Another day in America, another throat-ramming of gay homosexual gay marriage, this time right down the gullets of Idaho and Nevada. We read the entire 9th Circuit's decision to share some of our favorite Hot Takes! with you, but really, you should read the whole thing yourselves. It's
The Roman Catholic Church in the US has never sought to have divorce legally regulated in conformance to its doctrine. Catholic doctrine may oppose it (technically, what it opposes is remarriage to another person after annulment or divorce), but adherence to said doctrine, as a matter of faith, is outside the jurisdiction of legal authorities (has no enforcement via secular law). This has been the Church's position since at least the Enlightenment period prior to the founding of the United States.
Most Catholics in the US (and worldwide) have no problem with divorce. The pronouncements of organizations such as The Catholic League are only taken seriously by a small sliver of US Catholics. Most think that Bill Donohue is a whackjob. Despite his claims, he doesn't speak for them.
...who would have figured that a state who's largest city is nicknamed "Sin City" and could possibly make Sadom and Gamora blush, would have such high moral standards?! What's next, Texas filing a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil?
All the caterwauling I've heard across the message boards here in The Silver State has centered around "But, but WILL OF THE PEOPLE! 70% of Nevadans voted TWICE to ban icky homos from marrying!"
Yeah, Article I Section 21 passed twice. In 2000 and 2002. Funny thing both the demographics of the entire state and the public perception of same-sex marriage have changed significantly in the last 12 years.
Not to mention that of all the states to try and claim "traditional marriage is sacrosanct", the home of the "quickie divorce" and legalized prostitution is probably one you should avoid mentioning.
I loved all of this, but my favorite bit: <i>Defendants&rsquo; essential contention is that bans on same-sex marriage promote the welfare of children, by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite-sex families. Heightened scrutiny, however, demands more than speculation and conclusory assertions, especially when the assertions are of such little merit.</i>
Could we start applying that scrutiny to all RWNJ assertions, not just the gay marriage ones? The Scalia sincerely-held-belief-in-lieu-of-actual-scientific-fact bullshit needs an overhaul to bring sanity back to the court system.
Snark Off. I have a Lt. in my office who is a lesbian. She&#039;s an awesome woman and great officer. Her significant other is a Navy Seebee and equally smart and beautiful. I can&#039;t wait to tell her to take vacation and go get married in Vegas.
The Fartknockers are very happy that the issue of allowing gays to be married is a beautiful thing and should have never been prohibited. I will enjoy the sad clown face when Perry, Abbott and all of the other Texas GOP read the court ruling that gays can marry in Texas. It can&#039;t occur soon enough.
<em>We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.</em>
Bummer. That would have been a clear upside for me &amp; wifey.
Last week&#039;s New Yorker has an essay that discusses the &quot;doctrine of chastisement&quot; in common law, whereby husbands had the right to &quot;punish a defiant wife, so long as her injuries weren&#039;t permanent.&quot; It&#039;s another feature of Traditional Marriage that&#039;s seldom mentioned.
Surprisingly, the first state to explicitly rescind the right of chastisement was Alabama, in 1871.
Yeah, that was Flounder.
Your gonna be a star.
The Roman Catholic Church in the US has never sought to have divorce legally regulated in conformance to its doctrine. Catholic doctrine may oppose it (technically, what it opposes is remarriage to another person after annulment or divorce), but adherence to said doctrine, as a matter of faith, is outside the jurisdiction of legal authorities (has no enforcement via secular law). This has been the Church&#039;s position since at least the Enlightenment period prior to the founding of the United States.
Most Catholics in the US (and worldwide) have no problem with divorce. The pronouncements of organizations such as The Catholic League are only taken seriously by a small sliver of US Catholics. Most think that Bill Donohue is a whackjob. Despite his claims, he doesn&#039;t speak for them.
Nevada doesn&#039;t oppose this ruling. The state had earlier decided not to defend its same sex marriage ban in court. They are OK with this.
&quot;Justice Boner&quot; is gonna be my new nickname for Mr. PainterOfGoat&#039;s peen.
I thought Otter became a gynecologist in Beverly Hills, not Governor of Idaho.
...who would have figured that a state who&#039;s largest city is nicknamed &quot;Sin City&quot; and could possibly make Sadom and Gamora blush, would have such high moral standards?! What&#039;s next, Texas filing a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil?
All the caterwauling I&#039;ve heard across the message boards here in The Silver State has centered around &quot;But, but WILL OF THE PEOPLE! 70% of Nevadans voted TWICE to ban icky homos from marrying!&quot;
Yeah, Article I Section 21 passed twice. In 2000 and 2002. Funny thing both the demographics of the entire state and the public perception of same-sex marriage have changed significantly in the last 12 years.
Not to mention that of all the states to try and claim &quot;traditional marriage is sacrosanct&quot;, the home of the &quot;quickie divorce&quot; and legalized prostitution is probably one you should avoid mentioning.
And, of course, allows drive-through (straight) marriage.
I loved all of this, but my favorite bit: <i>Defendants&rsquo; essential contention is that bans on same-sex marriage promote the welfare of children, by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite-sex families. Heightened scrutiny, however, demands more than speculation and conclusory assertions, especially when the assertions are of such little merit.</i>
Could we start applying that scrutiny to all RWNJ assertions, not just the gay marriage ones? The Scalia sincerely-held-belief-in-lieu-of-actual-scientific-fact bullshit needs an overhaul to bring sanity back to the court system.
Snark Off. I have a Lt. in my office who is a lesbian. She&#039;s an awesome woman and great officer. Her significant other is a Navy Seebee and equally smart and beautiful. I can&#039;t wait to tell her to take vacation and go get married in Vegas.
The Fartknockers are very happy that the issue of allowing gays to be married is a beautiful thing and should have never been prohibited. I will enjoy the sad clown face when Perry, Abbott and all of the other Texas GOP read the court ruling that gays can marry in Texas. It can&#039;t occur soon enough.
<em>We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.</em>
Bummer. That would have been a clear upside for me &amp; wifey.
I would suggest &quot;Scrotum Breath.&quot;
Last week&#039;s New Yorker has an essay that discusses the &quot;doctrine of chastisement&quot; in common law, whereby husbands had the right to &quot;punish a defiant wife, so long as her injuries weren&#039;t permanent.&quot; It&#039;s another feature of Traditional Marriage that&#039;s seldom mentioned.
Surprisingly, the first state to explicitly rescind the right of chastisement was Alabama, in 1871.
Carpetbaggers, I assume.
. . . for NPR News, I&#039;m Justice Boner. #nprnames