Traditional Marriage to be Shot and Raped in Front of a Paying Audience. - Polidicks

[url]http://nation.foxnews.com/defense-marriage/2012/07/11/traditional-marriage-laws-face-court-challenge[/url] [img]http://puu.sh/HLsO[/img] [u][b] What's the difference?[/b][/u] [img]http://puu.sh/HLt2[/img] [quote]Traditional marriage laws could be on the line in court challenge to Arizona decision By Lee Ross Published July 11, 2012 | FoxNews.com As the debate over gay marriage intensifies on the heels of President Obama's endorsement, an under-the-radar case pending before the Supreme Court has the potential, some say, to invalidate traditional marriage laws altogether. The latest ruling comes from the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Arizona's recent attempt to strip health benefits for domestic partners of state workers is illegal. Arizona moved in 2009 to take away the recently expanded benefit as part of an attempt to partially plug a $1.6 billion budget hole. Some gay workers countered that the savings were minimal -- no more than $2 million, according to one expert -- and that the law really targeted them. So they challenged it in court. And the court agreed. But one veteran 9th Circuit judge thinks his colleagues have declared a war on marriage. Those judges "all but expressly held that opposite-sex-only marriage rules are unconstitutional -- indeed, that such rules are irrational per se because they can rest only on a 'bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group,'" Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote in dissent of his court's decision not to grant the case further review. He said his colleagues were ignoring Supreme Court precedent and all but called upon the high court to take the case. Arizona's attorney general recently filed a brief with the justices asking them to accept O'Scannlain's invitation. Lawyer John Eastman, with the National Organization for Marriage, called the 9th Circuit ruling "groundbreaking," and one that could render traditional marriage laws across the country "unconstitutional" if it takes hold. Those challenging the Arizona decision, though, called the state's actions discriminatory.[/quote]

Nice title. :v:

Title of the century.

This is by far the most biased article I have ever seen.

Traditional marriage is bullshit anyway.

Wtf [img]http://puu.sh/HLA6[/img] Glitch in the Matrix? Edit: Top comment [t]http://puu.sh/HLCZ[/t] What happened here

Fucking awesome title for a ridiculously biased article.

My god. Comments: "Next California will fight for the right to marry your pet." "Can a pet sign a legally binding consent form? Or even give consent at all?" "Not now, but maybe in the future. Preposterous? Maybe. But then, so was homosexual marriage, at one time. " Holy fuck.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36728658]My god. Comments: "Next California will fight for the right to marry your pet." "Can a pet sign a legally binding consent form? Or even give consent at all?" "Not now, but maybe in the future. Preposterous? Maybe. But then, so was homosexual marriage, at one time. " Holy fuck.[/QUOTE] That poster must be quite optimistic about the prospects for biological uplift.

Because two consenting adults = animals. am I right america?

Fox news. Surprise. Seriously, can we get the title changed or something? Its going to court, not getting shot with an audience.

Title of the year.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36728850]oh god i read the comments may my day forever be shittier[/QUOTE] It's actually relatively optimistic. A great deal of the comments are supporting gay marriage.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36728951]but then you have the vocal minority that is like "THEN ULL BE MARRYIN DOGZ"[/QUOTE] You always have a vocal group of people you disagree with, especially on a partisan source like Fox Nation. It's actually really surprising to see so many comments on Fox being in support of gay marriage.

if marrying people's dogs is the cost of gay marriage then i'm totally okay with that who cares

[quote]Those challenging the Arizona decision, though, called the state's actions discriminatory.[/quote] the fuck are they smoking

Sorry about the kinda off topic question, but when did the rainbow coloured flag got adopted by the homosexual community? I remember that when I was younger it was the 'flag of peace' or something, and if you had one on your window or balcony it meant you was against the gulf war II. or something. Oh NVM. I looked it up on wikipedia. It meant peace only in Italy.

[QUOTE=viperfan7;36729086]the fuck are they smoking[/QUOTE] Actually, it is discriminatory. [quote]The latest ruling comes from the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that [B]Arizona's recent attempt to strip health benefits for domestic partners of state workers[/B] is illegal.[/quote] They're referring to the bolded, not the court ruling that it's illegal. I think.

[QUOTE=Nikota;36728511][img]http://puu.sh/HLsO[/img] [u][b] What's the difference?[/b][/u] [img]http://puu.sh/HLt2[/img][/QUOTE] This is just fucking gold.

Fox News is something that should just melt and rot into a pile of rust, rather than putrefy the air with their intolerant bile-laden breath. Gay marriage is a legit and good thing; if you don't like it, tough shit Mrs Troglodyte.

[QUOTE]yeah, too many. you're blind to the fact that no one is in the bedroom of any gay. the gays are trying to make your street, your church, your mall, your courts,your parks, your cities ,states and nation their bedroom. They want to live the gay lifestyle openly in the streets. A lifestyle named after sects act. a ppl named after a sects act. an identity named after a sects act. What happens next? Do we legislate scatters? Will they also want to be recognized? They're not much unlike you. They live in the rear of humans. They wallow in the mire for a turn on. Do we make them a legal ,openly lived lifestyle too? How about you keep your sickness to yourself and I'll keep my sicknesses to myself like good neighbors? Is that too fair for ya? You bring your filth around my family and they'll make an example out of me nationally for what I would do to you. Not because I care what you do but, because, you insist I and my family and my neighborhood and my city and my state and my nation watch as you defile yourself and our eyes with your disgusting filth.[/QUOTE] The stupid, it hurts

"A lifestyle named after sects act. a ppl named after a sects act. an identity named after a sects act. " Fucking gay sects, I only subscribe to my christian sect!

i came expecting a couple planning a traditional wedding, but with a twist: somewhere in the middle of it, the groom suddenly "rapes" the bride and the audience payed to get in

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36729742]"A lifestyle named after sects act. a ppl named after a sects act. an identity named after a sects act. " Fucking gay sects, I only subscribe to my christian sect![/QUOTE] What was that guy even trying to refer to there? What is named after a sex act exactly?

[QUOTE]yeah, too many. you're blind to the fact that no one is in the bedroom of any gay. the gays are trying to make your street, your church, your mall, your courts,your parks, your cities ,states and nation their bedroom. They want to live the gay lifestyle openly in the streets. A lifestyle named after sects act. a ppl named after a sects act. an identity named after a sects act. What happens next? Do we legislate scatters? Will they also want to be recognized? They're not much unlike you. They live in the rear of humans. They wallow in the mire for a turn on. Do we make them a legal ,openly lived lifestyle too? How about you keep your sickness to yourself and I'll keep my sicknesses to myself like good neighbors? Is that too fair for ya? You bring your filth around my family and they'll make an example out of me nationally for what I would do to you. Not because I care what you do but, because, you insist I and my family and my neighborhood and my city and my state and my nation watch as you defile yourself and our eyes with your disgusting filth.[/QUOTE] fuckign sects acts

[QUOTE=Trainbike;36729958]What was that guy even trying to refer to there? What is named after a sex act exactly?[/QUOTE] He said "gay" is a sex act. As an example, "I want to gay children in the church so hard."

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;36730063]He said "gay" is a sex act. As an example, "I want to gay children in the church so hard."[/QUOTE] See that's what I thought he meant when I read it, but I thought "No way could anyone be that retarded not even this guy." I guess I put too much faith in some one who clearly has some kind of brain damage.

[QUOTE=smurfy;36728571]Wtf [img]http://puu.sh/HLA6[/img] Glitch in the Matrix? Edit: Top comment [t]http://puu.sh/HLCZ[/t] What happened here[/QUOTE] Dude, Republicans [B]supporting[/B] gay marriage!? MAYANS WERE RIGHT, TRUTHFULLY THESE ARE SIGNS OF THE END TIMES!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36728658]My god. Comments: "Next California will fight for the right to marry your pet." "Can a pet sign a legally binding consent form? Or even give consent at all?" "Not now, but maybe in the future. Preposterous? Maybe. But then, so was homosexual marriage, at one time. " Holy fuck.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;DJPm52rmKYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJPm52rmKYI[/video]

yay nikota is back to spam more shitty threads from fox nation, fox's [B]blogging service[/B], complete with those stupid "the nation thinks this post is:" for added cut-and-paste comedic value be right back, going to browse some people's tumblrs and look for hilarious blog posts to post here!