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.

(Right Wing Watch)   Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger   (rightwingwatch.org) divider line 222
    More: Interesting, Tea Party Nation, gay equality, court of public opinion, free market economy, same-sex marriages, dogs  
•       •       •

3794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Aug 2012 at 5:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-05 07:51:57 AM
Like we haven't been hearing that smug, sneering argument for the past decade. "If you let the homos get married next it will be legal when Hillary Clinton comes to your house and cold ass-rapes your German Shepherd!"
 
2012-08-05 08:05:43 AM

jso2897: BuckTurgidson: Taxed Enough Already.

It's all about fiscal responsibility and limited government.

[i18.photobucket.com image 468x340]

"Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho"


24.media.tumblr.com

"I forgot my mantra."
 
2012-08-05 08:56:31 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false downright farking retarded.


There...
 
2012-08-05 09:44:48 AM

geek_mars: bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything.


Very simply put: He says marriage has been defined as "one man + one woman" for three thousand years when his own family (and religious tradition) defined it differently. That makes his statement both false and hypocritical.


My great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a slave owner. I abhor the idea of slavery, but I don't feel in any way responsible for my greatx5 grandfather's participation in it and I'm certainly not to blame for it.

You're not saying something moronic like, "Every person in America has always been a citizen with equal rights."
 
2012-08-05 12:24:02 PM

machoprogrammer: No, it is not. The Mormons already tried that, and the supreme court ruled that you are free to practice any religion you want, as long as practicing doesn't break any existing laws.


When was the last time this was "tried"?
Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?

Forget the mormons for the time being and their lawsuits in the US. Plural marriage is part of Islam. Islam is a religion. The first amendment is sacrosanct "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefore the law banning plural marriage prohibits muslims from the free exercise of their religion and the law is unconstitutional. Period.

(Yes, I have no problem with laws preventing you from sacrificing children or adults in the name of your religion. The sacrifice would interfere with the victims rights. But what about willing adult sacrifices?? )

It cracks me up that we only protect SOME parts of the constitution.
 
2012-08-05 12:33:35 PM
Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,[5] although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.[6]

It really is strange. The laws are CLEARLY unconstitutional and any strict constructionist would agree and yet the court continues to ignore these unconstitutional laws.
 
2012-08-05 12:43:52 PM

namatad: When was the last time this was "tried"?


i suppose it depends on how specific you want to get. Would you like the Reynolds v. United States or Employment Division v. Smith?


namatad: Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?


I see you are struggling with the concept of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
2012-08-05 12:44:48 PM

namatad: It really is strange


Baffling, even.
 
2012-08-05 01:14:10 PM

thamike: namatad: Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?

I see you are struggling with the concept of the U.S. Supreme Court.


LOL
no, nice try. My question is how do strict constructionists defend these laws? Clearly they fail any first amendment test. so what further test is being applied to keep the laws? Strict scrutiny alone could be used to throw out state bigamy laws.
 
2012-08-05 01:22:27 PM

thamike: Would you like the Reynolds v. United States (1878)


and I guess my question is: why hasnt there been addition challenges since reynolds ? My guess is that there have been tons of cases which scotus has refused to hear.

Employment Division v. Smith? that shiat just makes my head spin.
You are legally allowed to do peyote as part of your religion (during services? all the time?)
You are fired from your job for being on drugs? LOL. I can understand being arrested for DUI, public safety trumping religious freedom. I can understand being fired if your drug use affects you ability to do your job.

BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
the whole drug law situation in the US is such an abortion to start with.
 
2012-08-05 01:48:25 PM

namatad: LOL
no, nice try.


You can laugh out loud and tell everybody that it's what you are doing all you want. it won't change the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You know it's okay to personally disagree with Supreme Court decisions without stupidly calling them "unconstitutional," right?
 
2012-08-05 03:08:45 PM

themindiswatching: Someone sounds...butthurt.


Or wishes he was.
 
2012-08-05 03:29:17 PM

bibli0phile: geek_mars: bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Very simply put: He says marriage has been defined as "one man + one woman" for three thousand years when his own family (and religious tradition) defined it differently. That makes his statement both false and hypocritical.


I wasn't aware he'd made that statement quite that way. That clears a lot of things up.

namatad: machoprogrammer: No, it is not. The Mormons already tried that, and the supreme court ruled that you are free to practice any religion you want, as long as practicing doesn't break any existing laws.

When was the last time this was "tried"?
Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?

Forget the mormons for the time being and their lawsuits in the US. Plural marriage is part of Islam. Islam is a religion. The first amendment is sacrosanct "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefore the law banning plural marriage prohibits muslims from the free exercise of their religion and the law is unconstitutional. Period.

(Yes, I have no problem with laws preventing you from sacrificing children or adults in the name of your religion. The sacrifice would interfere with the victims rights. But what about willing adult sacrifices?? )

It cracks me up that we only protect SOME parts of the constitution.


My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

If you consider some of the more radical fringe groups (Warren Jeffs and the FLDS comes to mind), the law never goes after them for having multiple wives. They only go after them for sex with minors when one (or more) of their wives aren't of age.
 
2012-08-05 04:09:03 PM
Roook: I only support gay marriage so that one day, hopefully, I can marry my television. And we will live happily ever after!

25.media.tumblr.com

Approves
 
2012-08-05 04:16:29 PM
geek_mars: bibli0phile: geek_mars: bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Very simply put: He says marriage has been defined as "one man + one woman" for three thousand years when his own family (and religious tradition) defined it differently. That makes his statement both false and hypocritical.

I wasn't aware he'd made that statement quite that way. That clears a lot of things up.


You can watch it here.

The statement is at the very end of the video
 
2012-08-05 04:21:30 PM
geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

One case that comes to mind is a man legally married and divorced a number of women but continued living with them was determined to be in multiple common law marriages and therefore convicted of bigamy. So, depending on state laws, that could be an issue even if only part of a single civil marriage.
 
2012-08-05 04:37:24 PM
geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

strangely enough, a number of states make this type of living together a crime
Link
 
2012-08-06 10:18:34 AM

dywed88: geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

One case that comes to mind is a man legally married and divorced a number of women but continued living with them was determined to be in multiple common law marriages and therefore convicted of bigamy. So, depending on state laws, that could be an issue even if only part of a single civil marriage.


Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

namatad: geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

strangely enough, a number of states make this type of living together a crime
Link


"Unlawful cohabitation"!? Seriously? I understand why most laws are necessary, but this just seems like blatantly telling people how to live.

I swear, more and more frequently I find myself understanding some of these "break-away" and "splinter" groups that setup their stupid compounds and tell the government to fark off so they can be left alone. I'm not ready to join them (any of them), but I'm definitely starting to understand it.
 
2012-08-06 10:34:04 AM

geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.


You don't understand common law marriage. Try looking it up in wikipedia.
 
2012-08-06 10:42:31 AM

geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.


As a person with three immediate family members living in common law relationships (well, two since a couple weeks ago) I am going to disagree.
 
2012-08-06 10:56:21 PM

Babwa Wawa: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

You don't understand common law marriage. Try looking it up in wikipedia.


dywed88: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

As a person with three immediate family members living in common law relationships (well, two since a couple weeks ago) I am going to disagree.


I stand corrected.

From wiki: Common law marriage should not be confused with non-marital relationship contracts, which involves two people living together without holding themselves out to the world as spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed.

/confused common-law marriage with statutory marriage
//actually sitting here corrected
 
2012-08-07 07:37:01 AM

geek_mars: Babwa Wawa: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

You don't understand common law marriage. Try looking it up in wikipedia.

dywed88: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

As a person with three immediate family members living in common law relationships (well, two since a couple weeks ago) I am going to disagree.

I stand corrected.

From wiki: Common law marriage should not be confused with non-marital relationship contracts, which involves two people living together without holding themselves out to the world as spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed.

/confused common-law marriage with statutory marriage
//actually sitting here corrected


Huh? Statutory marriage actually involves a marriage certificate from the government. Most people who are married have a statutory marriage, I'd imagine.

In neither case can you shack up with a person then wake up some days or months later to find yourself married to them without your consent.
 
Displayed 22 of 222 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