Tony Perkins: If The Left Thinks Obergefell Ended The Marriage Battle, They’re In For A Major Surprise

Via press release from hate group leader Tony Perkins:

America may recognize same-sex marriage now — but not because voters asked it too! And if the Left thinks the Supreme Court has finally decided the issue, they’re in for a major surprise. Turns out, the court of public opinion has its own verdict on the subject — and new polling shows it’s anything but liberal.

A year and a half into this experiment in judicial activism, the opinion of most voters hasn’t budged. When asked by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research if they agreed with this statement — “I believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman” — a solid 53 percent agreed. That’s a 16-point difference between those who disagreed at 37 percent (another 10 percent were undecided).

No wonder liberals had to win same-sex marriage through the courts. It isn’t nearly as popular as the Left insists it is! Sixteen months into this illegitimate ruling, nothing about the people’s opinion has changed. According to Wilson, the 53 percent support for natural marriage is identical to what it was pre-Obergefell. Even the five justices of the Supreme Court haven’t managed to move the needle on America’s views!

For once in her life, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was right. If it weren’t for the Supreme Court forcing this decision on America, redefining marriage would have taken years for the Left to accomplish — if ever. “Legislatively, we couldn’t really succeed,” she admitted in May, “but from the courts and the rest… that victory has been won.” For years, the media managed to create this phony narrative of support — even when ballot boxes and state laws told another story. It’s encouraging to see that even when the laws change, people’s understanding of right and wrong do not. Obviously, voters — especially conservative Christians — are looking for politicians who will stand up to the cultural elites and their radical agenda.

That may be one reason why Donald Trump enjoyed such overwhelming support. As the poll goes on to say, nearly six in 10 Trump voters were swayed by the pro-life, pro-religious liberty planks of the GOP platform. And, as someone who served on the RNC Platform Committee, I can tell you that the 2016 document is the most conservative it’s ever been on every issue, including marriage.

So when 66 percent of voters tell pollsters that the “Government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses,” it’s really no surprise that Donald Trump enjoyed the record-breaking evangelical support he did. He was the only candidate in the race that showed his commitment to religious freedom, especially when it comes to giving churches the ability to speak freely about politics from the pulpit (which 53 percent support).

As I told Fox News’s Todd Starnes, the Republican Party’s platform positions on the unborn and religious liberty were the bridge between Donald Trump and Christian conservatives. And he sealed that deal in the final debate when he vividly described a partial-birth abortion and pledged to appoint pro-life justices. If the liberal press had bothered to listen to what voters believe — instead of telling them what to believe — this election wouldn’t have been nearly as shocking. Because if there’s one overwhelming message everyone should have heard on Tuesday, it’s this: the media, the courts, and the Left don’t speak for the American people.

  • Taylor

    Poor Tony, still confusing what’s popular with what’s Unconstitutional.

    There’s a difference, sweetie. You probably should have learned that the first time around.

    • Jeffg166

      Unfortunately they now have the federal government under their control. They also have enough state legislatures to pass the constitutional amendments they’ve been chopping at the bit to pass for decades.

      • Taylor

        They don’t have 2/3 majority in the Senate to get a Constitutional amendment passed that would get it to the states.

        A nationwide Constitutional Convention would be very dangerous, because it could possibly open up the entire Constitution to be rewritten or amended.

        • Guest

          An amendment does not require the federal government to send it to the states. It can start at a state, be passed by enough states and then be sent to the federal government. It can also start with a state, then the federal government could do its part and then finish up in the states.

          The Constitution is not clear on a specific path. There is no wording like “it first must…” Now those righties who claim original intent should say the wording of the role of the federal government means the federal government goes first since it is listed first. But as we saw with Scalia, it is only original intent when they want it, or when they can change intent to be what they want it to be.

          Our hope is in how much corporatists chuck shummer wants to tie things up. At least the right does not have 60 votes in the Senate. The right can pass budget items with less than 60 and they will replace the Senate judge on if a bill reduces the deficit so they can lie that repeating Obamacare saves Medicare like Ryan is already lying it does.

          Also watch the right cry and use the left for obstruction for 60 votes being needed. 2018 in the Senate is beyond terrible for the left and as an off presidential year, the left will lose seats since more old people vote in off years. The night’s call will be for 60 in 2018.

          This is beyond bad and I am worried. The right has already listed 35 immediate goals including Medicare. And while their pledge used to be if 55 and older it would not change. Now the right has this much unchecked power, watch these changes be for all. That old person in the nursing home better find a job because block granting and vouchers will give about half of what is paid out per month for a person now.

          And the wanted Trump tax cuts are far more than the war criminal bush tax cuts. I am sure the middle class will get their $300.00 check and the rich will get billions. Also Obama did payroll give backs so people spent it as is more stimulative. Bush did the check for show.

          We have got to find people to run for local office too the right has done this better for over 40 years.

          And to one here in 2009 who defended RBG for not stepping down when the left had the Senate and when you party has the presidency, who cried that we would hold the Senate in 2020, do you see now that she put her own hubris over the causes she holds dear, mark? Her being in her 80’s and having taught cancer twice, and having fallen twice, she could go at any time.

          This may take the left 50 years to recover from the damage.

          I knew video should have run. White’s would have voted for him and minorities would have voted for Obama s vp.

          • Guest

            2010 not 2020. Video was biden sorry

          • Taylor

            According to this link there are only two ways a Constitutional Amendment can happen.

            1) By 2/3 majority of both houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states, or
            2) Through a Constitutional Convention, called for by 2/3 of the states, which would open up the entire Constitution to amendment.

            http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

          • Guest

            Yes. And I never wrote against that. I wrote about the order in which it goes states and fed, which was the point of the post I replied to. You have now changed the top to what was not being discussed

          • Taylor

            I started the topic! And I clearly said that it would require either an Amendment Passed by the House and Senate, and ratification by the states….or by a Constitutional Convention.

          • Guest

            Show me 1 thing I wrote that is incorrect and goes against the original comment. And yes I know you wrote that comment.

            Is your position that no one can reply to add to or discuss unless it is what you want? This right here is why so many have left us over the years.

          • Taylor

            My position is that there are only two ways to amend the Constitution. And that the states calling for a Constitutional Convention, could backfire. Because if that happens it would open up the entire Constitution to Amendment… Which I’m almost positive is not something that even the GOP is dumb enough to want to see happen.

            Where have I told you can’t add to or discuss, anything in this thread? You’re martyr complex is getting the best of you

          • Guest

            You implied with the wording “get it to the states” that the process can start only through the federal government. That is not true, it is unsettled law. And my comment has not changed the 2 ways listed, through an amendment or a convention

            Your challenging a factual point on the order with your word choice in the 1st post and my comment, and then your pretending I challenged a point I did not is the type of false argumentative style and how so many here have been driven off. Your simple challenge and reading into what I wrote as being against either way of changing try he Constitution and inability to look at what I wrote about the order and then commenting on just your point. Ignoring my words started this

            And the states could call for a convention or just start an amendment to see if other states would do so too. Hell, we have seen ALEC template laws on the right for years now. The open carry stand your ground law on Florida is an example. States starting a process like this and a righty SC could easily settle that order as being just fine and in line with the 2ways to change the Constitution.

          • Taylor

            The fact that I mentioned a Constitutional Convention, should have given you a clue, that I knew that going through Congress was not the ONLY WAY to get an amendment to the states. Or that the only way to an Amendment was through the federal government.

            If that’s how you interpreted it then so be it.

            If you don’t like the argumentative style…then why are you participating in a thread that you seem to be asserting is argumentative? The lady doth protest too much, methinks!

          • Guest

            Taylor. I never said a word about thinking you wrote there was only 1 way, an amendment process.

            I wrote about the order of the amendment process. And a convention has zero to do with the amendment process. Your word choice “get it to the states…” Implies that the amendment process started at the federal government. It is your implying it here. It is not an interpretation.

            You can attack me all you wish. You ignored my point in the first post and gave replies against what I never wrote. someday I hope you work on reading comprehension. Most people can easily see my reply was about the amendment process and you then replied about the 2 processes, which were never in my reply.

          • Taylor

            So sorry you feel “attacked”… but I’m not here to worry about your feelings. And as I said before, you can block me, if you feel you’re under attack, or if you don’t want to participate in what you assert are argumentative threads, you can stop at any time ..but I notice you’ve done neither….but have instead chose to whine about it. Boo-hoo…

            You state that the “convention has zero to do with the amendment process” . On the contrary, an Article V Convention would have plenty to do with the amendment process and would open up the entire Constitution to Amendments.

          • Guest

            A fact is not a feeling idiot. Hi to a community college and beg them for help in your reading comprehension inabilities.

            You are the one who continues to come at me

            Again with your reading issues. I was using wording to separate a convention from an amendment process.

            And for the record, a convention is not an amendment process, as every word of the Constitution is open to being changed, not just amendments, be they the first ten or those that followed.

            No constitutional lawyer would call a convention an amendment or amendment process.

            I really hope you seek help.

          • Taylor

            Oh, gosh…now he/she thinks insulting my intelligence is going to win his/her argument.

            I’m not the one complaining about “argumentative posts” that would be you. If you don’t want to argue, then don’t enter into an argument…. problem solved.

            Good grief.. An Article V convention, is indeed a way to amend the Constitution. So, it absolutely is part of the “amendment process”.

          • Guest

            Twisting the topic again and poor reading comprehension. You now use a word choice if amending the whole Constitution and not what we were writing about.

          • Taylor

            HA! There are TWO ways to amend the Constitution. Either through Congress and Ratification by the States or by an Article V Constitutional Convention called for by the states.

            If you don’t like the information found in this link, take it up with them.

            http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

          • Taylor
          • Guest

            I also like how your wording here wants me to know what you say you meant and not what you wrote. Smh

          • Taylor

            Don’t shake it too hard…I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself and then have to listen to you whine about that.

          • Guest

            More circling back from a now proven liar.

          • Taylor

            Oh, dear…he/she called me a liar. Whatever shall I do?

          • Guest

            Own it, since you are one

          • Taylor

            Nope, I’ve lied about nothing, I never stated that I not edited my post. So, there was no lie.

          • Guest

            A lie of omission , in this case of an edit, and in a case of adding who paragraphs is a lie. Ask Zhykitty or any long term poster on any webpage.

            You stated above you made fits without noting them, and now you claim you never stated that you would not edit the posts, which is not what the topic was, but a twist of yours to change the point. More dishonesty.

          • Taylor

            I don’t have to ask Zhykitty or anyone else, anything. Once again, I do not have to meet your standards of editing, in order to edit my posts the way I see fit. YOU ARE JUST NOT THAT SPECIAL.

          • Guest

            You are a very dishonest poster. You have edited a couple of your posts not and not noted ab edit. The post I am replying to, you added the whole last paragraph.

            There are several types of lies. And this is a way of lying to the readers too.

            Don’t be me for your lack of reading comprehension skills.

          • Taylor

            Any edits I have made have been for formatting or grammar. Sorry princess, I’m entitled to edit my posts. That’s why the edit function is there.

            Once again, no one is forcing you to engage with me. If you’re unhappy you have options.

          • Guest

            As has been long standing culture here and online in general, you note an edit. Go ask anyone of the long time posters

            Go ahead and excuse your dishonesty. I guess that is all you really have honey.

            I am forcing you? Playing the victim still.

          • Taylor

            Sorry sugar, I don’t have to go by what you consider “long standing culture” who the fuck made you arbiter of how everyone else must post?

            I’m not the one complaining about someone being argumentative sugar, that would be you. If you don’t want to engage in an argument…then don’t. πŸ™‚ I have no intention of abandoning this thread, so the choice is yours.

          • Guest

            Trust noting the culture here independent of that, editing and not noting it online is a lie and regarded as a lie. Trying to figure fend it shows us exact who you are.

            Was not arbitrating anything. There you go again with reading issues. Noting it is not arbitrating.

            You do seem to have to have the last word, a proven tactic of liars.

          • Taylor

            I’m trying to figure out why you would possibly think that I would or should care what “Princess Guest” thinks about me, or about who or what I am? News Flash… I don’t at all.

            Why in the world would I care about what an anonymous poster thinks of me?

            Of course you were trying to be an arbiter..you were attempting to tell me the standards by which I can edit a post. I do not have to meet what you call the “cultural” standard I can edit at will and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

            I have the last word….when I have an answer. So far, you’ve not been able to leave me speechless. You can keep trying if you wish, but I’m doubtful you’ll succeed.

          • Guest

            And my point that they can start this process at the states they control and eventually go to the federal governmemt .

            Further, they could start at the states and use that as a call to get their voters out to gain more federal seats.

          • Guest

            And you clearly said 2/3 “that would get it to the states”. The meaning of that word choice implies an order that is not true. It is unsettled law for the order.

            The Constitution is not clear on what order it has to go.

            That is not a hard concept

            I also remind you that a few years ago, those on the right floated the idea that a national vote could be done. So never stop being concerned about the right:s ability and willingness to cheat.

          • olandp

            I always take the advice of the illiterate.

        • Jeffg166

          Well thanks be to that. I can rest a bit easier until they reach their goal. Hopefully by then I’ll be long gone.

      • Shy Guy

        Do they have enough state legislatures?

        The best information I could find said they control 33 state houses, and 35 state senates. (Not necessarily in the same places.)

        If I understand correctly they’d need 37 pairs of state houses and state senates (and governors, unless they have veto proof majorities) to get an amendment through.

        So they’re horribly close, but not quite there yet.

        • Doesn’t really matter. I don’t see how anti-same-sex marriage forces ever get to 67 US Senators for an amendment.

          And even getting the state legislatures would be difficult; when they had Republican super majorities in New Hampshire where they finally had a chance to undo same-sex marriage, they couldn’t even muster a bare majority for repeal.

          At best, they overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, which causes a major legal mess due to all of the marriages that have occurred.

    • MBear

      The constitution says what those in power want it to say.

      • GayOldLady

        It’s more like the Constitution is interpreted to say whatever those in power want it to say.

        • MBear

          And the constitution was written by and for straight white male land owners, no?

          • GayOldLady

            It was!

    • Dramphooey

      This isn’t popular. This is a bogus poll designed to generate the result he wants. Too many Democrats were the victims of this sort of poll lately.

  • Bj Lincoln

    Fuck you Tony!

  • sword

    This is why I believe so many people on the left are pie-in-sky-naives. They keep saying that marriage equality is here to stay. Marriage equality only exists because a majority of Supreme Court justices agreed. Put one or more Trumpets on the Court and see how long equality lasts.
    How legal strings are going to have to be untangled if the Court changes its mind?

    • Mark

      And as I’ve written my senators and congressman, I’ve told them to do exactly what the republicans did to President Obama for 8 years.

      • Blake Jordan

        Unfortunately the rethuglicans had the majority for 6 of Pres. Obama’s 8 years…

      • It shouldn’t be exactly. I don’t want them to fuck us over by not taking care of things that ought to sail through easily. THAT’s what the Republican did. But I do expect them to stand up to bad bills and proposals.

    • If Trump meets the first condition of changing the makeup of the court, there then would need to be a conflict on the issue of same-sex marriage that would compel the court to revisit the issue,” Chris Johnson, chief political and White House correspondent for the Washington Blade, a D.C.-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender newspaper, wrote in that paper.

      β€œOne possibility is a state could decide to defy Obergefell and pass a law barring or inhibiting marriage rights for gay couples. Such a measure already failed just two months ago in Tennessee.” (In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.)

      • Well that depends on the lower courts stopping the case from moving up. That might happen. I think there’s a far more serious threat to Roe than Obergefell. (Note: Texas Gov Abbott is trying to get the state and cities to refuse to pay spousal benefits to gay couples.)

        • Agreed for many states they have moved on…also many people are not that invested in this issue anymore as it did not bring about DESTRUCTION as it was touted to do….

    • I had this fight just yesterday with someone insisting (not a gay person btw) that the court would not reverse Obergefell. Granted, it will take replacing a couple of justices because none of the ones who voted with the majority in that decision is going to reverse, but it was a 5-4 decision. (Look back at Loving, Brown and other controversial decisions…all unanimous. Justices used to be careful not to vote in a way that would make them look bad in the future. No more.) It’s not something that’s going to happen in the next six months but a number of justices are rather old so it could happen in the next four years.

    • Taylor

      The road would be very long before a case would even make it to the Supreme Court that would give the Court the opportunity to overturn the ruling.

      Plus, there’s a question of standing. Who has standing to bring such a case? And there is no guarantee that the court will choose to hear it, since they’ve already made a decision on the whether it is constitutional for gay men and women to marry.

      There are a lot of hoops, Tony and his ilk will have to jump through, it’s not as simple as he wants to make it seem.

      • BobSF_94117

        There are already two cases headed to SCOTUS that could be used to overturn Obergefell.

        • Taylor

          Which two?

  • 2patricius2

    “nearly six in 10 Trump voters were swayed by the pro-life, pro-religious liberty planks of the GOP platform…” Ah, yes. Pro-life. Ending the health care coverage for 20 million people. Privatizing and bleeding Social Security and Medicare. Jailing dissidents. Repealing rights of women and minorities and LGBT people and immigrants, etc, etc, etc.

    White Nationalism and Theocracies are not pro-life. They are pro-death.

    • zhera

      I could possibly believe they were pro-life if they weren’t so against birth control. You really care about ‘unborn babies’? Then you care about teaching your children how to avoid pregnancy. Just like you teach them to swim so that they don’t drown when you have a family day at the beach.

      Perkkkins is right though, that many voted for Trump because of the conservative GOP platform. Male privilege was threatened and the cons don’t like that.

    • Gigi

      They’re not pro-life, they’re pro-fetus. As soon as it shoots out of the birth canal they’re all, “You’re on your own now.”

      • GayOldLady

        You’re right Gigi, but it doesn’t exactly “shoot out of the birth canal”. I birthed 3 children and they don’t call it Labor for nothing.

    • Dramphooey

      “Nearly six in 10 Trump voters were swayed…” Those are the numbers that lost the last two elections. It’s the part Trump gained without your assistance that decided the election. Feel free to propose more garbage to lose those voters.

    • People often misspell “anti-choice” and “pro-death” as “pro-life”. Common mistake.

    • Gerry Fisher

      >nearly six in 10 Trump voters were swayed by the pro-life, pro-religious liberty planks of the GOP platform

      Remove 1 of 10 or 2 of 10 Trump voters in some swing states, and we’d be inaugurating Clinton.

    • McSwagg

      The next time someone tells you they are pro-life, ask for their stance on the death penalty. They are invariable pro-death penalty. That alone makes their so called pro-life claim hypocritical and inconsistent.

  • Mrs. Councillor Nugent
    • Bj Lincoln

      Part of me likes this and part thinks it makes me as bad as them.

      • David Walker

        I know, but it’s important to remember that the Civil Rights struggle of the ’50s and ’60s wasn’t just Martin Luther King. He did the heavy lifting and deservedly, rightly, and absolutely get the credit. But there were also the Malcolm Xs who played an important part. Sometimes you need both. I am mostly a pacifist. Mostly. In a fight, I’d be the first on the ground, probably…but there WOULD be a fight.

        • HadenoughBS

          It appears the era of the Trump presidency may be one of many mini-revolutions conducted by various offended groups. Warning: if Perkins and his kind think we’ll not rebel against any attempt to repeal legal marriage equality, he/they are terribly misinformed. We and other aggrieved and threatened groups will have no choice but to fight against these recidivist GOPers and their minions including the Family Research Council, every KKK and white nationalist group, all other alt-right groups, etc. No matter what your polling indicates, marriage equality is here to stay, bitch so back the fuck off!

          • David Walker

            They call us faggots. There was a time when we would just roll over or run away. That was then. And then pride came along…not as a vanity thing, not as a boastful thing, but as a realization that “I’m not the only one. There are others like me and they’re cool people, like me.” We had to be careful, but we came out into the open. We showed our bravery, our unity, our compassion, our love, and our gratitude to our lesbian sisters when the plague hit. I’m not ashamed of being gay, and now I realize that the pride is just that…not only am I not ashamed of who I am, I’m damned proud of it. And fuck you, bigot, if you don’t understand. I like the analogy to the ripped open down pillow on a roof on a windy day. The job of the PerKKKins and the Browns and the Robertsons of this world is to find all the feathers and put them back in. Right.

          • Louis E.

            The outrage you offensively dub “marriage equality” MUST end,no matter how long it takes.(I’m a pro-choice anti-death-penalty pro-gun-control non-religious Democrat,so quit your stereotyping).

        • karmanot

          What I learned in those olden days is always carry a gun to a knife fight.

          • David Walker

            Good one, karmanot.

        • DN

          Also, it’s only in retrospect that MLK is viewed as the elder statesman of the movement. At the time, the other side viewed him as a furious radical.

          Same thing happened with Mohandas Gandhi.

      • GayOldLady

        I participated in peaceful civil disobedience in the 60’s & 70’s. What begins as peaceful ends the way our opponents want it to end, not the way we want it to end. I have no fear of those who would take our rights away because I’ve spent most of my life in a world where I’ve had no rights. So I’m willing to use peaceful civil disobedience and whatever response that evokes is their decision.

      • Paula

        The right to self defense can never be taken away.

        • GayOldLady

          Exactly! You don’t have to be a proponent of violence to be a supporter of self-defense.

        • Howdy Paula, first time I’ve commented since election night… Is there any way I could talk with you privately? My email’s stogiebear @ yahoo.com

      • Gigi

        I’m 50/50 on this as well. Although I have taken matters into my own hands on several occasions. Beat or be beaten.

      • FAEN

        We are nowhere near as bad as them by defending ourselves. Gay men don’t swarm the streets bashing straight men. It is almost always the other way around.

        No more Mr Nice Gay.

        • Rick Hammond

          I’d be in favor of rolling some Christians coming out of church. Don’t wait for it to come to you. It’s time to crack some heads and man up!!!!

          • Marla R. Stevens

            No, because it’s not the smart thing to do.

      • BobSF_94117

        Self-defense is never as bad as assault.

      • karmanot

        The goal dear Bj is not to be as bad as them…..But Far far far Worse!

      • Gerry Fisher

        When taken metaphorically, I think it’s fine. What I object to is that ACT UP’s primary mission was not to retaliate against mouthy homophobes in the streets. It’s kind of misleading in regard to the place ACT UP has in history, IMO. Again, best taken as a metaphor.

      • Marla R. Stevens

        Theirs is offensive. This is defensive. BIG difference — fighting to self-protect is not cause for shame.

    • Mrs. Councillor Nugent

      Appeasement didn’t work to prevent WWII in which my father fought five major campaigns including D-Day, and fought under Patton. I’m 65 within weeks and have two mini strokes behind me this past summer. I intend to go down fighting.

      • Friday

        We’re more like about to be in occupied France. The fight-back needs to be smart.

        • tristram

          The federal government has had our backs for the past 8 years. From the date of his inauguration, Obama worked to protect us and promote our rights – and he put the power of the executive branch behind us. Now all those posts – the prosecutors, judges, cabinet secretaries and many under them, commission members – will be handed over to people selected from lists developed by the Heritage Foundation, Liberty University and the like. It’s going to be grim.

          • Friday

            I understand. I’m in Georgia and most minorities, particularly black people,have known that the Federal executive branch has been the only thing between us and Very Bad Shit all along. This wasn’t a loss anyone could afford around here. (and some wonder why ‘ideological purity’ may as well have been from Mars to those of us here without money.)

          • Bessieajimenez

            Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj78d:
            On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !mj78d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash78MediaMobileGetPay$97Hour β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…::::::!mj78d:….,…..

        • StraightGrandmother

          #TheResistance

    • Mrs. Councillor Nugent
    • Rick Hammond

      Except he has a gun and you have a baseball bat. Who wins?

      • Mrs. Councillor Nugent

        I’ll have more than a bat

      • Mrs. Councillor Nugent

        Steel cane, and a very sharp pocket knife, that I put away 36 years ago after I saw someone–long story–attack my father, so I jumped the fucker and my knife was going for his throat until I realized the consequences. We are in a different time now, and I clearly near the end of my life anyway, but seek every avenue of defense to preserve it.

  • Blake Jordan

    Of all the social stuff surrounding the Donnie Administration, I feel confident that the anti-LGBTQ+s parts will be pushed so much further than any of the Muslim, Mexican,… stuff!

  • S1AMER

    I can’t say how much of Obergefell will be overturned once Trump has a few appointees on the Supreme Court. But I can say this:

    It might not matter. I fully expect Congress to pass legislation that, basically, grants to fundagelical persons (and, post Hobby Lobby, that can include corporations) the right to discriminate against anybody and everybody they choose because of “religious freedom.” And the future SCOTUS will accept that. So, for example, employers will be able to refuse to provide health coverage for same-sex spouses while paying for opposite-sex spouses of employees. (Of course, employers will continue to be able to refuse to hire LGBT people or allowed to fire us at will in states beyond the 28 where that’s already allowed.)

    And if individuals (and corporations are “people” too, remember) can discriminate, how long until states and localities will be allowed to disregard marriage equality?

    I don’t really think Obergefell will be overturned in its entirety. I just expect large parts of it will be rendered irrelevant by new laws and court decisions.

    (One problem, of course, is that the GOP and future SCOTUS have to figure out a way to give this “religious freedom” to Christians only, not adherents of any other religion or those of us with no religion.)

    • Bj Lincoln

      “(One problem, of course, is that the GOP and future SCOTUS have to figure out a way to give this “religious freedom” to Christians only, not adherents of any other religion or those of us with no religion.)” That will be the their biggest problem. They can not totally gut the constitution and do what they want.

      • Friday

        That is of course exactly what they want to do. Gut the Constitution (while claiming ‘This means Christian Dominionism.’

      • Guest

        It is called interpretation of the law. They can gut the meaning of the words, so they can gut the Constitution. Step 1 is the lie that we were founded as a Christian nation Step 2 is that means religious protection is for as we are founded. Step 3 is the decision that X law only applies to Christianity. Step 5, at a later date will define what types of Christians it applies to.

        3 steps in a decision by tedcruz, who is being called for a justice position already by some,, and we have law that agrees with the.

        If they can rewrite all of Christianity to say capitalism is Christian (see Michael Moore movie “Capitalism,” the ending) and they can rewrite Christianity into the prosperity gospel and do both within 70 years, changing an interpretation of a prior SC decision or of the Constitution itself. with their righty justices already proven ready to toss out plus 100 years of settled law (citizens united) plus 60 years of settled law for the voting rights act (Roberts Reagan white paper as his goal), and plus the right’s proven ability to cheat (voter ID, gerrymandering to a level never done before in our history, changing who is protected by what Constitution clauses is easy for them. They are about their power and nothing else. They put their party over the country and that is all of the proof you need

  • Mark

    And you, perkkkins, have no idea how hard we’re going to fight to keep our rights!

  • SoCalGal20

    Pretty sure Trump has bigger priorities at the moment but thanks for sharing, Tony. May another hurricane destroy your home (again).

    • Blake Jordan

      Sadly not….

      Like all the corrupt and/or incompetent governments before him, they will try to distract with attacks on minorities… and LGBTQ+s will be easier for them…

  • Blackfork

    This blithering idiot will never stop, just like Brian Brown will never stop — banging their stupid skulls against the same wall over and over expecting a different result every time. And about creating a “phony narrative of support” — it’s the very thing he does (and Trump did) to rouse the rabble and make them believe their soul-sucking bullshit.

    • Daveed_WOW

      Why would he stop? He’s extremely well funded by millions of bigots. It’s a free market for hate.

  • MonochromeMouse

    I love how they never go through well known polling groups like PEW or Rasmussen but always some random ones that nobody every hears about except when the haters have new “proof’ that everyone agrees with them.

    • JoeMyGod
      • Acronym Jim

        Are we sure Tony isn’t the “Perkins” in “Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research?”

        If you read carefully, Wikipedia has some revealing information on the leader of the organization and his methods and target populations.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wilson_(pollster)

        • stuckinthewoods

          The Perkins in that group appears to be Chris Perkins, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were related. Same pointy nose…pinocchiesque.
          https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-perkins-9824ab62

          • BobSF_94117

            Maybe Chris Perkins and Tony Perkins are the same person, and he has a second family somewhere…

          • stuckinthewoods

            ugh, now you made me consider there are probably larval stages.

      • John Ruff

        Not biased at all. (Sarcasm)

      • MonochromeMouse

        Wow, and he has the nerve to think that he’s the morally superior one. I believe somewhere in his big book of bullshit are the words “thou shalt not lie” and “thou shalt not bear false witness”

  • Michael

    I wouldn’t jump the gun there, Tony. Trump has already backtracked on a couple of items which got you guys to vote him in.

    • Daveed_WOW

      The silver lining is that Trump is a masterful manipulator. Ask any contractor and you’ll find that he gets them to jump and then leaves them hanging. It’s the only way to make money the Trump way: cheating.

      He needed their votes to get elected, but he and Senate are smart enough to know better.

      • Friday

        The problem there, is he doesn’t care about *us* any more than anyone, his handwave at plausible deniability on the GOP anti-LGBT platform wasn’t even of itself reassuring. He said he’ going to ‘save us from Muslims.’ While of course giving Christianists the power to do what they’re always trying to all along.

  • Acronym Jim

    Try as you might, Tony, but we and our families, friends, workplaces, and communities will fight you down to the last tooth and nail, regardless of the results of your biased push-poll.

  • Gustav2

    Don’t let this leader of a minority, Christianists, frighten you.

  • Are same-sex marriages at risk?

    No. Just as with abortion, the president can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision by himself, although he could appoint more conservative justices. Even then, the chance that the high court would reverse itself is very small. Unlike abortion, same-sex marriage has steadily gained in public approval.

    Trump could try to reverse some Obama administration rulings that favored same-sex couples on issues such as federal benefits. He hasn’t suggested that he would. And if he did, his decisions could be challenged in court.

    • joe ho

      It will just take 2 more justices to overturn Roe and Obergefell. Totally doable.

      • Mihangel apYrs

        it’s a pity that some of the “liberal” justices, coming up to “old” didn’t resign 4 years ago to give Obama the opportunity to insert youngsters. The rethugs couldn’t have held out for years!

    • Friday

      The immediate worry is them passing laws to *hurt* married gay couples.

    • John30013

      Trump has promised to undo all of Obama’s executive orders, which is how he has accomplished many benefits to LGBT people (such as non-discrimination in federal contracts and hiring for federal positions). Whether he’ll actually follow through on reversing all of them remains to be seen.

      • Friday

        Also, clearly, all the hate-preachers and hate-politicians on his staff and Cabinet and in Congress aren’t people he’s exactly likely to lift a finger to stop the orgy of hatred and oppression they are salivating loudly for already.

        • John30013

          Of course not. They rile up the aggrieved white working class base who swept Trump into power. I don’t think Trump personally cares one way or another what happens to people like us. He will make tepid noises about “unity” and “tolerance”, but he’ll let the right-wingers run roughshod over our rights and the Constitution.

      • Well, if the gays both closeted and openly gay within Washington politics WALKED out (from staffers, to consultants, to advisors, etc)…TRUST me Washington DC would be DIFFERENT place for ALL these politicians…

  • Greg B.

    As the Supreme Court confined, civil rights aren’t a popularity contest so his polling is irrelevant. But since he brought he up, let’s consider the source and give the poll he references some perspective. From their website:

    “Over the past few years, WPA has become one of the top two Republican polling and strategic research firms in America. This success has aided our ability to serve our corporate, creative and public affairs clients with aggressive and innovative methodologies. The same approach that has led to the success for our GOP candidates for public office is applied to meet any research challenge you have.”

  • bryan

    Let them try. Our lives are not their toys. This would lead to protests and riots that would mark Trump’s ‘presidency’ as the most destructive in history. Bring it on, Perkins. We will rise up against you every step of the way.

    • TimCA

      The American people may actually have its hands full just protesting against the full on assault under a Trump Presidency against the democratic foundations of the country.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Fuck you Tony! Fuck you very much. You want a fight? You got it! I am not going to go down lightly. Fuck these Fascist motherfuckers. Yes! I’m pissed off.

    OT – As I have been preparing for the absolutely coming fascist police state my browser looks like I’m in the Czech Republic and I’m getting some really weird ads. LOL.

    Start protecting yourself today! Here’s some good first steps -> https://medium.com/@TeacherC/90dayactionplan-ff86b1de6acb#.kscykbq73

    Next, get BitCoins and pay for everything with that or with cash only.

    • Schlukitz

      How conveniently Tony forgets that the majority of states had already approved marriage equality before the SCOTUS ruled in favor of it.

      • Reality.Bites

        Well no, they hadn’t. Circuit courts covering the majority of states had ruled and most of them appealed to the Supreme Court. It was only the final round (where the Circuit Court had ruled against marriage) that ended up going there, but we certainly couldn’t pretend that Texas and Kentucky had approved it.

      • Guest

        Wrong. It was not until the prop 8 wording that the district could saw where the supreme Court was and we started winning state after state.

    • David Walker

      Anything for Jim Bakker’s barrels of bilge?

  • Greg B.
  • zhera
  • StillALiberal

    A paid for by Perkins push-poll with a loaded question agrees with Tony Perkins – What a shock ! Every well-known pollster who asks the question in a neutral way has shown constant and steady uptick in support over the last twenty years. Support has risen in every generation (defined by birth years) and the generational divide on this issue makes it even harder for Perkkkins to reverse the long term trend with each passing year. Dream On Tony!

    • Dubito et cogitare

      You’ve got that right. In May 2016, Gallup has marriage at 61% for and 37% against. Tony’s source produces whatever numbers bigots pay for:

      Chris Wilson CEO, Wilson Perkins Allen Research

      Former Director of Research, Analytics and Digital Strategy, 2016 Ted Cruz Presidential Campaign

      Chris Wilson is CEO of Wilson Perkins Allen Research (WPA), a research firm specializing in impacting behavior by integrating innovative predictive
      analytics with advanced statistical and communications modeling.

      • David Walker

        Well, he certainly did wonders for Crud.

      • StillALiberal

        Also, any pollster that asks questions in the format of do you agree with the following statement “Blah Blah Blah” is a red flag to me of a pollster just wishing to please their client and not getting an accurate result. UK Polling Report addresses this question here ..
        http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4741

    • TimCA

      You’re absolutely right. Polling is in our favor. But polling data will be dismissively rejected with some “look how the polls were so off in predicting Trump’s victory” rebuttal. The American people’s view on this topic will not be a serious factor as Christianist theocrats are appointed to the courts. We are after all a small minority of the populace. I’m afraid our rights and the discussion of them will be largely disregarded especially in the context of a President and those around him who are almost contemptuous of the rule of law and even democratic norms as have long been practiced in this country. Opinion polls don’t control judicial rulings. They certainly won’t matter to a right wing judiciary once it’s firmly in place.

      • StillALiberal

        The reason I made my original post was to call out Tony Perkins’ BS claim that he had majority support for his views. I am not expecting it to have any effect on rightist judges though. Maybe, it will have some effect on a handful GOP Senators in blue-leaning/purple states that there is a limit to how much anti-LGBT crap you can get away with these days but I’m not too confident about that.

  • sfjohn

    BRING It Tony boy!!!

  • BlueberriesForMe

    Tonette, I expect you will resume your KKK work any day now (if you already haven’t). We think you should be using your Lard-given talents in the best way possible. Have Mrs. Tonette start ironing those nice white sheets again.

  • The Professor

    Best check that out with Peter Theil, Tony. He’s in the transition team and he pulled PayPal out of NC over HB2. Who will Trump listen to – a fellow billionaire, or an unpopular leader of a hate group?

    • johncAtl

      Actually Thiel’s involvement with PayPal ended in 2002 when the company was sold to eBay.

      • The Professor

        No influence there?

        • johncAtl

          No, it looks like he took the money and left. And he would probably have opposed pulling out of NC. He supported Trump, and has spoken at right wing meetings. He’s no friend of the gay community.

        • johncAtl

          No, he took the money and left the company completely.

          And if he was still involved he’d probably side with the state. He’s no friend to the gay community.

  • Secure

    Tony, do you want the decision returned to the states like Ted Cruz does, or banned altogether with no states getting to decide? How about interracial marriage? The states should decide?

    • Friday

      The only consistency in anti-LGBT Christianism is they’re always as anti-LGBT as possible. Any ‘principles’ they claim are just interchangeable window-dressing.

  • TerryInIowa

    Tony Perkins and Bryan Brown see a chance to get some donations, which they haven’t been able to do for a while. They are saying things that will resonate with their followers. They are giving them “hope” in exchange for cold, hard, cash. They’re blowing hot air.

  • BearEyes

    don the con is a very skilled flim-flam artist who knows how to lie to his mark and make the mark feel like he’s being spoken to.

  • joe ho

    They’re baaaaaaack!

    Ain’t gonna be pretty.

    • fuow

      No, it is not. Voter turnout was awful – and a lot of gay men stayed home or went third party.
      This danger to us was predicted, explained and clear. Now, instead of a moderately conservative Democrat, we have Trump and Pence.

      • Ninja0980

        But hey, they showed that corrupt war criminal Hillary eh?

  • Oikos

    I will not go quietly into that bad night.

    • GayOldLady

      No we will not. The closet is bolted shut and I’d rather be dead than to live what’s left of my life in fear. I have no fear of them whatsoever.

  • John Ruff

    Domestic terrorism.

  • Secure

    Gays serve in our Armed Forces, Tony. I’m guessing you want them all kicked out or kicked back into the closet?

    You’re a dinosaur Tony.

  • Natty Enquirer

    Overturning Obergefell on some flimsy pretense will unleash a violent rebellion against the Court and the government. That’s my prediction.

    • Secure

      A thrice-married President ending marriages across the country? Yes it would.

  • Sam_Handwich
  • GayOldLady

    Tony….You have some nerve using this victory by a small handed, orange shitgibbon to threaten us
    in the name of Jesus Christ proving once again you’re an imposter a hypocrite and a fool. KNOW THIS, we have been standing against your assaults, threats, intimidation for our entire lives. We DO NOT fear you or your allies. We will survive anything you can throw at us because there’s nothing you can throw at us that we haven’t already witnessed and experienced. You and other Evangelicals have finally dropped all pretense of being followers of Jesus, and exposed yourselves for who and what your are. Bitter, vengeful, petty, sick, pathetic white nationalists heteros who hate anything, everything and everyone who doesn’t look like you, pray like you, love like you and believe like you. We will never bend to your will. We may be a minority, but we’re steeled to whatever you think you do to us. Bring it!

    • Mihangel apYrs

      no, don’t hold back!! πŸ™‚

      Western society is moving on, and we have many, many, more allies than we used to have – young people don’t even bat an eyelid anymore to have gay family, friends, colleagues: time is passing Perkins and BriBri by, and the generations that hate are slowly dying off.

      I know it sucks, but it is socially better than it was when you or I were starting out on our gay pilgrimage through life.

  • canoebum

    “β€œGovernment should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage…” You can stop right there Tony. This issue is settled. Do you really think people are going to care about this while the Feds are trying privatize Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher program? Get real.

  • Friday

    Still in his alternate reality, this Perkins, I see.

    • David Walker

      It’s a living.

  • joe ho

    Once Trump gets his court, a GOP state legislature will pass an unconstitutional bill outlawing ssm. That will go to the new SCOTUS, which will side with the state, and boom! That’s the end of marriage equality.

    • so what happens to all the legal marriages? poof, dissolved?

      • Tiger Quinn

        No. It’s far more complicated, but the states that voted for it will at least retain it. Otherwise they’d need a Costitituional amendment, and that aint happening.

      • Vista-Cruiser

        Void ab iniitio.

  • lattebud

    So we should make decisions based on polls, not constitutionality??? Only 19% of Americans believe abortions should be illegal in all situations. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2355ebcbf5ea66938216f8f51b716b4f5993cd86c67d90f02ce4aee03193819.png

    • lattebud
      • Herald

        Of course he did, facts and truth are very inconvenient to lying perkkkins.

      • StillALiberal

        Both graphs on abortion over 40 years and SSM over 20 years show the argument that Obergefell is Roe vs Wade 2.0 is completely false, at least as far as public opinion is concerned.

    • GayOldLady

      Women are already scheduling appointments with their OB/GYN for more permanent birth control methods because they know they’ll soon lose their contraception coverage in their Health Insurance. That coverage of contraception was mandated through the ACA/Obamacare.

      • lattebud

        Even though the Republicans rant about allowing states to be incubators of innovative ideas and Colorado has shown how providing no-cost, long-term birth control to teens and low-income women reduces pregnancy rates (40% in teens), they completely ignore the facts.

        • GayOldLady

          These are people who believe that sky daddy is in control, they’re immune to facts.

  • joe ho

    Remember the nightmare when Reagan made Falwell a welcome visitor at the WH, legitimizing the religious right in a way it hadn’t been before? Trump’s governing team is actually being stacked with vicious anti-gay bigots every bit as bad Falwell.

  • joe ho

    Jeremy Hooper is going to have to come out of retirement.

    • Ninja0980

      Read his twitter feed and he is basically done.
      I can’t blame him, the amount of hate he had to research and deal with would be more then most of us can bear.

    • Actually, he’s started posting again, sporadically, over the past month.

  • Gigi

    In Canada, when the Talibangelists tried to overturn the same-sex marriage law, our conservative prime minister told them that it was a settled issue. There were more important things to deal with. Is it too much to hope that Trump will follow suit?

    • kevin vincent

      I seriously doubt Trump has any interest in overturning Obergfell gains him nothing

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        No, but President Pence will; and let’s not kid ourselves, we all know who the real president will be and it isn’t Trump.

      • Gigi

        Trump might not but Pence would see it as a badge of honor.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      Yes

  • Ginger Snap

    I do things to myself sometimes remembering the pain makes me stronger. I want into “those” drawers that contain “those” things that make me sad, angry and sometimes happy. “Those” drawers are full of news clippings of our movement, friends obituaries that said “sudden illness” not AIDS. There are pictures of good and bad times from our movement, t-shirts, buttons and pride moments from marches and the March in 1993 when the tide changed. There are books on the shelves above “those” drawers that document mine and our community’s history, pride and accomplishments. I went into “those”drawers yesterday and cried with a bottle of wine and touched everything in “those” drawers I needed to find and feel my strength again. I will never again be one of “those” people, statistic or ignored ever again.

    Tony, you are wrong, you will lose and there will not be one of “those” drawers for you because you will be forgotten.

    Colin Richard
    AKA Miss Ginger Snap

  • Racist closet case says what..? Antoinette Perkins better be careful, God might take out his house again with another flood…

  • joe ho

    Bill Moyers says it’s probably all over. Trump and his white nationalism are virtually bulletproof. The media has delegitimized itself and will be of no use in combatting him and the post-truth era he has ushered in. Be afraid.

    http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/#.WCcHI9SmN9S.facebook

    • KnownDonorDad

      Be vigilant, absolutely; get out and support candidates in the midterms, no question; but lose hope, never.

  • Dramphooey

    I do not believe a poll that actually has his fool name in it.

  • Ernest Endevor

    Christian conservatives and evangelicals have covered themselves with shame with their support of this amoral monster. They have disgraced themselves and the faith they profess.

    • Skeptical_Inquirer

      If only worshipers got a clue what trash their leaders are. To be sure some are recognizing it, but as long as they tithe, it makes no difference. To really show they give a shit, they need to both stop attending and tithing plus speak out what garbage this is.

  • a few points. has the SC ever took away rights that it had previously granted?
    2nd, lets say it is reversed. what do you do with the millions of people who have married because of it? are the marriages just dissolved? are they still married? can they get divorced (and remember, you can’t grant a divorce to something you don’t recognize)? the legal problems alone would be numerous and far reaching.
    so….
    good luck with all that, fucking tool.

    • Just one comment: the way our system is set up, the government and the courts, strictly speaking, do not “grant” rights: they recognize them, since our founding documents — the Declaration of Independence, in particular — state unequivocally that rights are innate. That’s the basis of the legal principle that fundamental rights are not subject to popular vote, which is the big hole in Perkins’ (and Brian Brown’s) arguments about the “will of the people” — “the people” don’t get to vote on my marriage.

      And for anyone who’s read the opinion, the Court’s decision in Obergefell is firmly anchored in the 14th Amendment.

      • KnownDonorDad

        Activist Constitution! /s

    • KnownDonorDad

      Not only, to my knowledge, has SCOTUS never rescinded rights previously granted (not to mention it’s a big test of stare decisis), I believe the extension of marriage rights to gays and lesbians at the ballot (Maine, Maryland, Washington) was the first time (followed by Ireland) that a state or country voted in rights for a minority. There could be shenanigans with FADA, but it wouldn’t take away marriage rights.

  • karen in kalifornia

    Frig Tony and all the other Christofascists.

  • Ninja0980

    Fuck you Tony.
    No way in hell will I go back to being a second class citizen without a fight.

    • Zachary Adams

      Absolutely! And I firmly believe we now have a LOT more straight allies and I won’t hesitate to stir them up!

  • Matt

    I have a feeling this was a poll of Faux News viewers or similar. Several states passed voter approved marriage equality two years ago, with a couple more before that. The tide has been turning and will continue to do so, no matter what people like PerKKKins say or do. We will outlast you and phony religion and fake outrage. We were here before you and will be here LONG after you’re gone. Bastard.

  • Tom G

    Trump lost the popular vote. Clearly there’s no mandate. I’m guessing he’s gonna have enough to worry about before Obergefell. Oh, and fuck you Tony, you over wordy asshat.

  • Tom G

    I just don’t think the money is there. People are not going to be coughing up the millions that will be needed to push this bullshit.

  • David Walker

    Did you ever see the play or the movie “Jeffrey”? Mid-’90s gay comedy/drama about a man scared to have sex because of the plague. There is a scene in which Jeffrey questions god. In a wonderful scene in the movie, Nathan Lane, as a priest, makes a play for Jeffrey. “Do you know how you got your idea of god?” the priest asks. “From this,” as he holds up the OBC album “My Fair Lady.” He points out that god is Bernard Shaw, who is the puppeteer manipulating Higgins who manipulates Liza, through god. So PerKKKins considers himself god, he manipulates The Truly Religious, who then, ideally, manipulate the rest of us. It’s an interesting conceit. Starts at 2:58, although the whole scene is fun.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPoQdVdaT-Y&t=204s

  • Homo Erectus

    Toni, honey – learn some fuckin’ compassion fer chrissakes.

    http://digg.com/video/curmudgeons-danny-devito-short

  • Mark

    If perKKKins and his ilk were “live and let live”, we wouldn’t have to do “eat or be eaten”.

  • Gerry Fisher

    We just spent a decade and a half–longer for hardcore marriage activists–fighting for this. We understand how this works, Tonette. I think your statement is noteworthy for all that is left out (such as us going 4 for 4 the last time this issue made it to statewide ballot measures).

  • Stephen Elliot Phillips

    What i hope will happen. What id like to see happen is a mass exodus of like minded liberal individuals leaving these red states and moving to the tolerant states.
    I feel at this time we need to divide ourselves even more.
    I cannot and will not go back to my birthplace of south carolina, ever.
    I was exiled from there initially with my partner and I have visited my relatives every year. But this will cease.
    My relatives who voted for this evil, and the state that was my home is dead.

    • KnownDonorDad

      My knee-jerk reaction is to suggest people stay and fight, but I have a sort of “birth privilege” – born in a socially progressive state (New Jersey) and educated in blue states.

      • Tiger Quinn

        I used to be that guy – but now I am more of the opinion of fuck this, lets circle up the wagons and protect each other. We can get back gentrifying next election.

    • At first I thought, “Yeah!”, leave those septic pools of shite and move to a more progressive state….. But then I had a think about it and no, that isn’t the way to change things. For far to long the left has fled red states, and look where it brought us to, a country where only the coasts are reliably Democrat supporters. We need to stay, get involved and find candidates that are firebrands and great speakers, and hopefully who have zero ghosts of wrong doing in their backgrounds, and support them.

      It’s time for the DNC to get back to grassroots and put up a candidate in every race, even if they believe there is little to no way for them to win. How many times was a republican voted into an office because there was no democrat to vote for? People do and will vote across party lines if there is someone better, someone voicing their concerns, someone they believe will fight for their rights.

    • LookielouE1707

      Yeah, that’s a terrible idea. Even if you could accomplish complete racial cleansing – and if that idea doesn’t fill you with horror, look to the Indian partition – gay kids would still be born to straight, conservative parents, girls would still make up 50% of red-state births, and the poor, disabled and disenfranchised would still be everywhere. Most oppressed people don’t have the privilege to escape red states.

      The main reason those people receive marginal tolerance in their daily lives is the presence of a critical mass of liberals in their local communities. You’d be damning millions of people to a taliban-like existence because you don’t want to deal with the problem any more. The real solution is exactly the opposite: we should be strategically turning red states blue.

  • Baltimatt

    It took 30 years before a majority of Americans accepted black/white marriage following the decision in Loving v. Virginia. Thirty fucking years after “the Left” imposed this on American voters via the Supreme Court.

    • KnownDonorDad

      Oh to have someone with the negotiating skills of Earl Warren instead of a partisan like John Roberts. Loving was a 9-0 decision. Obergefell should have been.

  • If Trump SCOTUS nominees provide the balance for overturning Obergefell, it will be won’t be worth it to tell every fucking LGBT person who voted for him “I told you so.” I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve had with gay people who voted for him who’ve said I’m being unrealistic and he won’t do that. What makes me think he’ll do it? He SAID he would and he LISTED NAMES of judges who’ve flat out said they would. Now, maybe he was lying. But who’s engaging in wishful thinking, the one who’s listening to Trump and taking him at his word, or the one who’s imagining he’ll do the complete opposite of what he’s said he’ll do?

    • Tiger Quinn

      One: step away from these people. Get them out of your life. Two: our rights are granted at the state level. Many have already said they will never let that change. Three: she won the popular vote by half a million. There are, on the worst day, still more of us than them. Don’t give up.

  • RLK2

    Who the hell is Wilson Perkins Survey? Let’s question his statistics because they are most likely BS.

    • KnownDonorDad

      I’m surprised it’s not the Brown-Perkins-Staver Survery.

  • RLK2

    Hey Perkins, HRC won the POPULAR vote and voter suppression in key states won you the illegitimate presidency. STFU!

  • KnownDonorDad

    Read it and weep, Tony, you theofascist. Your support is literally dying off, and even the older generation is coming around.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/439a36681948fa9e7fca2c63668fa15d072050e4dbdec1a51cb696ece159aa2e.png

  • KnownDonorDad

    When I read such fundamentalist nonsense, I’m reminded – as a straight ally – of this:

    And though it’s not usual for me to be able to speak for the majority, I think I can say that, Ayaan, there isn’t anyone in this room who would’t very proudly stand between you and anyone who wished you harm.

    Christopher Hitchens to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Atheist Alliance International conference 2007

  • lukefromcanada

    its pathetic that every 4 years this is something that has to be a worry again. Rights are NOT something that can be given and taken away on a whim or how you feel that day. “Oh you can get married but only Mondays 1-3 am and every other Wednesday between 10 and 2.”

  • JCF

    Nope.

    Fuck off, PerKKKins.

  • Tiger Quinn

    I never really cared if it was a popularity contest. I wanted my rights. I got my rights. If literally every other person on the planet hated it, I still wouldn’t care.

    • Jack

      He can pretty much make the same case for interracial marriages and integration of just about everything. The percents may be different, but there’s far from universal agreement and who cares?

      • david fairfield

        14th.

        • Jack

          ??

          • david fairfield

            amendment.

          • Jack

            Help me connect the dots. Maybe then I can see your argument. OK?

  • Scott MB

    This is completely out of left field here. I guess he doesn’t understand how SCOTUS works when it comes to rehearing and overturning a previous ruling. Whether it is Roe v Wade or marriage equality, they need a case that is completely different with different arguments, evidence and case law showing that SCOTIS made the wrong decision the first time. So they would have to find a case that is completely unlike Oberegfell v Hodges, that they can argue completely different evidence under completely different case law. This extremely unlikely to happen. It is not like they can just take any new case all the way to SCOTUS and argue the same things they already have. Same goes for Roe v Wade.

    They are just trying to keep the coffers full and play the activist judge martyr. The sheeple will fall for it, but the money is drying up and will be gone eventually. This why they have moved overseas to bilk others out of their money.

  • lukefromcanada

    this from the same man who was convinced that the issues with prop 8 wouldn’t go away for years. Once he said that the stay was lifted quite quickly

  • TimJ

    What a weird fucked up person is Perkins and his ilk, taking delight in denying happiness to others.

    • Rocco

      It’s a result of his internal fight. He can’t let others have, what he himself can’t ( let himself )have. Either that, or his wiglet glue vapors are slowly making him more demented.

  • StraightGrandmother

    I’m still shaken up, but I am getting my fight back on. I’m not 100% but today for the first time since election night I woke up without a stomach ache and most of the day I was okay until just a little while ago, now my stomach is again clenched.

    I think what it must be is, I am not gay, I only started this fight at the start of the Prop 8 Trial. In fact I was not even aware of Proposition 8 being on the California Ballot. So almost all of my experience (yes we lost North Carolina’s Constitutional Amendment) have been fight that have been won. Pushing Obama to sign the executive order saying no contractors to the US Government may discrimination based on SOGI. I was here for DADT repeal, I was here for New York Passing gay marriage, so most, all most all of it actually, has been working on the winning side. Remember Hawaii? God I watched the ENTIRE, was it 4 days of public comments, and Rhode Island, remember that one? But most of my work with you, we have WON, I have not lived the life you have, I have not experienced your years over years worth of losses and deaths, and so this devastating loss called a Trump Presidency, it is an emotional upheaval to me.

    I see everything I joined you in and worked for, I can see it slipping away. You know what, I would NOT be surprised IF Trump nominated Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court, all of the right wing Christian groups LOVE Ted Cruz.

    I just cannot believe this, ALL THREE BRANCHES of Government are literally in our enemies hands. They own it lock, stock and barrel. I am deeply deeply afraid. Even if say Trump gets impeached, why then there is the viciously anti gay Pense who takes over. There is no hope in sight, in 2 years every seat in the House of Representatives is up for election, however they will literally run the tables in these next two years.

    The only thing that might work is civil unrest, and the only bright spot there is many other orgs and maligned people will join in. I’m getting my fight back, on, it is coming back to me.

    • VinceFoster_4VP

      It does not matter, gay marriage will be gone and prop 8 will be back enforce

      • Jack

        No such thing as gay marriage.

      • david fairfield

        Prop 8 is no longer on the books, try fact checking before you make ignorant remarks. And take an English lesson while you’re at it.

      • Rocco

        YOU will be gone before ssm is (ever) overturned, you ugly little troll. Odd that you are so (publicly) against it, since it is secretly what you want for yourself. πŸ™

    • Rocco

      God bless you.

  • Rick Hammond

    I can’t wait for the next gun show in my area. I will not be intimidated and if I end up in prison for it, no harm no foul. I kinda like being a bottom.

  • Jack

    What’s his point? Are they repealing the Constitution?

    • VinceFoster_4VP

      Dont see marriage in the constitution

      • Jack

        That’s original.

        • VinceFoster_4VP

          Thats a fact

          • Jack

            Can’t argue with that. But it’s irrelevant, since the Constitution does not contain a list of all rights.

      • Rt1583

        Have you never seen the 14th Amendment in the Constitution or is it that you’ve not got the ability to understand it?

      • Rocco

        You lost doofus, move on. 1967 was a long time ago. Are you here looking for a date?

  • The_Wretched

    Unless a RWNJ SCOTUS reaches out to an issue not before it (which wouldn’t be proper), it’s hard to see how they get standing to relitigate Obergefell.

    • VinceFoster_4VP

      You better want to rethink that homo

      • Jack

        Hard to argue with that forceful argument.

      • Rocco

        Your dad is a homo. Bitter much?

      • The_Wretched

        bye bye

  • VinceFoster_4VP

    Its comming if you like it or not

    • Jack

      Nah.

    • NO MORE GOP!

      In your fascist dreams, dear.

    • Rocco

      You are not very smart, and very non-observant. Shouldn’t you be down at the park right about now? It’s your shift as the mouth on duty.

  • olandp

    Isn’t it odd, people who believe a marriage is one man and one woman elected one man with three wives and countless concubines, willing and unwilling. Values Voters my ass.

  • Louis E.

    As with Dred Scott vs. Sandford,the SCOTUS declared that an absolutely hateful form of human interaction was constitutionally protected and those seeking to banish it had no standing.It took a civil war and three constitutional amendments to erase Dred Scott…I hope the absolutely necessary obliteration of Obergefell from our jurisprudence can be accomplished peacefully.

    • VinceFoster_4VP

      Its adios, nov 8th was us saying we dont agree with your perverted way of life

      • Rocco

        Your hatred is a perversion of Christianity. The American public has caught on. Bye Felixia.

    • Rt1583

      Why is its obliteration absolutely necessary?

      What harm is coming to you because of it? Is anyone forcing you to marry a person of the same sex?

      If you try to argue the “sanctity of marriage” bullshit what of all the true Christians who get divorced or cheat on their spouses? How do they not chip away at the sanctity of marriage?

      Provide a logical, legal, reason why same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed and you may have a fighting chance. As it is, you nor anyone else of your kind, has been able to do this. The best you can hope for is that the government of the United States attempts to become a theocracy and at that point you will get the civil war you want.

      • Louis E.

        I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue.

        That our species is sexually dimorphic determines opposite-sex sexual activity to be the only kind for which there can be a rational basis,all failures to adhere to this norm to be deplorable,and the ideal social fabric to include only opposite-sex sexual relationships.Any same-sex sexual bond that occurs is an error to be mended.We are ALL harmed by the social fabric having flaws.

        Divorce weeds out weak marriages,with care it strengthens the institution…but as the existence of civil marriage serves human society solely as a means of implementing the necessary guarantee of preferential treatment to opposite-sex bonds to which their being opposite-sex (whether or not they are reproductive) entitles them,to include even one same-sex couple turns it from something that makes society better (by favoring right over wrong) into something that makes society worse(by treating wrong as no worse than right).

        • Rt1583

          So you rationalize divorce as good for society. How so? How are broken families good for society? How is having children bounce from one house to another good for the society which they will grow into?

          You haven’t even shown how same sex couples is bad for society. All you’ve done is make a statement based upon your personal feelings.

          The only way in which same sex couples or same sex marriage is detrimental to society is through the function of them not being allowed to be a full part of the fabric of society. By your (and those like you) actions you are responsible for tearing the fabric of society.

          I wonder how many other individuals that make up the fabric of society you’d like to see obliterated simply because you don’t agree with their existence or believe they should be allowed to exist.

          • Louis E.

            What a mass exhibition of misunderstanding!(Typical of same-sex-marriage supporters).
            It’s not that broken families are good for societies,it’s that people who hate each other staying together because they’re not allowed to split up are not good for society.The children are better off with one at a time than caught in crossfire.
            I have told you that the species having two sexes automatically defines having no same-sex coupling as a feature of a perfect society.When there’s bad stitching in the fabric,unravel and re-weave,save the threads but take them out of the bad places.
            Obliterating the protection of misbehavior is not obliterating individuals,it is is helping them out of situations in which they have wrongly found themselves and need to abandon.The people should be allowed to exist,their misbehavior shouldn’t.Are you saying that laws against stealing advocate genocide against kleptomaniacs?…that drunk-driving laws are motivated by hate or bigotry against alcoholics?
            Stop pretending “stop doing that” means “I hate you”.

          • Rt1583

            You’ve still not shown or proved how same sex couples and marriage are detrimental to society or you specifically.
            You want to talk about the two sexes of a species and the “natural” aspect of it, take time to learn about natural and that there are, in fact, same sex pairings in nature.
            Wrong situations? By whose definition? Yours?
            Are you saying that any behavior you take part in that I deem to be a “wrong situation” gives me the right to disallow you performing that behavior?
            I take “stop doing that” as “I hate you” simply because there is no other way around it. All that you have posted in this thread is nothing more than your opinion which isn’t even based in any kind of actual knowledge. You simply don’t like same sex couples and marriage so you want to do away with it.
            That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion but at least be adult enough to own the fact that you’ve got no basis for your opinion other than dislike or hate.

          • Louis E.

            Actually,there’s no basis for your opinion that there’s no basis for my opinion other than dislike or hate.It just makes you feel better if you can write me off as “hating” rather than being forced to examine the insufficient justifications for the behaviors that I rightly condemn.

            NATURE IS NOT PERFECT…I never said it was…there are all sorts of flaws in nature and if you show me a same-sex pairing,that proves you’ve found one of them.There are also species that eat their young…does that make this behavior suitable for humans as well?
            If a species has two sexes,THEREFORE its IDEAL social fabric has ONLY opposite-sex pairings,it does not relieve us of our obligation to strive TOWARD that ideal that it has yet to be achieved.

            Anything you cite as an attempt to excuse same-sex coupling is not based on rationality,but on defense of desire that can never be sufficient to justify anything.

          • Rt1583

            Just the same as all you cite not being based on any rationality as you, yourself, have noted that nature is not perfect. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years why do you believe yourself and your opinion to be so special that what you believe should be forced upon a society which has always been diverse and included same sex couples?

            You say divorce doesn’t tear the fabric of society but makes it stronger but you and yours always make the argument that a child needs both a mother and a father. Seems to me that a broken home denies a child this opportunity so divorce does, in fact, tear the fabric of society.

            Please do explain how you rationalize divorce strengthening the fabric of society while same sex couples tear it.

            Here’s your list.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

            I’m interesting in see how you’re going to attempt to explain them away.

          • Louis E.

            Only in recent years has the absolute insanity that the same-sex couple is of no lesser importance to society than the opposite-sex couple fooled any significant number of people.
            Again,show me an instance of same-sex behavior in nature,and you’ve shown me a flaw in nature.
            As reasoning species,we have a responsibility to recognize any desire for such behavior as disordered and the sexually dimorphic nature of our species as placing this beyond reasonable doubt.
            Only sound relationships should exist…unsound ones should be ended,and being same-sex automatically classifies a sexual relationship as needing to be ended.

          • Rt1583

            Who is the grand arbiter of what constitutes a sound relationship? You?

            By what authority are you demanding same sex relationships to be ended? You’ve done nothing to show or prove they need to be ended. You’ve only stated your opinion on how you’d like society to be built.

            Provide a reason, other than you don’t like them, for why same sex relationships and marriages should be ended.

          • Louis E.

            As I said (without anyone’s opinion having the slightest say in the matter) the fact that the species has 2 sexes means that only opposite-sex sexual relationships can possibly be logically justified.
            They are the only kind for which there is a public need (a matter to which private desire is irrelevant) and thus the only kind for which legal protection can be justified.
            You have no defense for them,other than that you like them and think incorrectly that people wanting to be in them is enough to justify them.

          • McSwagg

            Wow, you claim that no one’s opinion has a say in the matter then proceed to enshrine YOUR opinion as the only one that matters. What arrogance, but then you are actually arguing from religious dogma which has always been nothing but arrogant.

          • Louis E.

            What we believe does not shape reality,and that a species has two sexes determines that only opposite-sex sexual activity can be logically justifiable.

          • McSwagg

            Reality is what occurs in nature. Nature is diverse. You are the one that wants to mold reality to your beliefs and convoluted logic.

          • Louis E.

            Nature’s diversity is embodied by its including good and bad…and that is reality.You want to leave logic out of analysis and just say “whatever”.

          • McSwagg

            No. I simply refuse to employ Bronze Aged religious bigotry to nature. The only logic inherent in nature is survival.

          • Louis E.

            That is moral nihilism…reason obligates us to rise above it.

          • McSwagg

            Reason? More like superstition.

          • McSwagg

            Nature’s logic is based on survival of the individual. Anything about good or evil is a judgement added by you based on the mythology of your beliefs. You cannot prove any of your assertions. It’s all about judgement of others with you.

          • Louis E.

            The law of the jungle is not the highest reality but the lowest.Logic far surpasses the material.

          • McSwagg

            You don’t argue from logic; you argue from religious dogma. Further, no one has ever been able to prove the existence of a deity or “greater power” so, as far as I’m concerned, it’s all mythological superstition.

          • Louis E.

            That anything at all exists can only be because of an Infinitely First Cause.The dearth of details about the IFC and the lack of credibility of any claims to represent the IFC notwithstanding,outright atheism is as ridiculous as religion.

          • McSwagg

            I never claimed to be an atheist. I simply claim that I have never seen anything to convince me of any kind of deity, regardless of what you want to call it. Show me unbiased, scientific proof and I will consider changing my views. At least science admits that it doesn’t know everything. You, not so much.

          • McSwagg

            With each post, you reveal more clearly the religious dogma that is the source of your argument. ‘Sin’ becomes ‘misbehaviors’ and ‘flaws’, but you simply cannot disguise your desire to judge anyone and anything that refuses to conform to your extremely narrow IDEAL view of life. Your philosophy is based in a manufactured religious ‘belief’ rather than in the actual diversity found in nature.

          • Louis E.

            With each post,you become more pathetically desperate to write off any disagreement with your absurd position as religious in nature.To bow down before the artificial god “diversity” in order to hide from the necessary existence of moral absolutes that owe nothing to what any of us believe is a complete abdication of reason.

          • McSwagg

            Ah, ‘moral absolutes’. Yet another slip that reveals the religious basis of your argument. I do not worship ‘diversity’. I simply observe ‘diversity’ in nature and acknowledge its existence with no judgement as to whether it is ‘morally’ good or not. You are the one that is basing your entire argument on ‘belief’ as you freely admit in your final sentence.

          • Louis E.

            You want to believe there can be no moral absolutes without religion…in fact they are all the stronger by not being adulterated with religion.Your failure to meet the obligation to favor right over wrong does not free you of it.And it amounts to treating diversity as above criticism.

          • McSwagg

            You are the one that continues to argue from the religious perspective of “moral absolutes”. You have no idea what I consider right or wrong because I have not stated my stance. Anything you have assumed about my stance is simple projection on your part. My single consistent point here has been to call out your deception that your argument isn’t based on religion. I simply refuse to be sucked into your arrogant judgement of others as right or wrong.

          • Louis E.

            You are desperate to evade the necessity of right and wrong,independent of any belief or religion.
            You pretend with no basis in fact that religion informs my judgement.You are constantly dismissing as wrong things that are right,and proclaiming as right things that are wrong…you are the one engaging in deception if you claim not to have stated what you believe to be right or wrong.
            Moral absolutes are an intrinsic necessity of secular logic.

          • McSwagg

            You continue to post catholic dogma and top it off with a claim that it is rational. Your concept of the IDEAL is a man-made concept which you admit is not based in nature, though what you call “flaws” in nature, I rightly call variations in nature. You cling to a very narrow view that nature itself does not support.

          • Louis E.

            What I rightly call flaws,you evasively label “variations”.Rationality is entirely on my side.
            If there were no ideals independent of individual belief,all existence could have no purpose or justification.

          • McSwagg

            Listen, I was raised as a catholic and am quite familiar with the dogma, so I easily recognize it even in the bastardized for you present. By calling something a ‘flaw’, you are inherently making a judgement. I use the term ‘variation’ as a scientifically neutral description. Once again, your choice of words reveals your biases.

          • Louis E.

            Telling right from wrong is an obligation,not a “bias”.Treating them as equal is inexcusable.
            It appears that in rejecting your upbringing as a whole you throw the issues where the dogmatists were lucky enough to be right on the trash heap with all the multitudes on which they were wrong.

          • McSwagg

            I throw nothing on the trash heap. That is simply your projections. What I reject is narrow, moralistic thinking that is more interested in condemning people for some imagined ‘sin’ so that they can then be controlled and fleeced. With each post, you further reveal the religious basis of your arguments. You thought no one would call you out on your deceit because you thought you were so clever in covering your true agenda. I guess you are not as clever as you thought.

          • Louis E.

            I’m interested in condemning behaviors,not people.
            Your totally delusional fixation that there is a religious basis to my position is,again,irrelevant.
            I never take part in religious ceremonies of any kind or regard any “scriptures” as entitled to the regard placed in them by their respective believers.

          • McSwagg

            Your claim to condemn behaviors, not people is the disingenuous claim of all dogmatic religionists. You cannot condemn behaviors without condemning people because the two are intimately linked. You claim no connection to religious practices, yet you parrot catholic dogma point by point in a way that is statistically improbable unless you were well versed in its content. You are a fraud.

          • Louis E.

            You want to pretend that richly deserved attacks on indefensible behaviors are somehow attacks on those prone to the mistaken choice of engaging in those behaviors,rather than helpful to those persons…because if you can misrepresent the efforts to correct the misbehavior you enable getting away with it.

            The fact is,treating people as incapable of correcting their behavior is classic bigotry,however loudly the people who do it claim that those saying the people CAN correct their behavior are the bigots.To a bigot,Jews are by nature usurers,Irish by nature drunkards,Gypsies by nature thieves,and so on.”Those people can’t help doing that.” I am the one insisting that homosexuals DO have the mental capacity to admit that same-sex sex acts are automatically indefensible and resist any tendency toward that error…you are insisting they are the helpless slaves of that tendency.Telling homosexuals that same-sex sex is OK is like telling alcoholics that getting drunk at will is OK…the first thing they want to hear,but the last thing they need to hear.If you really care for them as people you must never stop telling them to stop doing what they wrongly want to do,no matter how bitterly they resent it or accuse you of hating them.The day you cave in is the day you write them off,even if you tell yourself it’s “accepting them as who they are”.

            You want to believe that anyone who agrees with Catholics on anything is 1)a Catholic and 2)wrong.
            I am neither,painful as this may be to you to admit…this issue is one on which those who disagree with them are wrong,wrong as they are on many other issues.
            You want to live in a world where no one agrees with them on anything?

          • McSwagg

            First, I called your arguments christain and derived from catholic dogma. How you characterize yourself is up to you. Secondly, my point is that you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others regardless of whether I see them as right or wrong. Your beliefs are wrong in my opinion. Your beliefs are right in your opinion. Neither of us has the right to impose our beliefs on the other under the framework or our civil government. I’m simply calling you out on your attempt to negate the constitutional rights held by me and many others. Your rights are not pre-eminent.

            That you devolve into a screed accusing me of stereotyped bigotry against all manner of people says a lot about you and actually nothing about me since I never made those arguments. But, hey, you’ve done nothing but attempt to project your biases onto me in order to slander me throughout this thread, simply because I call you out on the inappropriate application of your religious biases to a civil matter where we all have the constitutional right to follow our own consciences.

            The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America protects my right to live my life according to my own conscience. You come on here insisting that your equal right to live your life according to your conscience somehow outweighs my right and that your conscience should instead be imposed on all others. Your stance is constitutionally indefensible and your side will lose on those grounds every time. Why is it that the religious conservatives always think they are morally superior? Is it because you can only feel good about yourself if you can look down on others in self righteous judgement? Obviously, I’ve hit a nerve with you.

          • Louis E.

            The Constitution,properly interpreted,supports me…the ascendant misinterpretations abound with unreason.Getting a marriage license with a same-sex partner is not a matter of conscience,it’s a false entitlement that defies the general welfare.
            Don’t look to me about anything relating to religious conservatives…not only have I never belonged to any religion,I am a lifelong Democrat,favor strict gun control,expanded national health insurance,guaranteed availability of abortion to women who desire it,entrenched abolition of capital punishment.

          • McSwagg

            Go back to school. You clearly have no clue about how our Constitution works in a secular society. Your tropes about gun control, health care, etc are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about Marriage Equality and only Marriage Equality. We probably even agree on many of those other issues if I take you at your word regarding your stances. That does not negate the fact that your stance on Marriage Equality is based entirely on religious dogma, your beliefs if you will. The First Amendment guarantees me the right to follow my own conscience without intrusion by you or anyone else. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees me the right to be treated equally to every other person in this society, not just where you are personally willing to “grant” me equality. Either we all have the same rights or we don’t live in a secular democracy. I don’t have to agree with your choices and you don’t have to agree with mine. Neither of us has the right to impose our personal beliefs about “good and bad” on the other. In our society, we outlaw murder, rape, theft, and many other things because they all deprive the victim of some right or another. Marriage Equality imposes no harm to you or anyone else. If you oppose same sex marriage, don’t enter into one. You are the only one demanding the false entitlement of being able to impose your beliefs on everyone else. You go live your life and I will live mine and we will likely never meet face to face, thus my life will have absolutely no impact on yours nor yours on mine.

            With that, I am done arguing with the brick wall that you seem to be. I will never concede to you or anyone else inappropriate authority over my life or those I care about. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it tends toward justice.”

            ~Live in Peace

          • Louis E.

            And justice prohibits the absolute outrage only its supporters dub “marriage equality”.
            Unless a relationship joins male to female it does not benefit society in the manner that justifies society recognizing it as a marriage,as it is the joining of male to female that creates that benefit (with or without reproductive intent or capacity).
            We all have the same rights,and NO ONE can justly have the right to call a same-sex relationship a marriage.
            The perpetrators of any same-sex sexual relationship are harming each other and anyone else who is exposed to the fact of the relationship,with claim not to be harmed being both symptom and proof of the harm caused.
            At least you concede that beliefs can be other than religious dogma!

          • McSwagg

            There is absolutely no logic to the rant you just typed. I’m blocking you because you refuse to engage in honest debate without resorting to lies and unjustified bigotry. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

          • Louis E.

            Your assertion that my position is “unjustified bigotry” remains unjustified.

          • McSwagg

            Relabeling your concept of ‘sin’ as misbehavior fools no one. Take your catholic dogma and leave. We are discussing the right to Civil Marriage, not some religious institution. Who are you to demand that other people must comply with your religiously inspired view of a ‘perfect society’. You are not nearly so clever as you think you are as your christianist dogmatic roots are clearly visible.

          • Louis E.

            I have no interest in religious marriage,I could never enter into one in good conscience as it would involve affirming things I do not believe.CIVIL marriage ONLY serves human society to the extent that it implements the guarantee of preferential treatment for opposite-sex relationships to which their being opposite-sex entitles them.To treat whether or not the parties are of opposite sexes as a matter of indifference rather than necessity turns it from something that helps social progress into something that prevents it.

            I have never belonged to any religion or regarded any putative “sacred text” as divinely authored.

          • McSwagg

            And yet what you describe in your argument is exactly derived point by point from religious dogma. Your denial of an interest in religious marriage is disingenuous at best and an outright obfuscation in fact. Your insistence that marriage has only one purpose to serve society and that there can never be any purpose related to the two individuals involved is straight out of the religious dogma of the catholic church. Your protestations that you do not believe are simply too transparent to hold up under any honest evaluation. Your parroting of catholic dogma point by point is too closely aligned with church teaching to be a coincidence. Simply put, you are nothing more than a fraud.

          • Louis E.

            I don’t derive anything from religious dogma…I have no religious education to speak of.The Infinitely First Cause does not write books or found official fan clubs for itself.
            I assure you that I would never marry anyone according to the rites of any faith.

            Only if there is reciprocation of benefit is there a justification for the existence of civil marriage.
            The society as a whole must benefit from what it grants the applicants for the marriage license.
            Ask not what your country can do for your relationship,ask what your relationship does for your country…and if the relationship is both same-sex and sexual,the answer is nothing positive.

            Honest evaluation necessarily leads to unconditional adoption of the position I state.
            Your desperate efforts to ascribe a position you are terrified of admitting to be correct to a religion you know to be incorrect as a whole remains completely false and irrelevant.

          • McSwagg

            You continue to attempt to cloak your religious dogma in some vague belief, yet you follow catholic dogma point by point. That you would so closely parrot that dogma without knowing the details of its content is statistically highly unlikely. Honest evaluation in no way supports you position unless you first demonize any dissent as immoral. That is one of the oldest tricks of ‘logic’ of the catholic church. Your deceit is now fully uncovered.

          • Louis E.

            Your delusion is very well seated,but it’s still a delusion.I have never even seen a Catholic catechism.

          • McSwagg

            I see through the religious delusions that you insist on clinging to. Generally someone not familiar with the catholic catechism doesn’t know that is what it is called. Again, you reveal the religious foundation of your argument through the terms you employ.

          • Louis E.

            You simply can’t bear to admit that truth can be arrived at by any means other than one you have rejected.My arguments against homosexuality owe nothing to any religion and never have,that doesn’t mean that religions can’t ever have agreed with me on it.

          • McSwagg

            I only admit to truth that is backed by observation and facts. Anything else is simply wishful thinking.

          • Louis E.

            You only accept the observations that support what you want to be true.

          • McSwagg

            Hah. Please point me toward some unbiased observations that support your view and I will honestly consider them. You can’t because they don’t exist.

          • Louis E.

            You will write the ones that don’t share your bias off as biased.

        • McSwagg

          You claim not to be a religious person and you claim the issue is not religious, then you proceed to paraphrase Catholic dogma as some revealed universal truth. You are fooling no one. We don’t live in a theocracy, let alone a catholic theocracy and therefore catholic dogma has no bearing on the jurisprudence of this country.

          Furthermore, your twisted, convoluted logic about divorce simply reveals you as a weak thinker. The same goes for your insistence that all humanity must, by your fiat, conform to your narrow interpretation of human nature. Your screed is little more than a very thin and threadbare cover for your preconceived biases.

          • Louis E.

            The Catholics happen to be right on this particular issue in the manner of a stopped clock twice a day,but I disagree just as vehemently with them on abortion rights as I agree with them on homosexuality.Their dogmas rest on the alleged foundation of Jesus-as-God,which I unequivocally reject.

            The fact remains that the innate indefensibility of all same-sex sex acts IS a universal truth,and your contriving to prevent it from being “revealed” to you by labelling insistence on the facts “preconceived bias” is irrelevant.

          • McSwagg

            Now you finally admit that you are parroting catholic dogma. So you were being dishonest when you earlier claimed absolutely no knowledge of it. Your insistence of “revealed” “absolute truth” unmasks the religious nature of your argument. That you are dismissive of my First Amendment right to follow my own conscience is quite telling or your values. Based on your own words, you think that you have the right to decide how other people live their lives. How very narcissistic of you.

          • Louis E.

            Again you project your ridiculous contention that “position X agrees with what Catholics say,so the Catholics saying it must be the only reason anyone could possibly assert the truth of position X”.
            (Note that you are treating one of my earlier messages as later than one of my later ones to concoct your “finally admit” blather).

            There are right and wrong ways to live lives,the First Amendment preserves our right to tell (if not force) those making wrong choices to correct them.

          • McSwagg

            The First Amendment only protects your free speech from censorship by the government. I have no obligation to listen to you and the “Free Exercise of Religion” clause gives me the right to ignore and even resist your efforts to impose your beliefs on me. Your rights do not supersede my rights. Nor do mine supersede yours.

            When you paraphrase catholic dogma point by point, even going so far as to use much of their tortured phraseology and terminology, you reveal the source of your arguments. Non-catholics do not use those terms and phrases and generally don’t base their arguments on the same logic as catholics. Nor do non-catholics generally know the term “catechism”. Your source is obvious even if you deny it.

            I’m sorry if the comments have somehow appeared out of order. Disqus has been behaving rather wonky for me lately. However, my consistent point has been that your arguments are based on religious dogma. I have said that repeatedly and consistently, so it really doesn’t matter that one comment is out of order. It doesn’t change my basic point. You’re grasping at straws on that one.

          • Louis E.

            You remain misinformed and incorrect and illogical on virtually everything you say.
            I arrived at my logical conclusions without help from any religion.

  • argeejay

    If PerKKKins thinks I’m afraid of him…..BRING IT ON, BITCH….It’s free season on pussies.

    • VinceFoster_4VP

      Have fun losing, we have the scotus now

      • NO MORE GOP!

        Only if you can get the case there cupcake.

        • Rocco

          Best answer^

      • kat

        Scurry back to your church, Christian loser. Your religion will be dead in the US in 40 years.

      • sandollar_man

        You are misinformed about one of the SCOTUS’s main duties. And that is to act to “form a more perfect union” by bringing disparate laws under the common “federal” jurisdiction. So it acts to force those States that are stragglers on certain issues, to fall in line with the majority of the laws as practiced by the majority of the States.
        It’s what happened when it was being decided if white people could marry black people. 65% of all of the States had already approved that arrangement. But there were the straggler States, that were still stuck in an antebellum racist attitude about it.
        So the Supreme Court acted to “form a more perfect union” as is directed in our Constitution.
        Forming a more perfect union is one of the directives in our Constitution. If we don’t attempt to do that, then we drift farther and farther away from being a union.
        When gay marriage had already been adopted by 74% of the States, the SCOTUS again stepped in to do its job of helping to “..form a more perfect union”, and drag the stragglers, kicking and screaming, back into the union.
        And it’s pretty much the same States who are the holdouts this time, as last time.
        The ones who were part of the Confederacy, and have the most unfortunate racist history.
        In essence, it’s always the backward States, the ones who act the most selfishly, that need the daddy figure to pull them out of their selfish, segregationist mindset.

      • Rt1583

        Hey dumbass. Allow me the opportunity to attempt to force some intelligence into what you consider to be a brain.
        You “had” SCOTUS, 5-4, when Obergefell was decided. What do you think has changed now?

        • Rocco

          Lol. I should have read your response first.

      • Rocco

        You have nothing, except a low IQ. As long as Anthony Kennedy lives (& other current members) you’ve got the status quo. We’ll see who Hair Furor nominates, and who is confirmed by the Senate. Dumbass. Smh.

      • argeejay

        Not yet, cupcake.

  • jonfromcalifornia

    Interracial marriages were more unpopular in America at one time. Again, it was the “good” Christian South that led the way for that. It was the courts that “forced” that change onto the unwilling population.

  • Bessieajimenez

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj78d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !mj78d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash78MediaMobileGetPay$97Hour β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…::::::!mj78d:….,….

  • Rt1583

    “natural marriage”
    When are they going to realize that there is no such thing?

  • BartmanLA

    Constitution or Amendments aside, this issue was decided at SCOTUS, even if they do get another conservative justice confirmed to bring the court to full complement, the likelihood that the court would even hear the case and even consider a reversal of THEIR original opinion and ruling is UNHEARD of. That isn’t what SCOTUS is for, it’s the final and complete judgement of any legal appeal for determination of what is just under the law of the land and the Constitution.Not for “do overs” So I’m not too worried about Marriage Equality, what we should be worrying about is the potential protections put in place by Executive Order being rescinded by Trump as he has claimed he is going to do, especially with Pence joggling his elbow to sign the damn cancellation orders.

    • Terrie_S

      I worry they will erode it as they have Roe v. Wade, but agree that an outright reversal is unlikely. Possible, yes, probable, no. Look how long it took Plessy v. Ferguson to be overruled.

  • Mr. M

    Not when Peter Thiel is giving Trump millions…

  • NancyP

    Who cares what the low-level employees (or unemployed) who voted for Trump think? Management has learned over the past many years that treating gay employees well helps make the firms attractive to the most talented high-skills / creative heterosexual job candidates as well. Companies that treat gays well do better financially. And, I am not convinced that Trump is going to act.