This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA

Tyler Durden's picture


In what is likely to cause a storm of controversy, the Supreme Court ruled against the 17-year-old anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act:


Kennedy: DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples"

Scalia: "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,"

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."


Full Timeline of Gay Marriage (via Global Post):

Following is a timeline of important events in the history of gay marriage in the United States.


- The modern gay liberation movement unofficially kicks off with the Stonewall Riots, demonstrations by gays in response to a police raid in New York City.


- The U.S. Supreme Court lets stand a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the law does not allow for same-sex marriage, and that the issue is different from interracial marriage.


- Maryland becomes the first state to pass a statute banning gay marriage.


- Harvey Milk becomes the first openly gay elected official in San Francisco, winning a seat on the Board of Supervisors. He later appeals to gays to come out and run for office, saying "for invisible, we remain in limbo." Milk was shot and killed in 1978.


- The U.S. Supreme Court says "we are quite unwilling" to find a fundamental right to sodomy, even in the privacy of one's home, in Bowers v. Hardwick ruling.


- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy writes an opinion striking down a Colorado ban on protections for gays, saying the ban "seems inexplicable by anything but animus."

- President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes.


- Comedian Ellen DeGeneres reveals she is gay. Shortly afterward, her TV situation comedy character says "I'm gay" - inadvertently speaking into an airport public address system.


- Debut of television show "Will and Grace" about a gay man and his best friend, a straight woman.


- Vermont becomes the first U.S. state to allow civil unions for same-sex couples.

- Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, indicates he supports gay marriage, saying "freedom means freedom for everybody" and "people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into." He said states should regulate the matter, not the federal government. Cheney serves as vice president for eight years.


- The U.S. Supreme Court, in another decision written by Kennedy, strikes down Texas anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas case and reverses the 1986 Bowers ruling. Kennedy writes that this does not mean the government must recognize gay relationships. "Do not believe it," Justice Antonin Scalia dissents, saying the logic of the opinion points to allowing same-sex marriage.

- The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, and gay weddings begin in 2004.


- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directs the county to allow same-sex marriages, arguing the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 22, is unconstitutional. The state Supreme Court stops the weddings on grounds unrelated to the constitutionality of marriage.


- U.S. northern neighbor Canada allows gay marriage.


- California gay marriages become legal when the California Supreme Court strikes down the Proposition 22 ban. That November, voters add a ban to the state constitution - Proposition 8 - ending a summer of gay marriage.


- Iowa state Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.

- Federal court challenge to Proposition 8 filed, days before California Supreme Court lets Proposition 8 stand as a valid change to the state constitution. Eventually, federal district and appeals courts agree to strike down the ban, which heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.


- The U.S. Congress passes legislation to end a policy put in place in 1993 called "don't ask don't tell" that had barred gays from serving openly in the U.S. military. President Barack Obama signs the measure. The policy officially ends in 2011.


- Obama becomes the first U.S. president to endorse gay marriage, acknowledging that his views on the matter had evolved.

- North Carolina approves a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in May. In November, Maine, Maryland and Washington become the first states where voters approve same-sex marriage, and Minnesota rejects a new ban.


- The U.S. Supreme Court in March hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

- The Boy Scouts of America organization votes in May to lift a century-old ban on openly gay scouts in a victory for gay rights activists. A prohibition on openly gay adult leaders remains in place.

- Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware in May become the latest U.S. states to allow same-sex couples to marry, bringing to 12 the number of states permitting it. The other states allowing same sex marriage are: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia.

- Supreme Court Strikes down DOMA...


Full opinion below:



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:14 | 3694502 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I can handly wait to hear Pat Robertson go full retard...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:17 | 3694515 Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hudson's picture

Bible thumpers should have their bags packed. The Rapture will be here any day now.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:19 | 3694533 Stackers
Stackers's picture

President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes.

Damn those evil conservative bible thumpers ......... oh wait.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:22 | 3694545 Alea Iactaest
Alea Iactaest's picture

With DOMA struck down and traditional (man-woman) definition in the toilet, I can hardly wait for 3-way marriages! No philosophical barrier now you luddites.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:25 | 3694565 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

It's okay if it's a three-way.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:32 | 3694614 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

And we should all have the right to have babies, even though half of us are male...

but we should still have that right. eh.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:32 | 3694631 gatorengineer
gatorengineer's picture

needs to be covered under Odumbo care

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:40 | 3694693 john39
john39's picture

MOAR distractions!!!!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:52 | 3694795 CH1
CH1's picture

Correct - it's just noise.

Now the political addicts will be distracted from things that actually matter for a few days.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:02 | 3694850 The Thunder Child
The Thunder Child's picture

What the hell is this political diversion doing on ZH Tyler? I thought this was fight club....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:05 | 3694883 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

anything to keep sheeple from talking or thinking about the nsa.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:08 | 3694896 pods
pods's picture

It's okay, I whisper sweet nothings into every networked microphone I find.  


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:25 | 3694969 Manthong
Manthong's picture

rectum.,. birth canal..  same difference

good luck with that..

I wish I could put a magnet on old dead Jefferson and a copper coil around his tomb.

I could light the world.

Nature and natures's God will not have much providence for this sorry wreck of a nation. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:12 | 3695344 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

State-sanctioned "marriage" is literally a commercial contract between two persons (not people) and the State.  It is a three-way commercial relationship, a merger of two corporations (persons).  Nothing more, nothing less.  It has nothing to do with religion.  It is en entirely secular function.

I am Chumbawamba.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:59 | 3695582 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

All that the supremes have done in this case is to uphold the power of the states to define marriage and to remove federal power to limit the effects of the exercise of state power. It is a "states rights" decision that any conservative should applaud.

And any separatist should applaud it as well, because the Supremes are encouraging the balkanization of America into Red and Blue.

Ironically, it will have a profound effect upon the super rich who will now be tempted to "marry" a very young same sex "partner" in order to claim the marital deduction. I would expect a cottage industry of same sex partners for hire under contract to avoid the generation skipping provisions of the IRC while promising support for relatives of the decedent.

Perhaps Red states will loosen up on prohibitions against consanguinous marriage so that a grandparent can marry a grand child so as to claim the marital deduction. This case is all about tax avoidance, and same sex marriage opens up the gates for death tax avoidance that are not open to tranditional male, female families with children.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:20 | 3695726 fuu
fuu's picture

Thanks Victoria.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:33 | 3695815 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Hey Chum..

Love and marriage

Horse and carriage

Secularists will grind it down to meat.

Herodotus noted that the Lydians coined and stamped money.

..and most all of their young girls were for sale.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:16 | 3696063 SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

For those of you incapable of critical thought, the homosexual agenda is not about human rights, it is about:

  1. Taxes
  2. Population Control
  3. Pharmaceuticals
  4. Neuter of brave, strong, revolutionary men
  5. Destruction of Family Unit
  6. Destruction of Morals
  7. Destruction of religious beliefs (Christianity and Islam) 
  8. Imposition of feudal serf form of Communism

I am not religious and am not homophobic; however, the agenda is a threat for the reasons listed.  Why else would the Rothefellers work so hard to win the support of a mere 5% of the population?  If you still don't understand, then you are part of the problem or just plain stupid...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:26 | 3696095 Manthong
Manthong's picture

yup. no religion needed here..

analytic apriori stipulates butt is different from vagina..

but maybe this time is different. 

Wow.. I just lead myself into a paradox..  butt is consistent..  vagina consistent...

What am I missing, here?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:16 | 3696350 Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Because people like you waste time worrying about it one way or another. Abortion, Gay Marriage effects a TINY sliver of the population and yet and YET people spend TONS Of time worrying about it. It goes back and forth, up and down over and under and year in and year out people vote along the lines of these two issues.

Meanwhile, year after year civil liberties and financial freedom are stripped away and corproate and federal power ensconced. THAT is why they spend so much money on it. They don't care about gay people or women's birth control/abortion options. But they KNOW people who care about important things will get distracted by these hot button issues. Oh they use race issues and religion too.

Three out of four were hit this week. How awesome. The financial world is melting down, NSA stuff and now we have two decisions people will freak out about.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:31 | 3696639 SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

Absoulutely, the gay agenda is used to distract from enlightening news such as the destruction of the Bill of Rights.  This distraction is recycled year after year, along with Rand Paul's "abortion".  Oh, and let's not forget the threat of "Sharia Law"....  Yes, I am quite aware of the methods used to turn otherwise intelligent people into fools fighting the symptoms, not the problem.  The problem, the seed of evil, is the creation of money.  Those who create money can bribe otherwise good men into dastardly deeds.  So simple, yet so difficult a concept for the "profane".  Acceptance means your whole life has been a lie to some degree.  A psychological burden which necessitates a lengthy re-education.  Indeed, the strain is much and many choose to remain willfully ignorant, head in the sand without care for their children's future.   

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:29 | 3696637 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

This changes nothing for me:  Still will/won't...

  Will NOT work for, work with or vote* for any fudge-packer, sh!t-stabber or dyke

  Will NOT associate with or allow such person into my home.  Nor allow my children to be near them.

  Will not help movie or TV show ratings by watching any shows that promote the Homo** lifestyle

  Will boycott and and all homo-owned services.  No homo-owned B & B for us!


  Can't wait for the Knesset to pass the same Homo laws.  That'd be so funny.

  Can't wait for Hillary to finally "come out".  We already know where Blarney Frank or McVain's chum from NC stand, lie or kneel.


* Will almost automatically support or vote for any politician who ahs an anti-homo position

** The correct term is "Homo", not "gay".  'Gay' means happy or jolly in the classical sense, and I refuse to accept the hijacking of that term by the Perversion community.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:58 | 3697629 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

you have your research cut out for you, but (hee hee) you seem to enjoy that sort of thing.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:36 | 3697245 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Why else would the Rothefellers work so hard to win the support of a mere 5% of the population?  If you still don't understand, then you are part of the problem or just plain stupid...


You left one out, and it's a huge one.Homosexuals make as a whole vastly more in income than any other group of Americans= Donations to Dems.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:57 | 3695592 DollarMenu
DollarMenu's picture

IMO, they should have made domestic partnership the defining relationship for all couples, straight or gay.

This would be for state purposes; tax status, hospital visitations, inheritance, etc.

Then, if the couple wanted to sanctify the arrangement as a 'marriage', they could duke it out with the religion of their choice.

Seems it would have helped disentangle the state/religion thing, and saved a lot of gas-baggery.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:19 | 3696371 Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

An obvious solution and yet it hasn't been done. Why? Because its REAL purpose is to distract people from ciritical issues that affect everyone gay or straight, black, white, mexican, liberal, conservative, muslim, christian, jewish and atheist.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:06 | 3696573 object_orient
object_orient's picture

I fully endorse your solution, with the stipulation that the domestic partnership is not mandatory.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:00 | 3695600 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

(Gay) marriage is a way to increase government benefits.

More people sucking on the government whatever thing.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:16 | 3696359 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


State-sanctioned "marriage" is literally a commercial contract between two persons (not people) and the State.  It is a three-way commercial relationship, a merger of two corporations (persons).  Nothing more, nothing less.  It has nothing to do with religion.  It is en entirely secular function.

what Chumbawamba said.

seriously, "marriage" as it is practised in amrka today involves a hell of a lot of "laws" and profit for lawyers - get out of the business of state-sanctifying your relationships, and save yourselves some time, money & stress.

if you are loaded down with some religious beliefs, then LEARN to ACCEPT they are YOURS, and do not apply to anyone else but you, and your chosen god(s).  stop trying to force others into your mental constructs.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:00 | 3697638 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

I love your sensible posts, Cathartes.  What is behind the "drive" to inflict religious dogma upon others who don't believe as you do?  Narcissism/hubris?  Fanatical zealotry?  Persecution complex?  What's your guess.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:13 | 3699215 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


the need to feel control over others as their own lives feel increasingly out of control.

religious beliefs can vary from the personal, extending kindness to those around them, to the hateful, who seem to believe they are "gods" incarnate, smiting all around them - that's more about control and the need to be seen as chosen to carry out the "angry jealous" god's wishes. . .

but really, the need to align with perceived power over lesser beings - it's the stuff of armies, of militaries in every nation, all believing they are chosen, and sent on behalf of their leaders / gods to eradicate anyone who won't obey, who doesn't believe as they do.

one needs to be filled with hatred for others before they can get the benefits of being uni-formed.

ZH has a demographic of older, single, white men, and a sizable proportion of them - not all, but more than a few - are very angry that the world does not center around them as it seemed to in their younger years, when the amrkn meme was strong in all media.  now that "others" get more attention, for whatever reasons, the spotlight has moved on, and the sense of being special, chosen, doesn't get much mileage any more.  unless they're part of the 1%, feeling privileged, and entitled to that privilege by virtue of birth, there is a sense of being cheated out of their "birthright" - culturally they had the edge, and now they're losing it.

religion is a great place to hide out and simmer, sadly.  doesn't matter the flavour of "god" - they're all created in man's image-ination, so aligning with a perceived power over can extend that feeling of being special, even if the result is angry bitterness, hating of most of humanity, the exact opposite of what is preached.

thanks waterhorse, wishing you peace going forward, we'll all need it.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:54 | 3694815's picture





Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

Reg: What?

 Loretta: It's my right as a man.

 Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

 Loretta: I want to have babies.

 Reg: You want to have babies?!

 Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

 Reg: can't have babies!

 Loretta: Don't you opress me!

 Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

 Loretta: Sniff.

 Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

 Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.

 Reg: What's the point?

 Rogers: What?

 Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?

 Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against opression.

 Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:04 | 3694862 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

Baphomet is a homosexual.


Their is no gay gene.


Why are they so concerned about 1% of the population of which 1% (of the 1%) only want to get married? =Agenda


'They' are destroying genders.





Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:20 | 3694963 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This decision was SO worth it just to see you small minded religitards come out of the woodwork crying like babies that the homos are going to destroy society.  You just can't make this stuff up.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:26 | 3694999's picture


This decision was SO worth it


This decision comes from the same folks who say that the cops can strip search you and take your DNA for the flimsiest of reasons. The SC has no legitimacy except in the eyes of reds and blues who like to see their pet causes upheld even as the rights of all individuals are being destroyed.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:32 | 3695441 aka Gil
aka Gil's picture

Right on. SCOTUS says "enough" to this unconstitutional, discriminatory law but gives a pass to NSA listening in on and recording every breath we take. And the sheeple celebrate.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:55 | 3695575 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The ACLU can now take up the case against the NSA. Review the facts about the last time they tried regarding this.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:03 | 3696002 SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

Is it still legal for Rabbis and Priests to molest children? You'll have to forgive me, I haven't been following the Rothefeller gay agenda lately....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:56 | 3696528 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your posts have demonstrated that you are likely incapable of being trusted with a burnt out match...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:41 | 3696695 SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

I don't expect everyone to agree, but I do expect everyone to think.  Debate is healthy, half thumbs & half thumbs down implies people are thinking.

Not a match, I carry a torch.  I light fires in men's minds. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:08 | 3696803 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are nothing but a hateful fool with more than a dash of hypocrisy thrown in...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:13 | 3696598 object_orient
object_orient's picture

I'm really confused about the gay agenda. Is it an invention of right wing talk radio? If not, is it a group of gays who have an agenda, or a not-necessarily gay group that has an agenda FOR gays?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:39 | 3696688 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

You should read or listen to the audiobook 'God is not great' by Christoher Hitchens, where he cites that...

a group of Orthodox Jewish moyles in NY remove the foreskin (after the incision is made) by using their mouth.


Whereas a person of ANY other group would have been immediately arrested and jailed, they were not even 'cited'.  They were only 'criticized' by the Jewish community (purely for PR reasons), and it never made the MSM headlines.  Not even the small print deep inside a paper or magazine.

Now that being 'gay' is legal, I guess it's also kosher, and they can now "come out" of the Moyle closet?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:01 | 3695579 V in PA
V in PA's picture

And the same folks who said Obamacare was unconstitutional and Constitiutional in the same opinion.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:34 | 3695006 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

You think this is just about religion?


Its all a part of the full on assault - the agenda - to destroy all that is good, love, beauty and respect and moral...


You dont just hit the financials - you HIT and ATTACK EVERYTHING!


Whats natural about a man sticking his COCK into another mans ass?


Whats next pedophilia? necrophilia? How about some incest?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:07 | 3695299 Manthong
Manthong's picture

do not be confused,

it has always been about getting to the kids.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:24 | 3695402 The_Dude
The_Dude's picture

Exactly...coming to a 4th grade sex ed class near you. 

The suble indoctrination of a new generation will help to seperate us even further from our historical roots.  Soon the kids won't believe in anything that isn't pumped into their minds except the indoctrination gobbledy-guk of the liberal education system and the moral cesspool of television.

This society is a ship heading for a reef and these a-holes are accelerating.....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:50 | 3695932 Manthong
Manthong's picture

go do a web search on how many 20-something teachers are doing kids..

the 20 -ish girls are contending .. 

the meat agenda is on the matinee.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:28 | 3695419 john39
john39's picture

reshaping the world into a new order, based on the vision of their (satanic) god....    check out the relationship between gay sex and reversed kundulini...  the answer to why this is being pushed can be found there.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:02 | 3695608 kralizec
kralizec's picture

Multiple partners...animals...legalized's all coming down the it the Roman Plan...some might not like morals and ethics and tradition...but once it goes any remaining laws go with it...

Oh well, I think an economic collapse is coming before any political or social upheaval anyway...but the latter two will be sorted out with the former once the shat splatters the fan...

Go shat  Go fan!  Woo hoo!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:15 | 3695356 Acet
Acet's picture

And what's your business if two men have sex to each other (or two women, or whatever)!?

Really, what's it to you if two people like each other and marry and just happen to be of the same sex? Does it attack your fragile sense of moral? Do you stay up at night thinking about it?

Why should your personal moral and your personal ethics be forced on others through the oppressive and coercive power of the law?


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:22 | 3696092 SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

The elimination of this silly law is a minor point.  You have to step back and take in the big picture.  Compartmentalization is what keeps otherwise good people, fighting over mundane issues.  See my comment a few posts above.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:56 | 3696978 Theosebes Goodfellow
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"And what's your business if two men have sex to each other (or two women, or whatever)!?"~

It's my business when anybody wants to get me to say that such behavior is either normal, acceptable or moral. What is "normal" about women with penis-aversion issues? What is "acceptable" about two men who want to play with each others rectums? Where is the morality of allowing people with these "issues" being anywhere near children?

The whole homosexual agenda has been in play for quite some time. It began with them highjacking the word "gay". As far as I can tell, there is nothing "gay" about homosexuals. And if you really want to piss one off, just call them what they are, namely "homosexuals". This tends to make them go ballistic for some reason. Always good for a few chuckles.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:07 | 3697665 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

It isn't ANY of your business.  Why don't you concentrate on your OWN relationship, that is, if your knuckle-dragging ass even has one.  What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is absolutely NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:21 | 3695385 Voicefather
Voicefather's picture

What's natural about hairless apes flying through the sky in metal tubes powered by continuous explosions? What's natural about the concepts of honor and truth... a tree has no need for these things. All of this comes from the minds of humanity, something that is truly unusual in nature.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:21 | 3695735 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Laughed out loud.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 19:02 | 3697166 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Good Lord man, your scaring the children.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:23 | 3695395 Joe Sixpack
Joe Sixpack's picture

Through logical reasoning, incest should be ok for gay couples, because they cannot reproduce anyway; therefor there is no genetic concern. In this sense, gay (including lesbian) couples could gain additional "rights" over heteros.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:29 | 3695794 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Not looking to get into a debate, but the inbreeding risk is not why incest is a cultural taboo. It's taboo because it creates bizarre relationships that destroy rhe kin unitswhich give less-complex societies (which was all of them, until not so long ago) their structure and stability.

The preferred marriage partner in most cultures at most times in human history was patrilineal cousins of 1st to 3rd degree of removal, it strikes the right balance between genetic concerns and kin (and social) stability.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:41 | 3695506 Dull Care
Dull Care's picture

I couldn't agree more Blotto. This is disgusting. It's rather sad to see the cultural marxists try to redefine reality with the aide of government to create something that could never happen naturally.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:29 | 3695025 DosZap
DosZap's picture

This decision was SO worth it just to see you small minded religitards come out of the woodwork crying like babies that the homos are going to destroy society


Maybe not destroy a society, but for sure will cause your health care rates to go UP exponentially.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:37 | 3695093 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So is that how we define freedom in our society?  So why not ban smokers from getting married?  Or fat people?  Or people from Nashville?  Or cops?  Or people in the military?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:05 | 3695281 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

I'm with Rand on this one...I'm no godless atheist prog-rocker but I believe gays have just as much of a right to fuck up the "sacred" (50% divorce rate) institution of marriage as straights....Too many State goodies -given out/associated with- the Institution™.

You want to keep marriage "pure"?

Go to the woods, with God as your witness, till death do you part....

Everything else is just bullshit

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:07 | 3696295 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

If someone can marry as many chubby smoking military police from nashville as they want at any time, they can change from one to the other every day if they want, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill, their entire insurability is based on those attributes, and nobody is ever allowed to ask them to prove they are legitimate relationships and subsequently refuse them if they aren't deemed to be so, why yes, I would be willing to curtail their freedom to marry.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:37 | 3695095 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly a primitive, foreign communist like Elena Kagan seeks three things:

- Abolition of the family
- Abolition of private property
- Abolition of Christianity

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:41 | 3695114 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You know Sotomayer -- who joined the majority -- is Catholic, right?  So which Catholic is right?  Fuck, so many choices between different ideas about which religious beliefs are the true correct ones, and so little time to watch adults act like ignorant children.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:45 | 3695141 InTheLandOfTheBlind
InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

ever wonder why all the "christians" on the scotus are catholic and non are protestant even though our nation was built heavily on the ideals of wesley and calvin?


you want to know who the real statist are just look at the pope

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:11 | 3695333 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

it's nothing to do with the's because Catholicism is Hierarchical....They are bred for the unthinking "chain of command", they follow authority and orders well (when they don't go insane 1st), they don't rock the boat, make waves or break others' "rice bowls" ....

When they think, Protestants think for themselves

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:26 | 3695409 Joe Sixpack
Joe Sixpack's picture

I call BS on that one. I am Catholic, and know a lot of other Catholics who think for themselves. You have the wrong idea about what Catholicism is.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:55 | 3696742 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

I call BS on you, till you:  (a) define 'Catholic' and (b) 'Cafeteria Catholic'.

I suspect you refer to the latter, i.e. Cafeteria Catholics -- which are creatures of the MSM. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:08 | 3696793 Abaco
Abaco's picture

deleted as misplaced

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:42 | 3695513 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

Who was that guy that painted the Sistene Chapel? Uh, uh, uh, what was his orientation? 

Perhaps his vision was pure magical thinking. Maybe not.

Control, divide, conquer.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:06 | 3695291 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

We're not talking about Catholics, we're talking about communist Jews like Elena Kagan.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:18 | 3695369 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

They are all bad fucking news to the cause of Freedom and Liberty.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:29 | 3695428 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Almost the exact same thing happened in Russia in the early 20th century.  Almost to a tee.

Igor Shafarevich, in particular, wrote extensively about it.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:47 | 3696206 kralizec
kralizec's picture

Hilarious!  That scrunt is only a Catholic because the Catholic Church has become a sham institution...when was the last time they excommunicated anyone for defying Church Doctrine?  If you're argument is the Church has effed itself, yes, I agree.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:56 | 3696724 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Kagan is NOT Christian.  Part of different tribe.  2% of US pop. occupies 2/9th (22%) of USSC.

NB:  Representative demographics works only against WCMs (White Christian Males), not for them.

Welcome to USSA, where all are equal, but some are more equal than others. /s

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:03 | 3695275 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

I see ZH's biggest cunt is here today.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:12 | 3695339 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

then stop shaving

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:09 | 3695316 Xibalba
Xibalba's picture


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:10 | 3695327 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Well, not by themselves mind you.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:38 | 3695477 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

lol on the 'religitards' - when did ZH become so infiltrated with these narrow-minded knuckle-dragging types.  I'm outta here.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:59 | 3696553 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

They were always here.... They always had other avenues to express their hate until now...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:54 | 3695208 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

No question.

A primitive foreign communist like Elana Kagan seeks three things:

- Abolition of the family
- Abolition of private property
- Abolition of Christianity

Know Your Enemy

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:28 | 3694958 xtop23
xtop23's picture

Wedge issues..... 

Who cares!?

GD idiot monkeys running around in circles flinging shit at the sun about who they can fuck, when / where / and why they can do it, and why you can't.

If people spent a quarter of the time they devote to this type of drivel, to recognition and demonstrated defiance to the things that are being done that will affect us as a SPECIES..... , we might get somewhere.

Here's a bit of advice; Recognize that your sexuality doesn't define you. If it does, you are shallow as fuck.

That one was free, the next one will cost you your ability to protect yourself with a firearm, your ability to publicly demonstrate displeasure at the government that oppresses you, your ability to listen to music or read literature that goes against the national narrative, and perhaps your very existence.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:39 | 3695101 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Interestingly, there are no history works regarding sodomites or atheists before Karl Marx.

Both the sodomite movement and the atheist movement are marxist movements conjured up for the sole purpose of continuing Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:49 | 3695174 BAINES03
BAINES03's picture

Stop trying to pass off your biases as history.  First, go back and learn history.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:56 | 3695220 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

For more than 99% of mankind's history, a propensity for sodomy has been known to be a symptom of serious mental illness.

That's not a bias, that's a fact.

It's also a fact that there are no hisotry books about sodomites, nor any history books written by sodomites.  Same for atheists.

Atheists and sodomites are simply artificial movements conjured up to continue Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:23 | 3695387 Acet
Acet's picture


To pick just one example, the Ancient Greeks considered fucking teenage boys a high form of sexual entertainment.

Yupes, the people that are considered the basis of modern Western civilization were, in today's terms, sodomites and possibly even pedophiles.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:32 | 3695447 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I am profoundly disappointed, but somehow not surprised, by the libtards in this thread.

I think they might end up having a NOMAD moment from "The Changeling" right here and now...

And yes, Pedastry was de riguer for the those who built the foundation of Western thought...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:35 | 3696141 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Yet the FFs, as usual, demonstrated their better sense for successful civilization by not institutionalizing sodomy in the founding documents of the US.  If debauchery is so laudable, why did they miss their chance to include it?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:54 | 3696522 Insignificunt
Insignificunt's picture

Because they were Marxists.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:38 | 3695479 The_Dude
The_Dude's picture

Yep....and that is where they plan on taking us again....mark my words.


Here is a good example of the agenda.....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:20 | 3695512 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, sure thing buddy...

Will it be righteous people like you that will be the first to be dragged to the bath house?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:30 | 3698357 The_Dude
The_Dude's picture

Nope...but the disfunctional future generations will sit in the baths together wondering what they have lost and why their society is a disaster.  And I'm sure they will still be blaming their forefathers for starting the country out wrong, like the good libs taught them.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:43 | 3695511 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Or so you say, as though sodomite propaganda is somehow magically true.

Show me the history books.  Hint: There aren't any.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:36 | 3695839 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

You left out the context.

Free Greeks during the classical period had 2 separate lives, they had their family life with a wife and kids, and their social life with friends and same-sex concubines. The two were physically segregated always. It was essentially a socially apartheid culture. The grown men were to be as role-models and patrons for the young men they took as concubines.

How was all this frivolity and leisure possible? Slave labor, of course.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:36 | 3695468 Voicefather
Voicefather's picture

I seem to recall rampant poopshootery in ancient Greek times and there is Sappho. Most ancient authors don't spend any time discussing their sexuality one way or another. Also it was a lot riskier to be an atheist in ancient times so people didn't go around proclaiming that was their belief.

Quite frankly your facts are lacking on this subject.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:46 | 3695530 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Wikipedia doesn't count.

Show me the history books. Where's the history of all of the sodomite contributions to mankind?  Where are the histories of all of the sodomite contributions to Western civilization?

The fact of the matter is that the sodomite movement and the atheist movement have simply been conjured up to continue Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:10 | 3695642 Insignificunt
Insignificunt's picture

Here you go


I am almost certain, at this point, that you are trolling.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:16 | 3695695 object_orient
object_orient's picture

History books don't count. Show me THE HISTORY BOOKS!!!



Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:18 | 3695711 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

At best, he is trolling, I am starting to believe he is actually in denial...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:36 | 3695837 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Sodomite propaganda, published in 1996, doesn't count.

Something prior to Karl Marx would be legitimate.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:47 | 3695914 Insignificunt
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:49 | 3695176 BAINES03
BAINES03's picture

Stop trying to pass off your biases as history.  First, go back and learn history.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:51 | 3694748 TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

I'm OK with gays having same rights, just don't think they should hijack the institution of marriage, just call it something else, garriage or whatever. 

Nature determines one's sexual orientation. I wouldn't be surprised if science eventually determines that homosexual orientation is the outcome of a natural process, whereby in the womb a genetic switch is flipped when a built-in sort of genetic QC-check detects a genetic issue (not a character issue!) in the fetus and flips the switch to homosexual orientation to lessen the chance that the individual will eventually reproduce and thus propagate the genetic issue...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:53 | 3694803 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

Its not hijacking because your marriage isnt affected. Its not an institution because it is not monolithic. Any questions?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:02 | 3694857 TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

Well, OK then, not hi-jacking, but copying.  Why not call it garriage and improve upon it with some original changes, new traditions, etc??  Instead of a dollar-dance, a gold-gram dance....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:59 | 3695249 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

Is copying illegal? Why call it something else? Do hetero-marriage advocates own language? If you don't think its a valid marriage then don't consider it valid. But if you think you can pass your religious/moral beliefs into law... in the USA... IN MY GLORIOUS SECUALAR NATION STATE? please gtfo of my country with that theocratic dogshit. You dont own the world and you dont own other people, even though you think your deity says you are right... you really don't and need to stop dominating the rest of us Americans cuz we don't all think like you.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:29 | 3695796 TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

You're off the deep end, bud.  Theocratic?  Me, I'm not the least bit religious.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.  Look, homosexuals can take pride in being homosexual just as anyone can take pride in the set of characteristics that makes each of us unique.  So be strong, take pride.  But then don't go all weak and try to pretend you as a gay are not different from hetero, and since you are supposedly not different you can use man/woman marriage.  You're different, so enjoy your difference and go get garried and let the hetero do their marriage thing.  All the same rights.  Just leave the married folks alone.  Don't impose, be proud of your uniqueness.

Does everything have to be a fucking crisis?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:55 | 3696251 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

I'm off the deep end? You've lost all sense of perspective there space cadet. Here's why:

Marriage is between a man and a woman? This is your opinion passed of as a fact.

"Just leave the married folks alone." The married folks are being left alone? How are they not being left alone? How does gay marriage affect their own marriage? This is crazy.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:39 | 3696684 object_orient
object_orient's picture

You guys shouldn't be arguing. The disagreement is about the sacred meaning (to some) of the word "marriage." That's what has most anti-gay people in a tizzy. The gay marriage rights proponents should make a tactical decision to change terms but demand the same rights. It would drastically reduce opposition and get the story out of the headlines. Gay couples could still refer to each other as husband/wife/spouse whatever. Who cares.

Another good solution is to limit government recognition of relationships to domestic partnerships or somesuch, and leave it to religious (or other) private institutions to perform marriage (or whatever) ceremonies.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:21 | 3699257 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

most of the tizzy'd men here are single, if you believe the ZH demographics published - and many have bitter tales of their relationships with ex-partners, as the threads often show.

so marriage is hardly "sacred" to many here - perhaps there's something deeper not being addressed, hmm?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:20 | 3694955 glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

Couldn't agree more THX.

I always said I was a fiscal conservative....but socially I'm more centrist / liberal.

The argument has always whether individuals are being treated equitably or not.

If you look historically the church was never interested in marriage until they found out there was money in it.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:57 | 3695230 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:44 | 3695896 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

It is monolithic, because it's been appropriated by the state.

This entire issue is one unbelievably huge distraction. Slaves protesting their master for sexual privilege. These people really are so stupid they are dangerous.

They are so thoroughly enslaved that they actually agree to go along with whatever their master says no matter how much it conflicts with their desires.

What the progressives have done, once again, is take a totally apolitical issue and politicize it so that they can leverage the power of the state to transform society to their ideal, rights be damned. The question of whether any marriage should be within the state's purview is never raised. Who wins? State power.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:18 | 3696074 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Actually, it is monolithic.  If it wasn't, fags wouldn't be interested in hijacking it.  That's the point.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:53 | 3696240 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

No, it is not monolithic, that is why christians dont own and control the idea of marriage. Thats the whole point. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:06 | 3696578 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

LOL, it's so small it's big!

So the whole one man + one woman thing, the entire history of marriage throughout every civilization in the world, does not constitute the property of being monolithic.  Got it.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:17 | 3696835 Abaco
Abaco's picture

It is redefining the word dipshit. The homo marriage movement is fundamentally dishonest. Push for civil unions and stop trying to force everyone else to accept your rape of the word marriage.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:11 | 3694909 Freedom In Your...
Freedom In Your Lifetime's picture

From what I have read, it is caused in the womb as a reaction to certain / accumulative stress the mother faces as well as during childhood as a result of population density.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:20 | 3694961 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So homosexuality is only an urban issue? Country folk are immune like in Iran?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:27 | 3695013 Freedom In Your...
Freedom In Your Lifetime's picture

I am pretty sure life in Iran is more stressful than most other places at the moment. I am also pretty sure there are major urban cities in Iran at the moment. Not really sure what point you are trying to make, but I am sure logic will have no part in it.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:40 | 3695108 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

The Taliban seem to be immune to it. 

Of course, it's no coincidence that an all-straight, all-male force is kicking the US Government right out of Afghanistan.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:26 | 3695776 Insignificunt
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:02 | 3695994 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

It's an undeniable fact that the Taliban are an all-straight, all-male, fighting force.

It's also an undeniable fact that they're in the process of kicking the US Government's ass right out of Afghaninstan.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:30 | 3696422 Skip
Skip's picture

Just as Hizballah kicked Israel's ass in 2006. As to an earlier post of yours referencing Elena Kagan I might repeat something:

Charles Silberman:

"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

p 350 Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today.
New York: Summit Books.

By the way Jews make up 1/3 of the US Supreme Court, 33% yet they are supposedly only 2% of the US population


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:54 | 3696520 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Ironically, their attacks upon the civilizations that they infest are the reason that they're called out. 

Frankly, if the communist ashkenazis in the states were not waging war against the family, against private property, and against Christianity, I wouldn't be up here calling them out for continuing Karl Marx's milchama against the West.

I have better things to do, believe it or not.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:15 | 3696831 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well run along and take care of them and leave us alone... Please...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:11 | 3696041 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Thank you for admitting what queers everywhere deny:  If faggotry, then pedophilia.

Admitting it is the first step.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 16:56 | 3696746 object_orient
object_orient's picture

I'm not seeing the causation.


Straight males are attracted to females. Will they therefore molest female children?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:20 | 3696850 Abaco
Abaco's picture

I don't think all the goat fucking qualifies the Taliban as straight.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:49 | 3695548 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture


I'll take the science over religion on this one.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:27 | 3695010 ACP
ACP's picture

Exactly...marriage no, domestic partnerships OK. I just don't like the fact that the left feels the need to change the definition of whatever they want to fit their needs.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 14:13 | 3696050 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Well, if you were leftist marxist socialist progressive you would be confused too.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:28 | 3695019 Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff's picture

Because that is too reasonable. How else will radical groups on both sides profit by this wedge issue?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:57 | 3695234 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

The sodomite movement is simply an artificial movement, mainly conjured up by communist Jews like Elena Kagan, to continue Karl Marx's personal milchama against Western civilization.

Same thing for the atheists.  An artificial, neo-marxist construction.  A fake, a fraud, a lie.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:08 | 3696801 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Surely you jest, if you claim that sodomy/sodomites, atheism/atheists are "Marxist" inventions?  Cause they're not.  Both have been around 'forever'. 

The genetic variants known as homosexuals have been around since dawn of man. This genetic variation does not enhance the odds of survival in a primitive society -- as it cannot "go forth and multiply" -- but can apparently be survival-enhancing in a large group, where such people can benefit from preferential relationships:   I.e. neutral treatment from heteros, but preferential treatment from own group oh homos.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:00 | 3695598 Voicefather
Voicefather's picture

There is increasing evidence that, outside of psychological traumas in early adulthood, it has more to do with exposure to testosterone and estrogen hormones during pregnancy and how it affects brain regions related to sexual attraction.

Two of the known physical signs of that hormone level effect are the swirl direction of hair on the head and finger lengths. I have the finger lengths typical of women, as did Nikola Tesla. He was a famous celibate, I am celibate, as was Newton and maybe Da Vinci (would love to know their finger lengths).  I find men sexually disgusting and am grossed out by gay sex. I much prefer woman ass. All of the macho manly men I work with have strong typical male finger lengths.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 13:37 | 3695846 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly, some sodomites choose to live a sodomite lifestyle. That's been demonstrated over, and over, and over again.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 15:33 | 3696435 Forward History
Forward History's picture

Psychologists have induced fetishism, including to a variety of inanimate objects, in various studies. Further, the same folks will tell you that, absent women, a population of males is far more likely to develop homosexual tendencies.

Sexuality is a spectrum. Get the government out of whatever two people choose to call a civil union.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:36 | 3694664 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

You and your husband can always adopt.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:53 | 3694801 Greshams Law
Greshams Law's picture

Got that covered for ya...

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:33 | 3694635 Cult_of_Reason
Cult_of_Reason's picture

Using the same arguments Ménage à trois (three people having sexual relations and occupy the same household) should be legalized also.

As well as


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:38 | 3694678 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Since when are Menage a trois illegal?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:45 | 3694709 Cult_of_Reason
Cult_of_Reason's picture

You are confusing a threesome or love triangle with Ménage à trois (the phrase literally translates as "household of three").

It is illegal to have more than one wife or husband.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:51 | 3694778 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

It's against law in the US maybe, not in general

Why? Because it's another stupid rule imposed by the state. Strike it down !

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:59 | 3694846 Cult_of_Reason
Cult_of_Reason's picture

Can you get a marriage certificate and legal protections (as gays want to have) if you want to have more than one wife or husband?

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:13 | 3694922 pods
pods's picture

What we should be asking is why do we need permission from the state to marry?


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:31 | 3695036 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I have a better question...



Why marry?


             --- a married man

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!