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.

(Prop 8 Trial Tracker)   Fate of Prop 8 will be known on Oct. 1st   (prop8trialtracker.com) divider line 200
    More: Cool, October 1st, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, freedom to marry, gay marriage ban, NOM  
•       •       •

4284 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2012 at 10:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-15 01:26:52 AM
This is good news.
 
2012-09-15 01:31:50 AM
This is a big deal.
 
2012-09-15 01:34:39 AM
This should be interesting
 
2012-09-15 02:01:12 AM
This is bad news for.... NOBODY!

No one will lose rights, or be negatively effected in any way, and that's precisely why this law will be over turned.
 
2012-09-15 02:23:00 AM
Prop H8 needs to go.
 
2012-09-15 02:26:03 AM

Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.


c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker
 
2012-09-15 02:26:57 AM

Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.


You know what else needs to go?

/the zealot religious cult that bankrolled it
 
2012-09-15 02:48:19 AM

Rabbitgod: No one will lose rights, or be negatively effected in any way, and that's precisely why this law will be over turned.


You must live in an magical world where SCOTUS makes choices based on individual rights, the make up of the court today favors corporations and states at this moment.
The best thing would be let the lower courts decisions stand instead of codifying bigotry into constitutional laws..and wait for a more favorable SCOTUS makeup.

In today's court, I even doubt interracial marriages would be struck down.
 
2012-09-15 10:14:54 AM
FTFA: This is it.

No it f*cking isn't, and neither was CA Prop 22. Blah, blah SCOTUS...

Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.
 
2012-09-15 10:20:12 AM

generalDisdain: FTFA: This is it.

No it f*cking isn't, and neither was CA Prop 22. Blah, blah SCOTUS...

Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.


that bathwater is too dirty, better throw out the baby as well...
 
2012-09-15 10:21:59 AM

FeedTheCollapse: that bathwater is too dirty, better throw out the baby as well...


Opinions, assholes...
 
2012-09-15 10:22:24 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.

You know what else needs to go?

/the zealot religious cult that bankrolled it


Which one? The Church of Latter-Day Saints? The Salvation Army?
 
2012-09-15 10:27:45 AM

generalDisdain: Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.


The religious aspect of marriage isn't marriage.

A marriage contract is a property sharing agreement between two people with build in provisions for offspring first and foremost.

That some guy in a dress mumbled some words in a funny looking building at some point is nice and all but it's hardly important

*blink*
 
2012-09-15 10:34:58 AM
First in District Court in 2010, and then at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012

Don't mean sheet. They are usually overruled.
 
2012-09-15 10:36:36 AM
A normal SCOTUS would say frkkit and let the lower court invalidation of Prop h8 stand. But the Activist Judgestm that we have now might be horny to make same gender marriage illegal for everyone forever.
 
2012-09-15 10:38:18 AM

generalDisdain: FTFA:
"Just... abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.


I've always kinda liked this idea although implementing it could be a problem. The cat is long outta the bag. Do you grandfather the tax breaks, citizenship statuses, etc. for already legally married couples and deny any new couples that opportunity? Or simply and immediately revoke all marriage benefits across the board.
But the real rub is not the marriage itself. Legal marriage is not so much about marriage as it is about divorce. If all couples are legally just essentially "dating", how do you negotiate a fair break-up? Say one spouse works while the other is in medical school or the like. Or one gives up a career altogether for whatever reason, that person is screwed if the other just up and leaves. And jeez how about all their "stuff"? Law suits would be rampant and where do you draw the line? Say you've dated someone for a year, would it be reasonable to sue them for the car you've borrowed occasionally or the house you lived in?
 
2012-09-15 10:40:01 AM
Best case- they hear it and vote 9-0 to overturn sending a clear message all these state amendments will be stuck down.
Will not happen because 2 of the justices get $$$ and support from right wing groups. Their money will trump common sense.

Second best case-
they decline to hear it. Sends almost as clear a message and strikes the law down.

Worst case-
Bigotry is validated by the US Supreme Court.
 
2012-09-15 10:40:28 AM

Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.


In basic terms, a constitution is simply a set of written rules or an agreement governing the aims of
your organisation, how it will be run and how the members will work together. The people of California got what they wanted.
 
2012-09-15 10:43:57 AM
Why would anybody want to get married?
 
2012-09-15 10:45:03 AM

smitty04: Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.

In basic terms, a constitution is simply a set of written rules or an agreement governing the aims of
your organisation, how it will be run and how the members will work together. The people of California got what they wanted.


Which would be fine if it didn't violate the constitution by trampling on the rights of gays/lesbians.
 
2012-09-15 10:51:50 AM

generalDisdain: FTFA: This is it.

No it f*cking isn't, and neither was CA Prop 22. Blah, blah SCOTUS...

Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.


Which do you think is easier: unwraveling the entire social construct built around marriage as a contract between two people, so there'd no longer be any legal path to claiming survivorship benefits to money and property

OR

Start printing license certificates with spouse/spouse instead of husband/wife.

I understand some people have strong feelings about the word marriage and they feel that it's sacred and all that but at some point they need to grow the fark up and realize that they live in a society with other people.
 
2012-09-15 11:00:23 AM

Rabbitgod: This is bad news for.... NOBODY!

No one will lose rights, or be negatively effected in any way, and that's precisely why this law will be over turned.


But it will destroy the institution of marriage... retroactively.

www.bsos.umd.edu
 
2012-09-15 11:02:31 AM
That's not actually what the story says...
 
2012-09-15 11:02:49 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.

You know what else needs to go?

/the zealot religious cult that bankrolled it


Whoa there, hoss. That cult's gonna become the law of the land for all when its Messiah is elected in just shy of two months.

And your name is on the list of those of insufficient faith...
 
2012-09-15 11:17:24 AM
The 8 is feminine and the 1 is masculine. This is a bad omen.

/I don't care how round the O is.
//or how busty the P is.
 
2012-09-15 11:18:33 AM

Ablejack: generalDisdain: FTFA:
"Just... abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.

I've always kinda liked this idea although implementing it could be a problem. The cat is long outta the bag. Do you grandfather the tax breaks, citizenship statuses, etc. for already legally married couples and deny any new couples that opportunity? Or simply and immediately revoke all marriage benefits across the board.


Kind of simple, actually. Just change all legal marriages to legal civil unions, and allow any two consenting adults to have a civil union (which is legally identical to the old marriage). We can allow for more than two consenting adults, if we want, but that would require changes in the tax law, and probably some crafty tax lawyers to figure it out.

Meanwhile, all marriages will be done through your religion of choice. A person can get married through their church and have a civil union through the state at the same time. This allows for everyone to be treated the same under the law and allows religious folk to keep their religious sanctity (and remember, some religions allow gay marriage). And as a bonus, it separates church and state a little more.
 
2012-09-15 11:21:11 AM

StoneColdAtheist: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lorelle: Prop H8 needs to go.

You know what else needs to go?

/the zealot religious cult that bankrolled it

Whoa there, hoss. That cult's gonna become the law of the land for all when its Messiah is elected in just shy of two months.

And your name is on the list of those of insufficient faith...


Not really. They'll just baptize him without his knowledge. They already do that posthumously, what's to stop them from doing it while the person is still alive?
 
2012-09-15 11:26:15 AM
I believe the Supreme Court will hear Prop 8 and they will uphold it. It's not about bigotry, but the people's vote that justices might trample on and the DOMA. The 14th Amendment does not apply to GLBT, but to people of different races. When that amendment was drafted, it reflected the post Civil War era for freed African Americans.
 
2012-09-15 11:26:44 AM
Dear SCOTUS,

Please uphold that law.
As a totally, totally straight and secure California male, I am terrified of becoming a lustful cockmonster.

Thank you
 
2012-09-15 11:32:27 AM

sirrerun: Dear SCOTUS,

Please uphold that law.
As a totally, totally straight and secure California male, I am terrified of becoming a lustful cockmonster.

Thank you


Well you're already a cockmonster

/Poe's law, I know
 
2012-09-15 11:36:48 AM
The wargarble butt hurt is strong with this one
 
2012-09-15 11:37:01 AM

Funk Brothers: The 14th Amendment does not apply to GLBT, but to people of different races. When that amendment was drafted, it reflected the post Civil War era for freed African Americans.


And when the 2nd Amendment was written, it applied to muskets.
 
2012-09-15 11:44:25 AM
No way SCOTUS touches this. 9th Circuit stands.

Book it. Done.
 
2012-09-15 11:44:45 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Funk Brothers: The 14th Amendment does not apply to GLBT, but to people of different races. When that amendment was drafted, it reflected the post Civil War era for freed African Americans.

And when the 2nd Amendment was written, it applied to muskets.


I'm glad I'm not the only one to have this thought.
 
2012-09-15 11:49:44 AM

quatchi: generalDisdain: Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.

The religious aspect of marriage isn't marriage.

A marriage contract is a property sharing agreement between two people with build in provisions for offspring first and foremost.

That some guy in a dress mumbled some words in a funny looking building at some point is nice and all but it's hardly important

*blink*


You sound single.
 
Boe
2012-09-15 11:50:42 AM

generalDisdain: FTFA: This is it.

No it f*cking isn't, and neither was CA Prop 22. Blah, blah SCOTUS...

Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.


People already get married according to their faith. And atheists and agnostics get married too. Are you saying they should not be allowed to get married?
 
2012-09-15 11:53:00 AM

Boe: generalDisdain: FTFA: This is it.

No it f*cking isn't, and neither was CA Prop 22. Blah, blah SCOTUS...

Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.

People already get married according to their faith. And atheists and agnostics get married too. Are you saying they should not be allowed to get married?


You know, this question has probably been brought up before, but why are religious folk who are against gay marriage not also against atheistic marriage? Doesn't that also ruin their sanctity?
 
2012-09-15 11:53:16 AM

Ablejack: generalDisdain: FTFA:
"Just... abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.

I've always kinda liked this idea although implementing it could be a problem. The cat is long outta the bag. Do you grandfather the tax breaks, citizenship statuses, etc. for already legally married couples and deny any new couples that opportunity? Or simply and immediately revoke all marriage benefits across the board.
But the real rub is not the marriage itself. Legal marriage is not so much about marriage as it is about divorce. If all couples are legally just essentially "dating", how do you negotiate a fair break-up? Say one spouse works while the other is in medical school or the like. Or one gives up a career altogether for whatever reason, that person is screwed if the other just up and leaves. And jeez how about all their "stuff"? Law suits would be rampant and where do you draw the line? Say you've dated someone for a year, would it be reasonable to sue them for the car you've borrowed occasionally or the house you lived in?


the only 'marriage' the gov't should concern itself with is whats involved with getting that piece of paper from the court house. THATS ALL. if you want to get 'married' or have a ceremony in a church, mosque or a mini mall, thats perfectly fine. in the eyes of the law, all of that counts for all of jack shiat. its a superfluous and i'd even argue vestigial practice that is so inconsequential legally that it really can't be improved upon. and thats a good thing.

anyone can add their own bit of hocus pocus to their wedding ceremony and nobody really gives a shiat. but what happens when the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo becomes a requirement for licensing a legally recognized marriage? whats to stop a political group from deciding only religious ceremonies performed in their faith or denomination are the only way to have a legal marriage??

i know, i know, 1st amendment...separation an all that...

just bear in mind the fruit cakes who would be capable of doing something like that already think the separation clause doesn't exist.
 
2012-09-15 11:56:09 AM
In Mass, it's just chilling what marriage equality has done. People joining in marriage, church attendance is up in those ministries that provide for same sex marriage, investments in homes together have pretty much stayed the same, but pet adoptions have gone up, and registries have meant increased sales to merchants, as well as bookings for halls, caterers and planners. Folks are investing in their communities, and planning on staying longer, thanks to acceptance in their communities, and oddly enough, communities are drawn together with less protest, and more folks pulling together.
 
2012-09-15 11:56:11 AM
whitman00:

Best case- they hear it and vote 9-0 to overturn sending a clear message all these state amendments will be stuck down. Religious bigots will use their unlimited funds and patience to keep trying with another prop, chipping away year after year.

Second best case- they decline to hear it. Sends almost as clear a message and strikes the law down. Religious bigots will use their unlimited funds and patience to keep trying with another prop, chipping away year after year.

Worst case- Bigotry is validated by the US Supreme Court. Religious bigots will use their unlimited funds and patience to start marginalizing a different class of people not exactly like them.
 
Boe
2012-09-15 11:58:06 AM

mgshamster: Boe: generalDisdain: FTFA: This is it.

No it f*cking isn't, and neither was CA Prop 22. Blah, blah SCOTUS...

Just f*cking abolish legal marriage for everyone, and let the people who want to get married according to their faith do so.

People already get married according to their faith. And atheists and agnostics get married too. Are you saying they should not be allowed to get married?

You know, this question has probably been brought up before, but why are religious folk who are against gay marriage not also against atheistic marriage? Doesn't that also ruin their sanctity?


I imagine it's easier to spot two gays trying to marry than it is two atheists.

It all comes down to people who are not simply exercising their right to marry according to their faith. It's their incessant need to control the actions of people who do not share their beliefs.
 
2012-09-15 11:58:31 AM

whitman00: Best case- they hear it and vote 9-0 to overturn sending a clear message all these state amendments will be stuck down.
Will not happen because 2 of the justices get $$$ and support from right wing groups. Their money will trump common sense.

Second best case- they decline to hear it. Sends almost as clear a message and strikes the law down.

Worst case- Bigotry is validated by the US Supreme Court.


Most likely IMO is second best case. I can't wait for all the supporters of this and other anti-gay propositions to be officially labeled by the court of the land as unconstitutional bigots, of the same ilk as racist assholes of the early 20th century.

Like the look of that bed bigots? Because you're about to get to lie in it.

\bigots
 
2012-09-15 11:58:33 AM

hubiestubert: In Mass, it's just chilling what marriage equality has done. People joining in marriage, church attendance is up in those ministries that provide for same sex marriage, investments in homes together have pretty much stayed the same, but pet adoptions have gone up, and registries have meant increased sales to merchants, as well as bookings for halls, caterers and planners. Folks are investing in their communities, and planning on staying longer, thanks to acceptance in their communities, and oddly enough, communities are drawn together with less protest, and more folks pulling together.


The storm has come, and it's every bit as bad as they feared.
 
2012-09-15 11:59:26 AM
I've been saying this ever since the 9th struck it down. SCOTUS won't hear it. Why? It's a single amendment that, at this time, applies to only 1 state and 1 scenario. No state has yet used propositions to take away already established marriage from gay people except California.

Washington is the only other state that remotely touches fits the scenario that Prop 8 created and they haven't even implemented gay marriage yet so it too wouldn't have a SCOTUS decision from prop 8 apply to it.

It's too specific to one state and overturning it "solves" a problem that doesn't exist for the other 49 states.
 
2012-09-15 12:00:48 PM

Funk Brothers: I believe the Supreme Court will hear Prop 8 and they will uphold it. It's not about bigotry, but the people's vote that justices might trample on and the DOMA. The 14th Amendment does not apply to GLBT, but to people of different races. When that amendment was drafted, it reflected the post Civil War era for freed African Americans.


WHO it applied to is not the point. The PRINCIPLE (denying rights to sub-groups within the larger group of US citizens) is what's going to be argued here. Try to take the derp out for just one second, pretty please.
 
2012-09-15 12:02:13 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And when the 2nd Amendment was written, it applied to muskets arms.

 
2012-09-15 12:05:02 PM

hubiestubert: In Mass, it's just chilling what marriage equality has done. People joining in marriage, church attendance is up in those ministries that provide for same sex marriage, investments in homes together have pretty much stayed the same, butpet adoptions have gone up, and registries have meant increased sales to merchants, as well as bookings for halls, caterers and planners. Folks are investing in their communities, and planning on staying longer, thanks to acceptance in their communities, and oddly enough, communities are drawn together with less protest, and more folks pulling together.


Are cats and dogs living together?

THAT'S HOW THE APOCALYPSE STARTS, MAN!
 
2012-09-15 12:05:31 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Religious bigots will use their unlimited funds and patience to keep trying with another prop, chipping away year after year.


I can see it now:
Prop 1: Caterers for gay weddings must pay a 15,000$/year and enter a lottery to win one of five licenses to legally cater.
Prop 69: gay marriage has to be held in buildings where doors open outward to protect gay people getting married in a building where a fire could happen
Prop 187: People who perform gay marriage must be licensed Paramedics because the 1000's of people dying at gay marriage ceremonies each year is a "tragedy"
Prop 420: Forced blood tests for gays getting married because, you know, we want to protect other gays from getting teh AIDS
 
2012-09-15 12:06:01 PM

Rich Cream: LouDobbsAwaaaay: And when the 2nd Amendment was written, it applied to muskets arms.


Arms being ... muskets. Oh, and knives. So you can also have knives.
 
2012-09-15 12:06:47 PM

Rich Cream: LouDobbsAwaaaay: And when the 2nd Amendment was written, it applied to muskets armsbear arms.


picrocker.com
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report