[fuzzylogic]

Hadn't seen this posted before.

[struggle]

Is this an Art Bell Joke?

[Pearls Before Swine]

The nuptials will be a real circle jerk. Life imitates art?

[Snickering Hound]

[greene66]

Well, it’s no more phony, no more ludicrous, than a two-way homo marriage.

[I want the USA back]

This will happen here too. Right after all 50 states have gay “marriage “.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Coming soon to an Obamanation near you!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Today Thailand, but we too will one day have our own ‘Three Stooges’ get their day in court.

Two violent attacks today as well ...

“U.S. Envoy to Seoul, Lippert, Injured in Attack by [knife attack]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3264269/posts?page=16#16

[I link to a cloak-and-dagger post on Lippert]

Federal Judge Terrence Berg Shot at Detroit Home

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3264752/posts

[Shot in leg while taking out the trash.]

[Uncle Miltie]

My uncle, mother, my dog a banana and I intend to get married.

[John Leland 1789]

On its way to affirming natural marriage, the Alabama Supreme Court made several key observations about the historical and societal underpinnings of the marriage institution:

• “[M]arriage, as a union between one man and one woman, is the fundamental unit of society.” • “[M]arriage has always been between members of the opposite sex.  The obvious reason for this immutable characteristic is nature.  Men and women complement each other biologically and socially.” • “[O]ne legitimate interest behind the laws (among others) is recognizing and encouraging the ties between children and their biological parents.” • “Government is concerned with public effects, not private wishes.  The new definition of marriage centers on the private concerns of adults, while the traditional definition focuses on the benefits to society from the special relationship that exists between a man and a woman, i.e., the effects for care of children, the control of passions, the division of wealth in society, and so on.” • “[I]f love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected . . . .” • “[W]hat ultimately is at issue is the entire edifice of family law . . . an edifice that has existed in some form since before the United States was even a country. . . . It is no small thing to wipe away this edifice with a wave of the judicial wand.”

______________

I take special note here of the point

“[I]f love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected . . . .”

And if there is polygamy among members of the opposite sex, there would be polygamy in same-sex relationships, there is recognized marriage there.

[Gay State Conservative]

What,no canines?

[caligatrux]

Clearly, this isn't true. As we all know, every proponent of gay marriage assured all of us crazy, uptight conservatives that changing the definition of marriage to include a same-sex couple would not and could not ever possibly lead to marriage being further opened up to more than 2 people, or to people and animals, or anything else. Any implication of that is just silliness.

So, I'm sure this didn't really happen. Just file it under Bigfoot sightings or something.

[Impy]

It’s not legally recognized. But apparently it’s religiously recognized by the Buddhists, disgutsing.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

The Daily Mail editors realize that it should be “fairy tail” not “fairytale”.