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 37
    More: Satire, Chief Justice John Roberts, supreme courts, gays, Mr. Cooper, dockets  
•       •       •

10009 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-03-26 01:18:43 PM
10 votes:
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 01:16:41 PM
7 votes:
I wish this was real
2013-03-26 01:12:08 PM
6 votes:
If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.
2013-03-26 01:48:34 PM
5 votes:

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 01:18:08 PM
4 votes:

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 01:59:05 PM
3 votes:
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 01:52:08 PM
3 votes:
"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 01:51:57 PM
3 votes:

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 01:49:53 PM
3 votes:

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 01:47:29 PM
3 votes:
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 03:51:06 PM
2 votes:

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 02:57:57 PM
2 votes:

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 02:11:08 PM
2 votes:
Sometimes The Onion should be reality.
2013-03-26 02:03:50 PM
2 votes:

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 01:59:55 PM
2 votes:

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 01:51:49 PM
2 votes:
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 04:55:21 PM
1 votes:

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 04:26:21 PM
1 votes:
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 04:20:36 PM
1 votes:

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 03:53:11 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:37 PM
1 votes:
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 03:16:05 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:20 PM
1 votes:

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 02:52:55 PM
1 votes:

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 02:18:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:13:21 PM
1 votes:

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 02:11:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:11:06 PM
1 votes:
Gay marriage is okay i56.tinypic.com
2013-03-26 02:10:47 PM
1 votes:
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 02:07:08 PM
1 votes:

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 02:04:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:57:54 PM
1 votes:
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 01:57:40 PM
1 votes:

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 01:54:53 PM
1 votes:

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 01:53:27 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report