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.

(Prop8trialtracker)   Will gays be allowed to marry? Can gays legally preside over gay marriage trials? Do proponents of propositions have Federal standing? It's your official 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Prop. 8 thread (Ruling expected 10 am PST)   ( prop8trialtracker.com) divider line
    More: Misc, 9th Circuit, California Supreme Court, same-sex marriage in California, due processes, supreme court ruling, constitutionality, judicial review, interpersonal relationship  
•       •       •

1110 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2012 at 5:58 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-07 10:24:29 AM  

roadmarks: fracto73: roadmarks: Why should the Feds worry about whether the states recognize it or not, since they themselves don't?


Because it's the right thing to do? Remember that was what I think should happen, not what I think might happen.

I did understand that, but the point is that telling the states to clean up their acts is a bit hypocritical when the federal issues are just as, or even more, compelling.

I live (and was just married) in the only state with full marriage equality. That makes no difference to the IRS who are telling us to lie on our tax return.



Alright then, If it were for me to decide, I would mandate equality at all levels. My example with the states was not meant to be the exclusive thing I would to to initiate change but one small piece of the puzzle on the road to civil rights. It would however be the most controversial part, I would think, so the most interesting to discuss.

Out of curiosity, how do you think things would go if an activist type told the truth about their marriage? I am sure that it would go to court, but it would also make one heck of a test case of the federal government's ability to not recognize a states marriage laws.
 
2012-02-07 10:28:00 AM  

rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.


I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?
 
2012-02-07 10:29:38 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...


This is just a 3 judge panel of the circuit, and it's got a lefty (Reinhardt), a moderate (Hawkins), and a righty (Smith).
But, if I have to guess:
Prop 8 backers have standing, Imperial County bigot clerk does not.
Gay judges do not have to recuse themselves from hearing cases on same-sex marriage, because that's just pants-on-head retarded.
And probably 2-1 that Prop 8 is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, leaning heavily on the state supreme court's decision that sexual orientation is a suspect classification in California in In re Marriage Cases. But they could go a number of ways here.
 
2012-02-07 10:31:51 AM  

roadmarks: fracto73: I think the president should help encourage states to pass marriage equality laws. Yes, I know it would be political suicide, but here is how I'd do it. Cut the defense budget by getting rid of outdated programs and closing military bases that exist to support those programs, consolidating tasks down to fewer bases to be more efficient. I would then have BRAC consider whether or not the base is in a state that recognizes our troops marriages. If a state doesn't respect the men and women in uniform we can move their base to a more hospitable state.

I realize that our current congress would never allow anything like this to happen, but it would be great to see.

Why should the Feds worry about whether the states recognize it or not, since they themselves don't?

Fun fact: My wife and I are expected to lie on our Federal tax returns :(

Another fun fact: there is only one state with true marriage equality - New York.


What does NY have that MA, VT, NH, IA, CT, and DC don't?
 
2012-02-07 10:32:11 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?



Social conservatives believe that they are right in this and the only reason they lose is that their enemies conspire against them. They would take it to the supreme court because they wouldn't see any risk. And If they lost they would blame the conspiracy.
 
2012-02-07 10:33:00 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.

I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?


I'd be surprised if they don't...The 9th circuit also covers Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, and a ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the federal constitution could have effects in those states.
 
2012-02-07 10:34:20 AM  

eddiesocket: roadmarks: fracto73: I think the president should help encourage states to pass marriage equality laws. Yes, I know it would be political suicide, but here is how I'd do it. Cut the defense budget by getting rid of outdated programs and closing military bases that exist to support those programs, consolidating tasks down to fewer bases to be more efficient. I would then have BRAC consider whether or not the base is in a state that recognizes our troops marriages. If a state doesn't respect the men and women in uniform we can move their base to a more hospitable state.

I realize that our current congress would never allow anything like this to happen, but it would be great to see.

Why should the Feds worry about whether the states recognize it or not, since they themselves don't?

Fun fact: My wife and I are expected to lie on our Federal tax returns :(

Another fun fact: there is only one state with true marriage equality - New York.

What does NY have that MA, VT, NH, IA, CT, and DC don't?


A world champion football team?
 
2012-02-07 10:35:53 AM  
Proposition 8 again? Didn't the people of CA already make their decision in 2008?

I voted no for a similar referenda in WI in 2006 because I have no issues with gay marriage. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in my state disagreed with me and that's just the way it goes.
 
2012-02-07 10:36:02 AM  
I've been trying to get a Prop H8 green for years. This is my first
 
2012-02-07 10:36:09 AM  

Theaetetus: YoungSwedishBlonde: rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.

I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?

I'd be surprised if they don't...The 9th circuit also covers Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, and a ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the federal constitution could have effects in those states.


I thought the 9th Circuit included California?
 
2012-02-07 10:37:48 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Theaetetus: YoungSwedishBlonde: rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.

I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?

I'd be surprised if they don't...The 9th circuit also covers Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, and a ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the federal constitution could have effects in those states.

I thought the 9th Circuit included California?


It does... That's why I said 'also' - I was listing the more conservative states. The 9th also includes Hawaii and Washington, who wouldn't have a problem with this ruling if it invalidates prop 8.
 
2012-02-07 10:37:53 AM  

mrshowrules: roadmarks: fracto73: roadmarks: Why should the Feds worry about whether the states recognize it or not, since they themselves don't?


Because it's the right thing to do? Remember that was what I think should happen, not what I think might happen.

I did understand that, but the point is that telling the states to clean up their acts is a bit hypocritical when the federal issues are just as, or even more, compelling.

I live (and was just married) in the only state with full marriage equality. That makes no difference to the IRS who are telling us to lie on our tax return.

Can you explain that a bit more please. Are you married to someone of the same-sex. What is the lie on the form you are talking about?


Yes my wife and I are both female ;).

Because NYS has full equality, we will be filing our state taxes just as any other married couple, and AS a married couple.

There are five boxes at the top of the 1040 and you must check one - single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with dependent child.

DOMA states that a marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore we will be breaking the law to file as married - and can lead to a boatload of hassles from the IRS.

Or, we can lie and say we are single, fill out twice as much paperwork, admittedly probably paying LESS in taxes, but also perjure ourselves in signing it where it says "I swear everything above is true."

It's not true - we are not single we are married.


Link (new window)
 
2012-02-07 10:38:51 AM  

Theaetetus: YoungSwedishBlonde: Theaetetus: YoungSwedishBlonde: rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.

I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?

I'd be surprised if they don't...The 9th circuit also covers Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, and a ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the federal constitution could have effects in those states.

I thought the 9th Circuit included California?

It does... That's why I said 'also' - I was listing the more conservative states. The 9th also includes Hawaii and Washington, who wouldn't have a problem with this ruling if it invalidates prop 8.


Reading comprehension fail on my behalf. Thanks for the clarification.
 
2012-02-07 10:41:58 AM  

Richard Flaccid: Proposition 8 again? Didn't the people of CA already make their decision in 2008?

I voted no for a similar referenda in WI in 2006 because I have no issues with gay marriage. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in my state disagreed with me and that's just the way it goes.


Darn those Founding Fathers and the Constitution! What do we need a judicial branch for, anyway?! Next I say we vote on making Negroes ride the back of the bus again!
 
2012-02-07 10:42:24 AM  

roadmarks:

It's not true - we are not single we are married.


Link (new window)


Not according to the federal government you aren't. But good luck hopefully you'll slip through the cracks and not make a huge mess of work for yourself.
 
2012-02-07 10:43:27 AM  

sprawl15: FTFY.

If they lived it up a little, they'd be a lot less angry about all the dirty sinners out there.


I like my way better. They get the stuff they like, but leave the stuff that's good for them.

Also, they're fat.
 
2012-02-07 10:43:37 AM  

fracto73:

Out of curiosity, how do you think things would go if an activist type told the truth about their marriage? I am sure that it would go to court, but it would also make one heck of a test case of the federal government's ability to not recognize a states marriage laws.


It's happened in Cali, in 2008, and it's been a bit screwy all around, and yes there are test cases working their way through the courts right now, at least two that I know of.

"The latest involves at least 300 taxpayers who have had their returns rejected with terse letters signed by an enigmatic I.R.S. employee named J. Bell from Fresno.

"Your return includes income or tax liability for more than one taxpayer, other than husband and wife," the letters read. Note: husband and wife. Not two husbands, or two wives.

Couples who received the letters had to produce additional paperwork and faced delays in receiving refunds; most were forced to hire tax professionals.


Link (new window)
 
2012-02-07 10:44:46 AM  

Theaetetus:
What does NY have that MA, VT, NH, IA, CT, and DC don't?


Our same-sex marriage is not a "same sex marriage" It is just a certificate of marriage (new window). It makes no distinction on the certificate of marriage that New York State issued, at all. That's why NOM and them went SO apeshiat about New York.

Because there is no state distinction (marriage is marriage) it can't be treated as a "Same sex marriage certificate" under DOMA, for example....they cannot decide to not recognize a same sex marriage because New York has no such entity, you're either married or not.

So, for the other states, the IRS has been able to go "we will not recognize a marriage without a valid (put number here of what it document is) marriage certificate", and since other states have used 'separate but equal' forms, that's been the work-around, "real" marriage certificates versus "same sex ones."

But New York's marriage certificate comes in one kind, and even listing the gender is optional.

/AND I took her last name, which makes them SOOooooo mad. LOL.
 
2012-02-07 10:47:07 AM  

Carth: roadmarks:

It's not true - we are not single we are married.


Link (new window)

Not according to the federal government you aren't. But good luck hopefully you'll slip through the cracks and not make a huge mess of work for yourself.


Well, as far as NYS and my wife and I are concerned, we are. And as far as the Federal gov't is concerned, if we end up as a test case for proving that we are, it's cool by us as well.
 
2012-02-07 10:47:23 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.

I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?


If it goes to the Supreme Court, it's going to be a 5-4 decision with Kennedy as the swing vote, and both sides have pretty clearly been arguing the case from the beginning with Kennedy in mind. The fact that they even appealed it to the 9th Circuit when a loss would extended the protections to all of the 9th strongly suggests that if they do lose today they're going to run the risk of the Supreme Court appeal--if they weren't intending to run that risk, they'd have just left Walker's ruling alone and considered California a loss. They're betting on the fact that the 9th is the most overruled of all of the circuits, Olsen and Boies are betting on Kennedy responding to the same logic in this as he did in Lawrence v. Texas.
 
2012-02-07 10:49:20 AM  

RedPhoenix122: sprawl15: FTFY.

If they lived it up a little, they'd be a lot less angry about all the dirty sinners out there.

I like my way better. They get the stuff they like, but leave the stuff that's good for them.

Also, they're fat.


I'm still raging, 9 months later, about the table next to me at a Brazilian steakhouse only getting salad.
 
2012-02-07 10:50:12 AM  

muck4doo: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period. Civil unions for everyone.


Actually, civil union is the only legal kind of marriage in the US, we just call them "marriages" because "civil marriage" is a stupid politically (in)correct synonym for "marriage." Churches have nothing to do with marriage from a legal standpoint. All that matters is that you and your spouse fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay your administrative fee, and congratulations, you're married!
 
2012-02-07 10:50:19 AM  

LabGrrl: Theaetetus:

/AND I took her last name, which makes them SOOooooo mad. LOL.


It flattered my parents and pissed off a couple of superfeminists we know so there was that added bonus to it as well.

/hi wifey
//hopefully before someone accuses us of being alts
 
2012-02-07 10:50:24 AM  

sprawl15: I'm still raging, 9 months later, about the table next to me at a Brazilian steakhouse only getting salad.


Fair point. Counterpoint - Go to a Golden Corral or Hometown Buffet and look at how empty the salad bar line is.
 
2012-02-07 10:50:42 AM  

LabGrrl: Theaetetus:
What does NY have that MA, VT, NH, IA, CT, and DC don't?


Our same-sex marriage is not a "same sex marriage" It is just a certificate of marriage (new window). It makes no distinction on the certificate of marriage that New York State issued, at all. That's why NOM and them went SO apeshiat about New York.

Because there is no state distinction (marriage is marriage) it can't be treated as a "Same sex marriage certificate" under DOMA, for example....they cannot decide to not recognize a same sex marriage because New York has no such entity, you're either married or not.

So, for the other states, the IRS has been able to go "we will not recognize a marriage without a valid (put number here of what it document is) marriage certificate", and since other states have used 'separate but equal' forms, that's been the work-around, "real" marriage certificates versus "same sex ones."

But New York's marriage certificate comes in one kind, and even listing the gender is optional.

/AND I took her last name, which makes them SOOooooo mad. LOL.


So you're saying the Feds don't know you're a gay couple and you can file yourinput federal taxes as MFJ?
 
2012-02-07 10:51:14 AM  

roadmarks: mrshowrules: roadmarks: fracto73: roadmarks: Why should the Feds worry about whether the states recognize it or not, since they themselves don't?


Because it's the right thing to do? Remember that was what I think should happen, not what I think might happen.

I did understand that, but the point is that telling the states to clean up their acts is a bit hypocritical when the federal issues are just as, or even more, compelling.

I live (and was just married) in the only state with full marriage equality. That makes no difference to the IRS who are telling us to lie on our tax return.

Can you explain that a bit more please. Are you married to someone of the same-sex. What is the lie on the form you are talking about?

Yes my wife and I are both female ;).

Because NYS has full equality, we will be filing our state taxes just as any other married couple, and AS a married couple.

There are five boxes at the top of the 1040 and you must check one - single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with dependent child.

DOMA states that a marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore we will be breaking the law to file as married - and can lead to a boatload of hassles from the IRS.

Or, we can lie and say we are single, fill out twice as much paperwork, admittedly probably paying LESS in taxes, but also perjure ourselves in signing it where it says "I swear everything above is true."

It's not true - we are not single we are married.


Link (new window)


That is messed-up but thanks for the explanation. Every year you file your taxes is like a slap in the face. I would be furious.

I'd like to see some gay activists, insist on being charged by the IRS for filing a false claim. Write a letter to them demanding that they be prosecuted for perjury. A letter indicating that they knowingly lied on their tax form.
 
2012-02-07 10:54:25 AM  
Newt's already wrangling up a posse to deal with these pesky outlaw lib justices in the event they rule the wrong way.
 
2012-02-07 10:54:32 AM  
Are we really still arguing about this?

There are couples in Massachusetts celebrating their 8th wedding anniversary this spring and it has yet to rain frogs on my lawn.
 
2012-02-07 10:57:24 AM  

eddiesocket:

So you're saying the Feds don't know you're a gay couple and you can file yourinput federal taxes as MFJ?


Except that both our SSN's are listed as belonging to females, and I'm pretty sure based on the track record that they will figure it out.

Add in the name change, both of our first names being rather gender-typical and well......... not getting noticed may not be that likely.

Also attaching a big fat affidavit that a lawyer wrote for us explaining why we are refusing to lie and our probability becomes damned near nil. :)
 
2012-02-07 11:01:41 AM  

LabGrrl: Theaetetus:
What does NY have that MA, VT, NH, IA, CT, and DC don't?

Our same-sex marriage is not a "same sex marriage" It is just a certificate of marriage (new window). It makes no distinction on the certificate of marriage that New York State issued, at all. That's why NOM and them went SO apeshiat about New York.


I'm not so sure that that's unique. In Massachusetts, we just have "Certificates of Marriage" that name "Party A" and "Party B". Here's a picture, in fact... dated 2006.

Because there is no state distinction (marriage is marriage) it can't be treated as a "Same sex marriage certificate" under DOMA, for example....they cannot decide to not recognize a same sex marriage because New York has no such entity, you're either married or not.

So, for the other states, the IRS has been able to go "we will not recognize a marriage without a valid (put number here of what it document is) marriage certificate", and since other states have used 'separate but equal' forms, that's been the work-around, "real" marriage certificates versus "same sex ones."

But New York's marriage certificate comes in one kind, and even listing the gender is optional.


I'm sorry, but I don't think any of that is correct.
 
2012-02-07 11:02:31 AM  

roadmarks: eddiesocket:

So you're saying the Feds don't know you're a gay couple and you can file yourinput federal taxes as MFJ?

Except that both our SSN's are listed as belonging to females, and I'm pretty sure based on the track record that they will figure it out.

Add in the name change, both of our first names being rather gender-typical and well......... not getting noticed may not be that likely.

Also attaching a big fat affidavit that a lawyer wrote for us explaining why we are refusing to lie and our probability becomes damned near nil. :)


Ah. Well, good luck! I'm sure you're not the only NY married couple trying this out this year. (As an aside, our socials indicate our gender? Where?)
 
2012-02-07 11:04:50 AM  

eddiesocket: As an aside, our socials indicate our gender? Where?


Not in the number, but in the associated records at the Social Security Administration.
 
2012-02-07 11:11:35 AM  

roadmarks: if we end up as a test case for proving that we are, it's cool by us as well


www.thisismason.com

/seriously, good for you
//fark bigots
 
2012-02-07 11:18:14 AM  

Theaetetus:
I'm sorry, but I don't think any of that is correct.


Okay. If it makes you happy to believe that, feel free, but unless you're going to cite a single source demonstrating anything I've said is incorrect, I'm going to believe, in the following order:
1. My direct experience in this matter.
2. Speaking to lawyers regarding it.
3. Speaking with the IRS regarding it.
4. Many articles in legitimate New York news sources discussing it.

You're free to believe anything you want regarding it, but my training as a scientist tends to have me not do well with "nuh-uh" as the "other side" of a "controversy."
 
2012-02-07 11:21:08 AM  

rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: rynthetyn: YoungSwedishBlonde: Anybody know how the vote looks to breakdown? The 9th Circuit is generally more favorable to liberal ideas if I remember correctly. Just wondering if I should be looking forward to bigot butthurt...

I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.

I was going to say "DURRR, OF COURSE" but then again, would the social conservatives risk bringing this issue to the Supreme Court and having it struck down on a national level?

If it goes to the Supreme Court, it's going to be a 5-4 decision with Kennedy as the swing vote, and both sides have pretty clearly been arguing the case from the beginning with Kennedy in mind. The fact that they even appealed it to the 9th Circuit when a loss would extended the protections to all of the 9th strongly suggests that if they do lose today they're going to run the risk of the Supreme Court appeal--if they weren't intending to run that risk, they'd have just left Walker's ruling alone and considered California a loss. They're betting on the fact that the 9th is the most overruled of all of the circuits, Olsen and Boies are betting on Kennedy responding to the same logic in this as he did in Lawrence v. Texas.


These are the guys I would be betting the farm on. I have still yet to see any compelling reason why any government should restrict marriage to opposite-sex partners that doesn't also disqualify subsets of opposite-sex partners from getting married.
 
2012-02-07 11:21:42 AM  

eddiesocket:

Ah. Well, good luck! I'm sure you're not the only NY married couple trying this out this year. (As an aside, our socials indicate our gender? Where?)


I sure hope we aren't, but we are seriously hoping one of the other court cases finishes off DOMA before we have to file.
 
2012-02-07 11:22:41 AM  

LabGrrl: Okay. If it makes you happy to believe that, feel free, but unless you're going to cite a single source demonstrating anything I've said is incorrect


You: "Only New York has a single marriage certificate."
Me: "Here's Massachusetts' single marriage certificate from 6 years ago."
You: "I can't hear you."

, I'm going to believe, in the following order:
1. My direct experience in this matter.
2. Speaking to lawyers regarding it.
3. Speaking with the IRS regarding it.
4. Many articles in legitimate New York news sources discussing it.


Okay, if it makes you happy to believe those, feel free, but unless you're going to cite a single source - like one of those "articles in legitimate New York news sources" - I'm going to believe you're wrong. You're free to believe anything you want regarding it, but my training as a scientist and an attorney tends to have me not do well with a "nuh-uh" response when I've provided evidence.
 
2012-02-07 11:24:58 AM  

mrshowrules:

I'd like to see some gay activists, insist on being charged by the IRS for filing a false claim. Write a letter to them demanding that they be prosecuted for perjury. A letter indicating that they knowingly lied on their tax form.


Well, we are sending an affidavit in with it, I am going to forward your suggestion about the perjury prosecutions to the refusetolie organization, and maybe we will get some traction with some bold people.

And thanks for agreeing its farked up. I had one friend say, "But sheesh, *everybody* lies on their taxes, what's the big deal?"
 
2012-02-07 11:25:11 AM  
I agree with one of the posters in tfa:
The most chicken-shiat ruling will be handed down.
They wont have standing
Walkers ruling is moot i.e the merrits of the proposition wont be really tested
ware's ruling will be moot.
 
2012-02-07 11:26:47 AM  

Ayn Rand's Cervix: I agree with one of the posters in tfa:
The most chicken-shiat ruling will be handed down.
They wont have standing
Walkers ruling is moot i.e the merrits of the proposition wont be really tested
ware's ruling will be moot.


If they don't have standing to appeal, then Walker's ruling stands. That would limit the impact to California-only, however.
 
2012-02-07 11:32:06 AM  

Theaetetus: If they don't have standing to appeal, then Walker's ruling stands. That would limit the impact to California-only, however.


Too bad the SCOTUS won't overturn DOMA.
 
2012-02-07 11:32:28 AM  

Theaetetus: LabGrrl: Okay. If it makes you happy to believe that, feel free, but unless you're going to cite a single source demonstrating anything I've said is incorrect

You: "Only New York has a single marriage certificate."
Me: "Here's Massachusetts' single marriage certificate from 6 years ago."
You: "I can't hear you."

, I'm going to believe, in the following order:
1. My direct experience in this matter.
2. Speaking to lawyers regarding it.
3. Speaking with the IRS regarding it.
4. Many articles in legitimate New York news sources discussing it.

Okay, if it makes you happy to believe those, feel free, but unless you're going to cite a single source - like one of those "articles in legitimate New York news sources" - I'm going to believe you're wrong. You're free to believe anything you want regarding it, but my training as a scientist and an attorney tends to have me not do well with a "nuh-uh" response when I've provided evidence.


My training as a scientist, doctor, attorney and historian tends to have me not do well with any argument from less qualified people.

/if you excuse me, I'm late for the gym.
 
2012-02-07 11:33:14 AM  

Theaetetus: Ayn Rand's Cervix: I agree with one of the posters in tfa:
The most chicken-shiat ruling will be handed down.
They wont have standing
Walkers ruling is moot i.e the merrits of the proposition wont be really tested
ware's ruling will be moot.

If they don't have standing to appeal, then Walker's ruling stands. That would limit the impact to California-only, however.


Thats fine if you live in California. But the rest of the country will be left out in the cold.
 
2012-02-07 11:34:27 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Theaetetus: If they don't have standing to appeal, then Walker's ruling stands. That would limit the impact to California-only, however.

Too bad the SCOTUS won't overturn DOMA.


They will, as a result of Massachusetts v. DPH... but that's still in the 1st Circuit, so it'll be another year or two. Also, it will only overturn the 3rd Clause of DoMA (defining marriage), not the 2nd clause (stating the effect of the full faith & credit clause). But they definitely will, because it's a state's rights argument, so even the conservative justices have to bite their tongues.
 
2012-02-07 11:37:24 AM  

Theaetetus: They will, as a result of Massachusetts v. DPH... but that's still in the 1st Circuit, so it'll be another year or two. Also, it will only overturn the 3rd Clause of DoMA (defining marriage), not the 2nd clause (stating the effect of the full faith & credit clause). But they definitely will, because it's a state's rights argument, so even the conservative justices have to bite their tongues.


The conservatives aren't in favor of state's rights. Only on those rights they don't agree with. They have no problem when it works in their favor, but deny someone a handgun in New York, and they get all uppity.
 
2012-02-07 11:38:27 AM  

what_now: Are we really still arguing about this?

There are couples in Massachusetts celebrating their 8th wedding anniversary this spring and it has yet to rain frogs on my lawn.


perhaps God decided that living in Massachussetts was enough punishment
 
2012-02-07 11:40:13 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Theaetetus: They will, as a result of Massachusetts v. DPH... but that's still in the 1st Circuit, so it'll be another year or two. Also, it will only overturn the 3rd Clause of DoMA (defining marriage), not the 2nd clause (stating the effect of the full faith & credit clause). But they definitely will, because it's a state's rights argument, so even the conservative justices have to bite their tongues.

The conservatives aren't in favor of state's rights. Only on those rights they don't agree with. They have no problem when it works in their favor, but deny someone a handgun in New York, and they get all uppity.



I've confronted a states rights tea party type with the fact that his position demanded the federal government take away states rights. He didn't know what to think about it any more. At least he saw the moral dilema inherent in his position and didn't simply go with 'it's ok when we do it'.
 
2012-02-07 11:46:13 AM  

fracto73: I've confronted a states rights tea party type with the fact that his position demanded the federal government take away states rights. He didn't know what to think about it any more. At least he saw the moral dilema inherent in his position and didn't simply go with 'it's ok when we do it'.


It's fun when hypocrites get called on their BS, and suddenly their brains come to a screeching halt.
 
2012-02-07 11:51:07 AM  

RedPhoenix122: fracto73: I've confronted a states rights tea party type with the fact that his position demanded the federal government take away states rights. He didn't know what to think about it any more. At least he saw the moral dilema inherent in his position and didn't simply go with 'it's ok when we do it'.

It's fun when hypocrites get called on their BS, and suddenly their brains come to a screeching halt.



The guy I was talking with was a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to rethink his position. It was something of a dilema for him though. It was during the healthcare debate. He trotted out the typical 'We can't read the bill' and 'Let insurers sell between the states'. When I answered those showing he was wrong I know he spent some time reading the HCR bill and was at the very least rethinking his stance on interstate insurance requirements. I don't know what he eventually decided on though.
 
2012-02-07 11:51:35 AM  

fracto73: The guy I was talking with was a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to rethink his position. It was something of a dilema for him though. It was during the healthcare debate. He trotted out the typical 'We can't read the bill' and 'Let insurers sell between the states'. When I answered those showing he was wrong I know he spent some time reading the HCR bill and was at the very least rethinking his stance on interstate insurance requirements. I don't know what he eventually decided on though.


That's rare.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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