18 Comments

1. Randy E King
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

   An interesting point was made in that since Obama flip-flopped on marriage the mainstream media is now being forced to report on a lot of the injustices going on around the country in the name of equality.

   After spending the last five years parroting the marriage corruption movement’s talking points in defense of their demands for special rights the main stream media is just now starting to report on the counter-points of the opposition.

   It has been fun watching the talking heads cringe every time they report on a piece that undermines their pet project.

2. OvercameSSA
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

   Reminiscent of when Jane Roe joined an anti-abortion group.

3. Randy E King
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

   The courts are supposed to protect future generations from the devastating effects of transitory popular culture; not contribute to them.

4. Barb Chamberlan
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

   "People say to me, 'You were like the poster women for gay marriage.' Well, Rosa Parks was the poster child for riding on a bus, but she didn't spend the rest of her life riding buses."

   Complete lack of logic, meaningless analogy, delusions of grandeur. That sums up the opposition's "arguments" for redefining marriage.

5. Son of Adam
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

   This comes as no surprise to me considering that only 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years as opposed to the 58% of traditional marriages that last longer than 20 years.

   2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

   Don't tell me that same sex and opposite couples are exactly the same!

6. OvercameSSA
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

   The Rosa Parks analogy would be a good one if riding a bus was a lifelong commitment.

   OR, if Rosa Parks became a segregationist.

7. Pete
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

   OMG, this is really old news, the gay media covered this, not like it's a secret.

8. GZeus
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

   Oh no! Some Same-Sex Marriages will end in divorce? Shocking since that rarely happens with "traditional" marriages.

9. Son of Adam
   Posted May 22, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

   Looks like the cause for SS"M" wasn't important enough to that poster gay couple to stay committed to their nuptual union "for better or worse, till death do they part."

   What kind of a message does this send to the rest of the country concerning committed and faithful homosexual couples?

10. Graham
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Because a couple MIGHT get divorced some day, that means they shouldn't fight for their equal marriage rights today?

    That doesn't make much sense. NOM's touting of this story seems very petty.

11. John N.
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    This is not surprising as these people have the morals of a river rat and do not practice monogamy.
    The exact same thing happened in MA. There was this lesbian couple one of whom was named Goodridge and the Goodridge case was the case the court used to impose marriage corruption in the state of MA.

    Yep right after they won their " so called landmark case for special rights " the lesbian posterchild couple got divorced.

12. yoshi
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    @Son of Adam

    The 5% statistic is completely debunked numerous times. Case in point - I've been with my partner for over 10 years. And I find it ironic that 58% is an indicator of success. By any measure that is a complete failure.

13. yoshi
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    @John N

    Equal rights is not "special rights". What do you have against gay men and woman having the legal tools to protect themselves and their families?

14. Randy E King
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Yoshi,

    Changing the meaning of words just so you can partake in the festivities in a manner consistant with your personal preference would be a special right. Nobody is asking you to change, but here you are demanding everybody else change just to accommodate your depravity.

15. Daughter of Eve
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps Yoshi can first explain what makes a man or woman "gay," and then give examples of legislation which prohibit a person who identifies as "gay" from seeking legal protections for ther families. What are the immutable characteristics of "gay?"

16. Randy E King
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    If I'm not mistaken the immutable charcteristic of "Gay' is denial.

17. Little Man
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 4:03 am | Permalink

    Yes, that was what was lacking in Obama's terminal evolution: What is a 'gay'. But, of course, recently he used the term same-sex regarding who should be allowed to get civil married (though he left the 'civil' word out), etc., etc. He is not going to get specific, though he's had a long time to think about exactly how to go about saying it. Sympathy makes law? Then, i can call for sympathy too, and if i don't get it, i can say i'm so sad about the whole thing, and that nobody loves me. snif, snif

18. John N.
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Yes Yoshi your group does want special rights.
    (1) Equality applies to people not human conduct but your behavior group gets these special rights that no one gets.

    (2) Equallity means the law applies equally to everybody. Everyone is allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex. Your group got special marriage rights that no other group got.

    (3) The Constitution does not honor equallity of human actions and consequences however your group gets just that.

    (4) Lasty while claiming equallity your group supports inequallity for single people. By granting marriage benefits to married people not available to single people you accepted inequallity in the first place.