My point was that the pro-gay side in Minnesota would not have organized and pushed for this (at least not so soon) if the Republicans hadn’t try to get that amendment passed. Before that marriage equality wasn’t even on the radar there.

These people are completely obsessed with gay butt sex. It’s all they think about.

This would never have happened had the Rethuglicans not so badly overreached and miscalculated with the amendment effort.

I’m not assuming everyone of them is gay, but Peters definitely is.

If he is the father, then definitely him

Birth certificates are really certificates of parenting. They are about legal parenting/guardianship and not about biology. Renaming them may reduce the confusion.

Fox News makes up shit all the time to manufacture controversies. Like back when “Mass Effect 1″ was released and they claimed it was a fully interactive sex simulation with full frontal nudity. Later they admitted that they hadn’t actually played or seen the game.

This is what really happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tNOi0EriO8&feature=player_detailpage#t=77s
Totally harmless and less than what you can see even on network TV

So she is another Maggie Gallagher. Maggie’s main motivation isn’t that she married a gay guy, but that the guy who knocked her up didn’t want to marry her.

Cameron is still cited a lot without specifically mentioning him. Whenever a politician says that gays die 20 years earlier, they are referring to him and his “study” of obituaries at the height of the AIDS crisis.

This “state’s rights” nonsense has gone far enough. If they want to be independent they should secede.

Oh, there is another highly offensive part you forgot to highlight. He denigrates the relationships of gay couples as “friendships” and then magnanimously grants that people are entitled to that. As if he has any say in the matter.

Or more clearly when he says that they are “defending marriage” he is clearly implying that gays are a threat to it. There is no way to say that nicely.

Another great thing about the Respect For Marriage Act is that it spells out that the federal government will recognize a marriage that is valid where it was contracted and not just in the state of residence. Right now there is a lot of confusion about that and a few laws (like Social Security) even defer to the state of residence for some absurd reason. I just fear that if the court get rids of DOMA, they won’t consider that necessary anymore.

Section 2 of DOMA is redundant. The Supreme Court already created an exemption to it that allows a state to ignore any law from another state that conflicts with its public policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_faith_and_credit_clause#Interpretation_after_ratification_of_the_Constitution

Getting of Section would change nothing. States are free to ignore second cousin marriages. In fact many states void such marriages if their citizens contract them elsewhere. And a handful of states void such marriages by non-residents. At least on paper. In practice they just don’t bother with it. And of course it’s very easy to hide that you’re related in most circumstances. It’s just not a readily apparent characteristic.

It’s only a state’s issue because of historical reasons that make very little sense today. America suffers from an outdated 18th century constitution here, that only allows the federal government to do what is explicitly spelled out (which is why you have the ridiculous lawsuits about healthcare reform). At its founding there were very little government benefits. At most there was a pension for war widows. But especially since the early 20th century, when government social programs rapidly expanded, marriage has been increasingly used to allocate resources and benefits. Today there are literally hundreds of them. Yet some “state’s rights” morons still argue that things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. Just because people in the 18th century didn’t think of them.

Also remember that he cheated on his wife while trying to impeach Clinton for sleeping around

Another big problem is the worship of sports players in general. If they hadn’t been football players the city wouldn’t have rallied behind them to this extent in the first place. Other countries restrict this nonsense to professional sports teams so it only affects a few people. But in the US there is a whole sports cult around college football (which is a semi-professional multi-billion dollar business) and highschool football too.

Just another Christian nutjob in a nation of Christian nutjobs

Yeah, there is nothing personal about constantly advocating against people’s civil rights and launching political campaigns at the drop of a hat whenever anything comes up. FUCK YOU, you disgusting piece of shit.

Morality is based on determining whether actions are harmful to anyone. Being gay doesn’t hurt anyone. Neither does having sex in of itself. Cheating is bad, because someone is hurt by it. That’s why the whole Christian concept of “sin” is utter bullshit. There is nothing moral about blinding adhering to a 2000 year old book written by ignorant sheep herders who knew nothing about the world.

The whole thing is a side issue anyways. Gay people don’t need to prove that they are good parents anyways. Aside from the fact that this a reversal of the burden of proof, there are any number of situations that are shown to be less ideal for children. Single parents, poverty, etc. Yet no one is suggestion passing any laws to prevent straight people in certain circumstances from becoming parents.