The Swamp

Very much alive...

Best tweet so far...

The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013

Oh, and Prop 8 is dead too.

The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013

Yes! We (and by we I mean all of us polygamous related-juvenile-animal-fuckers) shall overcome! Indubitably and inevitably.

I had a subscription to Mad Magazine when I was a kid, and I remember an article on the civil rights struggle. This was probably late '80s and/or early '90s, so thinking back I wonder if it was a re-print from an older issue? Anyway, in one of the panels there was a drawing of a crowd of African Americans walking down the street, with a prominent "We shall overcome" banner. In the foreground there was a group of good ol' boys, and one of them was commenting "I don't care if they overcome over there. I just don't want them to come over here". With that, I'll refrain from making any "coming" or "coming over" jokes in here.

Though to further threadjack, the other panel that really stuck with me had a couple of beat up Mexican immigrants. One was complaining that he came to America because he thought the streets would be paved with gold. The other, who appeared to be picking something up off the ground, said something like "They are! That filling of yours that got knocked out is embedded in the soft asphalt!" Even then, the "soft asphalt" thing made it seem like they were forcing the joke.

I think in 20 years or so, society will look back on these people the same way it looks at the people trying to suppress rights for blacks. I bet they'll be embarrassed by it. They'll probably have to lie to their grandchildren.

Jerloma wrote:I think in 20 years or so, society will look back on these people the same way it looks at the people trying to suppress rights for blacks. I bet they'll be embarrassed by it. They'll probably have to lie to their grandchildren.

You stole that.

It's been noted many times. I don't claim to be a fountain of fresh ideas.

This blast from Karl sums up my opinion of the whole marriage thing, gay or straight:

DOMA: So You're Partying? Don't.

The Federal Government has no right to enter your bedroom and dictate to you what constitutes a marriage in the first place. Neither do State governments. Both arrogated to themselves powers they did not have and which, at least in the Federal case, violate the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. It predates our modern governments. In the early days of what was to become the United States, and through the lands before, you posted your Banns of Marriage on the church door. The only "involvement" the government had historically was in organized bigotry -- that is, making damn sure you didn't marry a Lord if you were a commoner.

That translated directly to the United States; the original marriage "laws" were for the explicit purpose of making sure you didn't marry a white person if you were black, or an American Indian if you weren't one yourself.

Think I'm kidding? I'm not -- go look it up.

So what you, dear readers who support this, gay or straight, have bought into is turning what is supposed to be about two individuals who love one another into a tri-party deal with the State -- the damned government -- in the middle of your relationship.

You cheered this today.

You fools.

The idea that I would not live in union with the person I loved and chose to, because the government told me I could not, is just ludicrous. Nearly as ludicrous, that I would praise that government because they changed their mind.

I would love for the government to treat me equally despite my marital status, but I long ago stopped expecting fair or just treatment in an inherently unfair, unjust, misuse of authority and force--the very notion of government having anything at all to do with marriage.

I'll admit it. I will probably celebrate the day government says, "we are out of the marriage business".

I think Scalia of all people sort of alluded to that today as well, Howard.

Yeah, but fuck Scalia anyway. On general principle. And cause the Giants are getting swept.

(Thanks, maybe I'll glance at his opinion. But I'm pretty much done with the supreme court, after the voting rights act thing. My last fucking straw.)

howard wrote:Yeah, but fuck Scalia anyway. On general principle. And cause the Giants are getting swept.

See? I'm watching the Dodgers/Giants game. And I understand why your view of the world is askew.

View is little changed. Expression, a fucking bit more crass.

Pretty nice pitching by Kershaw, I'll admit. Fuck him too.

Three game same-sex marriage Californian sweep.

See ya' in Fogtown on the 5th, 6th and 7th.

(Wow, thread drift)

Scottie wrote:Three game same-sex marriage Californian sweep.

See ya' in Fogtown on the 5th, 6th and 7th.

(Wow, thread drift)

Don't we have threads for sports and stuff? Yeesh.

Anyway, I don't see how government could ever get out of the marriage business. As long as people tend to pursue paired relationships, there are going to be a myriad of situations where government is going to have to take those relationships into account. Property ownership, taxation, health care decisionmaking, immigration, inheritance - these all involve government, so they require government to say who is in one of these legally recognized relationships and who is not.

If the government could replace the entire concept of marriage with civil partnership, I'd be fine with that. But whatever you call it, there's no way around government involvement in defining marriage.

All those functions involve contracts. Sure, government is involved in contract law.

You get married, you draw up a contract. Or not. Your choice, not government's choice that 'once you are married, you are subject to this contract we have designated for you'. One filled with gaps, loopholes, and insanity not tolerated in the remainder of the body of contract law.

All these functions you cite are handled every day by government involvement in contract law, between parties who are not married. To suggest that government would have no involvement suggests that government also would have no involvement in contract law of any sort. This is on the short list of essential government functions that I advocate (protection of private property).

(There is irony in the fact that married people are allowed to file income tax separately; but that is just amusement for my brain I guess. And completely beside the point, but whaddya gonna do?)

Of course, this will not change (and you are correct, Steve). Government loves control of people. People seem to love the warm embrace of government control. Freedom dissipates.

It's ok to just say you can't get a girlfriend, doc.

howard wrote:One filled with gaps, loopholes, and insanity not tolerated in the remainder of the body of contract law.

Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.

howard wrote:All those functions involve contracts. Sure, government is involved in contract law.

You get married, you draw up a contract. Or not. Your choice, not government's choice that 'once you are married, you are subject to this contract we have designated for you'. One filled with gaps, loopholes, and insanity not tolerated in the remainder of the body of contract law.

All these functions you cite are handled every day by government involvement in contract law, between parties who are not married. To suggest that government would have no involvement suggests that government also would have no involvement in contract law of any sort. This is on the short list of essential government functions that I advocate (protection of private property).

(There is irony in the fact that married people are allowed to file income tax separately; but that is just amusement for my brain I guess. And completely beside the point, but whaddya gonna do?)

Of course, this will not change (and you are correct, Steve). Government loves control of people. People seem to love the warm embrace of government control. Freedom dissipates.

For this, it isn't about government controlling people. I think, actually, it is about government helping people.

For example, inheritance. If a dude dies without a will, someone has to decide who owns the dude's property. It does no good to say that the dude should have done a will, because he, like most people, did not.

The government could just inherit the property itself and put it on the market. But the government realizes that this is not in accordance with most people's wishes. The government also realizes, based on centuries of observation, that people have a tendency to pair up into relationships, that these relationships often lead to children, etc. So the government says that if a dude dies without a will, his property goes to his relationship partner.

Once this decision is made, the goverment either has to set up a system for these partnerships to be registered, or else every time someone dies, there has to be a contested court proceeding to establish partnership. For logistical reasons, the government chooses the registration option. Now the government is defining marriage.

I don't think the contract analogy really works, because for the most part, governmental involvement in marriage is either about setting up default rules when people don't actually write up contracts, like the inheritance situation. Or it is about enforcing rights against third persons who would not be parties to these kinds of contracts anyway, as in the health care decisionmaking or immigration examples.

Steve of phpBB wrote:I don't think the contract analogy really works, because for the most part, governmental involvement in marriage is either about setting up default rules when people don't actually write up contracts, like the inheritance situation.

This is not an analogy; this is a description of what the government does with marriage laws. This is not analogous to contract law; this is contract law. Rather, marriage laws function as a contract you enter into, with the terms set by the government.

The 'default rules' are set up, and enforced upon everyone; hence, as the contractual rules of marriage are there, people do not write up contracts.

P.D.X. wrote:Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.

It's a raw deal to take care of your kids?

In NYS, so far as I know, most maintenance agreements last no more than 3 years. There are the outliers involving older people, or extremely high incomes, but for the most part the lesser income party gets help for 3 to 5 yrs. Child support, otoh, lasts until the child turns 18 (and even that may be higher now a days). So any long term hooks generally deal with the kids and only the kids. That's really not something worthy of complaint IMHO.

That is awesome

Yeah. And so is this:

rass wrote:Yeah. And so is this:

According to Tony Perkins' letter (and I thought the star of Psycho died years ago, the Lord led them to found this organization.

If that's true, I think it's safe to say that graphic design is not the Lord's strong suit.

I mean, the dick in the clasped hands draws itself…

The military impact:

Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon announced that it would move to quickly extend all benefits given to opposite sex spouses to same-sex couples including medical, dental and housing allowances.

That's good news.

Also, with current SecAF Michael Donley stepping down after 5 years, rules state that the current Under-Secretary takes over. Eric Fanning, Acting Air Force Secretary, Now Highest-Ranking Openly Gay Person In Defense Dept.

All I gotta say is that our next uniform change is going to be fabulous.

Guess who:

....let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?

I actually know one of Anthony Kennedy's current clerks. And no, he does not happen to be gay (not that it matters one bit). I know Robertson isn't exactly known for rational thought, but the notion that Kennedy would let his opinion on such a high profile case be changed by his clerks is ridiculous. Kennedy is very conscious about his legacy, and I think he's fully aware that in 20 years, people will be shocked that the constitutionality of DOMA was even up for debate. He definitely wanted to be on the right side of history on that one.

rass wrote:Guess who:

....let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?

Comment #1: "What comes after "out of touch"? Pat's got a bad case of it."

Comment #2: "According to Hall and Oates, what comes after "out of touch" is "I'm out of time"."

ZMan wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.

It's a raw deal to take care of your kids?

So you wouldn't if the law didn't tell you to?

P.D.X. wrote:

ZMan wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.

It's a raw deal to take care of your kids?

So you wouldn't if the law didn't tell you to?

A fair amount of people wouldn't.

I know. I was just spinning Zman's spin.

wow.

Russia will arrest any openly gay tourists

That is so not fabulous.

degenerasian wrote:wow.

Russia will arrest any openly gay tourists

Note:

Anything from gay-affirmative speech to hand-holding; even displaying a rainbow flag alongside a maple leaf on your backpack is illegal.

. . . and then read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/travel/fa ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christian pastor decides to ditch the bible thing and just scare people by describing things he finds icky...

We are talking about one man inserting the male organ used to create life into the part of another man used to excrete waste.

We are talking about one man taking the penus of another man into his mouth, or engaging in penus-to-penus grinding.

We are talking about a woman using her mouth to stimilute the nipples, vulva, clitoris or vagina of another woman, or using her hand or other “toys” to simulate sexual intercourse.

We are talking about anilingus and other things I still cannot name or describe.

This guy obviously thinks about gay sex a lot.

And that last part is making me all tingly.

Am I the only one who read "penus" in the Wilfred Brimley "diabeatus" voice?

Legalized (by court ruling) in New Mexico today. 17th state to do so.