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.

(Washington Post)   Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 270
    More: Interesting, Republican, Tim Huelskamp, same-sex marriages, organizations, Jerrold Nadler, Defense of Marriage Act, Lisa Murkowski  
•       •       •

3989 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 09:28:12 AM
Ralph Reed, a leading Christian conservative and head of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, denounced the ruling as "an Orwellian act of judicial fiat" and said he will join in the effort for new legislation to replace the Defense of Marriage Act.

I hope the irony of this sentence is not lost on people. I've underlined the key words to make it a little clearer.
 
2013-06-27 09:32:05 AM
Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.
 
2013-06-27 09:32:24 AM
Introducing the Omnibus No Homo, No Healthcare, No Abortion, No voting, No nothin' we don't like Bill.

I'm sure it will go over just as well as all their other efforts.
 
2013-06-27 09:48:18 AM
Wrong side of history. Again.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-27 09:53:09 AM
EvilEgg:

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.

This.
 
2013-06-27 10:08:35 AM
Good luck with that....
 
2013-06-27 10:16:34 AM
It will distract the voters from how badly their government is hosing them down, so it's not a bad strategy.  It sure beats talking about the REAL issues facing the country.
 
2013-06-27 10:17:30 AM
In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children.

Won't someone think of the children!

I wholeheartedly believe that it is his and his brethren's discomfort with explaining gay people to their own children that is the source of their opposition, not necessarily the children that live in these types of families.  He's not concerned with "American children."  He's concerned that he doesn't have the tools to explain things to his own children that he thinks are totally icky and against the Bible.

Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.
 
2013-06-27 10:20:36 AM
How many times are we going to hear "just think of the children!" while this tantrum plays out over time?  These religious conservatives, seeking to amend the constitution to codify THEIR religion as OUR religion have realized that they can't condemn the gays as sodomites, monsters, demons, pedophiles, and the like because, well those sales pitches fall flat when you're not preaching to the choir.

But they can appeal to emotion: "Think of poor Jimmy, with no daddy to teach him how to throw a fastball.  All he's got is two mommies, and they do that UNDERHAND GARBAGE!  We must AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!"

Seriously, folks: what have you lost in this fight?  Your marriage and benefits are unchanged.  All that is happening is, over time, people are less and less interested in hearing you railing on about "the gay agenda" and the "sodomites ruining America."  How about you just write sermons on different topics... you know, New Testament stuff?
 
2013-06-27 10:21:11 AM
"Marriage was created by the hand of God Allah. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy GodAllah has instituted," Bachmann said.

I'm misquoting the crazy b*tch here to make a point.
 
2013-06-27 10:21:24 AM

Marcus Aurelius: It will distract the voters from how badly their government is hosing them down, so it's not a bad strategy.  It sure beats talking about the REAL issues facing the country.


This strategy is working well with 3rd World dictators, why can't they apply it to a 1st World superpower?
 
2013-06-27 10:22:26 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."


Exactly.  Further evidence that social conservatives are willing to take data, lie about it, and then deliver an opinion projecting its impacts.
 
2013-06-27 10:26:38 AM
Please proceed, Republicans.

While you're at it, why not throw in another Obamacare repeal, or an abortion ban?
 
2013-06-27 10:27:42 AM

bdub77: "Marriage was created by the hand of God Allah. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy GodAllah has instituted," Bachmann said.

I'm misquoting the crazy b*tch here to make a point.


Technically speaking, it's the same.
 
2013-06-27 10:30:13 AM

vernonFL: Please proceed, Republicans.

While you're at it, why not throw in another Obamacare repeal, or an abortion ban?


But no one had better dare touch Citizens United!
 
2013-06-27 10:31:43 AM

Marcus Aurelius: It will distract the voters from how badly their government is hosing them down, so it's not a bad strategy.  It sure beats talking about the REAL issues facing the country.

 
2013-06-27 10:33:34 AM
Huelskamp and other tea party-backed lawmakers spoke at a monthly meeting with reporters they call "Conversations With Conservatives," which allows the reporters to quiz some of the most ardent conservatives on issues facing Congress.

Wait a second here, I though the TEA Party was only concerned with fiscal conservatism and was made up of people from all parts of the political spectrum.
 
2013-06-27 10:33:38 AM
Republicans using constitution Bible to change constitution.

FTFY, subs.
 
2013-06-27 10:34:25 AM
"Stop waving the Constitution in my face! It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
  --- the last president all the "libertarians" on Fark voted for
 
2013-06-27 10:34:28 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Ralph Reed, a leading Christian conservative and head of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, denounced the ruling as "an Orwellian act of judicial fiat" and said he will join in the effort for new legislation to replace the Defense of Marriage Act.

I hope the irony of this sentence is not lost on people. I've underlined the key words to make it a little clearer.


Hey Ralph, what are your thoughts on what the court did to the Voting Rights Act?

*crickets*

Ralph Reed ladies and gentlemen.
 
2013-06-27 10:34:34 AM

I_Am_Weasel: bdub77: "Marriage was created by the hand of God Allah. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy GodAllah has instituted," Bachmann said.

I'm misquoting the crazy b*tch here to make a point.

Technically speaking, it's the same.


True but you substitute that language and assign the quote to some Islamic fundamentalist and just watch the hatred fly from the uneducated masses in our country.
 
2013-06-27 10:35:52 AM
I love how committed Republicans are at obliviously marching into their own demise.
 
2013-06-27 10:36:00 AM
It's funny how anything Obama or the Democrats do that they don't like is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! - but then when it suits the Republicans, the Constitution magically becomes a living document to be updated according to their beliefs prejudices.
 
2013-06-27 10:36:13 AM
It sounds like you're on the right track, GOP.
i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-27 10:36:42 AM

coeyagi: Republicans using constitution Bible to change constitution.

FTFY, subs.


Two things they've never read all the way through.
 
2013-06-27 10:37:33 AM

bdub77: "Marriage was created by the hand of God Allah. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy GodAllah has instituted," Bachmann said.

I'm misquoting the crazy b*tch here to make a point.


Same word, and same person, different language.

What point were you trying ot make?
 
2013-06-27 10:37:37 AM
Hypothetically if this does pass, wouldn't it be the first amendment since the 18th to codify a moral limitation into our nation's laws? And unlike prohibition, they can't even come up with any remotely plausible societal problems?
 
2013-06-27 10:37:48 AM

factoryconnection: How many times are we going to hear "just think of the children!" while this tantrum plays out over time?  These religious conservatives, seeking to amend the constitution to codify THEIR religion as OUR religion have realized that they can't condemn the gays as sodomites, monsters, demons, pedophiles, and the like because, well those sales pitches fall flat when you're not preaching to the choir.

But they can appeal to emotion: "Think of poor Jimmy, with no daddy to teach him how to throw a fastball.  All he's got is two mommies, and they do that UNDERHAND GARBAGE!  We must AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!"

Seriously, folks: what have you lost in this fight?  Your marriage and benefits are unchanged.  All that is happening is, over time, people are less and less interested in hearing you railing on about "the gay agenda" and the "sodomites ruining America."  How about you just write sermons on different topics... you know, New Testament stuff?


You are going to hear it a bunch more because the DOMA decision basically body-slammed the entire idea of passing an anti-LGBT for moral reasons.  Citing moral disapproval = instant overturn.  Look at the most recent abortion bills which pretend to be concerned for the health of the mother as a good example.

I don't think courts will be fooled.  As the fact pattern in the Prop8 trial showed there is no evidence backing up  "think of the children" as a legitimate reason for bigoted laws.  Indeed most of the evidence shows that if you want to help children you should actually be for SSM.
 
2013-06-27 10:38:17 AM
This is sure to create a lot of jobs.
 
2013-06-27 10:38:18 AM
Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?
 
2013-06-27 10:38:23 AM
i1269.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-27 10:38:51 AM

Wyalt Derp: It's funny how anything Obama or the Democrats do that they don't like is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! - but then when it suits the Republicans, the Constitution magically becomes a living document to be updated according to their beliefs prejudices.


IOKIYAR
 
2013-06-27 10:39:17 AM
I think this is will be a winner guys. Surely, this is the path to Republican victories in 2014 and beyond.
 
2013-06-27 10:39:31 AM
...because Republicans aren't wasting enough time already.

Will they try 37 times?
 
2013-06-27 10:39:40 AM
I cry at what the Republican Party has become.  I remember when they were a fun party, even going so far as to have Chris Farley portray Newt Gingrich complete with a mystery envelope containing the next contract with America AND THEY LAUGHED BECAUSE IT WAS FUNNY!  Try something like that in today's Republican Party and they'll denounce it as a mockery.  Hell, Rush was even funny!  Now?  He's become the blowhard he used to rail against.  I now see why Ron Reagan is a Democrat, because the Republican Party is not the same as it was in his father's time.
 
2013-06-27 10:40:06 AM

jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?


For once, you're right. Stupid headline is stupid.
 
2013-06-27 10:40:36 AM

jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?


The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.
 
2013-06-27 10:40:45 AM
I hope they make a big point of campaigning on this issue, that they make it a core plank in their party platform, put it into as many speeches as possible, take out adverts, go on TV interviews and talk about their views at great length, put forward as many bills in as many state and national legislatures as they possibly can and challenge every pro-gay marriage law in every state all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-06-27 10:40:49 AM

Lord_Baull: It sounds like you're on the right track, GOP.
[i13.photobucket.com image 400x400]


What Suh proceeding might look like:
www.mkrob.com

// also what happens to the GOP if they proceed
 
2013-06-27 10:42:01 AM
Keep crying, Republican scumbags. Society will continue to move forward and leave you wastes of oxygen in the dust.
 
2013-06-27 10:42:06 AM

Lionel Mandrake: ...because Republicans aren't wasting enough time already.

Will they try 37 times?


Try not to amend the constitution on your way through the Capitol parking lot!  Hey, where are you going Eric Cantor?
 
2013-06-27 10:42:17 AM

jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?


Jesus could re-write his original.

www.franklincountyvapatriots.com
 
2013-06-27 10:42:27 AM
This is an an extremely demographically saavy move, showing how in-touch with current trends the Republicans are. It especially sounds like a good way for the Republicans to reach out to younger voters, who have been swinging Democratic more and more. It also will do wonders to move the image of the Republican party away from being the party of paranoid religious culture warriors fighting battles that have already been lost.

Sounds like an excellent plan to me.
 
2013-06-27 10:42:58 AM
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but come on guys.  I don't understand people who always support obviously terrible teams (Browns fans, I'm looking at you), and I don't understand what people get out of always being on the wrong side of history.

Personally, in 20 years, I don't want to have to make an awkward phone call to some person I offended begging forgiveness for my bigoted actions.
 
2013-06-27 10:43:06 AM

EvilEgg: Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.


I'd bet on that...but I have a feeling I'd have to wager a million bucks to win a dollar.
 
2013-06-27 10:45:02 AM
The definition of what constitutes a traditional marriage has changed several times in recent history. People used to be arranged into marriages by their parents without their consent; some of these arranged marriages involved couples who only met at the wedding. Married women used to be legally barred from owning property and were financially dependent on their husbands. Men used to be able to rape their wives. Marriages used to be impossible to sever, even in cases where one spouse (predominantly the husband) was abusive towards the other.

If you really support traditional marriage, I think you should be supportive of all those traditions that we have tossed by the wayside.
 
2013-06-27 10:45:07 AM

Tomahawk513: I know I shouldn't be surprised, but come on guys.  I don't understand people who always support obviously terrible teams (Browns fans, I'm looking at you), and I don't understand what people get out of always being on the wrong side of history.

Personally, in 20 years, I don't want to have to make an awkward phone call to some person I offended begging forgiveness for my bigoted actions.


If you were a Republican, you wouldn't have to make that call.  The beauty of the conservative position is unrelenting narcissism tempered by a bubble-like imperviousness to facts and reality.
 
2013-06-27 10:46:14 AM

jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?


Constitutional Convention. But they could start from scratch.
 
2013-06-27 10:47:15 AM
In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

Wait, is he insinuating that people will turn gay just because of this ruling? That happily married straight couples will be torn asunder with cries of "Thanks for enabling me, Kennedy!" That if same-sex marriage was illegal, then all the gay people out there will be like, "Damnit. I really love this one person, but oh well. The law is the law. I'll enter into some loveless marriage because Scalia told me so." This doesn't make any sense.

Of course, no opposition to same-sex marriage makes sense, so there's that.
 
2013-06-27 10:47:29 AM
It'll never happen, this is just a freebie that'll fire their base up.  Though, this does raise an interesting question: what happens when one constitutional amendment contradicts another?
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report