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  
•       •       •

4112 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report