The butternut had something, though. Very dashing.

This is so dumb. At the *very* least for a civil war to actually happen you need something people are willing to die for.

DamnYankees: This is so dumb. At the *very* least for a civil war to actually happen you need something people are willing to die for.

And since cable tv, fast food, and professional sports are not involved it isn't going to happen.

Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

Heh. You're adorable.

You really should check out some of the Civil War uniforms, limpwristedmitter. Check this out.

SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

Oh man, I don't think you want to end up as a POW in that war.

SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

I've told you once.

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

BOOM! Headshot!

revrendjim: Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

BOOM! Headshot!

He's just gonna bring up the black vote in Prop 8. He's nothing if not predictable.

Unless a signficant part of the country actually believes that making gay marriage legal or illegal will destroy their economic and social structure, I don't see a war happening over this.

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

They were asked in California. 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop. 8, with 75% of African-American women voting for it.

I'm pretty sure too many Americans are too lazy and/or caught up in their own personal shiat to amount up to enough people for either side to wage a proper war.

DamnYankees: He's just gonna bring up the black vote in Prop 8. He's nothing if not predictable.

DAMN you're good.

DamnYankees: He's just gonna bring up the black vote in Prop 8. He's nothing if not predictable.

SkinnyHead: They were asked in California. 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop. 8, with 75% of African-American women voting for it.

Am I good, or am I good?

SkinnyHead: JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

They were asked in California. 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop. 8, with 75% of African-American women voting for it.

::wince::

This is a joke you have to be pretending to be this stupid right?

Right?

SkinnyHead:11:42:51 AM JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: SkinnyHead: Instead of war, why not let the voters of each state decide?

Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

They were asked in California. 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop. 8, with 75% of African-American women voting for it.

DamnYankees:11:41:03 AM revrendjim: Good question. Let's ask the blacks.

BOOM! Headshot!

He's just gonna bring up the black vote in Prop 8. He's nothing if not predictable.

As predictable as the f*cking sunrise.

Speaking as a armchair historian, the civil war was primarily one to keep the Union intact. I don't think anything short of a SCOTUS ruling allowing gay marriage or its equivalent would compel the Southern states to secede, forcing the United States to once again fight to keep the Union intact.

SkinnyHead: They were asked in California. 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop. 8, with 75% of African-American women voting for it.

That's it, I'm just gonna go ahead and suggest it:

SkinnyHead = DamnYankees' crazy freeper alt.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: SkinnyHead = DamnYankees' crazy freeper alt.

You think I'm paying for 2 TF accounts? Boy, you must be out your mind.

Could gay marriage be the cause of the next American Civil War?

No.

/Next

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: That's it, I'm just gonna go ahead and suggest it:

SkinnyHead = DamnYankees' crazy freeper alt.

I don't know about that. Would he really spend TF on TWO accounts, just to f*ck with people? I know some people love to waste money on their joke accounts just to troll (*coughHOVcough*), but I don't think other people would waste money nowadays just to keep their Fark character going.

However, there's actually a few trolls on the political tab that I'm starting to believe are really alts of the more liberal Farkers here. Skookum comes to mind immediately.

Black people are overly religious, that's all. I think they'll move away from that sort of bullcrap when racism is less of a problem.

In the meantime, a civil war over gay marriage would be pretty damn funny.

NeverDrunk23: Skookum comes to mind immediately.

He's already admitted to being an alt - that's why he's not around anymore.

Nobody is forcing the southern states to do anything, There is no perception that somebody is forcing them to do something. Nobody is trying to take anything away from the southern states.

Exactly what is there to fight about?? Stupidest article on YAHOO in a long time.

DamnYankees: NeverDrunk23: Skookum comes to mind immediately.

He's already admitted to being an alt - that's why he's not around anymore.

Oh I know. I think I still got the link of proof. I was just using him as an example: one of the most conservative posters on Fark was really one of the more liberal people on Fark in disguise. I'm betting that other people tried to copy him for that.

Really shows that you can't always believe what someone posts. It does make you wonder how many more troll here are nothing more than joke accounts.

It's weird, it feels like gays and gay rights supporters would not be dumb enough to kill people or engage in war even if their rights continue to be infringed upon.

But does anyone get the feeling that if they were legally afforded those rights all over the country that some opponents of gay rights actually would resort to violence?

I'm sure the parades will be fabulous.

DamnYankees: Am I good, or am I good?

You are good.

/wants to play a game of grab ass

Get the government out of marriage entirely. Abolish state recognition of marriage.

Bravo Subby... Bravo

/did not read the article
/will likely be disappointed

Theaetetus: [Pic]

Came for the original; damn well not leaving without it.

Civil War over equal rights for GLBTs? Unlikely.

More likely the Republican Party would fracture into two parties. Happened to the Democratic Party when Kennedy and later Johnson pushed through civil rights legislation for African-Americans. The Dixiecrats split from the Democrats to form their own, the dumbasses.

Now the angry white Southern bigots are linked up with the Republican Party, pushing their "religious" agendas against abortion, stem cell research, gays, abortion, right to die, gays, evolution in schools, abortion, church/state separation, gays, etc.

Wealthy businessmen and religious do-gooders are a weird mix anyway.

t3knomanser: Get the government out of marriage entirely. Abolish state recognition of marriage.

Single people = legal discrimination

bluefelix: In the meantime, a civil war over gay marriage would be pretty damn funny.

AirForceVet: Civil War over equal rights for GLBTs? Unlikely.

More likely the Republican Party would fracture into two parties. Happened to the Democratic Party when Kennedy and later Johnson pushed through civil rights legislation for African-Americans. The Dixiecrats split from the Democrats to form their own, the dumbasses.

Now the angry white Southern bigots are linked up with the Republican Party, pushing their "religious" agendas against abortion, stem cell research, gays, abortion, right to die, gays, evolution in schools, abortion, church/state separation, gays, etc.

Wealthy businessmen and religious do-gooders are a weird mix anyway.

They do tend to blow shiat up or start shooting when they don't get their way -- they'd be kinda stupid to really marginalize themselves by getting violent with a solid majority of people that think it should be legalized or have a legal equivalent.

AirForceVet: Civil War over equal rights for GLBTs? Unlikely.

More likely the Republican Party would fracture into two parties. Happened to the Democratic Party when Kennedy and later Johnson pushed through civil rights legislation for African-Americans. The Dixiecrats split from the Democrats to form their own, the dumbasses.

Now the angry white Southern bigots are linked up with the Republican Party, pushing their "religious" agendas against abortion, stem cell research, gays, abortion, right to die, gays, evolution in schools, abortion, church/state separation, gays, etc.

Wealthy businessmen and religious do-gooders are a weird mix anyway.

Libertarians, Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives make a strange group. Reagan was able to hold it together, sort of, but the Social Conservatives have taken over the show and the other two are feeling awfully stupid for saying one thing and voting for another.

Britney Spear's Speculum: t3knomanser: Get the government out of marriage entirely. Abolish state recognition of marriage.

Single people = legal discrimination

I think there is a social benefit for providing special protection for groups of people. But we can do that without marriage, and we've been doing it without marriage for centuries. It's called, "incorporation".

Screw marriage. Allow a subclass of corporation specially tuned to the needs of maintaining and supporting a household. Any number of individuals could participate in the corporation, and the corporate charter would contain procedures for divestiture- simplifying both inheritance and divorce law.

t3knomanser

Call it what you will--a corporation, a civil union, a domestic partnership--it's still marriage. Though, I strongly support the thoroughgoing egalitarian nature of your proposal.

t3knomanser: Screw marriage. Allow a subclass of corporation specially tuned to the needs of maintaining and supporting a household. Any number of individuals could participate in the corporation, and the corporate charter would contain procedures for divestiture- simplifying both inheritance and divorce law.

A sort-of mandatory prenuptial agreement? I actually rather like this idea - if implemented properly it would really help clean up the [completely broken] family court system.

ROBO-Jesus: t3knomanser: Screw marriage. Allow a subclass of corporation specially tuned to the needs of maintaining and supporting a household. Any number of individuals could participate in the corporation, and the corporate charter would contain procedures for divestiture- simplifying both inheritance and divorce law.

A sort-of mandatory prenuptial agreement? I actually rather like this idea - if implemented properly it would really help clean up the [completely broken] family court system.

B..b..b..but that's not how God planned it! He intended marriage to be between a circumcised orthodox Jewish male and an orthodox Jewish woman!

He cared fark all about the Gentiles, though.

/gentile marriage may as well = gay marriage in the eyes of old-testament god
//slashies

Hooligan32: But does anyone get the feeling that if they were legally afforded those rights all over the country that some opponents of gay rights actually would resort to violence?

Given that homophobes kill gay people every year simply for being gay, yes, it would and will happen.

That's why the Republican party is so opposed to hate crime legislation. They're trying to protect their own.

t3knomanser: Screw marriage. Allow a subclass of corporation specially tuned to the needs of maintaining and supporting a household. Any number of individuals could participate in the corporation, and the corporate charter would contain procedures for divestiture- simplifying both inheritance and divorce law.

On the surface, this would seem like a good idea. Under the surface, it's a farking naive and stupid idea. Get married under your proposal, get divorced and have child support payments, get married again and get sued for breach of fiduciary duty. Or mix marriage assets and personal assets, and the marriage is dissolved. Or any one of a number of alternate possibilities.

Look, if you really want polygamy that badly, get your legislators to pass a bill legalizing it. That's the only thing standing in the way. Removing the concept of civil marriage and trying to replace it with corporate law is just the wrong way to go - and even if you were, you'd be better off using general partnerships than corporations for many, many reasons.

t3knomanser: I think there is a social benefit for providing special protection for groups of people. But we can do that without marriage, and we've been doing it without marriage for centuries. It's called, "incorporation".

Screw marriage. Allow a subclass of corporation spec

I'd really we rather not model something after the Druuge from Star Control 2, thanks.

No. They'll get over it.

FTFA: "Would it cause a new civil war? Would it bring people out into the streets demanding that their state secede from the Union?

"Likely not."

Well, alright then.