Comments on: Liveblogging Day 10: Daily Summary

By: J. Stone

J. Stone — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:42:20 +0000

Do we really believe that the man in Massachusetts who sought to marry a horse after same-sex marriage was legalized there actually wanted to marry a horse? Sounds to me like an opponent of same-sex marriage trying to prove a point by means of a sophomoric stunt. I don't guess that possibility ever occurred to the esteemed panel at this mega-church rally. Stupid people.

By: TheColu.mn » Blog Archive » The National: DADT Announcement In State of the Union Speech?

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:48:57 +0000

[...] Boies got Prof. Kenneth Miller of Claremont McKenna College to admit that DADT and DOMA were “legislated discrimination.” Obviously, these two laws are part of a gay smokescreen to hide that political power. FireDogLake [...]

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:15:53 +0000

Unfortunately, in this case, the evidence is damning that the church and religious beliefs where the most vital attribute used to pass Prop ha8te.

Homosexuality is on trial here not marriage.

Next on the Bigot agenda will most def be the re-criminalization of homosexuality.

They are building all the tools that they will need to start a witch hunt….Mark my words they will not stop at marriage!

By: Todd

Todd — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:14:09 +0000

LOL, that is great. Thanks!

Love,
Todd

By: The Free Radical

The Free Radical — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:48:49 +0000

Thankyou for blogging this trial! Excellent work! We love you so much!

By: hank

hank — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:36:37 +0000

Obviously from the evidence presented, most people can see that the court will find Prop 8 to violate equal protection. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have their say. Can someone provide the procedure for the review of this decision. How much weight is placed upon the testimony being provided and how much input will be from the Supremes research provided by Supreme clerks.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:59:59 +0000

The videos are quite repugnant, but please don't think they reflect the views of all Christians or all Christian churches. They represent the views of the right wing fundamentalists who can't or won't use the powers of deductive reasoning God gave them to understand that the Bible must be viewed in its proper historical context.

Many Christians, and Christian churches, support LGBT rights, including same sex marriage.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:27:10 +0000

You're talking about OUR congress? They would never be able to remove a supreme court justice. They can barely agree to turn on the lights in the morning. Trying to remove a justice… no way. Maybe if that justice was caught on national TV in a compromising position with 12 hookers of various genders and a face full of crack…. then MAYBE they would be removed. But even then, if it was a conservative justice, the repubs would just say "the justice apologized, let's move on, no point in bringing up the past"….

By: David

David — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:03:01 +0000

I don't think he can move to strike, since the judge allowed the witness to continue, despite objections by the defense.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:46:52 +0000

heheheheh……….Move to Strike!……yell the cowards of the defense.