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.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Bush-appointed judge rules federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional   (wisconsingazette.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, U.S. District, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, DOMA, United States federal judge, same-sex marriages, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

4459 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 5:16 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-01 07:48:16 AM  
Of course no one accepts that justice is blind. They always have to make a big farking deal if a federal judge appointed by a Republican does whats right.
 
2012-08-01 07:50:49 AM  

ontariolightning: this would be bad for canada though
no more americans marrying here
no more american gay wedding $


Hey, yer right. That *would* suck.

Still gay Americans getting their full civil rights recognized legally would kinda make up for the loss in revenue.

Also, Vancouver is like Niagra Falls for gay married couples for some reason so I'm sure we'd make out okay.

*smug*

/Love a good gay marriage, me.
//Better music, moar dancing. no chicken dance.
 
2012-08-01 08:01:05 AM  

cman: They always have to make a big farking deal if a federal judge appointed by a Republican does whats right.


Well, to be fair... Any Republican doing something right is a rarity these days.
 
2012-08-01 08:01:16 AM  
Judas!
 
2012-08-01 08:10:26 AM  

xanadian: dennysgod: 5th Amendment? Sounds like it would also be unconstitutional due the the 1st Amendment as well since the only argument against same-sex marriage is a religious one.

Yup. Because some denominations are OK with it, and are forbidden by DOMA.


Pretty much. Equality under the law as well. The First Amendment should be primary to striking down these laws, but equality under the law has a piece of it as well.

I have no problem with denominations that forbid such unions in their own churches. That is the free exercise of their faith, but demanding that other faiths follow their beliefs does violate other folks free practice.
 
2012-08-01 08:13:08 AM  
narwhaler.com

Maybe all the one man/one woman stuff is designed to soften the poor little GOP voters to accept Romney's Mormonism.
 
2012-08-01 08:17:28 AM  
Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?
 
2012-08-01 08:18:07 AM  
"like"
 
2012-08-01 08:27:00 AM  
Good. Now let's get moving and fix this sh*t.
 
2012-08-01 08:29:41 AM  

cman: Of course no one accepts that justice is blind. They always have to make a big farking deal if a federal judge appointed by a Republican does whats right.


Have you read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas? It was basically a giant screed decrying the "homosexual agenda" as destroying the nation and making a mockery of real freedom. If justice is really blind, he won't write a similar opinion upholding DOMA. I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-08-01 08:39:14 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?



I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.
 
2012-08-01 08:40:18 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.


Considering, to me, that the only marriage law that would pass JR would be one that allows any person to marry any other person they want, I'm OK with this.
 
2012-08-01 08:42:34 AM  

fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.


Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat
 
2012-08-01 08:43:51 AM  
Somewhere in Europe, Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia chuckles, and mutters under his breath, "...for now."
 
2012-08-01 08:45:48 AM  

LasersHurt: fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.

Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat


Meh. Once you get married, you can forget about the meat.
 
2012-08-01 08:49:09 AM  
This is nice but for those of you thinking this is some major step forward you're mistaken.

The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.
 
2012-08-01 08:49:58 AM  

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Maybe all the one man/one woman stuff is designed to soften the poor little GOP voters to accept Romney's Mormonism.


Adam and Eve were the first Jews, if there weren't other folks, Cain wouldn't have found a wife later.
Mormonism, I won't attempt to explain that, I don't know what Joseph Smith was up to there.
 
2012-08-01 08:52:32 AM  

randomjsa: This is nice but for those of you thinking this is some major step forward you're mistaken.

The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.


Rights should not be put up to a popular vote.
 
2012-08-01 08:52:51 AM  
Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

The State only started caring about marriage in the first place when Racist southern Democrats, wanting to keep the races from mixing, required people to get a marriage license from the courthouse. There's no reason why the state should have any business knowing whom anyone decides to take up as a spouse.
 
2012-08-01 08:53:52 AM  

LasersHurt: fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.

Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat



It is interesting to replace the word murder with one of these synonyms.

I looked out my window and saw a gay marriage of crows fly overhead.
 
2012-08-01 08:54:33 AM  

slayer199: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

Yes it will be. The problem is that the social conservatives think it's only liberals when in reality it's people that think it's none of the government's damn business if 2 consenting adults choose to marry.


My mom is still a bit uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage (she's 67; old dogs and all that), but she supports it since she feels that is isn't fair otherwise.
 
2012-08-01 08:56:03 AM  

o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

The State only started caring about marriage in the first place when Racist southern Democrats, wanting to keep the races from mixing, required people to get a marriage license from the courthouse. There's no reason why the state should have any business knowing whom anyone decides to take up as a spouse.



Would you eliminate spousal privilege from the courts? Deny spouses next of kin rights in a probate court?
 
2012-08-01 08:56:22 AM  
i'm under the impression this is really about sex
if conservatives don't want the gays to have sex...
...let 'em get married
 
2012-08-01 08:57:10 AM  

o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.


But bible beating freaks want the government to encourage marriage. What to do, what to do?
 
2012-08-01 09:02:48 AM  

fracto: LasersHurt: fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.

Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat


It is interesting to replace the word murder with one of these synonyms.

I looked out my window and saw a gay marriage of crows fly overhead.


Man, the Brazilian Women's team got gay marriaged by the American team...

Actually, i'mOKwiththis.png
 
2012-08-01 09:08:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

But bible beating freaks want the government to encourage marriage. What to do, what to do?


Not to mention the other 1,137 federal laws providing benefits for marriage. Should we get rid of all of those as well?
 
2012-08-01 09:10:39 AM  
The GOP is on suicide watch today.

First this ruling, and today medical benefits for the women at the company I work for include birth control with NO COPAY.

It feels good living in a society that is starting to progress.
 
2012-08-01 09:21:47 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It can get out of Congress, and Obama will not be president forever. I hope against hope, but I've seen too much hate and too much lip service (DADT, anyone?) and too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.


DADT was a bad law, no denying that. But what people usually forget was that it was a step forward. DADT was written as a compromise between Clinton, who wanted gays to be able to serve openly, and Congress, which wanted to write the existing regulatory ban into federal law. Yes, DADT was shiatty, but at least Clinton got some of the corn and peanuts of out the previous laws.
 
2012-08-01 09:22:19 AM  

randomjsa: This is nice but for those of you thinking this is some major step forward you're mistaken.

The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.


You're going to see that happen in at least one state this November...more than likely all three that can do that this year (Washington, Maryland, and Maine). And you'll probably see another state finally win a vote to prevent a constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry as well (Minnesota).
 
2012-08-01 09:23:34 AM  
 
2012-08-01 09:23:46 AM  

PanicMan: Not to mention the other 1,137 federal laws providing benefits for marriage. Should we get rid of all of those as well?


Again, why should the government play favors with a particular individual who belongs to a group?

Equal protection under the law shouldn't mean "Free shiat if you're married"

fracto: Would you eliminate spousal privilege from the courts? Deny spouses next of kin rights in a probate court?


No, I but I would have spousal privilege extended to homosexual couples who demonstrate the criteria for a common law marriage. After all, we are supposed to be a society which offers equal protection under the law. Any two people in the US can find a lawyer to merge property or assets regardless of kin relation so it should be on them to set the terms of the estate.

This Gay marriage question is a problem associated with those who wish to seek their rights from government. Two people can walk into a church and get married if the church allows it and nobody is forced to go to any particular church. The problem is when the state has set up thousands of laws, benefits and policies favorable or unfavorable to a particular group via the tax or benefit code.
 
2012-08-01 09:25:04 AM  

DeltaPunch: You know the HouBenevolent Misanthrope: WhyteRaven74: Benevolent Misanthrope: too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.

Considering gay marriage is now a part of the Democratic platform, those days are on their way out.

I hope so. Truly. But I've seen too much to get elated just yet.

You know the House just passed a bill to ban same-sex marriages on military bases (because jobs!), and only 17 Democrats voted in favor, right?

The Vice-President has come out in favor of gay marriage, the President has come out in favor of it, and it's now formally a part of the Democratic party platform. Sure, I'm a little skeptical too, but there's certainly enough momentum to start feeling a little elated...


A gay marriage ban wouldn't be able to rustle up the 60 votes needed in the Senate right now, and as time goes on, that number will dwindle. Barring a seismic shift going against current trends, there's no way another federal gay marriage ban would pass Congress.
 
2012-08-01 09:26:39 AM  

o5iiawah: The problem is when the state has set up thousands of laws, benefits and policies favorable or unfavorable to a particular group via the tax or benefit code.


Till that is changed if ever, same sex marriage should be totally legal with all the benefits right?
 
2012-08-01 09:26:42 AM  

o5iiawah: The problem is when the state has set up thousands of laws, benefits and policies favorable or unfavorable to a particular group via the tax or benefit code.


Nobody had much of an issue with any of it until gay people started demanding access.
 
2012-08-01 09:34:30 AM  
Scalia's ruling: homosex isn't in the Constitution. Your "right to privacy" is a fiction, so the States absolutely can intrude on your sex life and issue marriage licenses as they see fit.

Logic: heterosex and all kinds of marriage are also not in the Constitution. Also, States are empowered to grant licenses as they see fit, and enjoined (except for DOMA) from capriciously disregarding the licenses and privileges granted under another state's law. It's why my Maryland driver's license is good in DC and VA (which is good, because I commute through there).

// also, if the 4th Amendment does not generally describe a "right to privacy", what the hell good is it?
 
2012-08-01 09:35:52 AM  

slayer199: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

Yes it will be. The problem is that the social conservatives think it's only liberals when in reality it's people that think it's none of the government's damn business if 2 consenting adults choose to marry.


Hardly. Pretty much everyone still wants the .gov all up in there.
 
2012-08-01 09:36:31 AM  

Aar1012: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that


Roberts is worried about his legacy. He might just be rational enough to strike down DOMA, and this particular court won't see a Roe v Wade challenge.

It's one of the reasons I am voting for Obama, to balance what is supposed to be an impartial court when (in all likelihood) we have another justice retire in the next 4 years.
 
2012-08-01 09:38:13 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Rights should not be put up to a popular vote.


Of course they shouldn't but right or wrong the best step forward will come after, and only after, a popular vote. Whether that's right or fair is beside the point.

Serious Black: You're going to see that happen in at least one state this November...more than likely all three that can do that this year (Washington, Maryland, and Maine). And you'll probably see another state finally win a vote to prevent a constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry as well (Minnesota).


Maryland or Maine would be best, but Washington should work too. As long as it is not California or Vermont.
 
2012-08-01 09:39:24 AM  
Bush-appointed judge rules federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

Ah, those Bushies really excel when you happen to lob a slow ball of obvious at them.
 
2012-08-01 09:42:10 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.


Like Obama would sign it?
 
2012-08-01 09:42:52 AM  

o5iiawah: fracto: Would you eliminate spousal privilege from the courts? Deny spouses next of kin rights in a probate court?

No, I but I would have spousal privilege extended to homosexual couples who demonstrate the criteria for a common law marriage.



Once again the government is defining marriage and the same people will oppose you.
 
2012-08-01 09:45:53 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one.


Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."
 
2012-08-01 09:50:53 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Three Crooked Squirrels: Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one.

Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."


And that's why it's almost certain that Scalia and Thomas (maybe Alito as well) will issue an opinion that homosexual behavior is disgusting so DOMA is constitutional. I hope I'm wrong and that it's a unanimous takedown, but I think my time would be better spent waiting for Godot.
 
2012-08-01 09:51:23 AM  

trivial use of my dark powers: slayer199: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

Yes it will be. The problem is that the social conservatives think it's only liberals when in reality it's people that think it's none of the government's damn business if 2 consenting adults choose to marry.

My mom is still a bit uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage (she's 67; old dogs and all that), but she supports it since she feels that is isn't fair otherwise.


You have a nice Mom.
 
2012-08-01 09:51:50 AM  
Who cares who appointed him? The Constitution is quite clear that what is allowed for one citizen is allowed for all citizens.
 
2012-08-01 09:52:18 AM  

way south: The constitution is a document that lays out how government functions, not how marriages work.
In the bill of rights it says we have the freedom to associate. Lets assume that if I can pick my crowd, I can pick my lover.

If the fed cant control it and the state can't ban it, its probably legal.

This is the kind of mess that happens when you mix up your church and state. Now that we're in the business of handing out benefits to married people, it seems unfair to try and break up relationships or claim that not all marriages are created equal.


RINO like typing skills detected.
 
2012-08-01 09:57:33 AM  
Welcome aboard, Connecticut (and soon, the 2nd Circuit)!
 
2012-08-01 09:58:44 AM  

SpaceyCat: This is a wonderful step forward. I'm hoping that it continues forward. I know the Religious Right is having a fit of apoplexy.



They've been having a fit since the 60s.
 
2012-08-01 10:00:16 AM  
Incidentally, if anyone is keeping score on DoMA, we've got the 1st Circuit and 9th Circuit, plus New York and Connecticut districts. On the other side is the 8th Circuit, but only by implication, and it's decision could be read as irrelevant as it applied to a state constitutional amendment, not a federal law.
 
2012-08-01 10:03:36 AM  
Let's all go get a fried chicken sandwich to celebrate!

/And some of those 9/11 fries, too!
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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








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