Gay Marriage Discussion

Okay, good talking to you. Sorry about all the typos in my post. I’m typing on my phone. And I forgot to put the link in my last post:

Homicidal maniac attempts mega-death rampage against the Family Research Council. Why? Because he read on the Southern Poverty Law Centre website that FRC is a “hate group” because they support traditional marriage. The Southern Poverty Law Centre had denounced FRC and then suggestively posted the address of the FRC and even a map showing how to get there. This maniac was incited to commit a massacre and went there armed to the teeth ready to kill as many people as he could.

Act of terrorism inspired by radical homosexual ideology - tick 1

Acts of terrorism inspired by traditional marriage supporters against gays or anyone else - Zero

I’m not saying there aren’t some nasty elements on the fringe and there are occasional incidents of a maniac murdering gays to “cleanse the world” or whatever. But they really are a tiny, insignificant fringe. Female prostitutes for example are at much, much higher risk of being murdered by a maniac who hates women than a gay man is likely to be attacked or murdered by a maniac who hates gays. I really don’t believe the evidence exists to show there has ever been a serious problem with discrimination against gays and attacks on them. You never hear about lunch mobs coming for the gays. Sodomy laws were almost never enforced and when they were it was usually just a way of getting to a perp when you couldn’t get the charges to stick. Police don’t hang around in people’s bedrooms so it’s really aimed at people who get caught doing stuff like that in public places.

Anyway, as I said good talking with you.

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I do have an aversion to homosexuality and I think most if not all heterosexual men find the idea disconcerting to put it mildly, and that’s often misconstrued as “hate”. Of course I don’t hate or have animosity towards gay people. It’s just something I see as an inevitable part of society, and therefore needs to be brought to terms, but at the same time recognised as not a desirable thing. As I’ve said before, the one thing of serious concern to me is the radical LGBT stuff being taught in schools and on social media sites. They target pre-pubescent children and tell them all about homosexuality and also all the crazy gender stuff about multiple genders and being trapped in the wrong body and that nonsense. And these kids who don’t know anything about their own sexuality because they’re pre-pubescent, are “choosing” a gender and claiming they’re “genderqueer” or something. It’s like a phase kids go through where they think they’re a “skater” or a “goth”. Only this is sexualising children, warping their minds and could lead to devastating outcomes - suicide, unwanted sex change surgery/hormones, getting mixed up with/molested by weirdos in the “LGBT community” or whatever. This is a serious concern and the public face of the gay community; the gay activists, are the ones who are behind this and who are pushing to get into schools under the pretence of “anti-bullying” and sex ed. It’s hard to have any kind of positive attitude towards the gay community when the only time you see them or hear about them they’re doing something sexually provocative and inappropriate, they’re pushing some radical agenda or they’re parading down mainstream naked in a Stetson hat straddling a twenty foot long phallus at a “pride” parade or something. So I’m sure you’ve detected a little hostility in some of my posts but I can assure you that’s meant for these elements of gay society and not every individual who happens to be gay.[/quote]

Where is this coming from?

You’ve posted a few articles of some isolated incidents that came from sources that have a bias, though that doesn’t mean they were wrong per se. Nevertheless, I have worked in public education for 13 years and I do not know of any schools where this is going on.

Most teachers only go as far as teaching younger kids that they shouldn’t target, discriminate or otherwise bully other kids or people who are members of social minority groups, i.e., all humans have a right to basic dignity, but that’s hardly the same as what’s being alleged here and I do not see this a widespread agenda being played out in K-6 classrooms nationwide, even if it has happened in the classrooms of a few teachers and happened to somehow make headlines. There is no national core curriculum agenda that involves infusing a pro-gay curriculum into the classroom as you have mentioned, so in those instances where it has happened, if it happened as you say, it’s more than likely an individual teacher using his or her limited ability to employ some small degree of academic freedom into some sort of an anti-hate or tolerance curriculum, but most teachers completely avoid discussions of these topics in the classroom until high school.
[/quote]

I’ve actually looked into the curriculum of what’s being taught at thousands and thousands of schools. A curriculum designed by a powerful and very radical group called GLSEN. They teach very young kids the same stuff that comes out of the Gender and Women’s Studies departments in the universities: namely, that gender is fluid and it’s what you feel it is - ie, what you want it to be. And that some of the boys in the class might be girls trapped in the wrong body and vice versa and they encourage them to “come out” or “explore their gender identity in a non-judgemental environment” and so on. The results of this are already manifest. You can go on youtube and see nine-year-old kids who’ve come home from school or off social media sites like tumblr and they’ve suddenly decided they’re “genderqueer” or something nutty like that. I don’t know why people have a hard time accepting that this is going on. It’s being pushed in schools right now and “anti-bullying” was used as the Trojan horse. In order to warn these kids about being bullied for being gay(even though they’re too young to understand their own sexuality anyway), you need to teach them about what it means to be gay and continually stress that it’s fine to be gay and maybe a good thing and perfectly normal and so on. It’s not subtle. It’s outright promotion of homosexuality and “transgenderism” to young children.

And you’ve heard about the “Day of Silence” right? Radical gay activists are using school children as foot soldiers in their ideological battle. They’re encouraging children to go to school on Day of Silence day and disrupt the entire school for the whole day by refusing to speak for the day. This is an appalling tactic. They’re using really young kids - kindergarten even - to get involved on one side(the far side) of a highly contentious issue that relates to sexuality(something prepubescent children are incapable of understanding). These are vulnerable children not only being brainwashed but being used by radical ideologues.

As I said, I can’t understand why people have such a hard time condemning this. Prepubescent school children are indeed being taught widely about homosexuality and “gender” and a not so subtle promotion, endorsement, encouragement of homosexuality and transgenderism. This is my concern; my primary concern to be honest. You know what they teach in Gender Studies at universities. I don’t know about you but I think it’s a load of utter horseshit. In fact I know it is. People do not have multiple “genders” and they don’t involuntarily “transition” to another gender and you cannot “choose” your gender. How can you condone teaching this utter nonsense; this sexualised nonsense, to children? And as I said, it’s promoted; it’s highly politicised. For crying our loud the organisation that got the government contract to teach this stuff in schools under the guise of “anti-bullying” is a radical and subversive group of political activists! What sort of measured, both sides of the story, moderate kind of behaviour would you expect from a radical political activist group? They have absolutely no right to go into schools and start teaching little kids that it’s great to explore your gender identity and there’s nothing wrong with boys who want to wear girls’ clothes - it’s good! That’s warping kids’ minds. Search youtube or tumblr for “gender kids” etc and you can see the results. It’s really quite sad. One of the comments in the box I saw was from a boy who looked about nine-years-old and he asked:

“What’s genderqueer? Is that like gay but for kids?”

And then there are all these kids who now think they’re “genderqueer” or “gender fluid” and on and on. Facebook has 146 gender options. Kids are being taught they can choose their own gender. If you can’t see what’s wrong with this picture I don’t know what to tell you. It sure as hell creeps me out to see prepubescent boys cross dressing and talking about sexual things that they’re incapable of understanding at their age. Really creepy.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’ve actually looked into the curriculum of what’s being taught at thousands and thousands of schools. A curriculum designed by a powerful and very radical group called GLSEN. They teach very young kids the same stuff that comes out of the Gender and Women’s Studies departments in the universities: namely, that gender is fluid and it’s what you feel it is - ie, what you want it to be. And that some of the boys in the class might be girls trapped in the wrong body and vice versa and they encourage them to “come out” or “explore their gender identity in a non-judgemental environment” and so on. The results of this are already manifest. You can go on youtube and see nine-year-old kids who’ve come home from school or off social media sites like tumblr and they’ve suddenly decided they’re “genderqueer” or something nutty like that. I don’t know why people have a hard time accepting that this is going on. It’s being pushed in schools right now and “anti-bullying” was used as the Trojan horse. In order to warn these kids about being bullied for being gay(even though they’re too young to understand their own sexuality anyway), you need to teach them about what it means to be gay and continually stress that it’s fine to be gay and maybe a good thing and perfectly normal and so on. It’s not subtle. It’s outright promotion of homosexuality and “transgenderism” to young children.
[/quote]

Do you have hard evidence of this being incorporated into thousands of schools? What curriculum and where?

Some agenda posted an a website and endorsed by a state board of education does not constitute implementation in thousands of schools. Local school districts really have the widest latitude in setting specific curricular goals such as this; it’s not done at a state or federal level, for the most part. So unless you’re really going into schools to read the district level curriculum, or talking to these teachers firsthand to see how things are being presented in the classroom, anything else is stretch to say this is how something is being implemented in thousands of schools. I know of not a single one and have never heard of any of it, and I’m right on the front lines where history and social science standards are concerned.

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’ve actually looked into the curriculum of what’s being taught at thousands and thousands of schools. A curriculum designed by a powerful and very radical group called GLSEN. They teach very young kids the same stuff that comes out of the Gender and Women’s Studies departments in the universities: namely, that gender is fluid and it’s what you feel it is - ie, what you want it to be. And that some of the boys in the class might be girls trapped in the wrong body and vice versa and they encourage them to “come out” or “explore their gender identity in a non-judgemental environment” and so on. The results of this are already manifest. You can go on youtube and see nine-year-old kids who’ve come home from school or off social media sites like tumblr and they’ve suddenly decided they’re “genderqueer” or something nutty like that. I don’t know why people have a hard time accepting that this is going on. It’s being pushed in schools right now and “anti-bullying” was used as the Trojan horse. In order to warn these kids about being bullied for being gay(even though they’re too young to understand their own sexuality anyway), you need to teach them about what it means to be gay and continually stress that it’s fine to be gay and maybe a good thing and perfectly normal and so on. It’s not subtle. It’s outright promotion of homosexuality and “transgenderism” to young children.
[/quote]

Do you have hard evidence of this being incorporated into thousands of schools? What curriculum and where?

Some agenda posted an a website and endorsed by a state board of education does not constitute implementation in thousands of schools. Local school districts really have the widest latitude in setting specific curricular goals such as this; it’s not done at a state or federal level, for the most part. So unless you’re really going into schools to read the district level curriculum, or talking to these teachers firsthand to see how things are being presented in the classroom, anything else is stretch to say this is how something is being implemented in thousands of schools. I know of not a single one and have never heard of any of it, and I’m right on the front lines where history and social science standards are concerned.
[/quote]

I’m quite surprised you haven’t heard of any of this. There’s currently a push to mandate the teaching of “gay history” in schools:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/14b/GLSEN-Conference-040514/gay-history/index.html

^^ And I’ve got in trouble here from other posters for linking to that site. Apparently it’s a “hate group” and using them as a reference constitutes endorsement of everything they say and do.

But there’s plenty of information I can dig up about what’s being taught at schools and how many. “Thousands” isn’t my word. At the time of the article’s publication back in 2006, GLSEN had just been awarded a continuation of a contract to teach at “thousands” of schools in the North East of the country - they designed the curriculum and organised workshops and well…let’s just say there were a few concerns from parents when their children came home with latex gloves and KY Jelly and a newfound knowledge of the intricacies of prostate milking and so on. Google “Fistgate” and “Fistgate II” - granted they were relatively isolated incidents however the group responsible; the group that reoffended and has done many other egregious things, is one of the largest gay rights groups in the country, designs the curriculums for thousands of schools, organises workshops in schools, encourages students to engage in activism(Day of Silence) and has carried out a campaign of vilifying and targeting Christian groups. This is not some obscure organisation. Obama appointed the founder of GLSEN his “safe schools czar”.

So I get a bit tired of people saying what curriculum? Wasn’t that an isolated incident? And so on. No, it’s widespread and mainstream already. This is what many young kids are being taught in schools. I can even dig up the names of all the schools where GLSEN have been contracted to teach and show you exactly what they’re teaching. The worst of it - isolated incidents of “fisting kits” being handed out to children. And their recommended reading list for year after year is filled with horrendous sex stories that include child sex and all sorts of hideous stuff. They linked directly to all this stuff on their website. GLSEN was even found to have displayed ads and links to gay pickup sites on their “safe schools” website. Just because the media overlook this stuff doesn’t mean it isn’t going on. The evidence is right there - what they’re teaching; and to whom.

http://www.vocativ.com/world/syria-world/assads-angels/

I’ve realised that all my posts on this subject have been tinged with unnecessary hostility and contempt. Just wanted to apologise if I offended anyone.

Edit: Really I mean it. I’ve been thinking about this and I feel quite bad about it. Gay men are made to feel that there’s something wrong with them and that they should be ashamed and then bastards like me compound it. I don’t hold any moral high ground and I’m a pretty fucked up individual myself in many ways. Once again, sincerely sorry for any offence. I’ve had a bit of a change of heart about this.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I am more or less saying there should probably be more rich people or white collar criminals in prison than there currently are. Not that the poor minorities are “targeted” or falsely imprisons. [/quote]

Start a task force then?

I’d venture to say that we could do with less people in prison over all. Putting non-violent offenders in with violent offenders and turning them into hardened criminals for selling some weed is fucking stupid.

In fact, if the Drug War was handled differently you’d magically see all these “America is so racist” crime stats suddenly not be so racist anymore.

Urban area:

  1. More minorities
  2. More people (opportunity to exploit)
  3. More police with less area to cover

Suburban area:

  1. Less minorities
  2. Less people and more spread out (less opportunity to exploit)
  3. Less police with more area to cover

I’m sure there are racist cops out there, no fucking doubt about it. I live in MA, they almost all are.

But by this metric that would make Vermont the most racist place in the world, something like 98% white and 95% of the prison population is black…

Me and beans don’t agree on much on these boards but FWIW I thought your explanation of the prison population and the racial disparity involved was a very articulate and solid position. Definitely made me rethink some thinks I may of taken for granted.

I have a question for any gay guy who might be reading this. I’m sure I know the answer but wanted to run it by someone who knows.

When women get within proximity of an attractive guy they react according to their personality. Pretty much all are very easy to read. The look of hope that they’ll get approval; the pretending they haven’t noticed or are not interested in the man but you can see from the look on their face and gestures that they’re trying to look sexy etc. You can read them like a book.

So I’ve always wondered why you don’t see gay men act like that when an Alpha Male type is in proximity. Surely gay men don’t have superhuman abilities to hide their inner thoughts? My guess is that because the Alpha Male guy is heterosexual they already know he has no interest whatsoever so they’re perfectly at ease around them. But then if they discovered he was gay too they’d instantly change and act just like heterosexuals do when they’re around attractive members of the opposite sex. Right?

I hope you don’t think that’s a stupid question. I’m interested in the psychology of it all and trying to understand homosexuality which has always been something totally unfathomable to me. Perhaps if I understood better I could relate and sympathise.

Thanks.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have a question for any gay guy who might be reading this. I’m sure I know the answer but wanted to run it by someone who knows.

When women get within proximity of an attractive guy they react according to their personality. Pretty much all are very easy to read. The look of hope that they’ll get approval; the pretending they haven’t noticed or are not interested in the man but you can see from the look on their face and gestures that they’re trying to look sexy etc. You can read them like a book.

So I’ve always wondered why you don’t see gay men act like that when an Alpha Male type is in proximity. Surely gay men don’t have superhuman abilities to hide their inner thoughts? My guess is that because the Alpha Male guy is heterosexual they already know he has no interest whatsoever so they’re perfectly at ease around them. But then if they discovered he was gay too they’d instantly change and act just like heterosexuals do when they’re around attractive members of the opposite sex. Right?

I hope you don’t think that’s a stupid question. I’m interested in the psychology of it all and trying to understand homosexuality which has always been something totally unfathomable to me. Perhaps if I understood better I could relate and sympathise.

Thanks.[/quote]

If you’re wondering why gay men don’t get all giddy around an Alpha Male such as yourself maybe they just aren’t that into you.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have a question for any gay guy who might be reading this. I’m sure I know the answer but wanted to run it by someone who knows.

When women get within proximity of an attractive guy they react according to their personality. Pretty much all are very easy to read. The look of hope that they’ll get approval; the pretending they haven’t noticed or are not interested in the man but you can see from the look on their face and gestures that they’re trying to look sexy etc. You can read them like a book.

So I’ve always wondered why you don’t see gay men act like that when an Alpha Male type is in proximity. Surely gay men don’t have superhuman abilities to hide their inner thoughts? My guess is that because the Alpha Male guy is heterosexual they already know he has no interest whatsoever so they’re perfectly at ease around them. But then if they discovered he was gay too they’d instantly change and act just like heterosexuals do when they’re around attractive members of the opposite sex. Right?

I hope you don’t think that’s a stupid question. I’m interested in the psychology of it all and trying to understand homosexuality which has always been something totally unfathomable to me. Perhaps if I understood better I could relate and sympathise.

Thanks.[/quote]

If you’re wondering why gay men don’t get all giddy around an Alpha Male such as yourself maybe they just aren’t that into you.[/quote]

I didn’t ask for a lame attempt at insult disguised as speculation by a heterosexual.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have a question for any gay guy who might be reading this. I’m sure I know the answer but wanted to run it by someone who knows.

When women get within proximity of an attractive guy they react according to their personality. Pretty much all are very easy to read. The look of hope that they’ll get approval; the pretending they haven’t noticed or are not interested in the man but you can see from the look on their face and gestures that they’re trying to look sexy etc. You can read them like a book.

So I’ve always wondered why you don’t see gay men act like that when an Alpha Male type is in proximity. Surely gay men don’t have superhuman abilities to hide their inner thoughts? My guess is that because the Alpha Male guy is heterosexual they already know he has no interest whatsoever so they’re perfectly at ease around them. But then if they discovered he was gay too they’d instantly change and act just like heterosexuals do when they’re around attractive members of the opposite sex. Right?

I hope you don’t think that’s a stupid question. I’m interested in the psychology of it all and trying to understand homosexuality which has always been something totally unfathomable to me. Perhaps if I understood better I could relate and sympathise.

Thanks.[/quote]

If you’re wondering why gay men don’t get all giddy around an Alpha Male such as yourself maybe they just aren’t that into you.[/quote]

I didn’t ask for a lame attempt at insult disguised as speculation by a heterosexual.
[/quote]

I think that the honest answer is gay men don’t struggle to get cock. Men have to either be funny, be attractive, be wealthy, be something and use it to “get” a woman. Gay men can go to canal street and have 10 guys horny and willing to fuck.

Because sex is so easy because men are biologically driven to fuck a lot, it means gay men don’t have any pressure or inhibitions and don’t have the same value system on “alpha” potential mates.

Men will que all round the block for pussy. There are no women queuing for cock, apart from maybe a bunch of granny’s with deep wrist scars. This means that the value and novelty isn’t the same and illicits different social queues. It is the same with lesbians. My girlfriend is bisexual and some of her ex girlfriends are legit 10/10 models.

If straight people were more open sexually in society we would likely see the same thing.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

So I’ve always wondered why you don’t see gay men act like that when an Alpha Male type is in proximity. Surely gay men don’t have superhuman abilities to hide their inner thoughts? My guess is that because the Alpha Male guy is heterosexual they already know he has no interest whatsoever so they’re perfectly at ease around them. But then if they discovered he was gay too they’d instantly change and act just like heterosexuals do when they’re around attractive members of the opposite sex. Right?

I hope you don’t think that’s a stupid question. I’m interested in the psychology of it all and trying to understand homosexuality which has always been something totally unfathomable to me. Perhaps if I understood better I could relate and sympathise.

Thanks.[/quote]

I won’t add to what’s above, because I think it’s anecdotally spot on, even if YD is straight. Gay male culture is very different. It tends to be far less monogamous, and unless a guy is fairly unattractive, gay men have no need to preen for cock, since it’s abundant, readily available and sort of the norm in most of the gay subculture that casual sex is there for the taking.

The other issue that wasn’t addressed is sex and gender role differences. Men and women are biologically different, and they are raised, per gender role socialization, to behave differently in regards to sex, dating and mating. Hence, I’d argue the innate biological and environmental factors relating to dating and sexual identify also play a role in how males and females react in certain social situations, sexual orientation aside.

^^ Very interesting. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised I got it wrong. As I said it’s something that’s always been a mystery to me. But to speculate further perhaps there’s a biological aspect too. A woman literally needs a monogamous partner to survive and to raise children. So what guys think of her is of supreme importance.

Sorry to interrogate you but what’s your take on feminine and masculine gay men? Is it role playing man and woman? Distinct sexual / personality types? I know it’s not just a fashion trend or something because it’s always existed. There were twinks and bears in the ancient world. I know some psychologists believed that twinks have female brains. That’s quite a stretch for me for many reasons not least is that feminine gay men are not like women at all from what I can tell. And butch lesbians are not in the least like men psychologically in my opinion. It does seem kind of fake and put on to me. I’m not saying they’re not lesbians. Just that they appear to be trying to emulate a man and not doing a very convincing job. Not talking about appearance here but rather personality.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Very interesting. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised I got it wrong. As I said it’s something that’s always been a mystery to me. But to speculate further perhaps there’s a biological aspect too. A woman literally needs a monogamous partner to survive and to raise children. So what guys think of her is of supreme importance.

Sorry to interrogate you but what’s your take on feminine and masculine gay men? Is it role playing man and woman? Distinct sexual / personality types? I know it’s not just a fashion trend or something because it’s always existed. There were twinks and bears in the ancient world. I know some psychologists believed that twinks have female brains. That’s quite a stretch for me for many reasons not least is that feminine gay men are not like women at all from what I can tell. And butch lesbians are not in the least like men psychologically in my opinion. It does seem kind of fake and put on to me. I’m not saying they’re not lesbians. Just that they appear to be trying to emulate a man and not doing a very convincing job. Not talking about appearance here but rather personality.[/quote]

Have you read sex at dawn by Dr Chris Ryan ? You might find it interesting. Here is the basic premise:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Very interesting. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised I got it wrong. As I said it’s something that’s always been a mystery to me. But to speculate further perhaps there’s a biological aspect too. A woman literally needs a monogamous partner to survive and to raise children. So what guys think of her is of supreme importance.

Sorry to interrogate you but what’s your take on feminine and masculine gay men? Is it role playing man and woman? Distinct sexual / personality types? I know it’s not just a fashion trend or something because it’s always existed. There were twinks and bears in the ancient world. I know some psychologists believed that twinks have female brains. That’s quite a stretch for me for many reasons not least is that feminine gay men are not like women at all from what I can tell. And butch lesbians are not in the least like men psychologically in my opinion. It does seem kind of fake and put on to me. I’m not saying they’re not lesbians. Just that they appear to be trying to emulate a man and not doing a very convincing job. Not talking about appearance here but rather personality.[/quote]

I don’t know for sure, but personally I think it’s more personality type. Most of the feminine and masculine gay men that I know have acted or identified as such for a long period of time, so it goes beyond just sexual role playing in that setting.

I think there may be some confusion on twinks, bears, etc., because they don’t really refer to masculine or feminine gays per se, since a twink and a bear could be either. If you really want a breakdown of the subculture: http://www.homorazzi.com/article/gay-labels-guide-top-bottom-twink-twunk-bear-phrases/

Twinks and bears refer more to body type and age of a gay man. Twinks are young, wiry, thin and generally hairless young gay men, whereas a bear is just an older, burlesque, hairy gay man, but either one can be more masculine or feminine.

Yes, I knew twinks and bears referred to bodytype but I was under the impression that twinks generally have the stereotypical gay mannerisms and that they’re usually submissive and receptive.

I found it interesting that gay men on average have significantly higher intelligence than straight men. Haven’t heard that about lesbians though. I get the impression that there are many “lesbians” who are not lifelong lesbians. They meet a guy they like and suddenly discover they’re bi. Not as common with gay men though. It’s pretty unusual for a gay man to actually become straight. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

@Yamato - Haven’t read it but I’ve heard it mentioned and referenced by people. It’s sounds interesting and may have some truth to it but it’s clearly mostly speculation.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@Yamato - Haven’t read it but I’ve heard it mentioned and referenced by people. It’s sounds interesting and may have some truth to it but it’s clearly mostly speculation. [/quote]

I have not read it myself but I just thought it might be of interest given your post above.

“If you are among the many Americans ? of whatever sexual orientation ? who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today?s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

That quote was Justice Roberts reading his dissent from the bench. Apparently, he decided to put on his Constitutionalist big-boy pants this morning.

This is actually a huge positive for the Republicans as this issue is no longer up for debate. Huge positive.