In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Obama supports marriage equality

Jill

I think anyone who knows anything about Obama knew this would happen eventually, but assumed he was waiting for after the election. Good on him for coming out with this now. Less impressive the he waited for the social tides to turn before he actually stated his real position, but better late than never.

And just for the record, Romney is opposed to same-sex marriage and civil unions. And he’s a big donor to hate groups like NOM.

63 thoughts on Obama supports marriage equality

  1. I don’t understand: why would it be OK for him to have waited until after the election? Do you think it would be OK for him to have pandered to homophobes in Pennsylvania and Ohio, telling them that he believed things that he doesn’t?

    1. I don’t understand: why would it be OK for him to have waited until after the election?

      No one is saying it would have been “ok.” I’m saying that it’s what I thought he would do, ok or not. Politics aren’t always perfect or fair or good.

  3. I know the timing is annoying and shitty but this is exciting nonetheless.
    Woowoowoo! Yay!

  4. Maybe it’s finally penetrated that the voters who hate LGBT people aren’t going to vote for him under any circumstances, no matter how many times he said he opposed same-sex marriage.

  5. I’m glad he finally did this. Of course, talk is cheap, and I hope he backs up his words by supporting more legislation to help LGBT people; as noted in the Grenell thread, Obama has done good things for the LGBT community, but he could certainly do more.

  6. Less impressive the he waited for the social tides to turn before he actually stated his real position, but better late than never.

    I envy your optimism.
    Why do you believe that this in any way is his “real position”?

    I was hopeful in 2008, but Obama quickly disabused me of any hope that his speeches actually reflect anything of substance about the man. Actions speak louder than words.

  7. Matlun, I share your skepticism. Obama is great at making speeches and statements, but a statement doesn’t actually do much to change the lives of people adversely affected by marriage inequality. All his speeches about job creation haven’t resulted in a stronger job market where struggling Americans like myself can even have hope for getting a decent job in the near future. All his speeches about supporting women haven’t helped slow down the assault on our rights. All his speeches about returning power to the people hasn’t diminished corporation influence in his admin. All his speeches about a more transparency didn’t result in anything remotely like more transparency and have only served as a convenient distraction from all creeping secrecy that this admin wallows in. Harsh words but it’s my honest assessment. Glenn Greenwald, who himself is gay and has had his own relationship severely affected by DOMA, and thus has been a long time critic of DOMA and Obama on gay rights, has said this praiseworthy regardless of the motivation. I wish I could share that sentiment. But I don’t.

    I think this is day for the activists who have worked so hard to rejoice and for us to thank them and to have our faith renewed in the power of activism, especially with a president like Obama who is so ready to speak yet so hesitant to act. As for Obama, um, I’m suppose to applaud him for adopting a stance he hinted he would eventually get around to 4 years ago? Yeah. Not feeling the love there.

  8. i hope this wont make me unwelcome here, but for the record i am a born again pentecostal christian—and i totally support people’s right to make their own choices about their intimate partnerships—

    people have finally learned not to try to get me to sign their stupid petitions “defending” marriage—i’ve told them over and over again, that the destruction or strenghtening of marriage is an inside job—and thats all there is to it

  9. The blurb I saw said he thinks it should be handled at the state level. Isn’t that just the status quo?

  10. No, because he actually said he’s in favor of it. As opposed to essentially taking a position of neutrality, which is what people who favor “leaving it up to the states” usually mean.

  11. No, he’s ~personally~ in favor of it, which means he still won’t politically do anything for us. That’s not being cynical, it’s simply what he’s said. He won’t do anything, he’ll leave it up to the states, to make the one’s that are particular hellholes even worse. In other words, he’s not willing to risk anything for us but still wants some brownie points for being such a nice guy, personally supporting us and all.

    What was even the point of saying it, if it’s not going to change anything or mean he’s actually going to do anything about it? Oh yeah, that good publicity. And why are we talking about it? ‘Cause people eat propaganda up like candy.

  12. Lasciel:

    No, he’s ~personally~ in favor of it, which means he still won’t politically do anything for us.

    I assume you mean he won’t do anything in terms of policy. Announcing his support is already doing something politically.

    I guess my question would be: what would you want him to do in terms of policy? First of all, the federal government, pre-DOMA, never undertook to define state marriage conditions, and I think there’s a substantial question as to whether Congress has the constitutional power to mandate that all states make marriage available to same-sex couples. Second, assuming Congress does have that power, it certainly won’t exercise it while Republicans control the House. I guess Obama could have Democrats introduce a bill, only to see it bottled up in both chambers. Would that count as “doing something” on the policy front, even though we would all know from the start that it was basically just a publicity stunt, with no chance of becoming law?

    The President just doesn’t have a lot of policy levers to pull on the same-sex marriage front. He pulled the DOMA lever, which is commendable and may soon result in federal courts striking down DOMA. Past that, there are few concrete steps he can take.

    Disclaimer: I do think his statement was too weak, and that there’s no need to continue to walk this personal belief/leave it up to the States tightrope. At the same time, I think Obama’s statement will have an effect in leading otherwise SSM-opposed Democrats, perhaps especially black Democrats, to support it. It might make the difference in Maryland this fall.

  13. Anon21 @ 13:

    I guess my question would be: what would you want him to do in terms of policy? First of all, the federal government, pre-DOMA, never undertook to define state marriage conditions, and I think there’s a substantial question as to whether Congress has the constitutional power to mandate that all states make marriage available to same-sex couples. Second, assuming Congress does have that power, it certainly won’t exercise it while Republicans control the House. I guess Obama could have Democrats introduce a bill, only to see it bottled up in both chambers. Would that count as “doing something” on the policy front, even though we would all know from the start that it was basically just a publicity stunt, with no chance of becoming law?

    The President just doesn’t have a lot of policy levers to pull on the same-sex marriage front. He pulled the DOMA lever, which is commendable and may soon result in federal courts striking down DOMA. Past that, there are few concrete steps he can take.

    Disclaimer: I do think his statement was too weak, and that there’s no need to continue to walk this personal belief/leave it up to the States tightrope. At the same time, I think Obama’s statement will have an effect in leading otherwise SSM-opposed Democrats, perhaps especially black Democrats, to support it. It might make the difference in Maryland this fall.

    Just repeated because I agree with every bit of this.

    I do think that Obama waited way too long for this and that he should have been for marriage equality all along, but that said, he wasn’t and he didn’t. But he has now come out and said that he, The POTUS, is *for* marriage equality. President Of The United States. Even if it is purely a political calculation (which it almost surely is, given the timing), it still means something, even if only something symbolic.

    I get really tired of this tendency we have on the left to want to be all cynical and pessimistic and complain and start up the circular firing squads. Obama *isn’t* what a lot of us hoped he would be and he *hasn’t* done everything he could have/should have done on lots and lots of issues. But small victories are victories nonetheless and I’ll take it and push for more. But I *will* take it and be at least a little bit happy (or at least, less bitter and less upset and more optimistic) about it. If nothing else, it is good for morale, and it is at least a (small) step in the right direction.

  14. The thing is, this admin has actually done quite a lot for LGBT rights, which you can read about here:

    http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

    That’s a long list, a fuck of a lot longer than any other President/administration has done on this front. And now he – the most powerful person in the country – has said he supports marriage equality, clearly and openly. I just really don’t get the view that that, plus this long list of accomplishments, is still not enough. This is what we on the left often do to ourselves. Perfect is the enemy of good, IMO, and as a member of the LGBT community I am certainly pleased with what’s been done thus far by this admin, with Obama’s statements today, and with what else will likely be done in his second term.

  15. What else would you expect from a Kenyan-born reptilian shapeshifter who worships Allah, Vladimir Lenin, and Ammonite idol Moloch?

    Seriously though, I have to give the President props here. Even if much of the effect is symbolic, the symbolism is important, and it’s nice to know he’s finally on the right side of history here.

  16. Anon21, I don’t think Congress does have the power to require all states to permit same-sex marriage. Only the Supreme Court does, by ruling that state same-sex marriages violate the US Constitution (which, of course, takes precedence over State constitutions under the Supremacy Clause: states can give people more rights than the federal Constitution requires, but not fewer).

  17. I meant of course, “by ruling that State laws barring same-sex marriages violate the US Constitution,” etc. There are times I really wish there were an edit button!

  18. Thank you, Alison.
    And for those so butthurt about the President’s decision, well…vote for Willard, ’cause he sooo has your interests at heart.

  19. Who knew that “I personally believe in a woman’s right to choose, but the issue is one best left for the states to decide” was a pro-choice position, or that “I personally believe that the government shouldn’t endorse christianity, , but the issue is one best left for the states to decide” was a position favoring the seperation of church and state?

    You learn something new every day. Either that or Obama came out against marriage equality today.

  20. Donna L./17: Post-Boerne, I think that’s quite right. Congress really can’t get ahead of the Court on same-sex marriage.

  21. R Johnston, the context of what “states deciding” means for all of those issues is different, though. For abortion issues, “let the states decide” means overturning Roe vs. Wade. But for same-sex marriage, the states are where the issue is going to have to be decided; as has already been pointed out, there isn’t really anything Congress can do to legalize same-sex marriage in all fifty states.

  22. Who knew that “I personally believe in a woman’s right to choose, but the issue is one best left for the states to decide” was a pro-choice position, or that “I personally believe that the government shouldn’t endorse christianity, , but the issue is one best left for the states to decide” was a position favoring the seperation of church and state?

    The difference is that with marriage, states have traditionally had to uphold the marriage contracts of other states (you don’t have to get re-married if you move from Virginia to Delaware, for example). DOMA is the only thing standing in the way of making this true for gay marriages. And Obama’s justice department isn’t defending that law. If the Supreme Court overturns DOMA (or if Congress repeals it) then North Carolina would have to honor a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts no matter what NC’s state constitution says.

  23. Do you think it would be OK for him to have pandered to homophobes in Pennsylvania and Ohio,

    You do realize that Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has the second highest LGBT population in the country, right?

  24. Better late than never. There is some political risk to it, pre-election, though less than in the past.

    To be fair to the guy, he was already on the record against Amendment 1 in NC, he managed DADT repeal well, he’s been (fairly quietly) undermining DOMA…

    Policy matters more than words, you betcha. And the policies of the Obama Administration > the policies of any prior administration on gay rights.

  25. You do realize that Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has the second highest LGBT population in the country, right?

    I think the issue is the whole rest of the Buckeye State. Would be great if only Columbus could vote in November, but that’s just not the case, is it?

  26. Kierra, i don’t think that’s accurate. If DOMA is overturned states still can choose to not recognize same sex marriages from other states. DOMA was largely symbolic and had little practical effect. In the absence of DOMA, all of these states that have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage can still refuse to honor those marriages from other states on the basis that they violate the state’s policy, much the same way they could refuse to honor an out of state marriage between an adult and a minor if their laws varied. The supreme court would have to not only overturn doma, but overturn all of those individual state bans on marriage equality. That’s my understanding at least.

  27. I thought the constitution mandated a full faith and whatever clause among states, so that states were required to recognize each other’s rituals and accreditations and so on.

  28. What EG said.

    To expand a bit, the constitution says that both other states and the federal government have to honor state contracts. So DOMA also means that married gays can’t get federal marriage benefits (they can’t file their federal taxes as married or collect spousal social security benefits). So it’s not symbolic at all.

    Frank is probably right that at least some states would fight to not recognize gay marriages, but they wouldn’t have a lot of legal precedent to stand on.

  29. The full faith and credit clause has never been applied to marriages. Interracial marriages were not recognized by some states even though valid in others. That only changed when the Court said that all bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. It’s a murky area, because states can sometimes refuse full faith and credit on policy grounds but it’s unclear on when they can do so and when they can’t. A supreme court decision saying bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional would clear everything up but who knows if that is realistic in the near future.

  30. I honestly feel pretty meh about this. I mean, obviously I’m still voting for Obama, and I think his support of gay marriage is a good thing, but I’m feeling less and less excited about certain people acknowledging that other people deserve basic human rights. There’s an expectation that we be thankful for others deigning to acknowledge our humanity instead of pissed off that it took so long, or that it’s even a topic of discussion. Plus, there’s the order of granting queers civil rights–first we can die for the country, and then we might be allowed to get married. And only because some of us are raising children in committed monogamous relationships that are as close to heteronormativity as possible! It’s fun to know that my relationship still doesn’t count as a “real” one.

  31. Well how about that, all of a sudden our glorious leader here in New Zealand has announced that he is not personally opposed to same-sex marriage. In the past he has refused to disclose his personal view about this. Obama is an influential person indeed. However, that does not mean that our Government is actually going to do anything about it any time soon.

  32. If DOMA is overturned states still can choose to not recognize same sex marriages from other states. DOMA was largely symbolic and had little practical effect.

    To the first point: yes they can….up to a point, and that point wears either green or blue and carries firearms and swore oaths to protect and defend. Camp Lejeune in North Carolina is (I think) the biggest Marine Corps base in the country. Fort Hood in Texas is the largest Army base in the country. As a Texan I cannot wait for local bureaucrats* to try and tell a married gay military couple transferred to Fort Hood that the non-biological parent can’t pick up the kid from the off-base high school football game, or that they don’t qualify for married couple rates in their car insurance. I plan to sit back with a shiner bock and some popcorn and enjoy the schadenfreudeliciousness. It should be fun.

    As for repealing/overturning DOMA not having a practical effect, wrong. Federal employees including active-duty servicemembers and veterans were systematically denied benefits, some of which were massive financial benefits, even if they were legally married in their state of residence/origin. Legally-married same-sex couples couldn’t take advantage of the federal tax system for married couples and all of the inherent financial benefits. Social security survivorship benefits are handled at the federal level, not the state level. Then you have immigration status questions, which are handled on a federal level and one of the more poignant problems DOMA causes. None of those have anything to do with the states, while still being damaging to legally-married couples.

    I can’t see how on earth the feds can NOT provide those legal federal benefits to married same-sex couples regardless of whether their state of residence allows ss marriage or not. It would be a flagrant violation of the equal protection clause, for one, with provable financial damages. After that, all it will take is one high-profile court case to whack down the whinging states, since federal does trump all.

    *Not the bureaucrats are bad, they have to follow the laws that their governments prescribe to them.

  33. Plus, there’s the order of granting queers civil rights–first we can die for the country, and then we might be allowed to get married.

    And don’t forget that little matter of being protected against discrimination in employment (trans-inclusive federal ENDA, anyone?), and maybe someday in housing and public accommodations. That’s much more important for many people than marriage rights, not that it should have to be one or the other.

  34. What else would you expect from a Kenyan-born reptilian shapeshifter who worships Allah, Vladimir Lenin, and Ammonite idol Moloch?

    …shapeshifter?

  36. Historic and a sign of progress. But I had much the same reaction as Ms Grace. It’s all very nice that the First Daughters have friends being raised by same-sex couples and can’t conceive of the concept of those parents being treated differently from any other, but that’s hardly a reassuring basis for policy decisions. I have an acquaintance living in Amsterdam who recently discovered that his daughter (between the ages of the Misses Obama) is surprisingly heterosexist, apparently as a result of buying heavily into the Disney Princess World View. And the mongamous parenting?

    Sometimes I think that Parent is almost as much an orientation as L/G/B/T/etc., a view reinforced by such occurrences as Mr Savage’s recent rant in which his main reason for wanting the frequenters of some pickup park not to be active during daytime hours was Think of the Children! and his main related anecdote being that one of his son’s friends asked if he and Mr Miller met that way. Good grief, there are numerous enough reasons for asking people to tone down certain conduct, but resorting to one of the main planks of the anti-marriage-equality movement?

    As for mongamy (and I say this having always been entirely monogamous with no slips, ever) – a) how would the President know? b) why would he care? c) aren’t we past the, “But I did/didn’t mean you, you’re one of the good Xs” theme yet? and d) does this mean we won’t get to look at whether/why monogamy matters in non-reproductive relationships as compared to the other kind?

    But at least I can always go back to historic and a sign of progress.

  37. If he was going to wait this long, he should have waited until after the election was clinched – a few months more hardly matters at this point compared to almost 4 years of fence sitting – I suppose he has calculated he won’t get the anti-votes by fence sitting and a good chunk of the equality votes might just sit home disillusioned by his pandering to the right, whiel the ambivalent votes don’t care about his position one way or the other. A lot more should have been done when we had control of the Congress, but then again expecting party unity from Democrats is like expecting cats to march in formation.

  38. “I mean, obviously I’m still voting for Obama, and I think his support of gay marriage is a good thing, but I’m feeling less and less excited about certain people acknowledging that other people deserve basic human rights.

    There’s an expectation that we be thankful for others deigning to acknowledge our humanity instead of pissed off that it took so long, or that it’s even a topic of discussion.”

    I don’t know if we should feel “excited” about this as much as just hoping this somehow moves the conversation along. Not all that long ago, GLBT Americans had to fight a very difficult battle to have their status as mentally ill menaces removed from medical organizations. They could have just said, “Am I supposed to be grateful that you no longer consider me damaged and in need of brutal treatments?” But instead they tried to press forward. That’s all anyone can really do.

    I don’t care about gay marriage myself and I have no respect for Obama’s very bungled political calculations, which only seemed to emerge because Joe Biden dared to speak the truth. (I don’t believe Biden was part of a secret trial balloon). I just hope this is some type of watershed moment which may cause some people to question their views and question the widespread view that GLBTs are not even human beings, and deserve nothing but abuse.

    I don’t think there’s any need to be grateful to Obama, or see him as some great visionary, but in this case my first instinct has absolutely nothing to do with him or whether I should or shouldn’t have any real view of his motives or views. I’m just hoping that this has a positive effect on the future. I just separate my opinion of the President from the moment itself.

  39. And for those so butthurt about the President’s decision, well…vote for Willard, ’cause he sooo has your interests at heart.

    I get so tired of this trope. The Democrats don’t get immunity from criticism just because they’re not quite as shitty as Republicans. If Obama wants my support, he has to earn it. This little step helps, but Obama’s hardly a human rights defender.

  40. All of Norma at 40. Thanks – was going to say exactly that. What a ridiculous sentiment.

  41. The Democrats don’t get immunity from criticism just because they’re not quite as shitty as Republicans.

    Yes.

    If Obama wants my support, he has to earn it.

    No. He does not have to be everything that I want. He just has to be better than the other guy.

  42. No. He does not have to be everything that I want. He just has to be better than the other guy.

    This is a somewhat problematic attitude. If progressives will always vote for the Democrat as the lesser evil, then the Democrats have absolutely no reason to give them any political concessions.

    (It is also debatable whether Obama is better than for example Bush in general. When it comes to rule of law and civil rights he is arguably worse, even if he is better on LGBT issues)

  43. If Obama wants my support, he has to earn it.

    No. He does not have to be everything that I want. He just has to be better than the other guy.

    Well, I’ll vote for him over Romney. But I’m not going to campaign for him or donate this time. That’s not because he isn’t ‘everything I want’. I supported him with enthusiasm in 2008 because of certain promises he made; he didn’t keep them; he doesn’t get my cash/time.

  44. Not all that long ago, GLBT Americans had to fight a very difficult battle to have their status as mentally ill menaces removed from medical organizations

    I know that people use “GLBT” to try to be inclusive, but all it does in this case is erase the fact that being trans — unlike being gay — is still classified as a mental illness.

    (I understand that there has to be a medical diagnosis in order to justify medical and/or surgical treatments, but there are all sorts of other possibilities besides classifying transness as, in and of itself, a mental illness. For example, one could simply and truthfully take the position that it’s the dysphoria caused by being forced to live as someone you aren’t that needs treatment, not “transness” itself.)

  46. No. He does not have to be everything that I want. He just has to be better than the other guy.

    That seems like a very low bar.

    I’m with Norma; I’m not going to praise the president just for being a little less shitty than someone else. If someone wants to get my praise, they need to do a lot better than “not quite as bad as the other guys.”

  47. I wasn’t talking getting my praise. I was talking about getting my vote.

  48. I think Obama’s statement will have an effect in leading otherwise SSM-opposed Democrats, perhaps especially black Democrats, to support it. It might make the difference in Maryland this fall.

    I’m sorry if i’ve misunderstood, but I’ve been thinking about this for days and it’s still getting under my skin.

    I’m really tired of the stereotype that it’s black people V. gay people. This is really hurtful to those of us who are (gasp!) black AND LGBTQ or black allies. Which there are pleeeeeennnnnty of, both historical and every day. Both religious and non. NOM, for example, has specifically planned to drive a wedge between two overlapping groups and to cut out those of us in-between. We don’t need friendly fire coming from the progressive side.

  49. I apologize for my insensitivity, Donna L.

    As for respecting Obama vs voting for him, I think there’s often an idea, based on 2008 maybe, I don’t know, that you either have to think the man is perfection or you think he’s a total sellout and nothing he says is worth taking notice of. I think there are a lot of people who may not have any great use for him as a President but can still be happy for that one moment.

    I can’t ever say, vote for him because ____ is worse, mostly because I think that often has adverse effects on the person you’re trying to persuade. I wasn’t even sure I was going to vote this year, based on the general bumbling political games and poor economic decisions which drag us further down every election cycle. If I do vote it’s probably going to just be a protest against everything Mitt Romney stands for, not much else.

  50. 49/miga: I hadn’t intended it as a commentary on black Democrats’ opinions on SSM, but more as a commentary on Obama’s greater personal popularity and job approval among black Democrats than among other Democrats. To be clear, I just mean that Obama is perhaps a thought leader among black Democrats, and I’m not in any way suggesting that black voters don’t decide for themselves on this issue the same as other voters do. Does that help to clarify, or is problematic in a different way?

  51. If progressives will always vote for the Democrat as the lesser evil, then the Democrats have absolutely no reason to give them any political concessions.

    Whereas if progressives stop voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil, then the Democrats will have absolutely no ability to give them any political concessions, because the Republicans will be in power.

    (It is also debatable whether Obama is better than for example Bush in general.

    Matlun, as I recall, you don’t live in the US, right? I do live in the US, and I would rather have the Democrats in power, please, thank you.

  52. I’m with Past my expiration date. I will totally critique Obama when I think he’s wrong, and I’m pretty pissed that he’s not paid more attention to more radical wings of the Democratic party who helped sweep him into office, but at the end of the day, he’s getting my vote. There is no question that he’s better than Bush and a whole lot better than *shudder* Romney.

  53. I think this says more about the progressive movement/LGBT rights supporters/civil rights activists/the younger generation than it does about Obama. I agree with “better late than never,” but he was basically behind the curve on the pulse of the nation.

    In many ways, this was Obama’s “make me do it” moment, like LBJ had with MLK, FDR had with labor, and Clinton failed to have with progressives over DOMA.

    I think there’s a lesson here for progressives– keep pushing. Particularly on those issues that really do come down to basic decency and human rights.

    Perhaps instead of trying to suss out what percentage of this decision was personally vs. politically motivated, progressives should take a moment to pat ourselves on the back, and then move on to figuring out the next issue requiring an “evolution” of the people, and ultimately, the President.

  54. Well, I’ll vote for him over Romney. But I’m not going to campaign for him or donate this time. That’s not because he isn’t ‘everything I want’. I supported him with enthusiasm in 2008 because of certain promises he made; he didn’t keep them; he doesn’t get my cash/time.

    Seconding that — no way will I hand the birth control debate over to Romney, but I’m still not particularly thrilled with how Obama’s handled everything not GLB related.

    Donna — while I agree that classifying trans* as a mental disorder is seriously fucked up, if you ask the APA to treat the dysphoria of being forced to live a lie, I’m a bit afraid they’d just get all reformation therapy about it still. It probably shouldn’t be in the DSM at all but filed as a medical problem. I mean, how often do GPs prescribe anti-depressants without a psych consult? So why can’t they just do that with hormones? It’s off topic though, much as my psych major self isn’t willing to trust the APA with trans* issues at all.

    Back on topic, I was discussing the timing of this with a friend, who thought it might be less about PR on the progressive side, and more about PR on the conservative side. He’s forcing Romney to have to explicitly state his views on same sex marriage, and Romney’s on a tightrope of not-fundy-enough as it is already. I’m not sure it’ll really make a difference there either, but it might manage to push some of the fiscal conservatives into not voting at all.

  55. reptilian shapeshifter. Like the Queen of England.

    At least someone here understands what I’m talking about! Be careful librarygoose. . .it seems the Illuminati have already taken over this website.

  56. At least someone here understands what I’m talking about! Be careful librarygoose. . .it seems the Illuminati have already taken over this website.

    librarygoose and a certian ex-Coventry City goalkeeper turned raving lunatic.

  57. Matlun, as I recall, you don’t live in the US, right? I do live in the US, and I would rather have the Democrats in power, please, thank you.

    Well, I do agree it is indeed the lesser of two evils.

    But at the moment it seems to me that the movement further towards a police state will not be reversed with either a Democrat or Republican president and until there is some strong new political movement it seems hopeless to change this.

    Hopefully this is just me being overly pessimistic and cynical.

  58. it seems the Illuminati have already taken over this website.

    Everyone knows the internet is run by one super computer in the center of the CERN institute which is owned by the retilians.

  59. Everyone knows the internet is run by one super computer in the center of the CERN institute which is owned by the retilians.

    If only this referred to Doctor Who’s homo reptilius…I’d let them rule, they’d probably do a better job at it.

    If my previous comment’s trans* paragraph is offensive I’m sorry, I was trying to work some things out in my head without completely derailing this and I’m not sure I managed to say quite what I was thinking there.

  60. Fat Steve – do you remember when he went on telly to proclaim he was the “Son of God”?

    Good times. I reckon his detractors were just jealous of that truly majestic shellsuit.

  61. Everyone knows the internet is run by one super computer in the center of the CERN institute which is owned by the retilians.

    OMG! Are you serious?! I actually

    didn’t

    know that.

    How

    am I going to protect myself?!?! I haven’t been this scared since I realized that Google was secretly owned by the Mossad.

  62. Hmmm. . .it appears the intensity of my paranoid fears have caused me to confuse block quotes with italics. Or is CERN rewriting my posts in an attempt to discredit me?!?!

Comments are currently closed.