Page 3 of 90 FirstFirst 12345678910111353 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 2227
  1. #51
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnt View Post
    ^ Perhaps Dick's gay?
    His wife Liz, is still kinda 'babe material'...

  2. #52
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058

  3. #53
    Member Minnie Maugham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    05-07-2014 @ 10:06 PM
    Posts
    952
    It's a sham. Gay marriage is a travesty, IMO. Next, you'll be able to marry your dog, your car, your broccoli, your door knob or your Hoover hose. Don't fek with our virtues and morals.

  4. #54
    Thailand Expat
    Lostandfound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Posts
    2,338
    Gay marriage intrudes into religious beliefs that are incompatible with virtually all religions. That said, I see no reason why two people who make a commitment to each other for life, should not have equal treatment in the eyes of the state vis tax, pensions and so on. There's an upside and a downside to this, depending on their personal financial circumstances. In the Uk you can sort that for 40 quid at the Registry Office. In fact many "same sex aprtners" in the Uk are previously unmarried business partners with clever accountants.

    Personally I find it unfortunate that people feel the need to make "public statements" about their "commitment", but that's just a personal view. My brother spent 40 K sterling on his latest marriage - who the fuck needs to spend what is several month's after tax income for his family on a 12 hour piss up to prove a "commitment"?

    Two elderly spinsters or brothers who have lived together in the "family home" for decades and have never married should be entitled to the same rights with respect to inheritance, state benefits and tax.

    Churches, bells n smells are of course fine if you happen to know a queer vicar with a sense of irony.

  5. #55
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham View Post
    It's a sham. Gay marriage is a travesty

    Don't fek with our (?) virtues and morals.

    Same sex marriage is allowed in Canada already. This thread is about Same Sex Marriage in the US.

    You’re from Canada and they allow same sex marriage in Canada.

    On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

    What’s this our shit?: Same-sex marriage in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  6. #56
    I am in Jail
    attaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2013 @ 11:30 AM
    Posts
    4,042
    It smacks of a desperate move by the Obama campaign and it's so early in the drive. It's a Palin move. Obama pulled a McCain. lol.

    Obama's campaign needs cash they are burning through it fast like Hillary did with her 2008 campaign run. Obama has a bloated campaign with headquarters and paid staff all over the country. It looks impressive. It looks formidable. Yet Rasmussen's latest poll has Romney 50 Obama 43.

    The final financial challenge facing Mr. Obama's campaign is how fast it is burning through the cash it is raising. Compare the 2012 Obama re-election campaign with the 2004 Bush re-election campaign. Mr. Obama's campaign spent 25% of what it raised in the second quarter of 2011, while Mr. Bush's campaign spent only 9% in the second quarter of 2003. In the third quarter it was 46% for Obama versus 26% for Bush; for the fourth quarter it was 57% versus 40%. In January 2012 the Obama campaign spent 158% of what it raised, while the Bush campaign spent 60% in January 2004.

    At the end of January, Team Obama had $91.7 million in cash in its coffers and those of the DNC. At the same point in 2004, the Bush campaign and Republican National Committee had $122 million in cash combined.

    The Obama campaign's high burn rate doesn't come from large television buys, phone banks or mail programs that could be immediately stopped. It appears to result instead from huge fixed costs for a big staff and higher-than-expected fund-raising outlays. These are much tougher to unwind or delay. Left unaltered, they generally lead to even more frantic efforts to both raise money and stop other spending.
    Rove: Obama's Money and the Enthusiasm Gap - WSJ.com

  7. #57
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,673
    Quote Originally Posted by wacko View Post
    It smacks of a desperate move by the Obama campaign and it's so early in the drive. It's a Palin move. Obama pulled a McCain. lol.

    Obama's campaign needs cash they are burning through it fast like Hillary did with her 2008 campaign run. Obama has a bloated campaign with headquarters and paid staff all over the country. It looks impressive. It looks formidable. Yet Rasmussen's latest poll has Romney 50 Obama 43.

    The final financial challenge facing Mr. Obama's campaign is how fast it is burning through the cash it is raising. Compare the 2012 Obama re-election campaign with the 2004 Bush re-election campaign. Mr. Obama's campaign spent 25% of what it raised in the second quarter of 2011, while Mr. Bush's campaign spent only 9% in the second quarter of 2003. In the third quarter it was 46% for Obama versus 26% for Bush; for the fourth quarter it was 57% versus 40%. In January 2012 the Obama campaign spent 158% of what it raised, while the Bush campaign spent 60% in January 2004.

    At the end of January, Team Obama had $91.7 million in cash in its coffers and those of the DNC. At the same point in 2004, the Bush campaign and Republican National Committee had $122 million in cash combined.

    The Obama campaign's high burn rate doesn't come from large television buys, phone banks or mail programs that could be immediately stopped. It appears to result instead from huge fixed costs for a big staff and higher-than-expected fund-raising outlays. These are much tougher to unwind or delay. Left unaltered, they generally lead to even more frantic efforts to both raise money and stop other spending.
    Rove: Obama's Money and the Enthusiasm Gap - WSJ.com

    This a thread on "Same sex marriage in the US"

    this last post of yours might be better suited for,.........

    http://teakdoor.com/us-domestic-issu...hread-196.html

    or

    http://teakdoor.com/us-domestic-issu...-campaign.html

  8. #58
    I am in Jail
    attaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2013 @ 11:30 AM
    Posts
    4,042
    You don't see how my post is related? Obama just announced his views on same sex marriage. I see it as a desparate move to juice his campaign with much needed cash given he's blowing through it fast. His epiphany coincides with a huge Hollywood fund raiser where the Obama campaign sold lottery tickets for $3 so a lucky few hoi polloi could hobnob with their television and big screen dreams. It's said the event raised $15million.

    Here's more from Rove:

    There are other troubling signs. Team Obama's email appeals don't ask for $10, $15, $25 or $50 donations as they did in 2008, but generally for $3. Nor are the appeals mostly about issues; many are lotteries. Give three bucks and your name will be put in a drawing for a private dinner with the president and first lady.



    This is clever marketing, but it suggests the campaign has found that only a low price point with a big benefit can overcome donor resistance among people who contributed via mail or the Internet in 2008. It also points to higher-than-expected solicitation costs and lower-than-expected fund-raising returns.

  9. #59
    I am in Jail
    attaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2013 @ 11:30 AM
    Posts
    4,042
    Besides you want to tell me what your spamming of Wisconsin Democrat primary updates has to do with the topic concerning the reform of Wisconsin's educational system?

    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post

    Barrett wins Democratic primary, to face Walker in June

    Shrugging off millions of dollars spent by labor groups to defeat him, Tom Barrett strolled to victory in Tuesday's Democratic primary and set up a more taxing sprint toward June 5 - a historic recall that will be a rematch of his unsuccessful 2010 race against Gov. Scott Walker.

    In the recall primary, the Milwaukee mayor easily defeated former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, showing that more than $4 million from outside groups doesn't necessarily buy a close race.

    As Barrett was campaigning Tuesday, Walker was barnstorming the state and showing the fight he will bring to what is expected to be a brutal month of canvassing for one of the most important elections to state office in Wisconsin history. A poll last week showed Walker and Barrett in a dead heat: Barrett wins Democratic primary, to face Walker in June - JSOnline
    Not one word about education in the above cut and paste.

  10. #60
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Location
    There
    Posts
    30,334
    The 'Gay marriage' issue is done and dusted. There will be those religious conservative types who will be resolutely opposed, as well as homophobes. But the US is not a theocracy. To most people, including myself, it is a non-issue, and methinks the GOP would be foolish to pursue it as one, because it is only a losing electoral strategy.
    probes Aliens

  11. #61
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,581
    "The American Spectator," has a good article on gay marriage. Maintains that this is the open door to polygamists, and other fringe elements to opt for legal status. They are supporters of gay marriage btw. Try the site for a good read.

  12. #62
    I don't know barbaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    on pacific ocean, south america
    Posts
    21,404
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnt View Post
    ^ Perhaps Dick's gay?
    Norm Dicks is not gay. He is as straight as they come. He is married with a kid or two (obviously grown), former UW football player.

    Dick did vote for the DOMA, the defense of marriage act with specifies marriage as being between only a "man and a woman."

    Dicks now is trying to repeal or thwart it in another act.

    The political winds have changed. This is a partisan measure in an election year where all "groups" are being courted and individual voters of these groups are needed by both parties to go to the polls?

    As I said before, I don't follow this issue, but have no problem with gay marriage, etc.

    And I think the GOP's position is antiquated, and a stupid move. But what else can this party do when the right wing Evangelicals andother Xtian coalitions are a needed voting block that are needed to go to the polls?

    Remember Terry Shiavo? The GOP/W. Bush actions in that case were sickening to me.
    ............

  13. #63
    Thailand Expat Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,600
    New flash from the lunatic fringe: OBAMA MAY BE GAY.
    You can't make this stuff up. And the sad thing is a large number of people will believe it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/obama-gay-child-molestation-family-research-institute_n_1518001.html

  14. #64
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,050
    anyone can tell that he he's clearly a gay, muslim, marxist, kenyan.

  15. #65
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Location
    There
    Posts
    30,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert
    You can't make this stuff up. And the sad thing is a large number of people will believe it.
    Oh, but you can. The sadder thing (for some) is that this just alienates the loonies more from the middle ground that will decide the election.

    So why be sad, when you should be happy?

  16. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    21-04-2017 @ 06:23 AM
    Location
    Chanthaburi
    Posts
    132
    Wash. governor signs gay marriage bill into law, Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law a bill that legalizes gay marriage in Washington state, making it the nation's seventh to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

    Now they've made it legal, it's time to get out before they make it compulsory.

  17. #67
    I don't know barbaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    on pacific ocean, south america
    Posts
    21,404
    Quote Originally Posted by grumbles1 View Post
    Wash. governor signs gay marriage bill into law, Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law a bill that legalizes gay marriage in Washington state, making it the nation's seventh to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

    Now they've made it legal, it's time to get out before they make it compulsory.
    It's the political wind. And the political wind is changing.

    I see this as blue state activity during an election cycle.

    As a native Washingtonian I don't care. Washington (the Western part of the state) has always been "progressive."

  18. #68
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,673
    GOP kills same-sex civil unions in Colorado

    A last-ditch effort by Colorado's governor to give gay couples in the state rights similar to those enjoyed by married couples failed Monday after Republicans rejected the proposal during a special legislative session.

    Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper had said the special session was needed to address a "fundamental question of fairness and civil rights."

    More than a dozen states allow either gay marriage or civil unions, including several that moved to pass such laws this year.

    The debate in Colorado is playing out at a time when President Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to publicly endorse gay marriage. But North Carolina voters last week approved a constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

    Civil unions would grant gay couples rights similar to those belonging to married couples, including letting partners make medical decisions for each other. The protections also would enhance parental and inheritance rights.

  19. #69
    MrG
    MrG is offline
    Thailand Expat MrG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham
    BS. The govt has no right to determine what constitutes a marriage,
    If the Government has no right to determine what is marriage, then what's the problem, unless you want to turn it over to whoever has the bigger religion.

  20. #70
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,673
    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced their passing of a resolution favoring same-sex marriage in Miami, Florida Saturday afternoon.

    NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous released a statement right after the resolution was official.

    “Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” Jealous said. “The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people.”: NAACP passes resolution supporting marriage equality

  21. #71
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Location
    There
    Posts
    30,334
    When will US Republicans realise gay marriage is their natural bedfellow?

    Mitt Romney’s predictable monotone response that marriage is between “one man and one woman”. Such a reply has become typical in a party that has grown accustomed to pandering to US conservatives.

    ...The steady, insidious rise of the religious right within the Republican Party over the last 50 years can be seen to directly conflict with core Republican values of individualism and small government.

    ...If social conservatives continue to attack gay marriage with the fervour of years past, they will be ironically and inadvertently undermining more than one and a half centuries of Republican ideology. By being so vehemently traditionalist in their views of marriage, they would rather allow federal government authority to be extended when it could be reduced (lest we forget, something Tea Party Republicans detest) than accept the possibility that two individuals of the same sex, can make the personal choice to marry. Surely, Republicans can see that as long as such a union is consensual, it shouldn’t be the government’s business anyway, but alas, the party continues to listen to the whining of the religious right.

    When will US Republicans realise gay marriage is their natural bedfellow? | | Independent Editor's choice Blogs


    It's just plain dumb of the GOP to pander to the religious Right, and turn it's back on it's core values of small, non-intrusive government, and individual rights. In doing so, they are not only catering to a declining, aging demographic, but alienating much of the critical middle ground, or swinging vote. In contrast, the amount of Democrat votes lost to the GOP on 'religious values' grounds is paltry. The damage they are doing their 'brand' will not stop with this election either.

    Beyond a motley alliance of interest groups- religious Right, militarists, "pro-Israel" hawks, the wealthy, & economic monetarists in denial- there is no real core to the GOP. They have certainly moved away from traditional republicanism.

  22. #72
    MrG
    MrG is offline
    Thailand Expat MrG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,953
    It is not really conservative or Conservatism, IMO. It's Reactionary, a move backwards. It's what they called Goldwater in the 64 election.

  23. #73
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,673
    83-year-old woman wins case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act

    A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, making it the fourth court to do so.

    The law was challenged by 83-year-old Edith “Edie” Windsor after the federal government failed to recognize her marriage to her partner Thea Spyer, after Spyer’s death in 2009. Her marriage was recognized by the state of New York.

    The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 and Section 3 of the law, which the case challenged, defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. It prohibited legally married same sex couples from receiving federal benefits.

    “Thea and I shared our lives together for 44 years, and I miss her each and every day,” said Windsor. “It’s thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers.”

    U.S. District Court Judge Barbara S. Jones of the Southern District of New York ruled the statue violated the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection because it discriminated against married same sex couples.

    “I congratulate Edie for this first offering of justice after she has had to endure so much injustice,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said. “Both the Constitution and basic commonsense tell us that no reasonable law would deny Edie and Thea Spyer, her late fiancée of decades, the very same federal protections and responsibilities that every other committed American couple is afforded.”

    The Obama administration has declined to defend the statute, but U.S. government is still defending the law thanks to Republicans in Congress.

    After Obama directed the Department of Justice to no longer the law, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) voted along party lines to direct the House General Counsel to appointed an attorney to represent the government in the case. The five-member advisory group has the authority to instruct the non-partisan office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    “Although we expect the attorneys for the House of Representatives to appeal today’s decision, we are confident that it will be affirmed on appeal, and we hope that the court will do so expeditiously given that our client is 83 years old,” Roberta A. Kaplan, an attorney for Windsor, said.


  24. #74
    Member Minnie Maugham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    05-07-2014 @ 10:06 PM
    Posts
    952
    So, can a guy marry his brother under gay marriage laws? If they are truly in love. Not like they can procreate.

  25. #75
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,673
    Washington's civil marriage law will be on the ballot November 2012.

    Responding to the submission of a claimed 240,000-plus signatures to the Secretary of State today, all but guaranteeing that Referendum 74 will face voters this Fall, Zach Silk, the campaign manager for Washington United for Marriage issued the following statement:

    “For us, there’s no news here. We always knew our opponents would qualify for the ballot, and we know they paid hired canvassers to boost their count. They can spin it however they want, but they clearly wouldn’t have paid out-of-pocket if they thought they could do it on their own.

    “Whatever the final certified number is, it doesn’t matter. This campaign is up and running and we know by independent poll numbers released last week that the overwhelming majority of Washingtonians do not want to overturn this law of fundamental fairness for all families.

    “That’s why we’ll continue to build on the broad and diverse campaign we’ve created. We are energized by the families who know that only marriage fully protects their children, by the parents who want all of their children to be able to marry the person they love, and by loving gay and lesbian couples who simply want to make that lifetime commitment to one another. Those are the values of the vast majority of people in this state and that’s why we believe we’ll ultimately win in November.”


    Statement from Approve R-74 on submission of signatures | Washington United for Marriage

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •