Freepers outraged that marriage has been tossed "Under the Bus" in Iowa

[marmar]

:rofl: :nopity:




from the FreeRepublic thread "Iowa Supreme Court Throws Marriage Under the Bus":



To: Drew McKissick
Impeach the tyrant judges.



2 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 12:58:15 PM by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
Iowa of all places.



3 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 12:58:32 PM by Slapshot68
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Regulator
Impeach the tyrant judges.

And that's what really bothers me about this. If it was done legislatively, I'd be much more OK with it. Even if God is against it - well, this isn't a theocracy, and I like our government erring on the side of liberty. Let the Church speak the truth on the issue. But despotic judges - they definitely are not good for liberty.

4 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:00:48 PM by kc8ukw
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
Attention all queers living in my hometown: Go to Iowa.
That is all.


5 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:01:09 PM by clintonh8r (Librerals are more dangerous to liberty than terrorists.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
they said that the law is unconstitutional

????????????????????????????????????????/

so does this mean now homo’s can get married right away or can an appeal go in and why are people not demonstrating up there about this and why not get the constitution changed like we have down here in FL

for any homo’s thinking they are married, YOU ARE NOT
I am not religious either so cut the crap about me being a religious person.

You are sick and have a perverted sick mind which needs to be addressed



6 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:02:08 PM by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
Yep. 1000 years from now, historians will discuss the Decline and Fall of America. I believe they will look back to Marbury v. Madison as when the courts began to steer the whole thing into the ground.



7 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:03:24 PM by NeoConfederate
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
When are we, as a nation, going to stand up and say ENOUGH?

Judges have NO right to overturn the voter’s decisions.



8 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:09:38 PM by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
I ask you all to consider why gays agitate for the “right” to marry....

Hint: It’s the financial benefits of marriage that are conferred by the state when they license the union.

If you really want to end this agitation for gay marriage, you have to remove the invidious discrimination against gays in things like taxation and socialist insecurity benefits.

It’s that simple.



9 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:11:55 PM by DivaDelMar (CRAm member-- (Conservative Republicans Against mcCain) Think you're entitled to my vote? CRAm It!!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DivaDelMar
They agitate for the their right to “marry” because they want to destroy the traditional family and all that it represents.

They don’t want any healthy normal behavior going on. It bothers them.



10 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:13:35 PM by Marie2 (The capacity for self-government is a moral quality. Only a moral people can be free.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Marie2
Have you ever talked to a gay person?

They could care less what goes on in your bedroom.

They want the right to devise their property to their significant other, free of taxation.

I just did an inheritance tax return for a woman who was living in a “non-traditional” relationship. Because she had the audacity to die while not “married” in the eyes of the state, the state confiscated $150k and allowed her to convey the remainder to her significant other.

If they had been married in the eyes of the state, the tax burden would have been ZERO.

Tell me again what is driving this push for gay “marriage.”



11 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:16:07 PM by DivaDelMar (CRAm member-- (Conservative Republicans Against mcCain) Think you're entitled to my vote? CRAm It!!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
Kawlefornea is next.
We don't need no stinkin' amendments... we will overrule them because we are untouchable and we know what's best for you whether you like it or not.

Well, I don't like it. I'm sick of it. And I'm not going to take it anymore. IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH.


12 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:17:49 PM by BigFinn (Isaiah 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Slapshot68
Iowa of all places.
The people of Iowa are as opposed to gay marriage by huge margins. That makes this decision even more tyrannical. It's the judges in question lost their jobs and the Democratic party in that state paid the price.


13 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:24:21 PM by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DivaDelMar
Have I ever talked to a gay person?

I work for gay people.

I live in SF.

I have had violent protestors at my church several times over the past 20 years. I have had agitators in the church.

I know ALL ABOUT the WHOLE AGENDA.



14 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:24:53 PM by Marie2 (The capacity for self-government is a moral quality. Only a moral people can be free.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DivaDelMar
Me thinks you are at the wrong website. Take your gaymarriage-loving views and preach them to the subhumans over at DU. You might get some respect from them.



15 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:26:55 PM by ohioman
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
This idiocy also creates an open path for people to marry their children, their siblings, their dogs or other livestock, or as many “partners” as they want.

To anybody who disagrees, I say “Why not ?”



16 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:31:12 PM by jimt
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Drew McKissick
The cancer has spread to the point where seccession may be a prescient topic for today. The malevalent judges are EVERYWHERE! So just voting a couple of politicians isn’t going to fix the ubuquitous rot of our schools and culture. We got problems, baby! As for myself, I think I’m going to just mellow out a little.



17 posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:32:40 PM by Professor_Leonide (I said to the young man who showed me a photo, "Who can ever be sure what is behind a mask?")
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DivaDelMar
They want the right to devise their property to their significant other, free of taxation.
I don't see a problem with that - that's just. Let's get rid of ALL inheritance taxes.

Also, no hospital should be allowed to keep a "significant other" from a sizk person.

There are many changes that I'd agree wholeheartedly to.

Redefining marriage is NOT one of them.



More, sadly, at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2221629/posts

[BlooInBloo]

1. The penultimate post is CLASSIC.

[panader0]

2. "The subhumans at DU" LOL!

It's truly hard to fathom the shallowness of the freeper mind.

[ruggerson]

3. Well that's where the gays and lesbians are in this country

so it was one way to reach them

[bluedeminredstate]

4. This little nugget is cute

"The cancer has spread to the point where seccession may be a prescient topic for today. The malevalent judges are EVERYWHERE! So just voting a couple of politicians isn’t going to fix the ubuquitous rot of our schools and culture. We got problems, baby! As for myself, I think I’m going to just mellow out a little.

Malevalent and ubuquitous. Try to look those words up. What a moran...

:eyes:

[roughsatori]

13. "Ubu Quitous" is the child of Ubu Roi & Pere Ubu.. "Malevalent" is code for Transsexual. NT

[sufrommich]

5. Props to DivaDelMar, for refusing to go along with the

requisite 5 minutes of hate.

Unsurprisingly, freepers are mute on the deadly killing spree by their fellow freeper in Pittsburgh, but gays getting married = rapture time.

[Deja Q]

17. Seconded. DivaDelMar seems to keep a level head on the issues.

[Kievan Rus]

6. Most Freepers act as if they escaped from a mental hospital

[SoCalNative]

7. Most FReepers probably have

since their hero Ronald Reagan was at the forefront of ensuring that state mental hospitals went the way of the dodo.

[doctor jazz]

11. I just figured the mental hospitals now have internet access.

:D

[Not Me]

8. Interestingly, the judge who wrote the confirming decision was a REPUBLICAN

nt

[Peacetrain]

9. BINGO!!

[Veruca Salt]

14. Must be that dying breed

of Lincoln-repub (though I think most of them just switched parties) because it seems nowadays that 99% of the pubs are Falwell-repubs.

[Iggo]

10. They're wrong.

Marriage has been tossed under the bus here in California.

It's doing fine in Iowa.:applause:

[Lyric]

12. I read things like this, and I wonder

if we had had the internet during the years of "separate but unequal" and anti-miscegenation, would our Black brothers and sisters have ever gained their freedom, even in as incomplete a form as it was?

Sometimes I think the clearest difference (and the biggest problem) that exists between us and the Freeper types is this: they have all of the energy and obsessive intent to harm that all mobs do. We do not, and never will. Mobs exist to hurt people--literally. Whatever the pseudo high-minded intention behind the ringerleaders of a mob, the participants are always there to fucking HURT someone. Mobs don't form to demand equality, compassion, kindness, and true justice. Non-violent protests do, yes, but they aren't mobs. Most progressive protesters have no intention of hurting anyone. Progressives protest to EASE suffering, not inflict it.

Not so with a mob. They want to DESTROY--whether physically, financially, or emotionally. They want revenge. They want people to SUFFER for the perceived slights against the mob. They want to throw you down, break your (literal or not) bones, trample you underfoot, bury you in shit, and piss on your grave every now and then for good measure.

The internet has made it so much easier for progressive people to get together and form a community, but what about what it does for the mob? It's the ultimate recruiting tool, the ultimate way of turning fifty-thousand small, isolated, and powerless mobs into one gargantuan destruction machine--nailed together by common hate and determination to "make those fuckers pay." Once upon a time, our Founding Fathers feared the mob (they called them "factions") more than anything else. Part of Madison's reasoning for having a powerful federal government was to inhibit the ability of "factions" to wield power. At the time, this was a good strategy--the enormous geography of a union under one government made it almost impossible for any one faction to gain enough power to destroy on a large scale.

Not so anymore. The internet has eliminated Madison's geography protection. The factions have come together. Make no mistake--we are facing danger on a scale that the world has never seen before. The internet is the biggest blessing that humankind has ever known, and also the biggest curse.

I hadn't really considered all of this until today. I am torn as to how I feel about it. I love the internet and would never give it up. I have no beef with free speech and assembly. I *do* share Madison's concerns about factions, though, and the dangers to democratic stability that they represent. Factions seem democratic on the surface, but they are not. They are the ESSENCE of mob rule. They are a form of tyranny.

So how do we reconcile our need for community and information and our rights to free speech and expression, with our national interest in minimizing the dangers of the mob?

This is a question that I have no answer to. I'm not even sure an answer *exists*.

:(

[DFW]

15. "Subhumans at DU??"

We have Freepers here?

[roughsatori]

16. Like some DU members Freepers don't understand that "Marriage" is just a word.

:sarcasm:

Oh wait, I understand: It is "fighting over a word" when we (Queer people) demand equal-rights - but when they are against equal-rights for GLBT people the word "marriage" becomes a tangible artifact for all that is sacred.

[Canuckistanian]

18. Wow, they consider Marbury v. Madison as the beginning of decline?

Jesus, that's one hell of a conspiracy theory. And without M v. M, NOTHING could be ruled "unconstitutional".

That decision was in 1803. If it hasn't caused the complete destruction of the country YET, I don't think it was that bad.

If the country had been ruled by Freepers, the United States would be a tinpot dictatorship, torn apart by endless civil war and despotic rulers.