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 74
    More: Obvious, DOMA, supreme courts, same-sex marriages, Theodore B. Olson, Paul Clement, American Law, Tammy Hollingsworth, United States Code  
•       •       •

4109 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-03-27 08:18:29 AM
7 votes:
weknowmemes.com

yup.
2013-03-27 08:02:10 AM
5 votes:
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 09:00:18 AM
4 votes:

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 08:44:19 AM
4 votes:
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 08:43:19 AM
4 votes:

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 08:47:07 AM
3 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
/oblig
2013-03-27 08:46:07 AM
3 votes:

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 08:34:39 AM
3 votes:
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 10:49:02 AM
2 votes:

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 09:24:57 AM
2 votes:

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 08:58:15 AM
2 votes:
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 08:52:06 AM
2 votes:
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 08:49:05 AM
2 votes:

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 08:48:07 AM
2 votes:
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 08:39:00 AM
2 votes:
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 08:34:46 AM
2 votes:

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 08:32:38 AM
2 votes:
Allow me to sum up the Right's legal argument:

"I said God said those f-ggots can't get married."
2013-03-28 12:45:17 AM
1 votes:

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 12:26:33 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-27 04:50:03 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:36 PM
1 votes:
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 04:17:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:58 PM
1 votes:

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 03:01:35 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:18 PM
1 votes:

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 02:04:32 PM
1 votes:

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 01:33:45 PM
1 votes:

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 01:30:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:32 PM
1 votes:

Oh, and incidentally....

a.imageshack.us
carryabigsticker.com


/smoochies
2013-03-27 12:29:30 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:02 PM
1 votes:

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 11:03:08 AM
1 votes:

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 11:02:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:29 AM
1 votes:
Everything will be silly to me in 50 years, as I'll be 89 and likely a drooling Alzheimer's patient.
2013-03-27 10:43:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:30 AM
1 votes:

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 10:39:35 AM
1 votes:
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 10:33:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:32:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:32 AM
1 votes:

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 10:14:31 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-27 10:07:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:03:46 AM
1 votes:
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 09:59:00 AM
1 votes:
Yes, DOMA is indeed doomed.

i.imgur.com
2013-03-27 09:55:43 AM
1 votes:
i2.photobucket.com
2013-03-27 09:54:17 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:19 AM
1 votes:

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 09:36:18 AM
1 votes:

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 09:27:08 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:48 AM
1 votes:
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 09:14:11 AM
1 votes:

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 09:14:01 AM
1 votes:

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 09:13:49 AM
1 votes:
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 09:12:10 AM
1 votes:

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 09:11:13 AM
1 votes:
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 09:05:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:05:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:01:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:00:27 AM
1 votes:

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 08:55:00 AM
1 votes:

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 08:54:15 AM
1 votes:

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 08:53:59 AM
1 votes:
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 08:50:39 AM
1 votes:

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 08:48:58 AM
1 votes:

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 08:47:51 AM
1 votes:
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 08:47:49 AM
1 votes:
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 08:38:04 AM
1 votes:
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 08:36:24 AM
1 votes:

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 08:26:18 AM
1 votes:
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 08:25:13 AM
1 votes:
"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
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report