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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Congratulations, Bill Nelson. You're the next Democrat to play "I don't want to be the fat kid to be picked last when it comes to Gay marriage". For playing, you'll get one free turtle to marry and enough rainbows to light up your day   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 82
    More: Interesting, civil marriages, pursuit of happiness, same-sex marriages, American Law, fat kids  
•       •       •

1392 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Apr 2013 at 8:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 07:12:28 AM
I voted because turtles and rainbows.
 
2013-04-05 07:44:44 AM
o_O

Subby must be higher than I am, and I am pretty damn high right now.

/BTW this headline is so close to perfection. I cannot put my finger on it, but it needs one small thing of zazz if you want this to be a HOTY
 
2013-04-05 08:04:36 AM

cman: o_O

Subby must be higher than I am, and I am pretty damn high right now.

/BTW this headline is so close to perfection. I cannot put my finger on it, but it needs one small thing of zazz if you want this to be a HOTY


jazz hands and rainbows?
 
2013-04-05 08:14:46 AM

somedude210: cman: o_O

Subby must be higher than I am, and I am pretty damn high right now.

/BTW this headline is so close to perfection. I cannot put my finger on it, but it needs one small thing of zazz if you want this to be a HOTY

jazz hands and rainbows?


Interpretive dance.
 
2013-04-05 08:16:32 AM

AbbeySomeone: somedude210: cman: o_O

Subby must be higher than I am, and I am pretty damn high right now.

/BTW this headline is so close to perfection. I cannot put my finger on it, but it needs one small thing of zazz if you want this to be a HOTY

jazz hands and rainbows?

Interpretive dance.


fair enough. I thought the rainbows was gonna go beyond the headline limit anyway
 
2013-04-05 08:16:57 AM
That gets us 51 in the Senate, I think. It's not like having a majority matters there, though.
 
2013-04-05 08:21:00 AM

somedude210: cman: o_O

Subby must be higher than I am, and I am pretty damn high right now.

/BTW this headline is so close to perfection. I cannot put my finger on it, but it needs one small thing of zazz if you want this to be a HOTY

jazz hands and rainbows?


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-05 08:24:49 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-05 08:42:40 AM

DamnYankees: That gets us 51 in the Senate, I think. It's not like having a majority matters there, though.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-04-05 09:16:09 AM
My view of all of the politicians declaring support for gay marriage is colored by the freeper message boards.  I think they cover gay marriage news better than some other outlets since it's basically a ticker tape feed of gay-positive news followed by enjoyable butthurt comments.

My favorite part of the feed of biatch is understanding the themes of their complaints:

* Gay marriage support means their churches will be shut down or their priests arrested or (no joke) killed

* Gay marriage is a communist plot (again, no joke)

* Gay marriage will lead to animal / incest / pedophilia marriage

* Gay marriage isn't marriage because the concept of marriage is immutable and hasn't changed throughout all of history (or at least since Jesus)

* Gay people have buttsex and therefore shouldn't be married (or spoken of as normal people)

* Gay marriage is a financial sham

* Gay marriage will lead to children knowing about gay people and harm them by their very existence

* Gay marriage was unthinkable in the past therefore it must always remain so because of the definition of conservatism that doesn't include RINOs

* Gay's don't want to marry but instead are forcing the change to cause the harms of the above to happen

* Gay marriage isn't marriage because gay's are incapable of long term relationships

and finally

* Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.

Actually, I think they are right on the last one.
 
2013-04-05 09:26:15 AM
* Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.
Actually, I think they are right on the last one.


I think that's pretty much what happened in Canada.

Gay marriage has done a lot for the rights and respect of gays and lesbians in Canada.  That's not to say we don't have plenty of bigots - but when I tell people that my husband and I spent the weekend with family, no one bats an eye that I said "husband" nor do I feel the need to switch to gender neutral terms like "partner" or "spouse".  I still do on occasions -- I lead classes with a variety of age groups -- but more often than not people just don't care anymore.  It's not an issue. The world has not ended.
 
2013-04-05 09:27:16 AM
Yes, let's complain about the manner and timing of their support for our gay brothers and sisters' civil rights. After all, it doesn't matter if you finish the race; all that matters is if you crossed the finish line first and stomped everyone else into a fine powder.
 
2013-04-05 09:31:32 AM
By any means necessary
 
2013-04-05 09:33:17 AM
Are the rainbows made from unicorn farts?
 
2013-04-05 09:37:08 AM

Galvatron Zero: * Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.
Actually, I think they are right on the last one.

I think that's pretty much what happened in Canada.

Gay marriage has done a lot for the rights and respect of gays and lesbians in Canada.  That's not to say we don't have plenty of bigots - but when I tell people that my husband and I spent the weekend with family, no one bats an eye that I said "husband" nor do I feel the need to switch to gender neutral terms like "partner" or "spouse".  I still do on occasions -- I lead classes with a variety of age groups -- but more often than not people just don't care anymore.  It's not an issue. The world has not ended.


Good to know, hope that happens here in the states when we finally get our act together. I had to explain to someone yesterday that legalizing gay marriage was not the start of a slippery slope leading to me marrying a harem of juvenile gay hamsters.

/I wish I was joking.
 
2013-04-05 09:40:14 AM
At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.
 
2013-04-05 09:40:14 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x362]


See that's the thing I don't get, Congress Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people, not represent what they want exclusively.

Which upsets me a lot when there are other things supported by the majority (as long as it doesn't oppress a minority) they refuse to budge on... (gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc.)
 
2013-04-05 09:41:44 AM

Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.


You know what? Same sex couples deserve some pandering at this point.
 
2013-04-05 09:48:06 AM

Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.


Soooo.... they really are starting to be treated just like the rest of us, then?
 
2013-04-05 09:53:48 AM

Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.


Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?
 
2013-04-05 09:57:39 AM

AcademGreen: * Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.

Actually, I think they are right on the last one.


And that is what scares them. Who will they have to hate and fear as the other?
 
2013-04-05 09:59:57 AM

AcademGreen: Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.


I've seen some painted gays at the Pride parade, but they definitely didn't look very normal.
 
2013-04-05 10:02:54 AM
The times are a changing.  As support grows in the majority of the population, the politicos are now forced to think of their legacies in the history books.  They'll switch sides so they don't appear on the 'wrong side of history' when all is said or done, like the pro-segregation or anti-interracial marriage folks.
 
2013-04-05 10:03:03 AM
When it's politically harmful to not support equality you know the battle is all over but the shouting.
 
2013-04-05 10:05:21 AM

CheatCommando: AcademGreen: * Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.

Actually, I think they are right on the last one.

And that is what scares them. Who will they have to hate and fear as the other?


Muslims. Duh.
 
2013-04-05 10:10:15 AM
In related news, only four Democratic Senators have not affirmatively spoken out in favor of marriage equality.

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
 
2013-04-05 10:10:27 AM

WaitWhatWhy: a harem of juvenile gay hamsters.


Well, they'd obviously be juvenile. Who ever heard of an 18-year-old hamster?

// Pete Pettigrew was a rat, your argument is pre-invalidated
 
2013-04-05 10:11:05 AM

Serious Black: Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?


You don't think it's fair to be more skeptical of the people who have to worry about reelection than those who have no particular external pressures on them regarding their opinions?
 
2013-04-05 10:13:34 AM

skozlaw: Serious Black: Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?

You don't think it's fair to be more skeptical of the people who have to worry about reelection than those who have no particular external pressures on them regarding their opinions?


Personally I'd much rather see politicians "pander" and not stand in the way of the equal application of the laws then have them rigidly stand by their beliefs and support discrimination and injustice.
 
2013-04-05 10:14:17 AM

Serious Black: Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.
Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?



Who would a random American citizen be pandering to?


skozlaw: Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.
Soooo.... they really are starting to be treated just like the rest of us, then?


Touche!
 
2013-04-05 10:15:16 AM

CheatCommando: AcademGreen: * Gay marriage will paint gays as normal people.

Actually, I think they are right on the last one.

And that is what scares them. Who will they have to hate and fear as the other?



They'll always have liberals and brown people.
 
2013-04-05 10:15:46 AM

Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.


Pandering is when you say something to a group of people that you have no intention of ever actually following up on. I don't think it really applies here, unless he turns around and filibusters gay marriage bills
 
2013-04-05 10:19:26 AM
I wonder what the GOP leadership thinks of gay black men.

The very thought of it must create antipodal dissonance. Their brains assplode while their genitals become engorged. They become a big white chicken gizzard of hateful lust. Or lusty hatefulness.
 
2013-04-05 10:19:51 AM

Serious Black: Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.

Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?


It is pandering or appealing to the masses anytime anyone changes their mind and can't give a solid reason why they picked now to change their opinion.
 
2013-04-05 10:20:31 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skozlaw: Serious Black: Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?

You don't think it's fair to be more skeptical of the people who have to worry about reelection than those who have no particular external pressures on them regarding their opinions?

Personally I'd much rather see politicians "pander" and not stand in the way of the equal application of the laws then have them rigidly stand by their beliefs and support discrimination and injustice.


Yeah, but it could be argued that the proclivity for pandering is what had them on the previous side.
It's nice to think that these people are just waking up to reality and conscientiously joining the fight for equality.
But that's a bit of a self-indulgent tale we tell ourselves. A lot of them just know which way the wind is blowing, and would change back to the other direction if their election chances depended upon it.

That's not entirely self-serving of them. They might feel that they can do more good in office, regardless of what they have to say in order to be there. Who knows?

Really, we can't know what their real motivations are and for better or worse we're just indulging our own preconceptions when we try to guess one way or the other.
 
2013-04-05 10:22:37 AM

Lost Thought 00: Lord_Baull: At this point, any flip flopping to support gay marriage is obvious pandering, IMO.

Pandering is when you say something to a group of people that you have no intention of ever actually following up on. I don't think it really applies here, unless he turns around and filibusters gay marriage bills



He could pull a Scott Brown and only vote for things he know will pass.
 
2013-04-05 10:25:00 AM
GhostFish:  A lot of them just know which way the wind is blowing, and would change back to the other direction if their election chances depended upon it.


F'ing This.
 
2013-04-05 10:26:20 AM

coeyagi: DamnYankees: That gets us 51 in the Senate, I think. It's not like having a majority matters there, though.

[i.qkme.me image 625x628]


philbo buster
 
2013-04-05 10:33:01 AM
More: Interesting, civil marriages, pursuit of happiness, same-sex marriages, American Law, fat kids

I don't know why this made me laugh so hard, but it did.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-05 10:33:34 AM
Meanwhile, on the GOP side of the aisle support for mixed race marriages is really picking up some momentum.
 
2013-04-05 10:33:52 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skozlaw: Serious Black: Is it pandering when a random American citizen decides they now support marriage equality, or is it only pandering when an elected official changes their mind?

You don't think it's fair to be more skeptical of the people who have to worry about reelection than those who have no particular external pressures on them regarding their opinions?

Personally I'd much rather see politicians "pander" and not stand in the way of the equal application of the laws then have them rigidly stand by their beliefs and support discrimination and injustice.


Pretty much my view. The 30-some Senators who have come out in support of marriage equality over the last year all previously held views and would vote for bills that I believe are unjustly discriminatory. If SCOTUS were to issue an opinion in two months saying that DOMA is constitutional, I'd much rather see those guys "pander" and try to repeal DOMA than to see them sit idly by as DOMA judges same-sex couples as unacceptable to Uncle Sam. DOMA has been on the books for 17 years. That's 17 years too many.
 
2013-04-05 10:38:52 AM

Serious Black: In related news, only four Democratic Senators have not affirmatively spoken out in favor of marriage equality.

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)


Heitkamp is a bit of a surprise, as it had barely reached a plurality.

Still, good to see the D's are getting on the right side of history.  It would be nice if more R's would, but I understand the political logic...  not a whole lot of R's from blue / purple states who can safely say that and not get primaried by a far-right candidate.
 
2013-04-05 10:41:36 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Personally I'd much rather see politicians "pander" and not stand in the way of the equal application of the laws then have them rigidly stand by their beliefs and support discrimination and injustice.


I agree, I just think that on the Democratic side at this point people like Nelson aren't really changing their mind on anything. I think they either always did believe in equal rights but couldn't come out and say it because of their socially conservative constituencies or they never had any strong opinion on it at all and just see it as a nice place to hang their hat for extra votes.

It probably doesn't hurt that the right has gone so utterly batshiat insane that conservative dems can come out and say these things publicly now, either. Probably a lot less risk of losing votes to a republican these days when that republican is some ultra-right teahadi nutbag who's a half step away from saying we should just put poor people and the elderly in giant food processors and feed the results to rich people's dogs.
 
2013-04-05 10:43:30 AM

js34603: Meanwhile, on the GOP side of the aisle support for mixed race marriages is really picking up some momentum.


All the momentum of a runaway freight train.
i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-05 10:44:00 AM
I hate to stir the pot, but how do same-sex arguments not apply to polygamous marriage? Won't wannabe polygamists claim that we're preventing people who are in love from marrying, treating them as second class citizens, benefits, visitations rights, etc. all apply?  We can't use arguments like it's "unnatural", only 1 woman and 1 man can have a child, nor use any "traditional" definition of marriage, since we're throwing those arguments out right now for gay marriage.

So... why wouldn't more than two people be able to marry, and how is preventing it not a form of discrimination?
 
2013-04-05 10:44:33 AM
Pander away.  I won't complain.
 
2013-04-05 10:45:05 AM

DeltaPunch: I hate to stir the pot, but how do same-sex arguments not apply to polygamous marriage?


Because they don't.
 
2013-04-05 10:47:43 AM

js34603: Meanwhile, on the GOP side of the aisle support for mixed race marriages is really picking up some momentum.



+1 internets. i saw what you did there, and i like it. very subtle.
 
2013-04-05 10:47:46 AM

DeltaPunch: I hate to stir the pot, but how do same-sex arguments not apply to polygamous marriage? Won't wannabe polygamists claim that we're preventing people who are in love from marrying, treating them as second class citizens, benefits, visitations rights, etc. all apply?  We can't use arguments like it's "unnatural", only 1 woman and 1 man can have a child, nor use any "traditional" definition of marriage, since we're throwing those arguments out right now for gay marriage.

So... why wouldn't more than two people be able to marry, and how is preventing it not a form of discrimination?


So? If multiple people want to get married, and there is no coercion, whats the big deal? As long as we figure out the problems it would cause our tax and immigration code why not let them get married to eachother
 
2013-04-05 10:51:17 AM
So what does subby want? For this guy to never endorse marriage equality for gay people? I just don't get the mocking. I want more people to change their minds. I want more people who have been silent to come forward and say how ridiculous it is that two people who have decided to make a life-commitment cannot get married for a reason as stupid as gender.

When your idea is dumb, it's a good idea to change your mind, no matter how long you've held on to a dumb idea.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report