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 16
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-25 08:27:44 AM  
4 votes:
Also, FTFA: While Podrasky said she doesn't know if having a lesbian family member impacts Roberts' thinking, a Pew Research Center poll released last week found 32 percent of those who became supporters of gay marriage after opposing it did so because they knew someone who was gay.

Harvey Milk was right.
2013-03-25 08:53:14 AM  
3 votes:

NeverDrunk23: somedude210: xanadian: On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?

right, Scalia.

but seriously, I never understood why those who demand gay marriage banned because it's affront to their Jesus, don't understand that they're demands are an affront to real Jesus and decent humanity

They probably think gay marriage will invalidate their own marriage.

In other news, they are idiots.


They usually claim they are afraid that if you legalize gay marriage then:

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.

Both are BS objections though. Churches aren't forced to marry mixed race couples since anti-miscegnation laws are off the books, they won't be forced to perform same sex marriage. Meanwhile, telling kids that a man and a woman are married doesn't mean you have yo explain sex to them, why would same sex marriage require that sort of info? Kids generally blindly accept our social conventions as the way things work, and if you just say "they love each other very much and got married" that will satisfy most kids to the same degree any other answer would.
2013-03-25 08:51:14 AM  
3 votes:
Who is John Robert?
2013-03-25 08:50:48 AM  
2 votes:
Having your relationship in the hands of the Supreme Court is more than a bit stressful. These next two days are going to be HUGE, and then we will have to likely wait until June to actually hear the outcome. When your entire future is in their hands, that's a bit intense.

/partner is not American
//equal immigration rights are thus HUGELY important
2013-03-25 01:37:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:53:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:59 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-25 10:19:40 AM  
1 votes:

hinten: 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....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


How, exactly, did he invite her?

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.


I saw a gay guy at the grocery store last week so this weekend I hid pastel colored plastic eggs filled with pastel colored M&Ms all over the office this weekend.
2013-03-25 10:01:37 AM  
1 votes:

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


Pretty sure this is a troll post, but just to make sure everyone understands that the decision for a gay couple to wed will likely result from the same factors that lead a straight couple to wed: they feel that they want to form a stable lifelong bond with, and want to have that partnership recognized by the community at large.

Sex and marriage aren't the same thing: gay guys who are only interested in hooking up with each other aren't going to be getting married on a whim any more often than a guy and a girl who had a one-night stand after last call. Plus you need to study up on no-fault divorce and monogamy as a necessary factor in marriage today anyway. "Open marriages" are fairly normalized among straight couples: in the minority, but definitely something that exists. To say that gay people are inherently less committed to their partners has very little firm evidence, comes from observing a society where there is little benefit to commitment for gays, assumes the people getting married would include those not interested in commitment, and assumes that sexual monogamy is integral to modern civil marriage.
2013-03-25 08:58:58 AM  
1 votes:

macadamnut: Who is John Robert?


The unqualified English teacher of subby?
2013-03-25 08:54:39 AM  
1 votes:

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


The "dickhead:word" ratio in this post is phenomenal. Keep up the good work!
2013-03-25 08:34:54 AM  
1 votes:
Is a cousin enough to get a Republican to change their mind about marriage equality, because I thought it usually takes a son or daughter coming out?
2013-03-25 08:34:43 AM  
1 votes:

hinten: 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....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


It doesn't say he invited her.
2013-03-25 08:30:32 AM  
1 votes:

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....?



What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?
2013-03-25 08:28:57 AM  
1 votes:

xanadian: On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?


right, Scalia.

but seriously, I never understood why those who demand gay marriage banned because it's affront to their Jesus, don't understand that they're demands are an affront to real Jesus and decent humanity
2013-03-25 08:26:09 AM  
1 votes:
FTFA: I believe he sees where the tide is going

On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).

On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

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