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  
•       •       •

10004 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 33 of 183 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report