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.

(The Onion)   "'Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shiat?' said Chief Justice John Roberts, 'Why are we even seriously discussing this?'"   (theonion.com) divider line 183
    More: Satire, Chief Justice John Roberts, supreme courts, gays, Mr. Cooper, dockets  
•       •       •

10017 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-26 01:12:08 PM  
If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.
 
2013-03-26 01:16:41 PM  
I wish this was real
 
2013-03-26 01:18:08 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:43 PM  
Regarding DOMA....A good friend of mine said it better than I could, so I want to throw this out there:

I'm loathe to admit it, but yeah, I dream about getting married someday. I want a damn dress and a party done up that showcases my personality, and shared responsibilities. I want love letters and family road trips to see Appalachia and the safety of knowing that if something ever happened to me, it would be one of my best friends that would take care of my baby. I want someone to be my see when I'm stuck on saw. As a Catholic straight woman I am certain that I haven't lived up to OTHER people's expectations of what GOD wants of ME; I sin right and left, totally aware of it, and then do it again. And yet somehow, with my unworthy track record, I can get married any ol' damn time I want to.
Bull.
I have no hand in the marriage plot. I am most often single, occasionally breaking a heart and getting mine trampled in return. Yet I still dream that I have a shot. And because I am straight, my dream can continue to interrupt my life with it's slim chance of MAYBE THIS WILL HAPPEN. Meanwhile, I have a lot of friends who really are coupled, no maybe about it, and who are lesbian or gay, and their dreams of marriage are just like mine. They deserve all that happiness and hardship that they've accumulated in their experiences to result in the same legally recognized relationship status as I may be so lucky to one day enjoy. So I am an ally. I rarely rant here. Pardon me for doing so. Cheers!
 
2013-03-26 01:47:29 PM  
Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.
 
2013-03-26 01:48:34 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.
 
2013-03-26 01:49:06 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.
 
2013-03-26 01:49:38 PM  
Is it wrong of me to hope some group of knuckleheads thinks this is a real deal kinda story and runs with it, just so we can openly mock them?

/I'll start the popcorn.
 
2013-03-26 01:49:53 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


The phrase "could care less", when attempting to convey the sentiment that lesser concern is impossible, is acceptable if the statement is issued with noticeable inflections of sarcasm.
 
2013-03-26 01:50:42 PM  

This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.


Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?
 
2013-03-26 01:51:49 PM  
I think it would be better phrased: If religion didn't hold such power over the mindless in powerful position; regardless of political affiliation.
But that's just me.
 
2013-03-26 01:51:57 PM  

queezyweezel: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.


I think you mean religious people.  Particularly religious people who don't keep their religions to themselves.
 
2013-03-26 01:52:08 PM  
"I'm a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I'm looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law," Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. "So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God's green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I'm saying is, who the fark are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?"

When the Onion gets it right, they really get it right.
 
2013-03-26 01:52:12 PM  

Decillion: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?


It would be one thing is they were satisfied after one round. But permanent revolution tends to constantly create new targets.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:15 PM  
 "Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you're a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shiat, and you are wasting our time."

That sums up the whole "gay marriage issue" quite nicely.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:27 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


I think it works well in the article as is. You don't need overly formal language in order to define and decide the issue. Common idioms are more than sufficient, and so it uses a rather abusive one.
 
2013-03-26 01:54:15 PM  
They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.
 
2013-03-26 01:54:53 PM  

This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.


Which progressives are you referring to?
 
2013-03-26 01:55:25 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


Done in one.
 
2013-03-26 01:55:47 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Is it wrong of me to hope some group of knuckleheads thinks this is a real deal kinda story and runs with it, just so we can openly mock them?

/I'll start the popcorn.


Here ya go. I like extra butter.
http://literallyunbelievable.org/
 
2013-03-26 01:56:47 PM  

doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.


What, and you aren't?

Then I definitely don't want to party with you, Mr. Missionary.
 
2013-03-26 01:57:40 PM  

doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.


I figured you had to be trolling and didn't really believe that, then I checked your profile and saw that you're from Redlands, CA (an appropriate name for a town if ever they was one).  So given that, it's quite possible that your post was 100% serious.
 
2013-03-26 01:57:45 PM  
The supreme court seems to be a microcosm of what's wrong with our judicial system today... they're trying to decide what's right for the country and rule based on that, rather than just do their basic job and examine the law for conflicts with the constitutional guarantees of equal treatment.  Anybody remember when the courts just interpreted the law?

There's a lot of parallels between our society today and the decline of the Roman empire.  Which implies that sooner or later a horde of eskimos will eventually sack Washington a couple of times before the capital gets moved to Houston.  I'm looking forward to it.
 
2013-03-26 01:57:54 PM  
Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.
 
2013-03-26 01:58:12 PM  
Also, SCOTUS needs to overturn all the crappy statues limiting what techniques a couple can use in the bedroom.  The stupid, drooling, why-is-this-even-on-the-books ones that were originally passed to give the right wing[nutt]ers something they could legally use against gays.

I don't think it will affect anybody's actual day to day lives in the slightest.  I just want to be able to tell my gf that "the supreme court said it was okay!" when I'm trying to convince her to give me a bj.
 
2013-03-26 01:59:05 PM  
Following a link in today's Rude Pundit blog post, I was reading the affront to grammar, logical thought, and rationality that passes for human shiat-bag and redundantly named idiot Erick Erickson's  blog: http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom - are-not-compatible/.

You should, needless to say, not read this. It is terrible and boils down to "WHAAAAAAAHHHHHH! JEEBUS SAID NOT TO!!!!! IF'N THE GAYS GET MARRIED THE SKY WIZARD WILL BE UNHAPPY!!!!! WHHAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! CHANGE MY DIAPER!!!!!!" It adds nothing to the current discourse, and you will only feel stupider for having read it.

No, the reason I bring it up is that it introduced me to a new stupid concept of which I was until this very moment entirely unaware: "the democracy of the dead." It is the democracy of the dead, Erick2 asserts, that has already decided gay marriage is wrong. I had no idea what this was, and clicked on the lmgtfy link he so helpfully provided, whereupon I was treated with this little turd: "Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."

HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?
 
2013-03-26 01:59:20 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


You're next, don't worry.
 
2013-03-26 01:59:55 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


I thought it was understood that the term "Could care less" actually means "couldn't care less" by people who aren't grammar nazis. Yes, we know it's wrong, it's an idiom (I think) that everyone understands even if it's grammatically incorrect.

Also, it's the Onion, maybe they threw that in there as an extra clever poke. Who know, I could care less.
 
2013-03-26 01:59:58 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Is it wrong of me to hope some group of knuckleheads thinks this is a real deal kinda story and runs with it, just so we can openly mock them?

/I'll start the popcorn.

Here ya go. I like extra butter.
http://literallyunbelievable.org/


You have brought Schadenfreude -laden tears to my eyes, sir. For that, I am grateful.

/extra butter popcorn comin' right up
//then - to Facebook!
 
2013-03-26 02:00:11 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


Why would you want to mess your life up that badly?
 
2013-03-26 02:02:13 PM  
I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.
 
2013-03-26 02:02:33 PM  

unlikely: I wish this was real


This :-/
 
2013-03-26 02:03:13 PM  

over_and_done: Also, SCOTUS needs to overturn all the crappy statues limiting what techniques a couple can use in the bedroom.  The stupid, drooling, why-is-this-even-on-the-books ones that were originally passed to give the right wing[nutt]ers something they could legally use against gays.

I don't think it will affect anybody's actual day to day lives in the slightest.  I just want to be able to tell my gf that "the supreme court said it was okay!" when I'm trying to convince her to give me a bj.


They did.  In Lawrence v. Texas. Not that this decision somehow physically erases all of those laws off of the books (it's up to the states to do that), but the're null and void and they can't be enforced.

So don't worry about the legality of your BJs.
 
2013-03-26 02:03:50 PM  

Decillion: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?


It's funny how you think a totalitarian/authoritarian cares about whether they are perceived as conservative or progressive for any reason but the most superficial and propagandistic. They care about power and control, regardless of whether their power base initially started out on the right or the left of the political spectrum. Stalin (a communist dictator, nominally left-wing) and Mussolini (a fascist dictator, nominally right-wing) had far more in common with each other than they have in common with any politician who actually respects the democratic process and actually wants society to progress.
 
2013-03-26 02:04:23 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?


Duh. That's the core of conservatism. "Things are okay the way they are. We've been doing it that way for a long time now, and while it's not perfect, it's pretty good. If we change the laws then things might become worse, so we shouldn't mess with it."
 
2013-03-26 02:04:24 PM  

Decillion: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?


It is ALWAYS for the greater good.
 
2013-03-26 02:04:31 PM  

queezyweezel: Regarding DOMA....A good friend of mine said it better than I could, so I want to throw this out there:

I'm loathe to admit it, but yeah, I dream about getting married someday. I want a damn dress and a party done up that showcases my personality, and shared responsibilities. I want love letters and family road trips to see Appalachia and the safety of knowing that if something ever happened to me, it would be one of my best friends that would take care of my baby. I want someone to be my see when I'm stuck on saw. As a Catholic straight woman I am certain that I haven't lived up to OTHER people's expectations of what GOD wants of ME; I sin right and left, totally aware of it, and then do it again. And yet somehow, with my unworthy track record, I can get married any ol' damn time I want to.
Bull.
I have no hand in the marriage plot. I am most often single, occasionally breaking a heart and getting mine trampled in return. Yet I still dream that I have a shot. And because I am straight, my dream can continue to interrupt my life with it's slim chance of MAYBE THIS WILL HAPPEN. Meanwhile, I have a lot of friends who really are coupled, no maybe about it, and who are lesbian or gay, and their dreams of marriage are just like mine. They deserve all that happiness and hardship that they've accumulated in their experiences to result in the same legally recognized relationship status as I may be so lucky to one day enjoy. So I am an ally. I rarely rant here. Pardon me for doing so. Cheers!


THIS.
Beautiful.
+10
Would read again.
 
2013-03-26 02:04:49 PM  

This text is now purple: Decillion: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?

It would be one thing is they were satisfied after one round. But permanent revolution tends to constantly create new targets.


Its the capitalists final defense. Being so deeply and wildly vile that anyone our group who carries out executions in the numbers that are deserved will lose soul and their empathy and won't be able to stop.
 
2013-03-26 02:06:06 PM  

over_and_done: Also, SCOTUS needs to overturn all the crappy statues limiting what techniques a couple can use in the bedroom.  The stupid, drooling, why-is-this-even-on-the-books ones that were originally passed to give the right wing[nutt]ers something they could legally use against gays.

I don't think it will affect anybody's actual day to day lives in the slightest.  I just want to be able to tell my gf that "the supreme court said it was okay!" when I'm trying to convince her to give me a bj.


There's a few midsize towns in Kansas that took the ancient laws off the books. Yet the small pop. surrounding counties didn't. Each town now is surrounded by a halo of no bj zones. They need a GPS app that tells you whether to proceed or not.
 
2013-03-26 02:06:54 PM  

ComicBookGuy: I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.


I'm pretty sure every single SC judge can see the writing on the wall and they know that gay marriage will be the law of the land sooner or later. The question is, do they want to go down in the history books as the judges that allow it or do they want to be known as the judges that defied it and were later overruled?
 
2013-03-26 02:07:08 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


I feel the same way about assholes like you.
 
2013-03-26 02:08:17 PM  

Cyberluddite: Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print. Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom. The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


You got trolled, good sir. There's always at least one glaring grammar error per article to reel 'em in.
 
2013-03-26 02:08:45 PM  

doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.


Don't forget those mixed race marriages, they're going to hell, too.

And the sodomizers, they're headed down below too. Actually pretty much all the cool people are going to hell.
 
2013-03-26 02:10:42 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


Become a JOP, pastor or ship's Captain.  Then you should be able to marry all the men and woman you want.
 
2013-03-26 02:10:47 PM  
If only this were true.  I could really give two shiats if any of you wanna gay marry each other or abort your babies or fark a chicken or whatever.  Just don't try to gay marry me, don't abort my babies, and don't fark my chicken and we'll be ok.
 
2013-03-26 02:11:06 PM  
Gay marriage is okay i56.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-26 02:11:08 PM  
Sometimes The Onion should be reality.
 
2013-03-26 02:11:42 PM  

Farce-Side: If only this were true.  I could really give two shiats if any of you wanna gay marry each other or abort your babies or fark a chicken or whatever.  Just don't try to gay marry me, don't abort my babies, and don't fark my chicken and we'll be ok.


Maybe your chicken shouldn't dress like such a slut.
 
2013-03-26 02:12:34 PM  

doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.


Sadly, in the South, this thought would pass for "progress" on the issue.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:07 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


Stop kidding yourself. You're not bisexual. You're just really really really horny. You slut.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:15 PM  

js34603: Farce-Side: If only this were true.  I could really give two shiats if any of you wanna gay marry each other or abort your babies or fark a chicken or whatever.  Just don't try to gay marry me, don't abort my babies, and don't fark my chicken and we'll be ok.

Maybe your chicken shouldn't dress like such a slut.


Nice.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:21 PM  

pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I feel the same way about assholes like you.


That's nice. I really don't care.
 
2013-03-26 02:14:39 PM  

havocmike: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

Sadly, in the South, this thought would pass for "progress" on the issue.


Not really bro.  Plenty of the cities in the south have gay pride parades and a healthy, thriving gay population.  Sounds like you're the bigot here.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:03 PM  

MilesTeg: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.


Same with Hawaii.  If only they could get those damned conservatives out of the way...
 
2013-03-26 02:15:16 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


Marry a man with mommy issues. You'll get him and his mother as a bundled package.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:23 PM  
Since there's no thread for it, I just wanted to drop in and say, Kagan and Sotomayor are demolishing the defendants' arguments. Kennedy seems to be siding with them too, albeit tentatively.
 
2013-03-26 02:16:32 PM  

queezyweezel: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.


Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.

blessthe40oz.com
 
2013-03-26 02:18:23 PM  

NobleHam: Since there's no thread for it, I just wanted to drop in and say, Kagan and Sotomayor are demolishing the defendants' arguments. Kennedy seems to be siding with them too, albeit tentatively.


And Scalia is being a dick and making the defendants' arguments for them.

/24:00 into oral arguments.
 
2013-03-26 02:18:56 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


NEVER, because bisexuality isn't the issue you would be advocating for.
If you were serious about wanting that (and not just speaking as a tongue in cheek conservative/religious troll) you would be wanting to legalize  POLYGAMY.

So don't try to intentionally confuse the issue.
Bi-sexual isn't wanting to marry BOTH, it's being ATTRACTED to both.
If you're attracted to both AND want to marry multiple partners, you're both bi-sexual, polyamorous while striving to be a polygamist.

Polygamy, though will likely never be federally legal as long as TAX BENEFITS are tied to marriage (screwing us single tax-payers).
 
2013-03-26 02:19:21 PM  

havocmike: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

Sadly, in the South, this thought would pass for "progress" on the issue.


What is sad about it, and why are this theoretical Southerner's progressive chops in question? Are you just being anal annihilated about religion? Stop that.
 
2013-03-26 02:19:36 PM  

unlikely: I wish this was real


If this actually happened as written, I would seriously regain my faith in humanity as a whole, damn near instantly.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:09 PM  

Cyberluddite: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

I figured you had to be trolling and didn't really believe that, then I checked your profile and saw that you're from Redlands, CA (an appropriate name for a town if ever they was one).  So given that, it's quite possible that your post was 100% serious.


That's the least trollish thing I've read from DD99, and also the most relevant.  The primary argument against gay marriage rights is religious.  The best argument for gay marriage is that we can't be basing our laws on denying rights based on religious grounds.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:42 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

To reiterate: WOW
 
2013-03-26 02:22:52 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.


Obviously I meant "social conservatives" in this context. Fiscal conservatives, ecological conservatives, resource conservatives serve a necessary function in our society. Social conservatives only serve to be a bunch of small-minded jackasses.
 
2013-03-26 02:23:00 PM  
Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?
 
2013-03-26 02:23:09 PM  
They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

I figured you had to be trolling and didn't really believe that, then I checked your profile and saw that you're from Redlands, CA (an appropriate name for a town if ever they was one).  So given that, it's quite possible that your post was 100% serious.


Actually, I'm an atheist so I don't believe in any of that hell stuff.
I just think it's a mental illness. Still, they should have all the same rights as everyone else
 
2013-03-26 02:24:30 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Following a link in today's Rude Pundit blog post, I was reading the affront to grammar, logical thought, and rationality that passes for human shiat-bag and redundantly named idiot Erick Erickson's  blog: http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom - are-not-compatible/.

You should, needless to say, not read this. It is terrible and boils down to "WHAAAAAAAHHHHHH! JEEBUS SAID NOT TO!!!!! IF'N THE GAYS GET MARRIED THE SKY WIZARD WILL BE UNHAPPY!!!!! WHHAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! CHANGE MY DIAPER!!!!!!" It adds nothing to the current discourse, and you will only feel stupider for having read it.

No, the reason I bring it up is that it introduced me to a new stupid concept of which I was until this very moment entirely unaware: "the democracy of the dead." It is the democracy of the dead, Erick2 asserts, that has already decided gay marriage is wrong. I had no idea what this was, and clicked on the lmgtfy link he so helpfully provided, whereupon I was treated with this little turd: "Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."

HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?


So all conservatives enjoy zombie movies now, as it shows them ways of trolling for the zombie vote?
 
2013-03-26 02:27:46 PM  

Lando Lincoln: The Southern Dandy: Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.

Obviously I meant "social conservatives" in this context. Fiscal conservatives, ecological conservatives, resource conservatives serve a necessary function in our society. Social conservatives only serve to be a bunch of small-minded jackasses.


On the face of those labels I agree, but unfortunately, people that self-identify as Conservative are no where near being Fiscally conservative, Ecologically conservative, or Resource conservative.
 
2013-03-26 02:28:20 PM  
waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:49 PM  

doubled99: I just think it's a mental illness.


A genetically-predisposed 'mental illness' that has no cure. Sure, whatever you want to call it.

People wanting to get married are suffering from a form of mental illness as well, but nobody ever said that we were a perfect species.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:28 PM  

Inigo: [24.media.tumblr.com image 379x292]

To reiterate: WOW


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Ah good, our first catch of the day.
 
2013-03-26 02:32:34 PM  

queezyweezel: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.


I think you mean the Nutcase Right.  Those people aren't Christians.  I know plenty of great Christians.  The so-called Christian Right is the reincarnation of the Pharisees, and they'd gladly hang Christ up on the cross again if they could add a few trees full of gay and brown fellows to bleed out next to him.
 
2013-03-26 02:33:52 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


No you're not.
 
2013-03-26 02:34:26 PM  

doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.


Stop talking about Congress that way! They can't help they're perverts
 
2013-03-26 02:36:08 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.

No you're not.




Sure I am. I could be a slug and a sex machine at the same time. All 6 of us would declare each other as dependents on insurance and taxes.

waiting
 
2013-03-26 02:40:52 PM  

ElMNoPee: Colour_out_of_Space: ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.

No you're not.



Sure I am. I could be a slug and a sex machine at the same time. All 6 of us would declare each other as dependents on insurance and taxes.

waiting


30 years tops.
 
2013-03-26 02:41:14 PM  
Prank Call of Cthulhu:
HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?

Funny how that opinion always comes with the certainty(whether justified or not) that God/your ancestors believes exactly the same thing you believe.
 
2013-03-26 02:46:59 PM  

pedrop357: MilesTeg: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.

Same with Hawaii.  If only they could get those damned conservatives out of the way...


Actually, in California, the Conservative/Liberal mix is not that "out of whack" and it's pretty dependent on where you live. If you are in a rural environment you are probably in a conservative environment. The further down south in the state you get, the more conservative they tend to be. This is in part (or so I've heard theorized a time or ten) because of the large Hispanic population in SoCal and they tend to be Catholic and conservative. The further up North you get, and the more urban the area, the less conservative, with a few exceptions.

Los Angeles and San Diego are kinda tricky. They've been viewed as pretty conservative with strong liberal populations, so you have to be extra careful there and be very center-focused if you're a politician. As the daughter of immigrants myself, I can tell you those that paid farktons of money to be legally allowed to dwell and work here are none too fond of those who did not. However, even the legal sorts of immigrants are very likely to still have family members back in their home countries, so the more anti-immigrant you are perceived to be, the less likely they'll like you. San Diego also has a problem with trying NOT to plow their Beamers into people making a break across their very busy freeways to get deep into the US, which tends to upset everyone involved.

Now you need to factor in the little fact that our fearless leaders, elected by us, the perpetually confused about everything other than questionable fashion choices and recreational possibilities, had the great wisdom to name the Proposition currently cluttering SCOTUS' hallowed chambers to be named in such a way that apparently a large portion of old hippies suffering drug induced self lobotomies or simple lack of reading comprehension would think they were voting FOR gay marriage to remain legal here, when in fact they were doing the opposite, coupled with rampaging Mormons being bused in from Utah to meddle in our affairs when they have their own damn state to worry about. This is how you get the now ongoing, historic Shiatstorm of 2008-sometime in June of this year, most likely.

On behalf of the Great State of California, I can only say "you're welcome" and "bring money when you visit - we're broke".

/this lesson on "why California can't get squat done in a timely fashion and without causing a problem for everyone else and/or ending up in court" thoughtfully provided by the Los Angeles public school system and a lifetime of exposure to surf spray and smog
 
2013-03-26 02:48:30 PM  

Ned Stark: SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.

You're next, don't worry.


If you love the marrage bit; divorce is gonna kill ya.
 
2013-03-26 02:49:28 PM  

Lando Lincoln: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Which progressives are you referring to?


Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward. Be it the American progressive movement with their ethnic cleansing pushes, the various communist purges in eastern Europe and Russia from the 1910s through the 1950s, the waves of reprisal killings and ethnic cleansings in communist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Hell, even the Italian and German fascists (themselves a progressive movement away from the monarchies), couldn't resist just openly murdering whomever came into their sights. Cripes, even the Irish reactionaries were more violent than their predecessors.

About the only place that seemed to manage it without getting all murder-y was Britain, who was already pretty progressive.
 
2013-03-26 02:52:55 PM  

Ned Stark: For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?

It would be one thing is they were satisfied after one round. But permanent revolution tends to constantly create new targets.

Its the capitalists final defense. Being so deeply and wildly vile that anyone our group who carries out executions in the numbers that are deserved will lose soul and their empathy and won't be able to stop.


Capitalism, for all of its flaws, is fundamentally a pragmatic system. And murdering your work force and your custom base is bad for business.

Idealists don't have the restraint of pragmatism. Sometimes capitalism really is the lesser evil.
 
2013-03-26 02:54:11 PM  

ComicBookGuy: I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.


Scalia might well say it's none of big government's business.  The only issue I'd take with that is I'd possibly pee my pants from the lulz.

/SERIOUSLY AMERICA GET YOUR shiat TOGETHER.
 
2013-03-26 02:57:57 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


The primary civil (or governmental) purpose of marriage to promote order and predictability in personal legal affairs, such as having one person who can make health decisions for you if you become incapacitated, one person who inherits your property if you die without a will, one person who is equally responsible for your debts and assets as community property, etc., etc., all by operation of law--without the government having to take the time (judicial resources and otherwise) to resolve competing claims for these very important rights.  This is why marriage has a civil component and has become a government-sponsored (and government-regulated) institution.  The entire purpose is frustrated when there are competing claims to these rights arising from multiple spouses--instead of promoting order, it would promote chaos (two or more spouses arguing about whether the doctor should pull the plug, fighting over the rights to inheret property after the plug is pulled, etc.), all of which would have to be resolved by the courts and other government resources.  The central governmental interest in marriage is to provide a method of avoiding this.

How is this in any way comparable to the issue whether same-sex couple should be allowed to marry?
 
2013-03-26 02:58:04 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


It's quoted, so the people abusing the language here is fictional quoted Supreme Court. That they speak colloquially is part of the satire, so their misuse of "care less" is entirely appropriate. But sure, do think that in 30 seconds, you can spot an error in the sublimely edited Onion. (You might argue that the word "could" should be part of the quote, which is perfectly valid, but the satirical journalist wouldn't be incorrect or irresponsible in splicing the quote that way.)
 
2013-03-26 03:02:20 PM  

Cyberluddite: ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.

The primary civil (or governmental) purpose of marriage to promote order and predictability in personal legal affairs, such as having one person who can make health decisions for you if you become incapacitated, one person who inherits your property if you die without a will, one person who is equally responsible for your debts and assets as community property, etc., etc., all by operation of law--without the government having to take the time (judicial resources and otherwise) to resolve competing claims for these very important rights.  This is why marriage has a civil component and has become a government-sponsored (and government-regulated) institution.  The entire purpose is frustrated when there are competing claims to these rights arising from multiple spouses--instead of promoting order, it would promote chaos (two or more spouses arguing about whether the doctor should pull the plug, fighting over the rights to inheret property after the plug is pulled, etc.), all of which would have to be resolved by the courts and other government resources.  The central governmental interest in marriage is to provide a method of avoiding this.

How is this in any way comparable to the issue whether same-sex couple should be allowed to marry?


In the only way that matters at all. People will want polygamous marriages and they can't be shown to harm anyone else. These arguments you are positing about marriages "purpose" will be just as mocked as the ones made now about marriage's purpose being to have kids.

You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-26 03:07:49 PM  
i'm worried legalizing gay marriage will make kids think it is ok to be gay. just kidding. seriously though, does this mean I have to marry a man?
 
2013-03-26 03:09:09 PM  

howdoibegin: It's quoted, so the people abusing the language here is fictional quoted Supreme Court. That they speak colloquially is part of the satire, so their misuse of "care less" is entirely appropriate. But sure, do think that in 30 seconds, you can spot an error in the sublimely edited Onion. (You might argue that the word "could" should be part of the quote, which is perfectly valid, but the satirical journalist wouldn't be incorrect or irresponsible in splicing the quote that way.)


Yes, as you said at the end, the "care less" is (fictionally) quoted, but the "could" isn't and is part of the (satirical) writer's words:

Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

So it's actually The Onion's language, not part of the fictional quote.  And even if it was part of the quote, I don't think that's a grammatical error that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is likely to make, and it wouldn't add anything to the story to make it appear that he had.  It's just sloppy work by the writer.

/Have now thought about this way too much
 
2013-03-26 03:10:10 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


Why don't you just marry one straw man instead?
 
2013-03-26 03:11:41 PM  

devilEther: i'm worried legalizing gay marriage will make kids think it is ok to be gay. just kidding. seriously though, does this mean I have to marry a man?


You will find out when they let you out of FEMA camp
 
2013-03-26 03:12:59 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?


The "against" crowd is the defendant at his point. The deali-o is this - Gavin Newsom, when he was Supremely Fabulous of San Francisco (mayor) told the county "screw it, let 'em get married" and directed county clerks to issue the appropriate licenses. A bunch of dudes and dudettes went and gay married each other and all was quiet and peaceful for the exact amount of time it took the anti-marriage for teh ebil gheys crowd to file paperwork to put a stop to it until it could be decided by a statewide vote.

It hit the state ballot as Prop 8 aka the strangely named "protection of marriage act" (or something similar, too lazy to google it right now) and since a lot of folks seemed to think that gay marriage was obviously legal or we'd not have so many married gays suddenly running amok planning honeymoons and updating their state tax BS, they were preserving the legality of the marriage and many questionable shenanigans ensued. Prop 8 passed, the existing marriages were left intact, but no new gay marryin' anyone, you pervs.

Enter the California Supreme court, after many more shenanigans involving lower courts, who ruled the new law against gay marriage unconstitutional, even on the federal level. This upheld the rulings of the lower courts but because a federal judge somewhere in the list was also gay, it didn't count. So now two of the gay couples who got hitched and who started the whole "you can't tell us we can't marry cuz the 14th amendment, biatches" are now facing off against the "you're going to hell, sodomites! (pssst...call me)" crowd, much to no one's surprise at all.

A great time was had by none except in small spurts after a few court rulings that have generally sided with the "gay marriage is a-ok" crowd. When this is all over, we'll all head down to see the pot doc, complain of menstrual cramping to get a medical marijuana card and then just chill the fark out with some baked vegetable chips, tofu dip and a low fat, non-dairy wheat grass smoothie spiked with Napa Valley wine. I promise. (Until we find some other way to poke someone else in the eye with a sharp pointy stick or get really bored)
 
2013-03-26 03:14:53 PM  
Finally some common sense! Oh. It's the onion. :(
 
2013-03-26 03:14:54 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


Since more than twice as many Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act than those who voted against it, you might want to rethink that.

Put another way, only 14 Senate Democrats were willing to vote against a law stripping equal rights from a certain class of Americans.

Senator Wyden, my total Senate man crush, was awesome even back then.
 
2013-03-26 03:16:05 PM  

This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Which progressives are you referring to?

Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward. Be it the American progressive movement with their ethnic cleansing pushes, the various communist purges in eastern Europe and Russia from the 1910s through the 1950s, the waves of reprisal killings and ethnic cleansings in communist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Hell, even the Italian and German fascists (themselves a progressive movement away from the monarchies), couldn't resist just openly murdering whomever came into their sights. Cripes, even the Irish reactionaries were more violent than their predecessors.

About the only place that seemed to manage it without getting all murder-y was Britain, who was already pretty progressive.


Communism and fascism aren't progressivism, no matter how many times Glenn Beck tries to tell you otherwise.

You can lay down eugenics at the feet of progressives, but that's about it.
 
2013-03-26 03:17:37 PM  
This text is now purple:
Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward.

Would like a word with you...
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

www.mrnussbaum.com

.
 
2013-03-26 03:18:10 PM  
 
2013-03-26 03:18:14 PM  

Ned Stark: In the only way that matters at all. People will want polygamous marriages and they can't be shown to harm anyone else. These arguments you are positing about marriages "purpose" will be just as mocked as the ones made now about marriage's purpose being to have kids.

You'll get over it.


There most certainly is a government "purpose" in marriage--otherwise it wouldn't be a government institution at all, now would it?  I pointed out how plural marriages frustrate the primary governmental interest in providing a system of civil marriages, that of providing stability and order in financial/family relationships.  Same-sex marriage, however, does not in any way frustrate that system--if anything, it promotes it.  So the government has a rational basis for prohibiting one (polygamous marriage), and has no rational basis for prohibiting the other (same-sex marriage).

Do I need to do the same thing for you with respect to the other "slippery slope" arguments about being able to marry your turtle or your sister or your car, or can you just accept that same-sex marriage isn't like the others and that allowing it has no bearing on whether the government needs to allow the others?
 
2013-03-26 03:18:22 PM  

BullBearMS: Since more than twice as many Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act than those who voted against it, you might want to rethink that.


hurr durr democrats equals liberals herpa derp

Stop being so goddamn dense.
 
2013-03-26 03:25:06 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Lando Lincoln: The Southern Dandy: Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.

Obviously I meant "social conservatives" in this context. Fiscal conservatives, ecological conservatives, resource conservatives serve a necessary function in our society. Social conservatives only serve to be a bunch of small-minded jackasses.

On the face of those labels I agree, but unfortunately, people that self-identify as Conservative are no where near being Fiscally conservative, Ecologically conservative, or Resource conservative.


And unfortunately, people who self-identify as liberal enjoy having sex with children. They will all deny it, but I know what they are like better than they do.
 
2013-03-26 03:25:33 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


While the thought of more than one wife fills me with dread (ouch! Honey! I just meant I already had THE ONE! Stop smacking the back of my head!).  Ahem.  While I am not personally in the market for additional wives (or co-husbands), I don't have any issues about others going in for that sort of thing.  As long as everyone is happy and the children are brought up in a loving non-abusive environment (which should also apply to binary marriage), I'm ok with this.
 
2013-03-26 03:27:28 PM  
as a progressive, i am in favor of mass murder.
 
2013-03-26 03:29:04 PM  

Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: Since more than twice as many Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act than those who voted against it, you might want to rethink that.

hurr durr democrats equals liberals herpa derp

Stop being so goddamn dense.


Go back and ignore reality on the Politics Tab where you belong.

The Democrats and President Clinton courted the gay vote heavily with promises of support.

Then they went along with the Republicans willingly and threw us under the bus.

I still remember Senator Daschle (the Senate minority leader at the time) appearing on the Daily Show and publicly supporting the Defense of Marriage Act before the vote.
 
2013-03-26 03:31:44 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ned Stark: In the only way that matters at all. People will want polygamous marriages and they can't be shown to harm anyone else. These arguments you are positing about marriages "purpose" will be just as mocked as the ones made now about marriage's purpose being to have kids.

You'll get over it.

There most certainly is a government "purpose" in marriage--otherwise it wouldn't be a government institution at all, now would it?  I pointed out how plural marriages frustrate the primary governmental interest in providing a system of civil marriages, that of providing stability and order in financial/family relationships.  Same-sex marriage, however, does not in any way frustrate that system--if anything, it promotes it.  So the government has a rational basis for prohibiting one (polygamous marriage), and has no rational basis for prohibiting the other (same-sex marriage).

Do I need to do the same thing for you with respect to the other "slippery slope" arguments about being able to marry your turtle or your sister or your car, or can you just accept that same-sex marriage isn't like the others and that allowing it has no bearing on whether the government needs to allow the others?


Exactly what is the rational basis for which the government should have any interest whatsoever in who I spend my time with?
 
2013-03-26 03:36:29 PM  
I think next, since the odds of eliminating government in the whole equation at all are pretty slim to none, we should touch on allowing polygamy, as well as eliminating the stigma associated with people who choose to NOT get married, and those who choose to NOT have children.
 
2013-03-26 03:38:42 PM  

BullBearMS: Go back and ignore reality on the Politics Tab where you belong.


Which reality am I avoiding, exactly? That Democrat = liberal?
 
2013-03-26 03:39:09 PM  
When did the Onion paywall? How did I miss that memo...
 
2013-03-26 03:40:00 PM  
Next thing they will allow black people to marry white people!!
MADNESS
 
2013-03-26 03:40:11 PM  

Cyberluddite: How is this in any way comparable to the issue whether same-sex couple should be allowed to marry?


I serously doubt that is the purpose of marriage.  looks like you are confusing benefits of marriage with the purpose.

Please proceed
 
2013-03-26 03:42:27 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Which progressives are you referring to?

Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward. Be it the American progressive movement with their ethnic cleansing pushes, the various communist purges in eastern Europe and Russia from the 1910s through the 1950s, the waves of reprisal killings and ethnic cleansings in communist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Hell, even the Italian and German fascists (themselves a progressive movement away from the monarchies), couldn't resist just openly murdering whomever came into their sights. Cripes, even the Irish reactionaries were more violent than their predecessors.

About the only place that seemed to manage it without getting all murder-y was Britain, who was already pretty progressive.

Communism and fascism aren't progressivism, no matter how many times Glenn Beck tries to tell you otherwise.


Funny, they certainly considered themselves progressives. And they were typically very forward-looking and neoscientific in their attitudes and methods, all advocating hard breaks from the evils of the past. This is hardly conservatism.
The primary difference between them and the American progressive movements was from what they were progressing away -- typically the post-imperial fallout in Europe and south Asia, as opposed to a reaction against the Gilded Age in the US.
 
2013-03-26 03:42:47 PM  

Cyberluddite: There most certainly is a government "purpose" in marriage

and as all such purposes is up for debate and change at all times.

--otherwise it wouldn't be a government institution at all, now would it?
heh

I pointed out how plural marriages frustrate the primary governmental interest in providing a system of civil marriages, that of providing stability and order in financial/family relationships.
And messy paperwork just doesn't matter.


So the government has a rational basis for prohibiting one (polygamous marriage)
irrelevant. The topic of the discussion is about whether they will or wont, not whether its rational.


Do I need to do the same thing for you with respect to the other "slippery slope" arguments about being able to marry your turtle or your sister or your car, or can you just accept that same-sex marriage isn't like the others and that allowing it has no bearing on whether the government needs to allow the others?

Cars and turtles can't consent. Marrying your sister is also eventually going to be a thing.
 
2013-03-26 03:43:02 PM  

Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: Go back and ignore reality on the Politics Tab where you belong.

Which reality am I avoiding, exactly? That Democrat = liberal?


That the Democratic party threw gays under the bus and worked with Republicans to pass legislation that specifically denied equal rights to gay people.
 
2013-03-26 03:43:18 PM  
i1286.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 03:47:58 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: The Southern Dandy: Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?

The "against" crowd is the defendant at his point. The deali-o is this - Gavin Newsom, when he was Supremely Fabulous of San Francisco (mayor) told the county "screw it, let 'em get married" and directed county clerks to issue the appropriate licenses. A bunch of dudes and dudettes went and gay married each other and all was quiet and peaceful for the exact amount of time it took the anti-marriage for teh ebil gheys crowd to file paperwork to put a stop to it until it could be decided by a statewide vote.

It hit the state ballot as Prop 8 aka the strangely named "protection of marriage act" (or something similar, too lazy to google it right now) and since a lot of folks seemed to think that gay marriage was obviously legal or we'd not have so many married gays suddenly running amok planning honeymoons and updating their state tax BS, they were preserving the legality of the marriage and many questionable shenanigans ensued. Prop 8 passed, the existing marriages were left intact, but no new gay marryin' anyone, you pervs.

Enter the California Supreme court, after many more shenanigans involving lower courts, who ruled the new law against gay marriage unconstitutional, even on the federal level. This upheld the rulings of the lower courts but because a federal judge somewhere in the list was also gay, it didn't count. So now two of the gay couples who got hitched and who started the whole "you can't tell us we can't marry cuz the 14th amendment, biatches" are now facing off against the "you're going to hell, sodomites! (pssst...call me)" crowd, much to no one's surprise at all.

A great time was had by none except in small spurts after a few court rulings that have generally sided with the "gay marriage is a-ok" crowd. When this is all over, we'll all head down to see the pot doc, complain of menstrual cramping to get a medical marijuana card and ...


That may be the bestest and most awesomewinning summary of any court case I have ever read.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if it ISN'T "official court reporter" then we are all the poorer for it.
 
2013-03-26 03:49:59 PM  

BullBearMS: Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: Go back and ignore reality on the Politics Tab where you belong.

Which reality am I avoiding, exactly? That Democrat = liberal?

That the Democratic party threw gays under the bus and worked with Republicans to pass legislation that specifically denied equal rights to gay people.


Which has nothing to do at all with conservatism and liberalism.

Do you not even see those words anymore for what they actually are? Let's do a test.

Democrat Liberal
Democrat Democrat

Republican Conservative
Republican Republican

Are lines 1 and 2 the same or different? Are lines 3 and 4 the same or different?
 
2013-03-26 03:51:06 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: The Southern Dandy: Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?

The "against" crowd is the defendant at his point. The deali-o is this - Gavin Newsom, when he was Supremely Fabulous of San Francisco (mayor) told the county "screw it, let 'em get married" and directed county clerks to issue the appropriate licenses. A bunch of dudes and dudettes went and gay married each other and all was quiet and peaceful for the exact amount of time it took the anti-marriage for teh ebil gheys crowd to file paperwork to put a stop to it until it could be decided by a statewide vote.

It hit the state ballot as Prop 8 aka the strangely named "protection of marriage act" (or something similar, too lazy to google it right now) and since a lot of folks seemed to think that gay marriage was obviously legal or we'd not have so many married gays suddenly running amok planning honeymoons and updating their state tax BS, they were preserving the legality of the marriage and many questionable shenanigans ensued. Prop 8 passed, the existing marriages were left intact, but no new gay marryin' anyone, you pervs.

Enter the California Supreme court, after many more shenanigans involving lower courts, who ruled the new law against gay marriage unconstitutional, even on the federal level. This upheld the rulings of the lower courts but because a federal judge somewhere in the list was also gay, it didn't count. So now two of the gay couples who got hitched and who started the whole "you can't tell us we can't marry cuz the 14th amendment, biatches" are now facing off against the "you're going to hell, sodomites! (pssst...call me)" crowd, much to no one's surprise at all.

A great time was had by none except in small spurts after a few court rulings that have generally sided with the "gay marriage is a-ok" crowd. When this is all over, we'll all head down to see the pot doc, complain of menstrual cramping to get a medical marijuana card and then just chill the fark out with some ...


Not exactly.  It's more like the following:

2004: As you said, Gavin Newsome (and some others) ordered city clerks to revise marriage forms to allow for same-sex marriages

Later in 2004: Fundies who passed Prop 22 a few years earlier (which was similar to Prop 8, though passed as a statute rather than a state constitutional amendment) filed suit, claiming that that the evil soddomites in San Francisco shouldn't be allowed to permit two dudes or two lezzies to marry each other

2008:  After the case wound its way through the courts for a few years, ultimately the California Supreme Court issued a ruling, called In re Marriage Cases, holding that laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples (i.e., Prop 22) violated the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution, and were invalid under the California Constitution.  It therefore ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to get married under California law.

2008: Following the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Marriage Cases, same-sex marriage is suddenly legal; many gay and lesbian couples immediately take advantage of this and get legally married in California

Later in 2008: Fundies get their panties in a twist and put Prop 8 on the ballot, which purports to be a state constitutional amendment saying that only marriages between one man and one woman are recognized in the state.  It passes (barely)

2009: Prop 8 is challenged in state court, as a violation of the state constitution (an unusual challenge, to say that a purported constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional because of more general provisions of the state constitution, but one that was probably correct).  The Califonia Supreme court finds Prop 8 does not violate that California Constitution, but that it could not act retrospectively--in other words, no future gay marriages could take place, but same-sex couples who were married while same-sex marriage was briefly allowed in California in 2008 before the passage of Prop 8 would remain legally married.

2009-2010: Prop 8 is challenged in federal District Court in San Francisco, with opponents claiming that it violates the U.S. Constitution to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage rights.  The then-governor (Ah-huld) and A.G. (Jerry Brown) decline to defend the law in court, both of them essentially agreeing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.  The proponents of the ballot initiative are allowed to intervene to defend it.  Ultimately, the court rules that there is no rational basis for the state to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage rights, and so Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and is unconstitutional and invalid.  The judge stays that order pending appeal, so Prop 8 remains in force.  The proponents immediately appeal to the 9th Circuit.

2010-2012:  The 9th Circuit first asks the California Supreme Court if, under California, the proponents have legal standing to pursue the appeal; the California Supreme Court opines that they do.  The 9th Circuit then considers the merits, and in a very narrow ruling based on Justice Kennedy's decision in the Romer case from Colorado, declines to rule on whether bans on same-sex marriage are invalid in general, but does rule that it's unconstitutional for the voters to deprive homosexuals of a right they already had just because some voters don't like homosexuals, and since same-sex marriage was allowed prior to Prop 8 and the only reason given for taking it away was essentially that the proponents thought gay people are icky, Prop 8 was unconstituional.  This ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Supreme Court, and it's still stayed, since the Supremes decided to hear the matter.

2013: The hearing on that case was heard in the Supreme Court of the United States this morning.
 
2013-03-26 03:53:11 PM  

This text is now purple: Funny, they certainly considered themselves progressives.


They considered themselves Communists and Fascists, actually.

There's a difference between someone being "progressive" and someone being "a Progressive."
 
2013-03-26 03:54:21 PM  

sugar_fetus: This text is now purple:
Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward.

Would like a word with you...
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

[www.mrnussbaum.com image 543x520]


"Starting in 1907 eugenicists in many States started the forced sterilization of the sick, unemployed, poor, criminals, prostitutes, and the disabled. Roosevelt said in 1914: "I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them."

Teddy was an interesting guy. He was very much a legal literalist -- sort of a Judge Dredd like hardliner about application of the law. He favored the just over the true or the right.
 
2013-03-26 03:56:32 PM  

Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: Go back and ignore reality on the Politics Tab where you belong.

Which reality am I avoiding, exactly? That Democrat = liberal?

That the Democratic party threw gays under the bus and worked with Republicans to pass legislation that specifically denied equal rights to gay people.

Which has nothing to do at all with conservatism and liberalism.

Do you not even see those words anymore for what they actually are? Let's do a test.

Democrat Liberal
Democrat Democrat

Republican Conservative
Republican Republican

Are lines 1 and 2 the same or different? Are lines 3 and 4 the same or different?


It has everything to do with TFA. I can see you want to change the subject, being one of the more active Politics Tab party shills, but the fact remains that this bullshiat was completely bipartisan.

Denying equal rights to gay people was the one big thing the two parties (with very few exceptions) were in complete agreement on.
 
2013-03-26 03:56:56 PM  

Lando Lincoln: This text is now purple: Funny, they certainly considered themselves progressives.

They considered themselves Communists and Fascists, actually.

There's a difference between someone being "progressive" and someone being "a Progressive."


Go check the original comments. No one talked about a Conservative or a Progressive. The discussion was about conservatives and progressives. Interwar fascists and communists were certainly progressives.
 
2013-03-26 04:01:20 PM  

Ned Stark: Cyberluddite: There most certainly is a government "purpose" in marriage
and as all such purposes is up for debate and change at all times.

--otherwise it wouldn't be a government institution at all, now would it?
heh

I pointed out how plural marriages frustrate the primary governmental interest in providing a system of civil marriages, that of providing stability and order in financial/family relationships.
And messy paperwork just doesn't matter.


So the government has a rational basis for prohibiting one (polygamous marriage)
irrelevant. The topic of the discussion is about whether they will or wont, not whether its rational.


Do I need to do the same thing for you with respect to the other "slippery slope" arguments about being able to marry your turtle or your sister or your car, or can you just accept that same-sex marriage isn't like the others and that allowing it has no bearing on whether the government needs to allow the others?

Cars and turtles can't consent. Marrying your sister is also eventually going to be a thing.


If you dont understand why a "rational basis" might be relevant to this side discussion you're having, you probably ought to stop talking.
 
2013-03-26 04:02:11 PM  

ekdikeo4: Exactly what is the rational basis for which the government should have any interest whatsoever in who I spend my time with?


The government doesn't care. Your Craigslist furry dominatrix soirees are in no danger. Who will inherit your riding crop collection when you forget the safeword, however, is.
 
2013-03-26 04:02:50 PM  

Decillion: over_and_done: Also, SCOTUS needs to overturn all the crappy statues limiting what techniques a couple can use in the bedroom.  The stupid, drooling, why-is-this-even-on-the-books ones that were originally passed to give the right wing[nutt]ers something they could legally use against gays.

I don't think it will affect anybody's actual day to day lives in the slightest.  I just want to be able to tell my gf that "the supreme court said it was okay!" when I'm trying to convince her to give me a bj.

There's a few midsize towns in Kansas that took the ancient laws off the books. Yet the small pop. surrounding counties didn't. Each town now is surrounded by a halo of no bj zones. They need a GPS app that tells you whether to proceed or not.


There's some amount of legislative grunt work to clean that up, going from what I understand about NC, which may or may not be correct:

Here, laws criminalizing things like rape and prostitution are written with the assumption of male perp/john, female victim/ho. For any other combination one could just charge those involved with felony sodomy. So those laws need to be rewritten before the sodomy law can be repealed, and AFAIK there isn't a big enough pro-sodomy contingent in the State legislature to take on that task.
 
2013-03-26 04:06:52 PM  

factoryconnection: Cyberluddite: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

I figured you had to be trolling and didn't really believe that, then I checked your profile and saw that you're from Redlands, CA (an appropriate name for a town if ever they was one).  So given that, it's quite possible that your post was 100% serious.

That's the least trollish thing I've read from DD99, and also the most relevant.  The primary argument against gay marriage rights is religious.  The best argument for gay marriage is that we can't be basing our laws on denying rights based on religious grounds.


There's a nonreligious argument from tradition, but I think that got effectively demolished by (among others) an amicus brief from Howard University - they lined up all those arguments and showed how they're practically identical to all the arguments against interracial marriage from Loving v. Virginia.

Personally, I think NC's criminalization of marital rape in 1993 was a bigger change to the institution of marriage than the changes allowing coloreds and gays to participate.
 
2013-03-26 04:08:24 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


Yeah, right. Demonstrate that you can find even one person who wants to marry you, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

ekdikeo4: eliminating government in the whole equation


Aw, not this shiat again.  Marriage is a civil matter.  Period.  No other entity has any claim on it.  The government is, and pretty much always has been, the only agency that marries people.

ekdikeo4: Exactly what is the rational basis for which the government should have any interest whatsoever in who I spend my time with?


It's the role of government to contribute to the stability of the society it governs. Next question?
 
2013-03-26 04:09:29 PM  

Cyberluddite: Real Women Drink Akvavit: The Southern Dandy: Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?

The "against" crowd is the defendant at his point. The deali-o is this - Gavin Newsom, when he was Supremely Fabulous of San Francisco (mayor) told the county "screw it, let 'em get married" and directed county clerks to issue the appropriate licenses. A bunch of dudes and dudettes went and gay married each other and all was quiet and peaceful for the exact amount of time it took the anti-marriage for teh ebil gheys crowd to file paperwork to put a stop to it until it could be decided by a statewide vote.

It hit the state ballot as Prop 8 aka the strangely named "protection of marriage act" (or something similar, too lazy to google it right now) and since a lot of folks seemed to think that gay marriage was obviously legal or we'd not have so many married gays suddenly running amok planning honeymoons and updating their state tax BS, they were preserving the legality of the marriage and many questionable shenanigans ensued. Prop 8 passed, the existing marriages were left intact, but no new gay marryin' anyone, you pervs.

Enter the California Supreme court, after many more shenanigans involving lower courts, who ruled the new law against gay marriage unconstitutional, even on the federal level. This upheld the rulings of the lower courts but because a federal judge somewhere in the list was also gay, it didn't count. So now two of the gay couples who got hitched and who started the whole "you can't tell us we can't marry cuz the 14th amendment, biatches" are now facing off against the "you're going to hell, sodomites! (pssst...call me)" crowd, much to no one's surprise at all.

A great time was had by none except in small spurts after a few court rulings that have generally sided with the "gay marriage is a-ok" crowd. When this is all over, we'll all head down to see the pot doc, complain of menstrual cramping to get a medical marijuana card and then just chi ...


I knew I got some things turned around in there, but I'm a chef, not a poltician/legalese person who does follow the news to a certain extent, but loses focus when my eyes roll a few times too many. Also, Napa Valley Wine, dude. It's awesome.

Also, and just because, why shouldn't the gays be allowed to be married? If it is a government institution, as some have said, then it would seem to be illegal under the federal laws to not allow it. If it is a religious institution, as some have said, then same gender marriage should also be legal as we all have freedom of religion and there are many religious groups of various sorts that have no problem with gay marriage at all. Some of them even claim the same base faith while on opposite sides of what should be a non-issue.

I'm pretty sure that in the US marriage is obviously both a government and a religious institution. The religious say "we do/do not agree because whargarble the magnificent said so right here in the big book of 'do as I say because I say so'" and the government says "give us monies and if other people who give us monies don't throw too much of a fit, we'll do it your way - for now".

I'm pretty sure there's also evil cackling involved in there somewhere, but I'm not sure who is doing it or if both sides are (uncharacteristically) politely taking turns.
 
2013-03-26 04:09:46 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


you think?

i consider myself extremely conservative and i find the various gay marriage bans to be some of the most offensive pieces of legislation ever written.
 
2013-03-26 04:11:48 PM  

BullBearMS: It has everything to do with TFA. I can see you want to change the subject, being one of the more active Politics Tab party shills, but the fact remains that this bullshiat was completely bipartisan.

Denying equal rights to gay people was the one big thing the two parties (with very few exceptions) were in complete agreement on.


No, it doesn't. The article is talking about how a satirical Supreme Court thinks it's completely ridiculous that they're wasting time talking about the question on whether gays should marry - this is one of the most self-evident things that they've heard in a long time. It doesn't have anything at all to do with how Democrats and Republicans voted for or against gay rights in the past or in the present. Not a goddamn thing at all.

And you accuse me of trying to change the focus of the subject? You're trying to change the focus to how some Democrats voted against gay rights, thus Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, so therefore BSABSVR or something stupid like that.
 
2013-03-26 04:20:36 PM  

Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: It has everything to do with TFA. I can see you want to change the subject, being one of the more active Politics Tab party shills, but the fact remains that this bullshiat was completely bipartisan.

Denying equal rights to gay people was the one big thing the two parties (with very few exceptions) were in complete agreement on.

No, it doesn't. The article is talking about how a satirical Supreme Court thinks it's completely ridiculous that they're wasting time talking about the question on whether gays should marry - this is one of the most self-evident things that they've heard in a long time. It doesn't have anything at all to do with how Democrats and Republicans voted for or against gay rights in the past or in the present. Not a goddamn thing at all.

And you accuse me of trying to change the focus of the subject? You're trying to change the focus to how some Democrats voted against gay rights, thus Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, so therefore BSABSVR or something stupid like that.


I'm pretty sure you were the party shill who came into a gay marriage thread and tried to reposition the blame for completely bipartisan legislation on only half of those guilty of passing it. Right in the b00bies, too.

How did it go?

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

 
2013-03-26 04:22:15 PM  

ekdikeo4: Exactly what is the rational basis for which the government should have any interest whatsoever in who I spend my time with?


Tax laws, inheritance laws, health insurance regulations, yadda yadda yadda.

Some of those could conceivably be replaced by private contract (e.g. inheritance laws, though it's common for anti-gay family to throw monkey wrenches thereinto when today's gay couples try this). Some could not (e.g. the inability of a court to force one to testify against one's spouse).
 
2013-03-26 04:26:21 PM  
When this is all over, SCOTUS is gonna issue something that says gay marriage is ok wherever the state says it is.

Because the GOP thinks that by doing a 180 on the position they have held for generations they will suddenly endear them to the gay community. You can bet the conservative justices have already gotten their briefing on the effort to 're-brand' the party, and what they're supposed to do to help make that happen.
 
Final vote, 6-3. Thomas, Alito & Scalia dissenting

/Cynical? Moi?
 
2013-03-26 04:29:22 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: I'm pretty sure that in the US marriage is obviously both a government and a religious institution


I don't have any major problems with your argument, except for this bit.  Trying to portray religion and government as being on equal footing on this issue is like trying to say that the AMA has a vote on who qualifies for the PGA tour, just because a lot of doctors like to play golf.  Marriage is not a religious institution any more than golf is a medical institution.
 
2013-03-26 04:41:34 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Is it wrong of me to hope some group of knuckleheads thinks this is a real deal kinda story and runs with it, just so we can openly mock them?

/I'll start the popcorn.

Here ya go. I like extra butter.
http://literallyunbelievable.org/


Oh no. The normal straight people have to share. I'm not saying a couple of remedial kindergarten classes could smooth over a lot of the faux controversy surrounding gay marriage rights. I'm just saying I don't see anything suggesting it wouldn't
 
2013-03-26 04:46:44 PM  
Whilte not nearly as awesome as the Onion's account of things, it's not looking good so far for prop 8 supporters...
 
2013-03-26 04:50:57 PM  

eggrolls: When this is all over, SCOTUS is gonna issue something that says gay marriage is ok wherever the state says it is.

Because the GOP thinks that by doing a 180 on the position they have held for generations they will suddenly endear them to the gay community. You can bet the conservative justices have already gotten their briefing on the effort to 're-brand' the party, and what they're supposed to do to help make that happen.

Final vote, 6-3. Thomas, Alito & Scalia dissenting

/Cynical? Moi?


I'd have to point out that now that the majority of Americans support gay marriage (53% as of this week), of course both parties suddenly support it.

There is no principled stand going on here. It's just that politicians are whores

The principled stand happened back when DOMA was being passed and 14 Senators stood up against enshrining discrimination into US law, even though doing so was very unpopular at the time.

Oh Ron Wyden, you're so dreamy... I think he, along with California's two Senators are the only ones who remain in office.
 
2013-03-26 04:53:16 PM  

Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I feel the same way about assholes like you.

That's nice. I really don't care.


You need help.
 
2013-03-26 04:54:02 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Is it wrong of me to hope some group of knuckleheads thinks this is a real deal kinda story and runs with it, just so we can openly mock them?

/I'll start the popcorn.

Here ya go. I like extra butter.
http://literallyunbelievable.org/


Wait until they get a hold of this one:

God:  I support gay marriage because I have a gay son
 
2013-03-26 04:55:21 PM  

BullBearMS: I'm pretty sure you were the party shill who came into a gay marriage thread and tried to reposition the blame for completely bipartisan legislation on only half of those guilty of passing it. Right in the b00bies, too.

How did it go?


You really, really do not farking understand the difference between the words "conservative" and "Republican" do you.

When I said, "If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place" I was referring to social conservatives - even more specifically, social conservatives that are against gay marriage. It wouldn't make sense for me to be railing against fiscal conservatives in this context, since the subject doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with fiscal issues. Nor would it make sense for me to be railing against ecological conservatives, since it doesn't have anything to do with ecological issues. And YES, it is definitely possible to be fiscally conservative or ecologically conservative without being socially conservative.

And I was definitely not referring to, "members of the Republican Party" when I said, "conservative."

The fact that you cannot differentiate between the words "conservative" and "Republican" is YOUR FAULT, not mine.
 
2013-03-26 04:56:20 PM  

Trey Le Parc: Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I feel the same way about assholes like you.

That's nice. I really don't care.

You need help.


And? What, you're saying that you don't? We all could use some help.
 
2013-03-26 05:04:34 PM  

Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: I'm pretty sure you were the party shill who came into a gay marriage thread and tried to reposition the blame for completely bipartisan legislation on only half of those guilty of passing it. Right in the b00bies, too.

How did it go?

You really, really do not farking understand the difference between the words "conservative" and "Republican" do you.

When I said, "If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place" I was referring to social conservatives - even more specifically, social conservatives that are against gay marriage. It wouldn't make sense for me to be railing against fiscal conservatives in this context, since the subject doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with fiscal issues. Nor would it make sense for me to be railing against ecological conservatives, since it doesn't have anything to do with ecological issues. And YES, it is definitely possible to be fiscally conservative or ecologically conservative without being socially conservative.

And I was definitely not referring to, "members of the Republican Party" when I said, "conservative."

The fact that you cannot differentiate between the words "conservative" and "Republican" is YOUR FAULT, not mine.


Oh Snap.
 
2013-03-26 05:10:00 PM  

Lando Lincoln: You really, really do not farking understand the difference between the words "conservative" and "Republican" do you.


Go be a party shill on the politics tab.

Enshrining discrimination against gays into US law was completely bipartisan, no matter how many times you try to change the subject.
 
2013-03-26 05:21:01 PM  

BullBearMS: Lando Lincoln: You really, really do not farking understand the difference between the words "conservative" and "Republican" do you.

Go be a party shill on the politics tab.

Enshrining discrimination against gays into US law was completely bipartisan, no matter how many times you try to change the subject.


...says the guy that's desperately trying to change the subject from the Supreme Court to Congress.
 
2013-03-26 05:21:23 PM  

BullBearMS: Lando Lincoln: You really, really do not farking understand the difference between the words "conservative" and "Republican" do you.

Go be a party shill on the politics tab.

Enshrining discrimination against gays into US law was completely bipartisan, no matter how many times you try to change the subject.


Just so we're clear here. Are you stating that you cannot be liberal without being a Democrat? And you cannot be conservative without being a Republican?
 
2013-03-26 05:21:25 PM  

Z-clipped: Real Women Drink Akvavit: I'm pretty sure that in the US marriage is obviously both a government and a religious institution

I don't have any major problems with your argument, except for this bit.  Trying to portray religion and government as being on equal footing on this issue is like trying to say that the AMA has a vote on who qualifies for the PGA tour, just because a lot of doctors like to play golf.  Marriage is not a religious institution any more than golf is a medical institution.


Well, I know I phrased it poorly/not so clear ('tis my specialty!) but it in a way it really is both religious and civil. Religion has its icky sticky hands all over it, and the government regulates it and blesses it in a governmental fashion. So in a way, they are on equal footing, just not on the same parts of the whole "marriage" thing. The equal footing is right on the backs of the people which both are supposedly trying to nurture, protect and regulate for their own good (which sounds way more violent than I mean it to sound), with the foot of government on one shoulder blade and the foot of religion on another shoulder blade.

While it may be just peachy fine in one religion to gay marry the neighborhood feral cat colony, it will not be in another religion. Government can say "nuh-uh" to the "I wanna marry ALLLL these kittehs" crowd, but it will allegedly be based on governmental stuff and legal ideals which, ideally, should not be based on any religion, regardless of number of followers. This will not stop a religious group that may view such a marriage as vital to their idolization of the son of the bastard forty-seventh grandchild of Bast or whatever from getting their spiritual/religious marriage on, but it won't entitle them to be recognized by the government and they therefore will receive no government support in the form of marriage benefits regarding that marriage. It could even get them arrested if they violated existing laws.

Conversely, if it was peachy fine groovy keen ok with the government for you to marry whomever or whatever you pleased but it was NOT ok with a local religious group, you could indeed marry whomever or whatever you pleased and it would be legally recognized by the government, but most likely would not be recognized as "valid" by the religious group and the government could not force them to recognize or support that marriage.

So while one scenario has spiritual/religious implications for the person wanting the marriage, the other is more heavily stilted toward secular issues and concerns. Both have an impact on those seeking marriage (or seeking to prevent marriages of certain types), even those who do not belong to a religion that takes a stance on who or what you may or may not marry, if they belong to any religion at all, as all the marriages fall also under the authority of the government. So in that way at least, marriage is both civil and religious.

/I'm clear as mud, I know
 
2013-03-26 05:28:10 PM  

MilesTeg: So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.


You don't really understand the problem with California, do you? Voters exercising direct power via propositions are the problem. Not their political bent.
 
2013-03-26 05:31:21 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?


I thought they were really really really against the idea of dead people voting.
 
2013-03-26 05:33:43 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


So basically you're one of those people who think "could care less" is somehow wrong.   Better people than you or I have debated the point exhaustively.  If you really care--- well, you shouldn't.  You might as well set your throne by the sea shore and command the tide to halt.

But if you truly COULD care less, then go read up on the topic.
 
2013-03-26 05:41:03 PM  

Dimensio: Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.

The phrase "could care less", when attempting to convey the sentiment that lesser concern is impossible, is acceptable if the statement is issued with noticeable inflections of sarcasm.



That is essentially Steven Pinker's claim, but I prefer the claim that it STARTED as sarcasm but, over time, became a prosaic idiom.  People who talk about how "illogical" the "could care less" construction is are missing the point.  You don't debate the logic of idioms, you merely accept them.  Arguing that "could care less" is "illogical" is as pointless as arguing that "raining cats and dogs" is.
 
2013-03-26 05:44:24 PM  

AccuJack: There's a lot of parallels between our society today and the decline of the Roman empire.  Which implies that sooner or later a horde of eskimos will eventually sack Washington a couple of times before the capital gets moved to Houston.  I'm looking forward to it.


It's nice of you to assist this along by drinking the water with the lead in it.
 
2013-03-26 05:55:04 PM  

Lando Lincoln: BullBearMS: I'm pretty sure you were the party shill who came into a gay marriage thread and tried to reposition the blame for completely bipartisan legislation on only half of those guilty of passing it. Right in the b00bies, too.

How did it go?

You really, really do not farking understand the difference between the words "conservative" and "Republican" do you.

When I said, "If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place" I was referring to social conservatives - even more specifically, social conservatives that are against gay marriage. It wouldn't make sense for me to be railing against fiscal conservatives in this context, since the subject doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with fiscal issues. Nor would it make sense for me to be railing against ecological conservatives, since it doesn't have anything to do with ecological issues. And YES, it is definitely possible to be fiscally conservative or ecologically conservative without being socially conservative.

And I was definitely not referring to, "members of the Republican Party" when I said, "conservative."

The fact that you cannot differentiate between the words "conservative" and "Republican" is YOUR FAULT, not mine.


If you meant "social conservative" then farking say "social conservative". Otherwise you just look like an ass when you take offense to people saying liberal = progressive.
 
2013-03-26 05:57:00 PM  

Lando Lincoln: ComicBookGuy: I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.

I'm pretty sure every single SC judge can see the writing on the wall and they know that gay marriage will be the law of the land sooner or later. The question is, do they want to go down in the history books as the judges that allow it or do they want to be known as the judges that defied it and were later overruled?


You do not understand the self-delusion from which many terminally incorrect individuals suffer. Many creationists are convinced that the theory of evolution is untenable and that recent, not yet fully public, discoveries will in the next few years entirely destroy the theory and that special creation will be recognized as the "obvious" explanation for the existence of life, the universe and everything. Similarly, many same-sex marriage opponents are convinced that the rising acceptance of same-sex relationships -- which they believe is actually substantially exaggerated by media sources with an activist agenda -- will soon be reversed once the public is made aware of how homosexuals "really" behave.
 
2013-03-26 06:01:08 PM  
Nobody

Dimensio: Lando Lincoln: ComicBookGuy: I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.

I'm pretty sure every single SC judge can see the writing on the wall and they know that gay marriage will be the law of the land sooner or later. The question is, do they want to go down in the history books as the judges that allow it or do they want to be known as the judges that defied it and were later overruled?

You do not understand the self-delusion from which many terminally incorrect individuals suffer. Many creationists are convinced that the theory of evolution is untenable and that recent, not yet fully public, discoveries will in the next few years entirely destroy the theory and that special creation will be recognized as the "obvious" explanation for the existence of life, the universe and everything. Similarly, many same-sex marriage opponents are convinced that the rising acceptance of same-sex relationships -- which they believe is actually substantially exaggerated by media sources with an activist agenda -- will soon be reversed once the public is made aware of how homosexuals "really" behave.


No. They discount the evidence that's there.
Start with carbon dating. We're extrapolating 50 years of watching carbon-12 into 5 billion. Sure the theories look good, but, really?
It's the best theory so far- not nearly a sure thing as the beginning of life.
As for same sex marriage, sure, as long as literally any two people of consenting age can do it. And really, why stop at 2? Who are you to judge someone's polygamous relationship? What's magical about 2 non-related adults?
 
2013-03-26 06:01:21 PM  

gilgigamesh: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

What, and you aren't?

Then I definitely don't want to party with you, Mr. Missionary.


Yeah, the cool person party will be there.  I'm going.  I'll spend my days with JFK, Marvin Gaye, Martha Ray and Laurence Welk, Kurt Cobain, Kolchak, Mark Twain, and Jimmy Hendrix's poltergeist.  Oh and Webster... Emmanuel Lewis.

/...'cause he's the Antichrist.
 
2013-03-26 06:01:55 PM  
I think Gays should be able to marry.  They have the right to be miserable just like the rest of us heterosexual married couples.
 
2013-03-26 06:07:17 PM  
How about if you're bi-sexual you can get engaged, will that shut you up? Jeesh.
 
2013-03-26 06:11:52 PM  

yukichigai: gilgigamesh: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

What, and you aren't?

Then I definitely don't want to party with you, Mr. Missionary.

Yeah, the cool person party will be there.  I'm going.  I'll spend my days with JFK, Marvin Gaye, Martha Ray and Laurence Welk, Kurt Cobain, Kolchak, Mark Twain, and Jimmy Hendrix's poltergeist.  Oh and Webster... Emmanuel Lewis.

/...'cause he's the Antichrist.


Heaven's no.
 
2013-03-26 06:31:07 PM  
andyfromfl:    Start with carbon dating. We're extrapolating 50 years of watching carbon-12 into 5 billion. Sure the theories look good, but, really?

Well, it's  14C, that half-life probably hasn't changed too much, and it's more like 60,000 years.  So, yeah.
 
Ehh
2013-03-26 06:44:10 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.
 
2013-03-26 07:42:53 PM  
Late in the 1800's many Eastern states wrote in definitions such as marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman not as a way to keep homosexuals from marrying - homosexuality was a crime few would admit to even if they wanted to fight for the right of marriage. Eastern states wrote the statutes to discourage Native Americans from migrating from the western states. Many tribes allowed multiple wives (as did many white settlers of the West such as the Mormons) and polygamy was allowed on reservations since it was Native American land but not outside the reservation. So it was discrimination against Native Americans that was later adapted to legislate against homosexual marriage. Question is, if the Supreme Court strikes down the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, does that mean only the nouns change or can the adjectives change too? I personally believe strongly in the right of gays to marry but could someone challenge the polygamy laws and what would be the arguments against them?
 
2013-03-26 07:43:38 PM  
So I'm guessing incest laws are next?  Followed by polygamy laws?

As long as we are redefining marriage as nothing more than consenting adults - it should be fine, right?

Equal rights for all!
 
2013-03-26 07:44:47 PM  

Ehh: SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.

That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.



And if gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy, so is straight marriage.
 
2013-03-26 07:50:29 PM  
I agree that Farce-Side's chicken is a bit of a slut.
 
2013-03-26 07:52:18 PM  

Ehh: That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.


That is one of the biggest reasons I am for it (other than gays being people too and all). Our family court system needs to have a wrecking ball taken to it and then be completely rebuilt.  I think any group of cohabitating, consenting adults should be allowed to get the benefits of "marriage" whether they are farking each other or not. Enforcing "morality" isn't any of our government's business.
 
2013-03-26 08:04:43 PM  

umad: Ehh: That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.

That is one of the biggest reasons I am for it (other than gays being people too and all). Our family court system needs to have a wrecking ball taken to it and then be completely rebuilt.  I think any group of cohabitating, consenting adults should be allowed to get the benefits of "marriage" whether they are farking each other or not. Enforcing "morality" isn't any of our government's business.


Divorce is sticky enough without looping in random groups living togehter.  I think we should either keep it between couples or scrap the legal parameters altogether and let adults form dependencies at their own risk.
 
2013-03-26 09:15:01 PM  

umad: If you meant "social conservative" then farking say "social conservative". Otherwise you just look like an ass when you take offense to people saying liberal = progressive.


Like I said...it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to bash fiscal conservatives on a socially conservative issue, so it's pretty obvious I was talking about social conservatives.
 
2013-03-26 09:52:49 PM  
www.faithmouse.com
 
2013-03-26 10:09:22 PM  

Timothy A. Bear: [www.faithmouse.com image 300x380]


Man, Dan Lacey's transition as an artist just trips me the fark out.
 
2013-03-26 10:15:06 PM  

Ehh: SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.

That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.


The rights and obligations encompassed in the marriage contract cannot be easily extended to more than two equal partners.

Sure, in theory it can be done, but I don't know anyone, even among friends who are actually in a three-way relationship, who consider it necessary.

For gay marriage, on the other hand, you know what has to change in the marriage contract? Some pronouns.
 
2013-03-26 10:25:30 PM  

Ned Stark: Cars and turtles can't consent. Marrying your sister is also eventually going to be a thing.


I can name dozens, maybe hundreds, of people I know in adult, consensual, same-sex relationships.

How many consenting incestuous couples do you personally know of?

More than zero? It's zero, isn't it.

When it's more than zero, we can talk about if it's likely to become a serious trend. And also if forming a family isn't redundant between family members. Okay?
 
2013-03-26 10:33:27 PM  

Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I feel the same way about assholes like you.

That's nice. I really don't care.


Yeah, but could you care less, or more?
 
2013-03-26 10:43:09 PM  

wslush: Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I feel the same way about assholes like you.

That's nice. I really don't care.

Yeah, but could you care less, or more?


Could I get back to you on that one?
 
2013-03-26 11:03:25 PM  

Wade_Wilson: ekdikeo4: Exactly what is the rational basis for which the government should have any interest whatsoever in who I spend my time with?

The government doesn't care. Your Craigslist furry dominatrix soirees are in no danger. Who will inherit your riding crop collection when you forget the safeword, however, is.


And why is that rational or relevant?
 
2013-03-26 11:49:59 PM  

queezyweezel: Regarding DOMA....A good friend of mine said it better than I could, so I want to throw this out there:

I'm loathe to admit it, but yeah, I dream about getting married someday. I want a damn dress and a party done up that showcases my personality, and shared responsibilities. I want love letters and family road trips to see Appalachia and the safety of knowing that if something ever happened to me, it would be one of my best friends that would take care of my baby. I want someone to be my see when I'm stuck on saw. As a Catholic straight woman I am certain that I haven't lived up to OTHER people's expectations of what GOD wants of ME; I sin right and left, totally aware of it, and then do it again. And yet somehow, with my unworthy track record, I can get married any ol' damn time I want to.
Bull.
I have no hand in the marriage plot. I am most often single, occasionally breaking a heart and getting mine trampled in return. Yet I still dream that I have a shot. And because I am straight, my dream can continue to interrupt my life with it's slim chance of MAYBE THIS WILL HAPPEN. Meanwhile, I have a lot of friends who really are coupled, no maybe about it, and who are lesbian or gay, and their dreams of marriage are just like mine. They deserve all that happiness and hardship that they've accumulated in their experiences to result in the same legally recognized relationship status as I may be so lucky to one day enjoy. So I am an ally. I rarely rant here. Pardon me for doing so. Cheers!


I pray for the day when we find a cure for this affliction. When nobody has to live this cused life of wrong attraction.

on this day we will all rejoice
 
2013-03-27 12:54:03 AM  

umad: f you meant "social conservative" then farking say "social conservative". Otherwise you just look like an ass when you take offense to people saying liberal = progressive.


Now, now...

One of Fark's biggest Politics Tab party shills was totally not trying to deflect responsibility from the actions off his favorite party. Sure, that's what he spends all day doing, but not this time!

Don't be confused by the way he ignored the obvious chances to clarify what he was really talking about in the thread.

queezyweezel: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.


Don't be confused by the way he kept on ignoring chances to make his point if that had been his point...

MilesTeg: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.


Don't be confused by the way he only developed a butthurt case of hurr durr when it was pointed out that the party he spends all day shilling for overwhelmingly voted for this too...

BullBearMS: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

Since more than twice as many Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act than those who voted against it, you might want to rethink that.

Put another way, only 14 Senate Democrats were willing to vote against a law stripping equal rights from a certain class of Americans.


Nope, just overlook what he actually happened and pretend to believe whatever he claims now.
 
2013-03-27 01:22:28 AM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


Oh get over yourself.It's a farking figure of speech, no one gives a shiat that it bothers you.
 
2013-03-27 01:31:35 AM  

js34603: Ned Stark: Cyberluddite: There most certainly is a government "purpose" in marriage
and as all such purposes is up for debate and change at all times.

--otherwise it wouldn't be a government institution at all, now would it?
heh

I pointed out how plural marriages frustrate the primary governmental interest in providing a system of civil marriages, that of providing stability and order in financial/family relationships.
And messy paperwork just doesn't matter.


So the government has a rational basis for prohibiting one (polygamous marriage)
irrelevant. The topic of the discussion is about whether they will or wont, not whether its rational.


Do I need to do the same thing for you with respect to the other "slippery slope" arguments about being able to marry your turtle or your sister or your car, or can you just accept that same-sex marriage isn't like the others and that allowing it has no bearing on whether the government needs to allow the others?

Cars and turtles can't consent. Marrying your sister is also eventually going to be a thing.

If you dont understand why a "rational basis" might be relevant to this side discussion you're having, you probably ought to stop talking.


pssst. when it comes to social matters, the supreme court serves to formalize things that are already facts on the ground. minutiae about caselaw is +/- 10 years, max.
 
2013-03-27 03:07:58 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Religion has its icky sticky hands all over it


They're certainly doing their best to convince everyone of this, yes.

Here's the thing: Marriage ONLY falls under the authority of the government.  Period.  For all of the noise they make, churches do not have the authority to marry people in America.  Ever.  In some states, religious officials are among those granted the power to officiate the ceremony as a government agent, like a justice of the peace, but that's literally the only power they have.  In many other states, like Pennsylvania, literally every adult has this power.

Real Women Drink Akvavit: as all the marriages fall also under the authority of the government. So in that way at least, marriage is both civil and religious.


If your point is that churches have some cultural agency on the matter, while government retains legal authority, then I agree completely.

My only issue is that there seem to be a large number of knuckleheads who have bought into this nonsense about marriage being a primarily religious matter, and that we should "get the government out of the marriage business".  It's a position that smacks of an astounding degree of ignorance and of all of the weasel-worded, red herring, anti-gay-marriage arguments, it pisses me off the most for some reason.

Dimensio: Lando Lincoln: ComicBookGuy: I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.

I'm pretty sure every single SC judge can see the writing on the wall and they know that gay marriage will be the law of the land sooner or later. The question is, do they want to go down in the history books as the judges that allow it or do they want to be known as the judges that defied it and were later overruled?

You do not understand the self-delusion from which many terminally incorrect individuals suffer. Many creationists are convinced that the theory of evolution is untenable and that recent, not yet fully public, discoveries will in the next few years entirely destroy the theory and that special creation will be recognized as the "obvious" explanation for the existence of life, the universe and everything. Similarly, many same-sex marriage opponents are convinced that the rising acceptance of same-sex relationships -- which they believe is actually substantially exaggerated by media sources with an activist agenda -- will soon be reversed once the public is made aware of how homosexuals "really" behave.


In my experience, the self delusion you're talking about stems from using some kind of faith-based doctrine (generally religious) to justify an underlying bigotry.  The people who do it are usually true-believers.  Regarding the SCOTUS, Scalia is clearly a bigot, but he strikes me as far too intelligent and devious to be self-deluding, (or even strongly religious).  I think he'll make his stand on behalf of the terminally wrong assholes in this decision, but it will be a bunch of twisted legal language and not some kind of delusional "moral ground" declaration.
 
2013-03-27 03:23:24 AM  

RobSeace: Whilte not nearly as awesome as the Onion's account of things, it's not looking good so far for prop 8 supporters...


Great, the SCOTUS is going to puss out, instead of clearing this shiat up once and for all.  Bad news for Prop 8, but also bad news for marriage equality (in the short run, anyway).  Ballot initiatives will be off the table with the 9th Circuit decision, but It's going to be scratch-and-claw in state legislatures for the next 50 years to get marriage equality legal everywhere.

"You're really asking for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy said, adding that there's a "substantial question" over whether Proposition 8's defenders have the standing to bring suit."

Yeah, you jerk.  You're the farking Supreme Court.  That's your job.

Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.

America:  We'll do the right thing, but not before everyone else does it first! (Offer not valid in South Africa)
Hopefully, Kagan and Sotomayor's arguments are enough to convince him to pull his head out of his ass and see the writing on the wall.
 
2013-03-27 06:28:05 AM  

Z-clipped: Great, the SCOTUS is going to puss out, instead of clearing this shiat up once and for all. Bad news for Prop 8, but also bad news for marriage equality (in the short run, anyway).


Don't forget, they've also got a DOMA case on the docket... I'm guessing they're going to punt on state-level issues for now, but grant federal recognition in those states that do allow it... Of course, soon after, someone else in a state with a law against gay marriage will bring suit, and eventually they'll have to take up a case that addresses the state issue, and at that point I think they'll have no choice but to strike down the state laws against it... Yeah, it'd be nice if they could do so now, but the prop 8 case really isn't the best one to do that with... They're right to question the standing of the assholes defending it; they never should've been allowed to do so in the first place! When the government let it drop after losing, that should've been the end of the case...

America: We'll do the right thing, but not before everyone else does it first!

Yeah, I thought that was a really bizarre argument, as well... Who gives a shiat what other countries are doing? Aren't they supposed to just be caring about what the US Constitution says?
 
2013-03-27 10:35:15 AM  

Ehh: SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.

That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.


I don't see much reason in making polygamy illegal, it would just cause more issues with the rights and responsibilities granted by marriage. Who has right of attorney when one gets incapacitated? How do assets get split in a divorce? How does a divorce even work? What if one of the members of the marriage wants to marry someone else but the others don't?

Expanding marriage to any two legally consenting adults changes very little. It has almost no effect on anyone except the homosexual couples who can now be married. Polygamy would require more effort, and there's no real attempt to make it legal at the moment anyway.
 
2013-03-27 11:56:59 AM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


I would agree with you if I didn't remember conservatives who 1) could count and thought government should conserve money and its activities to building schools, roads, water plants and sewage lines; and b) didn't give a shiat about lifestyle choices, because that wasn't government's role.

Seriously, such people once existed, but the entire notion of "conservative" has been hijacked by innumerate godbots.
 
2013-03-27 01:45:01 PM  

Ehcks: Ehh: SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.

That possibility has been brought up by the opponents of gay marriage. The answer seems to be, "so?" Once gays are gettin' hitched all over, it's a safe bet that poly marriage will be up for consideration next. Family law attorneys should be all for it.

I don't see much reason in making polygamy illegal, it would just cause more issues with the rights and responsibilities granted by marriage. Who has right of attorney when one gets incapacitated? How do assets get split in a divorce? How does a divorce even work? What if one of the members of the marriage wants to marry someone else but the others don't?

Expanding marriage to any two legally consenting adults changes very little. It has almost no effect on anyone except the homosexual couples who can now be married. Polygamy would require more effort, and there's no real attempt to make it legal at the moment anyway.


I disagree. It is impossible to give both parties 100% of the assets in the case of a lesbian divorce. I suppose all assets from a gay divorce could simply be confiscated by the state added to the assets for a lesbian divorce, but that would require an equal number of gay and lesbian divorces.
 
2013-03-27 01:45:37 PM  
*and added
 
2013-03-28 12:19:46 PM  

BullBearMS: One of Fark's biggest Politics Tab party shills was totally not trying to deflect responsibility from the actions off his favorite party.


You didn't win this one, you dim-witted feeb. Go away.
 
2013-03-28 12:27:35 PM  

Valiente: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I would agree with you if I didn't remember conservatives who 1) could count and thought government should conserve money and its activities to building schools, roads, water plants and sewage lines; and b) didn't give a shiat about lifestyle choices, because that wasn't government's role.

Seriously, such people once existed, but the entire notion of "conservative" has been hijacked by innumerate godbots.


True. People that are fiscally conservative but are socially not conservative have no place in the realm of conservatives anymore. Those people are shunned for not being "conservative enough."

We're led to believe that there's plenty of conservatives that are not socially conservative, but they've allowed their movement to be hijacked by the socially conservative jackasses, so either we have to conclude that either there aren't nearly as many of them as they'd like us to believe or they're a bunch of weak pussies that are too afraid to stand up to the crazies. Either way, they don't deserve to be taken very seriously.
 
Displayed 183 of 183 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