Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

If children need a mother and a father and you oppose gay marriage because of that would you also:

A ban on adoption by all single people-gay and straight.

Leftsts love banning things, don't you? First of all, private adoptions are none of the government's business. As for public adoptions, I would provide children first to all qualified man/woman couples. Then if there are more children I would open it up to gays and singles after that

[/QUOTE]

There are 100,000 children at any time awaiting for adoption- almost all of these have been abandoned in one way or another by their "mother and father". 33,000 of them will wait 3 years or more to be adopted.

Any gay person who adopts a child is adopting a child that a straight couple has abandoned- and is reducing the total number.

But with your great plan- what you would be telling adoptive children is "hey kids- no heteros would adopt you have your mom and dad abandoned you, so like all the other reject kids, we will let the homosexuals adopt you"

Great message for the kids.

 

[kaz]

You are completely hiding, you keep ignoring the question. As a witness that you are wrong, I called you to the stand. So you say your parents were sexless automatons to you, all you needed was two people to blow your nose and potty train you. You had exactly the same relationship with each. You didn't do different things with your female mother and male father, you didn't talk to them about different things. You just need two. They were the same. That was your experience growing up. One apparently isn't enough to do the job, three isn't required. Two sexless automatons, that was your relationship with your parents. That is what you are arguing. Answer the question

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

Mine is? LOL. How would you know that since you are providing no answer to the question to read.

Look, dumb ass, you said two parents is ideal. Sex doesn't matter. Man/woman, two men, two women. The human race didn't evolve that way, it evolved with man/woman as the norm. Men and women are different. Your view that people who evolved that way don't need a parental relationship with both is frankly a hoot given the cow you have over fundamentalists who deny evolution. Liberalism is a religion.

So answer the question. Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene

I said that it is better to grow up in a happy family, and the sex of the parents does not matter. There is no evidence to dispute this.

Then why are you too dickless to answer the question? What about it disturbs you so much that you keep hiding behind the couch every time I ask it? Maybe even you know you're full of shit? Here you go again, the question you keep hiding from:

"Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene"

You are really insecure about your masculinity.

Um..OK?

It is possible that one is better off with parents of different sexes, but there are no studies backing this up. How ******* thick are you? My brother and I were very independent, and our parents did not have a lot of influence on us. Probably the opposite. I cannot say that, from my experience, I think that how I was raised was better than if I had been raised by parents of the same sex.

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Anyone who cannot understand this has got to be dumber than dirt. I challenge you to refute a single point that I’ve made here.

"The second premise that has emerged, that children being raised by gay couples are at a disadvantage is also debunked horseshit"

This always cracks me up. With evolution, liberals love to mock the religious nuts who deny obvious science. Why would God make the world in 6,000 years then make it appear as if it was billions of years old and place things like dinosaur bones. I agree, they have turned their brain off for their religion, I don't believe God want people to turn their brains off.

But then, the self professed party of logic and science looks at a world with men and women who have clearly different personalities and parenting roles and decides that gender doesn't matter in parenting. Even without all the studies of the roles of mothers and fathers in child rearing, all you have to do is look around you and observe, you grew up in a world with mothers and fathers all around you and the clear role they play in their kids lives, which are clearly not the same as men and women are not the same.

But suddenly now your religion kicks in and your mind clicks off. Gays are a pet liberal cause, so nope you say, parents are just sexless automatons who wipe kids noses and potty train them. In developing from a glitter in their parents eyes to a full grown adult in a world filled with men and women, it makes no difference if you have a parental relationship with each of the two sexes. They are glorified babysitters.

Then further demonstrating your liberal religious fervor, you double down on stupidity and declare the magic number is two. In your genderless parental ideology, why is two perfect for all since parenting to you is just division of labor? One kid? Twelve? If you believed your own crap, if two parents is perfect for one kid and they are dividing labor, obviously more than two would be ideal for twelve kids.

Also, your contention that tax breaks like lower marginal rates and exemption from the death tax is just so you, stupidity personified. But there is no reasoning with you religious whack jobs

Holly Shit! This nonsensical, emotional rant devoid of all facts, logic and reason is supposed to be in response the actual facts that I laid out. Now I know for sure what I'm dealing with here as if I didn't know before. You just can't deal with reality. My work is done here.

Gotcha, all she wants to do is dance...



How is my question in any possible way unclear? It's a world filled with men and women. Yet you claim children don't need a parental relationship with one of each even though that's how we evolved. Is that your experience? Your parents were sexless automatons who could have been replaced by anyone? You didn't have or observe in the world around you any difference in how children relate to men and women? Evolving from a single cell to learning to be in a world of men and women, parents don't matter other than taking care of their physical needs? That is what you are claiming, so is that your experience?

Also, again, why two? If it's just division of work and one kid needs two, don't 12 kids need more than two to be ideal? How do you not grasp those questions?

Putting aside the fact that the effects of gay parenting is irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage for reasons that I explained above, you might want to try to digest this:

In a project launched last month, a team I direct at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.


Even the notion that you try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

And this

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving ThinkProgress

Want more?

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

What do you have chief?



I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

Yes, Holmes. I do have a question. What if you answer my question, which was to you, not Judith Stacey.

"How is my question in any possible way unclear? It's a world filled with men and women. Yet you claim children don't need a parental relationship with one of each even though that's how we evolved. Is that your experience? Your parents were sexless automatons who could have been replaced by anyone? You didn't have or observe in the world around you any difference in how children relate to men and women? Evolving from a single cell to learning to be in a world of men and women, parents don't matter other than taking care of their physical needs? That is what you are claiming, so is that your experience?

Also, again, why two? If it's just division of work and one kid needs two, don't 12 kids need more than two to be ideal? How do you not grasp those questions?"

Your Post 3612:

Here's a thought, man up to my question:

"How is my question in any possible way unclear? It's a world filled with men and women. Yet you claim children don't need a parental relationship with one of each even though that's how we evolved. Is that your experience? Your parents were sexless automatons who could have been replaced by anyone? You didn't have or observe in the world around you any difference in how children relate to men and women? Evolving from a single cell to learning to be in a world of men and women, parents don't matter other than taking care of their physical needs? That is what you are claiming, so is that your experience?

Also, again, why two? If it's just division of work and one kid needs two, don't 12 kids need more than

Holly shit dude, can you do anything besides mindlessly copy and paste the same inane equine excrement over and over again? If you have any intellectual abilities or reasoning skills at all they are not coming through. Your question is not unclear. It is stupid and irrelevant. Let’s recap

I posted extensive documentation showing that children do just as well with two parents of the same sex than with parents of the opposite sex. I also wrote extensively- laying out a logical and cogent argument as to why, even if there was a difference between the outcomes for children of same sex vs. opposite sex couples- using that as an argument against same sex marriage makes no sense. Furthermore, I established that banning same sex marriage will in no way ensure that children will have a mother and a father and in fact will deprive children of the legal, social and financial benefits of having married parents

For your part, you have miserably failed to address or counter any of the points that I made. Instead you continue to bloviate and blather how children need a mother and a father and how men and women are different.

No one is saying that they are not different! (Although much less so in many way now) It is the outcome for the children that matters and you refuse to deal with that. You are stuck like a broken record. You can’t seem to actually construct any sort of an argument at all. Rather, when you run out of horseshit, you resort to a red herring in the form of a question about how many parent do 12 kids need, and suggesting that I am claiming that children only need physical care and not emotional care.. That is just stupid!

You’re the one who needs to man up and admit to being a bigot. I would have slightly more respect for you if you would just be honest instead of conjuring up all of this crap about children need a mom and a dad and how gay marriage rips of taxpayers.

You might also want to consider the fact that, in order to have any degree of credibility in a debate, you have to actually address and deal with the opponents argument and the facts presented. Repeating the same irrelevant bullshit over and over does not make it magically come true. It is still bullshit.

We are defiantly done here!

 

[NoNukes]

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

Mine is? LOL. How would you know that since you are providing no answer to the question to read.

Look, dumb ass, you said two parents is ideal. Sex doesn't matter. Man/woman, two men, two women. The human race didn't evolve that way, it evolved with man/woman as the norm. Men and women are different. Your view that people who evolved that way don't need a parental relationship with both is frankly a hoot given the cow you have over fundamentalists who deny evolution. Liberalism is a religion.

So answer the question. Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene

I said that it is better to grow up in a happy family, and the sex of the parents does not matter. There is no evidence to dispute this.

Then why are you too dickless to answer the question? What about it disturbs you so much that you keep hiding behind the couch every time I ask it? Maybe even you know you're full of shit? Here you go again, the question you keep hiding from:

"Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene"

You are really insecure about your masculinity.

Um..OK?

It is possible that one is better off with parents of different sexes, but there are no studies backing this up. How ******* thick are you? My brother and I were very independent, and our parents did not have a lot of influence on us. Probably the opposite. I cannot say that, from my experience, I think that how I was raised was better than if I had been raised by parents of the same sex.

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

 

[kaz]

Mine is? LOL. How would you know that since you are providing no answer to the question to read.

Look, dumb ass, you said two parents is ideal. Sex doesn't matter. Man/woman, two men, two women. The human race didn't evolve that way, it evolved with man/woman as the norm. Men and women are different. Your view that people who evolved that way don't need a parental relationship with both is frankly a hoot given the cow you have over fundamentalists who deny evolution. Liberalism is a religion.

So answer the question. Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene

I said that it is better to grow up in a happy family, and the sex of the parents does not matter. There is no evidence to dispute this.

Then why are you too dickless to answer the question? What about it disturbs you so much that you keep hiding behind the couch every time I ask it? Maybe even you know you're full of shit? Here you go again, the question you keep hiding from:

"Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene"

You are really insecure about your masculinity.

Um..OK?

It is possible that one is better off with parents of different sexes, but there are no studies backing this up. How ******* thick are you? My brother and I were very independent, and our parents did not have a lot of influence on us. Probably the opposite. I cannot say that, from my experience, I think that how I was raised was better than if I had been raised by parents of the same sex.

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

 

[NoNukes]

I said that it is better to grow up in a happy family, and the sex of the parents does not matter. There is no evidence to dispute this.

Then why are you too dickless to answer the question? What about it disturbs you so much that you keep hiding behind the couch every time I ask it? Maybe even you know you're full of shit? Here you go again, the question you keep hiding from:

"Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene"

You are really insecure about your masculinity.

Um..OK?

It is possible that one is better off with parents of different sexes, but there are no studies backing this up. How ******* thick are you? My brother and I were very independent, and our parents did not have a lot of influence on us. Probably the opposite. I cannot say that, from my experience, I think that how I was raised was better than if I had been raised by parents of the same sex.

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

You are as thick as two boards.

 

[kaz]

Then why are you too dickless to answer the question? What about it disturbs you so much that you keep hiding behind the couch every time I ask it? Maybe even you know you're full of shit? Here you go again, the question you keep hiding from:

"Is that your experience? All you needed was baby sitters? You needed two, one wasn't enough, but having a parental relationship with each sex had nothing to do with your development? My question is actually pretty simple and clear. Man up, Darlene"

You are really insecure about your masculinity.

Um..OK?

It is possible that one is better off with parents of different sexes, but there are no studies backing this up. How ******* thick are you? My brother and I were very independent, and our parents did not have a lot of influence on us. Probably the opposite. I cannot say that, from my experience, I think that how I was raised was better than if I had been raised by parents of the same sex.

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

You are as thick as two boards.

You mean because I continue to debate an idiot? You have a point there

 

[NoNukes]

You are really insecure about your masculinity.

Um..OK?

It is possible that one is better off with parents of different sexes, but there are no studies backing this up. How ******* thick are you? My brother and I were very independent, and our parents did not have a lot of influence on us. Probably the opposite. I cannot say that, from my experience, I think that how I was raised was better than if I had been raised by parents of the same sex.

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

You are as thick as two boards.

You mean because I continue to debate an idiot? You have a point there

Quit arguing with yourself and you will be much better.

 

[kaz]

Um..OK?

Being independent is usually a sign of great parenting, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But you admit you were better off than parents of the same sex, so why is that? For the reasons I said, that your mother was a mother and father a father? You worked very hard at not addressing gender in your answer at all

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

You are as thick as two boards.

You mean because I continue to debate an idiot? You have a point there

Quit arguing with yourself and you will be much better.

Another playground argument from a liberal, who saw that coming?

Maybe when you are old enough to start dating, you will discover that men and women are different

 

[NoNukes]

We were independent because of poor parenting, not great parenting. I know boys who were brutalized by fathers in order to make them 'men'. Do you think these guys were better off with a father than with a loving woman to guide them? I did not say that I was better off with parents of opposite sexes. As I said before, your reading comprehension is terrible.

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

You are as thick as two boards.

You mean because I continue to debate an idiot? You have a point there

Quit arguing with yourself and you will be much better.

Another playground argument from a liberal, who saw that coming?

Maybe when you are old enough to start dating, you will discover that men and women are different

I work with who I am dealing with. Case closed.

 

[kaz]

And that doesn't happen in gay marriages, there are no bad ones. Gotcha.

So the standard you set for yourself is that if you can show one person in a heterosexual marriage who is worse than one person in a gay marriage then they are the same. Liberals are such logical savants, amazing

You are as thick as two boards.

You mean because I continue to debate an idiot? You have a point there

Quit arguing with yourself and you will be much better.

Another playground argument from a liberal, who saw that coming?

Maybe when you are old enough to start dating, you will discover that men and women are different

I work with who I am dealing with. Case closed.

Man up to your own actions, Darlene

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right have a problem with sex without any need for prophylactics?

 

[Syriusly]

It is fun watching Kaz rant.

Just to recap once again:

Kaz is married and enjoys getting his bennies for being married.
Kaz has no problem with every gay person in America paying for his marriage bennies.
But Kaz does not want to have to pay marriage bennies to any gay couple- no matter what.

Kaz has his- and doesn't want to share. Kaz is fine with forcing gay couples to pay for his marriage- but is against his having to pay for a gay couples marriage.

And that is really all we need to know about Kaz.

 

[kaz]

Why does the right have a problem with sex without any need for prophylactics?

The Right doesn't think that, you are full of shit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

 

[kaz]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

 

[kaz]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

 

[RKMBrown]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

 

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court ruling "a victory for America," Obama says
6/30/2015

On Friday, President Barack Obama gave a moving speech in support of the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obama called the ruling "a victory for America" and added that it "reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection to the law; that all people are treated equally regardless of who they are or who they love. ... [T]oday, we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect."

Full Story:
BuzzFeed, The Washington Post (tiered subscription model), Time.com, The Huffington Post
More Summaries:
Barack Obama, Supreme Court

Congress legislating from the bench is a victory for no one. Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp that

Congress legislating from the bench You cannot accept or understand how things work. Not my problem.

Obviously I meant the courts legislating from the bench. Wow, you got a typo, nicely played. That's pretty good ... for you ...

Courts legislating? Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Remember this is Kaz.

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of- that is 'legislating from the bench"

When the Supreme Court overturns a law that he doesn't approve - that is a major civil rights victory.

Re: Obergefall and Loving.