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.

(Slate)   Paul Clement hates DOMA so much, he's intentionally throwing the case   (slate.com) divider line 140
    More: Amusing, Paul Clement, DOMA, it gets better, direct response, U.S. Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act  
•       •       •

5405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jan 2013 at 7:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-30 01:36:37 AM  
Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?
 
2013-01-30 01:44:19 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: under that low standard DOMA will stand.


lol.
 
2013-01-30 06:54:53 AM  
DOMA will not and should not stand. Marriage is a contract between two persons, and one must be licensed by the State to get married. To allow some couples to engage in this contractual agreement, licensed by the State, while others are not allowed to do so, is as wrong as it was when bi-racial marriage was illegal.

Discrimination based upon gender identity and sexual preference is wrong, and will be illegal in due time. If DOMA doesn't get overturned by SCOTUS this year, it is just a matter of time before it will be overturned. Equal rights for the LGBT is the Civil Rights crusade of the decade.
 
2013-01-30 06:59:25 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?


I'm sad. I didn't bring my cup to collect the tears of Republican impotent rage that have just started in this thread.

Hey, Republicans. You should atleast try some vaseline, or splurge on some WET Silicone lube. Maybe something with Benzocaine for your first times. It makes the butthurt a lot less when it gets rammed up in there.

But, as we know, plenty of God Fearing, Totally Thuper Heterosexual Republicans KNOW how to get it up there without it hurting.
 
2013-01-30 07:15:10 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?


You're kidding me, right? Assuming that Clement can get five justices to agree that rational basis review is the proper standard of review (which I wouldn't be so sure of), the crux of the argument is this segment:

Marriage is thus inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together and, therefore, are capable of furthering, or threatening, society's existential interests in responsible procreation and childrearing. That fact alone is dispositive of Respondents' equal protection claim, for this Court's precedents make clear that a classification will be upheld when "the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not."

Nobody has EVER provided any sort of evidence for this claim. No one. In fact, in Perry v. Brown, the judge asked the only Prop 8 defending witness what evidence he had for that claim, and he said it was "not the legally relevant question." When pressed for an answer, the witness admitted "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." You cannot make a rational argument for a law if you have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever for that law. And beyond that, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, then why the hell don't states make opposite-sex couples take fertility tests and prove they can have kids before issuing a marriage license? Why the hell don't states mandate married couples have kids or sever the relationship?
 
2013-01-30 07:15:43 AM  
I can't even figure out what he's trying to argue. That we need more unwanted pregnancies?
 
2013-01-30 07:19:41 AM  

Serious Black: BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?

You're kidding me, right? Assuming that Clement can get five justices to agree that rational basis review is the proper standard of review (which I wouldn't be so sure of), the crux of the argument is this segment:

Marriage is thus inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together and, therefore, are capable of furthering, or threatening, society's existential interests in responsible procreation and childrearing. That fact alone is dispositive of Respondents' equal protection claim, for this Court's precedents make clear that a classification will be upheld when "the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not."

Nobody has EVER provided any sort of evidence for this claim. No one. In fact, in Perry v. Brown, the judge asked the only Prop 8 defending witness what evidence he had for that claim, and he said it was "not the legally relevant question." When pressed for an answer, the witness admitted "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." You cannot make a rational argument for a law if you have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever for that law. And beyond that, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, then why the hell don't states make opposite-sex couples take fertility tests and prove they can have kids before issuing a marriage license? Why the hell don't states mandate married couples have kids or sever the relationship?


Are you telling me that "because god" isn't legally valid?
 
2013-01-30 07:19:59 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?


Docket & docs
 
2013-01-30 07:21:28 AM  
Also, he is not throwing the case at all. When you are forced to try and make a rational legal argument for something that boils down to irrational religious hatred, then it is going to look retarded.
 
2013-01-30 07:21:38 AM  

MmmmBacon: DOMA will not and should not stand. Marriage is a contract between two persons, and one must be licensed by the State to get married. To allow some couples to engage in this contractual agreement, licensed by the State, while others are not allowed to do so, is as wrong as it was when bi-racial marriage was illegal.

Discrimination based upon gender identity and sexual preference is wrong, and will be illegal in due time. If DOMA doesn't get overturned by SCOTUS this year, it is just a matter of time before it will be overturned. Equal rights for the LGBT is the Civil Rights crusade of the decade.


This, with "couples" replaced by "[a] consenting [pair of] adults." The bracketed words will be eliminated over time as we realize that more than two parties can enter into such a contract.

I mean really, what is the alternative? If marriage is a religious ceremony, how can the state not recognize marriages performed by any clergy anywhere? And I think we've seen right here on Fark that people have married their pets, appliances, probably also blue Jews from Zsouchmuhn.

/Not that it matters, but I'm straight
//married since 1986
 
2013-01-30 07:22:02 AM  

Tax Boy: BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?

Docket & docs

link didn't embed. stupid .aspx.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx
 
2013-01-30 07:22:37 AM  

MmmmBacon: If DOMA doesn't get overturned by SCOTUS this year, it is just a matter of time before it will be overturned. Equal rights for the LGBT is the Civil Rights crusade of the decade.


Considering that the President himself has stated he has no interest in defending DOMA, if it's not overturned by the SCOTUS, wouldn't that count as judicial activism, or at least be further proof of how partisan, political and damn near incompetent the SCOTUS has become?

/Or does it only count as judicial activism if they rule in favour of sanity the Democrats?
//Still bitter about the utter clusterfark that was Citizens United.
 
2013-01-30 07:24:30 AM  
For reference, here are the standards the Supreme Court has laid out for whether a class is a quasi-suspect class and, thus, that laws pertaining to that class must pass heightened scrutiny:

1) Whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination,
2) Whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relations to ability to perform or contribute to society,
3) Whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group, and
4) Whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.

Challenge these standards if you wish to show DOMA should be subject to rational basis review rather than heightened scrutiny. Show your math.
 
2013-01-30 07:28:21 AM  
In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history.

Yes, gays are so influential and powerful that bigots have, and continue to, run roughshod over their civil rights.
 
2013-01-30 07:28:25 AM  

bulldg4life: Serious Black: BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?

You're kidding me, right? Assuming that Clement can get five justices to agree that rational basis review is the proper standard of review (which I wouldn't be so sure of), the crux of the argument is this segment:

Marriage is thus inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together and, therefore, are capable of furthering, or threatening, society's existential interests in responsible procreation and childrearing. That fact alone is dispositive of Respondents' equal protection claim, for this Court's precedents make clear that a classification will be upheld when "the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not."

Nobody has EVER provided any sort of evidence for this claim. No one. In fact, in Perry v. Brown, the judge asked the only Prop 8 defending witness what evidence he had for that claim, and he said it was "not the legally relevant question." When pressed for an answer, the witness admitted "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." You cannot make a rational argument for a law if you have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever for that law. And beyond that, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, then why the hell don't states make opposite-sex couples take fertility tests and prove they can have kids before issuing a marriage license? Why the hell don't states mandate married couples have kids or sever the relationship?

Are you telling me that "because god" isn't legally valid?


Um, yes?
 
2013-01-30 07:29:35 AM  

Serious Black: For reference, here are the standards the Supreme Court has laid out for whether a class is a quasi-suspect class and, thus, that laws pertaining to that class must pass heightened scrutiny:

1) Whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination,
2) Whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relations to ability to perform or contribute to society,
3) Whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group, and
4) Whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.

Challenge these standards if you wish to show DOMA should be subject to rational basis review rather than heightened scrutiny. Show your math.


It sure would be funny to see them argue that there are TONS of gay people and they are just like everyone else.
 
2013-01-30 07:31:03 AM  

Emposter: In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history.

Yes, gays are so influential and powerful that bigots have, and continue to, run roughshod over their civil rights.


That's just part of the conspiracy! For some reason...
reallyquitetired.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-30 07:31:47 AM  

Serious Black: In fact, in Perry v. Brown, the judge asked the only Prop 8 defending witness what evidence he had for that claim, and he said it was "not the legally relevant question." When pressed for an answer, the witness admitted "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."


It surprised me that the supreme court granted cert in the prop 8 case (the tax case = no brainer that they would grant cert in that) given that it featured the world's worst "expert witness" and the resulting lack of a compelling trial record.
 
2013-01-30 07:34:00 AM  
I had a brainfart. The first amendment says Congress can make no law regarding the establishment of a religion. Conservatives keep arguing that marriage is a religious institution and inextricably linked to it. By that logic, isn't DOMA one of the most patently unconstitutional laws ever passed?
 
2013-01-30 07:37:00 AM  
If gays can't marry because they have to have 'advanced planning' to have children then why is it legal for a post-menopausal woman to marry a man with a vasectomy?
 
2013-01-30 07:37:17 AM  
Is that legal? Setting all arguments for or against DOMA aside for the moment, I didn't think lawyers were allowed to throw their own cases; doesn't that count as contempt of court?
 
2013-01-30 07:37:28 AM  

Bloody William: I had a brainfart. The first amendment says Congress can make no law regarding the establishment of a religion. Conservatives keep arguing that marriage is a religious institution and inextricably linked to it. By that logic, isn't DOMA one of the most patently unconstitutional laws ever passed?


Religious freedom to many Christians is the freedom to impose their religious standards on everyone.
 
2013-01-30 07:38:47 AM  

Bloody William: I had a brainfart. The first amendment says Congress can make no law regarding the establishment of a religion. Conservatives keep arguing that marriage is a religious institution and inextricably linked to it. By that logic, isn't DOMA one of the most patently unconstitutional laws ever passed?


Don't forget the 14th Amendment. DOMA breaks the Equal Protection Clause so farking hard that I'm surprised it hasn't brought the Founding Fathers' zombies back from the dead just so they can facepalm at it.
 
2013-01-30 07:40:35 AM  

Millennium: Is that legal? Setting all arguments for or against DOMA aside for the moment, I didn't think lawyers were allowed to throw their own cases; doesn't that count as contempt of court?


I can't remember the case, but I seem to recall that the Supreme Court heard a case about whether you are entitled to competent counsel, and I believe they said that you are entitled just to have someone counsel you.
 
2013-01-30 07:41:34 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Bloody William: I had a brainfart. The first amendment says Congress can make no law regarding the establishment of a religion. Conservatives keep arguing that marriage is a religious institution and inextricably linked to it. By that logic, isn't DOMA one of the most patently unconstitutional laws ever passed?

Don't forget the 14th Amendment. DOMA breaks the Equal Protection Clause so farking hard that I'm surprised it hasn't brought the Founding Fathers' zombies back from the dead just so they can facepalm at it.


You mean the guys that had slaves?

Yeah, they totally would've been up to equal protection stuff...
 
2013-01-30 07:45:13 AM  

bulldg4life: You mean the guys that had slaves? Yeah, they totally would've been up to equal protection stuff...


Never heard of "Hyperbole" or "Figure of speech," hmm?

If you want to go the realistic route, they would have taken massive umbrage at the whole "Christian nation" thing.
 
2013-01-30 07:45:53 AM  

Bloody William: I had a brainfart. The first amendment says Congress can make no law regarding the establishment of a religion. Conservatives keep arguing that marriage is a religious institution and inextricably linked to it. By that logic, isn't DOMA one of the most patently unconstitutional laws ever passed?


The religious conservative view of the First Amendment is, shall we say, "different." They view many societal institutions as divinely ordained, many of the principles in the Bill of Rights as "biblical," and contend that the founders intended the U.S. to be "Christian." In that worldview, the First Amendment is primarily there to prevent the creation of a state church and prevent interdenominational Christian conflict, not to say that religious principles can't be codified into law.

/ The scary thing is that there's a large cottage industry of "experts" who get very rich reinforcing this view
 
2013-01-30 07:49:19 AM  

Serious Black: BarkingUnicorn: Don't believe subby's headline or TFA's derision if you want to avoid looking like a Republican the  morning after the last election.

Read Clement's entire brief. (PDF)  It's a strong argument for rational-basis review, and under that low standard DOMA will stand.

Anyone have a link to the other side's brief?

You're kidding me, right? Assuming that Clement can get five justices to agree that rational basis review is the proper standard of review (which I wouldn't be so sure of), the crux of the argument is this segment:

Marriage is thus inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together and, therefore, are capable of furthering, or threatening, society's existential interests in responsible procreation and childrearing. That fact alone is dispositive of Respondents' equal protection claim, for this Court's precedents make clear that a classification will be upheld when "the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not."

Nobody has EVER provided any sort of evidence for this claim. No one. In fact, in Perry v. Brown, the judge asked the only Prop 8 defending witness what evidence he had for that claim, and he said it was "not the legally relevant question." When pressed for an answer, the witness admitted "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." You cannot make a rational argument for a law if you have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever for that law. And beyond that, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, then why the hell don't states make opposite-sex couples take fertility tests and prove they can have kids before issuing a marriage license? Why the hell don't states mandate married couples have kids or sever the relationship?


Their argument is absurd but kinda puts them in another bind. If they are saying that the ability to generate offspring is the foundation of marriage and the reason behind marriage, then they must also agree that couples who cannot biologically have children cannot get married as well as people beyond child-bearing age.

Now, if they cannot agree that opposite gender couples should be barred from marriage due to the inability to procreate then they've now admitted that the basis for discrimination is solely due to the sex of the people involved. If you have a man/women who cannot procreate and a man/man that cannot procreate you have people of the same group. If you say that the man/women can get married even though they cannot procreate but the man/man cannot get married since they cannot procreate you have nothing but blatant sex-based discrimination; people of the same group and situation being discriminated solely based up on the sex of the members of that group.

Now you really don't have to go that far as it's absurd to try and claim the government should promote procreation as given the government's history of laws barring certain marriages and thus procreation of that marriage demonstrates the government isn't interested at all in true procreation, just 'certain' procreation.
 
2013-01-30 07:52:38 AM  
It's institutionalized discrimination and has no place in a modern democratic republic.
 
2013-01-30 07:53:34 AM  
I highly doubt it. Isn't intentionally throwing a case the sort of thing you get disbarred for?
 
2013-01-30 07:53:40 AM  

Millennium: Is that legal? Setting all arguments for or against DOMA aside for the moment, I didn't think lawyers were allowed to throw their own cases; doesn't that count as contempt of court?


Lawyers do it all the time. In fact, it's closer to contempt of court to argue a case you believe in not valid. This law is not defensible. It's very badly written and can't be argued in any coherent way.
 
2013-01-30 07:55:00 AM  

Serious Black: Millennium: Is that legal? Setting all arguments for or against DOMA aside for the moment, I didn't think lawyers were allowed to throw their own cases; doesn't that count as contempt of court?

I can't remember the case, but I seem to recall that the Supreme Court heard a case about whether you are entitled to competent counsel, and I believe they said that you are entitled just to have someone counsel you.


Strickland v. Washington is the case. I was incorrect. You are entitled to competent counsel that passes an objective standard of reasonableness, though my guess is that this only applies to criminal cases and not civil cases as Mr. Washington was charged with capital murder.
 
2013-01-30 07:58:10 AM  

qorkfiend: I highly doubt it. Isn't intentionally throwing a case the sort of thing you get disbarred for?


No, that's boxing.
 
2013-01-30 07:58:58 AM  
Top of the page...

Paul Clement talks to the news media outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the third day of oral arguements over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act March 28, 2012 in Washington, DC.

Bottom of the page...

In all seriousness, did no one proofread this?

I found it amusing but then I'm easily amused.
 
2013-01-30 07:59:18 AM  

Serious Black: Serious Black: Millennium: Is that legal? Setting all arguments for or against DOMA aside for the moment, I didn't think lawyers were allowed to throw their own cases; doesn't that count as contempt of court?

I can't remember the case, but I seem to recall that the Supreme Court heard a case about whether you are entitled to competent counsel, and I believe they said that you are entitled just to have someone counsel you.

Strickland v. Washington is the case. I was incorrect. You are entitled to competent counsel that passes an objective standard of reasonableness, though my guess is that this only applies to criminal cases and not civil cases as Mr. Washington was charged with capital murder.


And further, Wiggins v. Smith explained that at least part of the objective standard of reasonableness is that counsel must measure up to the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Guideline 11.8.6 to be considered effective counsel. Again though, this is a capital murder case, so it may not apply to a civil case like DOMA.
 
2013-01-30 08:00:05 AM  

Serious Black: For reference, here are the standards the Supreme Court has laid out for whether a class is a quasi-suspect class and, thus, that laws pertaining to that class must pass heightened scrutiny:


I'll play devil's advocate...

1) Whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination,
Sure, historically gays have been discriminated against, but not now.

2) Whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relations to ability to perform or contribute to society,
Gays have jobs and they can even become members of congress. They can contribute just fine.

3) Whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group, and
There is nothing obvious/distinguishing about gays, you can't pick them out in a crowd. Being gay isn't immutable, you can clearly pray the gay away.

4) Whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.
Everyone is a "minority" in some way (e.g. being a gun owner, being a christian, etc.). Gays aren't powerless, they have far too much power already.

See? It is easy to do if you are a right-wing religious nut.
 
2013-01-30 08:02:03 AM  

Serious Black: For reference, here are the standards the Supreme Court has laid out for whether a class is a quasi-suspect class and, thus, that laws pertaining to that class must pass heightened scrutiny:

1) Whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination,
2) Whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relations to ability to perform or contribute to society,
3) Whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group, and
4) Whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.

Challenge these standards if you wish to show DOMA should be subject to rational basis review rather than heightened scrutiny. Show your math.


I think the only one you could craft a reasonable argument for is #3, using the idea that homosexuality is a spectrum and thus difficult to define as a discrete group. I'm not saying I agree with this argument, just that it's probably the easiest to make.
 
2013-01-30 08:02:16 AM  
DOMA defends nothing, it just attacks marriage between gay folks.

Republicans have a real penchant for naming things the exact opposite of what they actually are.

/I have a real penchant for stating the obvious.
 
2013-01-30 08:05:57 AM  
I had long thought that marriage from a government or financial point of view would be allowed for all couples.
Marriage from a religious point of view, one man one woman only, was going to have a name change. If I were the Pope, I would have introduced something like 'Marriage in God's eyes' ( matrimonium in oculos Dei ) or that like to set themselves apart.

It might not be accepted or distinguished differently by governments, but it would have given many of those close minded people that feel threatened another path to follow to set themselves apart from the others.
 
2013-01-30 08:09:14 AM  

Reposted for relevance:

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.


Which seems to point to Yahweh being down with welfare and assisting folks in need.

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

Yahweh seems to be down with helping the handicapped too.

Leviticus 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

So, apparently, lying and telling tales is not approved of, and that communities should stand together. Not just the pale people or the brown people, but all y'all's people...

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Guess wishing death and terribleness on your neighbors is out too. How many Democrats or Libertarians or Scientologist you think live in your neighborhoods?

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Gee. Love thy neighbor. Nor on the children of your people. Whuddathunkit?

And, of course, there is something about immigrants that is completely ignored by the rabid Christian nationalists...

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

DOMA was a pile of dogsh*t when it passed, and it is against every principle that are claimed by so called "freedom" loving, privacy wanting, religious libertyophiles.


Marriage equality isn't just about contractual freedom, but at its most basic level, it is about defending the religious freedom of our citizens--if you want to base the idea that marriage is from God, and thus far, there aren't a lot of arguments against marriage equality that don't boil down to a religious argument. It's against YOUR religious beliefs? Then your church doesn't have to perform such ceremonies. OTHER churches and ministries don't feel that way, and atheists don't even care, so why should they be forced to hold to your standards.


Wanting to limit marriage, is sort of like Muslims and Jews wanting to ban bacon. That is really the best analogy. SOMEONE might be enjoying a delicious BLT and that will send them to Hell, so we have to ban bacon because someone might enjoy something that they can't have. Trying to legislated what OTHER people do outside of your religious institution, or forcing folks who leave your institution to adhere to your moral sensibilities when there is no damage being done, and only the chance that they might actually have a life where they have the SAME chance at happiness and freedom you enjoy is the EXACT opposite of the liberties that folks claim to love. It is this hypocrisy, among others, that forced me from the GOP. Well, that and absolutely asinine supply side economics that seem fine with corporate subsidies that skew the free market all out of whack, but seem upset at folks receiving benefits from a program that they actually pay into as an insurance policy against the odd disaster. You don't want to marry a dude, because you think it's immoral? Then don't marry a dude, then don't. But freedom is understanding that other folks don't necessarily want the same things you do, and that they have the choice to follow their own dreams. Dreams you might not share. Might not even want, but we give them the choice to follow said dreams, and the tools to enable them to have that pesky pursuit of happiness. That your prohibition boils down to a few lines in Leviticus, understand that not everyone follows that. In the same way that not everyone believes that wine and song are going to lead them straight to Hell. Or dancing for that matter.


Legislating your morality isn't freedom. Do it in the sanctity of your own church.



Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what is on other peoples' plates. Worked when you were five, it still works today.
 
2013-01-30 08:11:31 AM  
I wouldn't be surprised if Paul Clement hated DOMA so much that he gave it the best defense possible. He'll advance all possible arguments, crafted by one of the finest legal minds, and watch them get annihilated one by one. At the end, Clement will have stripped DOMA of any possible legal rationalization, and it will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

The legacy of the Roberts Court is going to be fascinating.
 
2013-01-30 08:16:19 AM  

Karac: If gays can't marry because they have to have 'advanced planning' to have children then why is it legal for a post-menopausal woman to marry a man with a vasectomy?


Plus, freezing eggs should also be outlawed.
 
2013-01-30 08:16:55 AM  
So I keep on getting these little messages from Fark saying to "whitelist" Fark in my ad blocker because yadda, yadda yadda...

Got sick of seeing it this morning, so I switch off ad block and what's the first ad I see?

"Stop the Islamist Witch Hunt against Michele Bachmann!!!"


Right.... Looks like Ad Block is staying on. I get enough crazy during the day, thanks very much.
 
2013-01-30 08:17:21 AM  

qorkfiend: I highly doubt it. Isn't intentionally throwing a case the sort of thing you get disbarred for?


Perhaps it seems like he might be throwing the case simply because there are no intelligent arguments against gay marriage.
 
2013-01-30 08:24:23 AM  

bulldg4life: Also, he is not throwing the case at all. When you are forced to try and make a rational legal argument for something that boils down to irrational religious hatred, then it is going to look retarded.


Oh, I know he isn't deliberately throwing the case. Paul Clement is a good lawyer. He's polishing the turd that is irrational religious hatred towards non-heterosexual people as much as he can. It's not his fault the only case to make is a shiat sandwich.
 
2013-01-30 08:25:14 AM  
I think that's pretty much the best any lawyer can do with what he has to work with.

Shame there is no legal issue to force with creationism, the entire scheme is the same. Lots of legal-sounding and sciencey-sounding rhetoric, but when you hack through it all, it's all built on "because Jesus". That's not so easy to defend in secular court.
 
2013-01-30 08:25:21 AM  

keylock71: So I keep on getting these little messages from Fark saying to "whitelist" Fark in my ad blocker because yadda, yadda yadda...


Chrome's AdBlock can block the nag banner itself, though I have no idea about Firefox's.
 
2013-01-30 08:25:51 AM  
The weather must be really nice on the wrong side of history
 
2013-01-30 08:27:41 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: keylock71: So I keep on getting these little messages from Fark saying to "whitelist" Fark in my ad blocker because yadda, yadda yadda...

Chrome's AdBlock can block the nag banner itself, though I have no idea about Firefox's.


Yeah, unfortunately, I'm on Safari on a pre-intel G5. My options are limited from what I can tell.

Thanks for the head's up, though!
 
2013-01-30 08:28:50 AM  
head's up? ... heads up.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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