Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Next Up...

Posted by on Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM


The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether the state's 2006 ban on gay marriage was properly put to voters. A ruling striking down the amendment would not legalize same-sex marriage because state law still defines marriage as a union between husband and wife. However, it could pave the way for lawmakers to eventually allow it, or for advocates to file lawsuits seeking that right.


Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
Any state that assaults you with a barrage of sausage shops as you cross the stateline is probably a no-brainer when it comes to enacting marriage equality. That place is a total sausagefest.
Posted by Baconcat on May 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM · Report this
Loveschild 2
What more would it eventually allow Mr Savage, heroin use "the next civil rights frontier" incest (going boldly where we've never been before), I'm just waiting to hear what other insane approval you give. What else will you eventually condone. I have an idea of what.
Posted by Loveschild on May 14, 2009 at 4:40 PM · Report this
Baconcat 4
@2: See, this is what you do, you purposely force issues together to suit your personal agenda. When they don't suit your personal agenda, you force issues apart. Coretta Scott King could say that gay rights are civil rights too, but you would argue something inane like, "Well, she wasn't MLK so she doesn't know what she's talking about".

What would you say if Coretta Scott King said such a thing, by the way?

And then you issue vague threats as though Dan's going to capitulate to your stupidity with "you're right, I secretly want Marlee Ginter to be free to marry her goat."
Posted by Baconcat on May 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM · Report this
P. 5
With how conservative Wisconsin's Supreme Court is, I don't think it will be overturned. As much as it *wasn't* properly put to voters, because you're only allowed to ask one question, but it addressed both marriage and anything "substantially similar," which is ridiculous. Because people didn't know that (partly because the campaign against it wasn't organized the most...efficiently).
Posted by P. on May 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM · Report this
con. tammy baldwin must be ecstatic.
Posted by tawdrylorde on May 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM · Report this
Loveschild 7
Excuse me Bacon, go and re-read his latest Love letter of the day. Do not compare Ms Coretta's thinking to this person's warped reasoning.
Posted by Loveschild on May 14, 2009 at 4:58 PM · Report this
devilsmoke 9
I swear, LC has got to be some sort of artificial intelligence formed out of the dregs of the Seattle Times commenters. Everything you write has the same slack-jawed sentence structure and disregard for the conventions of English grammar. Seriously, I had to read that first one three times over to figure it out.

If you can't see the difference between incest and gay love, perhaps you'd find yourself more at home and less often vexed in a nation that shares your arbitrary and immutable assigned-from-on-high notions of morality - fuck if we're letting the US go down that path. Saudi Arabia is nice in the summer, I hear. As an added bonus, you probably wouldn't be able to access Slog from Riyadh.

Neither you nor any other right-winger has ever provided an argument for keeping marriage 'traditional' that doesn't a) boil down to 'I'm uncomfortable with the thought of two men kissing; or b) reach the same conclusion when applied to heterosexual relationships.
Posted by devilsmoke on May 14, 2009 at 5:56 PM · Report this
Baconcat 10
Excuse yourself, Loveschild, you didn't answer the question you just forced two issues together (Dan and Coretta Scott King) because it suited you.

If Coretta Scott King had said gay rights were civil rights too, ignoring Dan for a moment, what would you say? Regardless of how you view the intent of the question or where it's coming from, if Coretta Scott King herself, someone closer to the CRM than you'll ever be, had said that gay rights were civil rights too, what would you say?

You're keen on driving issues together and apart on a whim, so what would you say if someone who had a bit more experience under their belts than you said something you have denied repeatedly?
Posted by Baconcat on May 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM · Report this
4f...sake 13
Step the FUCK up Wisconsin!!!
Posted by 4f...sake on May 14, 2009 at 7:21 PM · Report this
Loveschild 14
9 Wrong you are sugar, I've made my case in a clear and respectful way and it has nothing to do with being uncomfortable with gays. Your side is the one who's incapable of articulate their advocacy for redefining marriage.…

# 63
Posted by Loveschild on May 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM · Report this
Loveschild 15
And I'm not a "right-winger" for disagreeing with you on this issue.
Posted by Loveschild on May 14, 2009 at 7:32 PM · Report this
The wording of the amendment in 2006 was fashioned in such a manner that it clearly asks two separate questions. This was not done by mistake. It was fashioned by those who knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish by placing it on the ballot. There was every desire to end once and for all in the State Of Wisconsin any attempt to provide civil rights, and legal equality for gay couples either through marriage or civil unions.

The problem is of course that there can not be such a cleverly crafted series of words in a state-wide referendum that seeks to solve two separate issues with one question. We have long contended that the over-reach on this matter was nothing short of mean-spirited, and utterly grotesque. It is only proper that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court review and address what is clearly a poorly worded ballot question that violated the process of amending the State Constitution. As a state we are better than to allow this to stand as it was presented to the voting public.

Posted by dekerivers on May 14, 2009 at 8:52 PM · Report this

What did you expect? This is what you get when you try to engage in rational debate with a crazy-assed, stupid, fucking cunt.
Posted by COMTE on May 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 18
@ 14, the comment you link to, where you deny comparisons between marriage rights and civil rights, and accuse rev dr dj riz of self loathing, is not clear or respectful. Nothing you write is clear, and while you sometime achieve politeness you're never respectful either.

You can fool yourself but you can't fool us.
Posted by Matt from Denver on May 14, 2009 at 10:03 PM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 19
I'm still not convinced Loveschild is real. Too many different levels of spelling & grammar accuracy.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on May 14, 2009 at 10:46 PM · Report this
Baconcat 20
Loveschild, you are no authority on civil rights. Is there a reason you are ignoring my question? Oh, right, it was Coretta Scott-King who said:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."


"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

So, there you go. You lie, you misrepresent the movement and you are doing it for no good reason. You know you're wrong, you know the way you're feeling is absolutely hateful and hurtful and you know the tactics you employ to defame and destroy are without any positive reflection or any desire to seek the better of the world. Is it ego? Is it hatred from your past?

You should go read some of Bayard Rustin's works. Or at least find out more about him:…
Posted by Baconcat on May 15, 2009 at 8:23 AM · Report this
@20- Here is another great quote from Miss Coretta that is right on point:

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."
March 23, 2004

Now, why didn't the "No on 8" people in California and the other groups fighting for Marriage Equality dig this up?!?! It would have been perfect!!!
Posted by PDX_Paulie on May 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM · Report this
Blather, girls, blather. Nothing faster and stronger than the truth to make firm and fast enemies.
Civil rights are a construct made of whole cloth and are what you desire them to be for yourself and for others. Only natural law remains unaffected by the audacious and acquisitive. Rock Hudson married proving one cannot make a functional defined by specific kinks and demonstrating that gay marriage existed in prehistory. Where was it writ that marriage leads to happiness and getting your every every itch, scratched? Marriage is for lawyers and suckers, as you find out soon enough. I care not one whit where you stick it or with whom, but cruel and indifferent nature demonstrates the same lesson through the centuries to all, regardless if one's just not in the mood. Attention to self delusive and self indulgent nonproductive self-serving fripperies, tangential tortured micro details and sub subcultural allegiances leads to naught against the butchy barbarians from out-of-town bent on spoils and efficiency. Breeders get perks because without them none of you would be here. It's that productivity of the boring, dull farmer, soldier, laborer motivated primarily by their mewling fuckkin children that allows the occasionally reproductively defective yet frequently brilliantly creative offspring their distractions from the needs of overarching cultural survival. There has never been a predominantly gay national identity at odds with or equal with breeders, even in Greece, even in Rome. Is past prologue? One can't survive against breeder fecundity, regardless of their defect rate. Conclusion? Simple human nature to hate the other, ergo just as much hetero as homo phobia going around as evident here, truth be told, so plenty of discrimination (definition: making a choice between various options, d'uh!) to go round endlessly. In the grand scheme of things it sucks to be a last repository for the DNA Gaia deeded you, and as such it's sad and lonely and final and one compensates the best one can, but nothing about it other than breath-holding kicking and screaming denial and rage against the bad ole (non)deity makes it something laudable and promotable to those on the fence or easily led. Ultimately it is not a specific single act that breeders and marriage are defined by and compensated for, rather it is the function in society that defines them and provides them rewards of sort. If you see that as exclusionary, tough titties. Defining oneself specifically by who you fuck is wannabe.

That being settled, Smoothies to all!

red pill

Posted by red pill on May 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy