Kansas City's LGBT resource of record considers a historic week from the LGBT community in Missouri:
Camp offers a nice intro to the Kansas City couple at the center of this ruckus:
"Jim MacDonald and Andy Schuerman are one of the married couples in the lawsuit and the only ones who are Kansas City area residents. They were legally married in Vancouver, British Columbia, in July 2005 and have a daughter."
And no matter how this one turns out, this is undoubtedly the most LGBT-Friendly moment Missouri has ever seen not directly . . . At least since that time when our a former Gov. was allegedly a closet case and everybody pretended not to notice.
Developing . . .
Any lipstick lesbians?
ReplyDeleteTwo butt fuckers raising a child that is so wrong. Hope they don't explain the morals of sex to the child
ReplyDeleteI miss Mattsy-watsy in the governor's office. He was way better to look at than his old man.
ReplyDeletepolar bear don't have red lipstick on their asses...polar bear god says ass highway one way...
ReplyDelete2 Byrons suing Missouri ?
ReplyDeleteDaddies, why do you always have all that shit and blood in your underwear bottoms?
ReplyDeleteIt is incredible that anytime a gay topic is brought up on this blog the first comments are always about gay sex. There is more to being gay than sex, just like there is more to being straight than having sex.
ReplyDeleteSeems like straight people are obsessed with gay sex. I can tell you gay people never think about straight sex at all.
Let us hope this lawsuit is taken seriously and gay marriage wins.
8:15: Oh, it will eventually. It's simply a matter of equal protection. The die were cast when the governments at all levels started subsidizing marriage. No married heterosexual is willing to give up their subsidies to "protect" the institution.
ReplyDeleteNow, the only people left screwed are single people.
Tony you and Alonzo should sue too!
ReplyDeletewhen you spend every sunday cheering for a bunch of dudes running around in spandex, dicks swinging in the wind, and youre favorite player is the one whos always got his hands on some fat dudes spandex wrapped nuts, you probably spend more time thinking about gay sex than youd care to admit
ReplyDeleteFor those who have a clue....you no doubt will have noticed the recent pro-homosexual news coverage across the nation.
ReplyDeleteThis comes on the heels of an uptrend in such coverage since President Obama assumed the office. Coincidence? You might ask yourself.
Sadly, the answer is a resounding NO. What you are witnessing is a concerted multi-decade strategy of further eroding the traditional American cornerstone of married husband & wife family.
This is not my diatribe against homosexuals, as I believe they should not be discriminated against, but just like everyone else, they should be limited to societal norms (no marriage to children, no marriage to first cousins, no incest, no bigamy, no polygamy, no legalized slavery, etc., AND marriage is a union between a man and a woman!). That being said, homosexuals should be allowed to enter into legal contracts to protect their assets, etc.
By destroying the traditional family in this country, you transition society to a coarser "individual-based" setting, whereby the state may more easily maintain control. Please note how the authoritarian NSA Big-Brother surveillance state is rapidly unfolding simultaneously with this concerted effort to breakdown the family unit.
So now you know.
"For those who have a clue....you no doubt will have noticed the recent pro-homosexual news coverage across the nation."
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I see it as pro-equality, and I'd like to know when single people will start to rebel against having to subsidize the married folks.
I didn't see you volunteering to give up your marriage benefits in your lengthy post.
I still say two butt fuckers have no business raising any kids. Some poodles yes, kids no.
ReplyDeleteI used to have a poodle named Byron, he was queer too.
ReplyDeletethat boy is very gay...
ReplyDelete"By destroying the traditional family in this country, you transition society to a coarser "individual-based" setting, whereby the state may more easily maintain control. Please note how the authoritarian NSA Big-Brother surveillance state is rapidly unfolding simultaneously with this concerted effort to breakdown the family unit."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it make more sense for the government to get out of the marriage business? No subsidies, no Social Security survivor benefits, no inheritance tax breaks, etc. Why is it the government's business to promote marriage?
2:50 & 6:35
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your "pro-equality" argument is that it eliminates societal norms/laws which serve as the bedrock for a functional society.
E.g., implementing your "pro-equality" stance means that if I want to legally marry my "S&M slave" and parade her around publicly in bondage, then I should be allowed to do that without retribution. Otherwise, my rights are being denied! Likewise, if I want to legally marry a child, an animal, an inanimate object, I should be allowed to do so. Now, perhaps you're laughing at these examples, but you know there are people who would attempt such things.
The government's tax code is a cornucopia of oppression, favoritism, corporate special interest, etc. One hundred years ago, when the federal income tax was instituted (a security bond of sorts to the private Federal Reserve which had just been created) the United States was not yet emerging as a world superpower. As our economy quickly accelerated following WWII, it served our purposes to promote/subsidize the nuclear family and increased birth rate.
Currently, we remain in a period of stagnant economic growth, corporate fraud, unparalleled intervention by central bankers, with a concerted effort to lower the standard of living in the U.S., to more closely match the rest of the world. The China-model of authoritarian leadership along with central economic planning is coming to our shores sooner than you think. To usher in this change, it now behooves political leadership to act in an anti-nuclear family protocol whereby the "state" assumes the role of "parent."
So now you know.
"E.g., implementing your 'pro-equality' stance means that if I want to legally marry my 'S&M slave' and parade her around publicly in bondage, then I should be allowed to do that without retribution. Otherwise, my rights are being denied! Likewise, if I want to legally marry a child, an animal, an inanimate object, I should be allowed to do so."
ReplyDeleteUmmm. I would favor allowing consenting adults to do as they please. A child, an animal, and an inanimate object would not fall into the category of consenting adults, and neither would the public if subjected to your S&M slave being paraded publicly in bondage.
Your history lesson seems to have been taken from the film "Zeitgeist" and ignores a few facts, among which are the US was well on its way to becoming a national power before the turn of the last century (after the Spanish-American war and the sailing of TR's Great White Fleet, the threat of the US entering WWI was enough for the Germans to stop unlimited submarine warfare from 1915 to 1917) and there was no need to promote an increased birth rate after WWII since most males had been out of the country for nearly five years.
You still don't give a rationale for the government's taking money from one group of people and giving it to another based on marital status, so, no, I still don't know.
Interesting how you conveniently adopt the term "consenting adults" to buffer your views, while not addressing the fact that your "pro-equality" stance opens the door to all my examples listed, and more.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, public homosexual behavior has been frowned upon as it violates societal norms. If we're now going to embrace and legally protect this behavior, then my point is that the pedophile, bestiality practitioner, Master & Slave couple, adult "infant" diaper wearer, etc., deserve to have their peculiar, but consenting, behavior protected. Please don't claim your newly protected gay rights, while denying others of their requested rights.
Prior to WWII, I said "the United States was not yet emerging as a world superpower." You may wish to argue this interpretation, but I'm not conceding the point. Prior to entering the war, via public deception, public sentiment was overwhelmingly one of isolationism.
As to your question of the rationale for "the government's taking money from one group of people and giving it to another based on marital status..", I don't disagree with your point, and please note I didn't offer a counter-argument previously. Also, please don't stop there, but reform the entire tax code to level the playing field.
You are one of the articulate readers of this blog, and I've enjoyed your questions. My original point was that granting homosexuals the legal right to marry, will inevitably lead to all manner of non-traditional unions (see my examples), and why shouldn't two or more people be able to do "whatever" they want?
Remember, when you say "pro-equality" other people may interpret that as:
1) everyone should have a guaranteed income from the state
2) the right to use any substance/drug as they see fit
3) No separation of genders in public bathrooms, school sports, etc.
4) Abolition of all-male/all-female clubs, LGBT groups, schools, fraternity/sorority, etc.
5) Gender, sexual orientation, race, faith neutral compulsory military service.
There's an infinite number of things that would have to be changed if strictly following a "pro-equality" platform, and I dare say that you wouldn't like many of them.
"Historically, public homosexual behavior has been frowned upon as it violates societal norms. If we're now going to embrace and legally protect this behavior, then my point is that the pedophile, bestiality practitioner, Master & Slave couple, adult 'infant' diaper wearer, etc., deserve to have their peculiar, but consenting, behavior protected. Please don't claim your newly protected gay rights, while denying others of their requested rights."
ReplyDeleteThis is probably for most of history, but don't overlook Greece and Sparta, where it was assumed that young men would have older male initiators and would then marry. But then for most of history polygamy and slavery were the norm. (Not that I'm putting polygamy down, but it hasn't been the norm in Western society in recent history although it's still widely practiced in the Middle East. As for the activities you describe, as long as two (or more) adults consent and have their fun in the privacy of their own homes, I don't care. After all, we're not subjected to live public displays of heterosexual sex acts. Sorry pedophilia and bestiality won't cut it as children and animals cannot consent.
"Prior to WWII, I said 'the United States was not yet emerging as a world superpower.' You may wish to argue this interpretation, but I'm not conceding the point. Prior to entering the war, via public deception, public sentiment was overwhelmingly one of isolationism. "
I think we're both right here. Prior to WWII the US was a superpower and the public sentiment was extremely isolationist, and justifiably so, in my opinion, given that it had just participated in the worst human tragedy imaginable up to that time. And I will agree the US was dragged into the war in part by deception, as happens with most wars. (I remember the Gulf of Tonkin, and I'm sure you remember "weapons of mass destruction.")
"Remember, when you say 'pro-equality' other people may interpret that as:
1) everyone should have a guaranteed income from the state
2) the right to use any substance/drug as they see fit
3) No separation of genders in public bathrooms, school sports, etc.
4) Abolition of all-male/all-female clubs, LGBT groups, schools, fraternity/sorority, etc.
5) Gender, sexual orientation, race, faith neutral compulsory military service."
You may be right that equality would lead to the above, but as a libertarian I would have no problem with numbers 2 and 5 (should compulsory military service make a comeback, which I doubt will happen short of another world war), and #2 is already happening in France (much to my surprise, but you get used to it). Number 1 is being argued surprisingly by both the extreme right and left; it's not new--it's a rehash of the Townsend Plan, and it may have some merit and be beneficial to the economy--I don't know. I can't see number 4 happening, but who knows? Lots of things have happened I would not have believed 50 years ago.