Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Gay)   Montana court denies gays equal legal rights. Not to marry--that would be crazy. No, it only denies them the right to make burial arrangements, health care decisions, and financial choices for their loved ones. No biggie   (greatfallstribune.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

4969 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2011 at 1:55 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-22 03:15:03 AM  
Thank Obummer for upholding DOMA.
 
2011-04-22 03:26:16 AM  

An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: Thank Obummer for upholding DOMA.


pretty sure you have that backwards
 
2011-04-22 03:28:44 AM  

buckler: Strangely enough, when I was last in the hospital, my black neighbors (I'm white) claimed to be my relatives, and were accepted to my bedside without question, and were made privy to my confidential medical information and test results. No ID check, no paperwork required. I know they were just concerned about me, but WTF? Gay couples can't get even this?


i lol'd at this for some reason. reminded me of a dave chapelle skit somehow.
 
2011-04-22 03:31:48 AM  
 
2011-04-22 03:33:18 AM  

buckler: Strangely enough, when I was last in the hospital, my black neighbors (I'm white) claimed to be my relatives, and were accepted to my bedside without question, and were made privy to my confidential medical information and test results. No ID check, no paperwork required. I know they were just concerned about me, but WTF? Gay couples can't get even this?


That's pretty funny, I was in a bad motorcycle accident several years ago, and a friend of mine came to the hospital to pick up my stuffarkeys, wallet, etc.), who's half black (and half Korean) and when they asked him what his relation to me was he said, "I'm half brother."

*snerk*
 
2011-04-22 03:34:52 AM  

Rubberband Girl: FTFA - The attorney general's office countered that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition.


Soooooooooooooooo...no other couple, gay or unmarried straights, can make funeral arrangements for their loved one who has just died?

Hypothetical situation...someone dies and the only person in their life is their sweetie. If there is no blood relative to step up and make funeral arrangements and the like, does the state handle this? Or the courts? Or the hospital? Seems kinda cold AND pointless not to let the grieving survivor step up just because they didn't put a ring on it.


Actually, that's pretty universally the case. I don't know who it falls to when it defaults, but marriage is the only(well, that and other forms of dependency, like retarded/debilitated adult children, etc) to do it easily with a bow. As mentioned up thread, you can get a power of attorney for all of those things, but that requires paperwork.

Can't have any johnny come lately step up to the plate. What if my viscious X I broke up with the night of my "car accident" wants to do bad things? Not to mention a con man doing something like that professionally.
 
2011-04-22 03:37:52 AM  

fatassbastard: buckler: Strangely enough, when I was last in the hospital, my black neighbors (I'm white) claimed to be my relatives, and were accepted to my bedside without question, and were made privy to my confidential medical information and test results. No ID check, no paperwork required. I know they were just concerned about me, but WTF? Gay couples can't get even this?

That's pretty funny, I was in a bad motorcycle accident several years ago, and a friend of mine came to the hospital to pick up my stuffarkeys, wallet, etc.), who's half black (and half Korean) and when they asked him what his relation to me was he said, "I'm half brother."

*snerk*


I missed that when I made my above reply.

The law, and how well the hospital desk nurse / secretary adheres to it, are two totally different things.
 
2011-04-22 03:39:59 AM  

JuggleGeek: I really don't get the homo-haters. Why do you care? I'm straight, I've known gays, it hasn't hurt me a bit.

It seems like the religious types are the worst. They ignore all the "everyone is a sinner" and "do unto others" parts of the bible when it comes to gays.

This guy found out his daughter had a girlfriend, so he killed the girlfriend and her mom. Yeah, that'll show 'em some family values there.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Police__Texas_Man_Killed_Daughters_​Girlfrie nd _Girlfriends_Mother_120311759.html


Some of the comments I read on that story make me want to cry.
 
2011-04-22 03:42:52 AM  

Aigoo: Inquisitive Inquisitor:

Because Jesus, that's why!

No. Because dumbass people, that's why!

/Christian
//can't stand people who make the world think Christian = moronic jackass



Regrettably, mon ami, most of the time Christian does mean moronic jackass.

You're swimming against a tide of derp.
 
2011-04-22 03:46:36 AM  
It's actually more like this:


Yeah, but only during the summer. All three months of it.


/Anybody see Seven Brides for Seven Brothers? It's set in Montana. A woman gets pregnant after the first big snowfall of the winter season and gives birth right as the last snow is melting.

//Minnesota isn't much better. More like 4 months of summer rather than 3.
 
2011-04-22 03:48:50 AM  

omeganuepsilon: The law, and how well the hospital desk nurse / secretary adheres to it, are two totally different things.


So, you could have all of your "ducks in a row", all of the proper paperwork filed and on-hand, but if the desk nurse/secretary/administrator is a vicious anti-gay fundie, that person could simply choose to stonewall you, ignore you, marginalize you.

/similar to those pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control pill prescriptions
 
2011-04-22 03:57:56 AM  

omeganuepsilon: The law, and how well the hospital desk nurse / secretary adheres to it, are two totally different things.


Oh absolutely, I just thought that was a pretty damn funny thing for my friend to say. :)

("I'm half brother" He's half black, get it?)
 
2011-04-22 04:06:30 AM  
Good.

Homosexuality is a perverted behavioural issue. It should give you NO special "rights!"

You have the same rights as everyone else - after all - liberals are always screaming "we all are equal."
 
2011-04-22 04:07:21 AM  

fark80: Good.

Homosexuality is a perverted behavioural issue. It should give you NO special "rights!"

You have the same rights as everyone else - after all - liberals are always screaming "we all are equal."


1/10
 
2011-04-22 04:23:26 AM  

Huggermugger: omeganuepsilon: The law, and how well the hospital desk nurse / secretary adheres to it, are two totally different things.

So, you could have all of your "ducks in a row", all of the proper paperwork filed and on-hand, but if the desk nurse/secretary/administrator is a vicious anti-gay fundie, that person could simply choose to stonewall you, ignore you, marginalize you.

/similar to those pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control pill prescriptions


Pretty much. Though, if the law changes, those people will get into deep shiat.
(probably not as much as they'd deserve)

JuggleGeek: I really don't get the homo-haters. Why do you care? I'm straight, I've known gays, it hasn't hurt me a bit.

It seems like the religious types are the worst. They ignore all the "everyone is a sinner" and "do unto others" parts of the bible when it comes to gays.

This guy found out his daughter had a girlfriend, so he killed the girlfriend and her mom. Yeah, that'll show 'em some family values there.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Police__Texas_Man_Killed_Daughters_​Girlfrie nd _Girlfriends_Mother_120311759.html


I'll go in reverse order to the points I'd like to address.

1. I'm still not sold on "born that way". The mind and how it works is still largely a mystery. With a father like that, who could blame her if she developed a dislike for men?

Not saying people aren't born that way, but I do think it can be learned as well. As for that way, it may be a condition, but that doesn't mean it's alterable. I'll never, and I mean never, like liver and onions. It's personal taste. Trying to get me to like liver and onions is just as stupid as trying to convince someone to change their sexual preference.

2. Why do people hate gays?

That one is easy. It does lie in how the mind works. It's natural to dislike that which is different. Recent studies demonstrate this in a couple of ways.

A. Young children in a group of mixed race sometimes start to segregate themselves. (You can look up the studies if you want, I'm generalizing to address the point.) It's a group bonding seen throughout history. Similar people bond better and will tend to stick up for on another. I think it's an outdated survival tool, myself, but I think it lies in the genes, hardwired empathy.

B. People, in general, will have a stronger aversion to even more obvious differences. Birth defects or mutations, deformed, retarded, etc. It's theorized that this is because it's an instinct to not want to breed with the weak. It's the inverse of females allowing the Alpha male to breed with them, because it gives their young a better chance at survival to have strong parentage.

Now, my wording may not have been the best, but these are, and don't take this the wrong way, legitimate theories for hate and distrust. But like I said, they are outdated remnants of harsher times.

I believe people who let differences get to them, are mutated in their own right, in that they can't control this sense of disconnection.

Now that I think about it, both may lie more or less latent, but in their upbringing it's reinforced through teaching(racist parents) or through experience(ie mugging, and even media).

One could argue that people are born that way, in a sense.

Like I mentioned above, you can't really change personal preference.

Can sure as hell change behavior patterns though. Vitrolic and aggressive racism(is there a one word term for gay-hate?), is dying out as socially acceptable behavior, but I doubt the emotion behind it will ever be eradicated.

If one steps back you can see a general hate. Almost everyone, vehemently hates something. Music, computers, sports, dancing, or some other aspect of culture(I'm not just talking fanboyistic nerd rage here). People stereotype social groups, religions, and breed hate, yet much of that is tolerated. Religion not so much any more, but what else?

Some people hate, and I mean real blood pumping HATE police, or military. Politics is another example. Democrat and Republican hate is legendary, on par with religion for sure.

shiat like that is tolerated because it's not "racism", but it comes from the exact same place.

It is all based on "belief". That's why athiesm is growing. We've acknolwedged faith as a sort of weakness, that limits the mind, encourages complacency.

But most of us still haven't relinquished anything but religion. We still believe that life should be lived in X way, that government should perform X duties.

I'm of the opinion, that's all was religion was in the first place. A fabricated construct, to ensure life is lived in X manner, and government was regulated through the church.

Whatever you think "should" be, has no more credence than God, Allah, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. There is no proof of "right", in that sense.

So why do people hate gays? If it wasn't that, it would be something else. Hate is what people do.

/that's it! now I've done it
//depressed
 
2011-04-22 04:23:31 AM  

ronin7: austerity101: It sounds like the judge was basically correct--the law defines marriage between a man and a woman, and so to extend marriage benefits to non-married people doesn't make too much sense.

Being gay, I hate having to say stuff like that, but the problem isn't the judge--it's the law.

/well maybe it's partly the judge.

Thats why it we have judges, so they can look at something like this and go "Wow, this law violates the equal protection clause of the united states constitution, I guess any state law that says otherwise is unconstitutional."

Montana, a bastion of freedom and liberty to do what the christians want.


who doesn't get the shaft when it comes to the government violating the equal protection clause? scotus finds it's violation reasonable constantly. it's like the thing doesn't exist. from border policies that single out Mexican looking folks for search (as long as there is some other indicia, like clothing maybe) to government policies that purposefully discriminate against Whites and Asians in favor of blacks. males get screwed over because scotus has ruled those government contracts that favor women are legal.

not to diminish your pain here, because this is really f*cking bullshiat that hits really really hard, but everyone is in line here with you getting the shaft regarding them ignoring this pretty god damn important amendment.
the only people the 14th amendment protects is the blacks at this point, and it took them until the late 1960 to do even that.

would be nice if SCOTUS would act like the damn thing was a little more important. we only fought a civil war in which 650k of our people died over it. assholes.
 
2011-04-22 04:35:38 AM  

fark80: Good.

Homosexuality is a perverted behavioural issue. It should give you NO special "rights!"

You have the same rights as everyone else - after all - liberals are always screaming "we all are equal."


A man can marry the woman he loves.
A woman can marry the man she loves.

But a gay man cannot marry the man he loves, and a gay woman cannot marry the woman she loves. Therefore, gay people don't have equal rights.
 
2011-04-22 04:41:13 AM  

sunbird: People keep telling me the western mountain state Republicans are live and let live libertarian in inclination, distinct from the more authoritarian fundie Southern Republicans.

So, yeah.


You silly. That only applies if you're a straight, white Christian.

Republicans are pretty much the same wherever you go.
 
2011-04-22 04:45:30 AM  

Urinal Cake Mix:

I feel like the next person I see eating shellfish and wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt should be stoned to death. I mean, if you're going to take part of Leviticus so damn seriously, why not go whole hog?



You can't go whole hog..They are also forbidden..

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-04-22 04:54:06 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: Urinal Cake Mix:

I feel like the next person I see eating shellfish and wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt should be stoned to death. I mean, if you're going to take part of Leviticus so damn seriously, why not go whole hog?


You can't go whole hog..They are also forbidden..


Figs are not hogs. What is this?
 
2011-04-22 04:54:34 AM  
When are we going to learn that marriage is a religious thing. Separation of church and state, anybody? Marriage should mean absolutely nothing to the government. No tax breaks, no beneficiary, nothing. 99% of people should have both a marriage and a civil union. It's the 1% that we fight over.

But if that 1% wants a civil union without a marriage, no problem (and once we make marriage mean nothing, it shouldn't matter to them, either).

Or, if they get some wacko church to marry them, that's no problem either. The Baptists etc. can't have a problem with the "Church of Modern Enlightenment" (I just made that up) marrying gays because to fight against one church's prerogatives would be undermining their own, as well.
 
2011-04-22 04:56:53 AM  

LordJiro: fark80: Good.

Homosexuality is a perverted behavioural issue. It should give you NO special "rights!"

You have the same rights as everyone else - after all - liberals are always screaming "we all are equal."

A man can marry the woman he loves.
A woman can marry the man she loves.

But a gay man cannot marry the man he loves, and a gay woman cannot marry the woman she loves. Therefore, gay people don't have equal rights.


Define the word "rights".

Death and Taxes?

How about the bill of rights, is Marriage on there?

/he's pulling your chain
//or he's a zealot
///amounts to the same thing
__________________________________________________________

Government, in this and many many area's, needs revolution.

But lets just tackle gay marriage.

Marriage, has it's roots in religion, does it not?

Government should abolish all marriage law, and replace it with something like "life partner"...only not so gay sounding, and federally approve any couple seeking union, given them all of the legal "rights" associated with what married couples have now. Taxes, power of attorney-is stuff. And leave it at that.

And let religion do as it chooses for the spiritual side of things.

Separation of church and state.
_________________________________________________________

Furthermore, government should ratify certain "bad" words to be allowed as non hate speech(unless they're applied that way).
My first two nominations:

Gay

Retard.

Homosexuals didn't invent gay or queer, as words.

If I call something gay, it's because it's too happy and lighthearted, in some say shape or form. It's more relative to the hippies of the 60's than homosexuals.

A lame idea.....(consequently, you don't hear about someone with a clubfoot getting all pissy when I call a movie lame..)

A lame idea, generally born out of ignorance, is gay. Because ignorance is bliss, and that's where the idea comes from. Someone without a care in the world, doesn't think deeply, and will offer gay suggestions.

How gay.

/grouchy
//don't like happy
/// queer = strange

Retard. To retard something is to slow it down. Flame retardant clothing.

If I apply it to a person, it means they were slowed, or are perpetually slow.

If I call my dipshiat nephew sitting next to me a retard, I'm not making fun of people with actual mental problems, just my nephew, not butt the fark out retards.
 
2011-04-22 05:00:52 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Government should abolish all marriage law, and replace it with something like "life partner"...only not so gay sounding, and federally approve any couple seeking union, given them all of the legal "rights" associated with what married couples have now. Taxes, power of attorney-is stuff. And leave it at that.


Modern marriage is a non-religious government contract; otherwise, atheists couldn't get married. The actual ceremony is the religious bit.
 
2011-04-22 05:04:02 AM  

montuckiak: Yeah, that judge is a moron. To be fair, Bozeman and Missoula (5th and 2nd largest cities, respectively) passed ordinances that added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, thus removing discrimination in housing, employment, etc. The overwhelmingly conservative legislature also killed a bill that would overrule those ordinances.

We may have our share of backwards folks (the three R's: Retirees, Regressives & Rednecks), but there are still a majority of us that believe that however someone wants to live their life is their own business. In addition to having dumbshiat judges, we also have legal medical cannabis, progressive public land policy and none of that regressive sales tax stuff.

Also, for those of you who think that Montana is like this:


It's actually more like this:


And we have none of this:


:P


Damn I miss Glacier.
 
2011-04-22 05:10:45 AM  

omeganuepsilon: How about the bill of rights, is Marriage on there?


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" (new window)
 
2011-04-22 05:20:51 AM  
At one time I actually would have been disappointed by this, but gays have just been so biatchy and annoying about the least little thing that I'm actually pretty happy when things like this happen. I'd likely still have sympathy if they'd actually picked their battles and only opened their mouths about important stuff that matters. Now, the nutcase Montana Christians can sodomize them for Jesus for all I care.
 
2011-04-22 05:35:39 AM  

Pete_T_Mann: At one time...


So, if someone is "biatchy", it's A-OK to trample their civil rights? You're one awesome American, dude.
 
2011-04-22 05:36:06 AM  

fark80: Good.

Homosexuality is a perverted behavioural issue. It should give you NO special "rights!"

You have the same rights as everyone else - after all - liberals are always screaming "we all are equal."


Hmm. Bigot, or troll? I suppose it could be both, but
either way, it goes on the ignore list. Life is too short for that crap.
 
2011-04-22 05:41:39 AM  

rynthetyn: buckler: Strangely enough, when I was last in the hospital, my black neighbors (I'm white) claimed to be my relatives, and were accepted to my bedside without question, and were made privy to my confidential medical information and test results. No ID check, no paperwork required. I know they were just concerned about me, but WTF? Gay couples can't get even this?

And when an elderly family friend fell and the nursing home sent him to the emergency room to get his head stitched up, since he didn't have any family in the area, I showed up, called him "grandpa", and they let me back into his room no questions asked even though he was senile, almost completely blind, and pretty out of it. And yet if I ever get in a serious relationship, I'd have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to visit my significant other in the hospital.


If they don't question you calling your family friend "grandpa," why would they question it if you show up and call your significant other your sibling?

/obviously lying only gets you so far, but still
//main problem more often than not seems to be spiteful relatives
 
2011-04-22 05:50:41 AM  

Relatively Obscure: I won't be moving to Montana soon.
They can forget about my crop of dental floss.


Thank you!
+2 for the Zappa reference.
Frank Zappa - Montana - 1973 Stockholm (new window)
 
2011-04-22 05:58:25 AM  

Pete_T_Mann: At one time I actually would have been disappointed by this, but gays have just been so biatchy and annoying about the least little thing that I'm actually pretty happy when things like this happen. I'd likely still have sympathy if they'd actually picked their battles and only opened their mouths about important stuff that matters. Now, the nutcase Montana Christians can sodomize them for Jesus for all I care.


i know, who do those uppity homosexuals think they are? an oppressed minority expecting justice?
 
2011-04-22 06:03:33 AM  

Wodan11: The Baptists etc. can't have a problem with the "Church of Modern Enlightenment" (I just made that up) marrying gays because to fight against one church's prerogatives would be undermining their own, as well.


Yes, that's precisely the sort of logic that governs Baptist thought and policy.
 
2011-04-22 06:39:32 AM  

Pete_T_Mann: At one time I actually would have been disappointed by this


no you wouldn't have been. Be honest.
 
2011-04-22 06:52:53 AM  
Once, just once, can't my state be on fark for something not evil and hate motivated.
 
2011-04-22 07:12:04 AM  
Tough Luck. Sucks to be a fudge packer.
 
2011-04-22 07:22:31 AM  

greenbluestar: Once, just once, can't my state be on fark for something not evil and hate motivated.


it's hard to tell because the article kinda sucks but it sounds like the judge made a solid ruling based on Montana State law. So, if it makes you feel any better, this isn't a new act of bigotry and hatred but an extension of previous acts of bigotry and hatred(when the constitutional amendment was passed and subsequent legislation).
 
2011-04-22 07:33:56 AM  

Voiceofreason01: it's hard to tell because the article kinda sucks but it sounds like the judge made a solid ruling based on Montana State law. So, if it makes you feel any better, this isn't a new act of bigotry and hatred but an extension of previous acts of bigotry and hatred(when the constitutional amendment was passed and subsequent legislation).


Then Montana state law is unconstitutional.

I am not pro-gay marriage, but if gay peopel can;t get the same legal benefits as married couples then their rights are being violated.
 
2011-04-22 07:35:10 AM  

darkedgefan: Tough Luck. Sucks to be a fudge packer.


what about the fuzzy bumpers?
 
2011-04-22 07:36:12 AM  

Freep Impact: Just because they want it ain't good enough.

*

This shows how not only homo-agenda pushers [derp omitted] bat-brained liberal.


Also, while I was looking up threads for quotes, I came across this one from circa 2002:
"McGreevey to support same sex benefits bill" (new window)


I don't know who you are Freep Impact, but I'm glad you do what you do. I like your posts.

I to to Free Republic like a dog goes to a cat box. It's stupid and disgusting, but you can't help yourself.

I like that you pull out a "best of", and save me a trip over there. But wow, those people scare me. They're allowed to drive and vote and everything? Yikes.
 
2011-04-22 07:44:03 AM  
Well they can't do it to blacks any more. Until the republicans take full power.
 
2011-04-22 07:47:19 AM  
When my partner was reaching the end of his life, he wanted to go home to die. He was Dutch so I took him home to the Netherlands for the last 6 months of his life. He had living parents, sisters and brothers, but he had named me his executor (or whatever they call it over there), and there was no question about who had control of making decisions, no one even brought it up. But I discussed everything with his family, which was only right. The only thing I wanted was to be there with him, I didn't care about funeral arrangements, church services etc, but his family and I made them together. I was included just like any spouse, and most important, I had his family to support me and mourn with. It wouldn't have been the case if he hadn't got out of the US.

This mean, nasty, homophobic bullshiat going on in this country makes me sick. There are too many people poking their noses in and/or trying to control other people's sex lives. It's farking sick.
 
2011-04-22 07:52:24 AM  
Promote the a la carte list of rights that are bundled into the legal rights in marriage and you may get a set of laws that make opting out of marriage an easy deed.

You can get the health care decision, leave the burial decision and the financial decision, for instance. It could become part of the rental agreement with your roommate.

Keep up the good work in defending marriage between a man, a woman, and, in the case of politicians, a couple of interns.

Aparently district judges rule on the facts, appeals judges rule on the law -- or is it the other way round.
 
2011-04-22 08:08:27 AM  
The article left me with a question. Presuming Montana has some sort of civil unions, does that mean that those couples can't get marriage benefits either, because they aren't 'married'? Or was he saying that those benefits can only be conferred by marriage - that a gay unmarried couple with powers of attourney would still not get those rights (taxes excluded, obviously).

Either way, it's a pretty dick move that a hetero couple could get those rights in under an hour in Vegas, while a gay couple has to involve lawyers.
 
2011-04-22 08:13:20 AM  

liam76: Voiceofreason01: it's hard to tell because the article kinda sucks but it sounds like the judge made a solid ruling based on Montana State law. So, if it makes you feel any better, this isn't a new act of bigotry and hatred but an extension of previous acts of bigotry and hatred(when the constitutional amendment was passed and subsequent legislation).

Then Montana state law is unconstitutional.

I am not pro-gay marriage, but if gay peopel can;t get the same legal benefits as married couples then their rights are being violated.


I agree. The US constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all persons within the legal jurisdiction of the United States; and bans on Gay marriage are a clear violation of that, but until the Supreme court manages to grow a pair and actually say that such laws are illegal, in a court decision, we're stuck with this bullshiat.

/DOMA being struck down would be enough
 
2011-04-22 08:25:38 AM  
I just don't get why people even care if gay people get married. What business is it of any one else?

I really wish people would stop calling America land of the free and home of the brave because it is obviously neither of those two things. Just a bunch of cowardly control freaks.
 
2011-04-22 08:33:33 AM  
There is no better day than good Friday to remember why I wouldn't piss on most christians if they were on fire. They are the ones that cause and fuel this kind of pain and outrage.
 
2011-04-22 08:40:25 AM  
The court did what their state constitution required of him. Since the criteria for the ruling had to appeal to the constitution, to overturn whatever legal provision was preventing these couples from enjoying the benefits they sought, the court would need to find those provisions contrary to constitution.

Unfortunately in this case, the provision is in the constitution itself. And it wouldn't make sense to rule that the constitution is unconstitutional, so the judge had no choice in the end. it really is a legislative matter, the process to get alter the constitution is not in the domain of the judicial branch.
 
2011-04-22 08:51:14 AM  
Aigoo: "No. Because dumbass people, that's why!"

Well, no, opposition to gays is completely Biblical. There are multiple admonitions against gay sex in both the Old and New testaments, covering both genders and in different terms each time so that it can't be dismissed through creative translation/reinterpretation.

I applaud you for departing from the scriptural stance as I think we'd both agree it's barbaric, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too; at least admit that it is in fact a departure.
 
2011-04-22 08:55:50 AM  

Aigoo: itazurakko: Freep Impact: Also, while I was looking up threads for quotes

My hat is off to you sir. Saves me the trouble of peering under that particular rock myself...

feckingmorons: POA, Durable POA, Medical Surrogate, Advanced directives, Living will... yeah but do you really want your doctor and nurse on the phone with the hospital lawyer or do you want them taking care of your relatives.

And why make one segment of the population have to jump through the same worn hoops again and again, when we've shown (via marriage!) that it's easy to have a "one stop shop" paper that does it all (namely, marriage!).

And why the hell should one person's personal beliefs (especially a judge's) dictate what another person can or cannot do?

The good news? District judges in Montana are elected. Link.


As usual, stupid farkers reading comprehension skills falter. Know what else folks vote for in Montana? Gay marriage amendments. But Im sure the same state that overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage will try to oust the guy who enforced it.

Did any of you even read before you went straight to butt-hurt liberal status? These 6 couples sued knowing full well that the state had already declared marriage between a man and woman. They sued for rights afforded to married couples. The judge simply (and rightfully) declared that this was a matter for legislation, not for a judge.

Legislating from the bench is a big no-no for everyone but the most stupid of liberals.

/Pro Equal marriage rights
 
2011-04-22 08:56:12 AM  

BitwiseShift: Apparently district judges rule on the facts, appeals judges rule on the law -- or is it the other way round.


District court judges are triers of fact and law. The find what the facts are, and what law is applicable. In the course of deciding the case or controversy, whether by motion or trial, the Court generates a 'record'. Any final decision or finding of the district court may be appealed.
The court of appeals reviews the record of the court below. They usually, but not always, reviews findings of fact looking for 'clear error' (i.e. they mostly defer to the lower court's fact-finding). They usually review the lower court's legal conclusions 'de novo' (i.e. in whole and anew).
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report