Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Hundreds of thousands of Keystone State Hetero Couples immediately filed for divorce after
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a series of court decisions across the nation determining gay couples' rights to wed.

The ruling makes Pennsylvania the 19th U.S. state to allow gay marriage in a trend that has gained momentum since the Supreme Court ruled last June that legally married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... S820140520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Couples, many in tears, stated that since the fags and dykes can marry, there is no point in continuing on in their relationships.

dbackjon wrote:Hundreds of thousands of Keystone State Hetero Couples immediately filed for divorce after
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a series of court decisions across the nation determining gay couples' rights to wed.

The ruling makes Pennsylvania the 19th U.S. state to allow gay marriage in a trend that has gained momentum since the Supreme Court ruled last June that legally married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... S820140520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Couples, many in tears, stated that since the fags and dykes can marry, there is no point in continuing on in their relationships.

There's the crux of the matter right there. I agree with the SCOTUS on that, but disagree with the government being in the marriage business. If not for the federal benefits, this would be a non-issue.


You fooled me for a second there- I actually looked to see if the part about the divorce filings were true. I have absolutely no idea why for that fleeting moment I did not dismiss what you said as you just being you.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Hundreds of thousands of Keystone State Hetero Couples immediately filed for divorce after
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a series of court decisions across the nation determining gay couples' rights to wed.

The ruling makes Pennsylvania the 19th U.S. state to allow gay marriage in a trend that has gained momentum since the Supreme Court ruled last June that legally married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... S820140520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Couples, many in tears, stated that since the fags and dykes can marry, there is no point in continuing on in their relationships.

There's the crux of the matter right there. I agree with the SCOTUS on that, but disagree with the government being in the marriage business. If not for the federal benefits, this would be a non-issue.


You fooled me for a second there- I actually looked to see if the part about the divorce filings were true. I have absolutely no idea why for that fleeting moment I did not dismiss what you said as you just being you.

I guess I should have quoted GannonFan and BlueHen86 talking about leaving their wives and having a good ol gay BlueHen wedding.

dbackjon wrote:Couples, many in tears, stated that since the fags and dykes can marry, there is no point in continuing on in their relationships.

There goes the neighborhood.

Is there any empirical evidence on what happens to property values after a state authorizes gay marriage? If my anecdotal "window box" theory holds water -- that gay homes are better kept up when seen from the outside, with more window boxes and better paint jobs and lawns -- values might actually increase. Keystone Staters should rejoice.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Couples, many in tears, stated that since the fags and dykes can marry, there is no point in continuing on in their relationships.

There goes the neighborhood.

Is there any empirical evidence on what happens to property values after a state authorizes gay marriage? If my anecdotal "window box" theory holds water -- that gay homes are better kept up when seen from the outside, with more window boxes and better paint jobs and lawns -- values might actually increase. Keystone Staters should rejoice.

And, fewer kids, so our property taxes contribute to the rest of ya.

Here is hoping Yahweh is over that Sodom and Gomorrah thing

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Couples, many in tears, stated that since the fags and dykes can marry, there is no point in continuing on in their relationships.

There goes the neighborhood.

Is there any empirical evidence on what happens to property values after a state authorizes gay marriage? If my anecdotal "window box" theory holds water -- that gay homes are better kept up when seen from the outside, with more window boxes and better paint jobs and lawns -- values might actually increase. Keystone Staters should rejoice.

I dont know

there's no amount of good taste in decorating that can help some towns in PA. Its like New Jersey Lite

Cool, yet another gay thread!

You homos have fun, with it....I got some Cinderella to listen to on Hair Nation.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Cool, yet another gay thread!

You homos have fun, with it....I got some Cinderella to listen to on Hair Nation.

When I heard about this today I heard a quote by the judge that represents something that disturbs me more than the absurdity of homosexual marriage per se. It is this:

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history," he wrote.

What that demonstrates is that his decision was, in part, based on his own personal philosophical bias. It is not, or at least should not be, his job to decide on what kind of "people" we are. His job is, or should be, to honestly ask himself if the people who crafted and ratified the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution would have said, if asked, understood those clauses to mean that States are required to recognize unions between homosexuals as "marriages."

And the answer, pretty obviously, is "no." If you'd have suggested to the people who crafted and ratified those clauses that they meant States had to do that they'd have said you were absolutely nuts. It's another example in a long line of examples in which judges made law rather than limited themselves to their proper role of interpreting law.

JohnStOnge wrote:When I heard about this today I heard a quote by the judge that represents something that disturbs me more than the absurdity of homosexual marriage per se. It is this:

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history," he wrote.

What that demonstrates is that his decision was, in part, based on his own personal philosophical bias. It is not, or at least should not be, his job to decide on what kind of "people" we are. His job is, or should be, to honestly ask himself if the people who crafted and ratified the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution would have said, if asked, understood those clauses to mean that States are required to recognize unions between homosexuals as "marriages."

And the answer, pretty obviously, is "no." If you'd have suggested to the people who crafted and ratified those clauses that they meant States had to do that they'd have said you were absolutely nuts. It's another example in a long line of examples in which judges made law rather than limited themselves to their proper role of interpreting law.

So your only argument is state's rights?

JohnStOnge wrote:When I heard about this today I heard a quote by the judge that represents something that disturbs me more than the absurdity of homosexual marriage per se. It is this:

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history," he wrote.

What that demonstrates is that his decision was, in part, based on his own personal philosophical bias. It is not, or at least should not be, his job to decide on what kind of "people" we are. His job is, or should be, to honestly ask himself if the people who crafted and ratified the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution would have said, if asked, understood those clauses to mean that States are required to recognize unions between homosexuals as "marriages."

And the answer, pretty obviously, is "no." If you'd have suggested to the people who crafted and ratified those clauses that they meant States had to do that they'd have said you were absolutely nuts. It's another example in a long line of examples in which judges made law rather than limited themselves to their proper role of interpreting law.

They are interpreting the law, you just don't like the outcome.

When judge after judge, all of whom know the law much better than you do, disagree with you; you might want to reevaluate your position.

Gross. Two men gobbling each other's goo is sinful.

the sad part is that voting continues to be shown a mockery and should be relegated into history's ash heap. The Obama administration has clearly shown that the consent of the governed, unless it promotes liberal causes, is discarded and dismissed. George Carlin was right, voting IS meaningless.

White, southern, conservative males are now the minority and I relish that role. I am ready for all brown people and fairies to bring it on!

I think it's a time in the course of human history where that wall has fallen. Same sex marriage and marijuana will be legal in all 50 states before the end of the decade if not sooner.

bluehenbillk wrote:I think it's a time in the course of human history where that wall has fallen. Same sex marriage and marijuana will be legal in all 50 states before the end of the decade if not sooner.

Now we have to go after those laws against oral sex and sex in any position other than missionary. Those laws really bother me.

Cluck U wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:I think it's a time in the course of human history where that wall has fallen. Same sex marriage and marijuana will be legal in all 50 states before the end of the decade if not sooner.

Now we have to go after those laws against oral sex and sex in any position other than missionary. Those laws really bother me.

And don't forget the laws against incest and bestiality.

FCS PATRIOTS wrote:the sad part is that voting continues to be shown a mockery and should be relegated into history's ash heap. The Obama administration has clearly shown that the consent of the governed, unless it promotes liberal causes, is discarded and dismissed. George Carlin was right, voting IS meaningless.

White, southern, conservative males are now the minority and I relish that role. I am ready for all brown people and fairies to bring it on!

Civil Rights should never be voted on.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the judiciary's job to ensure that laws do not violate this.

Basic civics. Why do you hate the Constitution?



Oh - and the Judge is a Bush appointee

dbackjon wrote: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the judiciary's job to ensure that laws do not violate this.

Filing this one away for the next time you go on a gun control hissy fit.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the judiciary's job to ensure that laws do not violate this.

Filing this one away for the next time you go on a gun control hissy fit.

When do I go on gun control hissy fits?

The courts have constantly ruled that the right to own a gun is not absolute, but subject to reasonable limitations.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote: Filing this one away for the next time you go on a gun control hissy fit.

When do I go on gun control hissy fits?

The courts have constantly ruled that the right to own a gun is not absolute, but subject to reasonable limitations.

But that's not what the Constitution says, which as you said, is the supreme law of the land.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote: Filing this one away for the next time you go on a gun control hissy fit.

When do I go on gun control hissy fits?

The courts have constantly ruled that the right to own a gun is not absolute, but subject to reasonable limitations.

Per your bolded quotes above, it in fact appears that the judiciary is not doing its job, then.

Marriage is also subject to reasonable limitations, right?

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:


When do I go on gun control hissy fits?

The courts have constantly ruled that the right to own a gun is not absolute, but subject to reasonable limitations.

Per your bolded quotes above, it in fact appears that the judiciary is not doing its job, then.

Marriage is also subject to reasonable limitations, right?

Never said it wasn't. And the judges are finding that banning SSM is NOT reasonable.

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:


When do I go on gun control hissy fits?

The courts have constantly ruled that the right to own a gun is not absolute, but subject to reasonable limitations.

But that's not what the Constitution says, which as you said, is the supreme law of the land.

If you want to go all Biblical Literal, then only those in a well-regulated militia (ie NAtional Guard) can own guns. I expect you to turn yours in today.

Cluck U wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:I think it's a time in the course of human history where that wall has fallen. Same sex marriage and marijuana will be legal in all 50 states before the end of the decade if not sooner.

Now we have to go after those laws against oral sex and sex in any position other than missionary. Those laws really bother me.

Legalizing both prostitution & sports gambling should be next IMO.