drone. You lost, get over it.

    1. tiredoflibbs

      watty, I didn’t blame Clinton. I didn’t blame anyone else for Bush.

      But your pResident SCOAMF does the opposite. Everything bad is Bush’s, the tsunami’s, the earthquake’s, Arab spring’s, flooding’s, draught’s, Congress’, conservative talk-show hosts’ and (insert anything here)’s fault but his own….

      ….and mindless, dumbed down drones like you dutifully regurgitate it.

      You still can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that the additional spending over and above Bush’s is all his fault. He believes that government spending (along with unemployment and welfare) is the best stimulus for the economy. If that were true, then the economy would be screaming. However, the FACT is that the economy is shrinking and one more piss poor quarter performance we will be back in recession.

      Your SCOAMF (Miserable Failure) has not done what he said he would do and his policies have only made it worse, plus we have massive debt on top of it all.

      FAILURE is your’s and obAMATEUR’s middle name.

      1. watsonthethird

        Enough. You are not discussing, you are haranguing. You are not in a position to tell anyone else to go away. You come here only to attack conservatives and if anyone will go away it will be you. Moderators can see your email address and it is a good indicator of your attitude toward this blog. //Moderator

      2. tiredoflibbs

        wattyfailurethethird is confused: “tired, I didn’t say you blamed Clinton.”

        Oh, your response to me was not really to me?

        “No blaming Clinton, no blaming anyone else. You just can’t bring yourself to say it, can you. Loser.”

        Who was just whining about “hostility and ridicule” to Amazona? You are so full of crap.

        “Personally, I think that a lot of what happens during a presidency is largely beyond the president’s own control. I think that was the case with President Bush as well as President Obama.”

        Now you are just trying to make pathetic excuses. I am sure you were this outspoken in defending Bush since “a lot of it was beyond his control”. – Again, you are full of crap.

        “Yes, President Obama believes government spending can help during a recession. A lot of knowledgeable people believe that, tired. President Bush believe lower taxes would help stimulate the economy. It didn’t work out that way then, either.”

        “A lot of knowledgeable people” are wrong and the proof is in the piss poor economy, expanded welfare rolls, retraction of the economy and the millions removed from the work force (and not counted in the unemployment figures).

        “resident Bush believe lower taxes would help stimulate the economy. It didn’t work out that way then, either.”

        uh, wrong. The proof is in the shortened Clinton recession. ObAMATEUR spent more and the recession lasted longer (if we are really out of it, if we are we are headed for a double dip) than Bush’s. It worked for Reagan and Kennedy. History is on our side. Carter spent as well to “improve the economy” that didn’t work either. ObAMATEUR and his administration are keeping interest rates artificially low. It is all an illusion.

        You just ran through a litany of dumbed down talking points regurgitated dutifully by the left. History is on our side. You have propaganda and refuse to acknowledge that fact.

        Pathetic – just keep beating that dead horse watty. But here, no matter how many times you repeat your lies and half truths it won’t make them facts as much as you were led to believe.

      3. watsonthethird

        Enough. You are not discussing, you are haranguing. You are not in a position to tell anyone else to go away. You come here only to attack conservatives and if anyone will go away it will be you. Moderators can see your email address and it is a good indicator of your attitude toward this blog. //Moderator

      4. tiredoflibbs

        wattyfailurethethird continues to beat the dead horse and deflect away from obAMATEUR and his failures and focus on Bush, who is no longer President.

        I put blame on Bush where it was necessary and deserved in this blog and so did others here as well. He just can’t accept the fact that obAMATEUR won’t accept blame for anything and watty and his fellow drones will continue to defend him regardless of anything till the end.

      5. watsonthethird

        Enough. You are not discussing, you are haranguing. You are not in a position to tell anyone else to go away. You come here only to attack conservatives and if anyone will go away it will be you. Moderators can see your email address and it is a good indicator of your attitude toward this blog. //Moderator

  12. tiredoflibbs

    Yeah, watty “where it was necessary” which is much, much more than I can say for you and the obAMATEUR!!!

    Your so-called list is YOUR (well actually it propaganda and lies of the left) list I don’t agree with your list.

    Why do you keep asking the same stupid question? I did make the statement. The problem of you is that your list is flawed and full of opinion rather than FACTS.

    I know you drones have a hard time thinking for yourselves. You are squirming over something that is a pathetic deflection on your part to keep you from placing blame where it is deserved on obAMATEUR.

    After all you did say “Personally, I think that a lot of what happens during a presidency is largely beyond the president’s own control. I think that was the case with President Bush as well as President Obama.”

    – so your question is moot, since you don’t believe it anyway.

    Once a drone, watty, you will always be a drone. I grow board with your inability to read the written word or think for yourself. If you anxiously await my responses, it is time to leave your mamma’s basement.

    1. watsonthethird

      Enough. You are not discussing, you are haranguing. You are not in a position to tell anyone else to go away. You come here only to attack conservatives and if anyone will go away it will be you. Moderators can see your email address and it is a good indicator of your attitude toward this blog. //Moderator

      1. watsonthethird

        Enough. You are not discussing, you are haranguing. You are not in a position to tell anyone else to go away. You come here only to attack conservatives and if anyone will go away it will be you. Moderators can see your email address and it is a good indicator of your attitude toward this blog. //Moderator

Comments are closed.