*Sigh*

The word "bigot" gets used so much that it has completely lost its bite.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

Because it's not at all bigoted to think a group of Americans should be 2nd-class citizens and not entitled to equal protection of the law, right?

No, there's nothing "second class" about wanting the government out of marriage altogether.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

Right - it's not at all bigoted to say "let's end bus service" when Rosa Parks wants to sit at the front of the bus.

This isn't about bus service and Rosa Parks; the comparison is puerile. This is about the government being involved in something it should never have been involved in from the start.

The first amendment separates church and state (by some legal philosophies). Marriage is a religious institution and should have stayed that way.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

The comparison is to the 14th Amendment, and quite accurate. That you don't get it isn't a surprise - no one was talking about "ending government involvement in marriage" until gays asked to be treated equally under the law.

And note, Ron Paul hasn't proposed any legislation whatsoever that would end government involvement in marriage - all he's done is propose a bill which would have denied gays their due process right to challenge DOMA.


Not in the US it isn't - all marriages here are civil legal contracts. What your favorite cult does is your personal business, and completely irrelevant to your marital status.

Just a historical note: the Christian church wasn't generally involved in marriage at all before the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s.

Not within the context of Rosa Parks and bus service.

That you defaulted to being a snarky dick so soon is no surprise either.

That still doesn't support the asinine argument that the idea that removing government from marriage is a bigoted pursuit. The argument to remove government from marriage is made by both proponents and opponents of gay marriage.

No argument against that. He hasn't proposed any legislation to give out free puppy chow but that doesn't mean he hates puppies either.

You're done. Besides being a stupid argument with no basis in reality, you, again, defaulted to assholish, inflammatory language and tried to bring the conversation down to the level of a tantrum throwing child.

You, sir, are nothing more than a mindless, stark raving provacateur who relies on inflammatory rhetoric when he can't make a decent argument.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

As I said, I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand the rather direct analogy, or why the 14th Amendment applies in both cases.


Yes, but it's a separate question from whether gays can marry under our current legal structure. Paul's answer to that question is a bigoted non sequitur.


Puppies with spots are currently denied the free puppy chow all other puppies get. All Paul has done is author legislation which would have prohibited any legal challenges to the anti-spotted puppy law, and said that he fully supports the anti-spotted puppy law. But in your view one can't draw any conclusions from that statement or that action.


If you think the rituals of your cult are relevant to your marital status, you're truly clueless. Maybe you should ask yourself why Catholics can divorce and remarry.

Actually wouldn't a better parallel there be Eric Holder and Fast and Furious?

The Ron Paul newsletters don't bother me personally, but my point is as Paul gets popular he's going to be vetted more seriously. The newsletter controversy is already popping up again. I've seen it at at least five blogs in the last few days rehashing the matter. It has not been "put to bed".

Just like with Eric Holder claiming ignorance of Fast and Furious, the argument is Paul's connection at the top of the Newsletter's food chain, the fact some are written in the first person, and his millions of dollars of benefit from it make him culpable if not in the sense that he knew what was in there, then in the sense that he should have, and if he didn't is that the person you want leading the country.

Another place Paul is taking flack recently concerns his frequent appearances on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones radio show, and his support from that lunatic fringe there, and elsewhere. On occasion Paul has appeared to give at least head nodding implication of agreement with some of Jones' wacky theories.

I kind of hope Paul wins Iowa. It's always entertaining when he gets a good vetting, and if he wins he will most certainly get one.

Here's a recent one, if you don't believe me when I say people are beginning to talk about this again.

The Company Ron Paul Keeps | The Weekly Standard