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.

(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
    More: Followup, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

5138 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2012 at 6:08 PM (4 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 07:15:39 PM  

Nadie_AZ: So, when you go into the temple to get your 'endowments', you are given a new name. The name that you were called in heaven. So it is your ... old name. Anyways, the name is a random name scheduled for that particular day and everyone gets the same name.


As if most Mormons didn't already have farked-up enough names, like "Mitt" or "Deloy" or "Brigham." Maybe they should just use the official Mormon Name Generator.
 
2012-02-07 07:15:40 PM  

Shaggy_C: [i44.tinypic.com image 400x400]

/inquiring minds want to know


State or National Constitution?... or don't you know that there is a difference?

/I know not to feed them, but what the hell?
 
2012-02-07 07:15:47 PM  

Shaggy_C: [i44.tinypic.com image 400x400]

/inquiring minds want to know


Court found that the amendment contradicted the Equal Protection Clause (another part of the same constitution.)

IOW: New part of constitution must be legally consistent with rest of constitution unless you're specifically repealing something.

In order for a California ban on Gay Marriage to be constitutional, the proposed amendment would have to specifically repeal the clause that provides Equal Protection to all state citizens. THAT might be a much harder sell, especially since they had to confuse people into thinking Gayness would be taught in school just to eek out the bare win they DID get on Prop 8.

(Not to mention that then you run into problems with Federal Equal Protection issues.)
 
2012-02-07 07:17:19 PM  

Shaggy_C: [i44.tinypic.com image 400x400]

/inquiring minds want to know


If a majority can repeal the rights of a minority, how does the minority have equal protection under the law?
 
2012-02-07 07:17:34 PM  
Republicans: Giving Small Government the opportunity to create a mandate defining who a person cannot marry.
 
2012-02-07 07:18:16 PM  

bugontherug: Cyberluddite: 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.

What they're trying to do, then, is appeal to Kennedy, who wrote Roemer v. Evans. If they can convince him that prop 8 was motivated by a "bare desire to harm an unpopular group," which is not a "legitimate purpose" under rational basis scrutiny, they'll probably be upheld.


It would be HUGE if Roemer were to be extended this way, but yes, I think you're on to something.

And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.
 
2012-02-07 07:19:26 PM  

Cyberluddite: The constitutional basis is actually found in the 14th Amendment.


Well the fourteenth is invoked in court because if you're in court you're looking at a matter of the government denying a right. However, if we're just talking about rights then the ninth works. Whenever you get someone idjit going on about how if it's not in the Constitution it's not a right, can just point them to the ninth amendment. If however you're dealing with the government denying a right, you go to the fourteenth because that's where the limitation on government power is.

Shaggy_C: i44.tinypic.com


A state amendment can violate federal constitutional protections and would thus find itself being struck down.
 
2012-02-07 07:20:15 PM  

Nadie_AZ: truthseeker2083: Anyone know how to get my record removed from their list? I'd rather spend eternity in the outer darkness than a second in one of their heavens with them.

Oh hai!

I did this back in 2000 ... It has been worth every moment (new window)- even if my family doesn't approve of my actions. Expect them to try pretty hard to keep you. But once this is done, you won't hear from them ever again.


I read this and thought it was interesting but, serious question, what happens if you don't do this? There's no such thing as lapsed Mormons who just don't tithe or go to temple (or church, sorry I'm not sure which is correct)?
 
2012-02-07 07:21:52 PM  

GhostFish: Shaggy_C: [i44.tinypic.com image 400x400]

/inquiring minds want to know

If a majority can repeal the rights of a minority, how does the minority have equal protection under the law?


It's trolling. It used to be cool pre-2008 election, now the fark bots use it as an obvious troll account.
 
2012-02-07 07:23:26 PM  

Lawnchair: 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.


This is what baffles me about the whole debate.

Sexuality is (or shouldn't be) part of the discussion. The discrimination is gender discrimination pure and simple. Nobody is advocating making ghey sex illegal (not publicly at least) Gay/Straight/Bi consenting adults can legally fark anyone they please, so any argument about how gay sex is icky, immoral, etc doesn't really hold any water.
 
2012-02-07 07:23:43 PM  

gilgigamesh: I might be in the minority here, but I am guessing the SC denies cert.


No, I agree. No matter what point any of the justices might want to make on the topic of marriage equality, this is not the record on which to hang that point. There will be other cases coming up the ladder, and one of them is bound to be a more likely vehicle for the Court's judgment.
 
2012-02-07 07:23:47 PM  

vernonFL: [innertubes.files.wordpress.com image 640x486]

Traditional marriage, as defined by the Bible.


Cleaver distortion of the truth. Notice how all your sources are the old testament? Believers in the era after Christ's resurrection are under the new covenant which views marriage as the union of Christ and the church. Therefore one man with one woman. A reaffirmation of the original plan layed down in Genesis. You need to know that most of those other situations they gave were created to contend with the actions of sinful people.
 
2012-02-07 07:24:50 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there)


I took this parenthetical to mean you intended to expand on your post. Did I read it right? I wait with bated breath.
 
2012-02-07 07:25:36 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.


Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.
 
2012-02-07 07:26:58 PM  

Jingo Ate Your Baby: I read this and thought it was interesting but, serious question, what happens if you don't do this? There's no such thing as lapsed Mormons who just don't tithe or go to temple (or church, sorry I'm not sure which is correct)?


You are considered 'inactive'. You remain a member. Your information is retained and handed out to the ward or branch that you live in. They will, from time to time, send over missionaries, stake missionaries or other members to visit with you and encourage you to return to church.

And as was stated above- they will find you.
 
2012-02-07 07:27:56 PM  

James!: Do we want a president who invests so poorly?


img35.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-07 07:28:10 PM  

gilgigamesh: Yes, but its narrowly ruled upon based on the circumstances of this case: where there is a right to marriage granted under the state constitution, then stripped again by ballot measure.

I might be in the minority here, but I am guessing the SC denies cert. This decision involves a unique set of fact circumstances unlikely to be repeated. Its not something they are likely to review.


I'm not sure if they'll take it or not, it was very clearly written to minimize the chances of further review. I can see SCOTUS granting cert and finding that there is legitimate state interest in one of the proposed justifications ("to promote child rearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren"). I can also see them wanting to keep their hands out of it, if possible.
 
2012-02-07 07:28:24 PM  

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


I actually agree in principle, but the Court has never accepted that argument. To my knowledge, no court has. And gender is a "quasi-suspect" classification.
 
2012-02-07 07:28:53 PM  

urban.derelict: meh...: Indeed. It's not democracy when the will of the majority is to oppress the minority's rights.

That's ok because we're not a democracy, either.

/recite pledge of allegiance for the correct answer


Does that mean I'm free to oppress/ enact bloody reprisals against people who like to indulge in pedantic and wholly gratuitous public semantic masturbation?

/cause if so, you know, that's cool
 
2012-02-07 07:30:07 PM  

Shaggy_C: [i44.tinypic.com image 400x400]
/inquiring minds want to know


An amendment to the California Constitution can certainly be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. If California passed an amendment to the California Constitution saying "all Chinese people are filthy slime and it's illegal for them to live or work in this state," do you think any court in the land would have a problem finding that to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened. Here's the actual text of part of Article XIX of the California Constitution of 1879--seriously:

Article XIX: CHINESE.
Section 1. The Legislature shall prescribe all necessary regulations for the protection of the State, and the counties, cities, and towns thereof, from the burdens and evils arising from the presence of aliens who are or may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases . . . .
Sec. 2. No corporation now existing or hereafter formed under the laws of this State, shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, employ directly or indirectly, in any capacity, any Chinese or Mongolian. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be necessary to enforce this provision.
Sec. 3. No Chinese shall be employed on any State, county, municipal, or other public work, except in punishment for crime.
Sec. 4. . . .The Legislature shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for the removal of Chinese without the limits of such cities and towns, or for their location within prescribed portions of those limits, and it shall also provide the necessary legislation to prohibit the introduction into this State of Chinese after the adoption of this Constitution.


The U.S. Supreme Court found that provision unconstitutional and unenforceable in the 1880s. (However, it remained on the books until repealed by ballot initiative much later--in the 1950s, I believe.) I'm sure that, when it did, there were a bunch of hicks screaming about "unelected activist judges" ignoring the "will of the people."
 
2012-02-07 07:30:09 PM  
I hope this is an example to Californians that gets them to get off their asses and vote, because when we have low turnouts like the one that passed prop 8, a motivated group of bigots can do terrible things - even in one of the most progressive states in the country.

Something I've also been wondering is ... why don't all these groups just put an initiative reversing prop 8 on the ballot so we can put the right for gays to marry INTO the constitution???
 
2012-02-07 07:32:53 PM  

spiderpaz: I hope this is an example to Californians that gets them to get off their asses and vote, because when we have low turnouts like the one that passed prop 8, a motivated group of bigots can do terrible things - even in one of the most progressive states in the country.


Until progressives learn to turn out in every election the way conservatives do, they deserve to lose.
 
2012-02-07 07:33:35 PM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: vernonFL: [innertubes.files.wordpress.com image 640x486]

Traditional marriage, as defined by the Bible.

Cleaver distortion of the truth. Notice how all your sources are the old testament? Believers in the era after Christ's resurrection are under the new covenant which views marriage as the union of Christ and the church. Therefore one man with one woman. A reaffirmation of the original plan layed down in Genesis. You need to know that most of those other situations they gave were created to contend with the actions of sinful people.


So they redefined Marriage? Sounds like they don't really support Traditional Marriage after all.
 
2012-02-07 07:34:26 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.


Don't sweat it. Dennis Miller is no Dennis Miller anymore, either.
 
2012-02-07 07:34:32 PM  
When people call things what they aren't its pretty obvious they are on the wrong side of history and know they are wrong.

"we will protect traditional marriage". fark you.
"we will prevent homosexuals from entering into a contract on the basis of their sex and thus impose our religious beliefs on their daily lives" is much more accurate.

Funny they never say the latter, since that blatantly makes it against the constitution to do so.
 
2012-02-07 07:35:10 PM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: vernonFL: [innertubes.files.wordpress.com image 640x486]

Traditional marriage, as defined by the Bible.

Cleaver distortion of the truth. Notice how all your sources are the old testament? Believers in the era after Christ's resurrection are under the new covenant which views marriage as the union of Christ and the church. Therefore one man with one woman. A reaffirmation of the original plan layed down in Genesis. You need to know that most of those other situations they gave were created to contend with the actions of sinful people.


Can you please explain this to me? Specifically, here are my points of confusion:

(1) Why did we need a reset when Christ was resurrected - was the Old Testament the Word of God, or was it not?

(2) When you say, "views marriage as the union of Christ and the church," what the hell does that mean? Is this some weird case of a metaphor becoming reality, like wine literally becoming blood in Catholic transubstantiation doctrine? Because I have to tell you - I don't get it.

(3) Likewise, "therefore, one man one woman." Because my relationship to my spouse is the same as (not analogous to, but the same as) Christ's relationship to the church, it therefore follows that my spouse must not share my gender? Did I miss a step in that equation?

(4) If we have a "new covenant," why are we reaffirming Genesis? Once again, are we embracing the Old Testament, or are we not?

If you could help me grasp any of this, I'd appreciate it.
 
2012-02-07 07:35:36 PM  

RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.

Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.


I'm not familiar with any others, except those that indicated so in dicta
 
2012-02-07 07:36:49 PM  

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

I actually agree in principle, but the Court has never accepted that argument. To my knowledge, no court has. And gender is a "quasi-suspect" classification.


I'm not familiar enough with the case law to think of any case where that argument has been presented.

It'd be an interesting trial balloon anyway. Find two widows who are 100% not interested in sex with each other. But they want to marry. A man could marry Alice, but Betty cannot. Sex discrimination in the right to marry Alice. Plain and straightforward.
 
2012-02-07 07:37:26 PM  

Cletus C.: 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.


Those last three are the same.
 
2012-02-07 07:38:01 PM  

Weaver95: unleash Callistia on the crowd.


farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2012-02-07 07:38:46 PM  

spiderpaz: Something I've also been wondering is ... why don't all these groups just put an initiative reversing prop 8 on the ballot so we can put the right for gays to marry INTO the constitution???


They had been considering it, but Boies/Olson filed this case in an attempt to establish, once and for all and regardless of shifts in the political landscape, that the Constitution requires equal treatment for same-sex couples when it comes to marriage. That's better than a state-by-state approach in which blue states allow it and red states don't, and really, why should they have to beg for basic rights that everyone else already has?
 
2012-02-07 07:41:55 PM  
Well, that solidifies the "never going to vote for Romney" stance. Either he didn't bother reading the decision and is just knee-jerking or really has drank that much kool-aid.
 
2012-02-07 07:42:34 PM  

Lawnchair: Find two widows who are 100% not interested in sex with each other. B


It's not clear to me why you think this matters.
 
2012-02-07 07:45:39 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.

Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.

I'm not familiar with any others, except those that indicated so in dicta


There's the mental health individuals case, trying to remember the name... where the court used rb regarding a mental health facility... ah christ, it will come to me
 
2012-02-07 07:46:10 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.

Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.

I'm not familiar with any others, except those that indicated so in dicta


It's the whole Rational Basis with bite theory. I found a recent article that might be interesting.
 
2012-02-07 07:47:23 PM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: vernonFL: [innertubes.files.wordpress.com image 640x486]

Traditional marriage, as defined by the Bible.

Cleaver distortion of the truth. Notice how all your sources are the old testament? Believers in the era after Christ's resurrection are under the new covenant which views marriage as the union of Christ and the church. Therefore one man with one woman. A reaffirmation of the original plan layed down in Genesis. You need to know that most of those other situations they gave were created to contend with the actions of sinful people.


So that's why religious bigots hold up all those signs quoting leviticus when at anti-gay and anti-gay marriage rallies... because it doesn't count! oh wait...
 
2012-02-07 07:48:08 PM  
Congrats on getting it overturned.

You just gave any politician that supported Prop 8 many thousands of votes that they would not have gotten otherwise. If that's worth it to you then be proud but don't complain when you lose an election and the politician puts in a bunch of policies you don't like.

You must build up popular support for these things and get them passed at the ballot box for any kind of long term success. Using judges to get your way is the long, hard, stupid way to do it.

But you're short sighted and full of righteous indignation, which is a shame, because you're hurting a cause you actually have valid reason to be upset about. There's no reason it should be illegal for homosexuals to get married. It hasn't caused the collapse of society anywhere it's been legalized.
 
2012-02-07 07:48:10 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.

Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.

I'm not familiar with any others, except those that indicated so in dicta


I'm not aware of any such general trend. Lawrence v. Texas didn't use rational basis, or even Equal Protection. It found a fundamental privacy right to non-commercial sexual relations between consenting adults. It was strict scrutiny.

Lawrence is relevant to the "impermissible purpose" question, if you ask me though. Because California cannot permissibly ban private homosexual activity, it increases the strength of the inference that prop 8's motivation was a bare desire to harm an unpopular group. Scalia even used state's ability to ban homosexual conduct of as part of his Roemer dissent. The state can criminalize homosexual conduct, he argued. Why, then, should it not be permitted to take more modest actions against it?

Well, post Lawrence, that argument is dead.
 
2012-02-07 07:48:51 PM  

bugontherug: Lawnchair: Find two widows who are 100% not interested in sex with each other. B

It's not clear to me why you think this matters.


The widow part doesn't matter legally. Just the political optics (couple of straight grannies). The 'not interested in sex with each other' matters. You brought up the 'homosexuality is not a suspect classification. Which it is not (yet). But, gender is, at least in many cases. Two straights wanting to platonically marry puts it very clearly in the domain of gender discrimination, with questions of homosexuality entirely removed (which they should be).
 
2012-02-07 07:52:31 PM  

RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.

Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.

I'm not familiar with any others, except those that indicated so in dicta

It's the whole Rational Basis with bite theory. I found a recent article that might be interesting.


Sweet, thanks. Fark is so much better than the law porn they send us every month.
 
2012-02-07 07:53:11 PM  

colon_pow: 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.


Well, it seems to me that this is exactly what the 9th is doing, right? I mean, the general consensus here and elsewhere is that the ruling is so narrowly defined that it applies only to California. Isn't that (States determining things like marriage laws) what Romney and the GOP wants?

So what again is Mitten's beef with the ruling?
 
2012-02-07 07:54:25 PM  

vernonFL: [innertubes.files.wordpress.com image 640x486]

Traditional marriage, as defined by the Bible.


Honestly, whoever made that is an awesome artist.
 
2012-02-07 07:54:56 PM  
Fark this "suspect class" bullshiat. Sex, procreation, and marriage should be considered a constitutionally FUNDAMENTAL right for every person.

And I would like some of the Grade A shiat the judge was smoking when he actually put pen to paper and wrote thte opinion that homosexuals were NOT a suspect class. They are one of the most historically discriminated against "classes" in the history of the goddamn world.
 
2012-02-07 07:55:22 PM  
The only part of the Constitution that Republicans care about is the part that lets them carry guns.
 
2012-02-07 07:56:07 PM  

Lawnchair: bugontherug: Lawnchair: Find two widows who are 100% not interested in sex with each other. B

It's not clear to me why you think this matters.

The widow part doesn't matter legally. Just the political optics (couple of straight grannies). The 'not interested in sex with each other' matters. You brought up the 'homosexuality is not a suspect classification. Which it is not (yet). But, gender is, at least in many cases. Two straights wanting to platonically marry puts it very clearly in the domain of gender discrimination, with questions of homosexuality entirely removed (which they should be).


Well, I see what you're trying to say. But what makes it clearly about gender discrimination whether or not homosexuality is removed is the fact that the state denies marriage licenses on the basis of the gender of the applicants. It doesn't really deny them on the basis of sexual orientation at all. In principle, a self-identified homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, and this is exactly the point gay marriage opponents rely on to say that traditional marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals. In a very technical sense, they're right.

But if righties are going to get so uptight and technical, so can lefties. Okay. Traditional marriage laws don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the indisputably discriminate on the basis of gender. That makes them quasi-suspect, which means they have to survive intermediate scrutiny.
 
2012-02-07 07:57:14 PM  

bugontherug: Salt Lick Steady: RexTalionis: Salt Lick Steady: And it would be huge not because of its impact on gays but because it would flip turn upside down (and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there) the strict scrutiny versus rational basis distinction so loved by the court.

Hasn't there been a trend in the courts to invalidate even on rational basis grounds in the last decade or two? I'm thinking Lawrence v. Texas and Roemer, but there are others, too.

I'm not familiar with any others, except those that indicated so in dicta

I'm not aware of any such general trend. Lawrence v. Texas didn't use rational basis, or even Equal Protection. It found a fundamental privacy right to non-commercial sexual relations between consenting adults. It was strict scrutiny.

Lawrence is relevant to the "impermissible purpose" question, if you ask me though. Because California cannot permissibly ban private homosexual activity, it increases the strength of the inference that prop 8's motivation was a bare desire to harm an unpopular group. Scalia even used state's ability to ban homosexual conduct of as part of his Roemer dissent. The state can criminalize homosexual conduct, he argued. Why, then, should it not be permitted to take more modest actions against it?

Well, post Lawrence, that argument is dead.


Thanks. I'm trying to dig into my mind and remember the case wherein the court essentially held that denial of placement of a mental health facility in a certain zoning district was unconstitutional... halp?

Not that one would want to use this as analogous to the debate at hand, but christ it's driving me crazy now
 
2012-02-07 07:58:36 PM  

randomjsa: derp


Your concern is noted. Your suggestion to live in fear has been rejected.
 
2012-02-07 07:59:20 PM  

Mavent: The only part of the Constitution that Republicans care about is the part that lets them carry guns.


Which they use to shoot abortion doctors, members of a UU church for being too 'liberal', or to pistol whip a gay kid before being stranded on a wooden fence in the middle of nowhere. I'm beginning to see a pattern...
 
2012-02-07 07:59:39 PM  

randomjsa: Congrats on getting it overturned.

You just gave any politician that supported Prop 8 many thousands of votes that they would not have gotten otherwise. If that's worth it to you then be proud but don't complain when you lose an election and the politician puts in a bunch of policies you don't like.


This just in: the majority of people either see it as a non-issue or are in favor of equality when it comes to gay people being able to marry.

You must build up popular support for these things and get them passed at the ballot box for any kind of long term success. Using judges to get your way is the long, hard, stupid way to do it.

Yeah, Brown V. Board of Education sure proves that

But you're short sighted and full of righteous indignation, which is a shame, because you're hurting a cause you actually have valid reason to be upset about. There's no reason it should be illegal for homosexuals to get married. It hasn't caused the collapse of society anywhere it's been legalized.

Derp?
 
2012-02-07 07:59:45 PM  

randomjsa: Congrats on getting it overturned.

You just gave any politician that supported Prop 8 many thousands of votes that they would not have gotten otherwise. If that's worth it to you then be proud but don't complain when you lose an election and the politician puts in a bunch of policies you don't like.

You must build up popular support for these things and get them passed at the ballot box for any kind of long term success. Using judges to get your way is the long, hard, stupid way to do it.

But you're short sighted and full of righteous indignation, which is a shame, because you're hurting a cause you actually have valid reason to be upset about. There's no reason it should be illegal for homosexuals to get married. It hasn't caused the collapse of society anywhere it's been legalized.


How very libby of you.
 
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 »
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