Congratulations Faggots!!
We here at the bomb shelter would like to take a moment to emerge from our self-imposed cocoon-o-laziness to congratulate all of the godless homosexuals in California currently celebrating yet another liberal judge overturning the will of the people by finding that Prop 8, a California voter-approved ballot measure barring you queers from getting married, is actually unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
What's that you say? The judge was a Reagan appointee? Well, fuck me in the ass and call me Freddie Mercury!
Actually, please don't. While I do have line drive power to the gaps in both fields, (hey, guess who's been busy with Little League again this year?), that's actually in the literal sense and not in any way metaphorical. I'm strictly in it for the babes, but of course, now that gay people I will never meet have won the right to state recognition of their civil contract of marriage, I guess I'll just have to divorce that broad I married oh these many years ago. Because after all, the fact that two strangers you'll never meet have entered into a civil contract in a jurisdiction you'll never go to should absolutely lessen the integrity of your own vows to a person you presumably love and have created a family with in the civil and possibly religious ceremony of your own choosing.
Back when people used to blog I had a significant number of queer readers. And then there were the gays! Hey-o! See what I did there? Anyway, the gay marriage thing was remarked on a few times. Just in case someone stumbles in here, clears off the cobwebs and reads the title above and thinks "Wow, this guy's a [huge asshole][right-thinking, moral American]", let me be clear: If I have the right to make a conscious choice to limit the number of women I have sex with for the rest of my life to exactly one, (seriously though, she's pretty hot. Thank Xenu she's got questionable taste in men), then as far as I'm concerned, you gay folk have to do the same thin...I mean, have the same right.
To my knowledge, no mainstream gay group is arguing that any religious group has to recognize their godless sodomite but ever-so-fabulous marriages. Nor should they, as that would be a blatant interference of the State with a religious group's tenets. And therefore unconstitutional. And bad. But at the same time, the Constitution says something about everyone being created equal and having the right to life, liberty and only banging one person ever for th...uh, happiness. Hi honey! So far as I know, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that says "except the queers", but feel free to let me know if I missed something.
Look, if you oppose gay marriage, or gays in general, that's your affair. Knock yourself out. Damn them to hell for all eternity, I don't care. The odds are good I'll be down there drinking with 'em anyway if you happen to be right. My bad. But don't kid yourself for a minute that equal rights in any way doesn't mean that gay people get STATE RECOGNITION of their marriage. Your church remains free to not recognize them all they want, and should remain so. But the state, the government, simply can't. It's against the laws this country was based on. You can absolutely make the argument that the founding fathers didn't like queers or had religious beliefs that would preclude gay marriage, or gay activity, or wearing pink polo shirts with the collars popped, (seriously, that's pretty gay), and you might even be right, but that's not what they wrote. Everybody gets equal rights, regardless of who they want to fuck.
I write this knowing full well that this case isn't done. It'll be appealed to the 9th Circuit, which will undoubtedly uphold the decision, (because they're a buncha liberal fagdouches, of course), (also I think the most overturned appellate court in the USofA, although I could be wrong about that), (and could also be wrong in my love of parenthetical phrasing, but fuck off, I'll love as I wish!), and then will go to the Supreme Court, which should result in a very interesting decision. I wouldn't even dare to guess how that would turn out, other than to say that, barring any new vacancies between now and whenever the Court gets the argument, it'll be a 5-4 decision. In my considered Constitutional law opinion, (I took a whole course on Constituional law in law school! And just misspelled "Constitutional"!), if the decision adheres to the Constitution, as written, it'll be gay marriage across the country. And pretty soon, gay marriage will be pretty goddamn boring.
But who knows? On both sides of any issue, liberal v. conservative, right v. left, Scalia v. sanity, the Court has a way of making the Constitution say what it wants. We'll see how it goes. Regardless, I'm a straight white married male and whether or not two gay men or two gay women get to exchange "I-do's" will have no effect on me or my wife. If it has an effect on you, well, I think maybe you ought to take a long look at yourself and why you possibly give a shit.
What's that you say? The judge was a Reagan appointee? Well, fuck me in the ass and call me Freddie Mercury!
Actually, please don't. While I do have line drive power to the gaps in both fields, (hey, guess who's been busy with Little League again this year?), that's actually in the literal sense and not in any way metaphorical. I'm strictly in it for the babes, but of course, now that gay people I will never meet have won the right to state recognition of their civil contract of marriage, I guess I'll just have to divorce that broad I married oh these many years ago. Because after all, the fact that two strangers you'll never meet have entered into a civil contract in a jurisdiction you'll never go to should absolutely lessen the integrity of your own vows to a person you presumably love and have created a family with in the civil and possibly religious ceremony of your own choosing.
Back when people used to blog I had a significant number of queer readers. And then there were the gays! Hey-o! See what I did there? Anyway, the gay marriage thing was remarked on a few times. Just in case someone stumbles in here, clears off the cobwebs and reads the title above and thinks "Wow, this guy's a [huge asshole][right-thinking, moral American]", let me be clear: If I have the right to make a conscious choice to limit the number of women I have sex with for the rest of my life to exactly one, (seriously though, she's pretty hot. Thank Xenu she's got questionable taste in men), then as far as I'm concerned, you gay folk have to do the same thin...I mean, have the same right.
To my knowledge, no mainstream gay group is arguing that any religious group has to recognize their godless sodomite but ever-so-fabulous marriages. Nor should they, as that would be a blatant interference of the State with a religious group's tenets. And therefore unconstitutional. And bad. But at the same time, the Constitution says something about everyone being created equal and having the right to life, liberty and only banging one person ever for th...uh, happiness. Hi honey! So far as I know, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that says "except the queers", but feel free to let me know if I missed something.
Look, if you oppose gay marriage, or gays in general, that's your affair. Knock yourself out. Damn them to hell for all eternity, I don't care. The odds are good I'll be down there drinking with 'em anyway if you happen to be right. My bad. But don't kid yourself for a minute that equal rights in any way doesn't mean that gay people get STATE RECOGNITION of their marriage. Your church remains free to not recognize them all they want, and should remain so. But the state, the government, simply can't. It's against the laws this country was based on. You can absolutely make the argument that the founding fathers didn't like queers or had religious beliefs that would preclude gay marriage, or gay activity, or wearing pink polo shirts with the collars popped, (seriously, that's pretty gay), and you might even be right, but that's not what they wrote. Everybody gets equal rights, regardless of who they want to fuck.
I write this knowing full well that this case isn't done. It'll be appealed to the 9th Circuit, which will undoubtedly uphold the decision, (because they're a buncha liberal fagdouches, of course), (also I think the most overturned appellate court in the USofA, although I could be wrong about that), (and could also be wrong in my love of parenthetical phrasing, but fuck off, I'll love as I wish!), and then will go to the Supreme Court, which should result in a very interesting decision. I wouldn't even dare to guess how that would turn out, other than to say that, barring any new vacancies between now and whenever the Court gets the argument, it'll be a 5-4 decision. In my considered Constitutional law opinion, (I took a whole course on Constituional law in law school! And just misspelled "Constitutional"!), if the decision adheres to the Constitution, as written, it'll be gay marriage across the country. And pretty soon, gay marriage will be pretty goddamn boring.
But who knows? On both sides of any issue, liberal v. conservative, right v. left, Scalia v. sanity, the Court has a way of making the Constitution say what it wants. We'll see how it goes. Regardless, I'm a straight white married male and whether or not two gay men or two gay women get to exchange "I-do's" will have no effect on me or my wife. If it has an effect on you, well, I think maybe you ought to take a long look at yourself and why you possibly give a shit.
posted by limpy99 at 7:23 PM
9 Comments:
If two men are allowed to marry, then what's next? Someone marrying their dog?
Totally kidding, but I just love/hate that argument. Gay to bestiality in one move. Beat that!
Earl, the simple answer is that the dog can't consent. The better answer would be to ask the questioner "what kind of person thinks about fucking a dog?" and then just walk away.
you'd be surprised by the number of people who fuck the dog, both figuratively and literally.
well said. then again, i'm from canada where straight marriages have been destroyed by gay marriages for several years now. yeah, it's pure chaos up here.
And that blog post right there? Is why I FUCKING LOVE YOU SO MUCH, LIMPY!
Good to see you Limpy. Me and the Mrs. spent our 4th extra-legal wedding anniversary (4/21) getting legally hitched in DC. Of course it doesn't count in VA, but when DOMA falls, it will.
Yesterday was a good day for the cause.
So disappointed in Obama that he doesn't accept same-sex marriage. It has always bugged me about him.
used to be
in america you
would hear a phrase,
"i don't agree with your opinion,
but i'll fight for your right to hold it"
america has lost it's way -- not because it does or doesn't allow this or that marriage, but because there is no longer any tolerance for anyone or anything that is not your own selfish interest
the phrase above is replaced these days with, "we know best what's best for everybody"
you don't -- and nobody is listening
/t.
On this topic, I actually -- and almost politely -- listened recently to a diatribe by a fucktard, asserting generally that it was "god" who, BTW, allowed those founding fathers to write that flawed constitution in "HIS" good grace. The fact that they got it wrong, doesn't mean that "HE" did, and soon, the Supreme Court will finally have the chance to FIX the constitution's 'error' and come over to the side of "god's law".
It sucks to live in the center of red politics, although, with an applied sense of humor it can be darkly amusing. But if the good ol' U.S. of A. becomes a religious sovereignty, I'm not sure what to do at that point. I mean, it's convenient that the acronym won't have to change, given that "America" and "Assholes" both start with 'A', but it will be a whole 'nuther society I'm not sure I can believe or live in. That constitution is an amazing basis for government, and without it, this place is just another regime waiting to be overthrown.
I adore you so very much.
And thank you for sleeping with girls and making them lesbians. It really helps with our numbers.
DW, that and the socialized medicine that the US loves to condemn but which are seniors are willing to flood across the border to get at.
PT, too bad there is only about one of these every three months.
Trop, as someone who entusiastically voted for Obama I can say he has been a tremendous disappointment on many levels. But that's another post I guess.
/t., the sad thoing is I'm at the point where I no longer want to deal with the other side's opinions. So many of them seem to come from people wearing hats lined with tinfoil and spouting from 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' that I just don't have the energy of patience to say "I'll defend your right to spout idiotic and harmful gibberish"
E, as noted above, I've stopped even trying to listen politely to most of these idiots. I guess I have to concede that they have a right to say it, but I just exercise my right to call them a fucking asshole and walk away.
RSG, I'm still waiting for my toaster.
Post a Comment
<< Home