GOPOS.

LOLSOS.

@1,2 WHUT?

@2
Grand Ol' Party of Shit and maybe LOL sacks of shit?

What say you, Seattleblues? This is right up your assey, er, I mean alley.

@4

Sorry, what were you saying? I was took busy laughing at disgusting morally bankrupt and utterly lacking in integrity thing like Savage calling anyone dishonest to read it clearly.

But hey Savage, keep up the new comedy routine. They say laughter is the best medicine and all.

While our legal system's plodding pace is often frustrating, it is really very satisfying when these charlatans have to take the stand.

In the original Prop 8 trial, the testimony of the witnesses for the defense like Blankenhorn and Tam were pure comic gold [Tam was called by the plaintiffs when he tried to weasel out of testifying for the defendants]. One almost felt sorry for the poor little fishes-in-a-barrel.

If that trial had been televised--as almost happened--our country would be five years ahead on the issue. If society were shown the truth, rationality and compassion on one side in rigorous comparison to the smoke, mirrors and animus on the other, the thing would be won already.

Putting Regnerus on the stand to have to answer for his pitiful research methods in a court of law is exactly what he and we deserve. I'm looking forward to reading the trial transcript.

@5, 7 Stop deflecting.

It's clear - as it always has been to anyone with a brain - that the arguments against marriage equality are based on fear-mongering and anti-gay bias. There is no "scientific" support for them. Regnerus and his ilk are, in fact, liars. Those like you who believe and repeat their nonsense are at best fools and at worst liars just like them.

This isn't about Dan. It's about the intellectual bankruptcy at the heart of your pet hatreds. Own it.

@ 9 Deflecting is the only thing SB is good at.

@9

Whatever. If an agressively perverted deviant with a bad case of arrested development, no integrity or honesty, violent and open hatred for anyone with whom it disagrees and a tragically unfortunate boy in its custody wants to tell ME about parenting I feel comfortable dismissing it.

@ 11- "an agressively perverted deviant with a bad case of arrested development, no integrity or honesty, violent and open hatred for anyone with whom it disagrees..."

That's the best description of yourself anyone has come up with so far.

@11: Again, deflection. Dan isn't telling you about parenting. Nathaniel Frank is. Frank has succinctly explained the many flaws in Regnerus' work.

Do you have anything to say about that, or are you just going to sit there and stroke your rageboner?

@Seattleblues, I would be mighty surprised if you were to have any cogent response to the following points of law. Don't worry, it's not that long, about 2 minutes to read. [Nevertheless, you won't have anything pertinent to say.]:

The following is an excerpt of transcript from the DeBoer v. Snyder case in Michigan. Lisa Brown, Oakland County Clerk, and witness for the defense was being cross-examined by the plaintiffs' lawyers. This was on Monday, and has been edited for concision not content. The full transcripts are here: http://www.scribd.com/collections/445528…

Q All right. So during your tenure as Oakland County Clerk...have you ever used the ability to procreate as a litmus test as to whether or not you’re going to grant a couple a marriage license?
A No, I don’t think it would be allowed.
Q Okay. Have you ever, for opposite sex couples...used the potential stability of a couple in making your determination as to whether or not you should grant a marriage license?
A No.
Q Have you ever used or considered the parenting abilities, or the potential future outcome of children sired or raised by a couple in determining whether you as County Clerk grant a marriage license to a couple...?
A No.
Q So then, Ms. Brown, would you concede, in fact, that the rationales listed by the State, in defense of their requirement that the parties to a marriage license be of opposite gender, that being the ability to procreate, the future outcomes for the children the couple may have, or the stability of the couples of that union, that those play no part whatsoever in a determination as to whether or not a couple can receive a marriage license?
A Right, they play no part. It’s not information we ask. It’s not information...that we could even ask if we wanted to.
Q For opposite couples none of those factors apply at all.
A Correct.

And here are the pertinent clauses of the 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't give a shit how you feel about homosexuality or how things "should be." I am talking about the laws of this country. Explain how it is legal to deny the rights and responsibilities of marriage to the plaintiffs. Go ahead. Take a stab at it.

@14: Like many conservatives, and just about everyone barely intelligent enough to breathe, Seattleblues feels that the laws should be based upon his personal feelings, as outdated and blatantly projective as they are.

Human rights and equality do not matter, only his personal revulsion brought on by his own homoerotic feelings which he can not process in a healthy way.

@15, I'm just trying to figure out which to put my money on:

SB ignores actual points raised, heaps more ad hominem vituperation on Dan Savage.
SB ignores actual points raised, chides Slog for being crude and uncivil.
SB threatens indomitable rebuttal, pleads insufficient time to give it just now.
SB abandons thread altogether.

Anyone got odds on those?

Oos. I forgot: SB ignores actual points raised, engages in totally tangential tirades.

@ 16 - In my experience, when a post contains cold hard facts that disagree with his world view, SB simply ignores the post entirely.

Serious hat tip for @14, though. Love it.

@16: Just be happy that in 2 years this issue will be settled, and let's start fighting for the rights of transgender people.

SB, if you'd stop your pathetic obsession over Dan, and read the article, you'd understand that what is going on in MI is the right for a couple to adopt special-needs kids into a loving home. The kind of thing that you're deriding and wanting to prevent.

This is another example of why your god is a God of War & Hate. You are hung-up on needless, non-essential aspects of a loving family relationship to create division, pain, suffering & agony. This is what your god delights in, drinking the loneliness and hurt of the children like wine. America gives you the freedom to worship at the altar of whatever god you choose, so you should feel lucky. When your god is a sick, twisted, corrupted thing living off of the suffering of humanity, there will be those who will always stand against you. Which certainly plays into your "I'm so persecuted" wheelhouse-- you'll always be able to feel superior for your "suffering." But you're not making a better world. In fact, the world would be much better off without you and your fucked up god.

@15 - it's really that logical consistency plays no part.

@12

Yeah, that was a pretty awesome description of self.

Kitty @18, thanks for the hat tip. The money is looking good for "SB abandons thread altogether."

Hanoumatoi @19, I agree that we are in the last few years of this fight. I wish we had a judiciary like Canada's that can rule on the basic protections of the law, regardless of weather the country is "ready for it," or a legislature like the UK's that can at least keep up with public opinion. But we don't.

However, according to some numbers a straight up one-person-one-vote vote in this country would do what our "democratic" government can't. http://equalityontrial.com/2014/03/05/wa…

@14

The answers to your questions are so obvious as to be self evident.

I take your legal problems to be equal protection, and valid state interests in marital law.

As to the 14rh Amendment, we have full marriage equality under law wherever Fay so called marriage hasn't been forced in decent citizens. Ant consenting adult not currently married may marry any opposite sex consenting adult also not married. No exceptions may be made based on philosophical or ethnic grounds. Full marriage equality, thank goodness!

As to the second, forcing through courts a violation of the popular will od state citizens hardly seems a democratic way to deal with things. Michigan understands what marriage is. They're using law to incentivize stable families, good outcomes for kids and so on. Don't like it? Don't move to Michigan.

Finally, homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is just that, a choice. While I object to criminalization of the perversion in consenting adults I object as strenuously to creating a favored class of citizens who alter time honored social institutions in childish self justification.

You may consider yourself educated. No thanks necessary.

@15

You're right! I'm gay!

Couple quick questions on being a fag. Do I have to have sex with dudes? It's just disgusting and I don't think I could honestly. Can I be an honorary fag who has sex with my wife instead? Can I stay married to my wife, for whom I do feel love and sexual attraction, just until desire for guys kicks in? 50 or 60 years or so, or how about when I die would be good.

Do I have to walk funny and talk like fags do? Give me some time for practice if so, since I've walked and talked like, well, a real man for 40 years. Be a hard habit to break, really...

On second thoughts, forget it. Sorry, no can do.

@26: " Michigan understands what marriage is. They're using law to incentivize stable families, good outcomes for kids and so on."

Ok, so, you didn't read the linked article then. You choose to believe Regnerus's lies. You choose to ignore the clear evidence that permitting same-sex couples to marry creates stable families and good outcomes for kids.

And, based on @27, you clearly take that position because you think gay sex is icky.

Noted. Of course, that is why your side is losing. I look forward to a couple more years of your impotent rage, until all the US has joined the civilized world in extending full marriage rights to its citizens.

Enjoy your increasing irrelevance.

Er, @25 and @26, obvs.

@26: "Do I have to walk funny and talk like fags do?"
Dude, your prejudice is showing. According to you, gay men are effeminate, lisping, limp-wristed himbos.
Also according to you, Obamacare is unconstitutional, FDR was the worst president ever, homosexuality is a choice, transsexuals aren't real, and global warming is a hoax. On all of these issues, the most qualified and authorized experts strongly disagree. You're a joke.

Sure, some gay men are effeminate stereotypes. SOME of them are. And personally, people who act like that grate on my nerves, be they male or female, gay or straight. (Cue the genderqueer/bisexual hate for leaving them out of that sentence.) But although bitchy overly-effeminate people may piss me off with their irritating demeanor, that does NOT justify writing discrimination into the lawbooks because they annoy some people.

@SB: Curious, you're so in favor of religious freedom, what do you think about property? http://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/wingnuts…

SB @25:

Michigan understands what marriage is. They're using law to incentivize stable families, good outcomes for kids and so on.

From @14:

Q For opposite couples none of those factors apply at all.
A Correct.

So...um, no. You are exactly wrong.

Good on you for refraining from spittle spewing. However, since you were pretty far off the mark, SB ignores actual points raised, engages in totally tangential tirades, is the winner!

All bets can be collected from the cashier, thank you.

Ironically, the biggest harm revealed by Regnerus is probably the closet. Of course, full civil equality for gays couldn't possibly reduce that little problem...

@26: Comfortably straight men simply do not obsess over what gay men do together they way you do. They just don't.

I am not saying you are gay, I am saying that you clearly have or have had in the past, homoerotic feelings which you can not process in a healhty manner, and it is driving your obsession with gays, gay sex, and Dan Savage.

Homoerotic feelings or urgings in straight people are totally normal and not something to feel scared of, or ashamed of. I suggest you seek help for this issue, as it may cause you to constantly think about gays and gay sex less.