Skip to comments.Legal pot? Legal gay marriage? Universal health care? What's next, free porn and candy? (Morford)
Posted on 12/15/2004 10:26:23 AM PST by RightWingAtheist
Did you hear the screams? Did you feel the menacing chill? Did you see the black and ominous clouds, moving north? Did you sense, in other words, the very presence of Satan himself as he laughed maniacally and tossed around bucketfuls of ultrathin condoms and little travel-size packets of Astroglide like confetti while riding his Harley Softail up to Toronto or maybe Edmonton to join the ghastly and sodomitic celebrations?
Because it's happened. Canada's high court just ruled that the government can, if it so desires, redefine marriage to include gay couples, which it has declared it will do almost immediately, thus solidifying Canada's place as the chilly yet mellow and gay friendly and hockey-riffic epicenter of all known hell.
It's true. It's rather amazing. Gay marriage will be completely legal in Canada very soon. It's been oddly ignored in much of the U.S. media and hasn't really been much discussed among those in the terrified red states except when, deep in the night, from their respective lumpy twin beds, they whisper to each other across the room as they pop their Ambien and stroke their portfolios and curse their very genitals: oh my God what's wrong with those freakin' Canadians?
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Ewwwww! I didn't need a visual like that just before lunch!
Dang! I agree with Morford on something! Paris Hilton is a cancer upon society!
I haven't heard much whining coming out of our side lately. What a loser. I whine to no one.
Well, I read 5 of his articles, and while I can see how his writing style could offend some people, I think that many of the points he attempts to make, are spot on.
Go ahead and name a few of them for us. We must have missed them.
Whether they legalize gay marriage in Canada or not is of little concern. Last I checked, we didn't gauge our laws by what courts in Canada do.
What is far more interesting is that fact that the only state in the Union that has legalized gay marriage thus far may be overturning that ruling by removing the four judges that created gay marriage.
When they are removed, their ruling goes down with them.
Maybe so, but I cannot get past his writing style. To me, his "message" gets lost in all the unnecessary sexual verbiage.
That being said, I still don't agree with most of the stuff of his that I have read.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. :)
They are listed on the right side of his column if you go to the above mentioned link.
He concludes the article with "What's wrong with us?"
The real question is what's wrong with him. If he thinks that Canada is so great, nothing's stopping him from going there unless he has a felony arrest. It would be a win-win; he gets to live in the society of his fantasies and we get rid of him.
on her boyfriends !@#$@$^(*
Hence the word message in quotes in my post. :)
No, really. Be specific. She is a drug-addled liberal faggot. What do points do you agree with her on?
Why in God's name won't he MOVE THERE IF IT'S UTOPIA?!?!?!
Jeez these canadian loving americans all one thing in common. They never ever go there!
(e) The highest courts in three states have held that denying the legal rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples is constitutionally suspect or impermissible under their respective state constitutions. These states are Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The highest courts in seven Canadian provinces have similarly ruled that marriage laws that discriminate in favor of different-sex couples to the exclusion of same-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples and cannot stand.
(f) California's discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution's guarantee of due process, privacy, equal protection of the law, and free expression, by arbitrarily denying equal marriage rights to lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians.
(g) California's discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage harms same-sex couples and their families by denying those couples and their families specific legal rights and responsibilities under state law and by depriving members of those couples and their families of a legal basis to challenge federal laws that deny access to the many important federal benefits and obligations provided only to spouses. Those federal benefits include the right to file joint federal income tax returns, the right to sponsor a partner for immigration to the United States, the right to social security survivor's benefits, the right to family and medical leave, and many other substantial benefits and obligations.
(h) Other jurisdictions have chosen to treat as valid or otherwise recognize marriages between same-sex couples. California's discriminatory marriage law therefore also harms California's same-sex couples when they travel to other jurisdictions by preventing them from having access to the rights, benefits, and protections those jurisdictions provide only to married couples.
(i) California's discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage further harms same-sex couples and their families by denying them the unique public recognition and affirmation that marriage confers on heterosexual couples.
This measure would amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, as specified. The measure would further limit the provision of the rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of marriage to a man and a woman, as specified.
I didn't realise that Mark was a female.
Here are a few of the specifics I agree on, I'm not going to go back through the archives.
-I agree with the author that sex is going to happen, no matter what any group condones.
-I agree that we will look back on some of the things that today are considered taboo, and chuckle or sigh.
-I agree that Kinsey should not be compared to Dr. Mengele.
-I agree that progress always wins.
-I agree that many must always be dragged into the future.
-I agree that we do not see many pictures from Fallujah on our news, and that the government does not want us to see them.
-I agree that unless you have been there, we do not know what is going on in Iraq.
-I agree that we do not know the real statistics on civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-I agree that many Americans are taking some sort of drug on a regular basis, I also agree that many probably do not need them.
-I agree that artistic integrity is being manipulated into commercialism.
-I agree that Canada is a decent place, with decent citizens.
Now, please list the specifics that you do not agree on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.