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
    More: Satire, Chief Justice John Roberts, supreme courts, gays, Mr. Cooper, dockets  
•       •       •

10021 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:39 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report