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.

(CNN)   Is DOMA doomed? It's your big f'ing hubbub over something that will seem silly in 50 years thread, Day 2   (cnn.com) divider line 221
    More: Obvious, DOMA, supreme courts, same-sex marriages, Theodore B. Olson, Paul Clement, American Law, Tammy Hollingsworth, United States Code  
•       •       •

4106 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 8:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-27 08:02:10 AM
US Constitution 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

/discuss
 
2013-03-27 08:05:35 AM
It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.
 
2013-03-27 08:18:29 AM
weknowmemes.com

yup.
 
2013-03-27 08:25:13 AM
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial orientation discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Updated that for Earl Warren
 
2013-03-27 08:26:18 AM
It is sickening that "separate but equal" is rearing its ugly head again.

/B-b-but civili unions are just as good...
 
2013-03-27 08:30:18 AM
I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.
 
2013-03-27 08:30:57 AM
How come every time someone ends their post with 'discuss', I have the tendency to shout: No!?
 
2013-03-27 08:32:09 AM
The court hates deciding the actual matter at hand.  They will probably say the death tax is unconstitutional instead.
 
2013-03-27 08:32:16 AM

alywa: /discuss


You called?
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-27 08:32:38 AM
Allow me to sum up the Right's legal argument:

"I said God said those f-ggots can't get married."
 
2013-03-27 08:32:43 AM

nekom: It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.


But but but but it's SO SOON! PROGRESS IS MOVING TOO FAST!

Is what Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts seriously offered as challenges to Olson.
 
2013-03-27 08:33:07 AM

Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.


Don't forget the pillar of salt.
 
2013-03-27 08:33:38 AM
With 4 libba-libbies wanting to tear it down, and two federalists who want the feds out of state law, DOMA is, indeed, doomed.

Discuss?
 
2013-03-27 08:33:44 AM

ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.


The salt, the salt, the goddamned salt!
 
2013-03-27 08:33:59 AM
Obligatory: Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' - WASHINGTON-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."

"Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shiat?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper's opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples' right to marry in California. "Why are we even seriously discussing this?"
 
2013-03-27 08:34:25 AM

ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.


Nice Job.
 
2013-03-27 08:34:39 AM
They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA. The dude who authored the bill has changed his mind, the pres who signed it too. The executive branch wont defend it. But more importantly, arent there like 250 major corporations that have signed an amicus brief saying its bad business?

Idunno, coffee tiemz!
 
2013-03-27 08:34:42 AM
For the "party of small government" Conservatives sure like to make laws that dictate how you should live your life.
 
2013-03-27 08:34:46 AM

festoon: Obligatory: Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' - WASHINGTON-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."

"Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shiat?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper's opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples' right to marry in California. "Why are we even seriously discussing this?"


I love the Onion oh so much
 
2013-03-27 08:34:58 AM

maddogdelta: alywa: /discuss

You called?
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 720x538]


those look like my fish! hawt
 
2013-03-27 08:36:24 AM

verbaltoxin:

But but but but it's SO SOON! PROGRESS IS MOVING TOO FAST!

Is what Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts seriously offered as challenges to Olson.


To be fair, there is at least some degree of logic in that. SCOTUS with its long term up to lifetime appointments do serve as some of our slowest political ballast, and there's something to be said for that. Not on this issue, though, there's no excuse for dragging feet here. We're talking about giving fundamental civil rights to all people here. And if marriage isn't a fundamental civil right for gays, then it shouldn't be for straights either. Fair's fair.
 
2013-03-27 08:36:32 AM
As a Christian, I am in full support of marriage equality.
 
2013-03-27 08:37:54 AM
I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.
 
2013-03-27 08:37:58 AM
Meanwhile on Rev.K's agenda in Canada.

- make coffee
- feed dog
- get gay married
- get mail
 
2013-03-27 08:38:04 AM
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:00 AM
The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:26 AM
Looks pretty silly right now.

No one gets married anymore and the gays want to fight for the right?
Sure, have at it. Equality for all is a good thing. More rights is a good thing.

/It shouldn't have been a federal issue to begin with.
/The sooner we shake this Clinton era nonsense, the sooner we can move on.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:28 AM
Did everyone change their profile picture to the DOMA oral argument one? Because if you didn't the Justices won't know which way they should rule on this case.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:39 AM

verbaltoxin: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

The salt, the salt, the goddamned salt!


Or Soylent Green.
 
2013-03-27 08:40:38 AM

alizeran: They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA. The dude who authored the bill has changed his mind, the pres who signed it too. The executive branch wont defend it. But more importantly, arent there like 250 major corporations that have signed an amicus brief saying its bad business?

Idunno, coffee tiemz!


Listening to the oral arguments yesterday I agree. Sounds like most of the justices didn't really wanted to rule on the case because there wasn't a great way to contain the ruling to CA.
 
2013-03-27 08:40:39 AM

MrBallou: I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.


I've been saying this for a long time.  Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.
 
2013-03-27 08:41:03 AM
img7.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-27 08:41:14 AM

sakanagai: It is sickening that "separate but equal" is rearing its ugly head again.

/B-b-but civili unions are just as good...


First, it's silly that we don't have marriage equality.  Second, I wish they'd aim for civil unions first at the federal level so everyone has equal rights for taxes, hospital visitation and so on.  Sounds like the Supreme Court is taking a "we're not deciding either way kinda stance" where they're basically going to leave it to the states.  Of course, if one were to ask the Supreme Court whether marijuana legalization should be left up to the states, I bet you'd get a different opinion.  Funny that.
 
2013-03-27 08:41:42 AM
50 years? Try right now.
 
2013-03-27 08:42:57 AM

special20: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

Nice Job.


Ahahahaaa! You win! :)
 
2013-03-27 08:43:19 AM

MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.


Why is that a problem?
 
2013-03-27 08:43:58 AM

alizeran: They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA. The dude who authored the bill has changed his mind, the pres who signed it too. The executive branch wont defend it. But more importantly, arent there like 250 major corporations that have signed an amicus brief saying its bad business?

Idunno, coffee tiemz!


Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.
 
2013-03-27 08:44:19 AM
I am against same-sex marriage.  I am also against traditional marriage.  It is time to get the government out of the marriage business.  The government should only recognize civil unions.  Marriage should then be left to the people.  Let the various churches decide if they want to marry someone.  Let two people stand up in front of a shrubbery and pronounce themselves married.  But, if marriage is to remain a legal institution then the government has the duty and obligation to extend this privilege to all consenting adults, be they gay, straight, or whatever.  Heck, extend it to republicans for all I care.

And as for all those religitards screaming that it is unnatural, please kindly keep your superstition to yourself.
 
2013-03-27 08:46:07 AM

MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.


I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.
 
2013-03-27 08:46:51 AM

special20: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

Nice Job.


+1 lol
 
2013-03-27 08:47:07 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
/oblig
 
2013-03-27 08:47:26 AM

MrBallou: Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-27 08:47:49 AM
MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:51 AM
Prediction time!

Standing - the standing issues here are quite complicated, as we have a caucus of the legislature seeking to appeal a decision conceded by the executive branch.  My guess is that the Court will use Windsor and Hollingsworth as companion cases on Standing, much like it did in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger on the issue of affirmative action.  Here, I think there is a better argument that elected officials who drafted a law have standing to defend that law, although i still feel that the "injury in fact" requirement is . . . shall we say squishy.

Merits - Once we get to the merits, I think we are honestly looking at a likely fractured opinion to strike down sections of the law.  I think the liberal wing, in general, will support an equal protection argument to strike down the law.  Here, however,m the real fireworks will be over the Second Circuit's use of intermediate scrutiny.  In its opinion, the Second looked to the Supreme Court's prior jurisprudence in Romer and Lawrence and claimed it embraced an intermediate level of scrutiny for gay issues.  The problem is that while this may in fact be an honest assessment of what was done in those two cases, the Court expressly and emphatically claimed it was not making a new scrutiny level for homosexuals.  Other than the standing issue, i could see this issue being one of the biggest reasons for the Court granting certiorari on this issue.  Personally, i would rather they not find a special level of scrutiny, not because i beleive gay people have not suffered disparate treatment, but because Romer and Lawrence, along with Cleburn, appear to stand for the much broader principle that discriminatory laws based only on morality (or "we think they are icky") cannot pass even rational basis review.  I like this principle and would like it to remain.  However, i would not be surprised to see a split on the leftward wing of the court on this scrutiny question.

As to the righties, i could see many of them actually striking down sections of DOMA based on federalism - i.e. the argument that the federal government doesn't get to say what marriage is, as that is a power reserved to the states.  Even though it could be argued that the federal government is only determining who gets federal benefits - which surely must be within its power, i think looking to the states that have allowed gay marriage, we see the federal government's position basically means that a gay couple may be Massachusetts married, but not Federally married.  Given comments in Lawrence and Romer, i could see Scalia pulling this way (no really), as his disdain of federal power telling the states what to do is kinda his whole thing.

Thus, in the end i could see a big ol mess of a merits opinion, with 2 striking down under the EPC using intermediate scrutiny (Ginsburg and Kagen) 3 for striking down under the EPC using Rational Basis review (Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer), 5 for striking down under federalism (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and likely someone weird, like Ginsburg or Breyer) and Thomas in the corner shouting at clouds.

Of course - I will be interested to see how i am wrong.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:59 AM

alizeran: [img7.imageshack.us image 499x288]


dl.dropbox.com
Wait, hold up a sec!
Need a few more hours in Photoshop.
 
2013-03-27 08:48:07 AM
Remember, kids: Federal Government is ALWAYS incompetent, ALWAYS malevolent, and ALWAYS YOUR MORTAL ENEMY - except when it comes to keeping the gays down.
 
2013-03-27 08:48:09 AM
Mock26:

Damn your nimble fingers....
 
2013-03-27 08:48:58 AM

VoodooTaco: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.


And the benefit there is nothing would prevent some churches from opening their doors and saying "you can get gay married here, we're cool" and leave the bigots to themselves.
 
2013-03-27 08:49:05 AM

dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.


And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
2013-03-27 08:49:43 AM

alizeran: They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA.


I dont see a holding on standing to be a punt - as, frankly, I think the standing issue is the only reason they took up the case in the first place.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:04 AM

verbaltoxin: Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.


It sounded like he is trying to defer a ruling. During the child-rearing arguments, he suggested that there isn't enough evidence to determine the effects of same-sex parenting. Seems like an opening to kick the can down the road for another few years.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


The bold bit is the problem.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:31 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Book of Armaments,

Chapter 2, verses 9-21

...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O LORD, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the LORD did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... [At this point, the friar is urged by Brother Maynard to "skip a bit, brother"]... And the LORD spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

\see, I can throw in random-ass crap too
 
2013-03-27 08:50:39 AM

VoodooTaco: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.


It's a nice idea in theory, but after a couple of centuries of governmental recognition of marriage I don't think that genie is ever going back in the bottle.
 
2013-03-27 08:51:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.

Why is that a problem?


Because don't you realize how many people are just waiting for it to be legal so they can marry their roommate for the perks?! We all know that type of thing is endemic among straight roommates, and there are even more same gender roommates! It will break the system!!!
 
2013-03-27 08:51:46 AM
I still don't see how that "Bi-Partisan" group has standing.  The Executive branch said they won't defend it... so that means a faction of the Legislative branch can step in and take over?  If the Supreme Court says they have standing, that likely sets a new precedent... and a very broad one at that.
 
2013-03-27 08:52:06 AM
We're protecting marriage like it represents the gates of heaven or something sacred.  According to the Forest Institute, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.  Getting married carries all the ceremonious weight of a coin flip.  Personally, some of the most miserable people I've ever met were miserable because they were staying in a marriage - for the kids, for the money, for whatever reason -- long after it should have ended.  As an institution, protecting marriage is on par with moving the grave of the unknown soldier to a Burger King parking lot to be forever guarded by men in chicken costumes who buy gold.

Marriage is just like everything else that modern culture has sunken its rotten teeth into - Mother's Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas, Easter - all just excuses to market crap Chinese products, sugar, and passive aggressive greeting cards.  The average wedding in Manhattan (which is by no means a representative sample) is $78,000.  That's a college education for some people - all so two idiots can ride into a once holy place on the backs of parade horses.  What's worth protecting in that?

I say, if the homosexuals want marriage and equal rights, give it to them.  They should be welcome to fall out of the same windows as the rest of us.  It's akin to Rosa Parks making a stand on a city bus, or the four black students who sat in at the Greensboro Woolworth's lunch counter.  It's a shiatty farking city bus.  It's a shiatty farking sandwich at a greasy diner.  There's no point in protecting any of it, including marriage, because it's a shiatty farking idea that nobody really likes long term unless forced into sticking with it.  Protecting marriage is like protecting gas station bathrooms from Mexicans.  Forget it.

What we need is a new, nobler institution, more highly valued, respected, and benefited than what marriage is today.  People who manage to stay together, happily and respectfully, shouldn't have to wear the tarnished badge of regular marriage.  I don't know what to call it, Super-Marriage, or whatever, but it should earn you rights above and beyond what the average shiat bag who pays $65,000 for a wedding and then gets divorced two years later gets on their taxes.  It should be a graduated scale with the greatest benefits coming in the 40th and 50th anniversary years.  Make it further than that, and still pass a basic happiness test, then everything is farking free.  You get to walk on the backs of the newlyweds if you'd like, as they squat down to biatch about their new husband not making enough money for them to belong to the same massage club as their bestie.

Why is everything in this country geared toward shoring up the debilitated, worn-out, and poorly scalable?  Is there no one left with a forward thing, incentive based, goal-oriented plan to make this a better country, rather than shoving more floaties on its obese arms as it struggles to just not drown?
 
2013-03-27 08:52:37 AM

dennysgod: For the "party of small government" Conservatives sure like to make laws that dictate how you should live your life.


It's been said before by many other people on FARK, but Republicans aren't really Conservatives.

/ Libertarians are, however.
// If it wasn't for my belief that we should have a strong social safety net, I'd be with them....
 
2013-03-27 08:52:39 AM
If gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?

/so, if DOMA is struck down, can I marry my turtle?
 
2013-03-27 08:52:49 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.

Why is that a problem?


It's not, it's just conflating a right to happiness with demanding benefits that are not specifically guaranteed to anyone. Now, personally, I believe that all people are equally bound under the law and equally entitled to benefits as the law should be blind (and also erring on the side of more freedom for the people and less draconian control, but I digress), but that's a different argument.

I think it would be more akin to an argument about demanding that all benefits and perks granted to, say, blacks under affirmative action equally apply to all races (which they should).

What these arguments really come down to is a pie fight over semantics, and highlighting the fact that up until now, "marriage" was recognized in a certain way because the concept of same-sex marriage was just not ever even considered, therefore the working definition of marriage was used by the government as it was the only assumed "natural" possible meaning.  Now that we've expanded our view of what is natural and acceptable, you run into the issue of how one defines marriage and how the old definitions apply to new concepts.
 
2013-03-27 08:53:25 AM

sakanagai: verbaltoxin: Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.

It sounded like he is trying to defer a ruling. During the child-rearing arguments, he suggested that there isn't enough evidence to determine the effects of same-sex parenting. Seems like an opening to kick the can down the road for another few years.


Which is an out and out lie by Scalia.
 
2013-03-27 08:53:56 AM

FirstNationalBastard: If gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?


Because Henry VIII
 
2013-03-27 08:53:59 AM
7 -2 with Alito and Thomas voting wrong. Maybe 6-3 with Scalia. I look forward to the butthurt, although it would have been nice to see a slow death at the ballot box.
 
2013-03-27 08:54:15 AM

alywa: /discuss


The federal government isn't restricted by the 14th, only the states. Federal Due Process results from the 5th amendment.
 
2013-03-27 08:55:00 AM

Teiritzamna: Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The bold bit is the problem.


No it really isn't. DOMA goes far beyond prescribing the effects thereof, all the way to allowing the complete negation of the public acts, records and judicial acts records and Judicial proceedings of the States. Futhermore they are not doing this by general laws, but by a law which makes exception for one very limited and specific class of proceeding.
 
2013-03-27 08:55:35 AM

lohphat: MrBallou: Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

[citation needed]



I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:

EnumerationThe numeration, naming, understanding, and the adoption of the sacraments vary according to denomination. Most Protestant denominations recognize at least two: baptism and the Lord's Supper. However, Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations list seven sacraments:

BaptismConfirmationEucharist (or Communion)MatrimonyHoly Orders (Ordination)Penance, Confession, and/or ReconciliationAnointing of the Sick (or Extreme Unction, Last Rites) http://www.theopedia.com/Sacraments

But there are other scriptures that talk to marriage directly, even if not in the form of  here are the sacraments dummy. Non Roman Catholics may not share the same sacramental requirements, but still believe in the basic concept, union of man and woman will bear children (aka fruit of their marriage) and make the church stronger etc...
 
2013-03-27 08:55:49 AM
Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?
 
2013-03-27 08:56:38 AM

Carn: VoodooTaco: MrBallou: ......

And the benefit there is nothing would prevent some churches from opening their doors and saying "you can get gay married here, we're cool" and leave the bigots to themselves.


Very true.
 
2013-03-27 08:58:15 AM
Here's what I'm thinking.   Scalia is against gays, no doubt, on some personal, visceral level the man is inherently prejudiced against them, so he wants to find some way to prevent gay marriage.  On the other hand, the guy's massive ego is having him reflect on how history will judge him, and the guy has to know that public support for gay marriage is a virtual tsunami with the younger generation (those who will be in power, and writing the history books, in 30-40 yrs) absolutely behind gay marriage by a huge percentage.

Unless he wants to be held in contempt for a stupid ruling that did little but postpone the inevitable in the history books, like his predecessors in the Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson cases he will have to find some procedural point in the argument and attempt to hang his hat on it.  That way he won't have come down one way or another on the underlying legal question.

Roberts on the other hand, I do believe knows that it's inevitable and doesn't want his name as Chief Justice, being tied to limiting rights and holding up progress.  Especially when, given his age, this is not going to be the last time there's going to be a legitimate challenge to DOMA, if it doesn't pass muster this time.  It's just a matter of time before a few of those old justices die off and more progressive types are appointed.  DOMA will fall eventually, of that I am certain, the question is whether Roberts is going to be dragged into accepting it kicking and screaming, or whether he will want his legacy to be much more positive.
 
2013-03-27 08:58:18 AM

Teiritzamna: I dont see a holding on standing to be a punt - as, frankly, I think the standing issue is the only reason they took up the case in the first place.


I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a private party ie not the state, could argue for a law being constitutional when the state wants nothing to do with the law. Especially in a case like this where allowing something wouldn't deprive them of the full enjoyment of their rights nor place any burdens, let alone undue burdens, upon them. They're arguing for the validity of a law that lacks any semblance of personal relevance except for making them feel good.

UNC_Samurai: couple of centuries of governmental recognition of marriage


A couple? Try the entire history of English common law, which is what 800 years just about, plus the law across Europe before then. The oldest known law we know of pertaining to marriage is a civil law, not a religious one, and it takes back 3700 years. Government has been recognize marriages for a long long time. As for religious recognition? The Catholic Church while calling marriage a sacrament didn't have anything to say about actually performing weddings until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s, before then it didn't matter where you married, the church saw it as valid.
 
2013-03-27 08:58:37 AM

spentmiles: We're protecting marriage like it represents the gates of heaven or something sacred.  According to the Forest Institute, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.  Getting married carries all the ceremonious weight of a coin flip.  Personally, some of the most miserable people I've ever met were miserable because they were staying in a marriage - for the kids, for the money, for whatever reason -- long after it should have ended.  As an institution, protecting marriage is on par with moving the grave of the unknown soldier to a Burger King parking lot to be forever guarded by men in chicken costumes who buy gold.

Marriage is just like everything else that modern culture has sunken its rotten teeth into - Mother's Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas, Easter - all just excuses to market crap Chinese products, sugar, and passive aggressive greeting cards.  The average wedding in Manhattan (which is by no means a representative sample) is $78,000.  That's a college education for some people - all so two idiots can ride into a once holy place on the backs of parade horses.  What's worth protecting in that?

I say, if the homosexuals want marriage and equal rights, give it to them.  They should be welcome to fall out of the same windows as the rest of us.  It's akin to Rosa Parks making a stand on a city bus, or the four black students who sat in at the Greensboro Woolworth's lunch counter.  It's a shiatty farking city bus.  It's a shiatty farking sandwich at a greasy diner.  There's no point in protecting any of it, including marriage, because it's a shiatty farking idea that nobody really likes long term unless forced into sticking with it.  Protecting marriage is like protecting gas station bathrooms from Mexicans.  Forget it.

What we need is a new, nobler institution, more highly valued, respected, and benefited than what marriage is today.  People who manage to stay together, happily and respectfully, shouldn't have to wea ...


You sound angry.  And bitter.

/And do I detect the echoes of Mom's basement?
 
2013-03-27 08:58:59 AM

Bravo Two: HotWingConspiracy: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.

Why is that a problem?

It's not, it's just conflating a right to happiness with demanding benefits that are not specifically guaranteed to anyone. Now, personally, I believe that all people are equally bound under the law and equally entitled to benefits as the law should be blind (and also erring on the side of more freedom for the people and less draconian control, but I digress), but that's a different argument.

I think it would be more akin to an argument about demanding that all benefits and perks granted to, say, blacks under affirmative action equally apply to all races (which they should).

What these arguments really come down to is a pie fight over semantics, and highlighting the fact that up until now, "marriage" was recognized in a certain way because the concept of same-sex marriage was just not ever even considered, therefore the working definition of marriage was used by the government as it was the only assumed "natural" possible meaning.  Now that we've expanded our view of what is natural and acceptable, you run into the issue of how one defines marriage and how the old definitions apply to new concepts.


The definition problem is moot is it's been redefined numerous times in history.  As other have pointed out, the very same arguments against gay marriage were made against interracial marriage decades ago, and inter-religious unions before that.

At any rate, this is a clear example of sexual discrimination.  A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman.  Gender, being a protected class, this causes a clear violation of gender related rights.
 
2013-03-27 09:00:18 AM

dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.


Or someone with a tattoo:
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-27 09:00:27 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


And in this case, the Effect prescribed for gay marriage is "diddly".
 
2013-03-27 09:01:53 AM

UNC_Samurai: VoodooTaco: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.

It's a nice idea in theory, but after a couple of centuries of governmental recognition of marriage I don't think that genie is ever going back in the bottle.


I was hoping the power of Fark would convince the nation, but agreed.    I'll add this one to the list of shiat I need to fix after I borrow Obama's Magical Time Machine....
 
2013-03-27 09:01:53 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: No it really isn't. DOMA goes far beyond prescribing the effects thereof, all the way to allowing the complete negation of the public acts, records and judicial acts records and Judicial proceedings of the States. Futhermore they are not doing this by general laws, but by a law which makes exception for one very limited and specific class of proceeding.


I am not saying your argument is dead, just that the effects clause makes things tricky.  All I am saying is that there is a fair legal argument that Congress gets to determine the "effect thereof" and nothing in that clause says they cannot state the effect is "nothing."  The general laws argument you made, i think is a much better one.

Of course, the public policy exception to FFC would likely mean that this is a moot point anyway, as - quite depressingly - we have a lengthy history of states refusing to recognize the marriages of other states.
 
2013-03-27 09:01:54 AM

propasaurus: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

Or someone with a tattoo:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 700x446]


I wonder if anyone has ever gotten a tattoo of Ezekiel 23:20...
 
2013-03-27 09:04:54 AM

Teiritzamna: In its opinion, the Second looked to the Supreme Court's prior jurisprudence in Romer and Lawrence and claimed it embraced an intermediate level of scrutiny for gay issues.


Didn't both Romer and Lawrence use the "rational basis with bite" test instead of intermediate scrutiny?
 
2013-03-27 09:05:22 AM

lawboy87: Roberts on the other hand,


Roberts put together the case that was presented to the Supreme Court in Romer v Evans, on the side of gay rights. And he did that because he chose to do it, he wasn't told to do it, hell he wasn't even paid to do it, was pro bono
 
2013-03-27 09:05:52 AM

Teiritzamna: Of course, the public policy exception to FFC would likely mean that this is a moot point anyway, as - quite depressingly - we have a lengthy history of states refusing to recognize the marriages of other states.


So what is the effect these days if first cousins get married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and move to a state like Kentucky (where it isn't)?
 
2013-03-27 09:06:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a private party ie not the state, could argue for a law being constitutional when the state wants nothing to do with the law. Especially in a case like this where allowing something wouldn't deprive them of the full enjoyment of their rights nor place any burdens, let alone undue burdens, upon them. They're arguing for the validity of a law that lacks any semblance of personal relevance except for making them feel good.


Yeah the standing stuff here is really very interesting, and i would think if the court allows standing - rather terrifying.  I know the oral arguments focused on the fact that these parties were likely designees under California law, and that the whole point of the referendum process was to short circuit the power of the legislature/executive, but i think the reults are so close to taxpayer standing as to possible open a giant can of "improper party" worms.

/is there ever a can of worms that is proper for a party?
//worm party!!
 
2013-03-27 09:07:53 AM

cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.


That makes too much sense and is logical. Both sides won't accept that the fight is simply about the legal recognition of gay marriages, not whether they have a right to exist.

Here's where I'm curious: what about polygamy? Personally, I'm fine with legalizing it. If we define marriage as being between consenting adults (let's go ahead and knock the Warren Jeff's counter argument out of the way), why not polygamy?
 
2013-03-27 09:07:54 AM

propasaurus: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

Or someone with a tattoo:


If I ever got a tattoo, it would be Lev. 19:28.
 
2013-03-27 09:07:56 AM

RexTalionis: Didn't both Romer and Lawrence use the "rational basis with bite" test instead of intermediate scrutiny?


Yes.  But the Second Circuit called it intermediate scrutiny.  Hence why i think there will be a split on the liberals over scrutiny - some will say "IS" others will say "RBR w/ B."
 
2013-03-27 09:08:16 AM

nekom: It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.


If you think that determining what constitutes politically "equal" treatment is a question that's either philosophically or politically easy to answer, you haven't been paying attention for the last 8000 years or so.   Well, the last 200 for "equal protection" specifically, but this is the same kind of argument the peers in Athens used to have and it's what Hummarabi's code was attempting to address.

Not that the answer isn't fairly clear in this context (it is), but the question not being a trivial one to resolve shouldn't surprise anybody.
 
2013-03-27 09:08:41 AM

abb3w:
So what is the effect these days if first cousins get married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and move to a state like Kentucky (where it isn't)?


That's actually a very good question, and one I had never pondered. Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but there are some states that allow gay marriage, some that recognize it, and some that both allow and recognize. For example, California no longer allows them because of prop 8, but I believe they do still recognize them. So what's the deal with first cousins? Are their marriages similarly "recognized" state by state just as they are allowed state by state? There's definitely a parallel there.
 
2013-03-27 09:09:39 AM

abb3w: So what is the effect these days if first cousins get married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and move to a state like Kentucky (where it isn't)?


As far as I know, it is up to Kentucky whether they want to recognize the marriage.
 
2013-03-27 09:11:13 AM
DOMA is doomed, but they'll punt on Prop 8 .  Split the baby so to speak, but both wind up as at least partial wins for marriage equality.
 
2013-03-27 09:12:10 AM

Teiritzamna: Yeah the standing stuff here is really very interesting


The 9th circuit sent the issue to the California state supreme court before they actually heard the appeal just to figure out if there was even a case to hear. I found the state court's decision and while it makes a nice argument and points out similar things happening in the past, they were state cases not federal ones. Also the argument "We voted for it, we want it, ergo we get to defend it" which is the thrust of the state supreme courts decision is rather oddly flimsy.
 
2013-03-27 09:12:39 AM

VoodooTaco: lohphat: MrBallou: Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

[citation needed]


I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:

EnumerationThe numeration, naming, understanding, and the adoption of the sacraments vary according to denomination. Most Protestant denominations recognize at least two: baptism and the Lord's Supper. However, Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations list seven sacraments:

BaptismConfirmationEucharist (or Communion)MatrimonyHoly Orders (Ordination)Penance, Confession, and/or ReconciliationAnointing of the Sick (or Extreme Unction, Last Rites) http://www.theopedia.com/Sacraments

But there are other scriptures that talk to marriage directly, even if not in the form of  here are the sacraments dummy. Non Roman Catholics may not share the same sacramental requirements, but still believe in the basic concept, union of man and woman will bear children (aka fruit of their marriage) and make the church stronger etc...


So?  the church didn't create the idea of marriage, nor is it's recognition of it at any point important.

The only thing that has ever mattered, in history, is the state recognizes the union as a contract.  Most nations couldn't have cared less about the religious aspect, if any, of the union.  Ours certainty doesn't.  Hell, nations used to use marriage as a bargaining chip in political negotiations.  Businesses used it to secure ties with suppliers/partners.  Families did it for purely economic reasons (and still do in some places).

It's a civil contract in the eyes of the state, always has been.  Any religious argument pro or against is effectively moot.
 
2013-03-27 09:13:04 AM

vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?


Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?
 
2013-03-27 09:13:47 AM

WhyteRaven74: "We voted for it, we want it, ergo we get to defend it" which is the thrust of the state supreme courts decision is rather oddly flimsy.


yeah, injury in fact is pretty much non-existent there, and besides, I find it hard to believe that the Court will support an argument that boils down to "a state court can confer Article III standing if it really wants to"
 
2013-03-27 09:13:49 AM
You know, those mocking the red FB profiles (yes, this is Fark, we mock everything), I normally think changing your profile picture to "support" a cause is rather silly. However, I think in this case it's a bit different. No, changing your profile will not make any difference in how the Supreme Court rules. However, I think the single greatest cause of the huge shift in public opinion on gay rights and equality in the last two decades has been due to people coming out of the closet and, thus, people realizing they actually know and maybe love gay people. The more people come out, the more it becomes evident to those who know them personally through discussions that it is not a choice. Popular opinion is going to play a huge roll in equal rights (which is a shame it has to work that way, but it seems it does). The more obvious the shift in public opinion, the quieter the opposition to equal rights gets. Even now Official Party Republican opposition to gay marriage is getting quieter and quieter by the minute.

Someone opposed to gay equality seeing a sudden sea of red on his or her FB profile MIGHT, JUST MIGHT, cause him or her to pause. A politician taking note of the millions of people in red on FB might stop to consider. This really is a person by person battle.

The Supreme Court doesn't like to get out ahead of public opinion. The more obvious the shift is to them the better.

The most encouraging changes to red have been from the straight guys of my little, rural, conservative hometown area.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:01 AM

Teiritzamna: As far as I know, it is up to Kentucky whether they want to recognize the marriage.


Of course that assumes Kentucky would ever find out that it's two cousins that are married.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:11 AM

Bravo Two: vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?

Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?


Umm, pretty much all of human history would like to have a word with you.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:30 AM

ArgusRun: they'll punt on Prop 8


Once again, not a punt.  Standing is the whole point.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:45 AM
I don't know if it makes me too much of a hipster or not enough, but I sisn't know what DOMA even ment until this morning.
 
2013-03-27 09:15:07 AM

ArgusRun: DOMA is doomed, but they'll punt on Prop 8 .  Split the baby so to speak, but both wind up as at least partial wins for marriage equality.


Even if they punt on Proposition 8, the most likely outcome is that Proposition 8 will be dead. If they, for instance, decide that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision is wiped out because the Prop 8 proponents could not have brought the case before them, which means that the District Court decision finding Prop 8 unconstitutional will stand.

If SCOTUS decides to dismiss Proposition 8, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision will stand - which means Prop 8 will still be unconstitutional.

Only if SCOTUS affirmatively rules that Proposition 8 is constitutional and allowable will Proposition 8 stay in force, and a lot of observers think that is highly unlikely.
 
2013-03-27 09:15:54 AM
Done in one.

/ I got out of bed for all thus hubbub?
 
2013-03-27 09:16:23 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Bravo Two: vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?

Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?

Umm, pretty much all of human history would like to have a word with you.


It was sarcasm. Deal with it.
 
2013-03-27 09:16:38 AM

RexTalionis: ArgusRun:


www.cyclonefanatic.com
It's not a punt.
 
2013-03-27 09:17:01 AM

nekom: It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.


The words in the constitution don't mean what you think they mean. "Shall not" actually means "may." "Commerce among the several states" means that plus anything that could conceivably affect that including not participating in commerce.  And "nor deny to any person" means "nor deny to any person in the majority." It's called subtext and it's a very important concept in our completely non-retarded judicial system.
 
2013-03-27 09:18:22 AM

Teiritzamna: I find it hard to believe that the Court will support an argument that boils down to "a state court can confer Article III standing if it really wants to"


Yep. Also nothing is stopping the supreme court from declaring there is no standing to defend the law and nuking Prop 8.
 
2013-03-27 09:19:59 AM

Teiritzamna: RexTalionis: ArgusRun:

[www.cyclonefanatic.com image 266x202]
It's not a punt.


It doesn't go to the merits of the case - I consider that a punt, especially if they choose to dismiss it altogether without ruling on standing.
 
2013-03-27 09:23:48 AM
Everyone on this thread seems to be arguing over whether DOMA ought to survive or not. But the question is how the Court actually will act. I think even the activist right-wing justices (and we all know who they are) may have realized by now that simply coming down strongly against gay marriage would be a bad political move on their part, much as they would like to do it. It would make the conservatives and the fundies happy but would alienate the majority of the rest of the country, especially the younger one-third of the population, which would be very bad for the justices in the long run. They don't want to be marginalized. For that reason, I think the Court will punt. They will support the conservative, anti-gay position in both these cases -- but only to the smallest extent possible. They will come up with a "technical" decision that completely ignores the larger issue.

And when North Dakota's draconian new anti-choice law makes it to the Court (and it will, and rather quickly, which is why it was enacted), I expect the justices to follow the same "get that toxic issue away from me" strategy.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:40 AM

RexTalionis: Teiritzamna: RexTalionis: ArgusRun:

[www.cyclonefanatic.com image 266x202]
It's not a punt.

It doesn't go to the merits of the case - I consider that a punt, especially if they choose to dismiss it altogether without ruling on standing.


I guess my feelings are this - if an appellate court picks up a case because of its procedural flaws, and rules on those procedural flaws, I don't see it as a punt.  Looking at Hollingsworth, the standing issue is really the only part of it that calls out for Supreme Court review.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:57 AM

sakanagai: It is sickening that "separate but equal" is rearing its ugly head again.

/B-b-but civili unions are just as good...


Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.
 
2013-03-27 09:25:35 AM
RexTalionis:
However, you are correct - if they dismiss without an actual ruling, then sure total puntaroonie
 
2013-03-27 09:27:08 AM

DeaH:
Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.


So much THIS. Let the church decide what "marriage" is and leave the government out of it. The government, likewise should dictate what a civil union is and leave the church out of it. An exclusive contract entered into by two natural persons. (no, you can't marry a horse any more than you can sell a car to a horse, as it is not a natural person) That's my definition of it. To allow this contract to some, but not others based on their respective genders is nothing short of discrimination.
 
2013-03-27 09:29:14 AM

DeaH: Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.


The trick is, as has been discussed ad nauseam every single time this argument comes up, marriage is a state matter.  Has been since the founding.  It is governmental.  That's why you can go to a justice of the peace and get married.  Or a ship captain.  Sure you can get married in a religions ceremony - but really that is mostly a show.  The marriage is the paperwork you do for the state.  The plan you are suggesting would cede this whole governmental matter to religions and make up a new one for government.

tl;dr - to coin a phrase from office space "why should government have to change, religion is the one who sucks"
 
2013-03-27 09:30:12 AM
MrBallou:

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

No it isn't.
Holy Matrimony is the one you're looking for.
 
2013-03-27 09:34:23 AM

RexTalionis: ArgusRun: DOMA is doomed, but they'll punt on Prop 8 .  Split the baby so to speak, but both wind up as at least partial wins for marriage equality.

Even if they punt on Proposition 8, the most likely outcome is that Proposition 8 will be dead. If they, for instance, decide that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision is wiped out because the Prop 8 proponents could not have brought the case before them, which means that the District Court decision finding Prop 8 unconstitutional will stand.

If SCOTUS decides to dismiss Proposition 8, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision will stand - which means Prop 8 will still be unconstitutional.

Only if SCOTUS affirmatively rules that Proposition 8 is constitutional and allowable will Proposition 8 stay in force, and a lot of observers think that is highly unlikely.


Agreed.  That's what I meant by a  partial victory.  Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.
 
2013-03-27 09:36:18 AM

ArgusRun: Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.


No legal observer of Prop 8 ever expected a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional - the arguments presented at every level were extremely California specific and narrow - i.e. that California cannot take away a right a group previously had by ballot measure.
 
2013-03-27 09:37:09 AM
Hahahahahaha ... I've got one ...

The only incest laws in Ohio deal with the parent/child relationship over the age of consent (16).

Which means, in no parsed words, that IN OHIO, you can marry your sister, your brother, or your cousin and have that marriage be recognized in ALL 50 STATES.

Take that GAY MARRIAGE!

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-27 09:39:02 AM

Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.


How many goats you think some of them Republicans want for one of their daughters?
 
2013-03-27 09:41:19 AM

RexTalionis: ArgusRun: Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.

No legal observer of Prop 8 ever expected a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional - the arguments presented at every level were extremely California specific and narrow - i.e. that California cannot take away a right a group previously had by ballot measure.


Which is funny though because a narrow ruling only opens up a possible future case in states where it is banned. Narrow rulings in instances like this are like puling a band-aid VERY slowly. That damn thing is going to come off anyway, the court just needs to suck it up and rip the damn thing off.

The whole thing is honestly infuriating, on its face through solid legal logic its obvious that none of these laws are legal when scrutinized under existing case law and current reading of the constitution.
 
2013-03-27 09:43:21 AM

nekom: It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.


Should murderers and rapists be treated equally?

/just typing that has made me ill
 
2013-03-27 09:44:28 AM

sakanagai: It is sickening that "separate but equal" is rearing its ugly head again.

/B-b-but civili unions are just as good...


What was wrong with the seats at the back of the bus anyways?  Just as comfy.
 
2013-03-27 09:45:47 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Which is funny though because a narrow ruling only opens up a possible future case in states where it is banned. Narrow rulings in instances like this are like puling a band-aid VERY slowly. That damn thing is going to come off anyway, the court just needs to suck it up and rip the damn thing off.

The whole thing is honestly infuriating, on its face through solid legal logic its obvious that none of these laws are legal when scrutinized under existing case law and current reading of the constitution.


Two things:

1) a principle of law is that you should probably restrict yourself to the cases you have.  When you step outside of that, you get debacles like Citizens United, where the court actively shifted the scope of the dispute, and everyone loved how that turned out.

2) the merits of a case are not the only reason for supreme court review.  Procedural problems often concern the court far more than substantive ones.  Here, the reason they picked up such a narrow case likely has less to do with trepidation over moving quickly and more to do with the fact that the procedural history of the case is such a crazy clusterfark that it would have been irresponsible for the Court not to take the case and attempt to sort them out.
 
2013-03-27 09:48:21 AM
With the Prop 8 case, I don't see how the people that want to keep gay marriage have standing.  At all.  How can they show they were specifically "injured" by gay marriage in a way that other people were not injured?

Regarding the merits of either:  I think Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas are instructive but for different reasons.  Loving articulated a fundamental right to marriage when mixed-race marriage wasn't allowed by statute (at the time.)  Lawrence is instructive in the sense that (among other reasons,) Scalia himself (in the dissent) basically acknowledged if we take Lawrence to it's logical conclusion, gay marriage has to be constitutional.

So if they have to follow the precedents set by their cases, acknowledging a constitutional right to gay marriage is the reasonable conclusion.

I don't really even think this survives rational basis scrutiny.
 
2013-03-27 09:48:29 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: RexTalionis: ArgusRun: Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.

No legal observer of Prop 8 ever expected a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional - the arguments presented at every level were extremely California specific and narrow - i.e. that California cannot take away a right a group previously had by ballot measure.

Which is funny though because a narrow ruling only opens up a possible future case in states where it is banned. Narrow rulings in instances like this are like puling a band-aid VERY slowly. That damn thing is going to come off anyway, the court just needs to suck it up and rip the damn thing off.

The whole thing is honestly infuriating, on its face through solid legal logic its obvious that none of these laws are legal when scrutinized under existing case law and current reading of the constitution.


You want to keep it narrow regardless. The easiest way to stall the same sex marriage movement? Broaden the issues and have the Supreme Court render a bad precedent that will stick around for years or decades. Better to make it as narrow as possible.
 
2013-03-27 09:48:59 AM

mrshowrules:
Should murderers and rapists be treated equally?

/just typing that has made me ill


Actually, I say yes. Do you care if a murderer or a rapist is white, black, gay, straight, hindu, muslim, etc? If say Jerry Sandusky had been black, I'd say he deserves the same effective life sentence.
 
2013-03-27 09:50:21 AM
 
2013-03-27 09:51:15 AM

Rev.K: Meanwhile on Rev.K's agenda in Canada.

- make coffee
- feed dog
- get gay married
- get mail


Really?
 
2013-03-27 09:53:23 AM
static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-03-27 09:54:17 AM

UNC_Samurai: propasaurus: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

Or someone with a tattoo:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 700x446]

I wonder if anyone has ever gotten a tattoo of Ezekiel 23:20...


Looked up 20:23 by mistake. Next time I go to a football game I'm making a sign saying Ezekial 20:23, cause that made me laugh my ass off!
 
2013-03-27 09:55:43 AM
i2.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-27 09:57:05 AM
The comments section on there is a trainwreck.
 
2013-03-27 09:58:49 AM

FirstNationalBastard: If gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?

/so, if DOMA is struck down, can I marry my turtle?


Is your turtle a legally-consenting adult? No?  Then shut up.

/so freaking sick of hearing this argument.
 
2013-03-27 09:59:00 AM
Yes, DOMA is indeed doomed.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-27 09:59:21 AM
FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?
 
2013-03-27 09:59:23 AM
Ah yes, gay marriage, so important it could be said to be the most important topic Jesus ever spoke about, 2nd only to abortion.
 
2013-03-27 10:00:37 AM

FirstNationalBastard: gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?


Sorry - just re-read that. I think I'm still wound up from reading the comments on that article.
 
2013-03-27 10:00:39 AM

FlashHarry: [weknowmemes.com image 374x731]

yup.


Judging by the ages of the people in both pictures, it's entirely possible they are all the same people.
 
2013-03-27 10:01:44 AM

Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.


As long as she's not a LEGITIMATE RAPE victim, 'cause that would shut the whole thing down.
 
2013-03-27 10:03:26 AM
In 50 years heterosexuality will be banned.

And everyone will be fabulous !!!
 
2013-03-27 10:03:46 AM
Yesterday on Facebook, I saw a lot of red equal signs. Even many people who kept their thumbnail the same posted pictures in support of gay marriage. Some of my older relatives (I am 50) surprised me in their support of equality. Today, I am starting to see some defensive posts from the anti-equality folks. I particular enjoyed this gem of defensiveness:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?
 
2013-03-27 10:03:56 AM

cfreak: FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?


The first 9 is a subset of the 41.
 
2013-03-27 10:05:38 AM
Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.
 
2013-03-27 10:07:00 AM

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


6
 
2013-03-27 10:07:01 AM

cfreak: FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?


The 9 with civil unions are a subset of the 41.
 
2013-03-27 10:09:25 AM

way south: Looks pretty silly right now.

No one gets married anymore and the gays want to fight for the right?
Sure, have at it. Equality for all is a good thing. More rights is a good thing.

/It shouldn't have been a federal issue to begin with.
/The sooner we shake this Clinton era nonsense, the sooner we can move on.


A Republican blaming Clinton for this "nonsense". Priceless.
 
2013-03-27 10:11:21 AM

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


Uppity Gays how dare they demand equal rights to your stupid redneck ass.
 
2013-03-27 10:12:47 AM
DeaH:
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?

Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.
 
2013-03-27 10:14:31 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-27 10:20:02 AM

Teiritzamna: 2) the merits of a case are not the only reason for supreme court review. Procedural problems often concern the court far more than substantive ones. Here, the reason they picked up such a narrow case likely has less to do with trepidation over moving quickly and more to do with the fact that the procedural history of the case is such a crazy clusterfark that it would have been irresponsible for the Court not to take the case and attempt to sort them out.


I'll buy that for a dollar.

I guess its just frustrating because we all know where this pony is going to end up in this horse race, but instead of taking the bet we're instead playing it safe and hedging our bets on the show for now.
 
2013-03-27 10:20:32 AM

Muta: DeaH:
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?

Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.


Sure, if your "deeply held conviction" is not that gay is unnatural and sinful and that allowing anything other than one man and one woman (please note the woman never comes first) is destructive to society and the "right kind" of families. If it is, then you want people to know that you are repressing them, but out of love and compassion.
 
2013-03-27 10:20:45 AM

huntercr: I don't know if it makes me too much of a hipster or not enough, but I sisn't know what DOMA even ment until this morning.


Well, ask your history teacher when you get to school this morning.  I'm sure he or she will be able to tell you a lot about the magical time we call the nineties.
 
2013-03-27 10:22:00 AM

special20: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

Nice Job.


I think you have mistaken a Lot.
 
2013-03-27 10:22:45 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: special20: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

Nice Job.

I think you have mistaken a Lot.


Forget it. He's rolling.
 
2013-03-27 10:26:54 AM

NateGrey: A Republican blaming Clinton for this "nonsense". Priceless.


It passed with bipartisan support, during his presidency, signed by him.
Why shouldn't he get some of the blame?

/He also signed the AWB which was overturned almost ten years ago.
/Seems to me this law is ten years overdue for being struck down.
/A missed opportunity for Republicans to feed their libertarian urges.
 
2013-03-27 10:28:14 AM

way south: /He also signed the AWB which was overturned almost ten years ago.


The Assault Weapon Ban wasn't overturned. It had a sunset provision and it expired.
 
2013-03-27 10:29:11 AM

mjones71822: verbaltoxin: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

The salt, the salt, the goddamned salt!

Or Soylent Green.


That's what you need the salt for.  Soylent green is too bland otherwise.
 
2013-03-27 10:31:15 AM
One man, one woman DOMA signed by Bill Clinton. RFLOL
 
2013-03-27 10:32:17 AM

ciberido: mjones71822: verbaltoxin: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

The salt, the salt, the goddamned salt!

Or Soylent Green.

That's what you need the salt for.  Soylent green is too bland otherwise.


My preferred way to spice up my people

peppers.com
 
2013-03-27 10:32:32 AM

FlashHarry: [weknowmemes.com image 374x731]

yup.


At least those red necks back in the day had at least the pretense of an excuse for their ignorance.  Having those attitudes and that level of ignorance growing-up in the information age is truly pathetic.
 
2013-03-27 10:33:57 AM

dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.


I find it funny that they eat cheeseburgers and have tattoos.

Of course they claim that Jayzuz says it's OK because he fulfilled the law (whatever the fark "fulfilling the law" is supposed to mean), yet he also says that whoever "breaks the least of these, and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven," which would include Kashrut, mixed fabric, and homoghey laws as commandments.  When I bring that up they go "because Paul", which also makes little sense because (a) only 7 of "his" epistles are actually written by him (which is a fun time all by itself) and (b) his teachings were an aberration in early christendom*, which is odd to hear today because he is the one who eventually won - not by the merits of his arguments, but due to his converting of gentiles, and thus winning via numbers - and thus we think "hasn't it always been this way?" like the dumbasses we are.  Of course, when you bring that up, they either revert back to "because Jayzuz" (starting the whole cycle over or they go "I'll pray for you" or some other bullshiat like that.

*This abberation is preserved in our modern bibles with the internal "works vs faith alone" debates, if you care to do some starting investigating on this matter.  Titles of other good books escape me at the moment, but IIRC Bart Ehrman does a good start in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
 
2013-03-27 10:34:36 AM
Teiritzamna:

I am not saying your argument is dead, just that the effects clause makes things tricky.  All I am saying is that there is a fair legal argument that Congress gets to determine the "effect thereof" and nothing in that clause says they cannot state the effect is "nothing."  The general laws argument you made, i think is a much better one.

The first sentence of Article IV Section 1 however states "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."  If Congress tries to say the effect is "nothing", they're attempting to use the second part to invalidate the first.  I take Art IV Sec 1 to say, at its most basic, that the states have to recognize each others' legal proceedings and Congress regulates how that is done.  Not that Congress can say "you don't actually have to recognize this particular set of legal proceedings".  I would take that to be an attempt to turn a regulatory duty into the ability to negate that same portion of the Constitution.
 
2013-03-27 10:35:10 AM

DeaH: Muta: DeaH:
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?

Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.

Sure, if your "deeply held conviction" is not that gay is unnatural and sinful and that allowing anything other than one man and one woman (please note the woman never comes first) is destructive to society and the "right kind" of families. If it is, then you want people to know that you are repressing them, but out of love and compassion.


As long as it's said with love and compassion, it's totally cool!  "You know dear, you can't marry a black man. It's wrong. We love you!"
 
2013-03-27 10:39:35 AM
DOMA was doomed the day it was passed. It never has been anything other than right wing political posturing. I think the SCOTUS will strike down DOMA but leave Prop 8 as it is based on the plaintive's lack of standing. I listened to the proceedings for a while yesterday and it was clear to me that even the liberal justices had a serious problem with this. The attorney was doing a rather bad job of showing how the prop 8 opponents were entitled to sue and what damage they were suffering by California's not enforcing the statute. This one is easy for the Supremes to walk away from without any real political backlash.
 
2013-03-27 10:39:48 AM
Really, there is no argument against gay marriage.  It's painfully obvious that the opposing side is making s*** up at this point, saying idiotic things like "but, the children!"  There is absolutely no rational basis for denying people a basic right of our country.  It stopped being a religious institution the moment the government started issuing marriage certificates and assigning special privileges based upon status.
 
2013-03-27 10:40:30 AM

Carn: cfreak: FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?

The first 9 is a subset of the 41.


For those who are having trouble with the arithmetic, that makes:

  9 states where gay couples can get married
  9 states that don't allow gay marriages but allow civil unions
32 states that don't allow gay marriages or civil unions
50 states total

To further confuse the issue, some states have outright banned same sex marriage while others merely aren't allowing it yet.
 
2013-03-27 10:41:09 AM

farm machine: the GLBT community


I thought Fark all agreed on LGTBBQ (Lets Go To a Bar-B-Que)?
 
2013-03-27 10:42:48 AM

FlashHarry: [weknowmemes.com image 374x731]

yup.


it's pretty identical in terms of the types of people, even 40 years later.

backwoods ignorant individuals protesting against change who mostly happen to be the elderly of their generation.
 
2013-03-27 10:43:25 AM

Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.


While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.
 
2013-03-27 10:43:56 AM
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-03-27 10:49:02 AM

friday13: I find it funny that they eat cheeseburgers and have tattoos.


To be fair, the original authors of the hebrew scriptures would probably not have had a problem with a cheeseburger, unless it was a goat veal burger with goat cheese and the cheese happened to be from the milk of the mother of the kid that supplied the goat veal.  The whole "no meat and dairy AT ALL" thing is much more modern.

Hmmm, now I want to open a restaurant called "Chez Tref" where the house special is goat veal burgers with cheese made from their mother's milk.
 
2013-03-27 10:52:29 AM
Everything will be silly to me in 50 years, as I'll be 89 and likely a drooling Alzheimer's patient.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:27 AM

DeaH: Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.

Sure, if your "deeply held conviction" is not that gay is unnatural and sinful and that allowing anything other than one man and one woman (please note the woman never comes first) is destructive to society and the "right kind" of families. If it is, then you want people to know that you are repressing them, but out of love and compassion.


That interpretation ignores the first half of Rick Warren's quote, "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them."   That is a call for tolerance.
 
2013-03-27 10:58:23 AM

ShonenBat: cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.

That makes too much sense and is logical. Both sides won't accept that the fight is simply about the legal recognition of gay marriages, not whether they have a right to exist.

Here's where I'm curious: what about polygamy? Personally, I'm fine with legalizing it. If we define marriage as being between consenting adults (let's go ahead and knock the Warren Jeff's counter argument out of the way), why not polygamy?


Polygamy is a whole different can of worms and is generally very bad for society: promotes extreme sexism, lots of unmarried men and the whole child bride mess that often pops up.  Pretty much just point to the middle east.

Also marriage can be thought of as an exclusive contract between two people, therefor you can't enter into another contract w/o voiding the first.  Its also why the turtle marrying thing is dumb, a turtle can't legally sign a contract (teenage mutants being the exception)
 
2013-03-27 11:00:04 AM

The Muthaship: MrBallou: I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I've been saying this for a long time.  Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.


Marriage was a legal construct long before it was ever considered a religious one.
From arranged marriages to marriages that stopped wars, cemented alliances, saved fortunes etc.
That is why anyone who fills out the correct paperwork can be married, religion not needed.
Besides, when situations like power of attorney, adoption and child custody, and other issues arise,
there needs to be a bright legal line that can be used to decide these things. That line, set by legal precedent,
has always been marriage.
 
2013-03-27 11:02:51 AM

Muta: DeaH: Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.

Sure, if your "deeply held conviction" is not that gay is unnatural and sinful and that allowing anything other than one man and one woman (please note the woman never comes first) is destructive to society and the "right kind" of families. If it is, then you want people to know that you are repressing them, but out of love and compassion.

That interpretation ignores the first half of Rick Warren's quote, "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them."   That is a call for tolerance.


Then why does Warren against gay marriage? That doesn't sound very tolerant to me. His mantra is that tolerance does not mean approval, and no marriage for you, gay couple! But, you know, out of love.
 
2013-03-27 11:03:08 AM

ShonenBat: Here's where I'm curious: what about polygamy? Personally, I'm fine with legalizing it. If we define marriage as being between consenting adults (let's go ahead and knock the Warren Jeff's counter argument out of the way), why not polygamy?


I was actually thinking about this.  Every generation has something that they feel must be changed, that the older generation is reactionary against.

For our parents it was inter-racial marriage, for my generation it is gay marriage.  I am wondering what issue our kids will take up that we can't stomach.  I am looking at it more in the sense that I hope my generation is different, but I suspect we wont be.

I have no idea what the next issue will be, but I could see it being polygamy.
 
2013-03-27 11:11:14 AM

ShadowKamui: ShonenBat: cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.

That makes too much sense and is logical. Both sides won't accept that the fight is simply about the legal recognition of gay marriages, not whether they have a right to exist.

Here's where I'm curious: what about polygamy? Personally, I'm fine with legalizing it. If we define marriage as being between consenting adults (let's go ahead and knock the Warren Jeff's counter argument out of the way), why not polygamy?

Polygamy is a whole different can of worms and is generally very bad for society: promotes extreme sexism, lots of unmarried men and the whole child bride mess that often pops up.  Pretty much just point to the middle east.

Also marriage can be thought of as an exclusive contract between two people, therefor you can't enter into another contract w/o voiding the first.  Its also why the turtle marrying thing is dumb, a turtle can't legally sign a contract (teenage mutants being the exception)


That argument is identical to the one the fundies are currently using.  There is no rational basis for denying legal recognition of polygamy.  And the assumption that anyone would become a slave-like fundie wife if it were legal that would not do so currently is pretty silly.

Of course there'd have to be some changes to various laws such as the tax code that are based on the assumption that it will always be two people.  As a quick fix, any spouse after the first one should just count the same as any other dependant.  And of course all parties would have to consent to adding in another one to the family.
 
2013-03-27 11:15:18 AM
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Ah, Rick Warren.  Correct.  You don't have to compromise your convictions to be compassionate.  You do however have to leave them alone instead of using the gov't to tell them they can't be married to each other, can't raise their kids together, or can't care for each other in hospitals as they age and their bodies fail them.  None of that has anything to do with your personal convictions.  None of that affects you in any way.  Your convictions, their lives.  Separate them from one another.  By all means, continue to disagree.  But you do not get a say in their lives.
 
2013-03-27 11:30:40 AM

abb3w: alywa: /discuss

The federal government isn't restricted by the 14th, only the states. Federal Due Process results from the 5th amendment.


There are TWO situations being ruled on here.  One involves states' rights (Prop 8), the other (DOMA) involves the feds.

The 14th amendment is applicable to Prop 8.

The 5th is applicable to DOMA.
 
2013-03-27 11:48:22 AM

nekom: mrshowrules:
Should murderers and rapists be treated equally?

/just typing that has made me ill

Actually, I say yes. Do you care if a murderer or a rapist is white, black, gay, straight, hindu, muslim, etc? If say Jerry Sandusky had been black, I'd say he deserves the same effective life sentence.


I'm just stating Scalia's position that murder is a moral crime just like homosexualing someone.   A murderer/homosexualator will not be treated equally to a law-abiding (morally upstanding citizen).
 
2013-03-27 12:06:25 PM

Bravo Two: vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?

Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?



Here's a thought:  If you think marriage is " a weapon of power" that women use "in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome," how about you try not marring any women?

Trust me, you'll BOTH be a lot happier.
 
2013-03-27 12:06:38 PM
mrshowrules:  I'm just stating Scalia's position that murder is a moral crime just like homosexualing someone.   A murderer/homosexualator will not be treated equally to a law-abiding (morally upstanding citizen).

This made me laugh out loud.  I don't even care that I have no idea what it means.
 
2013-03-27 12:11:59 PM

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


Those uppity ni*BONG*, wanting to vote.  Why can't they be happy that they're no longer slaves?  They should just shut up and say "Thank you massa for letting us go".

/No, seriously, FARK you.  With a cactus.  SIDEWAYS.
 
2013-03-27 12:18:06 PM

DeaH: Then why does Warren against gay marriage?


I can't answer that.  All I was saying was that I read the quote as being one that could be read as pro-same sex marriage.
 
2013-03-27 12:18:17 PM

pciszek: friday13: I find it funny that they eat cheeseburgers and have tattoos.

To be fair, the original authors of the hebrew scriptures would probably not have had a problem with a cheeseburger, unless it was a goat veal burger with goat cheese and the cheese happened to be from the milk of the mother of the kid that supplied the goat veal.  The whole "no meat and dairy AT ALL" thing is much more modern.

Hmmm, now I want to open a restaurant called "Chez Tref" where the house special is goat veal burgers with cheese made from their mother's milk.


Potentially true, but you don't exactly think "ban on shellfish and pig" when you think "kosher"  do you?  You think the "no milk with meat" thing.  That and it's more accurate to say "cheeseburger" than "crab" for these assholes.  "Pork" may have been accurate too, but that's more associated with muslims in their minds.
 
2013-03-27 12:23:02 PM

BMFPitt: That argument is identical to the one the fundies are currently using. There is no rational basis for denying legal recognition of polygamy. And the assumption that anyone would become a slave-like fundie wife if it were legal that would not do so currently is pretty silly.

Of course there'd have to be some changes to various laws such as the tax code that are based on the assumption that it will always be two people. As a quick fix, any spouse after the first one should just count the same as any other dependant. And of course all parties would have to consent to adding in another one to the family.


Actually, no, no it's not.  One is a limited liability partnership with clear, defined rules based on a single party able to do many things in an emergency.  The other is like a corporation, with equate power in many parties and no clear, defined definition for how any of them will work.

Gay marriage is a reprinting of forms with no framework changes.  Poly is examining some 1500 rights and privileges of marriage and redoing them to be workable for 3+ people.

Not to mention, poly tends to become sexual harems where you have one man and numerous women who often have no choice in being married to begin with.  Equal partnerships don't seem to be the norm, but that's the only type of poly I can see ever becoming legal, and its a paperwork nightmare.

But if such a framework for all those rights could be universally agreed upon, then I have no problem with it begin legal, for 3+ equal partners.  It's an entirely different issue from gay marriage though, with it's own problems to be worked out.
 
2013-03-27 12:29:30 PM

friday13: Potentially true, but you don't exactly think "ban on shellfish and pig" when you think "kosher"  do you?  You think the "no milk with meat" thing.


Actually, most people aren't aware of the meat-with-dairy thing or the shellfish thing, only the pork thing.
 
2013-03-27 01:18:32 PM

Oh, and incidentally....

a.imageshack.us
carryabigsticker.com


/smoochies
 
2013-03-27 01:19:14 PM

pciszek: friday13: Potentially true, but you don't exactly think "ban on shellfish and pig" when you think "kosher"  do you?  You think the "no milk with meat" thing.

Actually, most people aren't aware of the meat-with-dairy thing or the shellfish thing, only the pork thing.


Huh...for some reason, I always think "meat and milk"...could be beause I find the whole thing silly, and that's the silliest of the silly, but whatever.
 
2013-03-27 01:19:58 PM

abb3w: Oh, and incidentally....

[a.imageshack.us image 850x575]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]

/smoochies


I really like the second pic for some reason...
 
2013-03-27 01:27:06 PM

abb3w: Oh, and incidentally....

[a.imageshack.us image 850x575]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]

/smoochies


I don't doubt those statistics, but I get the impression that apathy is pretty high. The average person I encounter doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, but doesn't care either. The attitude of "This has no effect on my life whatsoever and I don't care one bit." is a damn sight better than "OMG lets go beat down some queers"! That's why we'll likely never see a constitutional amendment either banning it or ensuring it as a right. If gay marriage is going to go nationwide, it will almost certainly be through the courts.

/remember that when you vote, elections have consequences.
//love my gay family members, which is why this is very important to me
 
2013-03-27 01:28:30 PM

abb3w: Oh, and incidentally....

[a.imageshack.us image 850x575]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]

/smoochies


"We'll drink 'til she's hot."
 
2013-03-27 01:30:05 PM

Bravo Two: It was sarcasm. Deal with it.


Protip: If you say something intended as sarcasm, and nobody realizes it was meant as sarcasm, that's YOUR problem.

So deal with it.
 
2013-03-27 01:33:45 PM

mksmith: Everyone on this thread seems to be arguing over whether DOMA ought to survive or not. But the question is how the Court actually will act. I think even the activist right-wing justices (and we all know who they are) may have realized by now that simply coming down strongly against gay marriage would be a bad political move on their part, much as they would like to do it. It would make the conservatives and the fundies happy but would alienate the majority of the rest of the country, especially the younger one-third of the population, which would be very bad for the justices in the long run. They don't want to be marginalized. For that reason, I think the Court will punt. They will support the conservative, anti-gay position in both these cases -- but only to the smallest extent possible. They will come up with a "technical" decision that completely ignores the larger issue.

And when North Dakota's draconian new anti-choice law makes it to the Court (and it will, and rather quickly, which is why it was enacted), I expect the justices to follow the same "get that toxic issue away from me" strategy.



I have no idea if things will happen as you predict, but your prediction is interesting.
 
2013-03-27 01:40:15 PM

VoodooTaco: Marriage is a religious sacrament.


no. Marriage is a legal concept. It has nothing to do with religion. A church can not marry someone - a government has to. A church can help fill out the forms to file with the government. You can very easily get married without a church, it is impossible to get married without a government.

Saying something like this buys into a false premise that marriage ever was anything other than a legal way of declaring who your family is. Just because religion has involved itself into marriage doesn't make it religious. That's like saying that a birth certificate is a religious document just because a christening supposedly chooses the name that goes on it.
 
2013-03-27 01:43:51 PM

spentmiles: According to the Forest Institute, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.


These numbers are very inaccurate. the 50% number that is widely cited is for all marriages, and includes the second and third marriages (which have astronomically high divorce rates). If you are above the age of 25 and college educated, i think its down to 20% or something like that. (i'll look for actual statistics)
 
2013-03-27 01:52:40 PM

INeedAName: As a Christian, I am in full support of marriage equality.


That makes 2 of us.

/3 if we count my wife.
 
2013-03-27 02:04:32 PM

Muta: DeaH: Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.

Sure, if your "deeply held conviction" is not that gay is unnatural and sinful and that allowing anything other than one man and one woman (please note the woman never comes first) is destructive to society and the "right kind" of families. If it is, then you want people to know that you are repressing them, but out of love and compassion.

That interpretation ignores the first half of Rick Warren's quote, "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them."   That is a call for tolerance.


Tolerance for whom? The discriminated or the discriminator? It doesn't matter to me if you love me or hate me if you want the law to stop me from having equal rights, I want to stop you. Frankly, I don't care what your motivations are, I want you to stop doing that and I will not tolerate it. I imagine a gay person must feel the same way about people like Rick Warren.
 
2013-03-27 02:08:52 PM

BMFPitt: ShadowKamui: ShonenBat: cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.

That makes too much sense and is logical. Both sides won't accept that the fight is simply about the legal recognition of gay marriages, not whether they have a right to exist.

Here's where I'm curious: what about polygamy? Personally, I'm fine with legalizing it. If we define marriage as being between consenting adults (let's go ahead and knock the Warren Jeff's counter argument out of the way), why not polygamy?

Polygamy is a whole different can of worms and is generally very bad for society: promotes extreme sexism, lots of unmarried men and the whole child bride mess that often pops up.  Pretty much just point to the middle east.

Also marriage can be thought of as an exclusive contract between two people, therefor you can't enter into another contract w/o voiding the first.  Its also why the turtle marrying thing is dumb, a turtle can't legally sign a contract (teenage mutants being the exception)

That argument is identical to the one the fundies are currently using.  There is no rational basis for denying legal recognition of polygamy.  And the assumption that anyone would become a slave-like fundie wife if it were legal that would not do so currently is pretty silly.

Of course there'd have to be some changes to various laws such as the tax code that are based on the assumption that it will always be two people.  As a quick fix, any spouse after the first one should just count the same as any other dependant.  And of course all parties would have to consent to adding in another one to the family.


This is the line of reasoning that make me think we should just scrap the whole idea of the government giving special consideration to any type of marriage, including traditional one man/one woman style. It's the special legal (read MONETARY) benefits I'm talking about.

Drop those altogether and you won't have to decide if my deep affection for my goat is equivalent to your attachment to your sister or your Anit-Gay Congressman's attachment to his Beard.
 
2013-03-27 02:14:18 PM

Teiritzamna: DeaH: Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.

The trick is, as has been discussed ad nauseam every single time this argument comes up, marriage is a state matter.  Has been since the founding.  It is governmental.  That's why you can go to a justice of the peace and get married.  Or a ship captain.  Sure you can get married in a religions ceremony - but really that is mostly a show.  The marriage is the paperwork you do for the state.  The plan you are suggesting would cede this whole governmental matter to religions and make up a new one for government.

tl;dr - to coin a phrase from office space "why should government have to change, religion is the one who sucks"


And, yet, if the government wanted to make this change, I would support it. Again, I have no problem anytime the government does anything that further separates it from religion. But no one is proposing this. They want civil unions for some and marriage for others, so I oppose it.
 
2013-03-27 02:35:17 PM

DeaH: And, yet, if the government wanted to make this change, I would support it. Again, I have no problem anytime the government does anything that further separates it from religion. But no one is proposing this. They want civil unions for some and marriage for others, so I oppose it.


Actually, many are proposing a separation of government and religion.  Marriage is at present a governmental act.  One that, sure, can be associated with a religious ceremony, if you so choose.  Thus, most supporters of marriage equality would rather we just ensure that the government act equally and allow any two consenting adults to marry, and let them sort out what religious ceremony (if any) they wish to engage in.  You are arguing, however, that government should get out of the marriage business, cede it entirely to religions, and then from scratch make up a new institution and equally apply that new state to those who seek it.

I guess my question is why should we make government do all of this, and at the same time actually strengthen the position of religions by allowing them to win on the lie that marriage is solely a religious institution, when it is far easier and more in keeping with the tenets of the constitution to have government just do what it already does equally and tell religious groups to suck it if they dont like it?
 
2013-03-27 02:42:56 PM

nekom: I don't doubt those statistics, but I get the impression that apathy is pretty high. The average person I encounter doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, but doesn't care either.


That's mostly the difference between "Strongly Support" and mere "Support" (or "Neutral").

nekom: That's why we'll likely never see a constitutional amendment either banning it or ensuring it as a right.


Banning it, I agree. Even if it got past the Senate (fat chance before 2014, slim chance after), the GOP could only get 36 state legislatures at this point before running into hotbeds of "Meh" like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Enshrining the right... possible, eventually, if the religious right whine long enough that people want to make it clear that it's time for them to shut up now. I'm seeing that circa 2030 or so.

nekom: If gay marriage is going to go nationwide, it will almost certainly be through the courts.


The scenario that seems more likely is a new Federal Law reversing Section 2 of DOMA (to thereafter require all states to recognize all marriages from other states), and Nevada (or perhaps Hawaii) passing a law to allow gay marriage. Instant marriage tourism. The first will probably take longer (having negligible prospect before 2014 House elections, and more likely not until 2016), but seems likely by 2022.
 
2013-03-27 02:47:25 PM
I'm guessing that I'm one of many people to point out this : to rational people this is already a silly non-issue.
 
2013-03-27 03:01:35 PM

Teiritzamna: DeaH: And, yet, if the government wanted to make this change, I would support it. Again, I have no problem anytime the government does anything that further separates it from religion. But no one is proposing this. They want civil unions for some and marriage for others, so I oppose it.

Actually, many are proposing a separation of government and religion.  Marriage is at present a governmental act.  One that, sure, can be associated with a religious ceremony, if you so choose.  Thus, most supporters of marriage equality would rather we just ensure that the government act equally and allow any two consenting adults to marry, and let them sort out what religious ceremony (if any) they wish to engage in.  You are arguing, however, that government should get out of the marriage business, cede it entirely to religions, and then from scratch make up a new institution and equally apply that new state to those who seek it.

I guess my question is why should we make government do all of this, and at the same time actually strengthen the position of religions by allowing them to win on the lie that marriage is solely a religious institution, when it is far easier and more in keeping with the tenets of the constitution to have government just do what it already does equally and tell religious groups to suck it if they dont like it?


I guess, as a woman, I have no deep ties to the word marriage since it, historically, treated women as chattel to be given to the highest bidder. If the government wanted to give the term to the churches in order to adopt one conceived as more equal for all, I would support it.
 
2013-03-27 03:14:35 PM

seadoo2006: Hahahahahaha ... I've got one ...

The only incest laws in Ohio deal with the parent/child relationship over the age of consent (16).

Which means, in no parsed words, that IN OHIO, you can marry your sister, your brother, or your cousin and have that marriage be recognized in ALL 50 STATES.

Take that GAY MARRIAGE!

[media.tumblr.com image 270x214]


Cool.  I didn't even know that. I married my cousin.  In Ohio.  We met in WV.

We're 2nd cousins by marriage and we didn't even know each other as kids.
But still we get a kick of calling each other cuz.
 
2013-03-27 03:48:40 PM

CujoQuarrel: In 50 years heterosexuality will be banned.

And everyone will be fabulous !!!


Joe Haldeman already covered that prediction in 1974.
 
2013-03-27 04:00:39 PM

Generation_D: Allow me to sum up the Right's legal argument:

"I said God said those f-ggots can't get married."


Where in the Bible does it say that?
 
2013-03-27 04:08:57 PM

sakanagai: verbaltoxin: Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.

It sounded like he is trying to defer a ruling. During the child-rearing arguments, he suggested that there isn't enough evidence to determine the effects of same-sex parenting. Seems like an opening to kick the can down the road for another few years.


But that's a fallacious argument to begin with. The anti crowd are using the child-rearing and religious "arguments" because that's all they have got. It's a simple matter of whether DOMA violates the Constitution - all the other crap that the anti crowd are throwing in is a smokescreen because they have nothing else. It won't happen, but the liberal side of the court should just be blunt and say so.
 
2013-03-27 04:11:58 PM

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


No, we're not going to just shut up and say thank you.  Long after your corpse has rotted and you've been completely forgotten, one group of people or another, somewhere in the world, will still be fighting for their equal rights.  I thought maybe that would make you happy, the realization that you and your ilk have been on top for thousands if not millions of years, and it will yet take decades if not centuries to undo all your damage and set things right, but if the thought of the struggle continuing that much long bothers you instead, then feel free to lie on your deathbed crying bitter tears of failure, with the echoes of a thousand "fark yous" ringing in your ears.
 
2013-03-27 04:17:43 PM

Farce-Side: farm machine: the GLBT community

I thought Fark all agreed on LGTBBQ (Lets Go To a Bar-B-Que)?


Since another Farker brought it to my attention, I've started using QUILTBAG.

But I love barbecue, so you can put me down for LGTBBQ also.
 
2013-03-27 04:39:36 PM
The Supremes will punt...Hell, the folks adding to this thread can't even come up with a consensus for the definition of marriage yet we expect these 9 idiots that don't understand property rights, the Bill of Rights or what does or doesn't constitute a tax to make a cogent decision on the matter?  The Supremes just don't understand that we are living in a new age - an age where religious faith is quaint, where the killing of an unborn child is simply birth control, where guns routinely kill people, where the "government of the people" frequently passes inane, overreaching laws with less than a majority of the people supporting them, where people don't care that the government frequently passes inane, overreaching laws - but only when they aren't directly affected by the laws, where the Constitution is archaic, where voters have no idea what a candidate stands for but will vote for her anyway because she is "totally awesome", where we are enthralled by "reality television" in much the same way the gentry of the 19th Century was enthralled by the antics of the inmates locked-up in insane asylums, where lawsuits take the place of talking to your neighbor, where social media takes the place of talking to your neighbor, where video games let you experience the thrill of killing another human being over and over again, where fame is widely believed to be a worthy and achievable goal in life, where fame is (sadly) a marketable occupation, where schools concentrate on everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic, where the world portrayed in the comedy "Idiocracy" truly has a chance of becoming a reality and where everyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want in any numbers they want, whenever they want, because it doesn't hurt anyone else so it's no one else's business.  Yes...we live in a different world and the Supremes better start getting on board!
 
2013-03-27 04:50:03 PM

MikeM: The Supremes will punt...Hell, the folks adding to this thread can't even come up with a consensus for the definition of marriage yet we expect these 9 idiots that don't understand property rights, the Bill of Rights or what does or doesn't constitute a tax to make a cogent decision on the matter?  The Supremes just don't understand that we are living in a new age - an age where religious faith is quaint, where the killing of an unborn child is simply birth control, where guns routinely kill people, where the "government of the people" frequently passes inane, overreaching laws with less than a majority of the people supporting them, where people don't care that the government frequently passes inane, overreaching laws - but only when they aren't directly affected by the laws, where the Constitution is archaic, where voters have no idea what a candidate stands for but will vote for her anyway because she is "totally awesome", where we are enthralled by "reality television" in much the same way the gentry of the 19th Century was enthralled by the antics of the inmates locked-up in insane asylums, where lawsuits take the place of talking to your neighbor, where social media takes the place of talking to your neighbor, where video games let you experience the thrill of killing another human being over and over again, where fame is widely believed to be a worthy and achievable goal in life, where fame is (sadly) a marketable occupation, where schools concentrate on everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic, where the world portrayed in the comedy "Idiocracy" truly has a chance of becoming a reality and where everyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want in any numbers they want, whenever they want, because it doesn't hurt anyone else so it's no one else's business.  Yes...we live in a different world and the Supremes better start getting on board!


The horror ... let's just kill everyone ... starting with you ... I'll even buy you the gun and give you the bullet.
 
2013-03-27 08:32:18 PM

MrBallou: This is the line of reasoning that make me think we should just scrap the whole idea of the government giving special consideration to any type of marriage, including traditional one man/one woman style. It's the special legal (read MONETARY) benefits I'm talking about.


Absolutely.  But until that time, there is no rational basis for the state to decide who can be married and who can't.
 
2013-03-27 10:23:13 PM

cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.


tada
done and done

but jesus and babies
 
2013-03-27 10:23:48 PM

ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.


Chapter, verse?
 
2013-03-27 10:25:26 PM

ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.


Also, more than a few "new testament christians" quote the old testament when they condemn homosexuality.
 
2013-03-28 12:26:33 AM
Once the gay marriage thing is decided, time for single folks to demand equal benefits. It's not fair for anyone to pay a different tax rate because of marriage or the lack of it.
 
2013-03-28 12:45:17 AM

MrBallou: "Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.


Wrong.

Mock26: It is time to get the government out of the marriage business.


Wrong.

VoodooTaco: Marriage is a religious sacrament.


Wrong.

cattmandont: let's remove all marriage rules from gummint.


Wrong.

VoodooTaco: I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:


By that logic, crackers are also a fundamentally religious institution.  Won't someone think of the crackers?

ShonenBat: why not polygamy?


Because it's a fundamentally different question and its implementation carries numerous challenges that allowing gays to marry does not.

nekom: So much THIS. Let the church decide what "marriage" is and leave the government out of it.


Why should we let "the church" (as if there's only one, right?) decide the nature of something it has no valid claim upon?

The Muthaship: I've been saying this for a long time. Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.


If so, you've been an ignorant fool for doing so the entire time.  This argument is historically inaccurate nonsense.  Marriage has always been a civil matter as long as it has existed, and it sure as shiat predates Christianity or whatever other modern religion you might practice.  All of you idiots need to find a new angle if you want to argue against marriage equality.  This willfully ignorant pseudo-libertarian crap is for the birds.

The government has the power to marry people.  Churches do not.  Get the fark over it.
 
2013-03-28 05:13:21 AM

MikeM: The Supremes will punt...Hell, the folks adding to this thread can't even come up with a consensus for the definition of marriage yet we expect these 9 idiots that don't understand property rights, the Bill of Rights or what does or doesn't constitute a tax to make a cogent decision on the matter?  The Supremes just don't understand that we are living in a new age - an age where religious faith is quaint, where the killing of an unborn child is simply birth control, where guns routinely kill people, where the "government of the people" frequently passes inane, overreaching laws with less than a majority of the people supporting them, where people don't care that the government frequently passes inane, overreaching laws - but only when they aren't directly affected by the laws, where the Constitution is archaic, where voters have no idea what a candidate stands for but will vote for her anyway because she is "totally awesome", where we are enthralled by "reality television" in much the same way the gentry of the 19th Century was enthralled by the antics of the inmates locked-up in insane asylums, where lawsuits take the place of talking to your neighbor, where social media takes the place of talking to your neighbor, where video games let you experience the thrill of killing another human being over and over again, where fame is widely believed to be a worthy and achievable goal in life, where fame is (sadly) a marketable occupation, where schools concentrate on everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic, where the world portrayed in the comedy "Idiocracy" truly has a chance of becoming a reality and where everyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want in any numbers they want, whenever they want, because it doesn't hurt anyone else so it's no one else's business.  Yes...we live in a different world and the Supremes better start getting on board!


Awwww... you sound mad.
 
2013-03-28 05:23:54 AM

Mock26: ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.

Chapter, verse?



Chapter, verse for WHAT exactly?

That "Paul had serious issues with ALL sex"?  Sheesh.  Where in the parts of the Bible he wrote does Paul NOT have serious issues with all sex?  Try  Thessalonians for a start.

And next time you want to ask a question, don't make it a guessing game.
 
2013-03-28 07:06:33 AM

Z-clipped: MrBallou: "Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

Wrong.

Mock26: It is time to get the government out of the marriage business.

Wrong.

VoodooTaco: Marriage is a religious sacrament.

Wrong.

cattmandont: let's remove all marriage rules from gummint.

Wrong.

VoodooTaco: I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:

By that logic, crackers are also a fundamentally religious institution.  Won't someone think of the crackers?

ShonenBat: why not polygamy?

Because it's a fundamentally different question and its implementation carries numerous challenges that allowing gays to marry does not.

nekom: So much THIS. Let the church decide what "marriage" is and leave the government out of it.

Why should we let "the church" (as if there's only one, right?) decide the nature of something it has no valid claim upon?

The Muthaship: I've been saying this for a long time. Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.

If so, you've been an ignorant fool for doing so the entire time.  This argument is historically inaccurate nonsense.  Marriage has always been a civil matter as long as it has existed, and it sure as shiat predates Christianity or whatever other modern religion you might practice.  All of you idiots need to find a new angle if you want to argue against marriage equality.  This willfully ignorant pseudo-libertarian crap is for the birds.

The government has the power to marry people.  Churches do not.  Get the fark over it.


The Point................................. ...........you

The government is giving cash awards for being married to some people and not others. That's not fair.
 
2013-03-28 08:44:32 AM

ciberido: Mock26: ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.

Chapter, verse?


Chapter, verse for WHAT exactly?

That "Paul had serious issues with ALL sex"?  Sheesh.  Where in the parts of the Bible he wrote does Paul NOT have serious issues with all sex?  Try  Thessalonians for a start.

And next time you want to ask a question, don't make it a guessing game.


The chapter and verse where the new testament states that homosexuality is a sin.
 
2013-03-28 08:19:03 PM

Mock26: The chapter and verse where the new testament states that homosexuality is a sin.


Google ""arsenokoites."
 
2013-03-28 10:18:00 PM

ciberido: arsenokoites


As more than one farker has pointed out to me over the years, temple prostitution is not the same as homosexual sex.  And quite honestly, I am surprised that have not chimed in yet.  They are usually very eager to to speak up on this.
 
Displayed 221 of 221 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report