California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Seifen said:
c'mon people I just wrote 2 paragraphs about straight people marrying each other and you have nothing to say?
dude, did you see my post on pg 7? I spent an hour on that *****, and no one even read it.

-m
Ahem! I did, I just don't have anything more to say that umpteen others haven't already.
 

HyenaThePirate

New member
Jan 8, 2009
1,412
0
0
Dexiro said:
That just leads me to think that a lot of people are gravely misinformed xD People believing that 2 consenting adult males is comparable with not-so-consenting minors is a bit of a stretch.
Though now you mention it i have seen similar comparisons in news articles. People saying that gays are worse than murderers... i'll be damned if i ever understand how they came to that conclusion.

Personally i wouldn't even let that come between me and my friend, even if i did find it really uncomfortable.
If he acted on that preference and possibly even broke the law in doing so that's a different matter, same with if a friend told me he'd murdered someone. It depends on the specifics but law breaking to that extent isn't something i'd want to get involved in.
That is a PERFECT response. See, thats how I feel about things realistically... as long as YOU aren't hurting anyone, who CARES what you do or like? Want to smoke crack? Fine, as long as you aren't stealing, murdering, or making your children do it with you, who cares? If it makes you happy fine, but the problem is if it becomes a burden on the state or others financially. Same with Homosexuality... thats up to each individual unless someone tries to use it as an excuse in a rape case.. "I cant help it, I'm gay!" then we'd have a problem.

One thing I DO think will be an issue of contention in the future is that with Gay MARRIAGE, comes Gay DIVORCE.. which means GAY ALIMONY and GAY CHILD SUPPORT. How will this be handled? Will it be treated as fairly as Hetero divorces?

Sigh, with every rise there must be a fall, for every silver lining there must be a dark little cloud.

I wish all (or at least most) people were like you. It would be a world that I would probably find myself smiling more in. Unfortunately, i seldom smile anymore for anything.
Life is unpleasurable.

Konrad Curze said:
I am pretty sure that people in the middle east would view it that they are years ahead on the homosexuality issue than us and their claim would be just as valid.
As for gays or ethnic groups in parliment. That is their issue. Should they have their own seperate party? Only if they can provide a real reason for one. However if the number of said minority is say 5% of the total population then why would they suddenly have a higher percentage in parliment? As far as I am aware there is no politician gene running in certain bloodlines.
I know that New Zealand has a female leader and quite a number of homosexuals and maori in parliment but they got there by the quality of their work. No one here even notices or cares about anything other than the job they do.
As for marriage. It is not their right. Marriage is not considered a basic human right. It is a title that you must earn.
I do not have the right to claim I am married without a second person. They do not have the right to claim marriage without a man and a woman.
They have the same equal "rights" as everyone else in terms of marriage. The right to marry anyone they choose (which even then is not true since green card marriages can be over ruled) of the opposite gender. Just the same as everyone else.
My friend, there is a wee bit of a problem with what you said..
First of all, most middle Eastern nations it seems have a policy of dealing with homosexuals by STONING them out of society.. and I'm not talking about buying them hookahs and copies of Half-baked on DVD.
Hell, if you think California passing a law saying they can't marry is oppressive and backward-thinking, I have no idea what you would call Iran's policies...

Konrad Curze said:
Bond can be written and portrayed in any way the original owners of the intellectual property want. Director can not do jack shit without the owners approval.
That is why Sherlock Holmes is a set character. They have to request permission to use said character from his owners and are given set guidelines they must follow.
As for how it would detract from the series. Because there would be no reason to it. It would be using the Bond name just to prove how politically correct you are turning him into a black man for no reason.
As for the Doctor. He has always been white. Gallifreyans are white. Once again, no reason to turn him black. Might as well claim why does he not regenerate into some alien life form. Gallifreyans look like white humans. And his accent would not change just for no reason either.
And trust me, after how badly Stephen Moffat fucked up the latest season the last thing I want is to make that hacks job even easier.
You have a point with Bond and Holmes.. the source material of both characters clearly describes them as being white males with little leeway for creative license, although I think you could probably get away with filming a movie of either character with a black male lead.

However, the Doctor Who assertion is incorrect. Gallifreyans were not an "all white" society... just like the Vulcans in star Trek were not "All white". Just because the entirety of Gallifreyan society was not depicted to show millions of multi-racial time lords doesn't mean that they didn't have them. After all, if the Doctor's human features can change from every range of hair color and style and physical physiology (I've often wondered if the Doctor's "male anatomy" changes in size as well during these transformations), then something as ridiculous as skin color certainly isn't an issue. Skin color is no different than Hair color or eye color in my view. There aren't different 'Types' of humans from the way I see it... I think of us like cats or dogs.. black humans arent a different 'species', we just have different coats. It makes us look pretty and like individuals. All these differing parts create our uniqueness.
A Black Doctor is not at all an impossibility, its just that the creators have decided so far to NOT have one, for a myriad of reasons. 30 years ago it was probably because the viewing audience would not have been as accepting. Now, I think people would accept it. After all, America didn't have a black president in all of our history, but we shouldnt be voting on him for his skin color.. we should be voting for his policies, and I think many people are now understanding that. But just because all the Presidents have been "white" doesnt mean blacks weren't able to be leaders of a nation.. no, it was just due to the small minds of people who were uncomfortable with the idea of a colored man being in charge over them.
We call it "racism".

Sovvolf said:
So to be free... you (as in the state laws) have to deny the freedoms of others. That seems awful unfair... Sort of the opposite of free. Your freedoms are decided by popular vote rather than being granted to you. Goes against the whole land of the free or land of opportunity promises. But as you said it's not a perfect system.


Though the problem is that neither side want to compromise. To one it's against there religious believe to which they will got to extreme lengths to defend. To the other it's against there own personal freedoms... Which is the side I take on this matter... Though not to an extreme extent.
Well that actually was WHY State's "Rights" were created... In a way, I think the Founding Fathers were pretty smart in their own way. You see, I think they realized that there is no such THING as a "perfect, harmonious" society. Even people who think their country is better than someone else's only does those from a position of arrogance. Americans are just as guilty of this, but so is everyone else. There is no perfect system... its a pipe dream, because people are too diverse in their beliefs, their morals, their values. No one will ever completely agree.. hell we can't even agree on what constitutes a great video game, let alone greater issues.

So the wisest option would be to allow people to congregate into their own little groups wouldnt it? Shouldn't people be allowed to live with groups of people that think like they do? Under rules designed by those people that subscribe to their chosen beliefs? Sure it leaves open a dangerous opportunity for such things like instutionalized racism, but is there a better option? Why should gays be forced to hide in a society and not enjoy the same freedoms as others? But then, why should people who do not agree with gay lifestyles and homosexuality be forced to "grin and bear it?" instead of live free of that which they find distasteful? Wealthy individuals are not forced to live in low income neighborhoods and you can't force wealthy neighborhoods like Beverly Hills to give a few mansions to poor people to even things out. If people are going to be truly free, then they have to have the freedom to also be bigoted, stupid, petty individuals.
Can't have one without the other. Thats just the way life is.
Gotta take the crunchy with the smooth sometimes I guess.
 

Decabo

New member
Dec 16, 2009
302
0
0
One of Many said:
Decabo said:
One of Many said:
AndyFromMonday said:
A victory for human rights! Hurrah!
But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?


Anyways, I really don't care about the so called "Gay Marriage" or any marriage really. The government should keep their nose out of marriage and simply have people sign Civil Partnership Licenses, to provide legal protection and tax brakes.
Whether or not to oppress a large group of people isn't something to be voted on in the first place.
Oppression you say? Was there a clause that would allow the police to arrest homosexuals for being homosexual? Or to force them to wearing identifying badges on the fronts of their shirts? You know, I think we have laws that punish people for attacking or harassing homosexuals (or other minorities).

No what I think we have here is a population which does not want to change the definition of a legal institution (first from church law to civil law) that has existed for thousands of years. This change could be good or bad but the population does not want it.
You know, I hear a lot of people complain about gay marriage "changing the definition" of marriage. Why exactly is that a problem? Because we'll have to teach our children new things? Considering 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it's not that holy of a union to begin with. Oh, and the definition of marriage has already been changed. Other states and other countries allow same sex marriage, and the number is rising. Stop clinging to tradition and come to the 21st century. Get with the times. And yes, denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love because of their sexuality is certainly oppression, just as it would be if someone was denied marriage over their race.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
AgDr_ODST said:
Sleekgiant said:
Dorby5826and360 said:
Yeah,I am against gay marriage to, I agree, I am not going to try and fight with these people.
AgDr_ODST said:
Im with this guy, I think its wrong but I fear that if I elaborate the majority of you will unnecessarily start slamming, condeming, and or me for defending my beliefs and my reasons for having them
I feel that you should at least put why you are against it. If you feel you are going to get slammed then you need to remind yourselves these are highly moderated forums.

As for me I'm quite happy with this and hope it does get passed and not overturned.
Well my primary reason is because Im a Christian first and foremost and Im politically conservative when it comes down too it second most.
Being a Christian hardly means you have to be against Gay Marriage. My parents are both devoted Christians, and they entirely support the concept. But, opinion is opinion in the end.
 

Kindlebee92

New member
May 15, 2008
18
0
0
This is all I have to say on the matter, and why I support it

http://www.daniellecorsetto.com/GWS725.html

(well technically it is what the very talented Danielle Corsetto has to say about it, but it's better than a wall of text)
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
I generally hate when the fed gets involved in the states but on one level they should be heavily involved and its not drugs weapons or taxes(the states should get the brunt of tax money that comes from their state and then give a portion of it to the fed). Anyway civil rights and real functional equal rights is where the fed should make a stand and say that you can not prevent HUMAN ADULTS getting married unless they are blood relations or carry certain genetic diseases/issues,ect. And even then it can not stop people from being together because that violates peoples basic rights.
 

Arcanist

New member
Feb 24, 2010
606
0
0
lordbuxton said:
The only reason we live is to try and be happy. unhappy would you ?
Then why on Earth would you force perfectly happy and well-adjusted people to completely change their lifestyle in the name of some completely arbitrary and utterly ill-defined cause of bettering humanity?

You best be trollin', son.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
Konrad Curze said:
They have the same equal "rights" as everyone else in terms of marriage. The right to marry anyone they choose (which even then is not true since green card marriages can be over ruled) of the opposite gender. Just the same as everyone else.
Except you know, they're not heterosexual. Men have the ability to marry women, and women to men without anyone raising a peep. But as soon as a man wants to marry a man he loves, or a woman to a woman, its "OMG THE END OF THE WORLD IS HERE!". Sexuality is a pretty powerful thing to an individual. You can't argue "Homosexuals can just marry the opposite sex", because that completely defeats the purpose of what homosexuality entails at the fundamental level. End of story.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
Sovvolf said:
ShadowsofHope said:
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
What about free will?. What about the right to choose?. What about their own personal freedoms?. Do homosexuals not have the right to say they don't want to have kids?.
No problem, but someone will have kids. I wonder who & how.
Good, if Homosexuals aren't doing much breeding then it's helping reduce over-population. If they want to have kids in other ways like adopting or artificial insemination... Well that's between them and the kid to decide.
Do also note the phrase "As nature intended" is complete bull. Nature doesn't intend anything, nature goes as nature goes. Wherever it ends up, is where it ends up. The only natural thing about human beings is our ability to live and reproduce. Homosexual individuals can still reproduce, they just don't find sexual/romantic satisfaction in the act of sex with the opposite sex. Henceforth, there is nothing "unnatural" about the sexuality. Or them.

If reproduction makes people "natural", then apparently every virgin teenager on the planet is an abomination of nature. Who knew! /sarcasm
Noted, but don't worry I know it's all a load of bull. Which is why I said it's up for them to decide. I know homosexuals can still reproduce and I know some do. Though if they want to take a different route, still owning a child without having to do what they really don't like. They can always adopt. Though I think artificial insemination would work out well for both. They can reproduce and have children without having to do the deed with the opposite sex.
Of course, I was on your side there mate. Just elaborating for the person quoted in your post, as I didn't feel like tearing it apart at the time just to focus them.
 

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
thethingthatlurks said:
warboss5 said:
lordbuxton said:
To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.
Actually, under that definition, its not a mental disorder, its a unfavorable mutation. Now, if humans were an animal species, then Darwinian logic would state that the "gay gene" would die out because it is, by its very nature, incapable of being passed on. However, humanity hasn't obeyed Darwinian evolution laws since we learned round things roll when pushed. Humanity is NOT an animal, so the rules of evolution no longer apply to us (for the most part). If every aspect of human culture that wasn't actively contributing towards beneficial evolutionary steps was considered a mental disease, then people who are sexually attracted to people with little body hair would have a mental disorder (since greater body hair would lead to greater heat retention and, therefore, greater survivability in cold climates).

So no, using Darwin as an excuse to classify something as a mental disorder is just plain wrong. Especially when damn near the entire psychiatric community disagrees with you.
Not to mention that homosexuality occurs in many other species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Yes, Bruce Bagemihl's book "Biological Exuberance" had over 120 species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Including Bighorn Sheep, Dolphins, various species of birds, and Bonobos- one of the few types of animals who have sex more like humans (i.e. not going through a specific period of heat or estrus.)

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398
 

Agent_Nahmen_Jayden

New member
Jun 28, 2010
388
0
0
Necrofudge said:
I was surprised that the ban happened in the first place. California of all places...
Doesn't surprise me, I go to a Catholic school and (not saying all Catholics are like this nor am I Catholic, it's just less tuition :p) all I heard during the election was "HAHAHAHA YES ON 8 KEEP IT STR8, GAYS ARE THE DEVIL INCARNATE MWAHAHA NOW TO EAT THIS KITTEH"

When you hear 95% of your school mates saying that, you get a feeling that their are bound to be more bigots out there. :/
 

mrsultana

New member
Feb 21, 2010
27
0
0
If marriage is all about the religious nature of the institution, why did I just get married? Why was it legal? I'm atheist and my new wifey is agnostic. No prayer in the ceremony. No blessing. Just a joyous coming together. Church was separate from my state ceremony. A pretty nice one, too...
If marriage is about kids, why can my friend, who just found out she has several uterine abnormalities and will never have kids, STAY married? She should have to give up her marriage because it isn't about the procreation (BTW, her hubby is also atheist).
I haven't heard one argument that was constitutionally sound and not religiously based that wasn't a rationalization that boiled down to "majority rules".
Some people make zero heartfelt stands in their lives. If you're a bigot, be proud of it! Don't hide behind popular opinion and ancient texts.
 

Shuichi_boy

New member
Jul 7, 2010
37
0
0
Still doesn't help me. Not yet anyway. Immigration law is federal and therefore, I cannot sponsor my partner, who is not American, for immigration. Getting married in a gay marriage state wouldn't help until federal law is changed.

But... No matter. We both packed up our lives and moved to Canada and have been happy and content here ever since. :D
 

Blatherscythe

New member
Oct 14, 2009
2,217
0
0
Great news, it's a silly ban anyways, they can't help being gay, why hate them and make their lives miserable because of it? It's nice to see that minorities aren't forgotten in the states, while it's a shame that the judge had to do this against the will of the majority, it's nice to see that they actually care about peoples right's. Luckily they don't do this often and usually in times of need, they don't have the power to do unconstitutional things, such as passing racist, sexist or discrimatory laws, as long as we get to choose who takes the positions in the government and remain informed we cannot turn into a dictatorship (at least without us being retarded and voting our right's away or something like that).

Also, why do I get the feeling that the WBC is going to do something stupid/racist/vile/bigoted/disgusting/shameful/heartless/homophobic because of this? Because this type of news is going to make Fred Phelps have a stroke (hey one can hope).
 

aquailiz

New member
May 24, 2009
80
0
0
HyenaThePirate said:
Dexiro said:
HyenaThePirate said:
Dexiro said:
I'm not arguing against your opinion, i just think you're being a little harsh xD

Be honest, have you ever met a gay person? The majority are no different than anyone else.
You know your best friend, anyone you work with, the average passerby in the street, they could be gay without giving the slightest hint. It just seems a bit harsh that you'd suddenly distance yourself once you found out about a tiny harmless fact.

Imagine if your best friend suddenly cut off all communications with you just because you liked apples, it wouldn't be nice D:
I wouldn't like it, but wouldn't I have to accept it? I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to suddenly eating apples just to appease him. So its his perogative. He can cut communications and I'll go on disliking apples, which is one solution that resolves the situation. It is probably the most peaceful of solutions as well, because the alternative would be to either force me to like apples, or force him to be my friend, and forcing anybody to do anything they don't like isn't right no matter what side you find yourself on.
I'm not sure you read my post properly, one of us is getting confused here xD

The point is you wouldn't be forced to do anything by associating with gay people.

Lets say you distanced yourself from anyone that liked apples. Now a great friend of yours reveals that he likes apples. His liking apples isn't actually affecting you at all though so is it really a good enough reason to distance yourself from him? He's essentially the same person he was before you found out about his apple love afterall!

If you're distancing yourself from flamboyant "unicorns and rainbows" type of gay person then i totally understand you finding it uncomfortable, I'm gay and even i avoid the annoying flamboyant type.
For most gay people though their sexuality is no different for someone's love of apples. I'd just hate to see you or anyone else lose a friend over something so small.
Oh I got your point. And it made very good sense. But, as I said, it comes down to a person's personal convictions. If I made it a private policy to distance myself from anyone who liked apples, and a friend of mine reveals that he likes apples, what impetus would I have to suddenly reverse that policy I have lived by for so long? At that point, the question would be if the particular FRIEND is worth enough to overlook his apple love affair. Some people don't have the capacity to do that. I certainly don't in some aspects.

For example, I believe in God. If I had a friend that did not believe in God, in fact revealed that he was a very staunch atheist, then would not my decision to remain friends with him be based upon my consideration of his worth to me as well as his consideration of my worth to him? His actions would carry a considerable amount of weight, for example, if he began to constantly thumb his nose at religion or make statements that would be considered insulting or had a very "anti-religion" behavior, even if he treated me like his only dear kid brother I'd have deep reservations about associating with such a person. But if I ever said "I'll have to pray about about that" and he was supportive in my beliefs or in the least refrained from making a statement about the futility of prayer or what have you, then perhaps the friendship could be salvaged in some capacity.

I think thats where this gay issue lies currently. If gays kept their personal business and thoughts to themselves and anti-gays did the same, there would be no issue. If they got married or civil unioned or whatever and it was just something between their partners and themselves then fine. But if they expect everyone to be joyed about it and celebrate their marriage as if they were a heterosexual couple, they may run into a problem... that is asking a lot of people, especially over a subject that is uncomfortable at best to some and absolutely reviled at worst by others.

But there is another side of this... the "friend's" side. What right does my "Friend" who loves apples have to demand that I know, accept, and understand his apple love affair? If they know my feelings on apples, why would he need to even bring up his love of apples to me? Why not keep it personal? I don't need to know the details of him eating apples, nor is there a need to share them so that creates a problem on the other end of the spectrum.

I think that might be another possible key to why this whole gay marriage thing is an issue to begin with... because while some may view it as a private, personal thing that they have the right to do, there is that flamboyant element that even YOU admit you dislike that feel the need to draw attention to themselves as if who they are sleeping with, how, and why is important to anyone other than themselves. If you like same sex sex, then go right ahead, go down a storm, and do whatever tickles your fancy. But don't expect in fact don't INSIST that others like it too or must be tolerant when you flaunt it to them.

People need to learn how to behave in a society again... I think we've all embraced this idea of "anarchy" where you and YOUR beliefs and feelings are supposed to matter to people and should be shouted out publically at every opportunity. This just isn't so.

Besides, maybe if gay people found me cuter than the girls that reject me, I might be more receptive to them. Just a little humor :) to lighten a heavy block of rhetoric.
This is exactly the view I have on the subject. Personal opinions aside, I believe gay people go out of their way to draw attention on themselves sometimes.

Personal opinions now... I'm also sickened by the many other people who title themselves as superior because their views agree with the current progressive thinking. Not only so, many other people even undermine and denigrate the idea of rejecting gay marriage. Surely, rulings such as these determine progress towards certain viewpoints, however, these viewpoints are not necessarily the most beneficial. Progress towards a direction does not always mean progress towards the correct direction. I believe many people here that post would receive a great deal of moderation if they even dared to call a "bigot" someone who openly supported gay marriage. Nevertheless, gay marriage supporters put down negative comments like these against the "public" that does not support their ideas. I don't believe in conservative and liberal ideologies, certainly, all differing ideas are just that, different.

I am a person who has studied and even given hour-long talks and informational sessions about the concept of homosexuality. I'll have to admit it is quite easy for the public to speculate and generate opinion about the matter by listening to what the media says and what "leading" opinion-makers discourse, gay people included. I would even say the general public does not a concrete, solid idea on what the matter really deals with. I have read probably too many scientific articles and research papers on the matter. I have spoken and conversed with gay people, I have dealt with them and even recently had a gay roommate. I read and studied the works of psychologists, sociologists, and doctors who specialized in defining what homosexuality really is, and I'll have to admit it is easy to spot others who do not have a broad depth of knowledge on the subject.

What I intended with the previous paragraph was to show that I am not just blabbering off with my opinion. I try to keep my thoughts as unbiased as possible on this matter, mostly because some people can be sensitive towards it, and because in order to fully understand a debatable subject, you have to know both sides of the story.

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is not normal. It is natural, if by natural you mean that nature "allows it" and that it occurs in nature. In addition, it is not close to being the majority. From what I have studied, it is a deeply intricate problem of the human psyche; which has been recently worsened by society. Do note that even though a problem does not interfere with a person's ability to perform well in society, this does not mean the problem itself is not there. Of course the APA declared it was not a mental disorder, but the circumstances and history surrounding that council are sketchy at best. In recent times, numerous sociological processes began to exacerbate the condition. It became a statement to be gay. Gay people were persecuted, incriminated, and martyred. However, during the modern era of telecommunications and globalization, these processes were not controlled in the least, but rather exaggerated. It is through society that being gay has become a problem, and because of the kind of society that we live in, it has become a problem to even try to revert it. Now gay people who try to become straight are persecuted! Gay people now hear that they must embrace their condition and accept it; they must flaunt it, even if it is discreetly. If they have homosexual urges, they must be true to themselves and choose to follow them. Of course there is a lot more to this, but that is the main idea.

Basically, to me, someone who considers himself a homosexual is no different as a person as someone who has ADD.

I also find it pointless to declare that gay people are more successful, productive, competitive, safe, open, intelligent, and more beneficial to society. Why? Because nothing less is expected. Just because they are gay they should not receive any spotlight or special attention. They should be as good members of society as everyone else is. They are not crippled in any way, they are not physically ill in any way, they are not handicapped in any way (from being homosexuals), and thus, they should perform as well or better than any other member of society. Many people approach the issue and set up "Gay vs. Straight" comparisons, but I'm sure if they had looked far enough, they would have found even more straight people that perform just as well or better than gay people.

In conclusion, I would have to remind (and thank) any kind reader who actually finished reading my post, that this is my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion due to the amount of background that I have personally studied and dealt with. I would also like to say that this is an issue that deals with more areas than the ones presently discussed. I would also encourage people to educate themselves and study this subject further and deeper before formulating opinions of their own, and to search the truth within this topic rather than listen to the media and society and generate opinions from it.
 

mrsultana

New member
Feb 21, 2010
27
0
0
Blatherscythe said:
Also, why do I get the feeling that the WBC is going to do something stupid/racist/vile/bigoted/disgusting/shameful/heartless/homophobic because of this? Because this type of news is going to make Fred Phelps have a stroke (hey one can hope).
I kind of, just a little, like to think that maybe, deep down inside, this Bush-era judge doesn't really care about equality; he was just trying to bump off Fred Phelps.