Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry

Imagine all the celebratory sex that will take place tonight

What a stereotype. It’s bad to think of them that way

Of course nothing of that sort will happen. What will happen is just men will have drinks in pink lingerie and high heels; and women in tuxedoes.

Ha ha ha. Awesome one-liner!

Though the real question is how many gay couples are going to have the “so where is this relationship going?” conversation now…

That’s not quite right. The “religious freedom” aspect is still legal in plenty of states. So if you don’t want to provide a service for a gay couple, that is still your right as a business owner. Your business might get boycotted by nutjobs, but technically you’re not breaking the law. See Greg Abbotts comments today.

Agree with you on the financial planning and tax nightmare.

And the straight men who have been saying “Sweetie I don’t think we should get married until everyone can legally get married” are going to have an interesting weekend.

I didn’t mean it in a negative way

I know. I did.

I never knew about that one. Talk about missed oppoertunities.

This is wonderful news. Congratulations U.S. on finally becoming a progressive nation once again.

I am aware. My post wasn’t for you

Yes, we have joined the roughly 10% of countries in the world today who legally recognize gay marriage nationwide.

Hopefully it will be 100% before I die.

^ Considerig the fact that it’s illegal to be gay in about 4x as many countries as it is legal for gay folks to get married, you better plan to live a very long time.

^I’m guessing you’re not too happy about the ruling.

I hope you guessed better on the exam than you did about my position on gay marriage.


He’s _ implying _ it.

You’re inferring it.

Gays are fun to be around, except when it comes to discussing Gay rights. They get bitchy and judgmental.

From the South’s point of view, the Civil War was unquestionably about slavery:

  • Stephan Dodson Ramseur, future Confederate general, writing from West Point (where he was a cadet) to a friend in the wake of the 1856 election: “…Slavery, the very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us.”
  • Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: “I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason – for the planting and spreading of slavery.” [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
  • Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: “There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.” [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]
  • Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: “We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing.”
  • Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: “African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.” Later in the same speech he said, “The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.”
  • Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention, p. 4 “The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the ‘course of ultimate extinction.’…The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South…Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble.”
  • G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama, speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: “The question of Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession.”
  • From the Confederate Constitution:
    • Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
    • Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government.”
  • From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:“The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves.” (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)
  • From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: “No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.” (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).)
  • Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: “Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition.” [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]
  • On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:◦Howell Cobb, former general in Lee’s army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: “If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
  • A North Carolina newspaper editorial: “it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down.” [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
  • Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, “What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”

^^^ Mailsnoop; thanks for proving me right. I luv u

You could say the same thing about the pro-gay marriage side. It has no effect on the vast majority of supporters, so why are they so passionate about it?