Which tradition? 1950's 'Father Knows Best' fantasy or new wife every third child as she dies in childbirth?

Will there be breach of contract clauses for when there's no blood on the sheets, too?

Dear fundies,

Relax, this will not in any way diminish your ability to hate, abuse your wives, stick your dick into anything that moves, commit adultery, do drugs, and basically hate your fellow man.

While still feeling good about yourselves.

Look on the bright side, you will have more to hate, which will make you better "Christians", you should be happy.

So take a deep breath, and relax. You can still rule over your family with an iron and quick fist, snort meth, and fark your aid(M/F)all you want.

It's OK

Love,
baka-san

Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

Oh dear FSM, I don't think I can take another gay thread.

Dear Right Wing:

You are all closet homosexuals. That is all.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

Heh, I did a final paper in history about the history of marriage. These idiots that scream "traditional marriage" have absolutely no idea what they're really referring to.

wyltoknow: Oh dear FSM, I don't think I can take another gay thread.

What are ya, a pussy? Man up, nancy!

PC LOAD LETTER: Dear Right Wing:

You are all closet homosexuals. That is all.

Most of them aren't even in the closet. Some of them are in men's rooms and some of them are on the pulpit.

Who cares about this shiat?

PC LOAD LETTER: Dear Right Wing:

You are all closet homosexuals. That is all.

Yup. Anyone who needs to make damn sure everyone knows they hate everyone who is gay is really just gay themselves and can't admit it.

Dear California Activists,

Stop trying to impose your "morals" on the rest of us. We are in the 21'st century, not the 14th.

Thanks much,
SilentStrider

SilentStrider: Stop trying to impose your "morals" on the rest of us.

Okay, which one of you went and forcibly gay-married SilentStrider?

mediaho: SilentStrider: Stop trying to impose your "morals" on the rest of us.

Okay, which one of you went and forcibly gay-married SilentStrider?

i did.
his swishy cuffs were just asking for it.

Fellow conservatives, DE-REGULATE MARRIAGE.

Jebus, can't we get this damn 'Rapture' thing over with so we can have a little farking relief?!"

No word on how many cows will be legally required per wife bought

Arguments have already been herd.

I didn't think it could get much worse as far stupidity was concerned, but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side. That means something... I guess.

Friggin eh... these people are just hellbent on having the government regulate their religions... just say no to nanny-statism.

"People know deep in their hearts it is only for a man and woman," Thomasson said.

Huh.... go figure.
And all this time I thought it was a Legal Institution based on giving a woman everything a man had in this world. Is there really more to it than that?

I swear to God, these "conservatives"think about homosexual activities more than all the normal gay people combined.

"When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity. The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself."

-Bruce Lee

Anything that means I can go to more gay weddings, the better.

Free and good food, wine, beer, cake, but entertaining alterna-religious or judge or whatever doing the marryin'? Celebrating an altogether "f--k you" to the idiots who are losing their dumbass fight every day? Debating buying a large sized metal straining globe thing for tea or something because they have every other kitchen supply known to man?

Heck yea! Way better than a baby shower anyhow.

/would've rather played Wii wtih the boys in the basement

WFern: I didn't think it could get much worse as far stupidity was concerned, but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side. That means something... I guess.

Bonus I forgot to mention: an actual legal expert made clear that California was prepared to challenge the passage of such a law before the Supreme Court. Meaning, if they won, the actions of these "fundie" groups could essentially backfire and allow same-sex marriage on a national scale - much as what was required in the 60s to overturn bans on interracial unions.

I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

StreetlightInTheGhetto: /would've rather played Wii wtih the boys in the basement

There's a gay pedophile joke to be made there, but I just can't seem to get it out of your basement where you've been playing with a boy's Wii.

If you want to see something disturbing check out the Campaign for Children and Families site. Link

starsrift: I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

A Constitutional amendment that says (X) will override any lower law saying NOT(X). The hierarchy is:
US Constitution -> National laws -> State constitution -> State laws -> Local ordinances.

Under the constitution, banning gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection right, but right now the Supreme Court is excessively politicized and probably wouldn't give a shiat about that and let the state get away with banning it.

rcain: And all this time I thought it was a Legal Institution based on giving a woman everything a man had in this world. Is there really more to it than that?

I figured it had evolved to a point where it was about people who loved each other wanting to make a rock solid show of the commitment between them, the sort of commitment that can only lead to divorce court in 3 to 5 years.

The government shouldn't allow people to baptize their babies because it goes against my beliefs. Sounds stupid, right? Intolerant, ignorant and bigoted. It's the same mindset as those who would punish non-Muslims for depicting Mohammad.

Time for an oldie but a goodie:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Thank-you.


/Original source: Every other page on the internet
//Links pop, go to corresponding bible verses

starsrift: I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

There is no issue. The CA Supreme court decided that the California constitution gives people the right to marry people of the same sex. Therefore, an amendment to the CA constitution could remove such privilege.

There is no federal issue with the matter at hand (well, not in the defined legal framework of the case)

You know what we should do with the gays lets round em up and put them in camps like Hitler did to the jews! That'll show em. Marriage not yours.

Imagine how this would go over internationally with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its a win win.

The best constitutional amendments are those that affirm rights, not deny them. Dicks.

/penis

WFern: but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side.

Heard that as well. She was trying to falsely claim that religious institutions would be forced under the new ruling to marry people they didn't want to. Of course that's a boldfaced lie, since the CA Supreme Court made it explicitly clear that no such actions were required. I'm surprised the NPR-ATC host did not correct/expose her on this.

WFern: WFern: I didn't think it could get much worse as far stupidity was concerned, but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side. That means something... I guess.

Bonus I forgot to mention: an actual legal expert made clear that California was prepared to challenge the passage of such a law before the Supreme Court. Meaning, if they won, the actions of these "fundie" groups could essentially backfire and allow same-sex marriage on a national scale - much as what was required in the 60s to overturn bans on interracial unions.


I'd love to see that backfire and have it go nationwide. :D


/I know I know, I'm Canadian, we haven't gone to hell yet, blah blah.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

To be fair, that's something like 400 years older than the laws of the US, and 500 years older than the laws of CA, so in context the word is probably appropriate.

//600 years is a damned long time. That's longer than most civilizations last, I think you can call something traditional if it's been around in an official capacity for 30 generations.

Now I have a question for more constitutional law knowledgeable farkers. What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with? I know this is talking about the California state constitution and that, in the end, it's trumped by the US Constitution if a conflict arises but there have been rumblings of amending the US Constitution with this crap.

Besides sanity and numbers what prevents an amendment that declares all the rights granted in the constitution apply only to humans and humans are defined as white not black or hispanic or asian, etc? Or how about an amendment that guts the establishment clause and declares a national religion?

shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

SCOTUS is the last line of defense.

wyltoknow
Heh, I did a final paper in history about the history of marriage.

I'd like to read it...

shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

Revolution.

If gays are allowed to marry, it will be incontrovertible proof that liberals hate them. Haven't the homos suffered enough? And does this joke ever get old? (Yes?)

But serious, people. The entirety of Western civilization as we know it, the lone bright candle in an otherwise benighted world, will be extinguished forever if we allow Adam and Steve, not just Adam and Eve, to marry. And try the veal.

shubai33
Now I have a question for more constitutional law knowledgeable farkers. What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

poor marketing skills.

torch: The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old.

600? Try 40. The current, federally accepted view of marriage didn't come into existance until 1967.

mediaho: shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

SCOTUS is the last line of defense.

The Supremes cannot rule a ratified amendment is unconstitutional.

mediaho: shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

SCOTUS is the last line of defense.

Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional or is the fact that it is an amendment mean that SCOTUS now has to abide by it in all their future rulings as it is now an official part of the constitution (essentially making it untouchable by them)? This is what I'm unclear on.

shubai33:

What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

Numbers. It would require 2/3's of both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by a majority of the states to get an amendment passed. Not even during the peak time for these so-called conservatives did they have anywhere near the kind of support that would have been required for an anti-gay marriage amendment. Politicians know that this is going to turn out badly for them, and they don't want to be viewed as the next Jim Crow when it comes time to put this little episode into the history books.

TheCid: starsrift: I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

Under the constitution, banning gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection right, but right now the Supreme Court is excessively politicized and probably wouldn't give a shiat about that and let the state get away with banning it.

That's what I thou--

nmathew01: There is no issue. The CA Supreme court decided that the California constitution gives people the right to marry people of the same sex. Therefore, an amendment to the CA constitution could remove such privilege.

There is no federal issue with the matter at hand (well, not in the defined legal framework of the case)

I guess I'm not the only one confused, here. :) Is this removing the privilege, or a legal redefinition of marriage to specifically exclude those of non-hetero sexuality?



euge: You know what we should do with the gays lets round em up and put them in camps like Hitler did to the jews! That'll show em. Marriage not yours.

Imagine how this would go over internationally with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its a win win.

You don't need to bring the joos into it, Hitler's orders put the gays in the with joos in the camps.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old.

Dude, 600 years doth a tradition make. There are lots of traditions far younger than that. Many even that you hold dear.

shubai33
Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional or is the fact that it is an amendment mean that SCOTUS now has to abide by it in all their future rulings as it is now an official part of the constitution (essentially making it untouchable by them)? This is what I'm unclear on.

If it's a part of the constitution, it is (by default) constitutional and the supreme court is bound to uphold it. How they do so relies upon their intepretation of the amendment and the context surrounding it. To declare any section of the constitution "unconstitutional", it must be directly contradicted by a subsequent amendment, like how the 21st (yay, no more prohibition!) applies to the 18th.