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.

(Mother Jones)   All you need to know about the seven cases the Supreme Court has on its menu for gay-marriage day   (motherjones.com) divider line 325
    More: Interesting, California Supreme Court, personnel management, Lambda Legal, domestic partners, Office of Personnel Management, US House of Representatives, California Constitution, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

10826 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-30 10:43:47 AM
Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

/derp
 
2012-11-30 10:45:08 AM
My guess is SCOTUS will take up DOMA since it's ludicrous to have a federal law be unenforceable in parts of the country but enforceable in others. My guess is also the conservatives are hoping they'll take up California's case so they can declare the states don't have the power to legalize marriage equality.
 
2012-11-30 10:46:03 AM
Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.
 
2012-11-30 10:46:41 AM
Imma gonna gay marry a pygmy goat. We want a new blender for our wedding gift, thanks.

/hurr de durrr
//gonna go Freep diving in a minute, because, bwahahahaha!
 
2012-11-30 10:47:17 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.
 
2012-11-30 10:47:34 AM

Free Radical: Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

/derp


I thought it was marriage to turtles that we wanted to legalize. Cause you know they go all the way down.
 
2012-11-30 10:48:26 AM

BigBooper: Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.


It's sad to see a full-grown man drolling on his own bib like that.
 
2012-11-30 10:48:51 AM
What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.
 
2012-11-30 10:49:09 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Yeah, all that freedom. Sucks being an authoritarian at the federal level. Even if they can't find it in the single digit amendments there's always that damn 10th one.
 
2012-11-30 10:50:04 AM
The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.
 
2012-11-30 10:51:02 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.
 
2012-11-30 10:52:26 AM

Source4leko: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.


The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...
 
2012-11-30 10:52:34 AM

PonceAlyosha: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.


It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.
 
2012-11-30 10:52:36 AM
Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS is in a tough spot here. On the one hand, at least on paper, they probably have a 5-4 majority to overturn the lower Federal Court decisions, which have been in favor of "marriage equality." Refusing to take on those cases leaves the lower court decisions as they are, which would be a victory for pro-gay marriage people.

Taking the cases on, however, runs the risk that if a Justice switches sides, then the Supreme Court's decision endorsing gay marriage (or the specific aspects addressed by those cases anyway) would apply to the whole nation.

/I think a decision on these cases will be delayed while Justices get a better idea of how their colleagues might rule.
//Getting the popcorn ready.
 
2012-11-30 10:52:58 AM

steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.


I think she'll be floored when Clarence Thomas votes to strike down DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 10:53:07 AM
They need to just remove stuatory marriage laws and make marriage contractual law. Remove all legal spousal benefits and remove the ability to file jointly (its silly that we ever allowed this in the first place). Then set up a frame work were by law people can enter into a defined contract with another individual cafeteria style. (medical benefits, estate issues, etc).

After going through a divorce which included child and spousal support, I hate the idea of getting into a marriage that eventually falls apart being left up to the courts to decide in the end. EVERYTHING should be spelled out up front and nothing should be left to the courts unless its a breach of contract issue.
 
2012-11-30 10:53:16 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Well, they never included language that prohibits either of those, so...yes?

// though they DID make sure to tell us that everyone should have a speedy and fair trial, and we saw how that worked out...
 
2012-11-30 10:53:51 AM

DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations.


Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public
 
2012-11-30 10:54:41 AM
DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:15 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


And don't even get me started on those uppity blacks...
 
2012-11-30 10:55:16 AM

BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.


Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:36 AM

Source4leko: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.


THIS
 
2012-11-30 10:55:50 AM
Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!
 
2012-11-30 10:55:51 AM

DubtodaIll: I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


Civil rights=non-issue. Thanks for your retarded contribution.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:51 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Dude. I keep hearing that "marriage is a religious ritual, with federal benefits" but some douchebags never consider their religion isn't the only one. I'm a Nordic Heathen. Gay marriage is totally cool with me. If you swear an oath to one another, you are bound to it, period. That's why it's called an "oath". So if the Christians or Conservatives or whoever is peering in your windows that day while being obsessed with your sex life want tax benefits for "marriage", hand 'em over here, too. The oath has been sworn and they're married now. Turnabout is totally fair play. More importantly, I think the "no separate classes" part of the fourteenth amendment already has this covered. If I can figure that out - and I'm a chef, not a lawyer, for pity's sake! - you'd think other people could as well.

/straight chick with gay friends
//this is relevant to my interests 
///figures you were probably trollin', so plus one for you
 
2012-11-30 10:55:55 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Clearly the writers of the Constitution intended all citizens to have equal protection under the law. Sorry.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:00 AM

BigBooper: It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.


All those bacon and shellfish eaters make me sick. And don't get me started on those sick freaks who cotton-polyester blends.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:14 AM
They'll hear one of the DOMA cases but not prop 8. But they'll suspend upholdoing the current ruling on prop 8 until DOMA is heard.


This shiat is annoying
 
2012-11-30 10:56:19 AM

steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.


Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:30 AM

DubtodaIll: The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


I understand your frustration. But there are real people who are really suffering because of state-sanctioned discrimination. While I'm not happy that this court, with its right-wing activist judges, could make important civil rights decisions, these decisions need to be made at the federal level.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:11 AM

Dwight_Yeast: DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations.

Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public


i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together. Also, no shame.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:20 AM
covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery

How is this an issue? If you risk your life fighting to defend the country, you should be buried wherever and however the fark you want to be buried and bill the taxpayers.

Goddamn some people are assholes.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:53 AM

Singleballtheory: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.rewardslink.info

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

And don't even get me started on those uppity blacks...


Oh no you didn't!
 
2012-11-30 10:59:00 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


The authors of the constitution intended for black people worth less than white people, slavery to be acceptable, and women too stupid to be allowed to vote, so let's not pretend their views should be set in stone and revered after 200 odd years of progress.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:29 AM

Citrate1007: Source4leko: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.

The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...


I understand the sentiment, and I don't begrudge you for feeling that way. But please know that many of us in churches all across the country are fighting against our governing bodies (who tend to be older and significantly more conservative than the actual churches) to support gay marriage. Change is happening.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:40 AM

Funk Brothers: DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.


The Supremes have the right and the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a state constitution if it violates the federal one. Why wouldn't they? Prop 8 is unconstitutional for the same reasons DOMA is, and I expect to see a sweeping ruling dealing with the whole mess once their done.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:47 AM

Luminaro: Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!


That's not sweat my friend.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:13 AM

lennavan: covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery

How is this an issue? If you risk your life fighting to defend the country, you should be buried wherever and however the fark you want to be buried and bill the taxpayers.

Goddamn some people are assholes.


I thought they fought and died protecting my right to hate and discriminate
 
2012-11-30 11:00:16 AM

DubtodaIll: I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


B-b-b-but Religious Freedom!!!!!!

(that being the freedom to impose one's religious rules on non-followers)
 
2012-11-30 11:00:17 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS is in a tough spot here. On the one hand, at least on paper, they probably have a 5-4 majority to overturn the lower Federal Court decisions, which have been in favor of "marriage equality." Refusing to take on those cases leaves the lower court decisions as they are, which would be a victory for pro-gay marriage people.

Taking the cases on, however, runs the risk that if a Justice switches sides, then the Supreme Court's decision endorsing gay marriage (or the specific aspects addressed by those cases anyway) would apply to the whole nation.

/I think a decision on these cases will be delayed while Justices get a better idea of how their colleagues might rule.
//Getting the popcorn ready.


They might have it on Perry v. Brown, but you really think that Kennedy will allow DOMA to stand after authoring Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Hell, I think if they grant cert to a DOMA case, it'll go down 7-2 with Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas voting to strike it.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:25 AM

DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations


Agreed on the tax incentive for a two parent household. But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:32 AM
I wouldn't be too surprised if the conservative Justices decided to hear these cases just to make sure that same-sex couples don't get civil rights rights until June. (If they choose not to hear the cases, same-sex couples will get some civil rights immediately, at least in jurisdictions affected by these cases)
 
2012-11-30 11:00:56 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


So I'll admit, I saw this post and evaluated it as far too obvious. But with the sheer volume of replies that I never saw coming, I am forced to revisit my initial assessment. I was wrong, you were dead on.

11/10, bravo. You taught me something today.
 
2012-11-30 11:02:02 AM

miscreant: Luminaro: Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!

That's not sweat my friend.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-30 11:03:59 AM

DubtodaIll: i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together.


This is not about "working together"; it's about sharing a life and all the attendant rights. If there were a workable contract law solution to this problem, we would have found it years ago. The closest gay people have come is being able to adopt their partner, but that's A) weird and B) only works in certain states and countries.

DOMA and the state laws are fundamentally discriminatory. This is an equal protection issues, and doesn't affect what any religious group thinks or wants to do.
 
2012-11-30 11:04:27 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Funk Brothers: DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.

The Supremes have the right and the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a state constitution if it violates the federal one. Why wouldn't they? Prop 8 is unconstitutional for the same reasons DOMA is, and I expect to see a sweeping ruling dealing with the whole mess once their done.


If Perry v. Brown is not heard, then the lower court's ruling on the case stands which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. This would mean that gay marriage in California becomes legal in a very short time frame after the Supreme Court formally announces that they will not hear Perry v. Brown.
 
2012-11-30 11:05:49 AM
Sighs, really? How about just declaring that love is love, in whatever form, (well, besides beast love and kiddies) and that the government has no place stipulating who loves who, and if it's right or wrong. Drop the 1940's butt hurt over how people live, give everyone equal rights and benefits and move on to underping the TSA and look at the right to privacy. God, this shiat should have been passed years ago.
 
2012-11-30 11:07:38 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.


Look at our country's birth rate (just fallen to its lowest rate ever) and you may want to rethink that position.

mbillips: steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.

Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.


They do vote based on personal belief, and the current Court is weighted towards people who believe in personal liberties, which is why more or less this same court finally and definitively overturned any and all sodomy laws.
 
2012-11-30 11:08:28 AM

Dwight_Yeast: BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.


Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me. As long as we make the building codes strong enough to protect from earthquakes and floods, I don't see a problem.

/Genesis 18-19 are WEIRD stories.
 
2012-11-30 11:09:13 AM
I'm pretty sure gay marriage is covered by the interstate commerce clause.......derpaderpadoo!
 
Displayed 50 of 325 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report