At Least Now We Know Why “Gutsy” Ogabe Didn’t Want to Go to North Carolina All of a Sudden

Since the state’s proposed ban on gay “marriage” passed in a landslide.

Funny, though. Right after Sheriff Senile Biden put his boss in a pickle by coming out in favor of gay marriage while Reichsführer Ogabe is still “thinking about it” until after the election where he’ll have more “flexibility”, Ogabe’s taxpayer-funded reelection campaign to North Carolina got cancelled.

Imagine that.

Surely it can’t be cowardice, since we’ve all been assured over and over again on the anniversary of Osama bin Fish Sticks’ death that Ogabe personally parachuted into Pockistan and strangled Osama with his own hands in a brilliant display of unparalleled in history courage, including D-Day, Iwo Jima, Bunker Hill and G-d knows what else combined (we know because Sheriff Hair Plugs said so himself), so what could possibly have persuaded the Greatest Commander of All Times, Der Fubar, to not go bask in his well-earned glory in North Carolina today?

We’ve got nothing. We’re as puzzled as you are.

Maybe he’s been out in the dead of night strangling enemies of America again?

Who knows?

Thatisall.

48 comments

  1. 1
    BigDogg growls and barks:

    Unfortunately, the good people of North Carolina will have their will usurped by some liberal judge within a matter of weeks … that’s how the left plays it.

  2. 2

    I’m still at a loss why it’s up to ANY government to decide the validity of what really is a contract between two consenting adults, and why people should have the authority to make said contract invalid via government force.

  3. 3
    LC Old Dog growls and barks:

    BigDogg @ #:
    This did not pass as a Law or a Referendum. It passed as a State Constitutional Amendment, if a Federal Court tries to block this it could cause a serious Constitutional Crisis.

    State Courts legally may not even hear a case as it was as stated a Constitutional Amendment!!

  4. 4
    rickn8or growls and barks:

    Nicki: exactly.

  5. 5

    Slightly to the right of Gingis Khan says:

    If someone has issues with gay marriage on moral grounds I’m fine with that, attend a church that refuses to perform them.

    BINGO!!!!! :em01:

    It’s really a free market issue. If someone has a moral objection to a church that performs gay marriages, there’s a solution: STOP GIVING SAID CHURCH YOUR SUPPORT AND GO ELSEWHERE. The church will be forced to make its decision based on its members. If they’re OK with losing its more socially conservative membership (and perhaps gaining more gays and lesbians in their congregation – or not), then it’s their choice. If the church doesn’t want to lose its more socially conservative members, it will act accordingly.

    Why do these tyrannical fuckwads feel the need to get government force involved in this issue? Religious definitions aside, it’s a contract between two people. You let the state control that, and pretty much anything is up for grabs.

  6. 6
    Bones growls and barks:

    And, less that 4 hours after DJ predicts it, IT IS. Ogabe is now 100% “behind” gay amrriage. Good job DJ, and hope you are doing well. If the government wanted out of the entire marriage issue, or if you want them to, get behind “Fair Tax”, and then the gov. would not have any interest to be involved in someone’s contract with G_D and their spouse. If the homosexual community wants “marriage”, pick a new term and call it that. I vote for “Non Breeder”. Pick your own term.

  7. 7
    Slightly to the right of Gingis Khan growls and barks:

    Bones @ #:10

    That is just it Bones….. I want the government out of marriage. From their point of view is should be nothing but a contract between two consenting adults. If those two people want to have a church ceremony and call it marriage, bring G*D into it……. good on them. I salute that. But for the government to pick and choose who can enjoy what to them should be nothing more than a legal agreement is tyranny.

  8. 8
    LC Sir Rurik, K.o.E. growls and barks:

    … Biden put his boss in a pickle …

    or maybe Biden put a pickle in his boss?
    Were Joe not such a known doofus, this would appear to be sabotage.
    It dows cast a light on what The Usurper considers his home constituency, even more than the Muslims.
    Speculation is widespread that he operates in the down low. And I have heard observation that he is going grayer faster than reasonable, is looking gaunt and has become disturbingly skinny. Will you Fiddy-threers make history again for electing the first HIV president to die of AIDS?

  9. 9
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    Bones @ #10:

    And here it is for all to see. I wonder how much North Carolina’s gay marriage supporters are thrilled with jugears’ ability to take the lead on this issue after the fact?

    A long time a go a fellow named Evel Knievel was known for jumping a motorcycle over many buses. Jugears will be known for throwing many of his supporters under the bus.

  10. 10
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    Ladies and Gentlemen. Please forgive me for threadjacking, however I think you may want to read this:
    This is what screaming “Racist” all the time gets you
    I STRONGLY recommend not reading this on a full stomach, (or following the links to the original story), and if you are on blood pressure medication or heart medication, take a triple dose.
    :em08:

  11. 11
    Bitter Clinger growls and barks:

    I have several friends and acquaintances that are of the homosexual and lesbian persuasion. I would explain it to them the same way.

    1. Marriage is a type of civil union.
    2. Marriage is a religious r-i-t-e not a constitutional r-i-g-h-t.
    3. Heterosexuals have no more rights in this regard than do homosexuals. IE We can marry whoever we want as long as they are a person of the opposite sex.
    4. I said marry, not civil union. (see 3)
    5. Civil Unions offer the same benefits and consequences as Marriage.
    6. Trying to redefine something like “marriage” can have dangerous consequences. Words have meaning.
    7. Marriage does not mean love. Civil Union does not mean less than love.

    I have absolutely no problem concerning whom or what you want to get it on with as long as it is consentual and I don’t have to hear the moaning, bleeting, barking etc…

    That being said I still don’t believe anyone should be able to force a church to go against its teachings unless someones life is in danger. This is where the civil union comes in. Same contract between two consenting adults and it can be performed by anyone that can perform a marriage (even in a church if they’re willing).

  12. 12

    Bitter Clinger says:

    Civil Unions offer the same benefits and consequences as Marriage.

    Except NC banned those too.

  13. 13
    Bitter Clinger growls and barks:

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    Except NC banned those too.

    Well If NC banned civil unions then they have by definition banned marriages.

    The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    I’m sure any lawyer woth his salt will be able to make a case out of that.

  14. 14
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    This has not been a good week for Barack Obama. The One kicked off his re-election campaign–not that he has ever STOPPED campaigning–Obamassiah kicked off his re-election campaign the other day, and half the crowd in the stadium came disguised as empty seats. The Obama campaign rolled out an ad called “The Life of Julia,” which portrays women as lifelong dependents on the federal government, but “Julia” was met with universal mockery. Then yesterday BO did manage to win the WV Dem primary, but 40% of the vote went to a federal inmate named Keith Judd. Enthusiasm gap, anyone? The thrill is gone.

    Likewise for the dummies as a whole, this has not been a good week. The Democrats’ Warren Woman, Lizzie Warren, aka Princess DUmmerfall Winterspring, has been revealed to be a faux squaw. And Kathleen Falk, DUmmieland’s choice to run against WI Gov. Walker in the recall election, got drubbed in the Dem primary.

    What’s more, North Carolina voters yesterday passed a ban on homo marriage, by a vote of over 60%. So what did Dear Leader do just now today? He came out in favor of homo marriage! Forward, BO! Forward! Yes, Barry, you go ahead and SPIT in the face of the voters of North Carolina, a state you MUST carry to win in November! The economy is in shambles, the debt is skyrocketing, gasoline prices are sky-high, jobs are scarce–and Barry’s big move is to massage Bawney Fwank’s . . . ego.

    h/t charles henderson

  15. 15
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    As someone said above, those who were going to be mad at him for supporting gay marriage weren’t going to vote for him in the first place.

    Actually, many of the most fervent opponents of gay marriage are blacks and latinos.

    Conversely, those people who have been upset with him for NOT supporting it prior to this will now have a reason to vote for him.

    Heh. If they’re dumb enough to crawl back to jugears after being kicked to the curb, they deserve to get hoodwinked.

    At the end of the day, I don’t see that this will be all that big of an issue.

    I wholeheartedly agree. This election cycle is shaping up to be a continuous stream of unimportant distraction issues hopscotched back and forth to avoid discussing the economy, unemployment, and our impending debt nuke.

  16. 16
    Bitter Clinger growls and barks:

    LC Gladiator says:

    and Barry’s big move is to massage Bawney Fwank’s . . . ego.

    What a lovely visual! :em05:

  17. 17
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    I’m a bit perplexed about a legal point with this new amendment. I keep hearing words such as “banned”, “illegal”, and “outlawed” being thrown around and yet…

    Sec. 6. Marriage.
    Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

    …nowhere do I see any such things as a ban or declaration of illegality or outlawing same-sex marriages. All I see is a declaration that North Carollina will only recognize a marriage between one man and one woman.

    Could not a gay couple have a wedding at, for instance, an Evangelical Lutheran church and enter into legal contracts with one another regardless of the state’s unwillingness to recognize the union? Would this couple face possible arrest or some other legal sanction? Would the minister performing the ceremony face arrest or legal sanction?

  18. 18
    BigDogg growls and barks:

    LC Gunsniper says:

    Actually, many of the most fervent opponents of gay marriage are blacks and latinos.

    Well … he doesn’t have to worry about pissing off the black vote … idiots like Sameul L. Jackson, Charles Barkley, Chris Rock and all the other black racists will vote for him just because he is “black” … black America is a lock for the Democraps, and they know it.

  19. 19
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    The “why should government interfere” approach is all very good and fine as far as I’m concerned, I don’t personally give two shits if Adam and Steve want to be a couple, that’s between them and G-d and I have no business interfering in that conflict.

    I love Adam and Steve just the same and their proclivities have nothing to do with it, even though I’m one of those Dread Social Conservatives™ who, according to some, apparently want to burn gays at the stake and force every child in the nation to attend Sunday school. Which is odd, because I can’t recall one single incident of my fellow actual Christians ever having expressed a desire for that, but obviously I’m an idiot.

    Adam and Steve can call themselves whatever they fucking well want, I actually DO have more than one same-sex couple that I count among my very good friends and I love them dearly because they’re, wait for it, good people. I somehow DON’T have an innate desire to burn them at the stake.

    Obviously I’m not a good Christian, at least according to the paranoid Christophobes who cower under their couches in eternal fear of the vast, intolerant, imaginary bloc of Spanish Inquisition type Christians. If only we had that sort of power. We don’t. We don’t even want that sort of power. You can come out now.

    Should a state ban gay “marriage”? They surely have a right to do so unless you can point to the bit of the Constitution where it says that “marriage” is a civil, innate right. Of course, maybe States’ Rights doesn’t apply to gay “marriage” unlike other other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but you’d have to be pretty selective in your interpretation of the Constitution to reach that conclusion.

    People with a brain usually refer to that kind of selective interpretation as “progressivism” or “living Constitution” or “whatever we think the Constitution ought to mean to make us happy and modern.”

    This is not a matter of depriving anybody of their Constitutional rights, it’s a matter of keeping them from forcing, through legal fiat, enforcing their views on others in spite of the Constitution. If liberal fascists weren’t so hell bent on forcing the rest of the Union to recognize decisions made in one particular state, this wouldn’t be an issue.

  20. 20
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    As a matter of fact, I think I’ve seen the light. Time for me to be open minded and tolerant too.

    I’ll marry my dog. Sure, it’s polygamy since I’m already married, but what right do those Christofascist Fundamentalist have to impose on my right to have more than one wife? It’s a Constitutional Right! Don’t give me any of your outmoded, fascist beliefs that I can’t have more than one wife. Reactionary fucks! Next you’ll be forcing me to pray to Mohammad 18 times a day!

    Also, I can claim her as a dependent on my tax return. And I can also insist that my employer’s benefits plan pay for her veterinary bills. She’s my wife, after all.

    Shut up, you Christofascists!

    It’s right there in the Constitution!

  21. 21
    emily_nelson growls and barks:

    Emperor Misha I @ #:
    :em05:

  22. 22

    Emperor Misha I says:

    Should a state ban gay “marriage”? They surely have a right to do so unless you can point to the bit of the Constitution where it says that “marriage” is a civil, innate right. Of course, maybe States’ Rights doesn’t apply to gay “marriage” unlike other other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but you’d have to be pretty selective in your interpretation of the Constitution to reach that conclusion.

    I have to disagree just a little there, bro.

    Marriage is ultimately a contract. It’s an agreement for property, wills, etc. As such, the state has no right to ban said contract. It’s a legal document, and banning it would violate that equal protection under the law thingy.

    Emperor Misha I says:

    This is not a matter of depriving anybody of their Constitutional rights, it’s a matter of keeping them from forcing, through legal fiat, enforcing their views on others in spite of the Constitution. If liberal fascists weren’t so hell bent on forcing the rest of the Union to recognize decisions made in one particular state, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    I don’t see how allowing two consenting adults to legitimately enter into a contract imposes their views on anyone. Let the churches make their own choices. Keep the state out of it, as far as I’m concerned.

    Emperor Misha I says:

    I’ll marry my dog. Sure, it’s polygamy since I’m already married, but what right do those Christofascist Fundamentalist have to impose on my right to have more than one wife? It’s a Constitutional Right! Don’t give me any of your outmoded, fascist beliefs that I can’t have more than one wife. Reactionary fucks! Next you’ll be forcing me to pray to Mohammad 18 times a day!

    When your dog can give legal consent and sign a contract, lemme know. This will be interesting to watch! :em05:

  23. 23

    ohio right wing nut says:

    He ” Evolved” because he is a spineless worm, he was for it in 1996, against it 2008 and now for it again.

    Hey! Cut the guy a break! It’s difficult and time-consuming to figure out where the political wind is blowing just by sticking your finger up in the air! :em07:

  24. 24
    ohio right wing nut growls and barks:

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    Hey! Cut the guy a break!

    I would have more respect for some of these douchenozzles if they have a stance, a core belief, just stand up and debate the merits of your position.

    It’s not like he always thought that grass was blue and the sky was green and came to realize that everthing he was taught was wrong. If you think it was right in 1996 you must still believe it in 2008 and now have to “Evolve” to believe what you believed 16 yrs ago. Just be a fucking man, stand up, and profess you beliefs and let everyone decide the you are either right or completly batshit insane.

    I know, I am dreaming to think one of our overlords actually telling us what they believe and not just what they think we want to hear

  25. 25
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    I have to disagree just a little there, bro.

    Marriage is ultimately a contract. It’s an agreement for property, wills, etc. As such, the state has no right to ban said contract. It’s a legal document, and banning it would violate that equal protection under the law thingy.

    Sestrichka, I’m with you there. They can actually make such contracts under the law, nothing prohibits it. I can make a legal contract with my dog if I like, although there are limitations to it of course. I can’t, for instance, make a contract that allows me to claim her as a dependent on my W-2, but perhaps my rights are being violated there too. If so, I’m getting an ant farm. Claiming 3,500 dependents on my tax papers ought to give me some serious tax credits.

    On a more serious note: As regards inheriting, visitation rights etc., we’re completely in agreement. I don’t have a problem with Adam and Steve wanting those too and, oddly enough, they already have those if they should bother to fill in the paperwork just like married couples do when they get married. You don’t just wake up one morning and say “hey, we’re married” after all, no matter how heterosexual you are. If that’s the case, then I wonder what that whole marriage license thing is all for.

    They can keep having that. What I will not allow, and I don’t care what people call me as a result, is for anybody to redefine language and force me through judicial fiat to acknowledge it. “Marriage” means something. It’s a well-defined word, both linguistically, historically and culturally, and one of the reasons we’re in this unholy mess is that we’ve allowed for words to be re-defined to mean whatever the fuck various activists would like for them to mean. Like “African-American” which now means “somebody who has never even been within 6 time zones of Africa but happens to have a really high melanin content in their skin and NOT somebody who was born and raised in Africa but happens to be white.” It’s nonsense, and it pisses me right off.

    If Adam and Steve want a name for what they can already have through normal legal procedures, they can call it “Cthulhu” if they like, they just can’t call it “marriage” because it ISN’T. They can call it that among themselves, I neither can nor want to stop them from doing that, but I will not accept some retarded law demanding that I recognize it as such. Don’t tell me that people like me are “forcing” our beliefs on anybody and then demand that we just sit back and meekly accept somebody ELSE forcing THEIRS on US.

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    I don’t see how allowing two consenting adults to legitimately enter into a contract imposes their views on anyone. Let the churches make their own choices. Keep the state out of it, as far as I’m concerned.

    I’m OK with that. Of course, I’m a little bit confused as to just where and when exactly the states made it illegal for two people to sign a legally correct contract. What I’m not OK with is that before you know it, and we both know that, DC is going to incorporate this state decision and force all other states to show reciprocity. The only issue on which this hasn’t been the case is when it comes to the 2nd Amendment which, ironically enough, actually IS a Constitutionally enumerated right that states can’t interfere with.

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    When your dog can give legal consent and sign a contract, lemme know. This will be interesting to watch! :em05:

    Good point! :em05:

    Of course, then it would be perfectly alright for me to marry my half-sister, who is definitely of legal age, very much human and quite capable of giving legal consent, right?

  26. 26
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    I fail to understand why anyone should have an issue at all over whether two guys or two gals get married.

    You answered you own question.

    What they are looking for is the same government and business considerations that heterosexual couples enjoy by being a government-recognized union.

    As a single guy I, along with other single guys and gals that are getting our pockets picked to provide a special goody bag for married folks, are tired of the Great American Marriage Swindle. Government doesn’t belong in the marriage business and homos aren’t entitled to jump in on the scam with a fake marriage.

  27. 27
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    With all the discussion about gay marriage and the SCoaMF not wanting to go to North Carolina, the latest news is that the Democrats may move the convention to another state. There is a Move the Convention petition being pushed by a New York group called Gay Marriage USA.
    (Several of the links are down at the moment)
    :em05:

    Do you think the morons will actually try and move the convention at this late date? :em03:
    They can’t pay for the one in NC right now, how the heck are they going to pay for a move to a new location with all the logistics that will entail? It would be the new definition of SNAFU. :em01:

    Do you think we should help them to decide to move the convention? I see Operation Chaos Mark II ready to go into operation. :em01:

  28. 28
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    can’t believe My Country is in the hands of the Likes of Biden and Obama, may as well be Micky Mouse and Dumbo, and that’s an Insult to the TooNs. I don’t care if Romney, Mayor McCheese, Kill Roy 1943, is running, I’m voting GOP !!! . Communism/socialism Must never root in the Free Lands Of the USA. God Bless the Patriots.Sarah Palin looks like Einstein compared to Biden. Saturday Night Live crucified Palin, but wouldn’t dare go near Plugs Biden.What does it say about Obama’s reasoning powers to choose a moron like Biden for V.P.

    SOMEONE explain to me how he was forced to say his stance early? Is this guy ever going to take charge of his own actions? Instead he is getting ridiculous advice from his committee. Now goes off blaming from the media to the V.P for the remarks he now “has” to make because now his plan to take advantage of a political situation has backfired. He said he would have preferred to announce his
    stance “in my own way, in my own terms,” THEN WHY DIDN’T YOU MR. PRESIDENT!?. Obama has never been a leader, only a useful idiot to his political party.
    Just more BS. The plan was for Biden to set this up. They needed another distraction from the pitiful economy.

    Joe Biden was apologizing to Obama for over 45 minutes in front of the White House until someone finally let him know that he was talking to a lawn jockey…

  29. 29
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    Here is an idea: let’s just take away all of the legal benefits and considerations that a married couple enjoy. Have your little religious rite and the church-recognized status of being “married” and that’s it. No tax breaks, no legal considerations, no government recognition that you are anything other than an individual. If you want more than that, then you too can go enter into some contracts, establish durable power of attorneys, and go that route. Let EVERYONE, straight, gay or otherwise be treated exactly the same.

    :em01: YES! :em01:

  30. 30

    Emperor Misha I says:

    They can actually make such contracts under the law, nothing prohibits it.

    Unfortunately, the inbred Northfucking Carolina does. They already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. But now, they say that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized. So if two gays want to enter into a civil union, it ain’t gonna happen. That also means that contracts such as adoption by two gays or other such arrangements won’t be honored, as far as I can see. That’s a problem.Emperor Misha I says:

    On a more serious note: As regards inheriting, visitation rights etc., we’re completely in agreement. I don’t have a problem with Adam and Steve wanting those too and, oddly enough, they already have those if they should bother to fill in the paperwork just like married couples do when they get married. You don’t just wake up one morning and say “hey, we’re married” after all, no matter how heterosexual you are. If that’s the case, then I wonder what that whole marriage license thing is all for.

    Hell, I’ve wondered that for years. I just don’t get what business the state has licensing personal relationships. It’s creepy.

    Emperor Misha I says:

    If Adam and Steve want a name for what they can already have through normal legal procedures, they can call it “Cthulhu” if they like, they just can’t call it “marriage” because it ISN’T. They can call it that among themselves, I neither can nor want to stop them from doing that, but I will not accept some retarded law demanding that I recognize it as such. Don’t tell me that people like me are “forcing” our beliefs on anybody and then demand that we just sit back and meekly accept somebody ELSE forcing THEIRS on US.

    From everything I hear from the actual gays I know, they don’t give a shit what it’s called. What they want is the legal right to be a family. Period. And I don’t think any petty tyrant has the right to take that away from them.

    Emperor Misha I says:

    The only issue on which this hasn’t been the case is when it comes to the 2nd Amendment which, ironically enough, actually IS a Constitutionally enumerated right that states can’t interfere with.

    Well it was only incorporated with McDonald, but yes.

    Emperor Misha I says:

    Of course, then it would be perfectly alright for me to marry my half-sister, who is definitely of legal age, very much human and quite capable of giving legal consent, right?

    As far as I’m concerned, absolutely. But if you have three-headed, blind babies with arms coming out of their assholes, don’t expect the rest of us to pay their disability! :em07:

  31. 31
    Southern Libertarian growls and barks:

    ohio right wing nut @ #:

    Completely scrap the tax code,eliminate the I.R.S. everybody regardless of income pay (I’m just throwing this out there) 10%, no deductions, no license fees for contrats between adults.

    My thoughts exactly sir. “Make a dollar, pay a dime”. It’s so simple.

  32. 32
    BigDogg growls and barks:

    Oh .. by the way .. while all the greyhounds are chasing the gay-marriage rabbit around the track, the economy is still in the shitter, unemployment is still at record-breaking levels, Russia just told us to go fuck ourselves, and Israel is on the brink of launching at Iran.

    But … hey … let’s go ahead and waste all our time and energy on a subject that less than 5% of the population actually gives a damn about.

  33. 33
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    Doesn’t anybody get who would reap the greatest benefit from same-sex marriage?

    Here’s a clue:

    D-I-V-O-R-C-E (Fill in the blank)

  34. 34
    LC George, Apocryphal Prophet growls and barks:

    The real problem as I see it is the next item on the gay rights agenda: adoption.

    Most people can agree that the state has no business dictating what two adults do with each other in private, and if they love and trust each other it makes sense to let them enter into a legal union similar to a marriage.

    The fact remains though, that the human race perpetuates itself by means of sexual reproduction. It is a simple biological fact that what homosexuals do is not how babies are made, so they can’t have any children unless someone else gives them kids. There is a 97% chance that a given child will grow up to be straight, and therefore will be best served being raised by parents who attempt to exemplify the partnership of man and woman, because that is what will prepare the kids with knowledge of how to conduct themselves toward the opposite sex, and conducting themselves toward the opposite sex is 97% likely to be what they are going to want to do when they get older. I am not expressing any kind of hate toward gay couples here. I’m just pointing out that when it comes to adopting children, it should not be presumed that it is just as well to give a kid to a gay couple as a straight couple. Nevertheless you can count on the gay activist crowd to come unhinged at an argument like this and construe it as some kind of unspeakably vile hate speech. When it gets to the point where we actually should draw the line, will we be willing to do so?

    Here’s a brainbender for the lefty crowd:
    Suppose they identify the ‘gay gene,’ and suppose they develop a treatment, injected directly into the gonads, that can eliminate the chance of having children with any of a wide range of genetic conditions, including homosexual inclinations. Should people be denied the right of reproductive choice to secure the future existence of homosexuals?

  35. 35
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    Governments should issue civil union licenses, churchs can issue “marriage” certificates. If this is really all about equal rights to financial benefits one has to question why there are “financial benefits” to marriage? What is it that we are trying to “promote”?

  36. 36
    BigDogg growls and barks:

    LC TerribleTroy says:

    one has to question why there are “financial benefits” to marriage? What is it that we are trying to “promote”?

    Back in the good ol’ days, it was called “family.” It was the cornerstone of society and civilization. It was about one mom, one dad, and 2.5 kids. In an amazing coincidence, once civilized society started breaking down and tearing at the family unit, things really started to go to shit … for a prime example, look at blacks in America.

  37. 37

    ohio right wing nut says:

    Who in their right mind would want to deal with more than 1 of those unholy creatures once a month?

    ‘Always figured that if I needed more than The One,, well, either I didn’t marry enough ‘Woman’ the first time,, or somethin’s just not oiling right on my end.

  38. 38
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    Unfortunately, the inbred Northfucking Carolina does. They already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. But now, they say that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized. So if two gays want to enter into a civil union, it ain’t gonna happen.

    Now, see, THAT I DO have an issue with. That’s complete and utter poppy-cock and the state of NC has no fucking business, as far as I’m concerned, determining who can and cannot enter into a legally binding contract (obvious exclusions regarding minors, dumb animals, lawn furniture, insanity, coercion and duress, but the law already covers that).

    But it’s still not a “marriage”, with all that that entails, including child tax credits etc.

    Like it or not, and we can certainly debate that logically, all of the “benefits” bestowed upon married couples by the state(s) were motivated by logic and not an irrational hatred of queers. They were enacted to encourage marriage (not “marriage”) because the state(s) recognized that marriage encourages breeding, and no nation long survives if its citizens don’t breed. I know, it’s horribly crass and filthy, but just ask EUnuchistan and numerous other stupid regions of the world where they can’t keep their birth rate above replacement.

    Society needs workers, entrepreneurs, soldiers, even DMV bureaucrats (though I’ll freely admit that I’m not entirely convinced about the necessity of the latter). If we don’t have them, we’ll soon be a nation of ancient, non-productive geezers feeding from a public trough getting emptier and emptier by the day.

    Just because we did away with the old culture of kids taking care of their parents and grandparents in their dotage because it was too damn inconvenient for the young whipper-snappers to be tied to the old fucks and left that task to the Nanny State doesn’t mean that the rules no longer apply. Those geezers being taken care of by the Nanny State still cost resources and without replacement worker bees, the Nanny State won’t have any.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch and future generations will be paying for it just as we’re currently paying for past generations. I see no wrong in that. Without those past generations taking care of us when we were little bundles of puke, piss and shit, we wouldn’t be here.

    So the government incentives to married couples were and are founded in the principle of “getting them to breed already.” Not that human beings don’t breed fine all on their own, but in addition marriage serves to create stability domestically which, AGAIN, benefits society. I won’t bother to list every single study ever published conclusively proving that children born to and grown up within marriage tend, on average, to do better and become more law-abiding, productive citizens.

    And this is when some people will storm forth and provide me with stories of failed marriages and wildly successful children of single parents. I don’t need those. I’m one of the latter and I know more than enough for the former, but the plural of “anecdote” is NOT “data.”

    Let’s take concealed carry. It’s completely different from marriage incentives, yet we all know that holders of CHLs are much more likely to be law-abiding citizens than the GenPop. Again, studies prove it conclusively. Yet, apart from braindead liberal fascists, we don’t have people running around screaming that the one insane CHL holder who went nuts and gunned down his family disproves the entire body of statistics, do we?

    So there IS a perfectly logical, cynical, pragmatic reason for all of the marriage “benefits.”

    Now, whether we, as a society, decide today that it’s worth it is very much a matter open for discussion, but that was the reason for them in the first place and it is hysterically idiotic to suggest that those same benefits should fall to couples who are not likely to breed and thus produce future generations at all. It would be better, then, to just drop the incentives altogether.

    And become Europe. Hooray.

  39. 39
    tweell growls and barks:

    I’m all for gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they suffer too?

    Having kids? Same deal there.

    Silliness aside, I still believe that the best chance for children to grow up as good people is to have a man and a woman watching over them. That’s really why marriage got the protections that it has. However, two mothers (or fathers) have got to be better than a single parent, and that’s what we have too much of right now.

  40. 40
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    This was my point earlier regarding what we as a society are trying to promte with the “financial benefits” incentive to marry. Seeing as homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce and create a “family”, why should they be entitled to those benefits? Or do we first have to determine the legal definition of the word “family”?

    I see DJ is feeling well enough to channel / spew antigun statistical nonsense . Good form DJ, glad to see you continuing to recover.

  41. 41
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    The progressive turn-the-English-language-inside-out word of the week is “evolving”. Obama’s “evolving” view on homosexual marriage… Progressive accusations against Romney (or any conservative) that they haven’t “evolved” because they don’t believe in men marrying men. This is progressive-twisted brilliant, as the definition of evolve is “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.“ By using ”Obama’s evolving view on gay marriage” (and the national media soaked us in that for a week), it automatically approves homosexual marriage, and it automatically means anyone who doesn’t agree is basically a neanderthal. The progressive (thanks Ayers & Dorn) twisting of our language is right out of Orwell’s 1984. Doublespeak. And it wrong and corrupt, as is the entire progressive view.

  42. 42
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    Keyword DJ “naturally”. Hundreds of thousands gay parents? Yeah right. Thanks for the CHL equals penis extension psycho babble. That was germane and helpful considering the topic. Not. You know good and well that Mischa introduced the gun stuff as a statistical analogy to support his position on the topic.

    I still posit that homosexuals in their natural state are unable to produce a “family” and therefore have no “rights” to the financial benefits of marriage , as those benefits were intended to promote production of a family.

  43. 43
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    I think we should help our aggrevied gay and lesbian brothers and/or sisters in their concern about the DNC having their get-together in Charlotte.

    Sign every petition you can to get DNC to move … find pro-gay sponsors and donors to Obama and DNC and threaten to take your business elsewhere if they don’t tell DNC and Obama to move out of that racist, homophobe state.

    That should cost the DNC and all their pals millions of dollars (in cancellation penalties and rebookings) which they can’t spend on hate and attack ads against Republicans this fall.

    It’s a beautiful thing.

  44. 44
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Obama is evolving into a tyrant.

    A Tyranny has one goal: Power. The pursuit of gaining power and making it stronger. A Tyranny will do this even if they hurt their own People. The people leading a Tyranny care not for the ones they hurt. They care not for the pain and suffering inflicted upon the lives of the people under their authority.

    The People under a Tyranny must put up with this day-to-day. They have to deal with the chaos and uncertainty that comes from living with a Government unbound by Clear and True Laws. The People live with an entity that can do what it wants when it wants. With no respect for any sort of restraining Law. When it comes down to it, the People do not matter at all, whatsoever, to the Leaders of a Tyranny.

    The Leaders who care only for their power have no heart. They go about their lives running the Tyranny. They care not for the People. They care not for the pain caused by their actions. If they did care they would not use iron fisted tactics to control the People. If the Leaders of a Tyranny truly cared, they would stop pursuing power quests. If they were really humans with a heart and soul, they would stop oppressing the inherit freedoms that all People are entitled to. They would see how the Tyranny is affecting the People and stop being Tyrants!

    People generally don’t like to be oppressed. Laws to protect the Life and Liberties of other People are one thing. Laws designed to only enrich the Power of the Tyranny’s Leaders is another.

    The Leaders of every Tyranny need to look at their people. They need to stop being steel-hearted and realize what their oppressive laws are doing! It is possible to keep order without resorting to iron-fisted tyranny.

    The Purpose of a Government is to uplift and encourage. Not crush and discourage.

    http://lifelightandliberty.blogspot.com/2012/04/impact-of-tyranny-on-people.html

  45. 45
    tweell growls and barks:

    I knew two gay couples that lived nearby (we lost contact after they moved). Two women and two men, they were ostensibly married as normal couples but lived otherwise, each pair renting half of the same duplex. They had children, which is why we knew them; our children went to school and played with theirs.
    They did a decent masquerade, but my wife’s gaydar was finely tuned. Their children were well taken care of and loved.

  46. 46
    LC George, Apocryphal Prophet growls and barks:

    Look, I’m not saying that all methods should be employed to keep homosexuals from ever having custody of children. Mainly my position involves:
    A) The state should not presume as a matter of course that it doesn’t really matter one whit, with regard to adoption and foster care placement. This affects only those kids who get taken by the state, and I am not at all suggesting that your local CYS should be ordered to spend any extra energy looking for some technical excuse to take little Timmy from his Alpha Dad and Beta Dad. Just that the state ought to give straight couples preferential treatment when looking for places to put the kids they take.
    B) If, say, the Catholics want to restrict adoptions to straight couples, and people still want to drop their kids off at Catholic hospitals, churches, convents, and orphanages, let there be no whining when they apply their policy. Use persuasion, not coercion if you want people to choose a more broad-minded child custody solution.

    I

  47. 47
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    We’re in violent agreement on that one, Deej. I’ve got no problem with two (or more) folks of whatever plumbing arrangement living happily together as long as they don’t start (1) making me pay for their choices or (2) forcing their idea of morality upon me. Where I do draw the line…and our administration has indicated a willingness to do this…is the government forcing churches to sanctify marriages they would otherwise hold reprehensible. I DO believe that Barack Obama would use his fiat powers to, for example, compel catholic churches to offer the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples. I do not offer or suggest proof of that assertion other than his involvement in the whole contraception cluster-fuck. If he will do that, it is not inconceivable that he would force them to also go against their beliefs on marriage. Of course, it may just be that I don’t trust that son of a bitch.