North Carolina bans gay marriage, Prez O endorses it!

morethanpretty • May 9, 2012 5:48 pm
Here is a vid of the President endorsing gay marriage.
[YOUTUBE]qecdYEAby5I[/YOUTUBE]


I was bummed about NC, but this lifts my spirits. Hopefully next term we'll get a national bill supporting marriage equality. Fuck DOMA!
piercehawkeye45 • May 9, 2012 6:53 pm
He said he personally supports gay marriage but will let states decide on its legality. Honestly, I believe that is the best move on his part.

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.


http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html
morethanpretty • May 9, 2012 7:39 pm
His affirming his support is a small step but at least its forwards and not backwards.
classicman • May 9, 2012 9:54 pm
Close election? What is he smoking?
This is gonna be a blowout.
regular.joe • May 9, 2012 10:09 pm
Wow, the next NC Republican who bitches to me about how large and intrusive Government has become, and how the Government should stay the fuck out of his/her personal life....Really???? After what ya'll just demonstrated how you really feel about that in the poles?
tw • May 10, 2012 1:54 am
classicman;810848 wrote:
Close election? What is he smoking?
It frames the tea party, Fox News, and Limbaugh disciples as advocates of hate, useless confrontation, and wacko extremism. And creates a problem for a moderate like Romney. He must now side with extremists or demonstrate the moderate he really wants to be.

Hateful extremists always need a bogeyman. bin Laden is gone. So gays make an easy target. Hate is necessary to recruit and rally extremists. And to even attack moderate Republicans who are openly condemning the hate and confrontation advocated by wacko extremists.

regular.joe accurately exposed the contradiction. The most hateful do not think for themselves. Are told that conservatives use government to impose religion and their morals on all others. The most naive are told how a conservative must think. Then parrot the propaganda. Do not even understand an obvious contradiction.

What minority will become the next extremist's target? We know extremist gain power by promoting hate. No decent, educated, or informed person has a problem with gay marriage. Those who promote hate need that bogeyman.
DanaC • May 10, 2012 5:35 am
tw;810863 wrote:
No decent, educated, or informed person has a problem with gay marriage. Those who promote hate need that bogeyman.


Every so often you really nail it, Tdub.
morethanpretty • May 10, 2012 6:44 am
tw;810863 wrote:
It frames the tea party, Fox News, and Limbaugh disciples as advocates of hate, useless confrontation, and wacko extremism. And creates a problem for a moderate like Romney. He must now side with extremists or demonstrate the moderate he really wants to be.

Hateful extremists always need a bogeyman. bin Laden is gone. So gays make an easy target. Hate is necessary to recruit and rally extremists. And to even attack moderate Republicans who are openly condemning the hate and confrontation advocated by wacko extremists.

regular.joe accurately exposed the contradiction. The most hateful do not think for themselves. Are told that conservatives use government to impose religion and their morals on all others. The most naive are told how a conservative must think. Then parrot the propaganda. Do not even understand an obvious contradiction.

What minority will become the next extremist's target? We know extremist gain power by promoting hate. No decent, educated, or informed person has a problem with gay marriage. Those who promote hate need that bogeyman.


I love your post tw. This is the kind of rant I wish I could write so eloquently.
morethanpretty • May 10, 2012 6:51 am
classicman;810848 wrote:
Close election? What is he smoking?
This is gonna be a blowout.


Huh? Who are you talking about?

WTF are you smoking?
DanaC • May 10, 2012 7:01 am
That's interesting. Most of the problem for Obama is the registered 'independent' voters, with whom Rommers has an apparent 6 point lead. But they're also the group most likely to refuse to specify or not to have decided yet.

be interesting to see what happens with that 4% of indies going for other candidates. As the election gets closer, will they stick to their guns on a third party candidate, or throw in their lot with one of the two contenders.
piercehawkeye45 • May 10, 2012 1:03 pm
Its the economy, stupid!

:runaway:
infinite monkey • May 10, 2012 1:17 pm
Ehh, fuck NC anyway. Maybe they'll change their license plates from "First in Flight" (thanks to the Dayton Wright Brothers fucknecks...Kittyhawk was just a LOCATION) to "Ain't No Gays Gettin' Married HERE." They've long needed something actually true to hang their brains, I mean hats, on

Bunch of backwards freaks anyhow.
classicman • May 10, 2012 1:30 pm
Mark my words, MTP...
When things are broken down into useful information, this isn't going to be a close election at all.
Happy Monkey • May 10, 2012 1:33 pm
When has that ever happened, though?
classicman • May 10, 2012 1:48 pm
Whats the estimated electoral breakdown HM - even at this pointless stage in the process of estimating?
Happy Monkey • May 10, 2012 2:12 pm
No idea. I just don't think that anything will get broken down into useful information.
morethanpretty • May 10, 2012 2:34 pm
classicman;810923 wrote:
Mark my words, MTP...
When things are broken down into useful information, this isn't going to be a close election at all.


What is the point of your opinion when its not based on any evidence whatsoever? You're not adding to the conversation by spouting off the completely wild guesses that you have about this election.
Clodfobble • May 10, 2012 3:42 pm
This chart pretty much says it all. In the near future gay marriage is going to simply cease to be an issue, just like interracial marriage.
glatt • May 10, 2012 3:48 pm
Which is why the red line folks are frantically trying to change constitutions, so it will be all that more difficult for the people of the future to have what they want.
DanaC • May 10, 2012 4:07 pm
And they'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those crazy kids...

wait...no.
Rhianne • May 10, 2012 4:11 pm
About 25 years are shown. Are people changing their views or just dying?
glatt • May 10, 2012 4:22 pm
What event happened in 2004 to cause the sudden increase in polling?
infinite monkey • May 10, 2012 4:53 pm
Well, glatt, a few things happened:

The New England Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVIII.

The Pittsburgh Penguins lost their 12th consecutive home game, a NHL record.

The Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places, including bars and restaurants.

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush testified before the 9/11 Commission in a closed, unrecorded hearing in the Oval Office.

In New York, capital punishment was declared unconstitutional.

Fidel Castro announced that transactions using the American Dollar will be banned by November 8.

But I don't think most of those are related. ;)
Ibby • May 10, 2012 5:04 pm
Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry.
piercehawkeye45 • May 10, 2012 6:22 pm
Rhianne;810971 wrote:
About 25 years are shown. Are people changing their views or just dying?

Both.
tw • May 10, 2012 7:25 pm
infinite monkey;810982 wrote:
But I don't think most of those are related.
What was happening then? Hate was especially popular. Hate of evil Muslims. Hate of the axis of evil. Hate of as quantum physics. Hate of financial regulations. Hate of hybrids and other fundamental innovations. Hate of anyone opposed to a new cold war in anti-missile deployments and other wasteful military spending projects. Hate of N Korea. Hate of the Germans, French and French Fries. Hate of anyone who was not conservative enough. Hate of stem cell research. Hate of anyone promoting nutritional foods. Hate of anyone who reported honestly (ie Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel) about an obvious quagmire in Mission Accomplished. Hate of research into environmental science. Hate of soldiers on swift boats who earned Bronze and Silver Stars. Hate of the UN. Hate of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets (even Mission Accomplished was never in the budget). Hate of the middle class by increasing welfare to the rich. Hate of anyone who said it was ‘their’ oil. Hate of anyone who properly identified the lies about Al Qaeda in Iraq; an insurgency created by no phase four planning. Hate of Colin Powell who was obviously too moderate.

Hate empowers and increases compliance among those who are least educated; who automatically believe the first thing they are told. Hate was how Senator Joseph McCarthy got popular among those same types. Hate in the name of extremism was no vice ... in 2004.

Hate and lies were strongly hyped in 2004 to get George Jr reelected.
infinite monkey • May 10, 2012 7:45 pm
And see? I mentioned george jr in my list. I know! ;)

But you completely forgot about the hate of smokers. (See list, entry 3)
classicman • May 10, 2012 9:41 pm
morethanpretty;810940 wrote:
What is the point of your opinion when its not based on any evidence whatsoever? You're not adding to the conversation by spouting off the completely wild guesses that you have about this election.

I'm talking about experience and reality. Do a little research on your own instead of bitching at me. Don't like what I write? Don't read or respond.
Polls at this point in the cycle are less than meaningless.
classicman • May 11, 2012 12:33 am
Oh fuggit, I'll play along with you MTP - Here take a look for yourself at some numbers.

If that qualifies as "any evidence whatsoever" that is.
Ibby • May 11, 2012 12:41 am
I would call that, classic, close enough to worry about. I think Obama is very likely to win, but to go as far as feeling like it's a sure thing - its still way close enough that if enough left-leaners feel like it's a shoo-in, it could drive down turnout enough to let Romney eke out a win. Granted, yes, it's far out enough now that polling is less-than-perfect, but... I think Romney's gonna give him a run for his money, so to speak.
I get the impression that, though I look at you and see a (relative) conservative, or at least right-leaning independent, that you support Obama over Romney (which to me makes sense, because i look at OBAMA and see a moderate-conservative, compared to, like, mainstream liberals like Elizabeth Warren or my idol Bernie Sanders). If Obama has your vote, I'd hate to see him lose it because you or anyone else thinks he's sure to win and therefore not worth getting out there on voting day for.
classicman • May 11, 2012 12:50 am
1) What part of that is close?
Obama - 294
Toss - 74
Rom - 170

2) I specifically addressed her since she got all shitty with me.

3) I couldn't possibly be more apathetic about this election.
I'm less inclined to vote for O this time than last and Romney ... ugh I dunno how I could at this point. :vomit:
Ibby • May 11, 2012 1:07 am
If he needs 270 to win, and there are "247 Strong Obama" votes... I'd call that contestable, this far out. Maybe you parse it differently, fine. But I'd call that close enough to worry about. Especially considering the effect money will have on this race.
classicman • May 11, 2012 3:50 pm
Obama needs 23 and Mitt needs 100. Mitts been campaigning for 4 YEARS compared to Obama's 4 days... I don't see this as being close. I guess its all about perspective.
infinite monkey • May 11, 2012 4:16 pm
Everything is perspective. Even math. ;)
Ibby • May 11, 2012 4:38 pm
I guess the difference is between your use of the word "close" and mine of "contestable". Given the distance from the election and the twists, turns, and outside events that could affect the race... I think Mitt hasn't LOST already. There's some conceivable path he could take that would win him the election, against today's odds. That's what I mean by contestable.
morethanpretty • May 11, 2012 8:46 pm
I'm confused admittedly. I thought classic meant that obama was gonna be blown out of office. Anyone else read it that way?
classicman • May 11, 2012 8:52 pm
whatever.

Romney has virtually no chance whatsoever.

Hes behind by over 120 and there are really only 74 in play.

Do you really understand what has to happen for him to win?
You've got better odds of tw & Merc playing tiddlywinks while having tea on a Sunday.

ETA: Do you even understand how the electoral college works?
morethanpretty • May 11, 2012 9:02 pm
classicman;811256 wrote:
whatever.

Romney has virtually no chance whatsoever.

Hes behind by over 120 and there are really only 74 in play.

Do you really understand what has to happen for him to win?
You've got better odds of tw & Merc playing tiddlywinks while having tea on a Sunday.

ETA: Do you even understand how the electoral college works?


Wow, your rudeness was completely uncalled for. I was being a bit sassy but you're being outright mean.
Go take a bath or something to calm down.

And yes I do.
Ibby • May 11, 2012 9:05 pm
Of course I understand the electoral effin' college. And I also understand that every single "lean obama" state in that site's ranking - along with Pennsylvania, if the republican voter suppression/electoral splitting measures pass, and Nevada, according to other polling aggregates i've seen - is very much winnable by Romney, with a little luck and a lot of elbow grease (and by elbow grease I mean PAC money). Just because Obama's ahead half a mile into the marathon doesn't mean he's won, or that it's not worth watching.

ETA: are you honestly saying you think there's no way a republican could win VIRGINIA?
classicman • May 11, 2012 9:11 pm
That post wasn't directed at you, Ibs.

ETA - But to answer your reply
Pennsylvania - Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaa
Nevada - highly unlikely.
To use your own phrase - Obama's ahead half a mile with about a 1/4 mile to go.
You're buying into the BS again.
Ibby • May 11, 2012 9:13 pm
I retract my umbrage, then, except on MTP's behalf. But my point stands. I still don't think its quite a blowout yet. Once we get into september, october, and the numbers STILL look like they do now - then, it's in the bag. As yet, there's still a race to run.
classicman • May 11, 2012 9:37 pm
No problem.
The race, if there ever was one, is over. The left is trying to create something of a contest so their voters don't become complacent.
Ibby • May 11, 2012 9:40 pm
Well, okay, if that's how you want to frame it. I'd still call that an actual race, even if it's theirs to lose.
infinite monkey • May 11, 2012 10:07 pm
Classic has a point about complacency. Ohio got complacent with obamas win and didn't bother voting for governor two years later! Yoo-hoo! Gotta keep at it people.

Vote early vote often! :lol:
regular.joe • May 12, 2012 12:20 am
classicman;811256 wrote:
whatever.

Romney has virtually no chance whatsoever.

Hes behind by over 120 and there are really only 74 in play.

Do you really understand what has to happen for him to win?
You've got better odds of tw & Merc playing tiddlywinks while having tea on a Sunday.

ETA: Do you even understand how the electoral college works?



Hey, it could happen! On another note, the vote in NC only proves that there are more conservative christians who vote living in NC then not. What is scary is that a religious agenda is now part of a state constitution.
morethanpretty • May 12, 2012 1:03 pm
Ibram;811264 wrote:
I retract my umbrage, then, except on MTP's behalf. But my point stands. I still don't think its quite a blowout yet. Once we get into september, october, and the numbers STILL look like they do now - then, it's in the bag. As yet, there's still a race to run.


Thanks ibz, although its my fault for even trying. I guess snarkiness by using someone's own terminology is just being shitty. I guess I should never point out the lack of evidence behind someone's claim.
classicman • May 12, 2012 11:30 pm
You got yer ass handed to you. YOU started the snark. I simply finished it.
morethanpretty • May 13, 2012 6:05 am
classicman;811363 wrote:
You got yer ass handed to you. YOU started the snark. I simply finished it.


You made a completely unbased claim lacking anything remotely like evidence. Yes the electoral college fucks things up and voter apathy and we don't really know anything (even you) about the actual numbers until that night. You still didn't answer the question about who you were talking about and your pronouns were vague, so was your statement, about who you were talking about what being what. Snark, aka sarcasm, is not the same thing as being an asshole. You are being an asshole to me and I would like an apology.
richlevy • May 13, 2012 11:33 pm
Clodfobble;810955 wrote:
This chart pretty much says it all. In the near future gay marriage is going to simply cease to be an issue, just like interracial marriage.
True dat.
classicman • May 14, 2012 12:34 am
morethanpretty;811379 wrote:
You still didn't answer the question about who you were talking about

Listen at 4:14 of the video you posted. I figured you knew that already since you posted it. :eyebrow:

You are being an asshole to me and I would like an apology.
monster • May 14, 2012 10:01 am
Uh-oh, looks like it's time for someone's regular self-imposed ban.......
DanaC • May 15, 2012 2:29 pm
This is probably already in here somewhere, but tis funny:

[YOUTUBE]9KLMYaF_Xa8[/YOUTUBE]
morethanpretty • May 15, 2012 2:33 pm
Good vid Dana.

I'm hoping O's position evolves to believing there needs to be a federal law protecting human rights.
piercehawkeye45 • May 15, 2012 5:59 pm
I'm sure it evolved to that point a while ago but isn't ready politically. A federal law could fuel a strong backlash from conservatives, hurting both Obama and already established gay rights. It obviously isn't ideal but any means, but I think Obama's stance is more pragmatic and less what he actually believes.
TheMercenary • May 15, 2012 6:18 pm
infinite monkey;810918 wrote:
Ehh, fuck NC anyway. Maybe they'll change their license plates from "First in Flight" (thanks to the Dayton Wright Brothers fucknecks...Kittyhawk was just a LOCATION) to "Ain't No Gays Gettin' Married HERE." They've long needed something actually true to hang their brains, I mean hats, on
:lol2:
classicman • May 16, 2012 1:29 pm
evolves...
xoxoxoBruce • May 16, 2012 3:15 pm
And while everyone obsesses over the presidential race, the right wing is working their ass off at what's really important... Congress, Governorships, State Legislatures.

Who's president makes a hill of beans compared to where the power to fuck up your life lies. This is how the religious right/ultra conservative block has wielded disproportionate power. They work the system... so should you.
classicman • May 16, 2012 3:28 pm
HoF worthy post.
monster • May 16, 2012 11:22 pm
[YOUTUBE]B2xwhT8WhZU[/YOUTUBE]
TheMercenary • May 17, 2012 9:18 pm
No one gives a shit about "Gay" marriage. It is a total distraction. Why? It is a States Rights Issue. It will never be passed as a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. Will never past muster. Get over it. It will not change. If Bleeding Hearts what to die over it let them, just remember that it was Bill Cliton that signed DOMA into law. The whole issue is stupid.
classicman • May 17, 2012 10:52 pm
Totally disagree. People will look back at how ridiculous this is very soon - relatively speaking.
glatt • May 18, 2012 10:42 am
TheMercenary;812106 wrote:
No one gives a shit about "Gay" marriage.


Then why are so many states going through the trouble of changing their constitutions to ban it? Why are we talking about it? Why did I see a gay guy lecturing a gay bashing bigot holding a sign in front of the White House yesterday? Why do many of my FB friends post about the issue?

A lot of people care a lot about it. You couldn't be more wrong that nobody cares. Are you high?
DanaC • May 18, 2012 11:14 am
What he means is that he doesn't care. Like racism, he sees it as a non-issue. i can only assume because it doesn't personally affect him.
morethanpretty • May 19, 2012 3:30 am
DanaC;812167 wrote:
What he means is that he doesn't care. Like racism, he sees it as a non-issue. i can only assume because it doesn't personally affect him.


Its also not a state's rights issue, its a human's rights issue. He's wrong in so many ways.
tw • May 19, 2012 10:01 am
TheMercenary;812106 wrote:
No one gives a shit about "Gay" marriage. It is a total distraction. Why? It is a States Rights Issue.
Hate promoted by a political spin machine is not longer working. So the political machine has told their followers to label it a non-issue. To move the issue to where extremists have more influence - at the state level.

It is a sad state that hates gays.
TheMercenary • May 19, 2012 10:05 pm
glatt;812166 wrote:
Then why are so many states going through the trouble of changing their constitutions to ban it? Why are we talking about it? Why did I see a gay guy lecturing a gay bashing bigot holding a sign in front of the White House yesterday? Why do many of my FB friends post about the issue?
It is a "States Rights Issues" as I stated earlier and as Obama fell back on as an excuse to not take a stand on it from a Federal standpoint. I don't care what individual States do about it. But there is no way you are going to transfer the issue between States and gain legitimacy.
TheMercenary • May 19, 2012 10:06 pm
morethanpretty;812264 wrote:
Its also not a state's rights issue, its a human's rights issue. He's wrong in so many ways.

Bull shit. Not in the US. Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, therefore it is a States Rights issue.
tw • May 19, 2012 10:45 pm
TheMercenary;812374 wrote:
Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, therefore it is a States Rights issue.
We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Marriage between any two people is an unalienable Right - except when hate and extremist rhetoric replaces logic. Those unalienable Rights are the fundamentals upon which America was founded.

It is a sad state that promotes hate of gays. Why are you a proud member of such as sad state? Depression? There's a drug for that.
Lamplighter • May 20, 2012 12:49 am
Today's news includes two significant items in the continuing fall out from repeal of DADT last Sept 19th.

Forbes
David DiSalvo
5/19/12

How One Flawed Study Spawned a Decade of Lies
In 2001, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, psychologist and professor emeritus of Columbia University,
presented a paper at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association
about something called “reparative therapy” for gay men and women.
By undergoing reparative therapy, the paper claimed, gay men and women could change their sexual orientation.<snip>

Spitzer, now 79-years old, was no stranger to the controversy surrounding his chosen subject.
Thirty years earlier, he had played a leading role in removing
homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the association’s diagnostic manual.
Clearly, his interest in the topic was more than a passing academic curiosity
– indeed, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say he seemed invested in demonstrating
that homosexuality was changeable, not unlike quitting smoking or giving up ice cream.

Fast forward to 2012, and Spitzer is of quite a different mind.
Last month he told a reporter with The American Prospect that he regretted the 2001 study
and the effect it had on the gay community, and that he owed the community an apology.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]And this month he sent a letter to the Archives of Sexual Behavior,
which published his work in 2003, asking that the journal retract his paper.[/COLOR]<snip>

The object lesson worth drawing from this story is that just one instance of bad science
given the blessing of recognized experts can lead to years of damaging lies that snowball out of control.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spitzer cannot be held solely responsible for what happened after his paper was published,
but he’d probably agree now that the study should never have been presented in the first place.
[/COLOR]
At the very least, his example may help prevent future episodes of the same.


And on a completely different level...

NY Times
MICHAEL BARBARO
May 19, 2012

In Largely Symbolic Move, N.A.A.C.P. Votes to Endorse Same-Sex Marriage
The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday,
putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause
that has long divided some quarters of the black community.<snip>

All but two of the organization’s board members, who include many religious leaders,
backed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, according to people told of the decision.

Borrowing a term used by gay rights advocates, the resolution stated,
“We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law
provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
In a statement, Roslyn M. Brock, chairwoman of the 64-member board, said,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.”[/COLOR]

Maxim Thorne, a former high-ranking official with the organization,
said that [COLOR="DarkRed"]“for certain people, it was a very long evolution and a very long process
of reconciling their faith with this, and coming to a very civil rights understanding
of marriage equality versus a theological understanding of marriage.”[/COLOR]
xoxoxoBruce • May 20, 2012 1:26 am
No one gives a shit about "Gay" marriage.

Except those that want to marry but can't, and the religious right, I think that's pretty much true.
Ibby • May 20, 2012 4:09 am
TheMercenary;812374 wrote:
Bull shit. Not in the US. Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, therefore it is a States Rights issue.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Ibby • May 20, 2012 4:11 am
TheMercenary;812374 wrote:
Bull shit. Not in the US. Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, therefore it is a States Rights issue.


Earl Warren, Loving v. Virginia wrote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
xoxoxoBruce • May 20, 2012 11:37 pm
tw pointed out it's a distraction... so did Merc.
I said the religious right is concentrating on Congress, Governorships, and State legislators.

The 2012 election should be about what’s going on in America’s boardrooms, but Republicans would rather it be about America’s bedrooms.

Mitt Romney says he’s against same-sex marriage; President Obama just announced his support. North Carolina voters have approved a Republican-proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. Minnesota voters will be considering a similar amendment in November. Republicans in Maryland and Washington State are seeking to overturn legislative approval of same-sex marriage there.

Meanwhile, Republicans have introduced over four hundred bills in state legislatures aimed at limiting womens’ reproductive rights – banning abortions, requiring women seeking abortions to have invasive ultra-sound tests beforehand, and limiting the use of contraceptives.

The Republican bedroom crowd doesn’t want to talk about the nation’s boardrooms because that’s where most of their campaign money comes from. And their candidate for president has made a fortune playing board rooms like checkers.

Yet America’s real problems have nothing to do with what we do in our bedrooms and everything to do with what top executives do in their boardrooms and executive suites.


the rest
glatt • May 21, 2012 8:29 am
Thanks Bruce. good reminder
Cyber Wolf • May 22, 2012 11:25 am
xoxoxoBruce;812511 wrote:

I said the religious right is concentrating on Congress, Governorships, and State legislators.


This guy must not have gotten that memo... his focus on is the Presidency.

Regarding NC's official anti-gay rights stance, it didn't take long for a pastor to publicly go so far around the bend that he's gonna rear-end it.
Stormieweather • May 22, 2012 5:04 pm
When did it become ok to sound like a nazi or white supremacist? Since when is it tolerable to incite violence against those we disagree with? To advocate torture and murder and eradication of those who are different than we are?

And yet, we have preachers and political leaders and other people of influence doing just that. Why isn't there widespread outrage and rebuke of such bigotry?

I'm sincerely afraid for the future of the human race if we continue down this path.
piercehawkeye45 • May 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Besides a very select portion of the population, I don't think anyone thinks that speech was "okay".

There is minimum outrage because no one is surprised a preacher in North Carolina would say that. It is no different than those Westboro fucks...
classicman • May 23, 2012 12:07 am
^^^WHS^^^
Stormieweather • May 23, 2012 9:51 am
Seriously? You think this is an isolated incident? :eyebrow:
BigV • May 23, 2012 11:18 am
Not an isolated incident, not at all. In addition to being bigoted and hateful, it is stupid and logically ... unsound. He's right. No parthenogenesis in the lesbian enclosure, no adoption in the gay cage; no reproduction. They probably would die there, given his plan, terrible and horrific as it is. My question is this, though, you stupid hater: since "they" can't reproduce, since they can't make "more", I want you to explain to me where "they" came from in the first place.

Ignorant hateful fuck.
piercehawkeye45 • May 23, 2012 11:26 am
Stormieweather;812794 wrote:
Seriously? You think this is an isolated incident? :eyebrow:

I never said isolated. I said very select portion of the population. Big difference.
infinite monkey • May 23, 2012 12:54 pm
Cyber Wolf;812681 wrote:
This guy must not have gotten that memo... his focus on is the Presidency.

Regarding NC's official anti-gay rights stance, it didn't take long for a pastor to publicly go so far around the bend that he's gonna rear-end it.


Good lord, can't we just nuke NC? Listen to these assholes, especially that bursting at the seams boy in the car. Adam and Steve...oh how fucking original. What a clever little dumbass.

Also, gay people don't necessarily beget gay people. Dumbass reporter should have told him that. How stupid does a group of people need to be before they die off from freaking stupidity?

"You need to lay off my pasture."

Fucking numnut fuck.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_bn1#/video/us/2012/05/23/ac-tuchman-pastors-anti-gay-sermon-fall-out.cnn
Cyber Wolf • May 24, 2012 3:19 pm
infinite monkey;812834 wrote:
Good lord, can't we just nuke NC? Listen to these assholes, especially that bursting at the seams boy in the car. Adam and Steve...oh how fucking original. What a clever little dumbass.

Also, gay people don't necessarily beget gay people. Dumbass reporter should have told him that. How stupid does a group of people need to be before they die off from freaking stupidity?

"You need to lay off my pasture."

Fucking numnut fuck.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_bn1#/video/us/2012/05/23/ac-tuchman-pastors-anti-gay-sermon-fall-out.cnn


Loyalty is a fine thing... :rolleyes:
richlevy • May 24, 2012 9:12 pm
infinite monkey;812834 wrote:
Good lord, can't we just nuke NC? Listen to these assholes, especially that bursting at the seams boy in the car. Adam and Steve...oh how fucking original. What a clever little dumbass.

Also, gay people don't necessarily beget gay people. Dumbass reporter should have told him that. How stupid does a group of people need to be before they die off from freaking stupidity?

"You need to lay off my pasture."

Fucking numnut fuck.
Hey, have some sympathy for the guy. If his sister had run a little faster, he might have ended up gay.
Madman • May 25, 2012 3:45 pm
Stormieweather;812711 wrote:
When did it become ok to sound like a nazi or white supremacist? Since when is it tolerable to incite violence against those we disagree with? To advocate torture and murder and eradication of those who are different than we are?

And yet, we have preachers and political leaders and other people of influence doing just that. Why isn't there widespread outrage and rebuke of such bigotry?

I'm sincerely afraid for the future of the human race if we continue down this path.


Preachers and political leaders are inciting violence, advocating torture, murder and eradication? OMG! Who's doing that?

North Carolina... doesn't bother me one little bit.

Here's the states where same sex marriage is legal: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
morethanpretty • May 25, 2012 10:00 pm
It may be a distraction, but its damaging all the same.
Clodfobble • May 26, 2012 5:44 pm
I'm just glad that for once it's North Carolina being a bunch of dipshits, and not Texas.
richlevy • May 27, 2012 3:16 am
Clodfobble;813121 wrote:
I'm just glad that for once it's North Carolina being a bunch of dipshits, and not Texas.
NC did not even make the final eight in Bill Maher's Stupidest State brackets.

But SC did....

[youtubewide]b5UIXtmiJcc[/youtubewide]
morethanpretty • May 27, 2012 4:20 am
Wow, I can't believe Texas didn't make the list. We tried to defund planned parenthood ffs, and held a convention to pray for rain.
DanaC • May 27, 2012 6:07 am
Say what? A convention to pray for rain?

Wow.
Clodfobble • May 27, 2012 9:21 am
It was our governor pandering, back when he thought he might be a viable presidential candidate. He's the least genuinely religious governor we've had probably ever, so he does double or triple the pandering to try to hide it.
Urbane Guerrilla • Jun 4, 2012 10:20 am
DanaC;813150 wrote:
Say what? A convention to pray for rain?

Wow.


The US does have to deal with drouthy conditions somewhere pretty regularly. Seems to depend on which wriggles the jet stream takes in a given year. Drought years in England tend to look like average-rainfall years to us. So this sort of thing is popular when things get bad enough you might as well pray for it.

I remember thinking, busing through Scotland, "Boy, you just can't die of thirst in this place. Not without breaking both legs or your back."
morethanpretty • Jun 4, 2012 2:49 pm
Urbane Guerrilla;813797 wrote:
The US does have to deal with drouthy conditions somewhere pretty regularly. Seems to depend on which wriggles the jet stream takes in a given year. Drought years in England tend to look like average-rainfall years to us. So this sort of thing is popular when things get bad enough you might as well pray for it.

I remember thinking, busing through Scotland, "Boy, you just can't die of thirst in this place. Not without breaking both legs or your back."



It may be popular to pray for rain but not to have a whole state government sponsor a *christian* religious event for the prayer. That's the what whole the government should not favor a religion clause is in the US Constitution to prevent.
TheMercenary • Jun 5, 2012 8:43 pm
And to this day most people, including myself could give a shit about the issue of "gay marriage"..... after all this banter it remains a "States Rights" issue. Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment will change that it that is not going to happen. I am among those who could care less. Let the States deal with the issue.... People can move to where they feel it suits their lifestyles.
Ibby • Jun 5, 2012 8:45 pm
TheMercenary;813943 wrote:
And to this day most people, including myself could give a shit about the issue of "gay marriage"..... after all this banter it remains a "States Rights" issue. Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment will change that it that is not going to happen. I am among those who could care less. Let the States deal with the issue.... People can move to where they feel it suits their lifestyles.


Ibram;812412 wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
TheMercenary • Jun 5, 2012 8:47 pm
"Basic Civil Rights" is a made up bullshit thing.... it has nothing to do with the US Constitution...
TheMercenary • Jun 5, 2012 8:49 pm
Marriage is NOT an issue discussed under the 14th Amendment. Fail. Reaching. If it was that easy it would have been settled in the 1800's.