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.

(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  
•       •       •

4286 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 02:29:23 PM  

Biological Ali: There are some who would argue that regardless of the extent you've supposedly gone to in making the rights "equal" the fact that they're "separate" nonetheless makes it inherently unequal.


Domestic partnership law in California was brought in by an SF Democrat and pushed by Democrats. This isn't 1890s Louisiana.

Biological Ali: So shouldn't you be arguing against the bigots then, since the law has already been struck down, and these "billions" are allegedly being wasted on appeals trying to bring it back?


And the billions both sides wasted bringing it into existence. This is all a monumental waste of money in this state. Do it in another state, where it actually means something real and tangible.
 
2012-09-15 02:30:18 PM  

bhcompy: Biological Ali: qorkfiend: bhcompy: NowhereMon: This is a big deal.

Not really. Regardless of what happens, gay marriage rights in CA remain the exact same. The only difference is whether it will be called "marriage" or "domestic partnership", because the laws underneath both are the exact same.

A separate yet equal distinction? I can see why some people might not be thrilled about such a thing.

That argument, circa 1950: "Regardless of what happens, black and white people will have exactly the same rights. The only difference is whether the water fountain will be labeled "White" or "Coloured". The pipes supplying water to both are the exact same."

Yet the fountain is the same height and just as clean in this case, and it's not behind the dumpster either. Like I said, the rights, in practice in this state today, are the same. It's a word. Billions of dollars wasted for a word


A word that a sizeable portion of the population will use to legitimize treatment of another portion of the population as secondary citizens.

If all sides could accept your point, I could be apt to agree with you. But a disturbingly large part of our country, like the 1950s/1960s, won't stop their bigotry so must be forced by a constitutional decree by SCOTUS.

/And honestly, they won't stop after that, but at least their chances of success are nigh zero and their credibility is much lower
 
2012-09-15 02:34:56 PM  

LordOfThePings: 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 image 800x600]


Chart is strange. maximum of 22 divorces per 100 women? That sounds several hundred too low.
 
2012-09-15 02:36:08 PM  

bhcompy: And the billions both sides wasted bringing it into existence. This is all a monumental waste of money in this state. Do it in another state, where it actually means something real and tangible.


This really, really isn't a "both sides" issue. One side brought this amendment into place, had it struck down by state supreme court, brought it back into place, had it struck down in federal court, and is now appealing to have it brought back (again). 

This isn't 1890s Louisiana.


The concept that "separate but equal" is "inherently unequal" comes from a much more recent time period than that.
 
2012-09-15 02:44:15 PM  

smitty04:

The conservative State of Indiana requires an HIV/aids test as a condition of getting married. Makes sense.


No it doesn't. Why should someone who is HIV positive be unable to be married? HAART therapy drastically reduces the chance of transmission so if the person is on medication and condoms are used, it's perfectly possible to safely be in a mixed-status relationship. Why should such a couple be refused a marriage license? And if they are thinking that it's a matter of simple disclosure, then it's still stupid. For the majority of couples that ship sailed long ago.
 
2012-09-15 02:59:16 PM  
Did you ever hear of "Liberty and Justice, FOR ALL"? Or is that just lip service? You farkin commie bastards.
 
2012-09-15 03:01:35 PM  

Rich Cream: Did you ever hear of "Liberty and Justice, FOR ALL"? Or is that just lip service? You farkin commie bastards.


When that was written, there were no gheys. Therefore, teh gheys weren't considered to be a part of "all" and cannot be grandfathered into experiencing liberty or justice.

/Check and mate.
 
2012-09-15 03:06:58 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Rich Cream: Did you ever hear of "Liberty and Justice, FOR ALL"? Or is that just lip service? You farkin commie bastards.

When that was written, there were no gheys. Therefore, teh gheys weren't considered to be a part of "all" and cannot be grandfathered into experiencing liberty or justice.

/Check and mate.



You commie bastard. 

/pinkos! everywhere!
 
2012-09-15 03:17:17 PM  

Biological Ali: bhcompy: And the billions both sides wasted bringing it into existence. This is all a monumental waste of money in this state. Do it in another state, where it actually means something real and tangible.

This really, really isn't a "both sides" issue. One side brought this amendment into place, had it struck down by state supreme court, brought it back into place, had it struck down in federal court, and is now appealing to have it brought back (again). 

This isn't 1890s Louisiana.

The concept that "separate but equal" is "inherently unequal" comes from a much more recent time period than that.

8. Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial integrated school system.


This isn't a matter of differences in learning experiences in public schools.
 
2012-09-15 03:18:29 PM  

king of vegas: LordOfThePings: 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 image 800x600]

Chart is strange. maximum of 22 divorces per 100 women? That sounds several hundred too low.


You think 20-30% of women get divorced every year?
 
2012-09-15 03:27:39 PM  
"I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican." -- P. J. O'Rourke, barking moonbat
 
2012-09-15 03:49:11 PM  
And today on "Adventures in Missing the Point"...

bhcompy: This isn't a matter of differences in learning experiences in public schools.

 
2012-09-15 03:51:06 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.


There's nothing I'd love more than to see a majority argument like that, because it would raise the "How in the name of fark have we applied 14th Amendment protections to artificial persons for so long, then?"

Last I checked, a business entity has no racial characteristics and will never have racial characteristics.

(no, the racial characteristics of the people owning/managing/working for the entity does not give an entity any racial characteristics, so don't even bother with that retarded non-argument. to be pedantic about it: said retarded non-argument would mean that, if accepted and *for a given, fixed definition* of race, a business entity's "race" could always be in flux as owners/managers/employees changed, which logically contradicts the idea of racial classification)
 
2012-09-15 04:00:13 PM  
I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed
 
2012-09-15 04:03:45 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: 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...


What business does the State have in sanctioning religious ceremonies? If it is, they why aren't Jewish kids allowed to smoke & drink after their bar/bat-mitsava?
 
2012-09-15 04:06:58 PM  

whidbey: And we won. Twice. First in District Court in 2010, and then at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012

I'm sorry, but it's amazing to me that the bigots would continue to keep appealing this case. What do they expect a higher court to rule that could possibly be different?


On the up-side, taking it to the Supremes could lead to a blanket decision covering all this laws/amendments as Roe v. Wade did.
 
2012-09-15 04:20:07 PM  

gluestickralph: I absolutely LOVE prop 8. Why? Do I care a rats arse either way about gay marriage? Nope. It's your choice if you want to marry a turtle or a sheep or a man or a fish I really don't care if you leave me alone. I love prop 8 because it came to pass in Cali. Land of the self righteous insanely smug out of touch with reality california native. "We are the best most awesome progressive free thinkers in the WORLD!" Annddd the majority population of your state hates teh gays. Sweet delicious amusement is mine thanks to prop 8.


What's it like being a virgin at your age?
 
2012-09-15 04:20:13 PM  

badLogic: FeedTheCollapse: 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...

What business does the State have in sanctioning religious ceremonies? If it is, they why aren't Jewish kids allowed to smoke & drink after their bar/bat-mitsava?



as a married atheist, it is a surprise to me that marriage is a religious ceremony.
 
2012-09-15 04:23:36 PM  
Where's your fellow cocksucker letrole, Lorelle? I know gay threads are like catnip to you closet cases.
 
2012-09-15 04:27:39 PM  

badLogic: FeedTheCollapse: 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...

What business does the State have in sanctioning religious ceremonies? If it is, they why aren't Jewish kids allowed to smoke & drink after their bar/bat-mitsava?


That's some pretty bad logic, badLogic.
 
2012-09-15 04:37:54 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Why would anybody want to get married?


That's what I told my gay friends, but they got married anyway.
 
2012-09-15 04:39:50 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: as a married atheist, it is a surprise to me that marriage is a religious ceremony.


Imagine our surprise when my wife and I went to a Justice of the Peace to get married only to discover afterward that he signed it as a Mormon Bishop.

WTF...is this going to get me ex post facto baptized or something?
 
2012-09-15 04:39:53 PM  

sirrerun: The Dog Ate The Constitution: We should let a bunch of immoral 20 somethings dictate what the definition of marriage is in 2012.

Um. OK?


I think we should get off his lawn.
 
2012-09-15 04:43:10 PM  

Cataholic: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Rich Cream: LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


So you're saying the most sophisticated weapon available at the time of the French Revolution was a musket?

I'm saying that if the 14th amendment can only apply to races because sexual preference wasn't part of the conversation, then the 2nd amendment cannot be applied to weapons that couldn't have existed to be part of that conversation. Pretty simple, really. Anything less is a double-standard.

Wait...are you saying homosexuals didn't exist in the 1860s?


He should read some of James Buchanan's correspondence with Rufus King...
 
2012-09-15 04:48:11 PM  

bhcompy: NowhereMon: This is a big deal.

Not really. Regardless of what happens, gay marriage rights in CA remain the exact same. The only difference is whether it will be called "marriage" or "domestic partnership", because the laws underneath both are the exact same.


Yeah I could see how that wouldn't be a big deal.

To you.
 
2012-09-15 05:12:17 PM  
Marriage is a religious ceremony; federal and state recognition of marriage as an institution violates the Establishment Clause.

Abolish marriage. Civil unions for everyone.
 
2012-09-15 05:13:08 PM  

James F. Campbell: Abolish marriage as a government-recognized institution


You can get married in a church, but that marriage will have no legal force whatsoever.
 
2012-09-15 05:18:47 PM  
 
2012-09-15 05:27:00 PM  

abb3w: Anyway:

You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.


Wait, nobody ever said anything about getting married by cohort. I have to rethink this.
 
2012-09-15 05:49:59 PM  
If Mitt Romney believes that corporations are people, shouldn't he believe corporations must be allowed to marry? If so, will his opposition to gay marriage drive him to support assigning genders to corporations so that only corporations of opposite genders can marry? Would he allow interracial marriages between corporations and humans so long as they are not of the same gender?

/this must be asked at the debates!
 
2012-09-15 05:57:34 PM  

rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed


Will there be coke on the menu?
 
2012-09-15 06:03:39 PM  

NullReferenceException: If Mitt Romney believes that corporations are people, shouldn't he believe corporations must be allowed to marry? If so, will his opposition to gay marriage drive him to support assigning genders to corporations so that only corporations of opposite genders can marry? Would he allow interracial marriages between corporations and humans so long as they are not of the same gender?

/this must be asked at the debates!


Of course he believes in corporate marriage, Bain capital was a gold digger that wed lots of companies and ran up their credit cards and then left.
 
2012-09-15 06:08:45 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?


The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.
 
2012-09-15 06:09:22 PM  

LordOfThePings: abb3w: Anyway:

You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

Wait, nobody ever said anything about getting married by cohort. I have to rethink this.


Me, too. I was always taught that marriage was only between two consenting centuries.
 
2012-09-15 06:13:03 PM  

rynthetyn: GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?

The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.


But would you wear an Ally Mcbeal dress?
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-09-15 06:47:13 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?

The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.

But would you wear an Ally Mcbeal dress?
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 720x544]


I don't get the Ally Mcbeal reference.
 
2012-09-15 06:53:30 PM  

rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?

The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.

But would you wear an Ally Mcbeal dress?
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 720x544]

I don't get the Ally Mcbeal reference.


Sorry, do you know Futurama's parody "Single Female Lawyer"? Ally McBeal was the lawyer show Callista Flockheart was in in the 90's ?
 
2012-09-15 07:12:18 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?

The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.

But would you wear an Ally Mcbeal dress?
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 720x544]

I don't get the Ally Mcbeal reference.

Sorry, do you know Futurama's parody "Single Female Lawyer"? Ally McBeal was the lawyer show Callista Flockheart was in in the 90's ?


I know I've seen that episode of Futurama, but I don't really remember it. I don't think I've ever actually watched an Ally McBeal episode though, I've never really been able to get into any lawyer shows.
 
2012-09-15 07:15:30 PM  

rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?

The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.

But would you wear an Ally Mcbeal dress?
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 720x544]

I don't get the Ally Mcbeal reference.

Sorry, do you know Futurama's parody "Single Female Lawyer"? Ally McBeal was the lawyer show Callista Flockheart was in in the 90's ?

I know I've seen that episode of Futurama, but I don't really remember it. I don't think I've ever actually watched an Ally McBeal episode though, I've never really been able to get into any lawyer shows.


She wore really short skirts, so it was supposed to be a Clarence Thomas joke :(
/I know it was bad anyway.
 
2012-09-15 07:19:58 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: GreatGlavinsGhost: rynthetyn: I think it's a tossup as to whether the court will decide to hear it or say it's an issue that's not ripe yet and let the lower ruling stand.

If they do take it, I think it's going to be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in favor of upholding the 9th circuit ruling and Scalia will give us a lulzy dissent complete with scare quotes, references to the "gay agenda" and a rant about how law schools are out of touch with real America.

/I've got my name in my school's lottery to have a meal with Clarence Thomas next week
//fingers crossed

Will there be coke on the menu?

The university has an exclusive Pepsi contract, so no. Also, I don't think I could see Clarence Thomas drinking coke without laughing, which would be wholly unprofessional.

But would you wear an Ally Mcbeal dress?
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 720x544]

I don't get the Ally Mcbeal reference.

Sorry, do you know Futurama's parody "Single Female Lawyer"? Ally McBeal was the lawyer show Callista Flockheart was in in the 90's ?

I know I've seen that episode of Futurama, but I don't really remember it. I don't think I've ever actually watched an Ally McBeal episode though, I've never really been able to get into any lawyer shows.

She wore really short skirts, so it was supposed to be a Clarence Thomas joke :(
/I know it was bad anyway.


Ahh, okay, I get it now.
 
2012-09-15 07:26:55 PM  

rynthetyn:
Ahh, okay, I get it now.


Sorry, like I said it was bad, but trying to argue with a wall on why everyone should have the same rights has sorta lost it's appeal :(
 
2012-09-15 09:36:38 PM  
The land of freedom.
 
2012-09-15 11:50:21 PM  
It would be a shock if the current Supreme Court allows Prop 8 to be overturned.

I can't figure out why a repeal of Prop 8 is not on the ballot. The polls show a significant shift in public opinion in the four years since Prop 8 passed. If they put a repeal on the ballot and won, what the Supreme Court of Prop 8 would be moot.
 
2012-09-16 12:26:07 AM  

LordOfThePings: Wait, nobody ever said anything about getting married by cohort. I have to rethink this.


...OK, that's a new one. +1 funny to you, then.
 
2012-09-16 01:32:46 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: It would be a shock if the current Supreme Court allows Prop 8 to be overturned.

I can't figure out why a repeal of Prop 8 is not on the ballot. The polls show a significant shift in public opinion in the four years since Prop 8 passed. If they put a repeal on the ballot and won, what the Supreme Court of Prop 8 would be moot.


If you do the Supreme Court math, it's highly likely that they'll rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, if they decide to take the case, that is. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan are definitely going to vote to overturn Prop 8. Kennedy has written the majority opinion on the two major gay rights cases of the last decade and a half (Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans) and has taken a pretty broad view of due process and equal protection in those cases, so it would be a complete shock if he didn't provide the deciding 5th vote. You might even be able to get a 6-3 decision and get Roberts on board because he's shown himself to be concerned as much with his place in history and the court's reputation as ideology, and he isn't going to want history books to talk about how the Roberts court came down on the wrong side of the most important civil rights battle of his era.
 
2012-09-16 02:20:48 AM  

whidbey: bhcompy: NowhereMon: This is a big deal.

Not really. Regardless of what happens, gay marriage rights in CA remain the exact same. The only difference is whether it will be called "marriage" or "domestic partnership", because the laws underneath both are the exact same.

Yeah I could see how that wouldn't be a big deal.

To you.


The thing is, bhcompy has been farking long enough to have nade statements that partnerships are just as good as marriage and been corrected (or seen the argument made by others and corrected) before.

To keep making the same false claim is the last bastion of a bigot grasling for a way to keep gays held back while pretending they arent bigoted. Worse bh will now say you and I are the real problem by supporting gay marriage and preventing his perfect solution from going into effect.
 
2012-09-16 05:56:18 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.


badLogic: What business does the State have in sanctioning religious ceremonies?


I'm sick of this historically challenged bullshiat. Marriage about as much a "religious ceremony" as a bake sale, you dumbass. It has always been a civil contract. Just because religious officials are sometimes granted the ability to perform weddings doesn't make marriage the property of the church. Knock it the hell off.
 
2012-09-16 06:00:02 AM  

James F. Campbell: Marriage is a religious ceremony;


BZZZT. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Do you think you can just make this shiat up, and call it truth? WTF is wrong with you idiots?
 
2012-09-16 08:37:04 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.


In other words, a sustained persecution of Christianity, right?
 
2012-09-16 09:53:55 AM  

Smackledorfer: whidbey: bhcompy: NowhereMon: This is a big deal.

Not really. Regardless of what happens, gay marriage rights in CA remain the exact same. The only difference is whether it will be called "marriage" or "domestic partnership", because the laws underneath both are the exact same.

Yeah I could see how that wouldn't be a big deal.

To you.

The thing is, bhcompy has been farking long enough to have nade statements that partnerships are just as good as marriage and been corrected (or seen the argument made by others and corrected) before.

To keep making the same false claim is the last bastion of a bigot grasling for a way to keep gays held back while pretending they arent bigoted. Worse bh will now say you and I are the real problem by supporting gay marriage and preventing his perfect solution from going into effect.


There is nothing bigoted about it. Like I said, it's a waste of time and money in this state. You don't win anything real by winning. Go to a state that actually doesn't give the most comprehensive rights and protections in law and in practice and fight for the whole tamale, because it's more productive! I voted no on Prop 8. Just because I think it's a stupid, pointless fight over a word doesn't mean I'm a bigot. Usually the bigot is the one pointing the fingers, because they're the one that can't tolerate the view being stated.
 
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 »
Advertisement
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