Tom Toles for March 31, 2013

You mean when both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly gave up the fight against gays?

I never thought thought I would agree with anything Rush might say.

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution requires that each state honor contracts made in the others. If you’re married in Iowa, you don’t stop being married when you go to Alabama. And that should apply to gay marriages too.

onguard: so childless hetero-couples shouldn’t get married? Women past menopause shouldn’t?

Spoken like a bigoted pseudo-Christian.

Read it again. I didn’t say it was. I merely suggested your “milestone” might be when both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly gave up the fight against gays.

Tigger, don’t you get tired of going to each gay marriage thread, posting the exact same thing, and then running away with your tail between your legs when people point out why your wish won’t work?

There’s only one real reason to be against gay marriage: Because you don’t like gay people, and wish to make them unhappy.

“Reading comprehension and Dem Libs it appears, are incomparable…..No wonder they are always trying to change the meaning of words.”The meaning of words change. Get over it.

LOL!, ROFL! and OMG!

Don’tcha LUV it when tea-baggers accuse us libs of being dumb while saying things like THAT? I swear,this is right up there with that, "Get a Clue, Morans’ sign.

Hey Mr Reading Skills… the word you were looking for for was, ‘In com-PAT-ible’, not ‘incom-PAR-able’.

“You’re so positive the Justices will rule the way you want them to rule”I never said any such thing.“this is a State to State issue which it is according to our Constitution”Then I’ll ask you yet again…maybe you’ll answer this time…how do you reconcile what you just said with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Since you seem unfamiliar with it, here it is: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

“Yet you’re against our right to bear arms.”I never said any such thing.

“Should States that do not have conceal/carry laws take a case to the SCOTUS forcing all 50 States to have conceal/carry laws, or should it be up to each individual State to decide if they want their private citizens to carry a concealed handgun?”I see concealing or not concealing a weapon as very much less of a burden than being married or not. If traveling the country with a handgun, I can easily display it in one state and conceal it in anotherBut, as I’ve pointed out to you (without response) in other threads, how is a married couple supposed to get unmarried when passing through one state, then married again to pass through another, then unmarried again in the next state…? Your gun analogy makes no more sense than you claiming all roads must have the same speed limits.Maybe this time you’ll address these points, instead of just going to a new thread and reposting your tired old drivel as if you’ve never been challenged on it?

Plenty of gay couples have children — 40,000 in California alone. And they have to contend with conservative jerks like you love children so much less than they hate gays… I’m SO glad to see conservatives like you disappearing from the political scene.

@tiggerDOMA is federal, not state to state. DOMA forces it to the supreme court (if DOMA didn’t happen the ruling of the California supreme court would have stood). You may be right but the issue is a federal issue, and the DOMA backers, ironically, made it so.

We’re getting there. The haters, the bigots, the Fox ‘news’ watchers, NRA, GOP, etc, will do everything they can to prevent equality, but one step at a time we’ll get there.

Well, I dunno about The Trusted Mechanic, but If the Supreme Court rules this is a ‘States Rights’ issue I will have only two words to say,

‘Popcorn, Dems?’

Coz it’s gonna ge quite the interesting show

You see, if SCOTUS rules this is a state-to-state issue, it’s going to be, ‘Buh-BYE!’ to the Defense of Marriage Act. ( a FEDERAL statute, don’tcha know? )

I believe, the Libertarian Repubs like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, will be fine with that…but NOT the Social Conservatives like Michelle Bachmann. They’re going to scream bloody murder. ( Forget the Religious Right’s talk, their walk is that they can’t get enough of Federal restrictions on peoples’ private lives. They proved it withTerry Schiavo’s Law. )

That’s why I predict that if the Court rules the way you’re predicting, we’re going to see yet ANOTHER fracture in the Republican Party …with John Boehner and Mitch MConnell caught in the middle…again!

So, if I were you Tig, I ’d knock off the gloating, and start getting your excuses lined up.

You’re gonna need ’em.

“Your assumptions are as erroneous as your facts.”That’s the third time I’ve seen you use that exact phrase, and the third time that you give no specifics or proof. Why do you bother?

antiquetracman: Got to keep producing the cannon fodder or we can’t conquer the world. Heute Amerika, morgen der Welt. The majority is always going to be straight, just as it will be right handed or dark skinned. It is basic genetics..Maybe we should lock the justices out of their private door and make them come in the front. Then they might see that sign, “Equal justice under law”, which I would read “equal justice under just laws”, but that part is the job of those across the street.

ask yourselves…why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed,and by whom?

Three times I saw, Onguard. And I pointed out you never give specifics or proof…and your response, as usual, was just to dodge the question and hope no one noticed.We did.

Yes, the Christian Taliban strike agaon!