Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   John Robert's gay cousin to sit in on the Prop 8 hearings. There's a joke about Scalia in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know what it is   (politico.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, Scalia, hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts, Defense of Marriage Act, cousins, good directions  
•       •       •

1303 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 8:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 11:32:24 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.


There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

.
 
2013-03-25 11:33:02 AM  

phenn: Well, it created three separate classes of people. Heterosexuals can marry, divorce, remarry, etc. Homosexuals who were already married could stay married, but not remarry after a death or divorce. Unmarried homosexuals could not marry, period.


Even if the Court were to recognize that Prop. 8 created these three classes of people, it doesn't mean that the law will be ruled per se unconstitutional.

There's a pretty good chance that Hollingsworth will be decided without even reaching the question of "can states deny gay couples the benefits offered to hetero couples," a holding which would only affect those states that have and/or will allow same-sex marriage.
 
2013-03-25 11:33:47 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: mrshowrules: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

There was a gay on the city bus today and I felt compelled to tidy my office this morning.

I started wearing a buttplug just in case I encounter them. I don't want to offend anyone.



Okay, this is really weird. I cleaned up my butt plug in my office just this morning.
 
2013-03-25 11:39:00 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

.


Perhaps I'm not following what you are saying here but are you using programs that favor minorities and/or protected classes as a reason AGAINST homosexuals demanding equal rights?
 
2013-03-25 11:42:12 AM  
There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325
 
2013-03-25 11:45:06 AM  

tnpir: Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

I think you're exactly right. Kennedy has already shown where he is on this issue by shooting down Colorado's Amendment 2 15 years ago (Romer v. Evans).  Roberts tends to look at social issues through more of a traditional conservative lens and will not vote to uphold a limitation of rights (he also won't buy the horseshiat freedom of religion argument).  Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.  Alito, well, that's anyone's guess.


I'm thinking it will go 6-3 the OTHER way, with one of the liberal judges flipping.  Why? Don't know. Who? Also don't know.  I just like to scare people.  And I make no expectations other than to be disappointed by the ruling.  If they strike down Prop 8, it'll be a pleasant surprise, then.
 
2013-03-25 11:45:19 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325


Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it
 
2013-03-25 11:48:58 AM  

meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.



Do you really think the Right's solution would be to suggest the Cheif Justice can be swayed by mere attendance in the court room?
 
2013-03-25 11:53:49 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

.


Ever hear of the standards of review?  The equal protection clause doesn't automatically prohibit all disparate treatment, it simply means that the government must meet a certain threshold of scrutiny.  Racial treatment, as you describe, is subject to the highest level of scrutiny, which requires both a compelling government interest and a solution narrowly tailored to meet that interest.  "Narrowly tailored" means that the law isn't appreciably over- or under-inclusive, and that is has a substantial likelihood of aiding in the desired effect.  Gender discrimination puts a slightly less onerous burden on the state, but still has fairly high hurdles, and last I heard, Prop 8 and DOMA's opponents are arguing the gender discrimination angle.

People who want to keep these laws are arguing that sexual preference should be subject only to the lowest level, "rational basis" scrutiny.  Just like it sounds, this standard means that the government need only prove that they have a rational basis goal for enacting a given law, and that the law is narrowly tailored to suit that goal.  The rational basis test is almost always successful when it's employed.  In the current case, though, what basis is used, and how are these laws narrowly tailored to suit that basis?  They might try to argue that the goal is "to protect the sanctity of marriage" or similar, but that's EXTREMELY broad, and these laws only bear an ancillary connection unless the proponents can actually show that same-sex marriage does any harm to marriage.

tl;dr:  Even IF advocates for DOMA/Prop 8 get the rational basis test they want (which is conceivably possible, but by no means certain), they likely still can't meet their burden to show that the law is narrowly tailored to accomplish their goal.
 
2013-03-25 11:53:54 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325


This article is awesome and you're awesome.  I don't care what the other fellas say.
 
2013-03-25 11:54:39 AM  

Lord_Baull: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.


Do you really think the Right's solution would be to suggest the Cheif Justice can be swayed by mere attendance in the court room?


remember, social conservatives insist that being gay is a choice. all day long they face a relentless struggle to be straight. the mere presence of gay people around them serves as a temptation to turn gay.
 
2013-03-25 11:55:48 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?


??  What is this I don't even?
 
2013-03-25 11:56:24 AM  

tnpir: Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.


Scalia, I'd agree on. However, I think there's a slim chance (maybe about 10%) that Justice Thomas might find the Howard University amicus brief persuasive.
images.politico.com
 
2013-03-25 11:57:24 AM  

soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it



*snerk*
 
2013-03-25 12:00:58 PM  

dumbobruni: USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1

"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?


That's 100% pure Grade A derp straight from the source, not that crap troll derp we get over here.
 
2013-03-25 12:01:39 PM  

dumbobruni: Lord_Baull: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.


Do you really think the Right's solution would be to suggest the Cheif Justice can be swayed by mere attendance in the court room?

remember, social conservatives insist that being gay is a choice. all day long they face a relentless struggle to be straight. the mere presence of gay people around them serves as a temptation to turn gay.



Then I would suggest their faith isn't very strong. I believe they need to pray harder to keep themselves from giving in to impure thoughts.
 
2013-03-25 12:02:44 PM  

meat0918: That's 100% pure Grade A derp straight from the source, not that crap troll derp we get over here.



This is true. All we've been getting lately is Wal-Mart brand derp.
 
2013-03-25 12:03:35 PM  
"I'm not knocking you posting it.... Just saying it was better when they were quietly gay and in the closet and you could still tell homo jokes. How was life worse for them back then? Some of the gay guys even got married and produced children for society. But today that kind of gay dude will pursue that joke called the gay lifestyle.
These days a kid will get booted from first grade for calling another kid a homo and his parents will be investigated because he that word from them. I am sick of hearing how they want to marry, it is obviously an abomination and I am no bible thumper. These freakazoids and their liberal (and conservative) fellow travelers want to void out 5000+ years of Judeo-Christian culture and religion"


.....Just.....just goddammitsomuch
 
2013-03-25 12:05:31 PM  
This BS that "family values" people spout about having to explain same-sex partners to your kids kills me.  My eldest child was 5 when he heard the term "gay" (overheard on FoxNews while grandma was watching it, ironically) and asked me what it means.  I told him some boys don't want to marry and kiss girls, they want to kiss other boys, and some girls want to kiss other girls and some people don't like that because it's different.  He shrugged and moved on, no apparent harm to him.  What was so hard about that?  These fundies act like they are expected to draw a diagram about dick-sucking for their toddler.
 
2013-03-25 12:07:24 PM  

xanadian: tnpir: Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

I think you're exactly right. Kennedy has already shown where he is on this issue by shooting down Colorado's Amendment 2 15 years ago (Romer v. Evans).  Roberts tends to look at social issues through more of a traditional conservative lens and will not vote to uphold a limitation of rights (he also won't buy the horseshiat freedom of religion argument).  Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.  Alito, well, that's anyone's guess.

I'm thinking it will go 6-3 the OTHER way, with one of the liberal judges flipping.  Why? Don't know. Who? Also don't know.  I just like to scare people.  And I make no expectations other than to be disappointed by the ruling.  If they strike down Prop 8, it'll be a pleasant surprise, then.


Why does the voice in my head have its own Fark account?

// more importantly, how did I not know this before now?
 
2013-03-25 12:33:42 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Why does the voice in my head have its own Fark account?


The voice in your head is now telling you to get it some of the stuff on its Amazon wish list.

....

I wonder if I... uh I mean the voice in your head still has its Amazon wish list up... Well, if not, a case of good beer will do.
 
2013-03-25 12:37:56 PM  

grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.


I agree. Scalia is a no-go no matter what, Thomas made it clear in his Lawrence dissent that he doesn't think the 14th Amendment applies to gay rights cases, the only question is what Alito will do.

Then again, I'm way too invested in this whole thing because of all the work I put in on an amicus brief in both cases so I'm not sure if this is just wishful thinking because I never want to deal with either case ever again.
 
2013-03-25 12:44:24 PM  

dumbobruni: USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1

"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?


This person honestly believes that morality, concepts of good and evil and right and wrong, it all springs from proper sexual activity. Not prevention of harm, killing, or theft, not loyalty to your people. All ethics rise from making sure making sure that people are doing the right things with each other in the bedroom.

How can someone twist their head so terribly that sexual conduct is THE most important aspect of humanity? That they see the Christian message ultimately as one about making sure you don't have the wrong kinds of sex?
 
2013-03-25 01:00:54 PM  
Gay mafia has happened before and it will happen again.

media.screened.com
 
2013-03-25 01:07:30 PM  
Grungehamster:
A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.


I've occasionally pointed out that the reason the anti-gay forces seem so powerful, even in tiny little states like mine, is because they associate themselves with huge national groups wallowing in money and power. For instance, when there was an attempt at a gay rights repeal in 2009, the television airwaves in Maine were suddenly inundated with high-quality ads showing "concerned people" of all races worried about what would happen to the children, the children, and the children if this law were to go through. It occurred to me, watching those ads, that they could have run in any state - all they had to do was erase "Utah Commission for Family and Freedom" from the bottom and type in "Maine Traditional Family Association" under "paid for by." Mostly, it was awfully suspect how the referendum they were fighting directly addressed some of the concerns of the advertisers - there were exemptions all over the place for religious organizations, which you'd never know if you listened only to the ads.

Meanwhile, their opposition didn't seem to have access to similar tactics. They certainly didn't have a steady flow of money from midwestern megachurches. The punchline was that when gay marriage was finally approved in 2011, there were loud and aggressive accusations from the opposition that out-of-state money had tipped the scales.

It makes me wonder if there's even such a thing as a grassroots organization anymore, or just co-opts by larger and more powerful interests.
 
2013-03-25 01:24:47 PM  

soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it


No, that's the funny thing: this isn't coming from the party leadership or the major religious PACs; it's coming from individual Congressman who have gay kids/relatives, and (surprisingly) from the Mormon leadership, who apparently realized how much damage to their image supporting Prop 8 did, and the fact that they're constantly losing young (generally hot, generally male) members, who leave the church because of its position on homosexuality.

Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice.  That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.
 
2013-03-25 01:28:54 PM  

Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.


Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.
 
2013-03-25 01:31:44 PM  

peasandcarrots: Grungehamster:
A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.

I've occasionally pointed out that the reason the anti-gay forces seem so powerful, even in tiny little states like mine, is because they associate themselves with huge national groups wallowing in money and power. For instance, when there was an attempt at a gay rights repeal in 2009, the television airwaves in Maine were suddenly inundated with high-quality ads showing "concerned people" of all races worried about what would happen to the children, the children, and the children if this law were to go through. It occurred to me, watching those ads, that they could have run in any state - all they had to do was erase "Utah Commission for Family and Freedom" from the bottom and type in "Maine Traditional Family Association" under "paid for by." Mostly, it was awfully suspect how the referendum they were fighting directly addressed some of the concerns of the advertisers - there were exemptions all over the place for religious organizations, which you'd never know if you listened only to the ads.

Meanwhile, their opposition didn't seem to have access to similar tactics. They certainly didn't have a steady flow of money from midwestern megachurches. The punchline was that when gay marriage was finally approved in 2011, there were loud and aggressive accusations from the opposition that out-of-state money had tipped the scales.

It makes me wonder if there's even such a thing as a grassroots organization anymore, or just co-opts by larger and more powerful interests.


It just depends on how you define "grassroots" the money for those campaigns are definitely coming from a large number of small donations rather than a handful of influential donors which is how most people would define grassroots, but the people involved are not citizens of the area in question and thus have no personal stake in the law in question.

Speaking of those commercials: what percent of kids when finding out gay marriage has been legalized will want their parents to explain to them how how gay people have sex? What percent of kids when seeing an ad that gay marriage being legalized will lead to you having to explain to kids how gay people have sex will want you to explain to them how gay people have sex? Total Catch-22: by broadcasting "small children will want to know about the gay version of something they likely have no clue about if you tell them about the gay version of something they are familiar with" you're making small children aware that there is something they have no clue about that adults are actively trying to keep them ignorant of.
 
2013-03-25 01:35:35 PM  

Lord_Baull: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

??  What is this I don't even?


He's either an idiot or trolling; either way, it's why the Ignore feature exists.
 
2013-03-25 01:37:47 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it

No, that's the funny thing: this isn't coming from the party leadership or the major religious PACs; it's coming from individual Congressman who have gay kids/relatives, and (surprisingly) from the Mormon leadership, who apparently realized how much damage to their image supporting Prop 8 did, and the fact that they're constantly losing young (generally hot, generally male) members, who leave the church because of its position on homosexuality.

Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice.  That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.


It really does boil down to gay people coming out and putting a human face to the debate.

You've even got things like the rather notorious ex-gay group Exodus International admitting that it's not possible to change your orientation and trying to move in a new direction. Even the people I know full well are bigots are trying their hardest to seem like they're loving and welcoming because openly ostracizing gay people has become such a taboo.
 
2013-03-25 01:46:00 PM  

teto85: Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.

Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.


No matter what you think of Clarence Thomas, calling someone an Oreo is not cool.
 
2013-03-25 01:57:50 PM  

meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.


Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.
 
2013-03-25 02:00:33 PM  

OrangeSnapper: 9-0 vacating the ruling on prop 8 and remanding the case for consideration in light of DOMA being struck down. With discrimination at the federal level being banned, and with CA state officials refusing to enforce prop 8, the trial court is then free to dismiss the prop 8 case for lack of standing. Prop 8 will be left intact on a technicality, but be functionally meaningless.


No, because the standing argument is about the appeal.  Thus if it gets kicked on standing (and it will - its the only interesting thing about Perry) then the D. Court opinion which invalidated Prop 8 stands.
 
2013-03-25 02:01:47 PM  

rynthetyn: It really does boil down to gay people coming out and putting a human face to the debate.


Yeah, I've been saying that since I helped run the gay group at a large university 15 years ago: enrollment was something like 15K and we were lucky if we got 20 people at our meetings, no matter what we did.
 
2013-03-25 02:02:20 PM  

soupafi: Dwight_Yeast: There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325

Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it


Weaver95 put it well. He said (paraphrasing) the GOP knows anti-gay marriage is a loser, but they have to talk their base back from it without appearing the GOP approves of gay marriage. They have to put up the show that they're against it, while not stopping anyone from allowing it.

So expect a ton of ass-backwards, weasel-worded language coming from the conservative parts of the bench. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will probably take the, "Well I still think it should be decided by the states, but, grumbe, grumble..." tack, while Scalia will write his ruling based solely on the color of his bowel movement that day.
 
2013-03-25 02:08:28 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: It really does boil down to gay people coming out and putting a human face to the debate.

Yeah, I've been saying that since I helped run the gay group at a large university 15 years ago: enrollment was something like 15K and we were lucky if we got 20 people at our meetings, no matter what we did.


I'm the VP of the gay group at my top tier law school, even today it's well nigh impossible to get more than a dozen people to show up to anything. Only way we can get people to show is if we partner with the ultra-libertarian Federalist Society for debates/discussions because then people don't have to worry about being seen at the gay group's event.
 
2013-03-25 02:09:24 PM  

rynthetyn: teto85: Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.

Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.

No matter what you think of Clarence Thomas, calling someone an Oreo is not cool.


Not even this guy?
 
2013-03-25 02:20:41 PM  

rynthetyn: teto85: Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.

Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.

No matter what you think of Clarence Thomas, calling someone an Oreo is not cool.


Yeah I thought oreos were only Mixed race children and a threesome with 2 black dudes and a white man/woman.
 
2013-03-25 02:21:08 PM  

rynthetyn: Only way we can get people to show is if we partner with the ultra-libertarian Federalist Society for debates/discussions because then people don't have to worry about being seen at the gay group's event.


So the Federalist Society gets used as a beard.  Amusing but annoying.
 
2013-03-25 02:35:52 PM  

carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.


If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)
 
2013-03-25 02:38:56 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: Only way we can get people to show is if we partner with the ultra-libertarian Federalist Society for debates/discussions because then people don't have to worry about being seen at the gay group's event.

So the Federalist Society gets used as a beard.  Amusing but annoying.


I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think that's going to change when people decide that associating with us is good for their future political careers, which, being Fark's favorite state, is probably going to be a while.
 
2013-03-25 02:42:04 PM  

soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)


verbaltoxin above posted an insightful article

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325

about how having the courts take down same-sex marriage bans is probably doing a favor to a growing number of Republicans.  Another state-wide proposition would probably be difficult politically for many Republicans here in California.  If SCOTUS resolves the issue in a broadband fashion, GOPers can choose to shake their fists at SCOTUS while being secretly relieved of being taken off the hook.
 
2013-03-25 02:49:26 PM  
After ACA and now possibly this, the Republican tears will be glorious.
 
2013-03-25 02:50:28 PM  

soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)


Billboards in large cities in Utah may be appropriate.
 
2013-03-25 02:53:01 PM  

soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)


That's an awesome idea: Prop. 8 thank-you cards to the LDS Church.

I frequent an ex-mormon forum on Reddit. They're perspective on this is interesting. The exmos believe gay marriage might be an issue that causes severe damage to the church over the long run. The thing is, cisgender, heterosexual couplings are so endemic to the LDS Church's identity, that gay marriage might not be something they can simply revelate away, like with black men holding the priesthood or polygyny.
 
2013-03-25 02:53:47 PM  

carpbrain: soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)

verbaltoxin above posted an insightful article

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325

about how having the courts take down same-sex marriage bans is probably doing a favor to a growing number of Republicans.  Another state-wide proposition would probably be difficult ...


Sadly I can't take credit for posting that.
 
2013-03-25 02:59:52 PM  

rynthetyn: I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think that's going to change when people decide that associating with us is good for their future political careers, which, being Fark's favorite state, is probably going to be a while.


You live in Drunkeness?  Awesome!
 
2013-03-25 03:01:06 PM  
Now we know who the mole is that tipped the demorats off to Roberts' sexual inversion. He would have found it impossible not to blab to the only family member who would 'understand'. Ms Podrasky is, I am sure, a good little liberal robot and delivered the goods on her cousin to the people who knew people in the rat machine when he was tapped for CJ. She is going to sit there and look at her bent cousin as a silent but potent reminder of what will happen if the verdict isn't 'right'. This is true Chicago style politics. In sh-t city it is a well known tactic to see that a judge is reminded who owns him or as a direct threat to his existence to see that someone who he knows knows about some secret corruption or shame is sitting in his court room when a case that needs to be 'fixed up' comes to trial. If hizzoner isn't a crook or druggy or pervert then he gets to see a couple of well known torpedoes sitting down front and giving him the coldest of stinkeyes as the trial begins. Link
 
2013-03-25 03:02:48 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think that's going to change when people decide that associating with us is good for their future political careers, which, being Fark's favorite state, is probably going to be a while.

You live in Drunkeness?  Awesome!


Well, yeah, that too, law school turns everyone into high functioning alcoholics. Heck, my patent drafting class goes out drinking with our professors almost every week.
 
2013-03-25 03:09:51 PM  

verbaltoxin: I frequent an ex-mormon forum on Reddit. They're perspective on this is interesting. The exmos believe gay marriage might be an issue that causes severe damage to the church over the long run. The thing is, cisgender, heterosexual couplings are so endemic to the LDS Church's identity, that gay marriage might not be something they can simply revelate away, like with black men holding the priesthood or polygyny.


I suggested years ago that the LDS church should have come down on the side of gay marriage on the basis that people should be able to marry as many other people of whatever gender they chose.

/really no problem with serial or multiple marriage.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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