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  
•       •       •

10829 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:41 AM (2 years 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 11:09:35 AM  

Serious Black: 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.


I remember watching the current Chief Justice's confirmation hearings (yes, I am that big of a nerd, thank you for asking), and he specifically said that was one of the two times where the SCOTUS was obligated to act.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:07 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: 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.


I think we're saying the same thing. You just got butthurt that I don't care about this issue as hard and long as you do.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:12 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: 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.


It's an interesting paradox that when parents take tax deductions for having children, they end up contributing less tax money toward public serves for children (public schools, etc) than people without kids, who can't take the same deductions.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:52 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 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.


It was passed, 144 years ago. We just need to enforce it.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You wanna ban gay marriage, you gotta ban all marriage.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:57 AM  

lennavan: 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.


Sorry, I'm in a pissy mood today, and knew that people would be coming in here looking for a fight. So I threw a little gas on the fire to watch the thread burn. Personally, I think government should create legal civil unions with the same rights for everyone.

Of course the reaction I got was probably because I tried to post exactly what my 70 year old far right wing dad would say, so yes, there are plenty of people who think exactly like that. Of course, just like my dad, they are old, and more and more of them die every year. Their way is passing into history.
 
2012-11-30 11:11:47 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: 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.


Oh, I know. DOMA's going down like Lindsay Lohan at 3 a.m.
 
2012-11-30 11:12:46 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.


The most recent ruling in the PropH8 case is that homogays should be allowed to marry in California. If SCOTUS declines to take that case, they will approve state sponsored sodomy in California, without even ruling on it.

So do my friends
So do my lovers
So do my heroes
 
2012-11-30 11:13:00 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: 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.


I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 11:13:49 AM  
I'm desperate for gay marriage to be approved, so I can realize my dream of sex with ducks.
 
2012-11-30 11:17:26 AM  

qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.


I can't wait to read Scalia's dissent. It'll be one for the ages.
 
2012-11-30 11:18:10 AM  

mbillips: Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me.


Eh, not really. According to the stories, gang-rape was their way of saying "Hi, welcome to our town!"

/ (Liberal Christians tend to argue that the tendency to rape and murder strangers was the actual sin of Sodom that caused them to get barbecued.)
 
2012-11-30 11:18:12 AM  

qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.


I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 11:19:35 AM  
Really? No one Is being That Guy yet? Guess its up to me.

The government should get out of the marriage game altogether. They've got no business defining what is and isn't a family.
 
2012-11-30 11:19:42 AM  

BigBooper: Sorry, I'm in a pissy mood today, and knew that people would be coming in here looking for a fight. So I threw a little gas on the fire to watch the thread burn.


Eh no worries, I was in a pissy mood yesterday, lack of sleep. I'm hopin the coffee kicks in soon so I can get some shiat done today.

BigBooper: Personally, I think government should create legal civil unions with the same rights for everyone.


That's the same thing as saying you support gay marriage. A marriage is a government created civil union. That's what the word actually means. The only trouble is a bunch of religious idiots have no idea what the word marriage means and they think a marriage is a religious thing. It's not, they are thinking of the wedding ceremony, which can be the religious thing.
 
2012-11-30 11:19:50 AM  

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

/derp


craphound.com
 
2012-11-30 11:20:04 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.




BIE across state lines ?
 
2012-11-30 11:20:49 AM  
This all reminds me of the great debates about giving women the right to vote. My teletype was blowing up! Oh how I miss those days. When women couldn't vote that is.
 
2012-11-30 11:21:01 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.

I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.


That's quite a statement. Thomas is such a far-right extremist.
 
2012-11-30 11:21:13 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.


Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50
 
2012-11-30 11:21:25 AM  
The important question will be *which* DOMA case they take. Will it be one than Kagan has to recuse, or one she can participate in?
 
2012-11-30 11:21:45 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!!


Dude, get your chaps on and get laid by some leather wearing dude. You are just stressing yourself out by refusing to get over your self hate.
 
2012-11-30 11:23:57 AM  

mbillips: 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.


Not so weird if you realize the the first half of 18 is about Abe being a good host, and the rest of 18-19 are about how the people of Sodom...aren't. The whole section has a pretty clear moral: "Be a good and gracious host."

Christians somehow got the idea in their heads that the "sin of Sodom" was buttsects, when there is little indication (save for the people's demand - "Send these travelers outside, that we may 'know' them"; the text in 18:20 only points out that "their sin was great") that they practiced it. There is a TON of text supporting the idea that "Sodomites" were pretty shiatty hosts (shiatty people in general). In fact, if they were all about evil sex, they'd have taken Lot's offer of his daughters - the fact that they didn't (they renewed their request for Lot to send the travelers out) suggests they had other motivations.
 
2012-11-30 11:25:03 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.


Sounds like you hate Americans for their freedoms.
 
2012-11-30 11:25:03 AM  

nobodyUwannaknow: 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.

The most recent ruling in the PropH8 case is that homogays should be allowed to marry in California. If SCOTUS declines to take that case, they will approve state sponsored sodomy in California, without even ruling on it.

So do my friends
So do my lovers
So do my heroes


Damn straight, they should! If Prop 8 hadn't been named so weirdly, it totally would have failed and I'd be decorating a cake or catering a reception for a very nice gay couple right now. The only issue would be, which one is Bridezilla? Anything else is none of my business, just as it should be to anyone with even a tiny bit of manners.

/gonna go Freep diving so I can remember even more why I hate people
//especially those people
 
2012-11-30 11:25:45 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.

I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.


Won't that be a stinging rebuke to the conservative movement? This is their last line of defense, put in place specifically for situations like this.
 
2012-11-30 11:25:56 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.

I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.


Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.
 
2012-11-30 11:26:08 AM  
Would it be possible for them to strike down all marriage laws when considering these cases? Cut a wide swath, so to speak.
 
2012-11-30 11:29:45 AM  

THX 1138: ThrobblefootSpectre: 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.

It's an interesting paradox that when parents take tax deductions for having children, they end up contributing less tax money toward public serves for children (public schools, etc) than people without kids, who can't take the same deductions.


That's the whole idea, really.
 
2012-11-30 11:29:59 AM  

Notabunny: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.

I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.

That's quite a statement. Thomas is such a far-right extremist.


In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?
 
2012-11-30 11:30:05 AM  
I look forward to seeing DOMA declared unconstitutional as a clear violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution. i.e. the Full Faith and Credit Clause, IMHO.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
2012-11-30 11:30:19 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: 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.


Nope, same position. Our population growth is among the highest of any industrialized nation in the world, since we are the world's single most popular emigration destination by far, with very simple immigration requirements. Our population is also quite youthful, with more than 25% of the pop being 19 or under .
 
2012-11-30 11:31:08 AM  
 
2012-11-30 11:32:12 AM  
The cool kid club where same sex marriage is legally recognized:

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
the Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
 
2012-11-30 11:33:39 AM  

lennavan: Serious Black: I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.

Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.


I definitely am not an African-American, but I am 100% serious here. I would be shocked to see him uphold DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 11:35:14 AM  

THX 1138: It's an interesting paradox that when parents take tax deductions for having children, they end up contributing less tax money toward public serves for children (public schools, etc) than people without kids, who can't take the same deductions.


I admit it is quite irritating to be paying 2 to three times as much in federal taxes as my middle class peers who pump out children. But I do also firmly believe that incentivizing population growth was an idea that was, at one time, socially useful to our nation - but stopped making sense sometime mid last century.
 
2012-11-30 11:36:18 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.


Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Yep, we sure are.
 
2012-11-30 11:37:26 AM  
It's a little nerve-racking knowing a hand full of people are sitting in a room today deciding one's fate.
 
2012-11-30 11:38:59 AM  

Serious Black: lennavan: Serious Black: I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.

Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.

I definitely am not an African-American, but I am 100% serious here. I would be shocked to see him uphold DOMA.


There is only one thing that would shock me with respect to Clarence Thomas: him asking a question during oral arguments. That'd be farkin nuts.
 
2012-11-30 11:39:08 AM  

WorldCitizen: It's a little nerve-racking knowing a hand full of people are sitting in a room today deciding one's fate.


That's basically every day.
 
2012-11-30 11:40:26 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50



So the TesParty is full of Sodomites on rascal scooters?
 
2012-11-30 11:40:40 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: THX 1138: It's an interesting paradox that when parents take tax deductions for having children, they end up contributing less tax money toward public serves for children (public schools, etc) than people without kids, who can't take the same deductions.

I admit it is quite irritating to be paying 2 to three times as much in federal taxes as my middle class peers who pump out children. But I do also firmly believe that incentivizing population growth was an idea that was, at one time, socially useful to our nation - but stopped making sense sometime mid last century.


I can sort of understand deductions for dependents. The existence or nonexistence of the tax credit probably won't change anyone's decision on whether or not to have children, but not having the credit means less money in the family's pocket, and raising children is expensive.
 
2012-11-30 11:41:01 AM  

WorldCitizen: It's a little nerve-racking knowing a hand full of people are sitting in a room today deciding one's fate.


Exactly two handsful, actually, if they're Jerry Garcia's hands.
 
2012-11-30 11:42:08 AM  

lennavan: Serious Black: lennavan: Serious Black: I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.

Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.

I definitely am not an African-American, but I am 100% serious here. I would be shocked to see him uphold DOMA.

There is only one thing that would shock me with respect to Clarence Thomas: him asking a question during oral arguments. That'd be farkin nuts.


Well no shiat man. He'd have to have a stroke to say something during oral arguments. But I am 100% positive that, assuming DOMA is heard, he will at least issue a concurrence saying it's unconstitutional. I can see him not signing the majority if they find that heightened scrutiny is required, but that's about it.
 
2012-11-30 11:42:28 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.


Too many gay activists have already stated that they don't want "mutually beneficial joint tax filing status", they want MARRIAGE.

Also, I didn't think the individual states' rights to "define" marriage was in question? I guess it is - otherwise the SC couldn't hear cases from the states on their rules for marriage...unless they are just considering "taking" that right away from the states...which, sorry, I just won't get behind (don't care what the issue is).
 
2012-11-30 11:42:44 AM  

Singleballtheory: This all reminds me of the great debates about giving women the right to vote. My teletype was blowing up! Oh how I miss those days. When women couldn't vote that is.


From a FB post I made a while back on this topic:

Had we had the internet in
1860: Lots of conservative outrage posted about the election of Lincoln (especially in the South) and how it is the end of America. #Revolutionbegins
1863: Lots of conservative outrage posted about Emancipation Proclamation (especially from the South) and how it is the end of America. Lincoln out to destroy American economy as it depends on slavery. #Lincolndestroysjobs

1866: Lots of conservative outrage posted about Reconstruction (especially from the South) and how it is the end of America. Big federal government is bad.
1920: Huge conservative outrage at women being allowed to vote and how it is the end of America. #getbackinthekitchen
1935: Unimaginable conservative outrage at the creation of Social Security as this is definitely the most evil socialism imaginable. The end of America is obviously now.
1948: Lots of conservative outrage posted about the racial integration of the US military (especially from the South) and how it is the end of the effectiveness of the US military and the end of America. "Please pray for America" a common posting.
1954: Uproar against activist judges imposing desegregation upon the United States rather than letting each state vote individually to decide upon whether black people should have equal rights. Like button clicked like crazy following post: "Activist judges are destroying America!!!"
1964: Millions lament (especially in the South) on Facebook that the Civil Rights Act is an outrage. Hidden camera captures President Johnson saying: "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." Video goes viral.
1967: Activist judges strike again! Conservatives clog the series of tubes with their outrage at activist judges declaring that laws barring interracial marriage are unconstitutional. Many conservative Christians post and tweet about how Americans obviously don't care about the Bible today and are unAmerican as interracial marriage is not Christian. "America is a Christian nation!" comments explode.
 
2012-11-30 11:42:46 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.


I agree! Since the writers of the constitution were slaveowners, I should clearly be allowed to own other humans, and eagerly look forward to the day when I can fire all the paid employees at my buggy-whip factory, and staff it entirely with hot, 16-year-old Asian slave chicks.
 
2012-11-30 11:43:18 AM  

fracto: BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50


So the TesParty is full of Sodomites on rascal scooters?


Most people assume that the Sodomites' gang-rape of visiting angels was a homosexual act. But angels aren't men. :-)
 
2012-11-30 11:44:44 AM  

Serious Black: There is only one thing that would shock me with respect to Clarence Thomas: him asking a question during oral arguments. That'd be farkin nuts.

Well no shiat man. He'd have to have a stroke to say something during oral arguments.


He might say something if his robe caught fire. :-)
 
2012-11-30 11:44:50 AM  
Re Sodom:

To nomadic desert dwellers, guest-right is important shiat. Sodom violated it.
 
2012-11-30 11:48:48 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50


So you're saying we dodged a bullet by not electing a Republican to the Whitehouse?

/threadjack
 
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 »
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