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.

(Addicting Info)   North Carolina passes amendment banning same sex marriage. AND A CHALLENGER APPEARS   (addictinginfo.org ) divider line
    More: Followup, North Carolina, Lesbian Arrested, gay rights activists, same-sex marriages, establishment of religion, United States Constitution, lesbians  
•       •       •

23362 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 May 2012 at 1:43 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-11 02:42:06 PM  

BudTheSpud: KrustyKitten: qorkfiend: INeedAName: [i361.photobucket.com image 640x480]

More Christians need to be doing things like this.

Is that like asking all illegal aliens to start apologizing for the human smuggling, drug dealing, emergency room clogging illegals?

No, I believe that's called a strawman argument, if I'm not mistaken.


No, you're not mistaken. I'm ashamed that my strawman was recognized so quickly. Next time i'll dress him up in a hat or sunglasses.
 
2012-05-11 02:42:07 PM  

IAmRight: wildstarr: This has happened before but I can't recall where. I feel sorry for the clerks. They might personally agree with the couples but get complained at anyway.

This is what annoys me about it. "Hey I'm gonna come in and make you look like a bigot for doing your job!"


Well, yeah, that's what you do!
 
2012-05-11 02:43:42 PM  

Probably_From_Texas: Why is it so important to coddle and pacify such a small portion of the population?

Is the LBGT lobby really that powerful?


Because it's really cool to live in a country where 51% can stomp on everyone else..
Unless you are a member of the 49% or less, though, in that case, it can suck.

That's the whole point of things. You shouldn't have to be a master at fecundity until you are so numerous that people sigh and start treating you reasonably.
 
2012-05-11 02:43:53 PM  

dBoone: You're not helping.


I know. It's Friday and I'm punchy from a hard week.

But my conscience is clear. I made my donation to glad.org when I awoke to the news Wednesday. Not much, but a more substantial contribution than the occasional troll post.
 
2012-05-11 02:43:55 PM  

hubris73: I actually do not think we need to legalize gay marriage. What we need to do is extricate this religious ceremony


The word for the religious ceremony you were describing is "wedding."

"A wedding is the ceremony in which two people are united in marriage or a similar institution."
"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship."

WORDS HAVE MEANING
 
2012-05-11 02:44:04 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: "Put simply, it's not legal for states to take your constitutional rights away, nor is it legal to arrest people for politely asking to be treated as equal citizens under the US Constitution."

The problem is that it is based not on an attribute of the person, but the behavior.
One day, they are gay, and someones activity against them is illegal.

The next day, they change their mind and bang the opposite sex again. Now, the exact same activity someone else has done against them, is now legal?


Not that it means a gay man shouldn't be 100% allowed to have a spouse that will
say vile things about their mother and family. Why should straight men have all the fun?


What activity is illegal against an individual only if they are behaving gay?
 
2012-05-11 02:44:06 PM  
why the fark is this being put in the limelight when we have much more severe issues to deal with? Gay marriage is not important when compared to how shiatty our economy is, which is not even as big of a deal as the gov't trampling on EVERYONE'S rights with that damn patriot act.
 
2012-05-11 02:44:08 PM  

downstairs: Still think they should pull out (heh heh, I said "pull out") of NC for the convention.


And your name is downstairs. Pull out. Downstairs.

/I am a child
 
2012-05-11 02:45:00 PM  

SueDisco: It's kind of shocking to think that so many states don't even have hate crime laws for LBGT folks. Scary.


Some people are fine with assault being considered assault, which already has a pretty good penalty.

It's also kind of tough to enforce fairly because some slurs which are considered gay-bashing have nothing to do with homosexuality in the person's mind.

/it would be smarter to call them anti-terror laws, since the goals of actual hate crimes are, by definition, terrorism
//best believe no politician is fighting an anti-terrorism law
 
2012-05-11 02:45:41 PM  
but one of the demonstrators, Brent Morin, told the clerk after he and his partner were rejected, "I just want to point out that we're married in the District of Colombia, our nation's capitol."

Then why are you in North Carolina applying for a marriage license, you already-married morans?

/effective civil disobedience does not work that way
 
2012-05-11 02:46:09 PM  

soakitincider: Gay marriage is not important when compared to how shiatty our economy is


I'm gonna disagree. Civil Rights > Economy.
 
2012-05-11 02:46:40 PM  

fappomatic: The Donald, or The Donna?

[www.addictinginfo.org image 620x350]


Does that cop in the background left have a Justin Bieber haircut? Is that regulation?

Also, what's the over/under on the arresting cops being lesbian themselves?
 
2012-05-11 02:46:54 PM  

Tax Boy: but one of the demonstrators, Brent Morin, told the clerk after he and his partner were rejected, "I just want to point out that we're married in the District of Colombia, our nation's capitol."

Then why are you in North Carolina applying for a marriage license, you already-married morans?

/effective civil disobedience does not work that way


Thanks to DOMA, they aren't married in North Carolina.
 
2012-05-11 02:47:36 PM  

SueDisco: This is the best infographic I've seen in a while. DAMN I'm happy to live in DC and the portion of the country that isn't ass backwards on this issue.

It's kind of shocking to think that so many states don't even have hate crime laws for LBGT folks. Scary.


That is a nice graph there. I would have never realized South Carolina was more progressive than Mississippi, Utah, and Michegan. My state's tied for only 46th!
 
2012-05-11 02:48:12 PM  

soakitincider: why the fark is this being put in the limelight when we have much more severe issues to deal with? Gay marriage is not important when compared to how shiatty our economy is, which is not even as big of a deal as the gov't trampling on EVERYONE'S rights with that damn patriot act.


Maybe it's because there's actual disagreement on this issue. No one wants to talk about the economy because it's not doing as well as it could for the Democrats and the Republicans have no ideas that weren't tried in the last administration, and both parties are fine with the PATRIOT Act.
 
2012-05-11 02:48:36 PM  

IAmRight: wildstarr: This has happened before but I can't recall where. I feel sorry for the clerks. They might personally agree with the couples but get complained at anyway.

This is what annoys me about it. "Hey I'm gonna come in and make you look like a bigot for doing your job!"


Cops understand that this is part of the job, and they prepare for it. They don't get emotionally involved or defensive. They establish communication and trust with the protester, and treat them with dignity, in order to make things go as smoothly as possible. That's what good cops do, anyway.

cdn-ugc.cafemom.com
 
2012-05-11 02:49:07 PM  

hubris73: I actually do not think we need to legalize gay marriage. What we need to do is extricate this religious ceremony from our civil process for joining two individuals in the eyes of the state. It is absolutly bonkers that we still use this outmoded ritual to serve as the core mechanic by which our government deliniates its citizens into single and couple catagories (an improtatint distiction for all sorts of civil rights and responsabilities).

Let the religious institutions have complete control over who is "married" in thier congregation, "marriage" being soley a joining of two people within their religious community and not in any way a civil contract - a civil contract should be something handled by the state alone and therefore not an acceptable avenue for discrimination.

I think that religions have the right to restrict access to their proprietary intitutions (even if they act like bigoted aholes as they do it) - I do NOT they have the right to restict access to a civil institution that should be available to any two consenting citizens.

It seems to me the most appropiate and lawful way to handle this is to split the institution of marriage from the institution of civil partnership and make them entirely exclusive from one another - one for your respective religious group and one for the state.


Thats right! People, if you can't play nice while mixing religion in civil matters, you are going to lose that privilege.
 
2012-05-11 02:49:10 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Actually she did. Seriously read your history. A direct quote from her. "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."


Actually, she was still getting on the bus to go home. She didn't go on the bus for the express purpose of calling national media attention to herself. When asked to move, sure, she fought. But these people, who are already married, went in directly after a law was passed and bothered a clerk just to make their point.

Karac: Well, if you apply the logic used in the health insurance debate - that anyone who doesn't have insurance through their job should just get a better job, then it's more like "Hey, your job makes you look like a bigot! If you didn't want to be a bigot, you would just leave it for another job that didn't make you look like a homophobe!"


Alternatively, using that same logic, it would be "Hey, you live in a state that doesn't accept gay marriage and you want to get a gay marriage? Move to a state where you can!"

/North Carolina sucks anyway
 
2012-05-11 02:50:35 PM  
Goodness, that was some poor legal analysis. On his first point, how does a law banning gay marriage constitute a law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion? And on the second, he skips right over due process goes for the...Privileges or Immunities Clause?? (yes, I know, and agree, that there are strong arguments that the Slaughter-House Cases were wrongly decided). Well intentioned author ruins an article through hogwash analysis...
 
2012-05-11 02:50:54 PM  
lennavan
WORDS HAVE MEANING


Ok, fine - but the entire argument from the opposition to gay marriage is based around the sanctity of the institution of marriage - sanctity being a term that intrinsically implys a religious connection. So your beef is with their rhetoric, not mine.

Besides, did it really prevent you from understanding the overarching idea I presented?
 
2012-05-11 02:50:59 PM  

lennavan: I'm gonna disagree. Civil Rights > Economy.


I think I'd want to have something to eat before I worried about whether I could get married or not. It's hungry business.
 
2012-05-11 02:51:43 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Probably_From_Texas: Why is it so important to coddle and pacify such a small portion of the population?

Is the LBGT lobby really that powerful?


There's some trickery going on with this post. I... can almost see what you did there. Googling the LBGT just returns results for LGBT though. Care to help us out there?
 
2012-05-11 02:52:07 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Carn: I think we should at least make the exception for hot lesbians. I think we can find common ground there. We'll work on the rest later.

What about butter face lesbians?


Ok them too.
 
2012-05-11 02:52:12 PM  

IAmRight: Actually, she was still getting on the bus to go home. She didn't go on the bus for the express purpose of calling national media attention to herself. When asked to move, sure, she fought. But these people, who are already married, went in directly after a law was passed and bothered a clerk just to make their point.


Maybe they couldn't find the Walgreens?
 
2012-05-11 02:52:31 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-05-11 02:52:52 PM  

PonceAlyosha: IAmRight: Rosa Parks didn't go and get on the bus and refuse to move to make a point

Actually she did. Seriously read your history. A direct quote from her. "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."


furthermore, I thought that it was planned.

but, we could talk about plessy, who was the first to start sitting in the wrong section. when plessy sat in the white section of the streetcar in new orleans, he was chosen to do this by civil rights activists because he was a fair skinned black man, professional looking, and had a very calm demeanor and clean background. they wanted to make sure the person in the lawsuit was ready for the whole controversy, and would not damage the cause with his own controversy and would not fight back if there was violence.

interestingly, they chose such a fair skinned black man that they had to inform the rail company of his lineage. since the rail company wanted to fight the law as well, they arrested him with their own detective to make sure he was arrested for the right reason.

that's what started plessy v. ferguson and resulted in the blasphemous conclusion of separate but equal.
 
2012-05-11 02:53:23 PM  

SueDisco: This is the best infographic I've seen in a while. DAMN I'm happy to live in DC and the portion of the country that isn't ass backwards on this issue.

It's kind of shocking to think that so many states don't even have hate crime laws for LBGT folks. Scary.


Because the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act did it for them, so states don't have to?
 
2012-05-11 02:53:44 PM  
12349876: BR549: Blah blah blah......how about the fact that it just ain't natural for same sex people to be "married"?

Blah blah blah.....how about the fact that it's just natural for some people to be "slaves"



WTF ha that got to do with it? And how do you figure that?
 
2012-05-11 02:53:53 PM  

IAmRight: Actually, she was still getting on the bus to go home. She didn't go on the bus for the express purpose of calling national media attention to herself. When asked to move, sure, she fought. But these people, who are already married, went in directly after a law was passed and bothered a clerk just to make their point.


You know, if you had just said something like "Gee, I guess I was wrong about Rosa Parks; now that you mention it, she really was looking to make a point", nobody would be giving you any grief for it. We all make mistakes. But doubling down the way you are is just plain stupid.
 
2012-05-11 02:54:05 PM  

CPennypacker: Tax Boy: but one of the demonstrators, Brent Morin, told the clerk after he and his partner were rejected, "I just want to point out that we're married in the District of Colombia, our nation's capitol."

Then why are you in North Carolina applying for a marriage license, you already-married morans?

/effective civil disobedience does not work that way

Thanks to DOMA, they aren't married in North Carolina.


This is an incredibly stupid way to make a DOMA challenge, as the only legitimate reason that a non-discriminatory NC would grant a marriage license would be if they weren't already married. Which they are. So it's the legal equivalent of dividing by zero.
 
2012-05-11 02:54:37 PM  

BR549: 12349876: BR549: Blah blah blah......how about the fact that it just ain't natural for same sex people to be "married"?

Blah blah blah.....how about the fact that it's just natural for some people to be "slaves"


WTF ha that got to do with it? And how do you figure that?


Actually, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 100 different species. So if you want to get technical, it is natural
 
2012-05-11 02:55:37 PM  

BR549: 12349876: BR549: Blah blah blah......how about the fact that it just ain't natural for same sex people to be "married"?

Blah blah blah.....how about the fact that it's just natural for some people to be "slaves"


WTF ha that got to do with it? And how do you figure that?


It's an argument that was made 150 years ago. All sorts of injustices have been defended by using the word "natural"
 
2012-05-11 02:56:23 PM  

tommydee: lennavan: I'm gonna disagree. Civil Rights > Economy.

I think I'd want to have something to eat before I worried about whether I could get married or not. It's hungry business.


Except you can't just pass a law that makes the economy better. It doesn't work that way. You can, however, pass (or strike down) laws so as to ensure that everyone enjoys equal protection under the law.
 
2012-05-11 02:57:18 PM  

hubris73: lennavan
WORDS HAVE MEANING

Ok, fine - but the entire argument from the opposition to gay marriage is based around the sanctity of the institution of marriage - sanctity being a term that intrinsically implys a religious connection. So your beef is with their rhetoric, not mine.

Besides, did it really prevent you from understanding the overarching idea I presented?


You completely missed the point. If you are discussing marriage, you are discussing a civil NON RELIGIOUS thing. If you are discussing a wedding, you are now discussing what might be religious. It is simply not possible to be against marriage due to religious reasons. It's like saying I'm against using computers because I have a tree in my back yard.

See these words with meanings:

"A wedding is the ceremony in which two people are united in marriage or a similar institution."
"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship."

They mean stuff. It's kinda meaningful. Government does the social contract bit. You know, the marriage biatchurches do the wedding bit. You know, the religious bit.
 
2012-05-11 02:58:10 PM  

hubris73: I actually do not think we need to legalize gay marriage. What we need to do is extricate this religious ceremony from our civil process for joining two individuals in the eyes of the state. It is absolutly bonkers that we still use this outmoded ritual to serve as the core mechanic by which our government deliniates its citizens into single and couple catagories (an improtatint distiction for all sorts of civil rights and responsabilities).

Let the religious institutions have complete control over who is "married" in thier congregation, "marriage" being soley a joining of two people within their religious community and not in any way a civil contract - a civil contract should be something handled by the state alone and therefore not an acceptable avenue for discrimination.

I think that religions have the right to restrict access to their proprietary intitutions (even if they act like bigoted aholes as they do it) - I do NOT they have the right to restict access to a civil institution that should be available to any two consenting citizens.

It seems to me the most appropiate and lawful way to handle this is to split the institution of marriage from the institution of civil partnership and make them entirely exclusive from one another - one for your respective religious group and one for the state.


I've made this argument before. just de-legalize marriage.

make it so there is one kind of union at law: civil unions. if you want a marriage, go to a church. it will have no legal trappings.

but, the problem is that the civil union does not bear enough legal fruit to satisfy the absence of marriage. you need a system for parental filiation with the child, rules for death intestate, property between partners, etc.

so, for this argument to be valid, you have to be ready to beef up what a civil union is. which will result in making civil unions the same as marriages, just by another name.

the real reason people are opposed to gay marriage is because they oppose gay adoption. if civil unions shared parental rights and duties, then the opponents of gay marriage will be just as angry. however, you would force them to actual force their real discriminatory intent.
 
2012-05-11 02:59:15 PM  

CPennypacker: BR549: 12349876: BR549: Blah blah blah......how about the fact that it just ain't natural for same sex people to be "married"?

Blah blah blah.....how about the fact that it's just natural for some people to be "slaves"


WTF ha that got to do with it? And how do you figure that?

Actually, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 100 different species. So if you want to get technical, it is natural


He's that special kind of wrong where his starting premise is wrong but even if it were right the conclusion would still be wrong - I call it "meta-wrong".

"We know that dogs can fly because they have feathers".
 
2012-05-11 02:59:41 PM  

tommydee: lennavan: I'm gonna disagree. Civil Rights > Economy.

I think I'd want to have something to eat before I worried about whether I could get married or not. It's hungry business.


Good thing we have food stamps unemployment and welfare then, right? Now that you're taken care of let's get to the civil rights thing.
 
2012-05-11 03:01:38 PM  

Biological Ali: You know, if you had just said something like "Gee, I guess I was wrong about Rosa Parks; now that you mention it, she really was looking to make a point", nobody would be giving you any grief for it. We all make mistakes. But doubling down the way you are is just plain stupid.


Even your quote doesn't indicate anything other than what I said.
 
2012-05-11 03:03:42 PM  

Probably_From_Texas: Why is it so important to coddle and pacify such a small portion of the population?

Is the LBGT lobby really that powerful?


I personally think it's sweet they want to cuddle a portion of the population. Why shouldn't they? It's ni...

What? Oh. Never mind.
 
2012-05-11 03:06:06 PM  

Probably_From_Texas: Why is it so important to coddle and pacify such a small portion of the population?

Is the LBGT lobby really that powerful?


10/10. Short and to-the-point. That, folks, is a master troll.
 
2012-05-11 03:06:22 PM  
Meh.......you're probably all part of the LBGT......the "Low Budget Guzzling Team"


/buncha corksuckers.....
 
2012-05-11 03:06:48 PM  

hubris73: lennavan
WORDS HAVE MEANING

Ok, fine - but the entire argument from the opposition to gay marriage is based around the sanctity of the institution of marriage - sanctity being a term that intrinsically implys a religious connection. So your beef is with their rhetoric, not mine.

Besides, did it really prevent you from understanding the overarching idea I presented?


Simple -- allow gay marriage. The churches are free to not allow gay weddings/matrimony.
The church has NOTHING to do with marriage, despite the fundies saying otherwise. Marriage is a civil contract.
 
2012-05-11 03:06:56 PM  

Probably_From_Texas: Why is it so important to coddle and pacify such a small portion of the population?

Is the LBGT lobby really that powerful?


I always consider this from the converse; why is such a small part of the population so controversial? Who cares if 4 people in 100 get married wrong?
 
2012-05-11 03:07:26 PM  

IAmRight: Biological Ali: You know, if you had just said something like "Gee, I guess I was wrong about Rosa Parks; now that you mention it, she really was looking to make a point", nobody would be giving you any grief for it. We all make mistakes. But doubling down the way you are is just plain stupid.

Even your quote doesn't indicate anything other than what I said.


Here's what you said: "Rosa Parks didn't go and get on the bus and refuse to move to make a point." That is demonstrably wrong. Even at this point, you can acknowledge it and be none the worse for wear. Or, you could continue this bizarre goalpost-shifting, hair-splitting exercise of yours. "Okay, she refused to move to make to make a point, but she maybe got on the bus for some other reason!" My advice is to just take a time-out from this thread; just clear your head for a while. Sooner or later you'll start to realize just how silly this is.
 
2012-05-11 03:07:38 PM  

fappomatic: The Donald, or The Donna?

[www.addictinginfo.org image 620x350]


No, these are The Donnas:

greenobles.com
 
2012-05-11 03:07:48 PM  

pute kisses like a man: PonceAlyosha: IAmRight: Rosa Parks didn't go and get on the bus and refuse to move to make a point

Actually she did. Seriously read your history. A direct quote from her. "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."

furthermore, I thought that it was planned.

but, we could talk about plessy, who was the first to start sitting in the wrong section. when plessy sat in the white section of the streetcar in new orleans, he was chosen to do this by civil rights activists because he was a fair skinned black man, professional looking, and had a very calm demeanor and clean background. they wanted to make sure the person in the lawsuit was ready for the whole controversy, and would not damage the cause with his own controversy and would not fight back if there was violence.

interestingly, they chose such a fair skinned black man that they had to inform the rail company of his lineage. since the rail company wanted to fight the law as well, they arrested him with their own detective to make sure he was arrested for the right reason.

that's what started plessy v. ferguson and resulted in the blasphemous conclusion of separate but equal.


^^^^This right there.

People need to cause a stir in hopes they end up in court. We have an adversarial legal system- which is a good thing. But it does (often) require people intentionally break a law to eventually get said law overturned.
 
2012-05-11 03:08:06 PM  

Biological Ali: Probably_From_Texas: Why is it so important to coddle and pacify such a small portion of the population?

Is the LBGT lobby really that powerful?

I see what you did there.


this is driving me crazy, what can you see that I can't?
 
2012-05-11 03:08:08 PM  

Road Warrior: So Barack Obama was a constitutional rights denying bigot right up until his evolutionary change of heart yesterday?

Interesting.


Nope. He was a mealy-mouthed, waffling politician, pandering to a bunch of backwards farktards.
 
2012-05-11 03:08:38 PM  

qorkfiend: That's the crux of the argument against DOMA (or at least Section 3). Challenges are working their way through the courts.


One of the many reasons the Reps are stalling every Federal Judge they can. In record numbers even.
 
2012-05-11 03:09:19 PM  

dandude28: In other news, thats a hot cop


THE most important thing Subby over looked, and yet again protesting over nothing, its farking pathetic, I am legally allowed to get married and I am in no hurry to go through that shiat.

Hire a lawyer, he will get a couple more say in each others lives than any farking blood test.
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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