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 209
    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  
•       •       •

4453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 5:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 02:40:48 PM

Serious Black: sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.

Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.


I think (hope) you need your sarcasm detector rechecked.
 
2012-08-01 02:54:48 PM

Theaetetus: Serious Black: sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.

Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.

I think (hope) you need your sarcasm detector rechecked.


Maybe a bit. The first thing that popped into my head reading that was the second-rated wife sneaking up on the first-rated wife in the middle of the night and lynching her like Dexter though, so I got that going for me.
 
2012-08-01 03:00:21 PM

Serious Black: Theaetetus: Serious Black: sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.

Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.

I think (hope) you need your sarcasm detector rechecked.

Maybe a bit. The first thing that popped into my head reading that was the second-rated wife sneaking up on the first-rated wife in the middle of the night and lynching her like Dexter though, so I got that going for me.


But if they work together, they can take out the husband and split the assets.
 
2012-08-01 06:23:25 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: 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.


How much has the court changed since Lawrence vs. Texas?
 
2012-08-01 06:31:12 PM

Serious Black: how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.


If a unanimous agreement is required to bring anyone new into the marriage, that might work in practice to limit the size of group marriages. Except in the case of cults, where the charismatic leader wants to be married to all of the women and everyone in the cult does whatever the charismatic leader says.
 
2012-08-01 06:52:53 PM

relcec: the only reason you don't see it as a real possibility the roberts court will strike down DOMA is because that is the last thing on earth you want.


I'm a Liberal and I want it to be struck down. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Liberals actually believe gay people should be allowed to get married. How we get there and the political usefulness of the topic is secondary.
 
2012-08-01 07:09:28 PM

mrshowrules: relcec: the only reason you don't see it as a real possibility the roberts court will strike down DOMA is because that is the last thing on earth you want.

I'm a Liberal and I want it to be struck down. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Liberals actually believe gay people should be allowed to get married. How we get there and the political usefulness of the topic is secondary.


I'm not a liberal (or a conservative) and I want it struck down. To be clear, social conservatives are the only ones in favor of DOMA and the GOP has been kissing fundie ass for 15+ years. That is why a majority of he population supports gay marriage.
 
2012-08-01 07:58:32 PM

relcec: lest you forget, the democrats have been on the wrong side of this policy as well since time immemorial up until a few moments ago.


While the majority of neither Democrats nor Republicans have been on the "right" (support of legalizing gay marriage) side of this policy until quite recently, Democrats have been closer to it than Republicans consistently since at least 1988. This is even more the case for Liberals versus Conservatives.
 
2012-08-01 10:55:24 PM
WTF? I don't even!!!1!

You mean ANOTHER Republican appointed judge was appointed without a litmus strip swabbed across his forehead?

Stupid libtard liars.
 
Displayed 9 of 209 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report