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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mitt Romney blasts the ruling overturning Proposition 8. Not because of the social issues at stake, but because he wasted all that money getting it passed in the first place   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 311
    More: Followup, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

5137 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2012 at 6:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-07 06:21:36 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

Gee, I wonder what happened between 2002 and 2012 to make him change his beliefs like that.
 
2012-02-07 06:22:47 PM

meat0918:
Also he's after intertwining government and religion so that you can make a shiat load of money while telling people it's "God's Will and Blessing".


prosperity gospel heretics make me want to burn people at the stake.
 
2012-02-07 06:23:00 PM

thamike: meat0918: //Didn't Mittens say he cried when the Mormon church started to allow blacks?

i missed that one. Citation would be hilarious.


Link (new window)

I think he's full of shiat, and is again just saying something to get the most votes. I doubt he actually cried a single tear.
 
2012-02-07 06:24:22 PM

culebra: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,"


I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges

IOKIYAR

Shut the fark up, you two-faced assclown.


And he can't even do that right. Oh man, I hope the retards have themselves a derpolution and nominate Gingrich. Obama vs. Romney would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Obama vs. Gingrich would by like shooting spastic cross-eyed fish in a barrel.
 
2012-02-07 06:24:47 PM
The next time a Republican mis-uses teh term "traditional marriage" I think I'm going to puke. One man, one woman is NOT a traditional marriage, you god damn farkwits.
 
2012-02-07 06:24:50 PM

dahmers love zombie: I am going to shamelessly yoink that, modify it, and use it to vex the Baptists. Just lettin' you know.


Please do. I posted something along those lines on Fark a few years ago after Prop 8 passed, and it wound up being reposted by someone on a bunch of Mormon discussion websites. Some took it literally and thought it was religious persecution, but a few of the Mormons who read it did react with "Hmmm, I guess this guy has a point" sort of responses, which was encouraging.
 
2012-02-07 06:24:54 PM

GAT_00: I will ... appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written

Which is why of course the court cited the Equal Protection Clause as their grounds to turn it over.


Which, to be fair, was sort of giving an intentional out to states that have always interpreted marriage in man/woman terms. The reason prop 8 was overturned was that it took something that CA had made explicitly legal for everyone (two-person adult marriages) and made it illegal only for a specific minority group.

I suspect it's worded that way so that the USSC can let the ruling stand without forcing gay marriage on all the other states, which seems like a reasonable thing for a circuit court to do since if they went the other way (arguing that gay marriage should on its own merits be legal) then there's no way the supreme court would let that one go past.
 
2012-02-07 06:25:11 PM
Well, this is a relief in two ways: that America is finally getting rid of this stupid scapegoating Republicans use to detract from their disasterous economic policy, and that Mitt Romney has destroyed any chances with moderates. Because we all know it's either robbing gay people of rights or the economy, and the Republicans are firmly in restricting human rights for their own gain.

Thanks, Romney. We all knew you were an assbag. Now we know you're a Republican assbag. Enjoy being a joke come December.
 
2012-02-07 06:25:17 PM
"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional bluh bluh bluh bluh bluh bluh bluh..."

Without looking at it, I bet I could have written down a guess of what his statement would be and probably gotten 90% of it right. So freaking predictable.
 
2012-02-07 06:27:00 PM

Cyberluddite: My proposal is this: I hereby propose an amendment to the California Constitution invalidating Mormon marriages in this state.


Nice post, with admirable rhetorical flourish. I agree with you in principle, but legally there's a significant distinction between singling out Mormons and "banning" gay marriage. In 14th Amendment terms, that distinction is called "suspect classification." Religion is a suspect classification, which, when the government classifies on the basis of it must withstand the Court's "most rigid scrutiny" to withstand challenge. Homosexuality, at this moment in our Constitutional history, is not.

I haven't read the 9th Circuit's opinion in this case. Any legally minded folks know if the court decided on the basis of Roemer v. Evans and the "impermissible purpose" line of cases? Or whether it accepted the argument that bans on gay marriage discriminate on the basis of gender of applicants for marriage licenses, and therefore have to survive intermediate scrutiny? Or something else entirely?
 
2012-02-07 06:27:04 PM

meat0918: thamike: meat0918: //Didn't Mittens say he cried when the Mormon church started to allow blacks?

i missed that one. Citation would be hilarious.

Link (new window)

I think he's full of shiat, and is again just saying something to get the most votes. I doubt he actually cried a single tear.

"It's very deep and fundamental in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that in the eyes of God, every individual was merited the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter and I had no question that African Americans and blacks generally would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons."


Holy balls, that is brimming with confusing open-ended innuendo.
 
2012-02-07 06:27:54 PM
Lessee, wonder what my score is in Bigot Bingo:

unelected judges... Will of the people... Preserve our values.... I believe marriage is between a man and a woman... Protect traditional marriage....

BINGO~!
 
2012-02-07 06:28:29 PM

tnpir: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said.

Okay, see, people who say this make me f*cking crazy. The will of the people DOESN'T MATTER if that will is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you stupid f*cking pandering Republican piece of dog shiat.

Goddammitsomuch I'm sick of this crap.


THIS^3
 
2012-02-07 06:29:51 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Nobody cares what the fk you say, Mittens


Actually close to half the country does, or at least half the voters.

DON'T FORGET THAT!
 
2012-02-07 06:30:18 PM
A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.
 
2012-02-07 06:30:40 PM

Corvus: I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

I guess I missed the part in the constitution that say marriage is between a man and a woman. Also I missed the part of the constitution where it say the federal government defines marriage.


Also, interesting how he speaks of "prejudices." What other edifying things does he have to say about prejudices, I wonder?
 
2012-02-07 06:31:00 PM

tnpir: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said.

Okay, see, people who say this make me f*cking crazy. The will of the people DOESN'T MATTER if that will is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you stupid f*cking pandering Republican piece of dog shiat.

Goddammitsomuch I'm sick of this crap.


The fact that there's even one other person who understands this makes me feel a whole lot better. Thanks.
 
2012-02-07 06:31:36 PM

thamike: meat0918: thamike: meat0918: //Didn't Mittens say he cried when the Mormon church started to allow blacks?

i missed that one. Citation would be hilarious.

Link (new window)

I think he's full of shiat, and is again just saying something to get the most votes. I doubt he actually cried a single tear.

"It's very deep and fundamental in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that in the eyes of God, every individual was merited the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter and I had no question that African Americans and blacks generally would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons."

Holy balls, that is brimming with confusing open-ended innuendo.


The Mormon church didn't deny membership to blacks, only participation in some of the highest priesthood offices and ordinances. This is what Mitt was referring to as "Every right and benefit."
 
2012-02-07 06:31:44 PM

dahmers love zombie: The majority of Americans support gay marriage. This will only further alienate Romney in the general campaign. So, I approve of his comments today.


As long as Gingrich is in the campaign he will have to tack to the right on basically everything. And that's going to go on until August, since Gingrich shows no sign of letting up his "From Hell's heart I stab at thee" campaign strategy.
 
2012-02-07 06:31:59 PM

crotchgrabber: A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.


I think it largely serves a symbolic purpose - sort of a ward/reminder against the evils and sins of the world.
 
2012-02-07 06:33:18 PM

crotchgrabber: A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.


Look up "Temple Garments"

They're basically his&hers long-johns with special patches/symbols that infuse them with skydaddy woo.
 
2012-02-07 06:34:04 PM

nekom: The ensuing flip flop will make John Kerry look like.... umm.. someone who absolutely never flip flops. Sorry, I'm no Dennis Miller over here.


No, it's cool. Have you listened to him these days? Dennis Miller is no Dennis Miller either.
 
2012-02-07 06:34:11 PM
If you hate on Romney because he's rich I yawn.

If you hate on Romney because he's Republican I roll my eyes.

If you hate on Romney because he's Mormon I arch my eyebrows.

If you hate on Romney because of his Bible-thumping intolerance for gays I hear ya.
 
2012-02-07 06:34:24 PM

Tergiversada: The Mormon church didn't deny membership to blacks, only participation in some of the highest priesthood offices and ordinances. This is what Mitt was referring to as "Every right and benefit."


Which meant they could never be full members, but second class ones.

I wonder how long it will take before the Prophet and President of the Church is black, and if it will cause another schism in the LDS church?
 
2012-02-07 06:34:54 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written

Funny, I don't remember marriage being covered in the Constitution.

Did I miss it?


see the rights left to the states.
 
2012-02-07 06:35:08 PM

Weaver95: crotchgrabber: A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.

I think it largely serves a symbolic purpose - sort of a ward/reminder against the evils and sins of the world.


The temple garments are symbolic of the covenants (promises) that one has made in the temple. They are worn as a constant reminder of those covenants.
 
2012-02-07 06:35:08 PM

crotchgrabber: A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.


It's to be a constant reminder that they are Mormon and stand for everything a Mormon does... Which if you think about it is kind of scary.

And yes Romney wears them.
 
2012-02-07 06:35:45 PM

Weaver95: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said

And there's not a gotdamn thing you can do about it either.

Romney is just pandering to the religious right on this issue tho. I don't think he really cares about the sanctity of marriage any more than any OTHER Republican candidate does.


I am sure he cares about it a lot - almost free votes that can be relied on just based on a bit of pandering, and the occasional law that goes nowhere or gets struck down fairly rapidly given how obviously unconstitutional it is to legislate certain religions definition of marriage over other religions opposing definitions.
 
2012-02-07 06:36:00 PM
"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriagediscriminate against gay people"

Doesn't sound so nice when you're honest about it, does it douchebag.
 
2012-02-07 06:37:08 PM

Cletus C.: If you hate on Romney because he's Mormon I arch my eyebrows.

If you hate on Romney because of his Bible-thumping intolerance for gays I hear ya.


One goes with the other. Mormon church is hugely anti-gay and he is a very involved member. He used to help run his old church and then magically became moderate when ran for Governor of Mass.
 
2012-02-07 06:37:34 PM

Tergiversada: Weaver95: crotchgrabber: A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.

I think it largely serves a symbolic purpose - sort of a ward/reminder against the evils and sins of the world.

The temple garments are symbolic of the covenants (promises) that one has made in the temple. They are worn as a constant reminder of those covenants.


Also, it's cold in Utah during the winter so long underwear comes in very handy.
 
2012-02-07 06:37:48 PM

Corvus: crotchgrabber: A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.

It's to be a constant reminder that they are Mormon and stand for everything a Mormon does... Which if you think about it is kind of scary.

And yes Romney wears them.


The basic idea behind the covenants is to be your very best self and to serve God and others.
 
2012-02-07 06:38:03 PM

Nobodyn0se: The next time a Republican mis-uses teh term "traditional marriage" I think I'm going to puke. One man, one woman is NOT a traditional marriage, you god damn farkwits.


you not only want to redefine "marriage", you want to redefine "traditional"
 
2012-02-07 06:38:05 PM
His prejudice against gay people = a-ok
Judge's prejudice against bigotry = wrong
 
2012-02-07 06:38:42 PM

Tergiversada: The basic idea behind the covenants is to be your very best self and to serve God and others.


Right which to a Mormon is hating on gays and making abortion and contraception illegal and murder.
 
2012-02-07 06:38:50 PM

tnpir: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said.

Okay, see, people who say this make me f*cking crazy. The will of the people DOESN'T MATTER if that will is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you stupid f*cking pandering Republican piece of dog shiat.

Goddammitsomuch I'm sick of this crap.


The bonus is that, since 08, the polls favoring gay marriage have only increased. Nationwide, it's around 53% in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. The "will of the people" has changed.
 
2012-02-07 06:38:54 PM

bugontherug: Nice post, with admirable rhetorical flourish. I agree with you in principle, but legally there's a significant distinction between singling out Mormons and "banning" gay marriage. In 14th Amendment terms, that distinction is called "suspect classification." Religion is a suspect classification, which, when the government classifies on the basis of it must withstand the Court's "most rigid scrutiny" to withstand challenge. Homosexuality, at this moment in our Constitutional history, is not.


BZZZ.

The "suspect classification" is this case is gender. Sex. Male or Female.

I am male. I am heterosexual. I am allowed to marry Janet Reno or Ann Coulter, despite not wanting to get horizontal with either. I am not allowed to marry an adult male. Whether I want to get in bed with him. Civil marriage has zero, zip, nada, bupkis to do with sexuality. No requirements. No consummation checks. Nothing.
 
2012-02-07 06:39:16 PM

tnpir: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said.

Okay, see, people who say this make me f*cking crazy. The will of the people DOESN'T MATTER if that will is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you stupid f*cking pandering Republican piece of dog shiat.

Goddammitsomuch I'm sick of this crap.


Indeed. It's not democracy when the will of the majority is to oppress the minority's rights.
 
2012-02-07 06:39:58 PM

Tergiversada: The Mormon church didn't deny membership to blacks, only participation in some of the highest priesthood offices and ordinances. This is what Mitt was referring to as "Every right and benefit."


Black men could not hold the higher of the 2 priesthoods. This pretty much prevented them from going to the temple, holding any office above that of a teacher or clerk. Now they can. But they still aren't moving up the chain, much.

How many blacks are members of the 70 or the 12?
 
2012-02-07 06:40:18 PM

Tergiversada: The basic idea behind the covenants is to be your very best self and to serve God and others.


nothing wrong with that theory.
 
2012-02-07 06:41:01 PM

Corvus: Tergiversada: The basic idea behind the covenants is to be your very best self and to serve God and others.

Right which to a Mormon is hating on gays and making abortion and contraception illegal and murder.


I don't "hate on gays." I feel that someone's sexual preferences are their business and none of mine---unless I happen to be sitting in their lap.
 
2012-02-07 06:41:07 PM

bugontherug: I haven't read the 9th Circuit's opinion in this case. Any legally minded folks know if the court decided on the basis of Roemer v. Evans and the "impermissible purpose" line of cases? Or whether it accepted the argument that bans on gay marriage discriminate on the basis of gender of applicants for marriage licenses, and therefore have to survive intermediate scrutiny? Or something else entirely?


The 9th Circuit upheld a lower court decision, which included the following quote: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
 
2012-02-07 06:41:31 PM
Look at Romney's tax returns he gives lots of money to anti-gay organizations, not anti-gay marriage organization but anti-gay organization.

He took the "Personhood" pledge to make a constitutional amendment to make abortion murder and would out law contraception like the pill.

He isn't a moderate.
 
2012-02-07 06:41:46 PM

colon_pow: see the rights left to the states.


Actually when it comes to marriage being a right, it's the ninth not tenth amendment that's in play.
 
2012-02-07 06:42:17 PM
The social conservatives will be dragged kicking and screaming in to the 20th century, eventually.
 
2012-02-07 06:42:28 PM

Tergiversada: Corvus: Tergiversada: The basic idea behind the covenants is to be your very best self and to serve God and others.

Right which to a Mormon is hating on gays and making abortion and contraception illegal and murder.

I don't "hate on gays." I feel that someone's sexual preferences are their business and none of mine---unless I happen to be sitting in their lap.


Do you give tons of money to anti-gay groups like Romney does?
 
2012-02-07 06:43:42 PM

Corvus: Cletus C.: If you hate on Romney because he's Mormon I arch my eyebrows.

If you hate on Romney because of his Bible-thumping intolerance for gays I hear ya.

One goes with the other. Mormon church is hugely anti-gay and he is a very involved member. He used to help run his old church and then magically became moderate when ran for Governor of Mass.


It's not the only religion of intolerance, that's for sure. So, until we stop demanding our presidential candidates bow to the almighty Christian God I will look the other way when it comes to their religions, assuming they're too smart to actually believe that b.s.
 
2012-02-07 06:44:16 PM

bulldg4life: The social conservatives will be dragged kicking and screaming in to the 20th century, eventually.


Nah, I think most of them will just die off, their kids adapting to or isolating themselves from the changing society.
 
2012-02-07 06:45:31 PM
www.massresistance.org
 
2012-02-07 06:45:48 PM

bugontherug: I haven't read the 9th Circuit's opinion in this case. Any legally minded folks know if the court decided on the basis of Roemer v. Evans and the "impermissible purpose" line of cases? Or whether it accepted the argument that bans on gay marriage discriminate on the basis of gender of applicants for marriage licenses, and therefore have to survive intermediate scrutiny? Or something else entirely?


I read it--or read through it, anyway (it's 128 pages). Yeah, Roemer was a part of it. Basically, the court pointed out that the opponents had cited three grounds on which Prop 8 was unconstitutional, all of them based on the Equal Protection Clause, the narrowest of which was that, even putting aside the question of whether states are ever permitted to discriminate in marriage rights on the grounds of sexual orientation, the case was clearer here because Prop 8 was intended to take away a vested right that had already existed, but to take it away only for one group and leave it in place for everyone else (recall that, prior to Prop 8, the California Supreme Court had ruled that same-sex couples had the same right to marry as heterosexual couples--the purpose of Prop 8 was to rescind that right, but only for gay couples). Under the law, targeting a certain group for deprivation of an existing right that everybody else has is harder to justify. The Court cited Roemer for the proposition that such cases should be decided on the narrowest ground possible, and because the "you took away a right we already had" argument was the narrowest, the court considered that one first and, finding that it carried the day for the opponents and established the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, said it was unnecessary to address the broader questions.

That was decided on a rational basis standard--the court agreed with the trial court that it was not necessary to determine whether intermediate scrutiny should be applied, since it didn't even pass a rational basis test.

The effect is that this opinion will really only be applicable to California, or any other state in which same-sex couples have the right to marry but that right is later taken away by ballot initiative or legislation--it won't be directly applicable to states that have never provided same-sex couples with the right to marry--that will be another case. Because it was decided so narrowly, the Supreme Court may be less likely to grant a petition for review of the case--or if they do, it will be harder for the Supremes to reverse such a narrow decision.
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report