Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tags: unfair Add Tags

Comments (60) Jump to Comments Form

NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

A legal status based on which bleeep on whom is used for sexual gratification…Destined to be one of the great leaps forward for Civilization, for sure…Or not.
Jase99 said, 5 months ago

Yes, because only pious Christian heterosexuals have the capability to feel love for their partner. As if! Gays can and do feel love. They are perfectly capable of having a stable long term relationship. A great leap forward for Civilization would be for holier-than-thou “Christians” to take a long hard look at their own beliefs and behavior to see just how unchristian they are.
harleyquinn said, 5 months ago

Oh Yes 2% of the population that insist that they are being persecuted because Cal. could care less what they do in bed. If a Lawyer can draw up a paper to leave millions to a dog then what is stopping two adults from becoming financially, and power of attorney over each other?
lalas said, 5 months ago

What would get the wingnuts to mind their own f*cking business and let people live their lives.

I can’t believe the Christian whackos have this much hate and this much time to devote to messing up somebody else’s life. Play some Scrabble, read a book, take up knitting… anything.
GNWachs said, 5 months ago

Jase99/lalas

Right on. Freedom for all.

Next on the agenda I have 2 wonderful woman who both want to marry me, but stupid California has anti-bigamy laws. Join me in fighting oppression. Obviously the state is full of whackos full of hate.

I feel love for both of them and we can have a stable long term permanent relationship.
lalas said, 5 months ago

Hmmm… I was only referring to gay couples. Not sure how you came up with bigamy. Bigamy is illegal…. being gay is not illegal.
Tecolote said, 5 months ago

Those who got married before are not affected by this overturn. Are the judges nuts or what? There should be a law prohibiting judges from smoking pot. Marriage is nothing more than a CONTRACT! you idiots!!
lalas said, 5 months ago

Tecolote – the CASC was looking at whether or not Prop 8 could be inserted into the CA Constitution, and… since CA has its idiotic Prop system… it could. There was nothing in Prop 8 about stripping it from those that had already gotten married, so that was not addressed.

I’m with you on Prop 8 being utter BS, but the purview of the court was narrow, and they ruled correctly.

PS – tecolote as in owl or Tecolote as in northern New Mexico? My folks live in northeast NM near Tecolote creek.
tpenna said, 5 months ago

Auth sums things up pretty well here. As one strange fellow so haltingly put it: “The storm … is … coming.” It’s only a matter of time before gay marriage comes back to California and the rest of the nation.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

We’re living through history, people.

Took a long time for blacks to become full citizens, with equality under the law.

Same will be true for gays.

The bigots will lose again.
fritzoid said, 5 months ago

The war is won, but there are still battles to be fought.

So what happens to same-sex couples who have been legally married in other states but move to California? Are those marriages to be recognized? Will they be recognized only if they took place during the same window in which those marriages within California are recognized? If same-sex couples living in California travel to another state and are married there, will their marriages be recognized?

The argument that all the rights given by marriage can be achieved by other means, therefore there’s no NEED for same-sex marriage, is specious. A marriage is a simple process which bundles together a number of rights, and to require same-sex couples to spend thousands of dollars in lawyer’s fees to try and nail down these same rights in such a way that one partner’s parents will NOT try or be able to strip them in court (all they need is to find a sympathetic judge) is criminally unjust.
GNWachs said, 5 months ago

Lalas: Hmmm… I was only referring to gay couples. Not sure how you came up with bigamy. Bigamy is illegal…. being gay is not illegal.

Two gay men wishing to get married is illegal. One man and two woman wishing to get married is equally illegal. Change both.
A 70 year man may not marry his 70 year female first cousin. That is also illegal. Why?
You focus on what is good only for you and not for someone else.
Tecolote said, 5 months ago

lalas: It’s Tecolote as in owl. The capital T is my own. Tecolote as in Tecolote Canyon here in San Diego and as it was in El Tecolote Restaurant also in Sandiego, the best ever Mexican restaurant in this confines, where Tex-Mex was forbidden sin.
lalas said, 5 months ago

Um… I’m straight. I’m selflessly thinking of my fellow man’s right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Just because some folks’ vengeful, alcoholic, step-dad of a God doesn’t like gay people (his mellow, super-cool son does though) doesn’t mean that bigoted Americans can keep gays from living freely.

The whole argument of some other group of people wanting to do something else is specious. Bestiality is illegal on its own merits. Bigamy is illegal on its own merits. Marrying your first cousin is illegal on its own merits. Keeping gay people from getting married has no merit other than your cr@p “slippery-slope” argument or the even-lamer “God hates f@gs” argument.

As to 70 year old cousins… I don’t know why the couldn’t marry. They’re well past the age of producing offspring with any number of fingers, toes and/or heads.
Tigger said, 5 months ago

No You didn’t
cdward said, 5 months ago

Perhaps it’s time to abolish marriage altogether. Instead, they can come up with some contract for individuals who wish to form a family-type unit. It could consist of any number of consenting adults – as long as they all agree to a) live together and b) commit to each other on an indefinite basis.

In truth, the state shouldn’t really care. Two women and a man, two men and a woman, two men together, two women together – or a man and a woman. All of those combinations (not to mention one man and lots of women) have been done before. Maybe not one woman and several men, but….

Only when it comes to religious blessing of the relationship do the restrictions really matter anyway. So, GNW, if you want polygamy, be my guest.
GNWachs said, 5 months ago

Wow, cdward, at last a sane logical rational approach. It seems many of those who want gay marriage feel it is all right for them nut want to prevent others from getting together because it is “illegal”. Classic tautology.
lalas said, 5 months ago

GNW –
I understand your tautological point –
“Pot is illegal because it’s bad.”
“Why is it bad?”
“Because it’s illegal, duh.”
We’ve heard that idiotic argument for decades.

I never said it was because they are illegal/bad that they’re “illegal”… I just don’t think they should all be lumped together merely because they’re not legal.

The legalization of gay marriage doesn’t make bestiality right (much as the righties would love to conflate the two). And if you tried to lump them together for legalization… it’d never fly. Bestiality is illegal for its own set of reasons which are easily morally justifiable. Not allowing gay marriage (in the state’s eyes) is not justifiable. In the church’s eyes it apparently is and bfd wfc?! Bigamy/polygamy… not sure why that’s illegal.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

Libs: “It should be a law because I said so.” It don’t work that way in a Democracy/Constitutional Republic. No matter what Obama’s teleprompter says.
Jase99 said, 5 months ago

GNWachs

As far as I’m concerned, you can marry as many women as you want. I don’t really care what you do behind closed doors as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others. I wouldn’t mind two husbands. The practicality of multiple spouses gets complicated when one woman marries multiple men, as there is the question of paternity.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

You can do what you want; just don’t ask me to endorse it. Get real.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

I suppose I’m the pious, holier-than-thou, unChristian christian… Whatever I am does not change Mark 10:5-9. And if the word of God is not good enough for you., there is nothing I could say on my own that would convince you otherwise. I have at least disspelled part of my debt of love to you to warn you against error. God bless you, and may you grow in godly wisdom.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Puppy, are you talking to anybody?
tpenna said, 5 months ago

The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is. Check the Gospel of John. If you’re looking for the “Word of God” in written form, you should take a look at the Qur’an. According to Muslim belief, it is the word of God verbatim in God’s own language. Christians make no such claim about the Bible. If you want a strict apples to apples comparison, then you’d have to look at Jesus, not the Bible.

The Bible is a deeply important book (or, more properly, set of books, letters, and anthologies), but most Christians could stand to demote it. When you start worshiping the book, it becomes an idol. Rather, learn how to properly read it (using tools like historical, redaction, source, and text criticism) and learn from it what God would have us learn.
motivemagus said, 5 months ago

80% of human cultures allow or actively promote polygamy (multiple wives). A small but measurable percentage promote polyandry (multiple husbands). And while we’re talking Biblically, Solomon had how many wives?
I’m pretty doggoned monogamous, myself (approaching 21 years of marriage following five years of dating the same woman), but if there’s one obvious fact about the human genotype, is that it allows for a vast range of behavior, especially sexual behavior.
lalas said, 5 months ago

See that’s the problem…. this (of course) always goes Biblical. This isn’t Biblevania, it’s AMERICA. The primary document of life & law in America ISN’T the Bible, it’s THE CONSTITUTION and The document wants us to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, moreover, it was designed so that we may all be free.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Well said, Lalas.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

Yes, but it isn’t Lalas’ and Anthony’s Land, either. If you look at my posts you may have seen me look for a legal justification why “gay marriage” should not be a concern for government to promote. I proffer the fact that the legal system doesn’t necessarily bow to the will of one man or many men, there is an accepted system of precedence and basis in English commom-law; which furthermore, has its basis in the Biblical laws and natural law. Furthermore, the rules of the Constitutional Amendment process is a way to change the law. You have just your opinion; which would set a dangerous precedent. I have what appears to be the majority of sentiment from Americans which is based on traditional Biblical beliefs. Your lack of any concept of what you are talking about is why we are in such a precarious position nowadays. We stand on the precipice of throwing out any standard of behaviour or belief and substituting it with the Pre-Eminence of intellectual Chaos. You are the people without reason and responsibility on your side. If you want the definition of a marriage to be changed; change the law.
lalas said, 5 months ago

I have precedent as well…
1) The minority is to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. The majority want to deny a right to the minority and offer separate and unequal instead.
2) It has been decided that separate and unequal is against the country’s ideals.
3) We oppressed women until it was decided that was wrong.
4) We oppressed blacks until it was decided that was wrong.
The current oppression against gays is wrong too.

I’m sure you’d blame it on “activist judges” but the Supreme Court of several states has found that denying people the same rights is unconstitutional. Sooner or later it’ll happen in the USSC too.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

What basis are using to determine that you even have a legitimate party that was wronged here? A minority of whom? Jase99 says “gays” have a right to state-sanctioned marriage because they feel “love” for one another…since when has that been a legal criteria for marriage? Is it GOVERNMENT’s job to define LOVE now? I know your intentions are for the best for everyone involved Lalas, but I do not think people have thought the implications out. We hire judges to determine other folks psychological well-being? Again, take it to the Congress…That would get your Gay-Marriage enshrined in the Law, permanently; isn’t that what you want? No you are trying an end run around the legal system in order to force your doctrine on us without a hearing; and for once there is enough “bigots” who do not feel obliged to cave-in to your intimidation.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Puppy, to answer your questions:

The minority in question is the homosexuals.
No, we’re not saying that the government should decide whether they’re in love or not. We’re for letting them decide that, and not having the government deny them the expression of that love that you and I enjoy by being able to marry the partners of our choice.

And the legislature is not the sole source of law in this country. Go to any law library and ask the librarian to show you the books containing “black letter law”, the law made by legislators. Then ask her to show you the books containing judge-made law, aka common law, aka jurisprudence. You’ll be amazed at how much bigger that section of the library is.
Jimathai said, 5 months ago

stop the discrimination… geez!
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

It will happen, Jimathai. Unfortunately, it takes time, but eventually the bigots will lose…again.
You have people like Puppy (DameIcyStare) who feel her religious beliefs should ruin the lives of others she’s never even met.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

Yeah, whatever. My religious beliefs don’t demand America do anything. My religious beliefs suggest what should be proper. Unlike you Secular-hedonist-Libs, I don’t demand the government protect and pay for my way of life. I prefer to be left alone. There will always be someone with their heart(s) on their sleeves, and gays aren’t even the worst.- that doesn’t mean the constitution has to bend down…and tie everyone’s shoe-lace.
lalas said, 5 months ago

sigh

I’m trying to say that the people who want to prevent gays from marrying are doing an end-run around the Constitution, which, while it does not address same sex marriage, it is meant to convey equal access to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And where did you manufacture your cr@p about the gov’t defining love? Do that do that now for heteros? I never said any of that judges determining anything about anybody’s feelings… I said State Supreme Courts have determined that gays should have an equal stake in the marriage game.

Congress is a bunch of holier than thou idiots. They will continue to oppress the minority. The courts are the recourse to that. Geez, follow along with the narrative here.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

I believe I said that Lalas,

^^^ “You are the people without reason and responsibility on your side. If you want the definition of a marriage to be changed; change the law.”
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Hmm, if I’d said that people who want equality for all are “without reason and responsibility”, I don’t think I’d be calling attention to it.

Also, changing the law is exactly what has been happening, and what will continue to happen.

Court decisions analogous to Loving v Virginia will continue to come down, as will legislation like in New Hampshire, and hopefully in New York.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

28 states have en-acted amendments against same-sex marriage…more coming soon.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

The tide has turned, Puppy. As much as you hate gays to have the fulfillment of marriage, it’s happening.

This country has a history of bigots losing out. It’s an unfortunately slow process, but it happens.

If you look at younger voters, they by far favor gay marriage.

It’s just a matter of time. Good luck holding back the tidal waves in the cartoon.
M Kitt said, 5 months ago

Gay marriage is just another wedge issue, as so many do this one has religion at it’s core. The more religiously inspired constrictions that can be placed on society the more willing the public will be to accept the religious element as a part of their daily lives………the GOP once again blurring the line between cause and effect. (Religion=Family Values-Gay Marriage) is the intentional blurring of 3 distinct values or issues that should be dealt with separately in a legal framework, removal of the seperation of church and state or (Church+State=Law) is the actual goal.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

I love the way the anti-gay people say they have to “protect marriage”…yet they never say anything about banning divorce.

If they had any honesty in themselves, they’d realize that stopping people from getting married doesn’t “protect marriage” at all.

But they aren’t honest.

There’s only two reasons to block gay marriage. First, to force your religious belief on others. Second, because you enjoy making gay people unhappy.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

M Kitt - 1. You are an elitist 2. Separation of Church and State has limited application, and does not exist in the U.S. like many of you believe. 3. You believe in the separation of church and state because YOU have separated yourself from the church 4. A holistic approach to human identity demands expression of religious values in government and public life. Anthony: I do not hate anybody. You and your ilk HATE anybody who does not agree with you. I HATE making anybody unhappy and wish it were so that mankind could gratify their wishes anyway they can - and they can they just have to accept the consequences of their error. You could say I HATE people who cowardly and self-interestedly refuse to correct others in their error when it is in their power to do so, like YOU. I do not think “homosexuality” is a right protected by the Constitution. Life is tough, Pole-Dancer; it isn’t all about our own desires.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

So since you hate making gays unhappy, then the reason you’re against gay marriage is because you feel your religious beliefs should supersede the desire of others to get married, and whatever beliefs they have.
M Kitt said, 5 months ago

NFP likes discussions that swing to extremes, the GOP nurtures that behavior among the “true believers”, hatred and Rush Limpick are co-equal offenders, synonyms. Without recognizing the way religion is manipulated as a political tool by the right wing those being driven like so many sheep, “flock” is they scriptural term, become a part of the echo chamber that feeds their anxiety, hatred, and fear of others. “Regarding the combining of church and state, if you support any one religion over another at the government level you are by default engaging in discrimination and encouraging others to do so…the torch carriers for a holy war in the middle east are all the evidence of that anyone should need, compiled evidence stretching thousands of years.” I don’t mind the term “elitist” by the way, thanks for the compliment. Rational behavior is often misunderstood by the ignorant and uninformed among us. Turn off Fox disinformation, Rush, and the right wing echo chamber for a little while, NFP, life doesn’t have to be that hateful.
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

You are trying hard to paint me as “hateful”. I understand you must do this in order to advance your inegalitarian approach to getting what you want from the government, and other people. But, in the end , you are asking government (ours) to assume responsibilities it has not been authorized to assume. End of story. If it continues in this and other areas of governance and influence , I fully expect this nation and society to further weaken. So, I’m not surprised you are proud to be an “elitist”, M Kitt; As these are the types most happily willing to disenfranchise others and infringe on other people’s basic human rights and privelleges.
Look at Obama’s meeting with the head of one of the most Dictatorial of Islamic states and giving his endorsement to Saudia Arabia’s human rights and freedom abuses. This, of course would have illicited a flurry of condemnation from the Left if President Bush had done it. How does it feel to be hypocrites, Libs? How does it feel to be part of the enslaving imperialist culture? Does the Obama/Lib approval pf Islamic nations include stoning womenn for adultery, capital punishment for homosexuals, female genital-mutilation, sex-slavery, persecution and murder-genocide of Christian populations?
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Puppy: “You are trying hard to paint me as “hateful”.”

Reread your post, Puppy. You really, really hate your stereotypical “Libs”…it’s obvious to all who read your rants. It’s a frighteningly deep-rooted hatred you have.

Puppy: “Look at Obama…giving his endorsement to Saudia Arabia’s human rights and freedom abuses”

Puppy, you’re lying again. Remember what your bible says happens to all liars?

Puppy: “This, of course would have illicited a flurry of condemnation from the Left if President Bush had done it.”

Nonsense. If Bush had tried a little diplomacy instead of turning everyone against us with his arrogance, we’d be much better off…and thousands of our troops would still be alive.
M Kitt said, 5 months ago

Still thinking from the emotion-driven, right wing induced, sanctimonious talking points provided by Rush-Bo and company, huh NFP. Way off the mark too since “Elitist” has been co-opted by many of the richest and most privileged among the GOP (Bush is a legacy Ivy-league child who couldn’t get in otherwise, not to mention his placement in the National Air Guard ahead of many others) who claim that they’re just “common folk” and represent the best interest of the public. Regarding what you say are basic human rights and what are really your’ attempts to impose your’ religious beliefs on other people, if the religion you support weren’t being placed at the front of the line, if someone else’s religion, let’s say Islamic Scripture were being used as the rationale for changing laws in the U.S. I’m sure the right-wing media machine would by screaming for blood, something they’ve always excelled at. I’ve no problem with B. Obama meeting with an Islamic head of state, by the way, since I’m not either a Homophobe or a Racist. “So the “Religionists” who support the fundamentalist agenda that scripture prevails over the law and that we’re all just wasting time waiting for the rapture, haven’t they openly stated that our war in Iraq is just the opening volley? That anyone not of their religion (IE muslims) are somehow followers of satan who don’t deserve their own country and who by their beliefs deserve to be occupied? It’s that sort of “rational” thinking and complete intolerance of anyone else’s point of view that brings some of us to completely distrust the religious “right” that really isn’t….”. Like I said NFP, turn off the right wing propaganda for a little while and think about others as actual human beings…..about the Saudis, Bush is a close personal friend of the Saudi royal family, I’ll give you links showing their many associations if you’d like to get your’ head around some factual information for a change :-)
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Hey, Puppy, did you hear the good news? New Hampshire now allows gay marriage:

http://tinyurl.com/op8o6l

One more step towards equality for all. Makes you feel good about being an American, doesn’t it?
NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

I don’t need to be reminded the Bushies are on good terms with the Saudis. Do you need to be reminded what Obama sucking up to them means for you LIBS?

Incidentally, you shouldn’t judge a person by one or even a few comments. I’ve stuck up for LIBS. I used to be one. I would still be one but for the fact that LIBS find it hard to make moral judgements. No matter what you say…that’s the slippery slope to Dachau and drowned-Chinese babygirls in buckets. That’s what your “egalitarianism” leads to. (pragmatic secular relativism) As Aaron Tippin once sang, “You have to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”.

No, I could say some good things about Libs; I just choose not to. Got a problem with that? Doesn’t change your Pro-Abortion platform. Doesn’t change your “Culture of Death” as the Pope so aptly put it. Doesn’t change you strong-arming citizens into obeying your dictates through the use of your government and private institutions like the NEA (Teacher’s Union), ACLU, and even by Judge Sotomayor who, it turns out, is a Puerto-Rican seperatist-sympathiser and has ties to La Rasa. Typical, stalinistic, communist methods(or Chicago-Acorn methods) of forcing your beliefs down other people’s throats.
Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

Puppy: Do you need to be reminded what Obama sucking up to them means for you LIBS?

If you could put your blind hatred aside for a moment, Puppy, you’d be able to see that Obama is engaging in diplomacy. I can understand why you may not be able to appreciate the concept, after eight years of no diplomacy at all, but you really need to get used to it. The United States no longer is trying to alienate all its allies, nor trying to go to unnecessary war with the others.

Puppy: “I would still be one but for the fact that LIBS find it hard to make moral judgements.”

You’re just stuck on the christian fundie idea that only christian fundies have any morality. Once again, you desperately need to understand that just because you need your crutch, not everyone needs it.

Puppy: “No, I could say some good things about Libs; I just choose not to. Got a problem with that?”

A problem? Well, I’m sad that your blind hatred is so deep, yes.

Puppy: “Doesn’t change your Pro-Abortion platform.”

I’ll go ahead and challenge you to find any “lib* who is “pro-abortion”. The “libs” I know are pro-birth-control, so as to avoid abortions. Unfortunately, people like you work hard to deny women birth control. Then you scream when they try to deal with the consequences.

For the rest of your post, it just shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that you’re consumed with blind, facts-be-damned, hatred, and you’re further from peace than I’ll ever be.

I feel sorry for you, Puppy.