Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

The "wrong side of history" is an idiom taken to mean one which holds an opinion that is, upon reflection by future generations, morally abhorrent. And yes, future generations will certainly look at those who oppose marriage equality the same way the youth of today view Jim Crow-era segregationists. These judges are striking down state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage because they are inherently unconstitutional, per the 14th amendment. Spare me your slippery slope logical fallacy and just admit that you're bigoted against homosexuals, like everyone else who opposes same-sex marriage.

 

The devil tempted someone to give up. I forget who, but it definitely happened.

 

Yawn....

 

Gays have always been allowed to marry. A gay man has always been free to marry the gay woman of his choice.

- - - Updated - - -

You now refute that the left is always accusing the right of turning to the courts to overturn the will of the people? Really?

 

I give up, you really CAN'T change stupid. I'm not going to explain how the 14th Amendment doesn't refer to marriage, I could explain how marriage is a "federally recognized action", but it's not written that you *HAVE* to marry. Literally, the only point that is(or should be in contention) are marital benefits, and whether marriage is in fact a privilege to be protected under the 14th.

Given the high divorce rates, it can no longer be claimed it's pro family. And the argument that this will make gays recognized as citizens is even more laughable.
From the standpoint of the law? Yes. From the standpoint of public opinion? No. Even if people "lean" towards accepting gay marriage, that's entirely different from the wet dream of "incorporating" society.

The word "marriage" itself now carries a stigma for those who disagree, as an example I can see Civil Union reform that'll incorporate SSI rights into Civil Unions, as hetero's use that instead of marriage. Divorce Court's a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and a lot to pay for.) Indeed, Marriage can be the first real administered 21st century test of Separate but equal.

As the theory wasn't flawed, but the ability to carry out the premise wasn't there and arguably wouldn't be there for the next 30 years(By 1990-2000, the African-Americans were self-sufficient enough to make it so that black schools, churches, etc could be organized). But no one actually complains about it.

If marriage does become the first test, I look for the ever aggressive Gay Agenda to challenge it, and thereby set us back! Because nothing's more laughable and morally wrong than forcing us to "tolerate" people we dislike.

Indeed, I don't want gays to focus on my relationship with my girl if it makes them uncomfortable, I wholly encourage them to either go elsewhere or do whatever it is they'd need them to do. Because they have every right I do to be comfortable in their own skin..

Liberal Society makes that impossible, because you guys truly are clockwork individuals who don't understand life, or true history(never mind your grammatically incorrect axiom usage) I truly believe that's something for 5-7 year olds. I expect adults to be more coherent in political opinion.

I guess I'm asking too much.

 

Yes, you're asking too much. To treat fellow citizens that you simply don't like differently under the law is indeed way too much to ask. You just don't get it. No one cares what you think of us. No one cares if you like us. I don't like you, but I'm not telling you that you can't get married.

 

I don't think you get it. If it were for Federal benefits alone, fair enough and no one would peep about it. But what the LBGT Community directly challenged was the interpretation and organization of marriage. To "come out". Heterosexuals don't "come out", the "need" to advertise one's love is proof of a lack of belief in it.

If I told the media I'm straight, what media coverage do I get? None. But if some guy calls himself gay, or a girl calls herself lesbian, they'll swoon over instantly. Your movement's not for equality, nor is it for the type of inclusion that blacks worked hard to achieve. Gays are a politically protected class in Liberal America, and always will be.

Your domestic political power's extended so much, it makes the immigration issue mute by comparison or even feminists. You now have the Courts acting as arbitrators for political opinion for crying out loud. Gays supercede the rest of us, only feminists can claim similar political power in America..

 

Please, tell me of your oppression. Heterosexuals don't have to come out because people assume that most people are heterosexual. If gay people come out, it's news because it is unusual. That's it, nothing else.

Now, tell me how you are being oppressed.

 

I'm not being oppressed. We're being subject to a dogma that we don't agree with! The fact that it is a dogma should be a concern to LBGT communities. Since when did love turn into a form of political activism? Why do we have to watch kisses, on a SPORTS channel for a program that was non-romantic in scope!? For what reason?

To 'incorporate' those damn straights who aren't gay. To get them sympathetic to "our cause". To be "celebrated". In some ways, hetero's and Homo's aren't all that different.. Love's always been a struggle between those who hated certain relationships and those who are in said relationship. The difference is, hetero's didn't make it out as a sob story.

For precedence: We have Disturbing the Peace(You know, those blaring radios at 3 A.M). Your freedom doesn't mean we have to put up with it. But in Liberal America, that self-determination is quickly going out the window.

 

Blacks gave always been allowed to marry. A black man has always been free to marry the black woman of his choice.

Just as retarded as your argument. And it didn't work for interracial marriage bans either.

- - - Updated - - -

The courts consistently say you're wrong.

 

Wow- you've really gone off the reservation. Love apparently became a form of political activism when your side decided that ours should be forbidden by law. So blame yourselves for that. Heterosexuals have never had to fight to be recognized, you're being ridiculous. You do not have to watch anything on TV that you don't want to. No one forces you to watch anything. No one is disturbing the peace. Or is some "librool" forcing you to turn on your TV?

But you know what I find most disturbing about your post? That you think love should not be recognized, but hidden. That is truly sad.

 

I feel sorry for you. You are missing out on so much fun that life has to offer. But, it's okay, you'll get a chance to try again.

 

If the programming is scheduled for the NFL Draft, I EXPECT to be watching the NFL draft, not a kiss that was so blatantly for political purposes. If I want to watch LBGT sexual activities, I have plenty of avenues for that. A combination of sexuality where it didn't belong, and flat out political activism, turned me off to gays more than ever.

I actually have my own experience with a gay, and it was a nightmare in hell. If I can be thankful for one thing, it's that it showed me that that's NOT what I'm looking for. To even call that love is like calling a piece of raw meat, meat. Real meat IMO is tender and cooked.

Now, saying that Hetro's never had to fight to be recognized is actually quite laughable. What do you think this is? Pure easy, peacy right?

Not at all, the only difference being that the struggle is internal rather than external(in your case).

Finally, I don't think love should be hidden, I just don't think it should be shared with everyone! Share it with your immediate family members, share it amongst your closest friends.. But those cherished moments are especially meant between two lovers. Put it this way: Odds are, you won't know what goes down in bed between me and my lover.

And I prefer it that way..

 

Clearly you should be a federal judge then, because you must have a better understanding of the constitution than every judge who has struck down a gay marriage ban. Also, for a guy who claims the intellectual high ground, you seem to have a difficult time articulating yourself in a manner not reminiscent of a street preacher.

The point is, you can (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and complain all you want (it seems like that's all conservatives do these days), but marriage equality is here to stay. Also, i'm fairly sure I already know the answer, but do you have any gay friends?

 

Marriage equality would involve marrriage, equally available to any two consenting adults. This whole "gay marriage" thing is INEQUALITY by design.

 

Well, dix....you can (and probably will) COMPLAIN on blogs every day for the rest of your life....

but you've already lost the war. So wave your Confederate flag and say "The South will rise again!"


On-topic.....Pennsylvania State Government will NOT contest the judge's ruling.

Game over in the Keystone State for the homophobes.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait until it's Texas....or Utah.

911 calls wlll go through the roof with cardiac arrests and cranial explosive events.

 

Who is being excluded once gay people are allowed to marry? Relatives? Hey, if it's two consenting adults, it's really none of my business.

 

What kind of fun?

- - - Updated - - -

That's just the thing. The devil wants us to fight the wrong battle. I'm done playing that worldly game.

 

Tell that to the 17 states with "gay marriage" that prohibit such marriages. Two of them even had to enact new statutes to prohibit closely related marriages between two people of the same sex as their current laws only prohibited opposite sex marriage between closely related couples.

 

True, why shouldn't two cousins marry? Is that because it'd condone incest? According to most studies, only 4% of incest-related birth causes malfunction within the body. In fact, pre-18th century incest was predominate. Is it truly in the State's interest to ban incest? It might make the economic cost argument, except we're already treating non-related mentally ill people. So what's the difference?

 

HARRISBURG, Pa. (KDKA/AP) – Pennsylvania’s governor says he won’t appeal a court decision that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban.

Gov. Tom Corbett’s decision Wednesday means that same-sex marriage will remain legal in Pennsylvania, without the threat that a higher court will reinstate the ban.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III struck down Pennsylvania’s 1996 law banning recognition of gay marriage, calling it unconstitutional.

Corbett released a statement saying:

“I have thoroughly reviewed Judge Jones’ opinion in the Whitewood case. Given the high legal threshold set forth by Judge Jones in this case, the case is extremely unlikely to succeed on appeal. Therefore, after review of the opinion and on the advice of my Commonwealth legal team, I have decided not to appeal Judge Jones’ decision.

“As a Roman Catholic, the traditional teaching of my faith has not wavered. I continue to maintain the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. My duties as Governor require that I follow the laws as interpreted by the Courts and make a judgment as to the likelihood of a successful appeal.

“Throughout the debate on this important and meaningful issue, I have maintained that Commonwealth officials and agencies would follow the provisions of Pennsylvania’s marriage law unless or until a court says otherwise.

The court has spoken, and I will ensure that my administration follows the provisions of Judge Jones’ order with respect for all parties.

“It is my hope that as the important issue of same-sex relationships continues to be addressed in our society, that all involved be treated with respect.”

Corbett’s decision goes against his political beliefs. He opposes same-sex marriage and supported thus-far unsuccessful efforts to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

But he says an appeal would be “extremely unlikely to succeed.”

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/05/21/gov-corbett-wont-appeal-same-sex-marriage-case/

Corbett's "I still don't like it...but I won't try to stop it" routine...will be repeated by other Republicans in the future.

It's a way of saying "I still support the war....but, yes, I surrender."

 

"the war?"

The "War" is about whether society will fall again...

That is what the anti-Gay people are crying about, because their Bibles say Gays-Out in public mean social collapse.

 

YEP.... "surrender"

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw (as if) a woman, ...



.... (those who have Institutionalized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system: [Dan 3:1-5]), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads:
(which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture to follow)...



... having ten horns upon these seven heads:
(1. Undivided Empire; capital Rome: [305 AD],

2. Western Roman Empire: (Romulus Augustus): [to 476 AD],

3. Eastern Roman: Byzantine Empire, [1453 AD]

4. Charlemagne, [800 - 1000 AD]

5. Holy Roman Empire, [1200 AD-1492 AD]

6. Italy, [Renaissance, 16th century]

7. Spain, [17th century]

8. France, [18th-19th Century]

9. Britain, [19th-20th century]

10. Nazi Germany, [20th century])


11. America next…?

 

Certainly not a war I am even involved in as I am an atheist.

 

Ironically, Rhode Island who enacted new laws prohibiting incestuous marriages of same sex couples becuase their original statute only prohibited opposite sex marriages between closely related couples, doesnt even have any laws against incestuous relationships. Perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter when she reaches the age of 16

Not to mention there is ZERO% chance when it is two closely related people of the same sex.