Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Think Progress)   Conservatives vow to defy potential SCOTUS ruling that destroys traditional marriage definition of forcing a widow to marry her brother-in-law and siring his family a male heir   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 145
    More: Amusing, U.S. Supreme Court, George Wallace, moral absolutism, University of Alabama, vows  
•       •       •

3352 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 12:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 11:45:10 AM  
Well, Lyndon Johnson called in the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

We've seen conservative push-back before.
 
2013-06-21 12:23:48 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Well, Lyndon Johnson

Dwight D. Eisenhower called in federalized the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

FTFY.
Funny how the GOP has changed over the years.
 
2013-06-21 12:24:02 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 12:42:51 PM  
I, for one, look forward to my new fabulous gay overlords.
 
2013-06-21 12:43:15 PM  
I've often been worried that they may try to undermine a favorable SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage similarly to the way they have for Abortion rights.

But when I try to think of how they could achieve that on a state-by-state level, it really doesn't work.
 
2013-06-21 12:43:47 PM  
I'm pretty sure that's biblical law, so I'm okay with it.
 
2013-06-21 12:45:21 PM  
My kid does that too - Fingers in ears, "LA LA LA LA LA!"
 
2013-06-21 12:48:12 PM  
*grabs the popcorn*

Honestly, I think the most inflammatory thing you can tell someone is "you are not special, and should not receive any privileges  due to your race, sex, age, or orientation".
 
2013-06-21 12:48:32 PM  
So what's their plan?  They vow not to marry their secret gay lover?
 
2013-06-21 12:48:56 PM  
How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?
 
2013-06-21 12:50:53 PM  

dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?


The only ways I can think are:

1) A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would be extremely unlikely.

2) State laws that make marriages between same-sex partners more difficult, which would be blatantly discriminatory.
 
2013-06-21 12:52:29 PM  

dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?


You're assuming that they've thought their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-06-21 12:52:38 PM  

Cythraul: I've often been worried that they may try to undermine a favorable SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage similarly to the way they have for Abortion rights.

But when I try to think of how they could achieve that on a state-by-state level, it really doesn't work.


Yeah, it's kind of hard to introduce "regulations" that are so onerous as to be impossible to meet when all it is is a marriage certificate, and any special requirements they put on would either fail equal protection miserably or would hit straight couples just as hard.
 
2013-06-21 12:52:48 PM  

OdradekRex: My kid does that too - Fingers in ears, "LA LA LA LA LA!"


Yeah, this and the "nuh-uh, can't make me" laws being passed in GOP controlled states forbidding law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws that don't exist yet.
 
2013-06-21 12:53:07 PM  
So... what? They won't get gay married, then?
 
2013-06-21 12:53:08 PM  
Worse, the letter ends with a clear threat that conservatives will refuse to comply with any court ruling in support of marriage equality: "[M]ake no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross."

Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale.
 
2013-06-21 12:53:09 PM  
If DOMA and same-sex marriage bans in states where same-sex marriage is banned (not just in California) get overturned, a lot of states where the majority oppose same-sex marriage will be extremely upset. States with Republican majorities could in fact enact laws that would be a disincentive to marry for same-sex couples. They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples to an amount similar if both were living single, ban adoption, deny them benefits under Obamacare, deny unemployment compensation, allow businesses to discriminate for wedding services. If same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can still get married, but states could enact laws that can outweigh the benefits for homosexuals to get married.

If homosexuals think that overturning DOMA and making same-sex marriage legal would end their civil rights fight, they're delusional. The battle has only just begun. The Republicans need to double down and continue the fight. Conservatives need to nominate a candidate for the GOP that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2016.

Still Conservatives might get their same-sex marriage ban if the majority of the SCOTUS interprets DOMA as a constitutional amendment since a majority of states have same-sex marriage bans on the books too.
 
2013-06-21 12:54:16 PM  
They'll start a new marriage with blackjack and hookers.
 
2013-06-21 12:54:46 PM  

dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?


Refusing to recognize gay married couples & provided any accommodations to them that they would to any other married couple.  For example:
-"family passes" at theme parks & other businesses
-wedding services for gay couples (florists, cake makers, etc)
-visitation & medical proxy rights
-inheritance/estate/divorce/adoption law
 
2013-06-21 12:54:52 PM  

Cythraul: The only ways I can think are:


If I read the article right (and it's possible I didn't; my birthday was yesterday and I have an epic hangover) these are just "activists" flapping their gums, not lawmakers.

If these are lawmakers, then they're the kind of retards that think "Just because the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional." I mean, that is a special kind of stupid.
 
2013-06-21 12:54:53 PM  

Cythraul: dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?

The only ways I can think are:

1) A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would be extremely unlikely.

2) State laws that make marriages between same-sex partners more difficult, which would be blatantly discriminatory.


Come on, GOP, do it!  Do it!  I Triple. Dog. Dare you.

/on a more serious note, I sure hope what happened to black people in the south during the 50s, 60s, and 70s doesn't happen to LBGTs.
 
2013-06-21 12:55:11 PM  

Cythraul: dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?

The only ways I can think are:

1) A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would be extremely unlikely.

2) State laws that make marriages between same-sex partners more difficult, which would be blatantly discriminatory.


Number 1 was never a real threat.  Even under a Republican control of Congress and the Presidency they could never get the 2/3rds required to pass such an amendment.  And they have been passing state laws for almost two decades now which are now being thrown out state by state.

No - they will just do what they always do.  Cry that they are the victims and cash their donation checks.
 
2013-06-21 12:56:06 PM  

Lexx: *grabs the popcorn*

Honestly, I think the most inflammatory thing you can tell someone is "you are not special, and should not receive any privileges  due to your race, sex, age, or orientation".


In this case who is asking for special privileges due to their race, sex, age or orientation?
 
2013-06-21 12:56:23 PM  

Funk Brothers: If DOMA and same-sex marriage bans in states where same-sex marriage is banned (not just in California) get overturned, a lot of states where the majority oppose same-sex marriage will be extremely upset. States with Republican majorities could in fact enact laws that would be a disincentive to marry for same-sex couples. They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples to an amount similar if both were living single, ban adoption, deny them benefits under Obamacare, deny unemployment compensation, allow businesses to discriminate for wedding services. If same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can still get married, but states could enact laws that can outweigh the benefits for homosexuals to get married.

If homosexuals think that overturning DOMA and making same-sex marriage legal would end their civil rights fight, they're delusional. The battle has only just begun. The Republicans need to double down and continue the fight. Conservatives need to nominate a candidate for the GOP that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2016.

Still Conservatives might get their same-sex marriage ban if the majority of the SCOTUS interprets DOMA as a constitutional amendment since a majority of states have same-sex marriage bans on the books too.


Most of what you've mentioned would be a temporary road block, as such regulation would be immediately challenged as discriminatory.
 
2013-06-21 12:56:24 PM  
Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. Civil 
institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are 
incapable of marriage. In the words of the first book of the Bible, we read: "it is not good for 
man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18) We Christians have nonetheless chosen to defy this word of
God andstand united without any sense of irony in the belief that gay men, and women, should
be forever alone.
 
2013-06-21 12:56:27 PM  

Funk Brothers: Conservatives need to nominate a candidate for the GOP that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2016.


I hope they're familiar with the process required to amend the Constitution. Because as much as they bloviate about it, it just simply can not happen. The numbers aren't there.
 
2013-06-21 12:56:55 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Cythraul: I've often been worried that they may try to undermine a favorable SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage similarly to the way they have for Abortion rights.

But when I try to think of how they could achieve that on a state-by-state level, it really doesn't work.

Yeah, it's kind of hard to introduce "regulations" that are so onerous as to be impossible to meet when all it is is a marriage certificate, and any special requirements they put on would either fail equal protection miserably or would hit straight couples just as hard.


You don't see red states taking a stance of destroying marriage entirely rather than sharing it with gays?
Similar to how an unruly child will break a toy when mother tells them they can't hog it?
 
2013-06-21 12:57:11 PM  

Funk Brothers: If DOMA and same-sex marriage bans in states where same-sex marriage is banned (not just in California) get overturned, a lot of states where the majority oppose same-sex marriage will be extremely upset. States with Republican majorities could in fact enact laws that would be a disincentive to marry for same-sex couples. They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples to an amount similar if both were living single, ban adoption, deny them benefits under Obamacare, deny unemployment compensation, allow businesses to discriminate for wedding services. If same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can still get married, but states could enact laws that can outweigh the benefits for homosexuals to get married.

If homosexuals think that overturning DOMA and making same-sex marriage legal would end their civil rights fight, they're delusional. The battle has only just begun. The Republicans need to double down and continue the fight. Conservatives need to nominate a candidate for the GOP that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2016.

Still Conservatives might get their same-sex marriage ban if the majority of the SCOTUS interprets DOMA as a constitutional amendment since a majority of states have same-sex marriage bans on the books too.


Any punitive taxes would have to target all married couples.  What, you think the Supreme Court would strike down DOMA but allow individual states to discriminated against same sex couples with punitive taxation that targeted them only?
 
2013-06-21 12:57:13 PM  

spongeboob: Lexx: *grabs the popcorn*

Honestly, I think the most inflammatory thing you can tell someone is "you are not special, and should not receive any privileges  due to your race, sex, age, or orientation".

In this case who is asking for special privileges due to their race, sex, age or orientation?


Heterosexuals.  Marriage carries with it all sorts of benefits that homosexual couples are not entitled.
 
2013-06-21 12:57:19 PM  
Same-sex couples getting married and conservatives are threatening to do nothing?

Isn't it like saying, "I don't to watch that TV show so I will DVR something else?"
 
2013-06-21 12:57:44 PM  

Funk Brothers: They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples


How are you gonna get those conservatives to vote for a tax increase?
 
2013-06-21 12:57:51 PM  

Cythraul: I've often been worried that they may try to undermine a favorable SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage similarly to the way they have for Abortion rights.

But when I try to think of how they could achieve that on a state-by-state level, it really doesn't work.


Only ugly gays can marry?
 
2013-06-21 12:58:14 PM  
Filthy libs, not letting fathers marry off their daughters in exchange for 50 head of cattle anymore.
 
2013-06-21 12:58:16 PM  

dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?


Deny visitation rights if they were hospital employees, deny adoptions if they work for adoption agencies, have family members fight the estate of a gay couple from transferring to a spouse, etc.

All of which would be illegal, but would still massively inconvenience people who, in the words of Invader Zim "just want to go home and be all normal."

Do these people like George Wallace, or just not realize that they will look exactly like him in 50 years?
 
2013-06-21 12:58:19 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: So... what? They won't get gay married, then?


Not until 0bummer forces them to do so in a FEMA camp, and then hold hands with their new manbride while singing "Le Internationale".
 
2013-06-21 12:58:20 PM  
As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy

And Loving v Virginia was what, exactly?
 
2013-06-21 12:58:33 PM  
I've pretty much accepted that the Sodomesq future is coming and there's nothing that we can do to stop it, I hope you all enjoy the hell on earth you are literally creating with these decisions that fly in the face of Gods law.

As for me, I'm stocking up on food, water, arms, and picked out a nice strong husband for when Obama and his SCOTUS lackeys force me to gay marry.  I want to make sure I get a good, strong partner who can help us protect our land from the roving hordes of homosexuals and comfort me in the long nights.
 
2013-06-21 12:58:58 PM  

Cythraul: dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?

The only ways I can think are:

1) A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would be extremely unlikely.

2) State laws that make marriages between same-sex partners more difficult, which would be blatantly discriminatory.


They're impliedly threatening violent overthrow of the government. In reality, they'd never do anything of the sort. But they're certainly hoping that some of their followers will firebomb a few gay clubs or the like.
 
2013-06-21 12:59:23 PM  

Theaetetus: (Genesis 2:18) We Christians have nonetheless chosen to defy this word of
God andstand united without any sense of irony in the belief that gay men, and women, should
be forever alone.


On a side tangent, our Episcopal priest taught us during Confirmation class that, in essence, being a Christian means we kind of ignore the Old Testament. Even the 10 Commandments got tossed. Basically, we were told there are two commandments: Believe in Jebus and be nice to each other. So, I get confused why so many Christians are so eager to ignore what Jesus said.

/not an expert by ANY means
//last went to church regularly in 1976 or so.
 
2013-06-21 12:59:45 PM  

dramboxf: Cythraul: The only ways I can think are:

If I read the article right (and it's possible I didn't; my birthday was yesterday and I have an epic hangover) these are just "activists" flapping their gums, not lawmakers.

If these are lawmakers, then they're the kind of retards that think "Just because the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional." I mean, that is a special kind of stupid.


FTA: the list included Tea Party activist Ben Carson, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R), former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R), former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, conservative movement legend Richard Viguerie.

I believe that's enough get the policy ball rolling, or at least to get sympathizers to their cause to think about joining them to get that balling rolling.
 
2013-06-21 12:59:51 PM  

Funk Brothers: If DOMA and same-sex marriage bans in states where same-sex marriage is banned (not just in California) get overturned, a lot of states where the majority oppose same-sex marriage will be extremely upset. States with Republican majorities could in fact enact laws that would be a disincentive to marry for same-sex couples. They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples to an amount similar if both were living single, ban adoption, deny them benefits under Obamacare, deny unemployment compensation, allow businesses to discriminate for wedding services. If same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can still get married, but states could enact laws that can outweigh the benefits for homosexuals to get married.


If same-sex marriage bans in states are overturned, then any attempt to apply the bolded statement to gay and not hetero marriages will last about five minutes longer than it takes for a gay couple to get in front of a judge.
 
2013-06-21 01:00:06 PM  

Funk Brothers: If DOMA and same-sex marriage bans in states where same-sex marriage is banned (not just in California) get overturned, a lot of states where the majority oppose same-sex marriage will be extremely upset. States with Republican majorities could in fact enact laws that would be a disincentive to marry for same-sex couples. They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples to an amount similar if both were living single, ban adoption, deny them benefits under Obamacare, deny unemployment compensation, allow businesses to discriminate for wedding services. If same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can still get married, but states could enact laws that can outweigh the benefits for homosexuals to get married.

If homosexuals think that overturning DOMA and making same-sex marriage legal would end their civil rights fight, they're delusional. The battle has only just begun. The Republicans need to double down and continue the fight. Conservatives need to nominate a candidate for the GOP that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2016.

Still Conservatives might get their same-sex marriage ban if the majority of the SCOTUS interprets DOMA as a constitutional amendment since a majority of states have same-sex marriage bans on the books too.


No, seperate can not be equal.  If the court rules that same sex marriage must be legal nationwide, then it must be exactly equal under the law to opposite sex marriage and any state law to the contrary would be automatically unconstitutional and void.
 
2013-06-21 01:00:16 PM  
SCOTUS could very easily uphold DOMA.
 
2013-06-21 01:00:23 PM  

Funk Brothers: If DOMA and same-sex marriage bans in states where same-sex marriage is banned (not just in California) get overturned, a lot of states where the majority oppose same-sex marriage will be extremely upset. States with Republican majorities could in fact enact laws that would be a disincentive to marry for same-sex couples. They could impose tax raises on married same-sex couples to an amount similar if both were living single, ban adoption, deny them benefits under Obamacare, deny unemployment compensation, allow businesses to discriminate for wedding services. If same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can still get married, but states could enact laws that can outweigh the benefits for homosexuals to get married.

If homosexuals think that overturning DOMA and making same-sex marriage legal would end their civil rights fight, they're delusional. The battle has only just begun. The Republicans need to double down and continue the fight. Conservatives need to nominate a candidate for the GOP that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2016.

Still Conservatives might get their same-sex marriage ban if the majority of the SCOTUS interprets DOMA as a constitutional amendment since a majority of states have same-sex marriage bans on the books too.


There is so much retarded derp in the above post that I assume this is a new alt of MeowSaidTheDog.
 
2013-06-21 01:00:59 PM  
I've got a brilliant idea: if you want a traditional marriage, then you should totally have one. In your own church, preach and hold folks to exactly that. Live your own values, and be proud of living that way. Then, as your pride rises, you can then realize that not everyone else holds those same beliefs, they don't attend your church, and some of them aren't the same denomination, heck, some don't even share your faith.

Do what you want within the confines of your church. Please. Limit marriages within your own ministries, and heck, even tell folks how getting abortions and divorces, or cutting your hair, or eating at Red Lobster, are going to send them down the path of Hell and damnation. I have no problem with you living your beliefs, and keeping to it. Demanding that everyone else do the same...that's a bit iffy. Heck, I'm a Buddhist, so technically, if I wanted everyone to seek the "right profession" then pretty much the entire beef industry would be gone, not to mention the entire ad industry would be gone, but that's not up to me to decide. That's for everyone to come to on their own, and if they don't, well, that's their decision. We all have our own paths to walk, and not all of them lead to the same places, and where and how far folks go, that's up to them.

Do what you want in your own church. You want more folks to attend your church, then maybe you need to be better at bringing folks to it. You might start by not being douchebags to folks who aren't of your faith for starters, because few folks are drawn in by the "judgmental douche" marketing scheme. Don't get me wrong, there IS a market for it, but trying to mandate everyone wear the "right" clothes, cut their hair the "proper" way, that way leads to odd Fundamentalism, people blowing up public places, and...well...Jersey. We're better than that in America, for the most part, and it would be nice if folks remembered that.
 
2013-06-21 01:01:36 PM  
Can any one seriously explain how one marriage diminishes another? I mean, explain the logic behind that stance?
 
2013-06-21 01:01:47 PM  

dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?


It goes into the same bucket as 1st cousins marrying, they can still ban it from being preformed in their state but they are required to recognize marriages from other states.  That's about all they can do.
 
2013-06-21 01:02:08 PM  

Theaetetus: Cythraul: dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?

The only ways I can think are:

1) A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would be extremely unlikely.

2) State laws that make marriages between same-sex partners more difficult, which would be blatantly discriminatory.

They're impliedly threatening violent overthrow of the government. In reality, they'd never do anything of the sort. But they're certainly hoping that some of their followers will firebomb a few gay clubs or the like.


If that's true, then what you're saying is that they're really just throwing a temper tantrum which will result in zero policy changes, and instead, incite violence from 'lone wolf' terrorists.

Pleasant!
 
2013-06-21 01:02:10 PM  

Lexx: dramboxf: How would they "defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?

Refusing to recognize gay married couples & provided any accommodations to them that they would to any other married couple.  For example:
-"family passes" at theme parks & other businesses
-wedding services for gay couples (florists, cake makers, etc)
-visitation & medical proxy rights
-inheritance/estate/divorce/adoption law


I think the important question is how would they "legally defy" a ruling upholding gay marriage?  Cuz I'm pretty sure none of those tactics would meet that standard.
 
2013-06-21 01:02:15 PM  

Cythraul: Most of what you've mentioned would be a temporary road block, as such regulation would be immediately challenged as discriminatory.


True. I'm really afraid the Republicans are going to restrict same-sex rights similar to restricting abortion in this country.

dramboxf: I hope they're familiar with the process required to amend the Constitution. Because as much as they bloviate about it, it just simply can not happen. The numbers aren't there.


An idea would be to have Constitutional Conventions in the states and fill the convention with a majority opposing same-sex marriage. Constitutional Conventions enabled to add the 21st amendment to the Constitution repealing the 18th Amendment.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report