Don’t fear the cooties
Cindy McCain joins campaign in favor of gay marriage. Odd how when politicians with Rs after their name stop running for office, they suddenly warm up to gay marriage. Cheney, Olson, and others.
I wonder if Obama will improve on gay rights after he’s no longer in office? After all, the SF mayor says he’s Inexcusable on Gay Rights.
Obama seems to be letting most folks down.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:30 am
I’m to simple to understand how two members of the same sex can marry when the definition of marriage is he exclusive purview of the opposing sexes.
But then again I want to marry my horse so I hope this becomes a reality someday.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:49 am
when your horse becomes a sentient being with personhood capable of entering binding contracts lawfully, I’ll support your right to marry it. But for now, it’s a horse. And your comparison is stupid.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:30 am
Some people take the “If you love it so much why don’t you marry it” taunt a little to seriously.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:52 am
Great, another reason not to like the McShames.
Uncle, what is with all the qualifications for what marriage is? Bay could just be ahead of the times. If you can have sex with said horse legally in a few states, then why not allow them to marry?
If you can only see me tears !!!!!
January 21st, 2010 at 11:57 am
I haven’t listed any. But I will: It’s a contract. Nothing more, in the eyes of the state.
January 21st, 2010 at 12:35 pm
“sentient being with personhood.” These?
Anyway, if marriage is nothing more than a power granted from government, than what reason is there to legalize gay marriage in the first place? The right can be taken and given away arbitrarily since it is a power of the state (like getting a driver’s license), right?
January 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
that’s a requirement to enter a contract. you cannot contractually obligate your dog.
it’s not a power granted by the .gov. It’s a contract recognized by it.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
But why should it be recognized as being legitimate by the guvnent?
And like with “marriage,” With contracts, whose says we have to stick with right-wing, Jerry Falwell-like definitions of what things are? It should be based on what a small minority of people feel at any given moment.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Because other other marriages are.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
The point of argument being that marriage has a specific definition, which neither includes animals, great multitudes of people, or other deviations.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:32 pm
“The point of argument being that marriage has a specific definition”
It does not have a specific and consistent definition. For instance, gays can marry in Iowa but not California.
And the gay marriage folks are trying to change that to include their relationships.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:14 pm
So you would agree the definition of marriage, then is up to the states and that all definitions of what a marriage is are equally correct? Even those the exclude couples and more?
January 21st, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Seems to me that is the political reality now and that folks are trying to change it.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:00 pm
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I pray that someday Americans will view the role of Government differently.