Defense of marriage act ruled unconstitutional

[_Droopy]

Why does Satan keep winning?

Because he has so many people like you and most of the people on this board here in mortality supporting him and cheering him on. Without that, he'd be just another whiny liberal with an ax to grind and no one to listen to him or take him seriously.

[_Darth J]

A hundred bucks says Droopy has not read the slip opinion in United States v. Windsor.

[_Droopy]

I understand Prop 8 has been thrown out too....

Yep.

"The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have 'standing' to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected 'equal protection' right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144)."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_c2

In a sense, it matters very little. Very few homosexuals (and especially male homosexuals) are ever going to avail themselves of their new found "right," and of those that do, only a tiny fraction will ever find it possible to remain faithful and loyal to the vows they make. This was never an aspect of the gay male subculture and lifestyle and it never will be.

Homosexuals have always been able to live together as lifetime partners if they wanted to, and legally pass on property etc. (through living wills and other legal instruments) in the normal manner. Homosexual marriage is purely an ideological movement who's core purpose is the total redefinition of the concept of marriage, family, and gender relations, the underlying aim of which is to hasten the complete (as far as is possible) destruction of the natural family, traditional marriage, and the mediating Judeo-Christian norms and boundaries of this civilizational (and civilizing) institution.

Once that is gone, so is civilization, in any sense in which most Americans and/or Westerners would find tolerable (although, as things are going, effete, servile drones with the three-hots-and-a-cot mentality of human existence may, indeed, be able to tolerate much).

[_Droopy]

A hundred bucks says Droopy has not read the slip opinion in United States v. Windsor.

That's a pretty schlocky low budget post-apocalypse action move their, Darth. I didn't know you liked low-budget, Road Warrior rip-off schlock like that.

It takes all kinds...

[_Darth J]

Droopy, when your parents contracted for you to marry your current wife, and your current wife's parents gave a substantial dowry in return, did it make you glad to know that traditional marriage was alive and well in the United States?

Do you find that the movement against you having the legal right to beat your wife, and for her to have her own legal rights as an individual apart from you, were also major blows to the traditional view of marriage?

[_Darth J]

A hundred bucks says Droopy has not read the slip opinion in United States v. Windsor.

That's a pretty schlocky low budget post-apocalypse action move their, Darth. I didn't know you liked low-budget, Road Warrior rip-off schlock like that.

It takes all kinds...

Tell me about reverse incorporation, Droopy.

[_Stormy Waters]

In a sense, it matters very little. Very few homosexuals (and especially male homosexuals) are ever going to avail themselves of their new found "right," and of those that do, only a tiny fraction will ever find it possible to remain faithful and loyal to the vows they make. This was never an aspect of the gay male subculture and lifestyle and it never will be.

Homosexuals have always been able to live together as lifetime partners if they wanted to, and legally pass on property etc. (through living wills and other legal instruments) in the normal manner. Homosexual marriage is purely an ideological movement who's core purpose is the total redefinition of the concept of marriage, family, and gender relations, the underlying aim of which is to hasten the complete (as far as is possible) destruction of the natural family, traditional marriage, and the mediating Judeo-Christian norms and boundaries of this civilizational (and civilizing) institution.

Once that is gone, so is civilization, in any sense in which most Americans and/or Westerners would find tolerable (although, as things are going, effete, servile drones with the three-hots-and-a-cot mentality of human existence may, indeed, be able to tolerate much).

I like how you start out arguing that it matters very little and finish with predicting the end of civilization.

[_Darth J]

Things I have learned on the board today:

1. Equal protection of law is "a new found 'right.'"

[_DrW]

In a sense, it matters very little. Very few homosexuals (and especially male homosexuals) are ever going to avail themselves of their new found "right," and of those that do, only a tiny fraction will ever find it possible to remain faithful and loyal to the vows they make. This was never an aspect of the gay male subculture and lifestyle and it never will be.

Homosexuals have always been able to live together as lifetime partners if they wanted to, and legally pass on property etc. (through living wills and other legal instruments) in the normal manner. Homosexual marriage is purely an ideological movement who's core purpose is the total redefinition of the concept of marriage, family, and gender relations, the underlying aim of which is to hasten the complete (as far as is possible) destruction of the natural family, traditional marriage, and the mediating Judeo-Christian norms and boundaries of this civilizational (and civilizing) institution.

Once that is gone, so is civilization, in any sense in which most Americans and/or Westerners would find tolerable (although, as things are going, effete, servile drones with the three-hots-and-a-cot mentality of human existence may, indeed, be able to tolerate much).

I like how you start out arguing that it matters very little and finish with predicting the end of civilization.

The the Supreme Court Decisions thread over on the MADBoard has already been locked. I guess the mods did so before anyone over there had a chance to predict the end of civilization as a result of the rulings. Perhaps someone over there was following Droopy here and could see what was coming.

MDB: Usually ahead of the pack.

[_Equality]

If not for Ronald Reagan, patron saint of conservatism, we would not have this decision today. Oh, and if not for Doug Ginsburg's love of the ganja weed, we would not have this decision today.