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  
•       •       •

10827 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 12:57:40 PM  

incendi: I drunk what: so there were no cities that had riches and poor people before or after Sodom?

The bible is pretty clear that God is a bit of a bastard and not at all consistent in his judgements.


well then, i'm convinced

abortions and gay marriages for everyone!1!!
 
2012-11-30 12:58:18 PM  

Foundling: I agree with you, but using this argument to put people at ease may backfire.


It's not an argument so much as just easily verifiable fact. That's like saying gravity is an argument.

Anyway, I don't know a single person that would actually hide under their bed crying about immigrants. I'm betting you don't either. But then I live in an area where immigrants are a majority in some major cities. maybe people from the north east might actually be like you describe.
 
2012-11-30 12:59:06 PM  

I drunk what: Foundling: You can read Greek,

can we read the Hebrew while we're at it?


Be my guest. They even give you a side-by-side translation.
 
2012-11-30 01:00:00 PM  

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

/derp


You pervert. Marriage is between a man and his turtle.

//Seriously, though, the difference between direct "tyrrany of the majority" democracy and constitutional representative democracy is that the supreme law of the land at least attempts to protect the rights of the individual over all else, and this overrides majority opinion in all cases where a direct negative impact on the welfare of other individuals or the group can be conclusively demonstrated. Non-quantitative impacts are not sufficient to override the default permissiveness of the constitution no matter how many farking idiots you can get to vote that people shouldn't be allowed to eat artichoke because morality or whatever dumb shiat.
 
2012-11-30 01:05:57 PM  

lennavan: The pressing problem you are ignoring is many people work their asses off and still cannot afford to have kids.


I didn't ignore that, in the slightest, at all. In fact, I already plainly and explicitly said that tax credits and social programs for families with children near or below poverty level is NOT what i am addressing. I am simply talking about your average middle class family with a big screen TV and a garageful of nice cars that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level. (the majority of the population and federal taxpayers)

Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said. Let's avoid a lot of pointless annoyance and just say, okay you disagree with. Cool. :)
 
2012-11-30 01:09:00 PM  

I drunk what: are they in Greek?


One's been covered already. Mentions greed, and "detestable things," but not homosexuality:

BarkingUnicorn: "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


I drunk what: and you feel that allowing gays to marry will cause this "global wellness" that you desire?


I don't think that giving girls in middle eastern countries the chance to go to school without being attacked will cause "global wellness" by itself, but I know it'll make life better for them personally, because I know I do better when I'm not having acid thrown on me.

I drunk what: because people who disagree with: the idea that homosexuality should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice even to the point of altering the core values-definition of what a family unit is


Guess what some of the objections are in Muslim countries against girls being allowed to go to school....
 
2012-11-30 01:11:01 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: I am simply talking about your average middle class family with a big screen TV and a garageful of nice cars that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level. (the majority of the population and federal taxpayers)


I think this needs clarification. A married couple (assuming both are working) will generate twice the income of a single person (on average).

Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?
 
2012-11-30 01:12:25 PM  

BigBooper: I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Right to vote, right to not be a slave...

Plus, it seems like the first amendment didn't have any teeth to it until "activist judges" got involved.
 
2012-11-30 01:12:56 PM  

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 while they are at it they'll take away that stupid right to privacy that is no where to be found as well.
 
2012-11-30 01:14:47 PM  
Yet another holiday for a federal agency to observe.
 
2012-11-30 01:15:26 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: I didn't ignore that, in the slightest, at all. In fact, I already plainly and explicitly said that tax credits and social programs for families with children near or below poverty level is NOT what i am addressing. I am simply talking about your average middle class family with a big screen TV and a garageful of nice cars that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level. (the majority of the population and federal taxpayers)


You and I have a serious difference in factual understanding of the world. Yes, everyone above the poverty level has a big screen TV (which are like $300 these days, what a stupid example), a garage full of nice cars and a refrigerator to boot!

You clearly have no idea what the poverty level is, what the median income is, what the cost of daycare for a single kid is, how much a mortgage might be, how much the tax deduction is, how many other taxes people pay and so on.

Like I said you and I have a serious difference in factual understanding of the world.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said.


I wasn't talking about people at or below the poverty line. That you didn't know that clearly demonstrates how oblivious to reality you really are. Make sure to hug mommy and daddy when you get home tonight and thank them for sheltering you.
 
2012-11-30 01:16:44 PM  

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.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.


I don't have to show research, unless you can cite one case that shows they voted in line with personal beliefs instead of the rule of law.

They constantly go against what they may personally believe to uphold the law, people ignore that fact.

All I really have to mention to kill your needs citation argument is Obama care which was ruled on even if he didn't personally like it.
 
2012-11-30 01:19:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?


I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.
 
2012-11-30 01:20:02 PM  

crzybtch: Which reminds me, despite being married in the church and taking that "holy vow" I knew a guy who was married for 30 years and had 5 kids but was able to get an annulment so that he could marry the woman he was cheating with.


You clearly know some obscenely rich people. Even getting the pope to notice your annulment request is expensive as all hell.

Also, once you have kids, an annulment doesn't actually help you, sin-wise. Because all those kids are now bastards, and having children out of wedlock is one of those can't-really-repent-effectively ones. You're actually better off sin-wise to keep cheating and hope to live long enough that your libido fails before you die, and confess at least once between the two occurrences.
 
2012-11-30 01:21:27 PM  

lennavan: Make sure to hug mommy and daddy when you get home tonight and thank them for sheltering you.


Yeah, good argument. *snerk* :)
 
2012-11-30 01:21:34 PM  

BigBooper: Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals slaves to have the same rights as straight white people


FTFY
 
2012-11-30 01:22:03 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said.


That's kind of his thing, yanno?
 
2012-11-30 01:24:41 PM  

steamingpile: I don't have to show research, unless you can cite one case that shows they voted in line with personal beliefs instead of the rule of law.


You realize that the entire point of the USSC is to hear cases where the law is not clear, and clarify how they're supposed to be interpreted using their personal beliefs about, among other things, the constitution and what they think to be common sense and/or "reasonable", right?

Like, that's literally the entire reason they exist, at least according to the constitution.
 
2012-11-30 01:24:55 PM  

Deucednuisance: That's kind of his thing, yanno?


I'm starting to pick up on that.
 
2012-11-30 01:26:52 PM  
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal"

How about we follow this basic aspect of America, hm? How about we stop obsessing with other people's sex and love lives, hm? How about we stop acting like 2,000-year-old dogma is the best way to live in the 21st century, hm?
 
2012-11-30 01:29:24 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


Well, there are also other federal taxes involved. For example, if I could get my partner into the country to stay with me, my employer will offer health care coverage for him. However, unlike a straight person, the amount they contribute to his health insurance will be taxed as my income (for straight married couples that money is tax free). Also, my plan for a couple requires that the first $2500 is completely out of pocket. However, my employer puts $2500 into an HSA account to be used toward that total. But my partner, since not officially recognized as such by the federal government, can't touch that money as it is federal tax free and cannot be used for any of his expenses. So, for him his first $2500 is completely uncovered. So yeah, I would be paying thousands of dollars a year that a straight married couple would not have to pay. Thanks discrimination!
 
2012-11-30 01:29:51 PM  

I drunk what: what do you consider to the be The Authority?

 
2012-11-30 01:32:34 PM  

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.


Nah, DoMA puts Article I and the 10th Amendment into question - it's the states, not the federal government, who have the right to define marriage. It's not an equal protection issue, because states are able to define marriage differently, with various ages of consent, degrees of consanguinity, and blood test requirements.

/to be clear: there are equal protection issues around gay marriage, just not within DoMA
 
2012-11-30 01:33:52 PM  

I drunk what: because people who disagree with: the idea that homosexuality should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice even to the point of altering the core values-definition of what a family unit is, are treating someone like shiat?


What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"

Are single-parent households not families? Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins? Can people who adopt children claim to have families?

If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?
 
2012-11-30 01:34:39 PM  

Deucednuisance: ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said.

That's kind of his thing, yanno?


You're an idiot if you think the only people struggling to raise a family are people at or below the poverty line.
 
2012-11-30 01:35:19 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: I drunk what: because people who disagree with: the idea that homosexuality should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice even to the point of altering the core values-definition of what a family unit is, are treating someone like shiat?

What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"

Are single-parent households not families? Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins? Can people who adopt children claim to have families?

If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?


I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?
 
2012-11-30 01:35:56 PM  
I remember it now. The Republicans warned me about gay marriage day.

Isn't this the day that the godless, fascist, socialist, libtards force all of us straight people to gay marry animals!?!?

Do I still need a divorce lawyer if Obama forces me to leave my wife for a male turtle? Will I get my Obama phone at the ceremony?

Should I stop listening to conservative radio?!?!?
 
2012-11-30 01:36:22 PM  

lennavan: You're an idiot if you think the only people struggling to raise a family are people at or below the poverty line.


Well, Snookums, you're a bigger idiot if you think that anyone's claimed that.
 
2012-11-30 01:37:33 PM  

WorldCitizen: For example, if I could get my partner into the country to stay with me, my employer will offer health care coverage for him. However, unlike a straight person, the amount they contribute to his health insurance will be taxed as my income (for straight married couples that money is tax free).


I wasn't making any distinction between straights or same sex couples. That's just a don't care in my book. But yeah, same sex couples should be treated the same (same benefits, same taxes) as hetero couples.
 
2012-11-30 01:37:53 PM  

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.


If you want to go "old school originalist" then I take it you are also pro-Slavery and against women voting?

Or are you just derping?
 
2012-11-30 01:42:11 PM  

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. .


The Obamacare mandate was ruled constitutional as a tax. DOMA has much less to stand on. I'm amazed it has taken this long to be struck down. (Yes, I'm anticipating the ruling.)
 
2012-11-30 01:42:18 PM  

Deucednuisance: lennavan: You're an idiot if you think the only people struggling to raise a family are people at or below the poverty line.

Well, Snookums, you're a bigger idiot if you think that anyone's claimed that.


Well honeypie, he did. And you did when you agreed with him. I claimed families are struggling and he replied "Stop nitpicking, I'm not talking about people at or below the poverty line." And you agreed.

Idiot.
 
2012-11-30 01:46:47 PM  

BigBooper: 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.


He has been banging his dog for years and in cohabitation so they could claim common-law marriage.
 
2012-11-30 01:48:40 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?


You forgot fertility. Marriage only counts if there is a possibility of children being born using only the genetic material of the couple, (without the intervention of any modern medical science.) This is why married couples are required to undergo fertility testing, why couples that adopt children are not really "families," why post-menopausal women are forbidden from getting married, and, or course, why any marriage that does not produce children within the first 2 years is annulled by the state.

I hope you've learned something.
 
2012-11-30 01:51:07 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


You're substituting "incentivized breeding" for "marriage" and also glomming on some other arguments. I'm asking for something fairly narrow and easy - clarify your original statement so that I understand, before I even create a supporting or opposite argument.

When you said "I am simply talking about your average middle class family ... that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level" do you mean that the neighbor pays twice as many dollars to the IRS or that Single Guy's effective rate is twice that of Married Couple's?

An example:
The Smiths live next door to John Jones. Johnny, who has a decent job, paid an effective 15% on his $50k salary ($7,500) to Uncle Sam. For the Smiths (who have no kids and the same deductions as Jonesy, save the marriage credit), each of whom has a $50k/year job, are you claiming they'd pay half the effective rate as Jonesy (meaning they'd owe the same $7,500, only for two people) or that they will pay a combined $3,750 in taxes (half of the dollar amount Jonesy paid)?

// commence the Martian Manhunter jokes
 
2012-11-30 01:58:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"


would you like a religious answer or prefer a scientific approach?

BarkingUnicorn: Are single-parent households not families?


not efficient ones, and certainly not one i would recommend to the be the gold standard

BarkingUnicorn: Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins?


also inefficiently, but i certainly wouldn't add them to the list of people that can marry either

BarkingUnicorn: Can people who adopt children claim to have families?


anyone can claim anything, but the simple Truth is that a Man and a Woman in a monogamous relationship can provide the best environment to raise children (whether or not they gave birth to them)

wolves can also raise children, though i wouldn't recommend including them in the definition of marriage either

BarkingUnicorn: If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?


the difference between being able to produce offspring and not being capable, which some societies value

BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?


children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support
 
2012-11-30 02:02:05 PM  

SpectroBoy: I remember it now. The Republicans warned me about gay marriage day.

Isn't this the day that the godless, fascist, socialist, libtards force all of us straight people to gay marry animals!?!?

Do I still need a divorce lawyer if Obama forces me to leave my wife for a male turtle? Will I get my Obama phone at the ceremony?

Should I stop listening to conservative radio?!?!?


Yes, no, yes but you won't like where you're mandated to keep it, yes.
 
2012-11-30 02:03:40 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


Do not confuse the tax consequences of marriage with the tax consequences of having children. Do not confuse children with dependents; the latter can include dependent relatives who are not one's crotchfruit (and they don't even have to be U. S. citizens). Also, you don't get tax breaks just for having kids; you have to provide more than half of their support.

There are at least two "useful purposes that serve the collective weal" in granting tax breaks to those who support them:

1. The government doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden of supporting them. Adopt an orphan and you get child tax benefits. Care for your disabled cousin and you get a dependent deduction. Neither example incentivizes making a baby.

2. Child care tax credits enable adults to work who otherwise would be on the public dole.
 
2012-11-30 02:06:49 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: I hope you've learned something.


a little too much butthurt, dial it back a notch

/you're not helping.jpg
 
2012-11-30 02:09:26 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You're substituting "incentivized breeding" for "marriage" and also glomming on some other arguments.


No, I'm not. I already said the marriage tax advantages make sense. I said child tax deductions don't. I'm not confusing anything with marriage.
 
2012-11-30 02:10:10 PM  

I drunk what: BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?

children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support


I'm with you. If we start allowing orphaned siblings to call themselves a family, more parents are going to abandon their kids or die.
 
2012-11-30 02:11:03 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: You're substituting "incentivized breeding" for "marriage" and also glomming on some other arguments.

No, I'm not. I already said the marriage tax advantages make sense. I said child tax deductions don't. I'm not confusing anything with marriage.


Fine, good, whatever.

ANSWER THE DAMNED MATH QUESTION. The rest of it can go to hell, and I'll agree with whatever larger point you're making, but for god's sake, can you at least clarify the wording from your OP?
 
2012-11-30 02:12:45 PM  
I'm really hoping that Roberts authors a majority opinion on one of these cases finding that the government cannot prevent individuals from entering into a legal contract on the basis of gender, effectively legalizing gay marriage nation wide. It would make the rage over the ACA ruling look like a tempest in a tea-cup, be a great step forward for our nation, and cement Roberts's place in history both as a judge and as an epic troll.
 
2012-11-30 02:13:00 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: I drunk what: and you feel that allowing gays to marry will cause this "global wellness" that you desire?

I don't think that giving girls in middle eastern countries the chance to go to school without being attacked will cause "global wellness" by itself, but I know it'll make life better for them personally, because I know I do better when I'm not having acid thrown on me.

I drunk what: because people who disagree with: the idea that homosexuality should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice even to the point of altering the core values-definition of what a family unit is

Guess what some of the objections are in Muslim countries against girls being allowed to go to school....


and speaking of butthurt, i didn't respond to this, because i was hoping you could review it and think about it some more before you expect me to reply

if you want to keep this and proceed, i will

until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about):

Foundling: The right of people created Gay or Lesbian by God


because i haven't seen any citations for this claim yet, were they posted in invisible ink?

/and i'm just talking about the physical stuff for now
//we can discuss that other stuff later
 
2012-11-30 02:13:24 PM  

SpectroBoy: 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.

If you want to go "old school originalist" then I take it you are also pro-Slavery and against women voting?

Or are you just derping?


Nah, just threw out a couple troll posts for the hell of it. I don't do it often, but as I posted earlier, I'm in a crappy mood today. Apparently I'm a successful troll when I'm in pain and blasted out of my mind on pain meds.

/yes you can be wasted on pain meds, and still in a lot of pain
 
2012-11-30 02:13:39 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: 1. The government doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden of supporting them. Adopt an orphan and you get child tax benefits. Care for your disabled cousin and you get a dependent deduction. Neither example incentivizes making a baby.


Agreed. Subsidies for adopting should stay in place. Caring for a disabled cousin should still depend on your need. Are you low income, or have a demonstrated financial need then yes, you receive a dependent deduction (as i already said, btw).
 
2012-11-30 02:15:58 PM  

lennavan: I'm with you.


i highly doubt that, however the following word salad wasn't much help in indicating whether or not that is true

can someone translate his post for me? i don't speak gibberish
 
2012-11-30 02:16:44 PM  

I drunk what: BarkingUnicorn: What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"

would you like a religious answer or prefer a scientific approach?

Whichever is your "core-value."

BarkingUnicorn: Are single-parent households not families?

not efficient ones, and certainly not one i would recommend to the be the gold standard

So your answer is "Yes, they are families."

BarkingUnicorn: Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins?

also inefficiently, but i certainly wouldn't add them to the list of people that can marry either

We're talking about the definition of "family."

So your answer is "Yes, they are families."


BarkingUnicorn: Can people who adopt children claim to have families?

anyone can claim anything, but the simple Truth is that a Man and a Woman in a monogamous relationship can provide the best environment to raise children (whether or not they gave birth to them)

So your answer is "Yes, they can claim to have families."

wolves can also raise children, though i wouldn't recommend including them in the definition of marriage either

We're talking about the definition of "family."

BarkingUnicorn: If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?

the difference between being able to produce offspring and not being capable, which some societies value

Should infertile people be forbidden to marry?

BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?

children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support

No anwer to my question.

 
2012-11-30 02:17:19 PM  

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 constitution writers intended black people to be property, and the same for women, because they aren't actual people unless they have testicles and a lack of pigment.

Deifying the constitution writers is pretty dumb, and we can tell right from wrong without their help. That said, the 9th and 14th amendment make it clear that we'll discover all kinds of rights. The right to use a computer is not enumerated in the constitution. The right to use electricity... nope, not in there. The right to get a colorful mohawk... nope, not in there. The right to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle... conspicuously absent.
 
2012-11-30 02:18:26 PM  

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.


no just not perverts mariage.
one man one women
no adam and steve
no girl on girl
no multiple wives
no turtles
Just no because i said so.
 
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