PDA

View Full Version : The State of Massachusetts Sues the United States



PotVsKtl
07-09-2009, 12:47 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/08/massachusetts.marriage.lawsuit/index.html

Sleepingrock
07-09-2009, 12:51 AM
she had excuses and she chose to use them
she was the victim of unspeakable abuses
her husband was violent, malicious and distant
her kids now belong to the state of Massachusetts!

they've been taken away!
they've been taken away!


Billy was the bright one
tommy's off his head
mother loved them both the same,at least thats what she said
i don't predict the future, i don't care about the past
send them both to DSS, now you had your chance
the posion took your babies
the judges took your rights
you can have your children or the night!
I supposed youve been a victim
though i suspect you may have lied
have you lost all ambition why don't you give this thing a try
if you can't and you fail won't be the only loser
these kid don't stand a chance with you in their future!

they've been taken away!
they've been taken away

PassiveTheory
07-09-2009, 12:56 AM
They're going to lose. Pretty badly too. I doubt the courts will hear this kind of bullshit right now.

PotVsKtl
07-09-2009, 01:04 AM
Scholar of law.

RotationSlimWang
07-09-2009, 01:55 AM
Goddammit Passive you dumb sack of shit. I thought we'd all made it pretty clear to you to keep your festering gob shut when it comes to grown-up matters.

Lurker_in_a_tree
07-09-2009, 02:11 AM
http://www.code-flow.net/fake/img/david-crawford/image006.jpg

Mr.Nipples
07-09-2009, 03:14 AM
shit in a fishtank

elChurro
07-09-2009, 08:24 AM
Tax the church to fix the budget.

marooko
07-09-2009, 08:28 AM
my dog had plastic wrap hanging out of her ass this morning.

Hannahrain
07-09-2009, 09:10 AM
They're going to lose. Pretty badly too. I doubt the courts will hear this kind of bullshit right now.

So you think it's better not to even try? To just lie there like a bitch and take it because you're probably going to lose anyway? Way to scoff at the people who took some goddamn initiative to at least attempt to effect change while you're sitting there in dirty sweatpants eating ramen and watching YouTube clips of people getting kicked in the groin. Jesus.

chairmenmeow47
07-09-2009, 09:17 AM
i applaud them for at least trying, but i think the only thing that could possibly help them win is this:


Before the act, the lawsuit argues, defining marital status was the prerogative of the states.

because then states that don't want to have gays get married will be more on board because then those states can make laws against the practice.

personally, i think this is a civil rights issue that supercedes state's rights, but baby steps i suppose. stick it to the man, mass!

paganman7
07-09-2009, 10:12 AM
Issues like these make me embarrassed to be alive today. Can someone please freeze me, then thaw me when issues like these are no longer consuming anyone's thoughts (in, say, 500 years or so)?

chairmenmeow47
07-09-2009, 10:15 AM
Issues like these make me embarrassed to be alive today. Can someone please freeze me, then thaw me when issues like these are no longer consuming anyone's thoughts (in, say, 500 years or so)?

but in 500 years, we'll be arguing about whether or not robot & human unions are equal :p

djandrews25
07-09-2009, 10:21 AM
Goddammit Passive you dumb sack of shit. I thought we'd all made it pretty clear to you to keep your festering gob shut when it comes to grown-up matters.

Lol randy.

chairmenmeow47
07-09-2009, 10:24 AM
Tax the church to fix the budget.

and i fully support this. can we get a "morals" tax to compliment the sin tax? for every dollar you spend harassing your neighbor to allow jesus christ in their life, you have to pay 7% to the government.

BROKENDOLL
07-09-2009, 10:29 AM
my dog had plastic wrap hanging out of her ass this morning.
It's so funny how pets bring their masters gifts. My cat brings in bugs or dead birds to drop at my feet, and your dog, Maddie makes you burritos and even wraps them up before her presentation. And to think you were hesitant in getting a dog...

Aurgasm
07-09-2009, 10:31 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/09/mass_to_challenge_us_marriage_law/

the globe talks about how politicians are using this for publicity/reelection etc.

marooko
07-09-2009, 10:33 AM
whats the "sin" tax?



yeah, thats the 3rd time we've had to help her leave something behind. i knew something was up, she was quiet for too long. then when i look outside, she's looking in, but only with her head. and she was holding it down. gross, but funny.

marooko
07-09-2009, 10:33 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/09/mass_to_challenge_us_marriage_law/

the globe talks about how politicians are using this for publicity/reelection etc.

no!. they really care.

chairmenmeow47
07-09-2009, 10:35 AM
a sin tax is a tax on something that's considered considered "sinful", like smoking. it's basically a way of saying "we don't REALLY want to make this legal, but if we must, you're going to have to pay a tax to use the product so that we can at least make some money off of it and also deter you from using the product". sometimes sin taxes are used to also combat the costs that are incurred by the product, such as using the smoking tax money to go towards health services. in times of economic crisis (like now), these tend to get inflated as a quick fix to getting more money into the economy.

Still-ill
07-09-2009, 10:37 AM
whats the "sin" tax?


I think it was a play on words for "Syntax"

Edit:nvm.

SoulDischarge
07-09-2009, 10:41 AM
but in 500 years, we'll be arguing about whether or not robot & human unions are equal :p

http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/tm.jpg

marooko
07-09-2009, 10:42 AM
what role does the church play?

chairmenmeow47
07-09-2009, 10:43 AM
none, it's just an expression.

amyzzz
07-09-2009, 10:44 AM
http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/tm.jpg
I want that on a shirt.

marooko
07-09-2009, 10:44 AM
yeah, tax the church.

chairmenmeow47
07-09-2009, 10:46 AM
welcome to the joke, roo!

humanoid
07-09-2009, 11:07 AM
but in 500 years, we'll be arguing about whether or not robot & human unions are equal :p

we're going to be arguing about this much sooner than that

marooko
07-09-2009, 11:08 AM
welcome to the joke, roo!


oh, hai.

TomAz
07-09-2009, 12:05 PM
They're going to lose. Pretty badly too. I doubt the courts will hear this kind of bullshit right now.

This is amongst some of the dumbest shit you have ever posted.

I'm no legal scholar either, but I do know this:

- US Constitution gives power to the states unless specifically given to the federal government

- There is nothing about marriage in the Constitution

- It would be difficult to claim that marriage constitutes "interstate commerce"

- the DOMA is not a Constitutional amendment, it's just some law passed by Congress

Based on these facts, I would say the Commonwealth of Mass. has pretty solid legal grounding. But I bet the law just gets repealed and the suit goes away.

As to your point that "the courts don't want to hear this kind of bullshit right now", I am curious (1) why you think this is bullshit and (2) what kind of bullshit do the courts want to hear instead?

TomAz
07-09-2009, 12:11 PM
Tax the church to fix the budget.

Taxing churches like a business would likely have little impact to either churches or the budget. Few churches make profits; most spend 100% of whatever revenue stream they have on staff salaries, buildings, maintenance, "outreach", etc. Otherwise I agree, any church that does make a profit should be taxed on it.

Much more devastating would be to remove the tax deductiblity to individuals of church contributions.

MissingPerson
07-09-2009, 12:12 PM
Jesus.

Yoink.

TomAz
07-09-2009, 12:15 PM
wait there MP. One of us has to change our sig. I say you do because I'm a man.

MissingPerson
07-09-2009, 12:20 PM
How about we both call it, and see who it runs to?

PassiveTheory
07-09-2009, 06:26 PM
Was I crass in what I said? Yeah.

What needs to be said, though, is that it's going to take more than the minuscule state of Massachusetts to change the Federal Govt., especially in light of related matters such as the reluctance to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the confusing matter of the recent memorandum that grants only federal employees who are gay/lesbian/etc. equal benefits, which, while a marked improvement in the quality of their lives, isn't exactly a huge victory in the (seemingly endless) fight to secure equality for the LGBT community since it creates yet another isolated class of individuals (much like those married in California during the period before Proposition 8).

The main problem with Massachusetts leading this lawsuit on it's own is that it allows states like, say, Mississippi or Arkansas or Georgia or Texas or Utah to launch their own counter-suit, and despite the prevalence of the gay rights issue in today's society, the courts are still dominated by old white men who hold "traditional" views on sexuality and marriage.

Trying to force the issue like this is like trying to fit a square peg in a square hole, it's not going to work. It's going to take a national movement to get shit done, not a single state lawsuit.

djandrews25
07-09-2009, 06:27 PM
You have mentioned nothing about what case mass has.

djandrews25
07-09-2009, 06:27 PM
They do actually have a good argument.

PassiveTheory
07-09-2009, 06:32 PM
They have a great argument. It's rational that people who contribute to this country in meaningful ways (paying taxes, primarily) in the ways that heterosexual members of this country do should enjoy the same privileges and protection under law. But you need to understand that the issue involves an incredible amount of power that a lot of people are just unwilling to give up.

RotationSlimWang
07-09-2009, 06:36 PM
Taxing churches like a business would likely have little impact to either churches or the budget. Few churches make profits; most spend 100% of whatever revenue stream they have on staff salaries, buildings, maintenance, "outreach", etc. Otherwise I agree, any church that does make a profit should be taxed on it.

Much more devastating would be to remove the tax deductiblity to individuals of church contributions.

Tom, with all due respect to everything else you've said, I don't get the first paragraph at all. Why should churches only be taxed if they make a profit? Money spent on buildings like the Vatican shouldn't go untaxed. It's wasteful bullshit. They should have to pony up out of their gross like anything else.


Was I crass in what I said? Yeah.

What needs to be said, though, is that it's going to take more than the minuscule state of Massachusetts to change the Federal Govt., especially in light of related matters such as the reluctance to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the confusing matter of the recent memorandum that grants only federal employees who are gay/lesbian/etc. equal benefits, which, while a marked improvement in the quality of their lives, isn't exactly a huge victory in the (seemingly endless) fight to secure equality for the LGBT community since it creates yet another isolated class of individuals (much like those married in California during the period before Proposition 8).

The main problem with Massachusetts leading this lawsuit on it's own is that it allows states like, say, Mississippi or Arkansas or Georgia or Texas or Utah to launch their own counter-suit, and despite the prevalence of the gay rights issue in today's society, the courts are still dominated by old white men who hold "traditional" views on sexuality and marriage.

Trying to force the issue like this is like trying to fit a square peg in a square hole, it's not going to work. It's going to take a national movement to get shit done, not a single state lawsuit.

So... the case has no merit because Massachusetts isn't a big enough state?

Listen, you fucking dimbulb--the whole point of launching a suit like this is to bring the question of states' control over this issue to a final decision in the Supreme Court. Your retarded notion of a "counter-suit" by other states is beyond stupid. A state can't sue the federal government to impose a federal restriction on individual states' rights. That would have to be a measure pushed through in Congress. There is no counter-suit, you wasteless sack. Individuals sue to try to modify Roe v. Wade every year, and the reason we never hear about them is because there's a fucking Supreme Court ruling that settled the issue until a new perspective can be put forth.

Why don't you just shut up when stuff like this comes up? Or better yet, after you've opened your dumb yap and you hear the deluge of people pointing out how you're being an idiot, why do you continue to try to defend yourself? You never have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Bud Luster
07-09-2009, 06:41 PM
but in 500 years, we'll be arguing about whether or not robot & human unions are equal :p

Hopefully someone can just come up with a robot that's worth fucking.

Alchemy
07-09-2009, 08:08 PM
Counter-suit. Lol.

MissingPerson
07-09-2009, 08:15 PM
Hopefully someone can just come up with a robot that's worth fucking.

Shit gets really complicated.

http://thetwocentscorp.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/15.jpg

Blinken
07-09-2009, 08:29 PM
Trying to force the issue like this is like trying to fit a square peg in a square hole, it's not going to work.

All you have to do is rotate the peg a little way in one direction, no more than 90 I promise. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

RotationSlimWang
07-09-2009, 08:30 PM
Passive had a great point--just one state suing the federal government isn't going to do it. The entire country needs to sue the federal government.

Passive, please explain how in the fuck you think a better lawsuit could be mounted.

Blinken
07-09-2009, 08:37 PM
On a side note I really think the Republicans can reinvent their party if they go back to what they once stood for, states rights. It would mean abandoning the religous right but that kind of move would really be effective against the Democrats in 2012.

Courtney
07-09-2009, 08:37 PM
Shit gets really complicated.

http://thetwocentscorp.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/15.jpg

Sometimes I see images like this and wonder if everyone else is thinking what I'm thinking, or if I just overanalyze everything. Stop making me overanalyze everything.

Courtney
07-09-2009, 08:41 PM
Oh and for the record, I'm with paganman. It may have something to do with the fact that I have never lived in a red state, but I can't believe that this is even an issue that has to be fought over.

RotationSlimWang
07-09-2009, 08:41 PM
What were you thinking, Courtney?

Courtney
07-09-2009, 08:47 PM
I was wondering if they wanted to recreate Leonardo's Last Supper, why they replaced Judas with a tin goblet.

I was also thinking that that red dress is hot.

RotationSlimWang
07-09-2009, 08:53 PM
Huh. Cute thought. Wish I knew more than just a couple episodes of the show so I could venture.

MissingPerson
07-09-2009, 09:11 PM
Tricia Helfer would look amazing in a barrel with straps on it.

SoulDischarge
07-09-2009, 09:14 PM
Please. We've already spoken to you multiple times about your barrel fetish. All we're asking for is a little decency on the boards.

MissingPerson
07-09-2009, 09:16 PM
Don't tell me I've done the barrel gag before?

God, I'm my own Denis Leary.

JewFace
07-09-2009, 10:08 PM
i applaud them for at least trying, but i think the only thing that could possibly help them win is this:
because then states that don't want to have gays get married will be more on board because then those states can make laws against the practice.


This was no mistake on the Attorney General's part. In fact, this could end up being a key to winning this fight. There have been federal challenges to DOMA before, but I don't think there's been one that has challenged the law (at least partly) based on individual state rights. The State of Mass. is asking for the repeal of DOMA based on it's violation of the federal constitution and it's violation of individual state rights. A judge (or, eventually, 9 justices) wouldn't have to agree with both arguments to approve of a DOMA repeal.


As I'm sure you're aware, there have been and are currently other legal challenges to DOMA in the courts. Recently, the smooth talkin Obama administration defended DOMA against a federal lawsuit with a rather shocking brief which read like something out of the Bush administration. The brief stated there is "no fundamental right to same sex marriage" and openly likened same sex marriage to incest. Assuming that the State of Mass v. USA
makes it to court, it will be interesting to see if Obama's administration will again use such incendiary comments to defend DOMA.

Over the last 2 years I've done some work with Marriage Equality USA, EQCA and the Courage Campaign. There's currently an argument within "the movement" over whether or not the marriage equality fight should be taken to the federal level. Recently, when a different lawsuit challenging Prop 8 was filed in federal court, the majority of LGBT and civil rights groups in the country gave a collective gasp. Most felt it was too soon. Some of those groups, like the ACLU and LAMDA Legal, have since thrown their support behind that lawsuit which appears to be headed for trial in federal court before the end of the year.

I was also a bit worried about taking this to the federal level, but the fact is when it comes to repealing DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell and pushing for equal federal employment rights, Obama is all hot air. For now, these fights need to be taken to the courts. Even if they don't succeed, they will only add mounting pressure on Obama to act. So far, his actions have ranged from non-committal to cowardly.

real talk
07-09-2009, 10:12 PM
Right on, um...Jewface.

PotVsKtl
07-09-2009, 10:28 PM
Recently, the smooth talkin Obama administration defended DOMA against a federal lawsuit with a rather shocking brief which read like something out of the Bush administration. The brief stated there is "no fundamental right to same sex marriage" and openly likened same sex marriage to incest.


The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Are there better decided cases to reference in making this particular legal point? Maybe marrying cousins and disagreement on marrying age are in the brief because they were settled long ago. I don't like the defense of DOMA either but the outrage olympics are getting pretty fucking old.

real talk
07-09-2009, 10:38 PM
Don't say things like "outrage olympics" you sound like a dillweed.

RotationSlimWang
07-09-2009, 11:29 PM
They should meld with the Special Olympics. Angry competitive retardation would be entertaining.

MissingPerson
07-10-2009, 05:55 AM
[Off topic]

The Special Olympics were in Ireland a few years back. I was in the reserve at the time. We were used to provide part of the army guard for the event.

I've always wondered what exactly was at risk of happening.
[/Off topic]

fatbastard
07-10-2009, 06:21 AM
The Red Sox have a bettter chance at it.

TomAz
07-10-2009, 07:41 AM
Tom, with all due respect to everything else you've said, I don't get the first paragraph at all. Why should churches only be taxed if they make a profit? Money spent on buildings like the Vatican shouldn't go untaxed. It's wasteful bullshit. They should have to pony up out of their gross like anything else.



Businesses are taxed on their net, not their gross. You're suggesting churches should be taxed like individuals, which seems a more difficult case to make.

RotationSlimWang
07-10-2009, 09:50 AM
Is that true? Shows how much I know about running a business. Help clarify for me though--it's not assumed that they only have to pay out from their net from the get-go, correct? By which I mean that the initial calculation of how much a business should owe would in theory be based on their gross but then they can go in and account for various elements that they get write-offs for, which would include losses, etc. Or am I completely PassiveTheory about the subject?

Either way, fuck those rich wop Catholic bastards.

paganman7
07-10-2009, 10:08 AM
I think eliminating government-subsidized tax breaks for churches would do nicely. That money could then go to worthy causes like, say, the LGBT Alliance.

MissingPerson
07-10-2009, 10:56 AM
Either way, fuck those rich wop Catholic bastards.

I miss the luxury of being legally allowed to say this.

TomAz
07-10-2009, 03:28 PM
Is that true? Shows how much I know about running a business. Help clarify for me though--it's not assumed that they only have to pay out from their net from the get-go, correct? By which I mean that the initial calculation of how much a business should owe would in theory be based on their gross but then they can go in and account for various elements that they get write-offs for, which would include losses, etc. Or am I completely PassiveTheory about the subject?

Either way, fuck those rich wop Catholic bastards.

under the tax code, a business' "income" is its bottom line. its profit. The tax the business owes is calculated as a percentage of its profit. The great majority of the gazillion of pages of tax code are devoted to how to calculate that profit appropriately.

BlackSwan
07-10-2009, 03:33 PM
Trying to force the issue like this is like trying to fit a square peg in a square hole, it's not going to work.

What?

PotVsKtl
07-10-2009, 03:34 PM
http://filmdrunk.lg1x8.simplecdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mvp.gif

TomAz
07-10-2009, 03:37 PM
What?

well at least he resolved my sig dispute with MP for me.

amyzzz
07-10-2009, 03:38 PM
:rotfl

Hannahrain
07-10-2009, 03:40 PM
well at least he resolved my sig dispute with MP for me.

The hell he did.

Hannahrain
07-10-2009, 03:41 PM
Now that I look at it, I'm not certain that's an expression. Regardless, I stand by it.

MissingPerson
07-10-2009, 03:42 PM
I won. You all saw it.

TomAz
07-10-2009, 03:45 PM
The hell he did.

not sure which part of "with MP" slipped past your grasp, Hannah.

and yes it's an expression.

TomAz
07-10-2009, 03:46 PM
I won. You all saw it.

Your self-esteem will thank me.

BlackSwan
07-10-2009, 03:47 PM
and yes it's an expression.

Though, it doesn't appear to be the proper usage of that expression.

Hannahrain
07-10-2009, 03:48 PM
I've fucking had it with men consistently trying to bring women down by bogarting our forum signatures.


Though, it doesn't appear to be the proper usage of that expression.

Don't you have a soy cow to go slaughter somewhere?

TomAz
07-10-2009, 03:50 PM
I've fucking had it with men consistently trying to bring women down by bogarting our forum signatures.

The hell you have.

MissingPerson
07-10-2009, 03:51 PM
Oh, it's on, it's on like Donkey Kong.

BlackSwan
07-10-2009, 03:59 PM
Don't you have a soy cow to go slaughter somewhere?

I will not stand for these accusations of my soyicidal tendencies. Luckily, I am sitting.

Hannahrain
07-10-2009, 04:00 PM
I won't sit in your exemplary pillory to forward your male chauvinist agenda, Tom. Unsig that which you have sug. Yeah, I said sug. I'm exercising my right as a woman to be batshit fucking insane.

MissingPerson
07-10-2009, 04:01 PM
Suggragette.

EDIT: Wait, no, fuck, "Siggragette" would have been way better.

marooko
07-10-2009, 04:12 PM
how many of you have a hard on right now?

chairmenmeow47
07-10-2009, 04:16 PM
hannah? mp? just how hard are you?

Hannahrain
07-10-2009, 04:19 PM
I'm unwilling to quantify my excitement using erotic male-power imagery.

SoulDischarge
07-10-2009, 04:28 PM
Hannah's just upset because her father sigged her when she was a child.

MissingPerson
07-10-2009, 04:42 PM
Yeah, quit seeing the world through penis coloured glasses, Marooko.

In Dublin, the slang female equivalent of the phrase "hard on" is a "wide on". Why don't you ask Tom how wide he is?

amyzzz
07-10-2009, 04:43 PM
hahaha

SoulDischarge
07-10-2009, 04:47 PM
Instead of asking him how much of your time is left, ask him how much of your wide-on, baby.

marooko
07-10-2009, 04:52 PM
Tom, how wide were you during your little conversation there? you know, with the little ladies.

TomAz
07-10-2009, 04:53 PM
yaz gots 5 more minutes til youse times up mookie.

allyjoy
07-10-2009, 06:21 PM
wait... was that a "do the right thing" reference?

SoulDischarge
07-10-2009, 06:23 PM
If it's not, I'm throwing a garbage can through the window of the What are you eating/drinking thread.

MissingPerson
07-11-2009, 08:31 PM
I'd just like to say, that the previous post's genius didn't go unnoticed, it was just a really hard act to follow.

Goddamn.

RotationSlimWang
07-11-2009, 09:34 PM
I've been known as Sweet Dick in more than a few towns.

SoulDischarge
07-12-2009, 01:12 AM
I highly doubt anyone wants to hear about your misadventures luring children into indecent acts by putting Fun Dip powder on your genitals.

Suffacated
07-12-2009, 08:56 AM
thats classic :lool

mountmccabe
07-12-2009, 07:38 PM
I was wondering if they wanted to recreate Leonardo's Last Supper, why they replaced Judas with a tin goblet.

The Grail is there as a representation of/stand-in for the final cylon because that poster showed up before season 4 when the final cylon was revealed.

Serious Spoilers for BSG/the Bible...


Roslin is on the end to match Bill Adama on the other end.

The non-incorporeal Six is there... umm, I dunno. I suppose she is James because she is one of the lesser characters there.

Tigh is there looking, in disbelief at where Ellen would be. He was kinda shocked when she showed up after he had killer her as a traitor.

Ellen is represented as a tin cup as a joke, haha, she's not entirely organic. Also the cup is the Grail, as she was the one - leading the other five - what discovered resurrection technology. Also Ellen is there in Judas' place because she betrayed the human resistance on New Caprica, in an effort to get Tigh released from captivity. When he got out and found out what happened, he poisoned her.

Lee Adama is there, looking contemplative as Simon Peter possibly as a joke with Adama (Lee's father) being the other Simon.

Gaius is there as John because Angel Six was in his head and John was closest (emotionally) to Jesus and John's gospel and his revelation were that kind of thing that you could see coming from Gaius.

The Head/Angel Six is there as Jesus because of her incorporeal form. And because she was sent from God and keeps talking about God's plan.

Kara is there as Thomas because, I suppose, she has the most doubts.

Anders is there to be there with Kara. Also note that his eyes are closed, forshadowing his time as a vegetable.

Chief rather than Lee (in Peter's place) has the knife because he kills Tory - which is why she is not pictured despite her importance - just as the humans and cylons are about to roll with their mutual peace.

The 8 is there to be next to Chief and with Helo. And I guess they make a good loyal pair to be near Bill Adama, from Leonardo's pic with Matthew and Jude Thaddeus looking to Simon.

And Bill is on the end as Simon (haha, his son is the other Simon) and bookending with his quasi-wife Roslin.