Wedding Bell Blues - Mitt Romney Edition

[sfaster]

This is Great! I don't understand Mitt's views. Everyone knows he had an episode

with mission buddy when he 18 or 19yrs. He just needs to tell and he would feel better. We know he's not gay..................It just happened.

[crimson1683]

You are right.......we probably have no right to block what you call a "marriage" ( even though the Bible defines it as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. ) So you just go ahead and "marry", sweetheart. God will be your judge. By the way, you can't sing worth a crap!

[crimson1683]

You are right.......we probably have no right to block what you call a "marriage" ( even though the Bible defines it as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. ) So you just go ahead and "marry", sweetheart. God will be your judge.

[dizzylr]

Deb your a talented peformer. Keep it up, we love you. Anyone who posts a negative comment against you on here just doesnt get it. Lets outlaw divorce against hetro couples.

[bartleby2007]

This is gay.

[lagesag]

and this version is pretty creative ;)

[beezers99]

Defining gay marriage restricts religious liberty (In Massachusetts Catholic charities can't adopt out as their doctrine is "discriminatory") and restricts parental rights (In Massachusetts, homosexual fairy tales were taught as equal treatment without parental authority). I want to protect my kids against what I, as a parent, feel is morally wrong. What about my rights? Why take over the definition of marriage? Domestic partnerships give gays ALL of the same rights. Marriage isn't a right.

[DebManischewitz]

OMG blah blah blah! What a rant!

Marriage is a right that is now shared by all in MA. You have a right to disagree with it, but no right to block my right to marry.

[Rockymtntruth]

@beezers99 "Defining gay marriage restricts religious liberty..." More bullshit from the religious Reich. Nope. You're on the wrong side of history and the day is fast coming when your philosophy will be thrown into the dustbin of history where trash belongs.

[Jacksonholenativ]

"I loathe you so you pious twit" LOL That's a hoot!!

[TheOnlyMelody]

great :)

[likeafish09]

I love this song and what you've done with it! LOL!

[screamingeagle57]

I LOVE THIS! And I hate MITT and all others like him!

[DebManischewitz]

Thanks!!! 

xo

Deb

[DebManischewitz]

Well at least we won't have Mitt in 2008.

[DebManischewitz]

HAHAHAHAHA!! Mitt took the bronze in Super Tuesday.

[DebManischewitz]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Mitt lost in FL!!

[balooby]

I agree with Kinky Friedman, the Texan who lost the governor race. "When it comes to marriage, both gays and heteros have the right to be miserable." Mitt should say the same.

[reasonandfacts]

Wow. What a sick individual. I feel sorry for people like this to a degree. But the way they live their lives is punishment enough for the way the mock decent values. I feel bad for people that are born with these sick feelings or those that had a poor upbringing. I look at a person like this and I am more and more thankful that I was blessed with the upbringing I had. What a disgusting individual.

[brettrj]

You and Mitt are just perfect for each other: completely intolerant and convinced you're absolutely right and all others are wrong. If anyone's to be pitied, it's you.

[screamingeagle57]

Oh, get a GRIP. You are the one who is disgusting. Get a life.

[jupsag60]

Deb you are really a very talentive performer !!!! Hope you the best...

[cmartel2]

Gays can marry all they want. Right now they're just in the process of demanding money from the state...without producing any children or future tax payers for it. Look at this junk. Is that worth promoting? Geez...

[DebManischewitz]

HAHAHAHAHA!! Mitt lost in NH!!! HAHAHAHAHA!! Mitt lost in Iowa!!!

[TheReporterOfTruth]

Mitt Romney is kind of using the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' motto to conceal his true beliefs. He, like many gays and lesbians, are fearful that if people really get to know who and what they are....they mat lose their jobs, careers, and maybe even the presidency.

Mitt can't speak truthfully about anything.

[mcSPANKSTER212]

i don't know who mitt is. I'm not very political but you've got a good voice. very old fashioned. nice work. pious twit. lol

[marti1704]

mcSPANKSTER212 - it's really sad that you don't know who Mitt is. You don't have to be "very political" to know that "Mitt" a Republican candidate for president.

[mcSPANKSTER212]

well sorry. you don't have to be so harsh about it. I wasn't commenting on whoever Mitt is, I was commenting on video itself. But if we're going to just nit pick everything that's said then have at it.

[cwood4ever]

Yea a fag dressing up to look like a woman and singing crap is really gonnna make mitt drop from the elections. Youre a freeking smart one fag!!

[Satori1800]

CWOOD4EVER: That's a guy?.. dang,, I just came a few buckets of semen on keyboard from stroking my giant cock to the girl looking thing.

God Bless You:)

Thanks for great video:)

[lavenderliberal]

Lady, ya got a lotta guts! LOL Great stuff!

[lilgreendude]

Oh that was fun and funny, thank you.

Willard has to carry his lies with him.

[connnected]

Hahaha.. Very Clever! 5 stars!

[reasonandfacts]

Shoyld men be allowed to marry their mother, aunt or sister? How about marrying their brother or father. Should that be allowed as well?

[timrain]

Pretty good song and singer, I am impressed

[jjones1987]

For the view of an average, everyday person. See my video, Mitt Romney for President 2008!!! Just click on my user name.

[greggorey]

why do you support someone who can't win in the general election? 70% of the population wants to end the war

w w w(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=­8rEN12wN1wU

there is a better choice

[jacknewt]

so when will this giuliani ad appear on tv?

[pathx21x]

September Dawn: The Truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacr

[Gospellightz]

Actually, it's kinda funny! You can tell 'it's' a guy because he doesn't know what to do with his hands...he looks rather akward slightly gyrating there and his face is not pretty, it's more male gender. Most likely a transvestite.

[dodgerman88]

That was funny, it just illustrates the fact that Mitt really is pro-family and not a liberal. He is a real conservative and as Ann Coulter said, "Come on, we gotta like this guy, he is a lot like Reagen, he tricks liberals into voting for him.

[Queencocochanel]

He isn't really "pro-family". He's more in favor saying whatever he thinks will get him into the White House. He won't win GOP nomination though because while people say in polls that they would vote for a Mormon...they really won't, especially Evangelicals.

P.S. Ann Coulter is a cunt.

P.P.S. You are fierce Miss Manischewitz!

[Gospellightz]

This is a stupid guy in drag! It's a wonder no one picked up on that before! What an idiot! LOL!

[DebManischewitz]

Duh!

[jbrannon89]

exactly right

[red5llaw]

RAAAALLPH! Please stop. please. BTW Its not just Mitt that wants ONLY one Man - one Woman marriages. Its the MAJORITY of the American People. I am amazed that people choose a gay life-style and then want all the "straight" things too. You know...marriage, kids etc. Be realistic just settle for a life partner!

[DebManischewitz]

no way!

[marshelmormon]

OOOkay...I'm sure he is thoroughly creeped out by this.

[DebManischewitz]

I hope so

[PhilStory]

You go girl!

[TanJuan]

yes he is a good business man so what, like dick was also a good business man & ceo

[matmor11]

this is retarded

[ceedeefmar]

This is a clever and lovely response to the stomach churning hypocrisy of that cult following, gazillionaire who has the gall to think he would make a good president. Bravo

[darthmills]

you're one sick puppy

[lalandlalandla]

Quite frankly, our country is faced with a huge amount of problems....with all that is going on in this world, gay issues are simply not as important - Wether you like it or not, Romney is the most qualified of the candidates, and he is the most capable of solving our more serious problems. If you are gay, please don't base your vote on where one stands on gay issues. It is selfish and irresponsible, given the seriousness of the problems this country is up against

[RomneyDefused]

amen

[Jacksonholenativ]

Ok, Seinfeld. You should have submitted a video response. ;)

[Jacksonholenativ]

LOL - I know some women in the west with big hands. That comment you made pretty sexist to me.

[DebManischewitz]

Can't we just talk about hair and makeup?

[Belobrasil33]

Are you kidding? You're the one who took a political swipe at my former governor. Listen, I'm a lifelong resident of Massachusetts and a registered Republican and even I think MITT IS A FIRST CLASS F*CKING CARPETBAGGING HYPOCRITE. However, I do agree with him on the issue of judicial activism. As for you I couldn't care less who you marry. BTW nice job with the song. If your were appearing in a cabaret I'd pay money to see your act! Nice parody!

[Starvalleybotany]

This ongoing debate is stupid. Belo you're an idiot. Give it up and throw in the towel. It's obvious that you're fighting a losing battle anyway because there's nothing you can do (except whine like you are doing) to change Massachusettes' decision. This Video is awesome and hits the nail on the head.

[Belobrasil22]

Well were you aware that there is every possibility that the issue will be on the ballot in Massachusetts in 2008 or possibly 2010. Best get to Massachusetts ASAP cause before too long the voters will have at it and then its anybody's guess what will happen. Will you cry if we in Mass. vote to amend the constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman?

[Jacksonholenativ]

Your opinion will one day soon be left in the dust of history. This country (according to the polls) is moving dramatically in favor of GLBT civil and equal rights. This trend is especially true among young voters (18-25 years of age) who have little patience or tolerance for bigotry and support their GLBT brothers and sisters.

[Belobrasil33]

My opinion? You mean the one where I oppose the crafting of legislation from the bench? That argument? If that is the case then welcome to "tyranny world" f*ck face where unelected judges impose their will on the populace. By the way, those 18-25 year olds, they aren't the same ones that were going to put Kerry in the Oval Office were they? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

[Jacksonholenativ]

Again isn't it interesting that the Southern politicians used this same argument (legislating from the bench) when it came to the overthrowing of segregation laws and interracial marriage? The story is different but the tune is the same.

[Belobrasil44]

I love that you homosexual types have the unmitigated audacity to compare the issue of same sex marriage to the the civil rights stuggles of blacks in the 1960's. As if your cause is even in the same universe as theirs. Yet, you still haven't answered my question. If the issue of same sex marriage is so firmly entrenched as a civil rights issue why have we not seen an onslaught of new legislation and/or judicial activism in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia? Speak on it!!!!

[Starvalleybotany]

IT IS VERY MUCH THE SAME AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE. Coretta Scott King was very clear and emphatic about that. Google it. If you don't understand the similarities then I think you have a lot of reading up to do. You obviously have a personal issue with this otherwise you would not really give a damn. This issue has religious, social, etc. implications that are very deep in our society.

[Belobrasil55]

Oh well I guess since Corretta Scott King says it then it must be so! LOL! Please, your stuggles are not even in the same universe as the 1960's civil rights struggles. As for me I give a damn 'cause I reside in Massachusetts.  As for you cupcake, if all is as yousay how is it that same sex marriage is STILL illegal in California? Speak on it mope.

[Starvalleybotany]

You are dead wrong. You need to read up on the gay civil rights struggle through the past 50 years at least. You obviously have not read anything about it. Have you ever heard of Bayard Rustin? Regarding California, the legal issues are evolving here. It is just a matter of time before SS Marriage is part of the California constitution. California's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the measure and I have a feeling that their ruling could be much like Massachusettes.

[Belobrasil44]

Funny, I don't recall at any time in my life taking a stand against gay parents. Would you be so kind as to point to one comment that I have posted where I take such a stand. ...but not for anything my lil show tune lover, if there were such a groundswell of support for gay marriage why have we not seen but ONE state (other than Mass.) legalize it? Speak on it mope!

[Jacksonholenativ]

Good Video. A total Riot!

[rpupkin77]

Boy, this will stop Mitt from being elected.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Go Deborah girl. Awesome!!!

[ep1433]

So is he a man?

Mitt definitely is the man. Run Mitt Run!

[currdat]

Deb, Sister, I looove this video! Can you believe the fearmongers are liking this, this...god-o-crat as a candidate? All I can say is come on 2008, we're ready. Anyway thanks for sharing your talent in such a great way.

[BlueSuit222]

What a riot! Great job Deborah! This guy goes wherever he think the political winds want him. I don't want him to by MY President. Love, L.A.

[Underdog263]

I'am a lifelong Democrat who Voted and supports Governor Deval Patrick. I do support this man Mitt Romney with having the Massachusetts voters decide on Homosexual marriage being legal. The 4.1 millions voters need to decide. Its the law of the Constituion.

[DebManischewitz]

Minority rights should NEVER be up for a vote by the majority.

[katvilani]

Your absolutely right, allowing the majority to decide if a minority is deserving of the same right that they enjoy is insane in a country that brags about being tolerant and diverse.

[wntoply6]

should black rights have been decided in the 50's & early 60's by southerners underdog263? if so, what would have been the outcome? just guess, they would probably have been put back in chains and made slaves forever. as debmanischewitz said, minority rights should NEVER be up for a vote by the majority.

should gays be put in their place? and if so, what would that "place" be? please respond underdog263.

[Jacksonholenativ]

The founders of the great Commonwealth of Massachusettes and especially the framers of the U.S. Constitution would never support voting using the tyrany of the majority on a civil rights issue. It's just plain immoral and that's why what the legislature did was right on. They protected the civil rights of sexual minorities against the tyrany of the majority.

[Belobrasil66]

Hey look mope, it appears your cross-dressing friend deleted my posts. Imagine that? Must have hit a nerve or something. God forbid one should let well thought out cogent statements of the law get in the way of a good argument, eh jack off? ...and not for anything, but have you noticed that as of this date no state legislature (Massachusetts included) has re-defined marriage to include partners of the same sex? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Perhaps one reason your posts were deleted is because they are so full of hate and bigotry. Comparing homosexual orientation to polygamy (polygamous orientation does not exist), incest and beastiality is like comparing apples to rocks. Gay people should have the right to marry for the same reason straight people should - authentic Love.

[Belobrasil55]

Again you are arguing (as you put it) "apples and rocks". How many times do I have to say this? I couldn't care less about same sex marriage and yet here you are trying to label me some type of bigotted homo-phobe!  Is that your best counter-argument? Can't rebut what I say so label me a hate-filled bigot? It's not about same sex marriage a-hole, it's about the legislative process. Look, if it make you feel any better I have dope slapped way better than you so don't feel so bad.

[Jacksonholenativ]

The public should should never vote on a civil rights issue and same gender marriage is about civil rights that is why the courts (they are about protecting the rights of the people) had every right to ensure marriage equality. Can't you get that through your thick skull? You creep me out when you say one thing ("label me as a hate-filled bigot) and then you make statements that completely support your stand as a bigoted homophobe.

[Belobrasil44]

Funny that the Mass. SJC chose only to rule that the "same sex" prohibition within the Mass. marriage law was violative of the Mass. Constitution. They didn't bother striking any other prohibitions did they? If what they did was all about "marriage equality" as you say then why not strike all the prohibitions? Get it now jerk off? They LEGISLATED from the bench. They in effect "amemded" the Massachusetts marriage law without the authority to do so. Buy a clue mope!

[Jacksonholenativ]

You obviously do not practice law and you obviously don't have a clue how the legal system works. Idiot! Virtually every lawyer I have spoken to about this issue state that this is a civil rights issue. This is not about "legislating from the bench" as you so simple mindedly parrot the Bush Right Wing Religious Fascists. You and Jim Dobson ought to get together. Maybe you could work for Focus On The Family.

[Belobrasil55]

Every lawyer you've spoken to? LOL! You clearly know nothing of the Mass. decision and how deftly the SJC skirted the statutory scheme. This is a blatant example of judicial legislation and a circumvention of the legislative process. You're long on conjecture, but short on facts. Why not answer my question about the other prohibitions within the statute? If "equality" is what you seek then where's the outcry against the prohibitions that wereallowed to stand? Answer me that f*ck face!

[Jacksonholenativ]

Your childish rants don't answer my questions asshole!

[Belobrasil55]

Other than your moronic rhetorical questions jack off I have yet to see any question posed by you. I'm all ears f*ck face. You got a question for me then lay it on me and unlike you I will give it my best shot.

[Jacksonholenativ]

No I'd call you pretty creepy and a total lunatic! Anyone who feels he must resort to name calling and abuse in order to feel superior.

[Belobrasil33]

Oh I'm sorry. Did I hurt your feelings? If so then get over it mope. Life is tough. ...and remember that which does not kill you only makes you stronger. I suspect, however, that you don't really think me "creepy" for if you did it is doubtful that you would be so quick to engage and respond.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Taking away prohibitions against Polygamy, incest and beastiality are a universe away from two consenting adults (whether they be same or opposite gender) who want to place responsibilities of marriage on their relationship. You have not shown me any evidence that beastiality or polygamy is a sexual orientation for they are not. Incest brings chaos to society and also can cause emotional risks to children in society.

[Belobrasil22]

Blurring the "bright line" gender roles can also cause emotional risk to children in society. Isn't that what the opponents of same sex marriage have been saying for years? ..and from the looks of the scoreboard it appears that the opponents still hold a commanding lead. You really need to stop and reassess your argument. To those of us with no vested interest in the outcome (like me) the arguments on both sides of this issue appear eerily alike.

[Starvalleybotany]

So Mr. know it all, how would you vote on this issue were the issue brought to the voters? Be clear and concise in your answer.

[Belobrasil33]

Me, I would vote in favor of same sex marriage 'cause it don't make me no never mind. All I have been trying to tell that jerk off Jacksonholenativ is that he is off-base for bashing Mitt on his criticism of the Mass. SJC. They overstepped their authority on this one and inappropriately legislated from the bench. They MADE law and making laws is the sole and exclusive purview of the legislature. Pure and simple.

[Jacksonholenativ]

I think that these issues are just a matter of perspective. There is a paradigm shift occuring in our nation at this time. I think that the argument you are using was used in the cases of interacial marriage as well. Should the legislature be the ones who make the laws in a civil rights case or should the judicial branch interpret the law already in place to be more inclusive? You view this judicial interpretation as their creating new law but that I disagree. Just a difference in opinion.

[Belobrasil44]

If any of my arguments were used in opposition to interacial marriages then such arguments would have been purely specious if we're talking about race-based prohibitions. With same sex marriage, however, we are talking about a radical departure from the provisions of the law that restrict same - that was not the case with race-based prohibitions. The Mass. SJC REDEFINED marriage and that is not within their purview. Sorry, but you know I'm right.

[Starvalleybotany]

Sorry but I disagree with your point of view. The argument has to do with sexual orientation and the fact that sexual minorities (one who is same sex oriented for instance) were being discriminated against. The judges placed sexual minorities on an equal footing with the heterosexual majority which will always be the vast majority. I'm sure these judges don't agree with your argument. Sorry but I disagree with you.

[Belobrasil55]

You're as dense as Jacksonholenativ f*ck face. If I've said this once I've said it a thousand times - the issue here's not about same sex marriage it's about judicial activism. The judges carved out a nice lil nitch to simply cover homosexuals is all. It's not about equal rights for homosexuals its about equal rights for all. If the Mass. Marraige statute did not comport with the Mass. Constitution then the statute should have been struck and the legislature forced to re-work the language.

[Starvalleybotany]

The abusive language doesn't make you right. Sorry but I completely disagree with you. Your argument is twisted. You see things differently than justices do and as I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one guy.

[Belobrasil44]

Certainly we can agree to disagree, but I would STILL like to hear from you as to why if the Massachusetts decision was so legally sound we have not seen an avalanche of similar decisions at least in some of the more liberal jurisdictions (i.e. California, Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, etc.) As I said before - SPEAK ON IT!

[Starvalleybotany]

It's pretty simple (in a way) Vermont has Civil Unions equivalent to marriage rights. The arguments against it tend to be societal and religious. There is a heavy conservative religious lobby in all 50 states and that is one of the main reasons you haven't seen your so-called avalanche. It's also a complex issue which you should read up on.

[Belobrasil55]

Well, I won't diagree with you on the conservative and religious lobbies. I am sure they are having a chilling effect on the drafting of legislation, but I would suggest to you that your cause would be better served by a mandate from the people rather than a judicial decree.  There is nothing complex about this issue and why accept hollow victories from the judiciary? Like I said, Massachusetts will probably vote on this either next year or 2010 and then you may be back at square one.

[Jacksonholenativ]

You don't think that there is anything complex about sexual orientation and the issue of same gender marriage? Again please read up on this and look at all sides of the issue. The gay civil rights movement goes much further back than the Stonewall Riots. I think that the issue you are wrestling with is whether sexual orientation qualifies one as being an authentic minority.

[Belobrasil22]

Are you a stroke victim? Is that why you can't comprehend my words? I have not said one thing about the "complexities" of sexual orientation. I have said I COULD NOT CARE LESS about subject! With respet to marraige, though, if gay people want to marry then so be it. All the legislatures of each state have to do is amend their marriage statute. Simple!

[Jacksonholenativ]

RU a stroke victim yourself? The reason I have said and (on several occasions) that the supreme court should make this decision is because gay people represent a sexual minority. Does sexual orientation qualify a person as a minority in your mind? From what you have written you don't agree that it does. The courts are there to uphold civil rights of minorities.

[Belobrasil22]

Whether a person is a minority based on sexual orientation is of no concern to me (as I have said 8 million times). If the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was out to protect all minorities then the course of action should have been to strike the Mass. marriage law as unconstitutional. That is NOT what they did dolt. They carved out a nice lil niche for ONLY those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. ...and that my show tune loving friend is LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH! Get it?

[Jacksonholenativ]

I disagree with you that the Massachusettes courts carved out a nice little niche. I think your worldview is very narrow and simplistic.

[Belobrasil22]

See now this is what I have been saying about you all along isn't it? You paint with a broad brush, but you really have no feel for the details do you? Just once I would like to hear how, if the SJC's task is to protect all minorities, that the Mass. marriage statute was not struck down as unconstitutional. Do you know that statutory ban against same sex marriage still exists in Massachusetts? You only see the big picture and you miss the little details that may invariably sink your ship.

[Jacksonholenativ]

The big picture is what matters. You get stuck in the details and legalism like the scribes and the pharisees of the Bible.

[Belobrasil22]

...and this is the best response you can muster? You bring in the f*cking Pharisees? LOL LOL LOL It's O.K. my lil show tune loving mope, I understand your dilemma. You're the type that never lets facts get in the way of a good argument. Keep your head buried in the sand like that mope and watch your cause continue to flounder! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

[Jacksonholenativ]

I disagree and so does the American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association and virtually every mainstream health organization. You're in the minority about this issue. I think you should think about educating yourself about Gay parents because they tend to be highly successful at parenting and are as good or often better than your average heterosexual parents because they tend to try so extremely hard at parenting.

[Belobrasil44]

Funny, I don't recall at any time in my life taking a stand against gay parents. Would you be so kind as to point to one comment that I have posted where I take such a stand. ...but not for anything my lil show tune lover, if there were such a groundswell of support for gay marriage why have we not seen but ONE state (other than Mass.) legalize it? Speak on it mope!

[Jacksonholenativ]

Virtually every mainstream Psychological organization (i.e. the APA, etc.) have shown that same sex couples (on average) are just as apt to raise healthy, well adjusted and sucessful children as straight parents. There is no evidence of these couples posing a threat to children or society. Incest and in many cases polygamy have proven to be dangerous to the motional well-being of children and to women.

[Belobrasil99]

Really? Now tell me mope were these studies of which you speak of mainstream American society or did they happen to look at other cultures where polygamy is accepted. Think about it mope, if they only looked at examples in the USA then is not the data faulty? How can they make broad statements like that without looking at cultures where polygamy is accepted?

[Jacksonholenativ]

Also what other "prohibitions" are you writing about? Be specific because for the most part all I have gotten from you are vague diatribes regarding "legislating from the bench" which again is extreme Republican right wing religiofascist talk.

[Belobrasil55]

Well I am a Republican that's for sure - don't know about the "right wing religio-fascist" part especially since I have told you at least 10 times I couldn't care less about same-sex marriage. Anyway jack off why don't you take a lil look-see at Mass. Gen, Laws c. 207 before you go spouting off about things which you clearly know nothing of...

[Jacksonholenativ]

By the way go to Lambda Legal, the ACLU or HRC and ask them your innane questions regarding Massachusettes. You obviously have an issue with same sex marriage otherwise you would not be ranting about this issue.

[Belobrasil33]

Jesus, are you a stoke victim? My issue is not with same sex marriage, but with judicial activism. I agree Romney is an a-hole, but on this issue he was/is correct. The "definition" of marriage is the domain of the legislature and the court should never have acted as it did. You must be a stoke victim if you can't understand this.

[Jacksonholenativ]

The judges in this case did NOT legislate from the bench. WHat they did (as other judges have from other states) was to interpret the state constitution to include same sex couples within the definition of marriage. They voted to include fairness for the couples and for those who also have children within those households. Giving these couples and their children the opportunity to have the protections and the support that marriage affords is RIGHT, JUST and is only FAIR.

[Belobrasil99]

Well lookee here. Looks like the lil jerk off actually did a lil research. Of course your in the right church but the wrong pew. What the SJC said was that the same sex prohibition violated the "equal protection" provisions of the Mass. Constitution. If this is the case then why allow the other prohibitions to stand? You still haven't answered me that mope. Why can't a man marry his step-daughter or take on multiple spouses? We're talking about "equality" aren't we?

[Jacksonholenativ]

Some of these prohibitions have to do with bigamy laws and those are separate issues. Bigamy creates a lot of chaos in society including child abuse (as has been shown in southern Utah and some other polygamous communities). The anti-bigamy laws protect women and children. That's why. I think your logic is very backward. Also men aren't knocking the door down to get married to their stepdaughters. Your questions are very off the wall.

[Belobrasil99]

Interesting that you use basically the same arguments in opposition to polygamy that opponents of same-sex marriage have used. "Chaos in society" will result if we allow same sex marriage. Blah, blah, blah. Give it up mope and at least admit that Mitt was right on the issue of judicial activism. You know he was, it's just your pride won't allow you to admit it. ...and we all know what "goeth before the fall!"

[Jacksonholenativ]

Hey Belobras, why don't you stop picking on Jackson and start making some sense in your arguments. All I see with you is an inflated ego.

[Belobrasil99]

Poking at my ego are ya? Is that in place of a cogent rebuttal? In all your bluster it's a shame you've yet to submit any evidence that what I say is without merit. I, however, know your problem. You like to shoot from the hip don't ya? Ya kind of hear what the Mass. SJC ruled and you ran with it without even knowing what the decision was and how it was reached. If anything I've schooled you in the art of doing research before you pop-off. You can thank me anytime mope.

[Jacksonholenativ]

By the way you really have not been a bit specific about any of these issues. YOu have only ranted and raved and used abusive language. That tells me a lot about your creepy personality.

[Belobrasil55]

LOL! I'm not the least bit creepy. A bit "in your face I'll admit" but no one has ever told me I was creepy. Read my words carefully - I've no opinion on the issue of same sex marriage. My concern isn't with same sex marriage but with the manner in which it was brought about in Mass. Not for anything but if the issue were put before the Mass. plebiscite it would probably pass. I would've preferred the legislature to amend the statute rather than have the SJC force it on us.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Maybe it's the fact that you are so abusive as well as arrogant that people really are turned off by that. If you have such a problem with Massachusettes why don't you consider suing them? I'm sure you would overwhelm the lawyers and judges with your overwhelming intelligence and legal knowledge and wit.

[Belobrasil33]

Sue who? The SJC? Like I give a rat's ass about same sex marriage. I couldn't care less, but I do care about judicial activism and if you are an American citizen (regardless of your sexual orientation) you should be concerned as well. Your cause would be better served with a mandate from the people rather than a decree from un-elected life term judges.

[Jacksonholenativ]

I disagree with you on these issues. That's the bottom line.

[Belobrasil99]

That's your prerogative, but I know that you know in your heart that I'm correct. Marriage laws and the definitions attendant thereto must be the product of legislation and not judicial decree. If what you believe to be so why haven't we seen an avalanche of decisions from the states relative hereto this? Even the California Supreme Court (a notoriously liberal bench) hasn't followed the Mass. SJC's lead. No, the learned scholars in Calif. see this as a matter for the legislature. Sorry!

[Starvalleybotany]

Sorry but California's situation is a lot more complex than that. I know because I used to live there and was involved in the political scene Mr. know it all.

[Belobrasil22]

Yes of course. Much too complex for a simple-minded dolt like you to understand, right? That being the case shouldn't you learn from Jackson's lead and try doing a lil research before you spout off? That would be a good idea wouldn't dolt?

[Starvalleybotany]

Oh, believe me I've done a ton of research on this and I don't care to argue with you about it for a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still Mr. know it all.

[Belobrasil33]

Uhmmmm not sure I comprehend the import of your comment, but regardless of same you and jerk off jacksonholenativ seem to have a hard time comprehending how ALL our liberties are compromised when life term judges and not elected representative engage in the drafting of laws. That is my argument mope and I would think even a slug like you would be able to grasp it.

[jerrydoubleu]

Mitt swallows.

[Tenorhigh]

Go Deborah!  You are the best! Mitt SUCKS!

[iluvincitingviolence]

My God...evolution is not true, or you'd have been swallowed at birth.

[rebeccablumenfeld]

Sweet! This is the best endorsement of Mitt yet. Cross dressing talentless homos hate Mitt, thats good eneough for me. WMR '08

[rextrek]

Hey Rebecca - why don't we vote on taking your right to vote away? After all, you're ONLY women! Educate yourself Bitch!

[autumn264]

That was great.

Mitt is not a repub or dem, he's a theocrat. Hopefully there will be a maverick moderate republican that will slam him in the primaries.

[BrenttheGreat]

Mitt 08!

[rextrek]

Vote Mitt if you want another GOP Rich White Man who cares about no-one but the Rich - asshole! You people need to read history!

[WiseSouthernChap]

don't quit your day job...Go Mitt 2008!

[yope]

i think Laura would approve...

[Ateleses]

Funny!

Go Mitt 2008!

[Jacksonholenativ]

Yeah, flip flopper Mitt. Just what we need.

[daneslord]

wow.....i don't live w/him as guv (my guvs a fairly sane dem) but i'm gonna guess its bad!

[FierceEncounter]

Support Marriage Equality for ALL!

We need your help to fight efforts to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, including any Constitutional amendment. Please, sign the Million For Marriage petition at millionformarriage.org and be a part of this historic civil rights battle. Gay, straight, married, single...we need everyone who believes in marriage equality to stand up NOW. Once again sign it at millionformarriage.org AND SPREAD THE WORD

[kimpyle11]

That was great!!

[starman441]

awesome

[dayoffproductions]

"I loathe you so, you pious twit"

Classic!

[eugoldlareg]

that was funny