RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Pierce writes: "On Thursday, federal judge Richard Posner was remarkably plain-spoken in his decision that overturned anti-marriage equality laws in both Indiana and Wisconsin."

Judge Richard Posner. (photo: Sally Ryan Photography)
Judge Richard Posner. (photo: Sally Ryan Photography)


Richard Posner Is Tired of Your Bullshit

By Charles Pierce. Esquire

05 September 14

 

n Thursday, federal judge Richard Posner was remarkably plain-spoken in his decision that overturned anti-marriage equality laws in both Indiana and Wisconsin. And when I say "overturned," I mean "tore into tiny pieces, lit on fire, and fed through a wood chipper and into an acid bath."

"Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure."

"Go figure?"

Oh, just tell them to fk off, Your Honor. Go for the gold.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-80 # ericlipps 2014-09-05 13:12
Tempting as that might be, it would certainly invite another lawsuit, guarantee an appeal on the original one (as if it weren't guaranteed already) and expose the judge to the possibility of professional sanctions, possibly including impeachment.
 
 
+9 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-09-06 14:59
I'm not a "homo" yet for years I thought marriage of the same gender, I can do without. Last few years I've changed. The more I thought about same gender marriage for others, the more I thought "why not?" The idea is not one I would pursue for myself. But, if the idea is compatible with others, fine.

We were schooled by a Middle Eastern philosophy, the Bible. An imported philosophy that preached slavery was just fine. Lots of other anti-social ideas that were false. Those who wrote the Bible did not even know what an atom was or is. Hmm?
 
 
+11 # PeacefulGarden 2014-09-07 04:17
Did anybody read the decision authored by the judge? His in your face statement cited above is a reaction to the absurd argument that was made by the "State of Indiana".

Indiana says that marriage is here, with us, to protect the welfare of children; when a pregnancy is unintentional a father can be contracted into fathering the child; that is the sole purpose of marriage.

Indiana says, "the purpose of marriage is to channel unintentially procreative sex into a legal regime in which the biological father is required to assume parental responsibility" , so because homosexuals cannot have procreational sex...

Indiana goes on to say that it issues licenses to drivers of cars not bicycles! Okay, get the picture here, cars/hetrosexua ls and bicylces/homose xuals.

Then heck, Indian goes on about infertile couples.... can you imagine this complete "Ass Parade" at a legal hearing.

All of this to avoid the discrimination issue.

The judge was struck by the stupidity of the legal arguments!
 
 
-137 # RCW 2014-09-05 13:22
Mr. Pierce, To call an opinion opposed to yours "bs" will hardly encourage reasoned debate on a multi-layered issue that has been too easily polarized, at times for shallow reasons. Not all of us who oppose homosexual marriage, while supporting civil union, share the Westborough Baptist mentality.
 
 
-132 # Bolduc619 2014-09-05 13:39
# RCW -- awesome!

Yeah, dude, same way about miscegenation!. .. let them shack up, hand people a pretty piece of paper if it makes them happy to be second class, but seriously ... marriage between the races is wrong! Wrong now, wrong today, always will be ... and let the animals stick to their own neighborhoods if they can't stick w their own kind!

The good voters of the state of California once said race mixing is wrong .. and the Supremes stuck their noses in and overturned it ... who cares? It just shows the judges are anti-Christian GODHaters for letting black and white mingle ...

GOD loves everyone, and that's why men and women who have S E X with different skin colors fry in Hell FOREVER.

L O L.
 
 
+114 # Steve B 2014-09-05 13:46
Excuse me, but ... which century are you writing from?
 
 
+29 # riverhouse 2014-09-05 15:54
I think he does not like Thomas Jefferson and he is using this opportunity to chastise him vigorously. :)
 
 
+61 # maverita 2014-09-05 14:00
what a sad and intolerant person you must be. my god requires me to love my enemy, but people like you, so full of hate and bigotry, so happy to spew your filth in public forums where you can remain nameless, certainly make it a challenge. WWJD? god created us all in his image. are you saying god made a mistake?
 
 
-96 # David Macko 2014-09-05 14:15
Those who promote racial intermarriage are enemies of both the White and Black races. If everyone practiced racial intermarriage both races would cease to exist. However, antimiscegenati on laws are contrary to principles of liberty. Furthermore, they do not work. Among other problems, the "forbidden fruit" issue comes into play. Government should not meddle with contracts. If adults voluntarily enter into contracts, whether interracial or homosexual, government's only role in a free society is to uphold the contract, not to define who should marry. The only contracts which are invalid are those which attempt to impose obligations on unwilling third parties, such as forcing bakers, wedding planners and owners of halls to serve homosexual or interracial couples. The best way to solve all such problems is to recognize the right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This will allow solution or reduction of problems without imposing force.
 
 
+9 # kalpal 2014-09-06 08:02
No law forces bakers to deal with gay people. The consequence of their stated prejudices sometimes carries with it a fiscal backlash.

Only an ignoramus would fail to grasp that point.
 
 
+11 # rhgreen 2014-09-06 20:00
From a scientific point of view races don't exist, in either humans or in non-human animals. Races are human constructs, a kind of "You look different so you're a different race" sort of thing. Biologically there's nothing real below species, and if you and your sweetie can produce healthy offspring then you're the same species. Anyway, do these guys really think they are "pure something or other" (whatever "race" they perceive themselves to be)? It's too bad selection pressures against stupidity and ignorance aren't stronger.
 
 
-1 # David Macko 2014-09-24 03:27
So, you maintain that there are no differences between Chihuahua and Newfoundland dog breeds? Do you believe that pit bulls are no different than toy terriers? http://www.justdogbreeds.com/dog-breeds.html
 
 
+41 # AndreM5 2014-09-05 14:20
Mon Dieu! Don't you recognize hysterical sarcasm when you read it?!? Bravo Bolduc691.
 
 
+13 # janla 2014-09-05 16:41
Quoting Bolduc619:
# RCW -- awesome!

Yeah, dude, same way about miscegenation!... let them shack up, hand people a pretty piece of paper if it makes them happy to be second class, but seriously ... marriage between the races is wrong! Wrong now, wrong today, always will be ... and let the animals stick to their own neighborhoods if they can't stick w their own kind!

The good voters of the state of California once said race mixing is wrong .. and the Supremes stuck their noses in and overturned it ... who cares? It just shows the judges are anti-Christian GODHaters for letting black and white mingle ...

GOD loves everyone, and that's why men and women who have S E X with different skin colors fry in Hell FOREVER.

L O L.

I assume you are being sarcastic -
 
 
+4 # Floridatexan 2014-09-05 17:59
Neanderthals are sometimes Cretins. Please take your pathetic self to a shrink...you need one.
 
 
+6 # Floe 2014-09-05 19:10
Leave people to do as they please. What's it to you? There's no hell, fear monger and people hater. Not everyone is the same, in case you haven't noticed. I bet you pay no attention to the people who start and who fight in wars. No of course not.
 
 
+2 # ghostperson 2014-09-06 11:44
Truly remarkable diatribe, guess your meds aren't working.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2014-09-06 16:04
Yeah, "race mixing". That must really "steam yer britches". Do you also get upset about young flapper gals showing their gams while doing the Charlston or some other "recent" dance craze. Who knows? Now that we've let women vote and given them the right to drive bicycles, the sky's the limit, right?

Some other things I suppose you're upset about:

aero-planes (If God had meant man to fly...),
that dad-blamed Hot Jazz Music,
horseless carriages.

Land of Goshen! These modern times must really chap yer hide - what with the "23 skidoos" and women out after 9 in the PM!

"In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, now Heaven knows!

ANYTHING GOES".
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2014-09-06 16:04
Quoting Bolduc619:
# RCW -- awesome!

Yeah, dude, same way about miscegenation!... let them shack up, hand people a pretty piece of paper if it makes them happy to be second class, but seriously ... marriage between the races is wrong! Wrong now, wrong today, always will be ... and let the animals stick to their own neighborhoods if they can't stick w their own kind!

The good voters of the state of California once said race mixing is wrong .. and the Supremes stuck their noses in and overturned it ... who cares? It just shows the judges are anti-Christian GODHaters for letting black and white mingle ...

GOD loves everyone, and that's why men and women who have S E X with different skin colors fry in Hell FOREVER.

L O L.


Heh-heh!
 
 
+1 # Billsy 2014-09-06 17:04
Thanks that was quite amusing. Sorry but in their hasty reading, others seem to have missed your point or are satire-impaired . :-)
 
 
+37 # Farafalla 2014-09-05 13:54
Yes you do. The extremists at the edges make it look like you are less of a shithead than they are. Who the hell are you to tell me I can't be married to my husband? This is not a theocracy your trollness.
 
 
-14 # WestWinds 2014-09-05 17:30
Quoting Agricanto:
Yes you do. The extremists at the edges make it look like you are less of a shithead than they are. Who the hell are you to tell me I can't be married to my husband? This is not a theocracy your trollness.


--- It will become a theocracy if sHillary Clinton has anything to say about it. Her, the Presbyterian Church and The Family. Beware of Trojan horses bearing politicians.
 
 
+1 # kalpal 2014-09-06 08:04
Why force your incoherent and baseless hatred of HRC become part of this discussion?
 
 
+57 # davidr 2014-09-05 14:33
Actually, the argument against same-sex marriage is not multi-layered, and I think that's what Posner is getting at. It's single-layered, and that layer goes by various names — "religion", "custom", "animus". Every argument against same-sex marriage essentially takes the view that marriage is a sacrament, rather than a contract. But that's exactly wrong, & arguments to such effect are expressly inadmissible in court. No wonder Posner is chaffed.

Under Constitutional law, wherein the state is not a church nor church-member, marriage must be seen as a civil contract. As such, what are the legal arguments against it? There are only a few, specific theories under which a contract may be deemed invalid (e.g., incompetence, duress, lack of consideration, improper purpose, etc.)

None of those theories arises in a same-sex marriage contract, except (so the opponents would say) the PURPOSE of it. This is where Posner becomes exasperated, because the opponents of same-sex marriage have never articulated a purpose of marriage, cognizable in law, that consistently & rationally distinguishes homosexual & heterosexual ones. The vacuity has finally just dumbfounded Posner. Go figure.
 
 
+17 # WestWinds 2014-09-05 16:59
#davidr: Quote:
"Under Constitutional law, wherein the state is not a church nor church-member, marriage must be seen as a civil contract. As such, what are the legal arguments against it? There are only a few, specific theories under which a contract may be deemed invalid (e.g., incompetence, duress, lack of consideration, improper purpose, etc.)"
--- Exactly. When two people go to get married, they must go down to the license bureau and get a license. When this license is returned, having been signed by the person who performed the ceremony and other witnesses, that marriage is then registered with the state. This, in fact, the signed and returned state license, is the "marriage" as seen by the law.

The state makes no attempt to dictate whether the ceremony must be some denomination of Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Baha'i, Pagan or whatever because marriage is a legal contract that settles questions of lineage and estates; in the end it is really only about the money.

To wit: Would Anna Nicole have received one red cent if she hadn't been legally married to the man she inherited from? Will Dannielynn Birkhead inherit when she is of age?

This is what is really in back of marriage and that is why marriage is a contract first and a sacrament afterwards if you want it to be.

PS Very well said, davidr. Could you please provide and example of 'lack of consideration'; I'm curious. Does this harken back to dowries?
 
 
+7 # davidr 2014-09-06 01:31
Lack of consideration is a theory under which any contract could be invalidated. A modern marriage contract is made in consideration of the spouses' mutual promises — i.e., what the parties exchange is consent. It would appear that there's no LEGAL reason that this consent could not be exchanged between people of any gender. Failure of consideration, therefore, isn't much of an argument against same-sex marriage.

Now, marital promises were not always construed to be purely a matter of mutual consent. In older days, goats & money came into it — fertility & matters of state, too. Consent was something for the fathers (or high-ranking ministers) to give, not the spouses. Even fairly recently, the marital promise was understood less as consent than as sexual fidelity. In many states incompatible couples had to pretend that a spouse had cheated in order to establish grounds for divorce (see any number of 1930's comedies). A quirky take on this sexual angle made its way into the argument before Posner, and he was flabbergasted.

Today, we understand marital consideration to be consent per se, a meeting of minds (as John Milton advised us ± 370 years ago). If that consent no longer obtains between the couple, then the state will agree to dissolve the contract and divorce them on a no-fault basis. And so it happens that even people who originally supposed that their marriage was sacramental are keen to construe it as consensual when worse comes to worst. Go figure.
 
 
+13 # futhark 2014-09-05 18:45
Yes, all marriages are "civil contracts". Whatever people want to do in relation to a deity or spiritual community is their own business and has no connection with the legalities of tax status or mutual care and responsibility inherent in the civil contract.
 
 
+3 # Anarchist 23 2014-09-06 21:37
futhark: Exactly! and a marriage license is about as sacred as buying car insurance..it just specifies the agreement entered into by two people and the State and what duties and responsibilitie s are owed to each. Given the sad state of this world, I say let love flourish and people follow their paths. If the Westboro Baptist types won't sanctify a same sex marriage, I'm sure the couple can find plenty of good churches that will.
 
 
+9 # janla 2014-09-05 16:40
Quoting RCW:
Mr. Pierce, To call an opinion opposed to yours "bs" will hardly encourage reasoned debate on a multi-layered issue that has been too easily polarized, at times for shallow reasons. Not all of us who oppose homosexual marriage, while supporting civil union, share the Westborough Baptist mentality.

the arguments that the two states presented hardly represent a 'reasoned debate' and Posner is making clear in what ways they are unreasonable. It is worth reading the decision in its entirety. And note that Justice Scalia agreed with Posner et al's point at an earlier time.
 
 
-6 # The Voice of Reason 2014-09-06 10:00
Because if there is anything that defines the purpose and sanctity of marriage it's two men engaged in anal sex.
 
 
+5 # Anarchist 23 2014-09-06 21:39
How about some drunken husband beating the shit out of his wife after raping her or maybe just murdering her. Happens all the time. Heterosexual marriage...Real ly sacred!
 
 
0 # The Voice of Reason 2014-10-06 21:37
So what's your point? Was I being critical?
 
 
+3 # ghostperson 2014-09-06 11:43
The uber-right has had its day in court on this issue. Finito. After all, it has Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts + 1 to give Opus Dei its fondest wishes. I would rather have a plain spoken, no bull shit jurist that ones who use high language to give us ideology rather than legal decisions. What's worse bad language good result, good language apalling results. Besides, it is a value judgment that "b.s." is an inappropriate descriptor in context of the issue.
 
 
+2 # Billsy 2014-09-06 17:03
Right, so we should just bow down, thank you for your gentility in attempting to deny my fellow gay brothers & sisters equal rights and call it a day? Walk a mile in our shoes, then judge those of us who are just a little bit angry about this good buddy.
 
 
-53 # wilsonjonathan 2014-09-05 13:27
Like it or not, you are known by the company you keep.
 
 
+35 # Farafalla 2014-09-05 13:54
That's how I know you are a right wing prick.
 
 
+20 # rockieball 2014-09-05 16:46
And that makes me very happy. To keep company with peaceful, open minded Liberals who find it just as easy to hold out an open hand and an open mind. Instead of being in the company of anal retentive conservative who find it more easy to give the finger and have a closed mind.
To keep company with intelligent educated liberals instead of bigoted Fox news watching conservatives. Here is a fact No church you have even been to or ever will go to has performed a marriage. What churches perform are weddings. Marriage is a permit you pay for at your local county or city office that says your marriage is legal. Religion has nothing to do with it. If your church does not like it they can kick them out. But I bet they will not as long as they keep contributing to your church.
 
 
+1 # soularddave 2014-09-06 21:43
Quoting rockieball:
Here is a fact No church you have even been to or ever will go to has performed a marriage. What churches perform are weddings. Marriage is a permit you pay for at your local county or city office that says your marriage is legal. Religion has nothing to do with it.


EXACTLY. This distinction, when pointed out in a discussion or argument, usually stops the conversation on note that can't be argued further. Checkmate.
 
 
+14 # economagic 2014-09-05 21:37
I happen to agree with this sentiment. As my late ex-wife said, I'm prejudiced against bigots and avoid hanging out with them except for occasional efforts to nudge them in a more humane direction (usually to no avail).
 
 
+30 # wnappel 2014-09-05 13:53
Judge Posner departed from legalese to make the lack of logic in a law limiting human behavior clearer. I am glad that the law is not going to interfere with a religious rite engaged in by consenting human being of whatever race. They choose their lives, we choose ours. Dear Abby said that the hottest argument she found herself in was whether the toilet paper roll should empty outside or toward the wall. This is similar, and claims or racial or religious dispute fail to elevate the discussion.
 
 
+26 # rye 2014-09-05 14:02
Wingbat, AGricanto..righ t wing dingbat.
Good point Wnappel, Of course the
scotus maintains that you can hid behind a religious ruse to save a few bucks at the expense of your employees
 
 
+6 # rye 2014-09-05 14:03
BTW Charlie, Tobin win a close race..Good for the Democrats...if there are any in northern Arizona
 
 
+27 # Blackjack 2014-09-05 14:08
That's right, all you Bible Thumpers who declare heterosexuality as the only kind of sexual unions that God will tolerate. Heterosexuality is and always has been SUCH a success story! Apparently that's why so many young people now can't wait to get to the altar.
 
 
+28 # margpark 2014-09-05 14:46
I am glad someone other than me "gets it". Why on earth do people want unwanted children to be produced? We already have quite enough people on earth and we are wrecking it day by day.
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2014-09-05 17:13
Quoting margpark:
I am glad someone other than me "gets it". Why on earth do people want unwanted children to be produced? We already have quite enough people on earth and we are wrecking it day by day.


--- There were 7.243 billion people on the planet as of July 1, 2014. The scientific community seem to feel that the planet can actually only accommodate two billion comfortably according to available resources.
 
 
-50 # EmilyCragg 2014-09-05 14:47
Yes, and I'm tired of HIS bullshit, politicizing the process of setting up a physical bloodline dynasty, which is what marriage is.

If you want to partner TWO PEOPLE who CANNOT create a physical GENETIC DYNASTY, then let's label that partnership something else, because it's not a marriage.

It's a partnership; and that's fine! a legal binding relationship that conveys assets over time and "membership." That's fine.

But it's NEVER a marriage because those two partners CANNOT EVER EVER convey physical genetic linking between the two of them.

Emily Windsor-Cragg
 
 
+29 # Dust 2014-09-05 15:03
So where in the definition of "marriage" is it stated that the primary purpose of such an arrangement is to have children? We have had all sorts of social understandings of the term "marriage", and it's never been a static notion.
 
 
0 # PeacefulGarden 2014-09-08 03:07
Ah, come on, Mr. Dust, it is in the bible and in the courts of the kings, queens, princes, and princesses of Europe and the Levant; those wonderful people with long histories of joyful community building on our happy little planet.

I am really concerned about Emily. Especially the "HIS bullshit" sentence. Do we know who "HE" is here? Is she in proximity to the judge?
 
 
+26 # reiverpacific 2014-09-05 16:35
Quoting EmilyCragg:
Yes, and I'm tired of HIS bullshit, politicizing the process of setting up a physical bloodline dynasty, which is what marriage is.

If you want to partner TWO PEOPLE who CANNOT create a physical GENETIC DYNASTY, then let's label that partnership something else, because it's not a marriage.

It's a partnership; and that's fine! a legal binding relationship that conveys assets over time and "membership." That's fine.

But it's NEVER a marriage because those two partners CANNOT EVER EVER convey physical genetic linking between the two of them.

Emily Windsor-Cragg

What a load of blinkered, reactionary, theologically-b ased cobblers.
What about the increasing number of hetero-couples who decide NOT to have families (or Can't)?
It's the likes of the Catholics and Mormons we should be worrying about, who preach that the "faithful" should breed, rabbit-like, indoctrinated and interbred spawn to perpetrate their mythical theologies!
And what of the babies in less developed nations who are so desperately in need of a loving family who can afford to feed, clothe, house and educate them?
And the GLBT couples who can now have access to in-vitro clinics for just such a purpose (my own daughter may well go through with this if she can afford it and if I could afford to help her)?
Genetic dynasties (die-nastys) are another mythical claim to inherent superiority which gifted us everything from the Chungs to the Tudors to the Bushes!
Pah!
 
 
+6 # keenon the truth 2014-09-05 22:40
Go for it, reiverpacific's daughter!
 
 
+13 # janla 2014-09-05 16:47
Quoting EmilyCragg:
Yes, and I'm tired of HIS bullshit, politicizing the process of setting up a physical bloodline dynasty, which is what marriage is.

If you want to partner TWO PEOPLE who CANNOT create a physical GENETIC DYNASTY, then let's label that partnership something else, because it's not a marriage.

It's a partnership; and that's fine! a legal binding relationship that conveys assets over time and "membership." That's fine.

But it's NEVER a marriage because those two partners CANNOT EVER EVER convey physical genetic linking between the two of them.

Emily Windsor-Cragg

Which clearly means that infertile couples (or a couple in which one person is infertile) or couples that choose not to have children should not be legally allowed to marry.
 
 
+3 # rockieball 2014-09-05 16:48
I refer you to my statement on marriage above.
 
 
+10 # rockieball 2014-09-05 16:49
Here is a fact No church you have even been to or ever will go to has performed a marriage. What churches perform are weddings. Marriage is a permit you pay for at your local county or city office that says your marriage is legal. Religion has nothing to do with it. If your church does not like it they can kick them out. But I bet they will not as long as they keep contributing to your church.
 
 
+25 # mozartssister 2014-09-05 17:16
What utter nonsense! I'm 54--just going through menopause, no more kids for me, ever--and two years ago I finally found the love of my life.

Essentially you're saying I can't marry him because he and I are physically incapable of "creating a genetic dynasty."

Who the hell ARE you people?!?!
 
 
+4 # ghostperson 2014-09-06 11:49
People who can't deal with their own miserable lives so they decide to invade others' personal life.
 
 
+12 # WestWinds 2014-09-05 17:17
#EmilyCragg:

And what's the big deal about 'genetic dynasties'? You make it sound like all heterosexual men and women play by these rules and remain faithful and no woman has ever conceived a child that didn't belong to her husband. And what does this say about adoption? You're being such a purist that you've painted yourself into a corner of impracticality. You need to remember you are dealing with human beings and not dolls.
 
 
+8 # Spence 2014-09-05 23:57
So you're saying that ours is not a marriage because we have adopted children? So by your definition even though we have a heterosexual marriage it would not qualify for you to recognize it. Certainly glad you are not in charge Emily. What warped logic.
 
 
-2 # Anarchist 23 2014-09-06 21:44
Very nice if you are fertile Myrtle...but what about a woman or man who cannot have children...you denigrate their relationship mentally and I suppose you want it to be so 'branded' legally. That's BS!
 
 
-1 # soularddave 2014-09-06 22:01
Quoting EmilyCragg:


But it's NEVER a marriage because those two partners CANNOT EVER EVER convey physical genetic linking between the two of them.

Emily Windsor-Cragg


So we should marry DOGS to each other but not people? Is that the kind of genetic dynasty you're suggesting?
 
 
+28 # Blackjack 2014-09-05 14:58
So what? One of the dictionary definitions of marriage is "to join in a close union." Nothing about "genetic linking" or "physical bloodline dynasty." Guess that's something you made up or pulled out of some "religious" tome!
 
 
+21 # Dust 2014-09-05 15:11
Not to mention that King David said to Jonathan "Your love is more precious to me than the love of women". Not inherently an explicit expression of being gay (or rather, bi, as David got into a lot of trouble over Bathsheba) but always fun to toss into the mix. :-p
 
 
+37 # reiverpacific 2014-09-05 15:33
I know that my beloved lesbian daughter in Madison Wisconsin is grateful to this judge and was married to her partner the same day that the reversal was overturned and I hope that Scott fuckin' Walker chokes on his own snot-goobers as his hate-glands go a-phuttin' in overdrive!
And BTW, we're all from Africa originally.
Sadly, hatred is created, cultivated, and festers until it becomes a pus-filled, deep-seated, spreading, cancerous infection which poisons the mind and spirit of the hater and many times, of their spawn too!
 
 
+9 # WestWinds 2014-09-05 17:22
#reiverpacific:

--- To say nothing of rampant ignorance that spreads the hatred faster than a dry grass fire.

Not many are willing to acknowledge that we all came from the same African mother. I guess the Righties don't want that being spread around; it would punch holes in their supremacy balloon.
 
 
+13 # Dust 2014-09-05 16:03
Okay - sorry for straying, but this is too funny and appropo of Emily's comment that marriage is designed to set up a "physical bloodline dynasty". If you check Emily's RSN profile, it states "The author Emily Cragg was adopted out of the Reptilian bloodline into the Garment Industry", so are we to assume she is in favor of marriage between reptiles, most of which can and do change gender in the egg depending on incubation temperature??
 
 
+4 # Archie1954 2014-09-05 19:12
I think this judge needs to speak in no uncertain terms to the DC judge who recently opined exactly opposite to this judge. His opposing judgement is stuck in the Middle Ages and has no place in today's world!
 
 
+2 # medusa 2014-09-06 11:30
What has happened is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state provides for adult legal unions, or partnerships, between two consenting adults, without reference to religion, race, or gender. If we have ideas about what is right or best to do, then we must inform, discuss, persuade; love.
 
 
+5 # ghostperson 2014-09-06 11:59
This issue has reached its expiration date. First, abortion. Then, liberals as socialists. Next, birtherism. Now, the right to marry. The answer is simple. If you opose abortion, don't have one; same for being liberal. Gays marrying? Don't be gay and don't get married. Other people's lives are not other's business unless the former are committing crimes or actual harm to specifically identified others. How does gay marriage affect any specific heterosexual union? Aim that bile at our non-functional Congress whose tab we pay while being rained on in big golden drops.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN