Pat Oliphant for March 25, 2013

  1. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 11 years ago

    The people took the lead. The politicians are running to catch up.

     •  Reply
  2. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 11 years ago

    Because previous governments have taken a position on the subject. If previous governments had kept out, if there no law about marriage, then I bet the Obama administration wouldn’t care either.

     •  Reply
  3. Jock
    Godfreydaniel  about 11 years ago

    It’s very important to remember that Clarence Thomas was single when he committed the crime of sexual harrassment, and was married when he committed the felony crime of lying under oath about his sexual harrassment….

     •  Reply
  4. Masked
    Rickapolis  about 11 years ago

    If the justices vote the law and not their personal politics the result is absolutely clear.

     •  Reply
  5. Masked
    Rickapolis  about 11 years ago

    Do you write for ‘The Onion’?

     •  Reply
  6. Image
    Newshound41  about 11 years ago

    The US Supreme Court has already ruled that sodomy cannot be criminalized, Lawrence v. Texas.DOMA is still being enforced and it’s enforcement will only stop if the Supreme Court rules it is unconstitutional.President Obama is not the first President to refuse to defend the government’s position in a Supreme Court case. In 1983 Reagan Administration reversed the position of 3 previous administrations in Bob Jones University vs. United States. Three previous administrations had argued that Bob Jones University should lose it’s tax exempt status because it racially discriminated. Reagan Administration reversed that view and sided with Bob Jones University in the Supreme Court.Bob Jones U. lost the case anyway by a 8-1 margin.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    ARodney  about 11 years ago

    RIght, Jack. Obama is the first president ever to enter a friend of the court brief, and therefore should be impeached. I laud your understanding of civics.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago

    And if you file a brief AGAINST a law, are you then an enemy of the court?

     •  Reply
  9. Alexander the great
    Alexander the Good Enough  about 11 years ago

    Ahem. Considering that six of those nine blackbirds are Catholic, I wonder what their new Pope thinks of inclusive marriage rights. Hmm? And will they take that into account?

     •  Reply
  10. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 11 years ago

    I just don’t live in a world where people have such opinions, and it’s shocking to read some of these comments. I am pleased to believe that the issue will be past history soon, since the tide is definitely turning in favor of gay rights.

     •  Reply
  11. Earth moon2
    eafries1754 Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Fear Monger! Picking on 10% of the population. Every person deserves the free choice to live with the person of their mutual attraction!

     •  Reply
  12. John adams1
    Motivemagus  about 11 years ago

    Speaking as a psychologist, “perversity” was removed from psychological science as a term some time ago, as it is defined primarily by religions and has nothing to do with reality as such. It is a value statement. Homosexuality is not considered a psychological dysfunction.Following the dictionary definition, where it would be something (1) contrary, (2) wayward, (3) persistently wrong, or (4) wicked and corrupt, three of those definitions can be eliminated outright by pointing out that homosexuality exists in nature (not just in humans), and that the percentage of homosexuality appears to have been consistent throughout human history as far as we can tell — in Plato’s Symposium, one speaker praises love between men as the highest form of love, in fact.So that leaves “wicked and corrupt.” That’s YOUR definition. Personally, I know many gay and lesbian couples who are honorable, kind, utterly trustworthy and indeed truly Christian. Me, I’m straight and married nearly 25 years to my first and only wife. And I can see others who live the same way we do, except that they are of the same gender. And that’s all there is to it. It’s none of your damn business what goes on in other people’s private lives, and it CERTAINLY isn’t the government’s job to define marriage.

     •  Reply
  13. John adams1
    Motivemagus  about 11 years ago

    Oh, and the American Psychological Association removed any reference to homosexuality as a psychological dysfunction in the DSM-III in 1986. OVER 25 years ago. So, not a new thing.

     •  Reply
  14. Image
    alex Coke Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    dannysixpack  about 11 years ago

    perhaps each and every marriage, gay and straight, should be voted on by the general public. that sounds fair.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    PlainBill  about 11 years ago

    You are trying to lure us into the trap of allowing you to define ‘Sexual Perversity’. I deny you that right. In some areas of the country sexual relations between a man and a woman of different skin color was a perversity – yet somehow female black slaves were giving birth to light-skinned babies. In other areas of the country sexual relations between White and ;colored’ were accepted – so long as there was no marriage. So contrary to your pretensions, the definition of sexual perversity has always been ambiguous. “Ah!”, You exclaim, “you are describing relations between a man and a woman, I am objecting to sexual relations between two men or two women!” That argument falls afoul of TWO sections of the Constitution. The First Amendment proscribes establishment of a State Religion, further expanded by the Supreme Court to forbid embracing ANY religion.

    What is more science now allows us to accurately determine the sexual orientation (as opposed to the physical gender), and we now know that some people are actually GENETICALLY forced to prefer a relationship with members of their own gender. Denying those the right to marry violated the ‘Equal Protection’ clause of the Constitution.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    oneoldhat  about 11 years ago

    if 2 or more competent adults want to hook up that is their business but what i object to is they expecting me to subsidize them. the 1st case bho decide not to enforce doma was a case involving inheritance tax on the estate of a donor

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    SABRSteve  about 11 years ago

    Once the marriage line is redrawn, it’s only a matter of time before we have other alternate marriage definitions. Somewhere along the way, even motivemagus will cry “halt.”

     •  Reply
  19. Misty morning
    SavannahJim Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Saw a shirt on Bourbon Street recently. “OMG! I said I hate FIGS!”, so sayeth the Lord.

     •  Reply
  20. Missing large
    edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Other alternate marriage descriptions would have to be between CONSENTING adults. In some religions, polygamy is accepted. Man-boy love and bestiality both fail the test of consenting adults.

     •  Reply
  21. Aunabomber sketch
    dubledeuce  about 11 years ago

    No, that was just a MORAN acting like a MORAN

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Pat Oliphant