http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1340136.html

That's just made of awesome.

This is not a big deal.....Texas lawmakers will craft an amendment to the wording snafu and that will be the end of it....

C'mon, this is Texas, man - those are the same lawmakers that screwed it up in the first place.

that is awesome.

one can only hope that when they attempt to amend the texas  constitution to refine and clarify the language, they accidentally introduce a loophole requirement that mandates anti-gay rights republicans marry goats.

and blow them.

That would just be making legal what is already true.

LOL

When gay marriage is actually banned in a state's CONSTITUTION, that state must finally and irrefutably admit that they are a theocracy, without qualification.

Maybe Texas is fine with that.  If that's the case, they really should secede, along with any states with similar constitutional amendments.  The entire country will be better off without them.

More and more I'm of the opinion that the US really needs to be two nations at this point.  I think that the ideological differences between "Left" and "Right" have finally, actually, become irreconcilable.

It does seem like the US, or parts of it, are determined to break as many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as possible.

Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. (in part)

Nothing at all about marriage being one man and one woman.

Well, we're 'muricans heah.

I'm reminded of the Onion article about the man wrong about the Constitution, but willing to die for his wrong version of it.

The depths of American ignorance astonish me at times.

"More and more I'm of the opinion that the US really needs to be two nations at this point.  I think that the ideological differences between "Left" and "Right" have finally, actually, become irreconcilable."

The "left" doesn't really exist as a political party though.

I was watching TDS when he had Biden on. I never heard so much from him... never listened or looked for it. I like that dude.

Anyway, he said something similar to what I will say here. Part of the reasons the Repubs we able to steamroll legislation is that they basically always keep a toe on the party line. Dems go from the communists (as Stewart put it) to the conservatives that are really only Dems in name because they don't want to be lumped in with the Republicans.

"I belong to no organized party.  I'm a Democrat!"

I think what it says is that political polarization is a Republican manufactured problem.

"you're with us or against us"

The power in uniting under a common banner can't be denied. Nor can the stupidity if the banner only represents what the most powerful members under it want. It's the party of oligarchy.

"Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

What it doesn't say: "...race, nationality, religion *or sex*,..."

It seems very clear in declaring that men and women can marry, but not men and men or women and women?

It's clear they should allow gay marriage because gay marriage has been in all 49 other states since the founding of this nation, and is also a fundamental part of all other cultures worldwide for hundreds of years.

>> When gay marriage is actually banned in a state's CONSTITUTION, that state must finally and irrefutably admit that they are a theocracy, without qualification.

By your reasoning any state that has any law pertaining to marriage is a theocracy.

Did you know that the Utah constitution has a ban on polygamy? And they aren't a theocracy. I mean, ...  Oh, never mind.

A lot of states also have penalties for murder as well. When will the states stop entangling themselves in religion.

there are considerations of the state above and apart from religion in both polygamy and murder.

polygamy: beyond the issues of societal stability, there are private and taxpayer funded benefits afforded to a spouse under law that simply cannot scale.

murder: beyond the fact that you do not need religion to have ethics, it robs the state of revenue, usually after much public $$$ has been invested in education of the victim.

there are no such arguments against gay marriage.

"...that simply cannot scale."

How so?  How is two pairs of people married separately different from all four of them married communally?

another strike against organized religion.

as far as i know, in the overwhelming majority of polygamist arrangements ever practiced in the united states, it was 'biblically driven', and there is an alpha male breadwinner and multiple subservient women who generally devote themselves to child rearing/education and housework.

dislaimer: iana-polygamist.

Gayriage is not marriage.  So you mean to say "gayriage illegal" not "marriage illegal".

And I fully support gayriage!  I think homos should be able to be gayried, have the same rights as married couples.

Well, conservatives are easy to organize because they're easy to scare.  They're afraid of change, so if you scare them about a small change by making it look big, they'll run for their pre-established shelter.

You can use the same techniques to control cats really well.  A vet friend of mine, when she did house calls, would occasionally need to capture kittens who had been installed under a porch.  Her technique was to wait for them to venture out, then get in front of their access hole and make a loud noise.  They invariably come running back to their safe spot, and right into her waiting arms.

That's all that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do.  Scare the bejesus out of cowards and get them to toe the line, where it's safe.

Interesting.  The close alternative to fear is anger, of course.  Using either one can get people moving like lemmings.

As a heterosexual, I demand to have the same rights to a gayriage to my differently-gendered partner.