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.

(Sun Sentinel)   Concerned citizen wants an elected official who's been living in sin with an unmarried partner for eight years to be arrested for violating state cohabitation laws. This is not a repeat from 1916   (sun-sentinel.com ) divider line
    More: Florida, elected officials, City Attorney Lynn Whitfield, cohabitations, Hallandale Beach, soul mate, citizen wants  
•       •       •

15711 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2012 at 2:39 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-15 12:39:28 PM  
I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.
 
2012-10-15 01:07:03 PM  
Why not? If it's good enough for the gays, its good enough for the straights.

/waiting for divorce to be outlawed
 
2012-10-15 01:17:59 PM  
Call me when you moral crusader nitwits press for the prosecution of Governor Mark Sanford, since infidelity is still illegal according to SC state law.
 
2012-10-15 01:41:11 PM  

Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.


Mine have been cited in three divorce petitions and six blackmail indictments.
 
2012-10-15 02:38:24 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.

Mine have been cited in three divorce petitions and six blackmail indictments.


AIE?.
 
2012-10-15 02:40:56 PM  

Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.

  There we go.
 
2012-10-15 02:42:26 PM  
This woman sounds like kind of a dick.
 
2012-10-15 02:43:19 PM  

olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.


Think about how many women and people in general who should always be clothed.
 
2012-10-15 02:44:10 PM  
Christ... that's just up the road from friggin' Miami beach. Shouldn't she be more worries about illegals and gays?

m1ke: This woman sounds like kind of a dick.


Ayup!
 
2012-10-15 02:44:13 PM  
MOR FREEDUMB
 
2012-10-15 02:45:01 PM  
This would give them standing to sue in court over the law, but old laws should be removed from the books anyways. I want to tie my pet alligator to a fire hydrant.
 
2012-10-15 02:45:12 PM  

thatboyoverthere: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Think about how many women and people in general who should always be clothed.


I think we can safely navigate through the unwashed masses for the appreciation of all those who shouldn't be clothed. And if not, the sacrifice would be worth it.
 
2012-10-15 02:45:35 PM  

thatboyoverthere: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Think about how many women and people in general who should always be clothed.


thefamilyjules.com
 
2012-10-15 02:45:35 PM  
Remember this the next time you see furor over repealing "sodomy" laws. Everytime it comes up to remove the old anti-gay statutes from the books, the argument is "why waste time on this... no one will ever prosecute it anyway".

Please. We're only 2-3 election cycles away from a groundswell christian authority. Not saying it WILL happen, just that it's possible. And of course, their excuse will be "see? It's already on the books, and has been for 100 years! It's our tradition!"
 
2012-10-15 02:46:11 PM  
Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?
 
2012-10-15 02:46:45 PM  

Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.


Hmmmm... cankles...
 
2012-10-15 02:47:42 PM  

m1ke: This woman sounds like kind of a dick.


No, she sounds like a penis. A dick brings pleasure wherever it goes. A penis does not.
 
2012-10-15 02:47:51 PM  

theknuckler_33: Christ... that's just up the road from friggin' Miami beach. Shouldn't she be more worries about illegals and gays?

m1ke: This woman sounds like kind of a dick.

Ayup!


The man is gay.
 
2012-10-15 02:48:49 PM  
Ankle Thread!

Can't post sexy ankles from work. The Internet Cops have my IP address and IPCONFIG /renew does nothing.
 
2012-10-15 02:50:18 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?


yep, that is about it. They can be usefl for selective enforcement of people you don't like.
 
2012-10-15 02:51:41 PM  
Can I get my ex-wife stoned to death for cheating while we were married?
 
2012-10-15 02:52:00 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?


Some puritanical harridan wouldn't shut up about it 100 years ago and it was either pass a law or have her killed.
 
2012-10-15 02:52:03 PM  

Uranus Megahertz: Why not? If it's good enough for the gays, its good enough for the straights.

/waiting for divorce to be outlawed


Allowing straight people to live in sin will ruin the whole institution. It's David and Jonathan, not David and Joanna!
 
2012-10-15 02:52:37 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: The man is gay.


Damn. I was hoping this was a conservative politician being given some come-uppance by a gay citizen in a see-how-it-feels-when-you're-on-the-receiving-end-of-it manner, but alas, it was too good to hope for.
 
2012-10-15 02:52:37 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: theknuckler_33: Christ... that's just up the road from friggin' Miami beach. Shouldn't she be more worries about illegals and gays?

m1ke: This woman sounds like kind of a dick.

Ayup!

The man is gay.


Well, there ya go.
 
2012-10-15 02:53:15 PM  

theknuckler_33: thatboyoverthere: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Think about how many women and people in general who should always be clothed.

[thefamilyjules.com image 425x340]


Harry Freakstorm: Ankle Thread!

Can't post sexy ankles from work. The Internet Cops have my IP address and IPCONFIG /renew does nothing.


images1.parentsconnect.com

/moo means moo
 
2012-10-15 02:53:16 PM  
Thanks, random concerned citizen, for alerting us to the fact that we still had this statute on the books. We'd totally forgotten that we'd been meaning to clean that up, but just didn't get around to it for so long that we forgot. I mean, it's not like we've been using it.

Anyhow, don't worry, we'll strike it down next legislative session, for real this time.

xoxo,
Elected officials

//Seriously though, this is largely good, generally ends in getting rid of stupid laws that no one's had the time to kill on before.
 
2012-10-15 02:53:33 PM  

THX 1138: All2morrowsparTs: The man is gay.

Damn. I was hoping this was a conservative politician being given some come-uppance by a gay citizen in a see-how-it-feels-when-you're-on-the-receiving-end-of-it manner, but alas, it was too good to hope for.


Was that intentional? 'cause I snerked.
 
2012-10-15 02:53:56 PM  
In other news, Florida still has a law against living in sin. Also criminal offenses: living in open adultery, any "unnatural and lascivious act" (even private), and not telling your parents if you're "sexted".
 
2012-10-15 02:54:24 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?


Why do dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving? Different species, same sort of intelligence.
 
2012-10-15 02:55:48 PM  
What is the odds on Linda Takahashi being a small government type.
 
2012-10-15 02:55:50 PM  

JesseL: Some puritanical harridan wouldn't shut up about it 100 years ago and it was either pass a law or have her killed.


It was passed over a century again, but the puritanical harridans have kept it going as recently as 1 year ago.

Link
 
2012-10-15 02:56:42 PM  

Albert911emt: Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?

Why do dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving? Different species, same sort of intelligence.


So you're saying that it's a form of masturbation?
 
2012-10-15 02:56:44 PM  
read the story and figured the councilman was "living in sin" with another man.
 
2012-10-15 02:57:14 PM  

Matthew Keene: Can I get my ex-wife stoned to death for cheating while we were married?


Send her tickets to a Jimmy Buffet concert, the contact high should kill her.
 
2012-10-15 02:57:29 PM  

ChipNASA:

[images1.parentsconnect.com image 280x280]

/moo means moo


NICE TEATS!

TIE, EIP
 
2012-10-15 02:57:59 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?

yep, that is about it. They can be usefl for selective enforcement of people you don't like.


I would bet that this is a law that was functionally overturned/considered to be unconstitutional. the legislature never took it off the books, despite the fact that it cannot be enforced.

to me, it's similar to the states that still outlaw sodomy and oral sex... thanks to texas v. loving (i think, could be wrong), all of those laws are unconstitutional. legislatures forget about them and never revoke them.

most states have groups of lawyers who advise the legislature. they often beg for the old, bad laws to be removed... but, no one wants to be the congressman to be in support of the sodomy law or the bj law.

for example, some group of legislatures recently got made fun of for taking off a anti-animal sex law (because the issue was properly dealt with in another area of law). they all got accused of being in support of animal sex (jokingly).

either way, no one wants to open the political bag to start talking about sex laws that aren't good law anyways.
 
2012-10-15 02:58:23 PM  
i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-15 02:59:03 PM  

ChipNASA: theknuckler_33: thatboyoverthere: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Think about how many women and people in general who should always be clothed.

[thefamilyjules.com image 425x340]

Harry Freakstorm: Ankle Thread!

Can't post sexy ankles from work. The Internet Cops have my IP address and IPCONFIG /renew does nothing.

[images1.parentsconnect.com image 280x280]

/moo means moo


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-15 02:59:37 PM  
Wonder if there's an old law discriminating against foreigners still on the books. "Takahashi" don't sound very 'murrican to me. Maybe her ancestors violated some interracial law in the past.
 
2012-10-15 03:00:00 PM  
This is actually why laws that aren't enforced need to be taken off the books. The police won't enforce this one, but they've been know to selectively enforce open container laws and vagrancy laws and a slew of traffic laws when they need a pretext to arrest someone. Leaving them on the books creates opportunity for abuse.
 
2012-10-15 03:00:14 PM  
IF IT IS AGAINST THE LAW elected officials (of all people) should not do it. Plain and simple.
 
2012-10-15 03:00:51 PM  
This does remind me; it has been awhile since I last remember seeing a submission on the all of the zany state laws still on the books.

/In Marshalltown, Iowa, it is illegal for a horse to eat a fire hydrant.
 
2012-10-15 03:01:40 PM  

theknuckler_33: Was that intentional? 'cause I snerked.


It wasn't premeditated, but I realized it as I was typing and decided to leave it in for fun.
 
2012-10-15 03:02:27 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net

Some towns really do need an enema.
 
2012-10-15 03:03:42 PM  
This is why all laws should come with a sunset clause.
 
2012-10-15 03:04:46 PM  

funzyr: Albert911emt: Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?

Why do dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving? Different species, same sort of intelligence.

So you're saying that it's a form of masturbation?


Um.....yeah, sure......OK.

\Do you have the weirdest boner right now?
 
2012-10-15 03:06:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Thanks, random concerned citizen, for alerting us to the fact that we still had this statute on the books. We'd totally forgotten that we'd been meaning to clean that up, but just didn't get around to it for so long that we forgot. I mean, it's not like we've been using it.

Anyhow, don't worry, we'll strike it down next legislative session, for real this time.

xoxo,
Elected officials

//Seriously though, this is largely good, generally ends in getting rid of stupid laws that no one's had the time to kill on before.


+10000000

There are a ton of stupid and/or obsolete laws on a books. It should be a priority of government to strike them.
 
2012-10-15 03:07:56 PM  
Is it okay for 2 guys to cohabitate? What if they are gay?
 
2012-10-15 03:08:38 PM  

Jument: There are a ton of stupid and/or obsolete laws on a books. It should be a priority of government to strike them.


Why would they want to give up any piece of their power, no matter how insignificant?
 
2012-10-15 03:09:32 PM  
I like the response they got. It sounds like the City Attorney basically said "I don't want to deal with that. Go bother the state."
 
2012-10-15 03:11:20 PM  

ABQGOD: Wonder if there's an old law discriminating against foreigners still on the books. "Takahashi" don't sound very 'murrican to me. Maybe her ancestors violated some interracial law in the past.


I was going to suggest a surprise mattress inspection. If those little tags aren't all there, she's toast. 

/Nobody expects a surprise mattress inspection
 
2012-10-15 03:14:18 PM  

JesseL: Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?

Some puritanical harridan wouldn't shut up about it 100 years ago and it was either pass a law or have her killed.


And the second option wasn't considered why? Don't kill people because you disagree with them, kids.
 
2012-10-15 03:15:09 PM  

Cheron: What is the odds on Linda Takahashi being a small government type.


Dunno, but someone needs to remind Ms. TAKAHASHI that Korematsu v. US was never overturned and she can be shipped right back to Manzanar anytime we like.
 
2012-10-15 03:17:06 PM  

oldfarthenry: [i1151.photobucket.com image 350x246]


Yes, Professor McGonnegal is very strict. No boys in the girls' dorms and vice versa.
 
2012-10-15 03:17:08 PM  

Killer Cars: This does remind me; it has been awhile since I last remember seeing a submission on the all of the zany state laws still on the books.

/In Marshalltown, Iowa, it is illegal for a horse to eat a fire hydrant.


There's one somewhere in NC about throwing a pickle across the street.

/you're not allowed to...
 
2012-10-15 03:17:13 PM  

ABQGOD: Wonder if there's an old law discriminating against foreigners still on the books. "Takahashi" don't sound very 'murrican to me. Maybe her ancestors violated some interracial law in the past.


Takahashi sounds like someone we should round up and put in a camp. Although if her first name is Linda, perhaps only half of her, or even a quarter. So the moral is we should bring a chainsaw when we solve this.

/sorry sweetie, it is still on the books
 
2012-10-15 03:17:41 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?


Generally speaking, once power is given, granted or ceded, it's hard to take back.

Plus it gives old dickhead busybodies something to play with.
 
2012-10-15 03:17:45 PM  
"I don't think this law goes far enough. Obviously it hasn't been updated for a while, but now we need to think about all of the new sex that we don't want happening. That is why I call for single 6ft by 6ft cells for each and every living thing. We can't have men living with other men. What if they liked the man sex? Upon expulsion from the womb all children should be removed from their homes and kept in complete isolation for the safety of their souls and ours. And pets... seriously who hasn't thought of banging their mastiff? I know I have. Thats why I leave temptations like that in his own shed on his own private property. That way I won't be tempted from Jesus."

-Linda Takahashi
[citation needed]
 
2012-10-15 03:18:49 PM  
I though all these laws went away in the 1980s. Well, this is Fla-rid-a...
 
2012-10-15 03:19:14 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Killer Cars: This does remind me; it has been awhile since I last remember seeing a submission on the all of the zany state laws still on the books.

/In Marshalltown, Iowa, it is illegal for a horse to eat a fire hydrant.

There's one somewhere in NC about throwing a pickle across the street.

/you're not allowed to...


Kids and gorillas in the back seat in MA.
 
2012-10-15 03:21:13 PM  

ciberido: /Nobody expects a surprise mattress inspection


Pillows, too.

quizilla.teennick.com
 
2012-10-15 03:22:13 PM  
I assume she wishes to cast the first stone.
 
2012-10-15 03:22:17 PM  
Not to herp the derp, but if the law is on the books and a citizen makes a complaint, isn't law enforcement obligated to pursue it?
 
2012-10-15 03:23:47 PM  

ChipNASA: theknuckler_33: thatboyoverthere: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Think about how many women and people in general who should always be clothed.

[thefamilyjules.com image 425x340]

Harry Freakstorm: Ankle Thread!

Can't post sexy ankles from work. The Internet Cops have my IP address and IPCONFIG /renew does nothing.

[images1.parentsconnect.com image 280x280]

/moo means moo


Threadjack by nipples?
 
2012-10-15 03:24:03 PM  
Adultery is a criminal violation in a lot of states still. However, it's almost universally never prosecuted in the US' states

VA Code § 18.2-366 (2001 through Reg Session)
 
2012-10-15 03:24:14 PM  
While I dnrtfa...I like the idea of shoving teh book of inane laws up an elected official's arses.

/in fact, I would just do this shiat out of spite.
 
2012-10-15 03:25:24 PM  
I don't know who I hate more, Concerned Citizens or Worried Residents.
 
2012-10-15 03:27:49 PM  

trippdogg: Not to herp the derp, but if the law is on the books and a citizen makes a complaint, isn't law enforcement obligated to pursue it?


If I were the target, I'd sue for malicious prosecution. Granted, that doesn't address the problem of the law still being on the books. But the law cannot be selectively enforced.

The larger problem is that we don't regularly review the law to see if it's still applicable, relevant, or just a good idea. It takes stupid situations like this to purge them.
 
2012-10-15 03:28:37 PM  

pute kisses like a man: to me, it's similar to the states that still outlaw sodomy and oral sex... thanks to texas v. loving (i think, could be wrong), all of those laws are unconstitutional. legislatures forget about them and never revoke them.


Lawrence v. Texas, and yes, it's a rational assumption that under that ruling any private, adult sexual relationship would also have to be legal under the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty. A law that takes away liberty has to have a better reason than a majority doesn't like what you do.
 
2012-10-15 03:30:02 PM  

Diogenes: The larger problem is that we don't regularly review the law to see if it's still applicable, relevant, or just a good idea. It takes stupid situations like this to purge them.


That's why a lot of this stuff should have built in sunset clauses. Honestly even stuff like the manslaughter laws, just to ensure they get revised and brought up to modern times (ex: Vehicular manslaughter becoming a thing, etc). Even if it is once every 50 years or so for the standard ones.
 
2012-10-15 03:31:27 PM  

namegoeshere: CapeFearCadaver: Killer Cars: This does remind me; it has been awhile since I last remember seeing a submission on the all of the zany state laws still on the books.

/In Marshalltown, Iowa, it is illegal for a horse to eat a fire hydrant.

There's one somewhere in NC about throwing a pickle across the street.

/you're not allowed to...

Kids and gorillas in the back seat in MA.


Just found one with teh googles, also in NC:

It is legal to shoot an Indian on horseback, provided you are in a covered wagon.
 
2012-10-15 03:33:04 PM  
TFA doesn't say that Londons partner is another man. Probably is a man though.
I wonder how the law against co-habitation defines co-habitation? I'd bet my beer money that co-habitaion is between a man and a woman. Because two men sharing a house together is just two bachelors sharing a house together. Unless they're homos. That's covered by another law entirely.
 
2012-10-15 03:33:16 PM  

Albert911emt: funzyr: Albert911emt: Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?

Why do dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving? Different species, same sort of intelligence.

So you're saying that it's a form of masturbation?

Um.....yeah, sure......OK.

\Do you have the weirdest boner right now?


As a matter of fact, I do. Who told you that?
 
2012-10-15 03:33:41 PM  

Matthew Keene: Can I get my ex-wife stoned to death for cheating while we were married?


Dude, nobody has ever died from getting stoned but weed is illegal in some states so there ya go.
 
2012-10-15 03:34:06 PM  

Nem Wan: pute kisses like a man: to me, it's similar to the states that still outlaw sodomy and oral sex... thanks to texas v. loving (i think, could be wrong), all of those laws are unconstitutional. legislatures forget about them and never revoke them.

Lawrence v. Texas, and yes, it's a rational assumption that under that ruling any private, adult sexual relationship would also have to be legal under the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty. A law that takes away liberty has to have a better reason than a majority doesn't like what you do.


aww crap.... loving was the marriage case, lawrence was the sodomy case.
 
2012-10-15 03:35:10 PM  
If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Aw shiat. I've done this one.
 
2012-10-15 03:36:29 PM  
Round up republicans and put them in a cage.
 
2012-10-15 03:37:37 PM  
Sometimes enforcing existing laws is not the best option, which is why we have lawmakers.
 
TWX
2012-10-15 03:38:40 PM  
Wanna really mess with the couple? Declare them common-law married...
 
2012-10-15 03:41:09 PM  

Reyito: Remember this the next time you see furor over repealing "sodomy" laws. Everytime it comes up to remove the old anti-gay statutes from the books, the argument is "why waste time on this... no one will ever prosecute it anyway".

Please. We're only 2-3 election cycles away from a groundswell christian authority. Not saying it WILL happen, just that it's possible. And of course, their excuse will be "see? It's already on the books, and has been for 100 years! It's our tradition!"

"We pledge allegiance to the Bible. The Old Testament shall be our sole and only Constitution"

.
s14.postimage.org
 
2012-10-15 03:44:04 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?


It's the American way. Make everything illegal and prosecute selectively.
 
2012-10-15 03:45:23 PM  
In the American System of Justice, there are 3 forces at work: the Police; the Courts; and the (expletive deleted) Batman.

/chong-chong

//ching-ching?
 
2012-10-15 03:46:11 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Aw shiat. I've done this one.


And if I sign the register as "La Gran Contessa Matilda of Tuscany, duchess of Lorraine" do I get to legally keep all four Qattro Castelli

/Plus, free Quiche Lorraine for life!
 
2012-10-15 03:46:33 PM  
Listen this needs to be said more. MIND. YOUR. OWN. DAMN. BUSINESS. for farks sakes.
 
2012-10-15 03:48:40 PM  
Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?

Oblio13: It's the American way. Make everything illegal and prosecute selectively.


Damnit, you're going to make me quote Ayn Rand again, you bastard.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon. That's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

/must go take show and scrub the Objectivism off
 
2012-10-15 03:50:52 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Why do we have laws on the books we never have any intention of enforcing, just so we can have that threat there?


This isn't an immigration thread.
 
2012-10-15 03:51:34 PM  

ciberido: CapeFearCadaver: If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Aw shiat. I've done this one.

And if I sign the register as "La Gran Contessa Matilda of Tuscany, duchess of Lorraine" do I get to legally keep all four Qattro Castelli? 

/Plus, free Quiche Lorraine for life!


if the concierge has fringes on his coat, then he is a concierge in admiralty and is the master of the inn of court. therefore, your declaration may be ratified by the captain of the vessel in admiralty and given the full force and weight of law of the commonwealth of the several united states in admiralty and the common law of england.
 
2012-10-15 03:51:50 PM  

mortimer_ford: I don't know who I hate more, Concerned Citizens or Worried Residents.


Shoot them, shoot them both.
 
2012-10-15 03:53:37 PM  

mortimer_ford: I don't know who I hate more, Concerned Citizens or Worried Residents.


Go with Concerned Citizens. Worried Residents usually just lock themselves in their house and fret. Sometimes they panic if they see a Brown Person in the immediate vicinity. Concerned Citizens want to insure that the world conforms to their reality and cause everyone heartburn.
 
2012-10-15 03:55:16 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Aw shiat. I've done this one.


You may be an unwitting polygamist.
 
2012-10-15 04:00:04 PM  

m1ke: This woman sounds like kind of a dick.



She wouldn't be complaining if some helpful Florida Farker would give her a good dickin.
 
2012-10-15 04:01:53 PM  

olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.


Not that I would have a problem with this even having to deal with all the women I would not want to see nude. I do have one question though. Wouldn't women be very cold? Maybe we could allow them to wear coats and clothes in the fall and winter times. I am just trying to think of the women and what is best for them.
 
2012-10-15 04:03:39 PM  
but the important question...are any of the women involved...hot or anything? not hot and bothered...just hot.
 
2012-10-15 04:05:16 PM  
Johnny Mnemonic: You can't shoot me.
Takahashi: Not in the head.
 
2012-10-15 04:08:14 PM  

heili skrimsli: CapeFearCadaver: If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Aw shiat. I've done this one.

You may be an unwitting polygamist wife.


/Not married... I don't think.
 
2012-10-15 04:10:15 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: heili skrimsli: CapeFearCadaver: If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Aw shiat. I've done this one.

You may be an unwitting polygamist wife.

/Not married... I don't think.


Now you know better.
 
2012-10-15 04:10:22 PM  

pute kisses like a man: if the concierge has fringes on his coat, then he is a concierge in admiralty and is the master of the inn of court. therefore, your declaration may be ratified by the captain of the vessel in admiralty and given the full force and weight of law of the commonwealth of the several united states in admiralty and the common law of england.


So, logically, if I ADD fringes to the concierge's coat, then I get duchess-ized!
 
2012-10-15 04:12:50 PM  

Profedius: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Not that I would have a problem with this even having to deal with all the women I would not want to see nude. I do have one question though. Wouldn't women be very cold? Maybe we could allow them to wear coats and clothes in the fall and winter times. I am just trying to think of the women and what is best for them.


If they'd stay in the kitchen making sammiches like they're 'sposed to they wouldn't git cold.

/That is all.
 
2012-10-15 04:12:57 PM  
This is a great idea. If these idiot politicians want to keep pasing more and more oppressive laws, then they'd better stand ready to be charged with a few themselves.
 
2012-10-15 04:15:25 PM  
A sizable population of the electorate is comfortable resorting to extreme measures to discredit and invalidate their political opponents. Nothing shocking here
 
2012-10-15 04:17:06 PM  
www.keithlondon.com

Truly History's greatest monsters
 
2012-10-15 04:27:17 PM  
Sounds like a law that should be challenged.
 
2012-10-15 04:28:06 PM  
Is this his "soul mate"?

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-15 04:28:20 PM  
Umm, the lady complaining has the last name Takahashi so is either Japanese or married Japanese. Does she really want the laws from 100 years ago enforced?
 
2012-10-15 04:30:56 PM  

Diogenes: trippdogg: Not to herp the derp, but if the law is on the books and a citizen makes a complaint, isn't law enforcement obligated to pursue it?

If I were the target, I'd sue for malicious prosecution. Granted, that doesn't address the problem of the law still being on the books. But the law cannot be selectively enforced.

The larger problem is that we don't regularly review the law to see if it's still applicable, relevant, or just a good idea. It takes stupid situations like this to purge them.


I cannot find any confirmation of this, but I heard that Jesse Ventura once introduced a bill in Minnesota that would require that at every fourth(?) session, the legislature could pass no laws, but only repeal them.
 
2012-10-15 04:43:38 PM  
Let's just make up a bunch of laws, and then only enforce them when convenient. I'm sure that's the definition of a republic.

P.S. if the shoe was on the other foot, you best believe there would be some prosecuting going on.
 
2012-10-15 04:49:23 PM  
From the comments:

Independent/thinker at 8:23 AM October 15, 2012

Linda has too much time on her hands, Linda go volunteer doing something positive for society. Stay out of other peoples lives.


Could not have put it any better myself.
 
2012-10-15 04:58:25 PM  

Diogenes: Call me when you moral crusader nitwits press for the prosecution of Governor Mark Sanford, since infidelity is still illegal according to SC state law.


Good God...there goes half the legislature!
 
2012-10-15 04:58:57 PM  
I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.
 
2012-10-15 05:06:15 PM  

Jument: There are a ton of stupid and/or obsolete laws on a books. It should be a priority of government to strike them.


That proposal has been in my profile here for years.

For every new law, you must get rid of one old one. Doesn't matter what it is, just get rid of one. The 2 are voted on as a pair..
 
2012-10-15 05:14:54 PM  

Need_MindBleach: I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Texas

is complicated. It definitely found that a law that criminalizes certain sexual behaviors between unmarried gay people is unconstitutional. The problem is that the rationale is unclear. Is that law unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws to gay people? If so, then perhaps a sodomy law that applies to gays and straights equally is OK. Or is that law unconstitutional because it deprives people of their substantive due process (liberty interest) in engaging in consensual sexual behavior without government interference?
 
2012-10-15 05:18:57 PM  

ciberido: pute kisses like a man: if the concierge has fringes on his coat, then he is a concierge in admiralty and is the master of the inn of court. therefore, your declaration may be ratified by the captain of the vessel in admiralty and given the full force and weight of law of the commonwealth of the several united states in admiralty and the common law of england.

So, logically, if I ADD fringes to the concierge's coat, then I get duchess-ized!


this is a perfectly logical assessment, however, it has the requirement that the infringement occur under the auspices of a common law source of power. meaning, you must either be before a flag on a gold colored flagpole, or have the back of a united states federal treasure note dollar bill legal tender facing the concierge at ALL TIMES of the infringement.

then your duchy may be ratified by the inn of court in admiralty
 
2012-10-15 05:25:47 PM  

indylaw: Need_MindBleach: I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Texas is complicated. It definitely found that a law that criminalizes certain sexual behaviors between unmarried gay people is unconstitutional. The problem is that the rationale is unclear. Is that law unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws to gay people? If so, then perhaps a sodomy law that applies to gays and straights equally is OK. Or is that law unconstitutional because it deprives people of their substantive due process (liberty interest) in engaging in consensual sexual behavior without government interference?


it's a right to privacy issue. whatever you do (as consenting adults) in the privacy of your bedroom enjoys protection from government involvement. the acts you do in the privacy of your bedroom are considered quite private, and this privacy is considered important. so, the government must satisfy a heightened scrutiny to get in your bedroom and tell you what to do.

living together and private consensual sex are issues that don't satisfy a heightened scrutiny

/ roughly. it's been a while since I did any real constitutional research on the issue.
 
2012-10-15 05:28:58 PM  
If she wants gays to stop living together without getting married, then maybe she should support gay marriage!
 
2012-10-15 05:31:09 PM  

HammerHeadSnark: Profedius: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Not that I would have a problem with this even having to deal with all the women I would not want to see nude. I do have one question though. Wouldn't women be very cold? Maybe we could allow them to wear coats and clothes in the fall and winter times. I am just trying to think of the women and what is best for them.

If they'd stay in the kitchen making sammiches like they're 'sposed to they wouldn't git cold.

/That is all.


You do have a point there, but having them nude and stuck in the home just doesn't work for me...I mean them. I am not sure how it would be in every work place but my office would be a lot happier place for me to come to every week day if the ladies here were nude.
 
2012-10-15 05:48:12 PM  

Profedius: I am not sure how it would be in every work place but my office would be a lot happier place for me to come to every week day if the ladies here were nude.


I for one would do my damnedest to get transferred to sales & marketing.
 
2012-10-15 05:52:02 PM  

JesseL: Some puritanical harridan wouldn't shut up about it 100 years ago and it was either pass a law or have her killed.


mattarmstrongblog.files.wordpress.com

They chose... poorly.
 
2012-10-15 06:07:45 PM  

Wouldn't cohabitation effect college dorms that are co-ed? Even if the sleeping arrangements aren't co-ed the bathrooms are. ZOMG! SIN!! SATAN!!!

SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!

 
2012-10-15 06:10:28 PM  

pute kisses like a man: this is a perfectly logical assessment, however, it has the requirement that the infringement occur under the auspices of a common law source of power. meaning, you must either be before a flag on a gold colored flagpole, or have the back of a united states federal treasure note dollar bill legal tender facing the concierge at ALL TIMES of the infringement.


It's perfectly simple.
 
2012-10-15 06:13:17 PM  

lockheed1039: While I dnrtfa...I like the idea of shoving teh book of inane laws up an elected official's arses.

/in fact, I would just do this shiat out of spite.


Well, looks like we found Linda Takahashi's fark handle.
 
2012-10-15 06:46:46 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: TFA doesn't say that Londons partner is another man. Probably is a man though.
I wonder how the law against co-habitation defines co-habitation? I'd bet my beer money that co-habitaion is between a man and a woman. Because two men sharing a house together is just two bachelors sharing a house together. Unless they're homos. That's covered by another law entirely.


Unless it's in Key West.
 
2012-10-15 06:48:30 PM  
If I were that official, I would welcome the chance at spending a few hours in court getting that law overturned.
 
2012-10-15 07:02:07 PM  

AmbassadorBooze: This would give them standing to sue in court over the law, but old laws should be removed from the books anyways. I want to tie my pet alligator to a fire hydrant.


We let you do that and where does it stop? Platypus' tied to Firemen? Scorpions glued to schoolchildren!?!?
 
2012-10-15 07:06:03 PM  

pute kisses like a man: I would bet that this is a law that was functionally overturned/considered to be unconstitutional. the legislature never took it off the books, despite the fact that it cannot be enforced.


Nope.

Hyppy's link showed that someone was prosecuted under this law as recently as 2006.
 
2012-10-15 07:23:07 PM  

PhatChuckB: I cannot find any confirmation of this, but I heard that Jesse Ventura once introduced a bill in Minnesota that would require that at every fourth(?) session, the legislature could pass no laws, but only repeal them.


Seems easier just to automatically sunset all laws; you could amend the constitution to require that all laws be explicitly renewed every 5 years and that if they weren't they'd be automatically invalidated.

The administrative burden is pretty small; when there is widespread agreement (as there would be on many laws) you could put all the renewals together into a single act. You'd only have to re-debate laws that are not widely supported.

Of course that doesn't stop the legislature from repeatedly renewing stupid laws, but it at least relieves them of the political burden of removing them, and provides for a bit more accountability because they do have to vote the old laws up on a regular basis.
 
2012-10-15 08:18:15 PM  

Incog_Neeto: AmbassadorBooze: This would give them standing to sue in court over the law, but old laws should be removed from the books anyways. I want to tie my pet alligator to a fire hydrant.

We let you do that and where does it stop? Platypus' tied to Firemen? Scorpions glued to schoolchildren!?!?


Yay!
 
2012-10-15 08:25:14 PM  
Cases like this are why I think every jurisdiction should be allowed to have a predetermined, fixed number of laws on its books.

Say that number is 1000 and you have already reached it, but want to pass a new law, then you would have to revoke one of the previous laws.

For example, if you want to make it illegal to sell bananas in bunches greater than six, than first you have to revoke the law that makes it illegal to co-habitate.

You want to mandate that all gasoline will henceforth be dyed fuscia ? first you must revoke the law that makes it illegal to chew gum in the presence of clergy.

etc..., etc..., etc...

Forces the legislature to consider how necessary a potential new law really is and eliminates older, unenforced ones. Also makes it possible for most citizens to actually know all the laws of the land..
 
2012-10-15 09:33:29 PM  
Florida is becoming a toxic mix of crypto-fascist corporatism and snarling theocracy. But please do visit, the beaches are nice this time of year.
 
2012-10-15 09:40:58 PM  

indylaw: Need_MindBleach: I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Texas is complicated. It definitely found that a law that criminalizes certain sexual behaviors between unmarried gay people is unconstitutional. The problem is that the rationale is unclear. Is that law unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws to gay people? If so, then perhaps a sodomy law that applies to gays and straights equally is OK. Or is that law unconstitutional because it deprives people of their substantive due process (liberty interest) in engaging in consensual sexual behavior without government interference?


According to Wikipedia, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion recognizing a 14th Amendment right to sexual privacy. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, so there was a 5-vote majority on the same rationale. O'Connor concurred but rejected the sexual privacy rationale and asserted the law was unconstitutional by being discriminatory toward one group. Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented, because "homosexual agenda" (Scalia actually used that phrase). Thomas apparently was just embarrassed enough to point out, irrelevantly, that although he thinks anti-sodomy laws are constitutional, he thinks they're silly and if he was a legislator he would repeal them.
 
2012-10-15 09:49:10 PM  

olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.


www.resurrection.it
Agrees

 
2012-10-15 10:42:05 PM  
Desuetude - a legal doctrine that under some circumstances (see details, especially three-prong Walz Test), a law becomes invalid if it has not been enforced for a long time
 
2012-10-15 11:12:25 PM  
It might not make sense to have a law against it, but people who cheat on their spouses are assholes. No need for a law- Karma usually gets 'em in the end.
 
2012-10-15 11:40:02 PM  
Link

If you read up on the guy, sounds like he's a real douche-tard. Apparently a concerned citizen is just using his own tactics against him.
 
2012-10-15 11:51:27 PM  
imageshack.us
Arrested for showing too much ankle in her day.

/you wouldn't believe
//how much incest porn i had to wade through
///before i gave up and gave you this image
 
2012-10-16 12:30:49 AM  
We persecute prosecute other people or violating stupid pointless laws.
 
2012-10-16 12:50:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Jument: There are a ton of stupid and/or obsolete laws on a books. It should be a priority of government to strike them.

Why would they want to give up any piece of their power, no matter how insignificant?


That seems to be the problem - "What if I cannot find another reason to arrest the dude down the road I don't like, cept for the fact he likes 'unnatural sex' acts?"
 
2012-10-16 09:50:48 AM  
Laws should expire automatically on a schedule related to the percentage of votes cast in their factor.

If a law passes by 60% majority, it should expire after 6 years.

If legislators were forced to constantly renew laws, we would have less laws, good laws, and be a better country for it.
 
2012-10-16 10:12:46 AM  
Let's put Linda Takahashi in an internment camp.
 
2012-10-16 11:55:38 AM  

fnordfocus: pute kisses like a man: I would bet that this is a law that was functionally overturned/considered to be unconstitutional. the legislature never took it off the books, despite the fact that it cannot be enforced.

Nope.

Hyppy's link showed that someone was prosecuted under this law as recently as 2006.


yeah, read that after I posted. I was surprised.
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

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